If you have XO (/related) building experience, i'd not discourage anyone from building some custom networks...Originally Posted by HBTim
(and of course these could be simple and cheap 1st order designs with just a cap and inductor)
... but without commitment to the math and thrifty component selection, you can end up spending hundreds experimenting, pursuing complex slopes, etc.
Or you can textbook it (copy the original, use someone else's design on recommendation), but if of similar inclination to me, you'll likely 'what if I...?' yourself into a collection of parts and projects and of course storing them.
Nothing wrong with that, but it is time consuming.
Had I known then what I do now, I'd have gone active at the get-go.
These days, the tech and price-points are at levels such that a 2-way (vs 3way/+) system practically begs for it.
You can get a DBX driverack and mic for ~<$300 USD (mine was a 'mint-used' unit on Reverb - though in fact seemed to actually be new)
You can get good (good enough) 2ch ganged quality stepped attenuators out of Asia (search ebay e.g. dact type smd stepped 10k) for $10 ea.
2 of those (choose the right value, 10k is probably a good ballpark) some knobs/jacks/cables and you can build individual L/R controls to insert between output of the dbx (or whatever active components you choose) and 2 2ch amps.
Now, the front panel interface of the DBX may be good, but the real ease of use comes from using a laptop/whathaveyou and their software. If nothing else, it's less frustrating on the eyes than a tiny rackmount display. You'll need to connect the dbx to a router, then the router talks to your pc/laptop (which can be wireless if you have it).
So you can sit in the listening position, with the laptop, and try different slopes, different XO points, parametric EQ and time alignment on each driver 'section' (i.e. R+L are locked together, you can't set individual delays for L vs R). Beyond that, if you get the mic you can let it 'auto-eq', and it has a 'level assist' if you want its suggestions: "Turn the right HF up 3db" ... (retest) ... etc.)
If nothing else, it'd let you experiment until you found 'the best' setup... and then you can go an spend the $ to build some passive XO's.
Now of course, this ideally renders your receivers/integrated to the role of 'set it flat and use it just as a power amp'. So if one requires their EQ section etc. because of the ease-of-access that knob twiddling gives, then maybe it's not as good a solution.
Just a thought in case you are similarly inclined. I can elaborate if there is interest. :-)
Currently my signal chain is:
DAC > DBX PA2 > stepped attenuators > power amps
- - - Updated - - -
To clarify again, I think in this case the suggestion was merely regarding non-orthogonal cabinets. The implication was not for a klipschorn type corner horn which of course 'requires' a corner to complete the horn. But I could be wrong!
Bookmarks