[Tyson]

It was the setting that were put into the miniDSP that were crap.

Wrong.  I put the same settings into a DEQX and it was better sounding than the miniDSP.  And then I used the HAL DSP unit and it was the best sounding of them all, by a lot.

[planet10]

I did say i susoected QC was an issue

The DEQX is in another price league.

dave

[Tyson]

Don't get me wrong, the miniDSP is fun to play around with and it's incredibly flexible.  But it's not an audiophile solution. 

[Mike-48]

Another option to consider is the Sublime Acoustics active crossover. This is a fully analog three way crossover with both RCA and XLR inputs and outputs. They have recently introduced a new model, the K235 which they are offering a preorder price of $900. I have been experimenting with the Danville dspNexus and have ordered a K235. The dspNexus provides more flexibility in tuning and particularly in time alignment, but replaces your streamer, DAC and preamp (which may be a good thing or not depending on what you are trying to achieve).

Jay, I'd love to hear your impressions of the K235. I've been mulling over pros and cons of a system change to active analog, rather than DSP, crossovers for subs. Some days I feel that my current DSP changes tonality of some material for the worse . . . in particular, string quartets, an interest of mine. Other days, I strain to hear the difference, from which I conclude it's not a huge effect. Yet using a DSP preamp, as I do, does tie one to a particular DAC and preamp circuitry (as you said about the Danville).

I had my eye on the K235, but unfortunately, my indecision about the whole matter, as well as thoughts of other ways of going about this, caused me to miss introductory pricing.

Mike

[Jaytor]

Jay, I'd love to hear your impressions of the K235. I've been mulling over pros and cons of a system change to active analog, rather than DSP, crossovers for subs. Some days I feel that my current DSP changes tonality of some material for the worse . . . in particular, string quartets, an interest of mine. Other days, I strain to hear the difference, from which I conclude it's not a huge effect. Yet using a DSP preamp, as I do, does tie one to a particular DAC and preamp circuitry (as you said about the Danville).

I had my eye on the K235, but unfortunately, my indecision about the whole matter, as well as thoughts of other ways of going about this, caused me to miss introductory pricing.

Mike

Hi Mike -

I haven't had a chance to play with it yet.

I'm trying to finish up my build of two stereo amps based on the F5M circuit Nelson Pass introduced at Burning Amp last year. I plan to use these to biamp my Line Forces.

I'm doing my own circuit boards with some added features (speaker protection, balanced inputs, DC servo, soft start, more advanced power supply).  I finally got one channel fully assembled and tested, and have finished stuffing the boards for the other three channels, so I'll hopefully have these assembled in another few weeks (I don't have a lot of spare time to work on electronics right now). 

- Jay

[Speedskater]

Wrong.  I put the same settings into a DEQX and it was better sounding than the miniDSP.  And then I used the HAL DSP unit and it was the best sounding of them all, by a lot.

And the 'transfer function' at the voice coils were the  same?

[HAL]

Here is the Audio Weaver 4.x version crossover design for Tyson that I setup for his system.  This ran at 192KHz sample rate on an ADSP21479 DSP.

This is with an older dspMusik 2x8 system that was the predecessor of the dspNexus 2x8 and Audio Weaver 8.x in use now.

Not all audio digital filter topologies are created equal.  DSP Concepts developed High Precision filters for use.   These sound considerably better than stock digital filters.

The system also used AKM ADC's and DAC's with minimum phase filters.

[Tyson]

And the 'transfer function' at the voice coils were the  same?

Correct.