[jlewis3323]

I have acquired a pair of FF 1 VPMS speakers that appear to have had external crossovers. My speakers have two XLR male pin connectors in the back and two speaker binding post (negative and positive). When hooked up only the woofers play…my guess is these
XLR connectors were used to connect the external crossover boxes to the speakers. Currently I have no sound from mids or tweeters. In looking inside the speakers I find no crossovers. I have little to no knowledge on how to make my own crossovers. Any help or assistance is appreciated. I am located in Nokomis, FL near Sarasota.

Thanks-
John

[GeorgeAb]

Hi John,

Congrats on the FF 1's. Do they look like this: https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649687886-vmps-ff-1-speakers/ I temper the congrats with a bit of a headache figuring out the extrenal crossover.

Not sure how Brian had the crossover points set for the FF 1s. What frequencies and slopes of the low pass, bandpass for the mids, and highpass are. He pretty much stuck to the same formula for his crossovers. I provided the crossover schematics for the ribbon monitor line of speakers: RM-30, RM-40, and RM-60 here:  https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=186345.0

Not too difficult to build, but without knowing specifically what they were set at cannot really start. Another option is to use an external active crossover and seperate amplifiers to drive the speakers. You can set the crossover points, slopes, and amplitude and dial them in with something like the Behringer DCX2495 seen here:   https://www.behringer.com/product.html?modelCode=P0B6H The preamp would feed the DCX2496 and then you would set the outputs for low pass for bass section, band pass for the mids, and highpass for the tweets with seperate amp (six channels of amps would be required). As you experiement with different setting having a microphone and Room EQ Wizard (REW) free software to determine the reponse in your room to dial them in. Once you know the settings you could build crossover or continue using the Behringer as an active XO. It is a nice setup. Many that have used the Behringer have been happy or have gone to other active xo like Marchand or others. 

If someone with a FF1 would chime in on how they have set up if the have an active xo or could reverse engineer their extrenal xo would also get you started on the right direction without having to reinvent the wheel as previously proposed. 

[tbrooke]

This is not the cheapest nor is it the easiest route but I am experimenting with the RME UCX II https://www.rme-usa.com/fireface-ucx-ii.html and Acourate https://www.audiovero.de/en/acourate.php with my RM-30.

You can do the crossover with just the UCX II since it has 6 channel analog output and equalization built in. They also added Digital Room correction which is just a fancier equalizer with some timing adjustments.  UCX II is definitely professional level so there is a learning curve and Totalmix (the software interface) is designed for recording/mastering and not HiFi. But, you can end up with a good sounding system with just the UCX II.

 Acourate takes it to a whole different level. Acourate takes a lot of hand holding and digging unless you have a phd. Uli Brueggerman - the developer of Acourate is very patient and at some point you have to communicate with him to figure it all out.

I have literally been messing with this stuff for years - I may put together an article or post someplace when or if I get it all figured out. It is a huge rabbit hole

[VinceT]

I know this is a loaded question, but how do you like the active crossover versus an upgraded passive with quality parts?

The one thing that concerns me with active is getting the digititus timber to the sound, especially through something like the RME, with planar tweeters. Or having running software on a computer which will also colour the sound depending on how optimized the hardware is.

Hal at Hollis here on AC also has a active cross over product. I never heard his set up, but people with the same speakers I have (GR LS-9) claim to have great success with them.

From a cost standpoint I think it's about a wash going to an active active versus building an upgraded external passive crossover, unless you get Dueland caps etc. Also your room would be another consideration, do you need room correction? Sometimes I feel DSP can suck the life out of the sound of the setup. Just my .02.

[brj]

VinceT, a digital crossover can be an excellent solution, but be aware that there are active analog crossover options as well.  Options include those from Marchand, various Pass Labs/First Watt models (some no longer available new, but still prized on the used market), the 3-way Sublime K231 (cheaper, but limited to L-R 2nd and 4th order filters), the more expensive 2-way SPL (also only L-R 2nd and 4th), etc..  Bryston used to offer the 10B, which can still be found used.  There are more options out there if you are of the DIY persuasion.  It can be a rabbit hole, but a potentially very rewarding one.

Having said that, the depth of the rabbit hole will depend on what you need.  2 way vs 3 way and single-ended vs. balanced are obviously primary points to consider.  But the big one will be whether you need the crossover to perform driver correction in addition to the fundamental need to split the frequency range between drivers, as that will increase the needed sophistication of the unit.  (I avoid that issue by performing driver correction digitally on my music server before it's sent to my 2-channel DAC, and then use a Pass Labs XVR-1 as my active analog crossover between the pre-amp and amps.  The Pass therefore only has to worry about splitting the frequency spectrum between my tweeters and woofers.)

Digital options are more flexible, no doubt, and also more commonly available these days.  (The choice there is whether you go with a 2-channel digital solution ahead of your standard 2-channel DAC that adds an extra DA-AD conversion, or with with a multi-channel DAC.)  In all cases, it comes down to implementation, and like everything else in your system, that can be implemented with excellence or... less-so.  Personally, I would miss the startling dynamics and iron-grip control that an active system provides, and am willing to accept the added complexity that results.  But that's a personal choice.

(I got hooked enough that even my inexpensive bedroom system is active, though that rig is infinitely simpler because the amps and crossover are implemented inside the speakers.  This approach would really be the ideal for a clean-sheet design if the designer has the requisite end-to-end knowledge, because the amp channels, crossover and drivers can be implemented as a single optimized system, for a given price point, instead of leaving us poor consumers to hunt for that elusive "synergy" with less than complete information at our disposal to aid the search.)

One last note... I tend to agree that the cost in amplification can be a wash, as yes, you do need more amp channels, but they don't need to be nearly as powerful (and their selection can be "tuned" to your driver types).  The "gotcha" is that if you're of the persuasion that higher quality cables can make an appreciated difference, then you need to factor in the cost of the added power cable and interconnects into your math.  My main rig is a 2-way, so the external active crossover added only 1 power cord and 2 extra sets of interconnects, but it still adds up.  (But I have multiple subs with a separate (digital) subwoofer crossover unit, so I was pretty far down that rabbit hole already anyway! )

[tbrooke]

@VInceT - Good point I do have a second smaller system with a high Efficiency speaker - Class A amplifier and while I do have a turn table I mainly use digital sources. It is a different experience but I am not sure it is better. Some of it depends on the music. I tend to prefer acoustic jazz, acoustic folk etc on the smaller system.

I don't think the VMPS is better suited for some types of music. I have the RM-30 in a large room with a pair of the VMPS subwoofers and it is very much of a live sound. It reminds me of the posts I used to see about Brian at the Trade shows with a "Live vs VMPS" demo. With the small system I think about: "this really sounds good" With the VMPS it is like "I'm at the Village Vanguard or wherever and these guys are playing in the room."

I have just started down the crossover journey and already the speakers sound more live than with the passive. I have considered other speakers but just haven't found anything better. Plus with the Active Crossover and Room correction you can explore infinite variations with much more impact than things like cable changes or dac changes, etc.

[GeorgeAb]

Before I get totally off of the subject of the original posters problem. John, really hoping someone with FF1 with external xo will chime in. I would be happy to look at the their crossover remotely via televideo to attempt to reverse engineer the crossover.  It is tricky obtaining component values without unsoldering a component or two to disconnect loops.  Not sure where the dynapanels were crossed over a guess of 500Hz would be just that.

I know this is a loaded question, but how do you like the active crossover versus an upgraded passive with quality parts?

Vince,

Asking that question on an VMPS sub forum is on the verge of heresy . I kid, but I make this statement as Brian Cheney who was VMPS encourged folks to experiment with active xo (and sold speakers ready for) in his higher end speakers. Brian did this some 15 years before active xo's became more vogue in the audiophile world. Although still pretty niche.

Your concerns are totally warranted of trade off of digital types of issues which is why we fret and obsess over DACs and now we are putting some digital "suspect" component after our DAC that is doing both A/D and D/A conversion that will introduce its own issues. Other issues are de-integrating our system even more with more amps, interconnect cables, power cables, racks, etc. Finding optimal crossover points and slopes that work with our speakers is no small task. IMO an impossible task if not for tools like Room EQ Wiazrd. The differences that are most notable are the tight control of the drivers being directly connected to amp, that is what you notice first particulary in the low end, but soundstage, imaging are also different and from my experience I prefer. So yes, I prefer active xo with amp directly driving driver over high quality parts beween amp and driver. Is it the end all... no, absolutely not. A well made passive xo with quality components is a great way to go. Certainly simpler.

We audiophiles are pretty weird lot, the extremes we go for marginal improvements (knowing they add up to big ones) let alone significant improvments (IMO active xo is). So I don't know, big rabbit hole to go down. You can start slow for example if you put a Behringer active xo, which is nice as a tool as you can easily change xo points, slopes, amplitude and tried that, and some of us have a amp lying around, could still use the passive xo portion for your tweets if you have a 3 or 4 ways system. I think you would like what you heard once dialed in. Used would be cheap and you could always resell if you went down this rabbit hole. I started there, then Marchand xo, to Nelson Pass DIY active xo. One thing to add to the post a couple up there are a couple manufactures that make high end Dacs that have three sets of outputs and are meant to used in this way, exaSound is one.

In short, I think you are looking at this from the proper perspective of trade offs. Fun hobby we have, lots of choices. 

[VinceT]

Thanks for the response GeorgeAb

I hope I didn't get things too far off the tracks for the OP, I find the whole concept interesting

Some of the VMPS models and my current pair of GR LS-9 are very similar, though it seems Brian of VMPS and Danny of GR have different personal tastes and philosophy on crossover design and implementation

I chimed in because I am kind of at a point with my speakers as the OP, I can upgrade the passive network or go full external active

I will say I have goofed around with several DBX and Behrenger crossovers. I used a DBX driverack many moons ago and the room correction sucked the life out of the sound. I am sure modern tech is much much better.  I was not pleased with how noisy those active XO's they were and how they affect the sound. I would think the Marchand/Pass XO options would be much quieter.