[gevorg]

Why don't audio manufacturers start implementing digital crossovers into their source components, so the signal can be digitally split into highs, mids and lows? Isn't it better than current "analog" crossovers used in speakers?
That way, floorstanding speakers will be useful only in large rooms, and bookshelves will have much less resonance problems, since all lows will be directed to the subs. Amplifers can be specifically designed to perform their best at their specific frequencies. And, there will finally be some use for bi-wire speaker cables!

 

[edstrelow]

Sounds good to me. Now get some mfg's on line.

 

[IronLion]

Audiophiles do not like tampering with the audio signal. It is an interesting idea though, I bet if you look around somebody has implemented this in some form or another?

 

[JCD]

If I understand your question correctly, there are digitial crossovers out there already -- but nothing built into a receiver.

Rane A23 is one such product that will allow you do split the signal into three different ranges. The "problem" with this approach is that you have to amplify each signal separately. If you're going to split the signal into hi's, mid's and low's, you're going to have to have three separate amps for each speaker. As you can imagine, that's going to add up fairly quickly. I've read, but not heard in person, that there are some very real benefits from this type of setup though.

Mackie 824 are studio monitors that actively split the signal into different ranges as well and have built in amps. Despite their industrial looks, they're supposed to sound amazing, especially for the price -- although @$650/each street price, they're still not cheap.

JCD

 

[edstrelow]

Looks like the above items are all analog devices. There is nothing too new about crossover/flitering with powered "active" speakers but as I understand the question it is doing the crossover/filtering at the digital stage, for presumably, digital sources. I would think that if done in the digtial domain this would result is less distortion than when done in the analog domain.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gevorg Why don't audio manufacturers start implementing digital crossovers into their source components, so the signal can be digitally split into highs, mids and lows? Isn't it better than current "analog" crossovers used in speakers? That way, floorstanding speakers will be useful only in large rooms, and bookshelves will have much less resonance problems, since all lows will be directed to the subs. Amplifers can be specifically designed to perform their best at their specific frequencies. And, there will finally be some use for bi-wire speaker cables!

It has been out there for quite some time. All of my TACT gear allows me to use 1st to 20th order Butterworth or Butterworth Squared crossovers. All done on the digital level (along with dynamic room correction) and sent digitally to the TACT digital amps. In my 2 channel, I use it to crossover my mains and corner load subs at 250Hz. In my 5.1 setup, I use it to bi-amp 5 Eggleston Andra IIs. I set a 135Hz crossover between the 12" drivers and the 6 "mids and tweeter.

 

[lan]

I also use digital crossover on my computer though to multiple DACs/amp/etc. Fun stuff. I think the tweakability make its great. My room sucks so I don't take it too seriously though.

 

[gevorg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow Looks like the above items are all analog devices. There is nothing too new about crossover/flitering with powered "active" speakers but as I understand the question it is doing the crossover/filtering at the digital stage, for presumably, digital sources. I would think that if done in the digtial domain this would result is less distortion than when done in the analog domain.

Thats right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleestack It has been out there for quite some time. All of my TACT gear allows me to use 1st to 20th order Butterworth or Butterworth Squared crossovers. All done on the digital level (along with dynamic room correction) and sent digitally to the TACT digital amps. In my 2 channel, I use it to crossover my mains and corner load subs at 250Hz. In my 5.1 setup, I use it to bi-amp 5 Eggleston Andra IIs. I set a 135Hz crossover between the 12" drivers and the 6 "mids and tweeter.

Thanks for letting me know about TACT audio, too bad its way expensive for me. I guess we need to wait until it trickle downs to more affordable products.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan I also use digital crossover on my computer though to multiple DACs/amp/etc. Fun stuff. I think the tweakability make its great. My room sucks so I don't take it too seriously though.

Great to hear, lan! Is it by foobar? Can you tell us more about your configuration?

 

[tennisets]

One good thing about current in-speaker crossovers is that manufacturers can tune them to get exactly the sound they want out of their speakers. If everyone starts messing with the crossover, for one thing, some people will probalby make perfectly good sounding speakers sound like crap. For another, not everyone wants to spend tons of time tweaking the crossover. Let the speaker manufacturer do that.

I obviously won't write off digital crossovers since I've never had the oppurtunity to use one, but there are a lot of potential logistical issues.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisets One good thing about current in-speaker crossovers is that manufacturers can tune them to get exactly the sound they want out of their speakers. If everyone starts messing with the crossover, for one thing, some people will probalby make perfectly good sounding speakers sound like crap. For another, not everyone wants to spend tons of time tweaking the crossover. Let the speaker manufacturer do that. I obviously won't write off digital crossovers since I've never had the oppurtunity to use one, but there are a lot of potential logistical issues.

Not really. When you can make on the fly changes and use radical crossover slopes, it only makes things better. Furthermore, you are able to create perfect crossovers slopes and aovid many of the issues associated with physical crossovers. Twekaing with crossovers is a matter of a few clicks. Some people would mess things up, but that's hardly a reason to avoid the technology.

 

[Aman]

I don't agree with your logic. Not everybody wants bookshelf speakers on stands with a subwoofer in the corner. Many audiophiles are still very much AGAINST subwoofers. Floorstanding speakers are also often times implemented for more than room size issues. Sometimes people like the idea of all the sound coming from one central location.

Digital crossovers in amplifier components means having to limit your ultimate output equipment. I, for instance, want all of my sound going to my ONE source of output - the speakers. I have two speakers, which handle all of my sound. Where, in this instance, would a digital crossover be anything more than just wasted money for me?

 

[gevorg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisets For another, not everyone wants to spend tons of time tweaking the crossover. Let the speaker manufacturer do that.

Tweaking is optional, as long as you know and set the correct crossover settings ( in Hz) for the speaker that manufacturer tries to achieve with a physical crossover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman I don't agree with your logic. Not everybody wants bookshelf speakers on stands with a subwoofer in the corner. Many audiophiles are still very much AGAINST subwoofers. Floorstanding speakers are also often times implemented for more than room size issues. Sometimes people like the idea of all the sound coming from one central location.

Nobody said you have to use a sub, you can split it to match the drivers of your speakers.
Floorstanders are much harder to implement than bookshelves.
Lows are not directional, you won't feel where its coming from, but if you do, you can place it in the center, or wherever you prefer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Digital crossovers in amplifier components means having to limit your ultimate output equipment. I, for instance, want all of my sound going to my ONE source of output - the speakers. I have two speakers, which handle all of my sound. Where, in this instance, would a digital crossover be anything more than just wasted money for me?

You're missing the point. The only purpose of digital crossovers (for audiophiles) is to replace the underperforming physical crossovers in speakers. To amplify speaker's driver - directly from an amp, not through a speaker's build-in crossover. Also, if your source is analog (tapes/vinyl/etc), I don't think there will be a benefit for digital crossovers, because there will be an extra AD/DA process involved.

 

[gevorg]

Here is a visual for what a typical digital crossover, like DEQX PDC-2.6P, does. Taken from Moon-Audio:

Before:

After:

w/sub:

For more info, see here.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman I don't agree with your logic. Not everybody wants bookshelf speakers on stands with a subwoofer in the corner. Many audiophiles are still very much AGAINST subwoofers. Floorstanding speakers are also often times implemented for more than room size issues. Sometimes people like the idea of all the sound coming from one central location. Digital crossovers in amplifier components means having to limit your ultimate output equipment. I, for instance, want all of my sound going to my ONE source of output - the speakers. I have two speakers, which handle all of my sound. Where, in this instance, would a digital crossover be anything more than just wasted money for me?

I don't use bookshelf speakers, so I don't understand what you are talking about there. You have never heard corner load subs coupled with timing correction, so you obviously don't know how they sound. When you use corner loand subs crossed at 250Hz with timing correction, it is no different than having one large floorstander, however, you get the added benefit of having the lower frequencies arrive at you at the proper time and with proper low freq. reproduction. Why would any audiophile be opposed to improving the frequency response and timing issues associated with lower frequencies? I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you are talking about here b/c you've obviously never been exposed to the technology. Corner load subs with advanced room correction is not like your normal sub setups. Think about the 250Hz crossover and why lower frequencies have freq. response and timing issues and you'll understand why.

Digital crossovers may be of no use to you. In my case, I need it in my Epiphany system b/c of the corner loads and in my Eggleston setup I REPLACE the internal crossovers with the digital crossovers. You replace internal crossovers b/c digital crossovers can do the job better and with much more precision.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gevorg You're missing the point. The only purpose of digital crossovers (for audiophiles) is to replace the underperforming physical crossovers in speakers. To amplify speaker's driver - directly from an amp, not through a speaker's build-in crossover. Also, if your source is analog (tapes/vinyl/etc), I don't think there will be a benefit for digital crossovers, because there will be an extra AD/DA process involved.

..or to use corner load subs.

I also use it to replace the crossovers in my Andra IIs. Digital crossovers are used for analog sources in my TACT setups too (in the case of the TCS MKII via the ADC6). There is a seamless AD conversion in the pre, but from there everything stays in the digital realm, all the way up to the PWM ouput of the 2200 digital amps.