[tola555]

made corda cross http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-on...sivefilter.htm and I don't like it attenuated sound. I like that cross but It attenuates mids and some mid-bass or high-bass goes really bad. It disappears. Only difference is I used 100nF 1000/600 V wima fkp1 cap instead of "vishay blue". Can I change something that crossfeed room effect will be there but it will not attenuate sound ?

 

[Tomo]

Hi,

Do you take the input of CD player or preamp to the crossfeed directly? I had some problems too. I think Mr. Meier meant it to be "sandwitched" by two gainstages. He does that in another amp here.

http://headwize.com/projects/showfil...=meier_prj.htm

I kinda got lazy and never tried that. My crossfeed is now sitting collecting dust. I got too used to the psychoacustically incorrect sounds.

Tomo

 

[GregVDS]

How did you use your filter?

It seems poorly matched impedance input and output can have a real bad effect on the frequency range of the effect.

Try to put the Corda Cross between your CD player and your amp. Try to play also with the impedance adjusting multi position switches for input and output, these should also help avoid the attenuations on low and high frequencies.

I never built the Corda Cross, but tried different meier config, and the effect seems to be quite strong, at least for me. The Modified Linkwitz Crossfeed filter is far more subtile in my opinion. Try maybe this one?

All the best,

GregVDS

 

[tola555]

source is chaintech av-710 and amp is Pioneer sx-335 receiver. balance between bass, mids and highs is normal in positions 3-2-1 and it sounds good. But I like it more in my face, HD 600 are distant and dark and it makes both them sound too distant. Details go away.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

It seems poorly matched impedance input and output can have a real bad effect on the frequency range of the effect.

Why the Corda Cross has bass and treble "trim" controls to bring it back to flat.
Any passive device will have signal losses (even a simple wire if it is long enough

) so it is all about the tradeoffs and what the individual needs are.

PASSIVE :Some signal attenuation,totally dependant on driving source impedance and next stage input impedance to operate within the design parameters.By carefully matching the system and/or scaling the network parts you can optimise a passive device to work within the system and do the least amout of "bad" while performing the task it was designed for

ACTIVE :By buffering the input of the passive network you have a "known" impedance that is stable driving the R/C of the network so all operating parameters will remain stable no matter what source is used.
Buffering the output is less important since most input impedances are in the 50-100K range so the operating points will vary in such a small way as to be inaudible.
Where output buffering does make a difference is if you need to drive long cable runs (in this contect anything over 3ft/1M) or you risk blunted highs OR if the next stage has a non-standard inut impedance.It is at this point you can also add some "makeup gain" to compensate for any losses in the passive network.
The downside of active buffering is ALL active stages will add their own sonic signature to the overall sound and that is why many avoid any system add-ons.
Say you have a triode based or all discrete transistor/fet system.Would you want a nasty opamp smack in the middle of the signal path where everything must go through it to get to the final stage ?
Yes you can design a stage that will blend well but the added cost and complexity (circuit,chassis,power source) makes this route just not worth it for many so they stick to passive and deal with the limitations or (like me) carefully match the circuit to their present system.

Long winded but hopefully helpful

Rickeraptor