pro crossover

[j_dunavin]

I'm looking for A crossover that i could use to not only bi amp my main, but that would also give me a sub out and a subsonic filter, I would also like those filters to be more than 12db. 18 db is ok 24 would be cool, and a programmable one like the ultra drive would be even better. But there is always the cost deal. So here are some ideas and i want to know what ya'all think.
First up... Peavey XD3/4
My only deal is that on page three the manual is says that the subsonic is 40 hz 12db and in the specifications on page 6 it says that it's 18 db... so what is it?
www.peavey.com/media/pdf/manuals/xd34.pdf
http://cgi.ebay.com/Peavey-XD-3-4-Crossover-Professional-Rack-gear-Nice-/360337557962?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53e5cac9ca

There is also the DOD834, I have never heard of them, maybe i have just been in a closet or something, but here's the specs:
ftp://ftp.dod.com/pub/PDFs/Manuals/SR/SR823-834.pdf
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140500975105&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

Last is the peavey CEX 4la..... i think that i would need two of them. However I would then gain the ability to have a limiter, add time delay, and I thought i read something about an EQ. Maybe just some tone control?
http://www.peavey.com/assets/literature/manuals/80301342.pdf
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270694009956&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

thoughts?

[Sydney]

I've not had any good experience w DOD.
Define cost range.
( I see you got this inquiry going on elsewhere ;) )

[Paul O]

How about a Rane AC22 or 23, it has a 20hz 18db/oct Butterworth lowcut filter, 24db LR crossover filters, 2ms of adjustable delay that can be internally rewired to any output, selectable mono summed low output, and outstanding noise specs.. even with the unbalanced version. I bought one used quite a few years ago for $100 and it still works flawlessly, the only thing I don't like about it is the external power supply but that is probably partially responsible for it's super low noise floor.

[j_dunavin]

the Rane looks nice... but it would be cool if the subsonic was a little higher. I'm building Bill's tubas.
And yes I also have this posted on the other forum.... hey i gata cover my bases here.

[jcpahman77]

the Rane looks nice... but it would be cool if the subsonic was a little higher. I'm building Bill's tubas.
And yes I also have this posted on the other forum.... hey i gata cover my bases here.

By definition sub-sonic is anything less than can be heard. Since the human ear is said to be able to hear down to 20Hz it's not uncommon to find subsonic filters in that range if not lower. Typically their main purpose is to protect the driver from accidental DC current passing through the voice coil.

[Sydney]

but it would be cool if the subsonic was a little higher. If you are using in conjunction with a 31 band graphic EQ...
They often have LF filters included - if not; dump the sliders below 40Hz ( or desired cutoff ).
This will further reduce the bottom octave content

[j_dunavin]

all true, but in this case we are limiting the excursion of the woofer.
It's kinda like a ported box, the driver can't reproduce anything below the tuning freq. of the box, so why try and reproduce it.
Well I mean it looses it's efficiency below the tuning freq. and excursion increases, or the woofer becomes unloaded..... you know what i mean.

In the case of Bill's horn loaded cabs. The one i am building looses efficiency below 35 hz.

[Sydney]

all true, but in this case we are limiting the excursion of the woofer...... you know what i mean.
Indeed I do:
That's why it doesn't matter where in the line level stream that a filter is placed. The filtering action can come from several devices in the chain.
The voltage level at those frequencies will be reduced.

[Paul O]

I'm building Bill's tubas.

Then you need the DCX2496, nothing analog has anywhere close to enough time delay to allign these boxes with reflex tops and besides that you really need parametric EQ to flatten the response.

[j_dunavin]

what about those Peavey CEX 4LA's?
Two of them at three way mono?

[AMC]

As I understand the tuba design, you lose your increased horn efficiency below the frequency loaded by the horn (you can see that in his response graphs) but because the driver is in a sealed box, it never truly unloads like a reflex box does, this helps a lot in protecting your drivers. Below the freq of the horn loading, it acts more like a sealed box. Of course you still have to protect them, but not like you would in a standard reflex cab.

[Sydney]

what about those Peavey CEX 4LA's?
Two of them at three way mono?
It includes Delay and Limiters; a low cut filter can be assigned via the frequency function.

[Paul O]

what about those Peavey CEX 4LA's?
Two of them at three way mono?

OK.. but why when a single DCX will do the job?

[j_dunavin]

It all boils down to money. I'm still leaning toward the peavey xd 3/4. At least that will allow me to biamp, and then i can save up for something better, later.

[Sydney]

then i can save up for something better, later. This may not be a consideration for you, but Behringer is often not acceptable on a contract rider.

[j_dunavin]

well i was thinking about this:
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=246-171

[Paul O]

I thought cost was a problem? :confused:

That box is more $$ then a DCX with less functionality.

[wg_ski]

As I understand the tuba design, you lose your increased horn efficiency below the frequency loaded by the horn (you can see that in his response graphs) but because the driver is in a sealed box, it never truly unloads like a reflex box does, this helps a lot in protecting your drivers. Below the freq of the horn loading, it acts more like a sealed box. Of course you still have to protect them, but not like you would in a standard reflex cab.

Yes, in theory a hornloader requires less aggressive protection than a standard refelx box. But two other factors can offest this. First is that some horns cut off higher than a reflex box - if you undersize the stack it cuts off higher and you must high pass higher. One box per side is not the same as four and can't be treated as such. Second is that often the very first sign of stress on a hornloader is the VC smacking into the backplate. You get a little more warning with a normal vented box in the form of distortion.

[wg_ski]

This may not be a consideration for you, but Behringer is often not acceptable on a contract rider.


I thought cost was a problem? :confused:

That box is more $$ then a DCX with less functionality.

If you're doing gigs where a contract rider is involved, a DRPA (or even a 260) might not be acceptable either. Home-brew Tubas might not either for that matter. For someone rolling his own subwoofers (and perhaps mains), he could probabaly get away with using Behringer equipment.

[Sydney]

True:
I've know guys with 2 - 3 systems levels; thus a lot of money in gear.
The B & C stuff utilize whatever equipment was appropriate ( no specificity ).
The "A" stuff was commonly accepted "name brands" and would meet specified desired SPL levels and dispersion numbers.
Requirements on contracts can be diverse and get very specific ( often reflecting the "artist's" demands ).
Since there are many levels of "Pro Sound" the needs and demands vary greatly.

[Mike C]

You can use a three way active crossover as a two way crossover with a variable high pass filter. You will need a crossover that the low to mid crossover frequency range goes low enough,into that 30 hz range or what ever your boxes need. Set the low to mid frequency as you high pass freq, the mid to high frequency will actually be used as your low to high frequency control. On the crossover outputs you will connect your low frequency amp to the mid outputs and the high frequency amp connects to the high output.
The low output on the crossover would not be connected to anything unless you wanted all of the sub low for something.
Some crossovers have a divide by 10 setting on the range of crossover frequencies.

Other analog crossovers to look at would be Ashly and TDM.