Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Babcock" data-source="post: 24905" data-attributes="member: 46">Re: Crossover design choice - seeking your input!Hi Bennett,Ya, I know, though I thought that using an approach of supporting common DSP&#039;s by posting a desired electrical response and getting folks here to try to match the electrical response in their own DSP&#039;s to help us come up with multiple platform specific dsp&#039;s might be an answer to that.&nbsp; A lot of legwork for sure, but it may be worth it when you consider the cost and complexity of a crossover similar to the BMS wedge you mention from WedgeFest.&nbsp; I am somewhat hesitant about us getting into a passive XO of that magnitude, as it might end up being very reliant on an external source.Considering that you were able to do something similar for your DSP Tower of Babel article research, I think it&#039;s certainly possible.You&#039;ve weighed in, I&#039;m hoping others will too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Babcock, post: 24905, member: 46"] Re: Crossover design choice - seeking your input! Hi Bennett, Ya, I know, though I thought that using an approach of supporting common DSP's by posting a desired electrical response and getting folks here to try to match the electrical response in their own DSP's to help us come up with multiple platform specific dsp's might be an answer to that. A lot of legwork for sure, but it may be worth it when you consider the cost and complexity of a crossover similar to the BMS wedge you mention from WedgeFest. I am somewhat hesitant about us getting into a passive XO of that magnitude, as it might end up being very reliant on an external source. Considering that you were able to do something similar for your DSP Tower of Babel article research, I think it's certainly possible. You've weighed in, I'm hoping others will too. [/QUOTE]

Verification