Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Babcock" data-source="post: 24837" data-attributes="member: 46">Crossover design choice - seeking your input!In some of the discussions surrounding implementation of a passive crossover in the coaxial wedge, there are some general considerations, and an idea I would suggest as a possible alternative which I would ask for everyone&#039;s input on.Building a full passive crossover which implements not only the crossover itself but a variety of other processing to optimize cab response is typically quite expensive, time consuming, and is difficult to design.As an alternative idea, what about this?Implement a VERY BASIC simple passive crossover, but mandate that the coax wedge requires DSP regardless of whether run biamp or passive.&nbsp; In passive mode, a single channel of DSP provides the necessary remaining optimization.This is similar to the approach many companies use to great effect (Nexo for example).Advantages:Reduced crossover cost per cabinet (assuming you have existing DSP available)Reduced physical crossover design complexity (and easier long term support/troubleshooting of XO parts)Potential for more processing/optimization capabilityDisadvantages:Requires one channel of DSP, either via processor or onboard power amp DSP for each monitor mix.My thoughts:I&#039;m already using amp DSP for all of my passive monitor mixes for HPF, limiting, and general eq optimization.&nbsp; If you already have the available DSP, this works out great. That&#039;s my take on things......How about everyone else?&nbsp; Does this seem reasonable to require at least one DSP channel for processing given the advantages it brings, or would that be a total no-go for you?Please share your thoughts! </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Babcock, post: 24837, member: 46"] Crossover design choice - seeking your input! In some of the discussions surrounding implementation of a passive crossover in the coaxial wedge, there are some general considerations, and an idea I would suggest as a possible alternative which I would ask for everyone's input on. Building a full passive crossover which implements not only the crossover itself but a variety of other processing to optimize cab response is typically quite expensive, time consuming, and is difficult to design. [B] As an alternative idea, what about this? Implement a VERY BASIC simple passive crossover, but mandate that the coax wedge requires DSP regardless of whether run biamp or passive. In passive mode, a single channel of DSP provides the necessary remaining optimization. [/B] This is similar to the approach many companies use to great effect (Nexo for example). Advantages: Reduced crossover cost per cabinet (assuming you have existing DSP available) Reduced physical crossover design complexity (and easier long term support/troubleshooting of XO parts) Potential for more processing/optimization capability Disadvantages: Requires one channel of DSP, either via processor or onboard power amp DSP for each monitor mix. My thoughts: I'm already using amp DSP for all of my passive monitor mixes for HPF, limiting, and general eq optimization. If you already have the available DSP, this works out great. That's my take on things...... How about everyone else? Does this seem reasonable to require at least one DSP channel for processing given the advantages it brings, or would that be a total no-go for you? [B] Please share your thoughts! [/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification