---------------------------------------------------------- XDP4000X-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/09/03: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:00 AM - Re: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x (Dremgragen .) 2. 11:03 AM - Re: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x (Roland M) 3. 11:13 AM - Re: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x (Roland M) 4. 11:35 AM - Re: Center Channels and Rear Fill. (Roland M) 5. 03:55 PM - optical vs. coaxial (Eli A.) 6. 05:17 PM - Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago (Patrick Freeland) 7. 06:05 PM - Re: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago (John Smith) 8. 06:14 PM - Re: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago () 9. 06:29 PM - Re: optical vs. coaxial (Roland M) 10. 06:31 PM - Re: Center Channels and Rear Fill. (NOTGSXR@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:00:51 AM PST US From: "Dremgragen ." Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Dremgragen ." The crossovers included with my component set (AVI BSM-DIRECT -6.5" paper/cashmere woofer, 1.2" silk dome tweeter) is set @ 2.5kHz (-12dB for woofer, -18dB fortweeter),but I run the 4000X insteadand cross them over at 5 kHz with a slightly steeper slope (at 367% the recommended power). My tweeter is set at the bottom of the a-pillar rather than with the woofers down below, so I needed a higher crossover point to make them blend a little better. I'm also against using external passives when I have the option of using an active crossover (especially one like the 4000X). I believe the DACs in the 4000X are dual 20-bit Burr Browns, supposedly the same as the C90. I've been meaning to do an A/B comparision of the analog vs digital (C90 vs 4000X) but haven't gotten around to it. They both sound superior to ordinary DACs though, I'm convinced of that. :) -Brody Z. From: "Pete" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x -- XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Pete" Hello, I think the majority of people that have an xdp-4000x know the limiting factor is the crossover points. It will work better for a 3 way than a 2 way. All it requires are crossover points for the tweeters at 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 (KHz). Hopefully the Matronics 4k control software will be able to do this. Brody hit the nail on the head in regards to your bass issue. The highs on the crossover are the problem for the majority as Doug said. I received my XDP4K last week and only today have I obtained the serial cable to control it. My components require a crossover point at 2.5KHz. The crossover for the components rolls off at 12db/octave. These speakers (KEF KARS) do not match the XDP well at all. These play down to 40Hz not that will be letting them go quite that low. I would be interested to know other peoples successful 2 way front setups that they use with the XDP. If you were to buy a set of new drivers what would you choose if you were working exclusively with the XDP4K? I have read through the archives (I think from the beginning) and would be interested to know peoples opinions of the DAC's in the XDP4K compared with that of the C90. I read in some post that they are the same yet I read another that says otherwise. Could someone for the record state which DAC the XDP4K uses and how many DACs it has? Are they independent left and right channel? I would imagine some people prefer the sound of the c90 yet the xdp makes up the difference with the time alignment and eq. Or would you say the DAC in the xdp is superior? I know that some of the top end Naim Audio cd players (home audio) use dual burr brown DACs - maybe a sign of the quality. Any thoughts Pete ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 11:03:05 AM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >I believe the DACs in the 4000X are dual 20-bit Burr Browns, supposedly the >same as the C90. I've been meaning to do an A/B comparision of the analog >vs digital (C90 vs 4000X) but haven't gotten around to it. They both sound >superior to ordinary DACs though, I'm convinced of that. > >:) -Brody Z. > > I'm not sure about what D/A converters are in the C90, but the XDP-4000X has 4 Crystal Semiconductor D/As--one per output PAIR. The C90 has dual D/A converters--one D/A per CHANNEL (Left and Light). Just as a mention I don't think I've ever seen an external/add-on processor that used individual L/R converters. It seems high end HU's often get this dual D/A configuration but EQ/DSPs (including all the ones I've seen from Sony, Alpine, Pioneer, and Clarion) have one D/A per ouput pair. I.e. One for Front (L&R) one for Rear (L&R) etc. The advantage is that the xover/processing/eq can be done in the digital domain for each output pair, but I guess because of the related cost they keep it to one D/A per pair instead of per channel. An HU like the C90 while it has one D/A for L and the other for R has to do any crossover/processing for F/R/Sub in the analog domain unless that processing is applied to all 3 outputs at the same time as there is only a D/A for L&R not for each range. Roland M. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:13:58 AM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >I have read through the archives (I think from the beginning) and would >be interested to know peoples opinions of the DAC's in the XDP4K >compared with that of the C90. I read in some post that they are the >same yet I read another that says otherwise. Could someone for the >record state which DAC the XDP4K uses and how many DACs it has? Are they >independent left and right channel? > >I would imagine some people prefer the sound of the c90 yet the xdp >makes up the difference with the time alignment and eq. Or would you say >the DAC in the xdp is superior? > >I know that some of the top end Naim Audio cd players (home audio) use >dual burr brown DACs - maybe a sign of the quality. > >Any thoughts > >Pete > See my last email for part of the answer to this question (regarding the number of D/As in the XDP and how they process the information)... In regargards to which D/As are better, I'm pretty sure the Crystal ones in the XDP-4kX are supposed to be better than the ones in the C90. I've often seen the high end Crystal D/As used in stand alone D/A converters... Again, I think the advantage of having each output PAIR being crossed over and EQ'd in the digital domain far outweighs the benefit of having twin D/As for L&R (when you have more than two speakers that is). I suppose dual D/As on every output would be even better but that would make for EIGHT (!) DACs in a unit like the XDP-4k and would probably drive the price up by double... Roland M. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:35:23 AM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: Center Channels and Rear Fill. --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: NOTGSXR@aol.com > >Also, as far as a center channel goes, i know we can get the proper signal >by >using a Y adapter for both the left and right output and then use those >signals for a pair of channels on an amp in "bridged" mode effectively >combining the signal, but what about rear fill??? How could we get that >signal?? Is it possible to use the rear Analog RCA outputs from the >headunit >directly to the amp and use the Front RCA's to the 4000X for the Tuner >Signal??? > >Thanks in advance, > >Dan > I know I'm a little late replying to this (didn't check my email much over the holidays), but I'd like to point out a couple things. First is that yes you could mono mix the L and R to get a single channel for the centre channel, but simply using an RCA Y-Adapter isn't the way to do it. You need to place a resistor on the single line of the "Y" (or was it a capacitor--I can't remember) to COMBINE two RCA signals properly. If you don't do that then the RCAs can short out at certain signals or something. Sometimes that isn't a problem but it is one of those things you aren't supposed to do. Splitting is a different story and Y-cables can be used without worry when splitting one RCA into more than one. However even if you did mono mix the L/R I don't know how good of a sound you'd get that way as I think you'd throw off a lot of the stereo image and separation that way. I've seen a few car audio centre channel processors though, which would probably be the best way to do it if you REALLY want a centre channel. I THINK AudioControl makes one but I can't remember... Personally, though, I would stay away from the centre channel though, unless it is used only for Dolby Surround/Dolby Digital/DTS surround playback that has been properly processed by an appropriate decoder. Roland M. The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:55:20 PM PST US From: "Eli A." Subject: XDP4000X-List: optical vs. coaxial --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Eli A." I have a question, this may be completely of the recent subject. Does anyone know of a sonic, discernable difference between optical and coaxial digital connections? Is there a difference that can be heard? If there is a difference would wind, road noise affect that? Just wondering......... Eli - C90/210EQ/XT40V/XVM-50/XAU40D/CDX838/MDX65/(3)ATS 1-farad caps/Phoenix Gold ZX350V.2/MTX4300/Boston Acoustics 6.43/Xtant sub The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:09 PM PST US From: "Patrick Freeland" Subject: XDP4000X-List: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Patrick Freeland" First, I appreciate all your responces. Through the answers and suggestions I recieved, I think that my questions was misunderstood. First let me say that I have the 4 way set up with a JL10 W-7 for the bass (500 watts 4 olms), and the Alpine flagship 3- way (tweet and midrange in fiberglass kickpanels, and the midbass in the doors). Each tweet and midrange is recieving 75 clean watts at 4 olms and each midbass is recieving 150 watts at 4 Olms THESE SPEAKERS ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY MADE OUT OF KEVLER MATERIAL (SPELL CHECK) AND THE MID BASS CAN CLEANLY PLAY NOTES AROUND 60HRTZ WITHOUT DISTORTION, at least to the volume level that I will need to use when I compete in my SQ shows. And as for the responce with time allignment, well that had nothing to due with my question either, but thank you the additional thought. Through all of our discussions, much of what we feel makes the best stereo image will be relative to what we have learned, what we are personally used to hearing, and what we think would be best. Despite the fact that sub bass is not directional, I personally think that the lower the bass you CAN put to the front of the car, the better the resulting stereo image you will have. It makes the sub feel like it is kicking from the front seat, and it makes the midbass and subwoofer interact smoother as the sound is coming from both the front and back of the car. That is my rationale for placing such lower bass to the mid bass speakers. Obviously if you want big bass sound, you would not put this additional strain on the midbass, since the sub can easily handle this. But if you wanted to try to perfect, as much as possible, the stereo image for SQ purposes, then this is one option (and theory) to try. Here was my original question. Lets say I didn't want to use my 4000x sub X over setting because it was not as low as I desired, SO I TUNRED IT ON FULL RANGE and sent this full range signal to my JL amp, which the crossed over setting is at 62 hrtz and down with 24/db slope. I would of coarse not hear that much bass noticeable above 62 hrtz due to the 24/db slope. My question was this: Theorectically, wouldn't I still have the same bass sound if I turned ON MY 4000X CROSSOVER AND THE JL AMPS CROSSOVER, SINCE THE JL AMP IS THE FINAL AND LAST COMPONENT TO MANIPULATE THE SOUND and is lower than the 4000x's crossover point? From my experience I would think that it would produice the same bass sound. But this did not happend why I tired it. This confussed me, so I was wondering what this forum new of the interaction between the 4000x and other components regarding the usage of multiple crossovers being placed in its signal path. Also, if anyone is wondering, I did not have a gap in my sound field from midbass to sub bass. My midbass is playing 62hrtz and up (24/db slope) to 500 hrtz. The 4000x xover point was set at 500hrtz and down, while this signal then hit the JL amp which crossed over the sound to play above 62 hrtz. Thus, resulting in a midbass range of 62 - 500. From there I began to look at resetting the sub crossover point around the 60's, which is when I came up with my questions. Perhaps I should just stick with the 4000x settings, but I am looking to tweak as much as possible. It is wise to look at all the strengths and weaknesses of each component and use them together. With the amps and 4000x, we have many crossover options, perhaps to many....well.... no that is not true :) I hope I have demonstrated meaningful dialouge. If you got this far in reading this, I thank you for your time. Any additional responces are welcomed. Patrick Freeland ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:14 PM PST US From: John Smith Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: John Smith Your question is kind of hard but I think I've got it. If you defeat the 4000x and just run the Jl which has a 24dB slope you will hear one sound. If you activate the 4000x and crossover you will actually sum the slopes. If they are both set on the same point it's not that big of a deal you just have a heck of a slope. If not you are having the signal processed to death with filtering. They both will be performing duties but in different areas which can just be wasting power and have serious effects on stereo imaging and tonal integration of drivers. EX: 4000x 100Hz @72dB and jl 80Hz@24dB. Now plot these on a graph (Look at the software with 4000x and you should see what I mean) The overlap region will have a steeper rolloff due to the unison of both crossovers Actuall 96dB) due to this you will have less output in the desired frequency area and all area that they interact. This interaction occurs beyond the actual cutoff frequencys involved due to the slopes involved. As the slope/frequency area changes the actual slope of the attenuation changes. EX: 80Hz may be 96dB but 60Hz may be 70dB and so on as you down the frequency chain. Best answer is try the three available configurations you have a use the best version you hear. Hope this helps. --- Patrick Freeland wrote: > --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Patrick > Freeland" > > First, I appreciate all your responces. Through the > answers and suggestions > I recieved, I think that my questions was > misunderstood. First let me say > that I have the 4 way set up with a JL10 W-7 for the > bass (500 watts 4 > olms), and the Alpine flagship 3- way (tweet and > midrange in fiberglass > kickpanels, and the midbass in the doors). Each > tweet and midrange is > recieving 75 clean watts at 4 olms and each midbass > is recieving 150 watts > at 4 Olms THESE SPEAKERS ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY MADE > OUT OF KEVLER MATERIAL > (SPELL CHECK) AND THE MID BASS CAN CLEANLY PLAY > NOTES AROUND 60HRTZ WITHOUT > DISTORTION, at least to the volume level that I will > need to use when I > compete in my SQ shows. And as for the responce > with time allignment, well > that had nothing to due with my question either, but > thank you the > additional thought. > Through all of our discussions, much of what we > feel makes the best stereo > image will be relative to what we have learned, what > we are personally used > to hearing, and what we think would be best. > Despite the fact that sub bass > is not directional, I personally think that the > lower the bass you CAN put > to the front of the car, the better the resulting > stereo image you will > have. It makes the sub feel like it is kicking from > the front seat, and it > makes the midbass and subwoofer interact smoother as > the sound is coming > from both the front and back of the car. That is my > rationale for placing > such lower bass to the mid bass speakers. Obviously > if you want big bass > sound, you would not put this additional strain on > the midbass, since the > sub can easily handle this. But if you wanted to > try to perfect, as much as > possible, the stereo image for SQ purposes, then > this is one option (and > theory) to try. > Here was my original question. Lets say I > didn't want to use my > 4000x sub X over setting because it was not as low > as I desired, SO I TUNRED > IT ON FULL RANGE and sent this full range signal to > my JL amp, which the > crossed over setting is at 62 hrtz and down with > 24/db slope. I would of > coarse not hear that much bass noticeable above 62 > hrtz due to the 24/db > slope. My question was this: Theorectically, > wouldn't I still have the > same bass sound if I turned ON MY 4000X CROSSOVER > AND THE JL AMPS > CROSSOVER, SINCE THE JL AMP IS THE FINAL AND LAST > COMPONENT TO MANIPULATE > THE SOUND and is lower than the 4000x's crossover > point? From my experience > I would think that it would produice the same bass > sound. But this did not > happend why I tired it. This confussed me, so I was > wondering what this > forum new of the interaction between the 4000x and > other components > regarding the usage of multiple crossovers being > placed in its signal path. > > Also, if anyone is wondering, I did not have a gap > in my sound field from > midbass to sub bass. My midbass is playing 62hrtz > and up (24/db slope) to > 500 hrtz. The 4000x xover point was set at 500hrtz > and down, while this > signal then hit the JL amp which crossed over the > sound to play above 62 > hrtz. Thus, resulting in a midbass range of 62 - > 500. From there I began > to look at resetting the sub crossover point around > the 60's, which is when > I came up with my questions. Perhaps I should just > stick with the 4000x > settings, but I am looking to tweak as much as > possible. It is wise to look > at all the strengths and weaknesses of each > component and use them together. > With the amps and 4000x, we have many crossover > options, perhaps to > many....well.... no that is not true :) > > I hope I have demonstrated meaningful dialouge. If > you got this far in > reading this, I thank you for your time. Any > additional responces are > welcomed. > > > Patrick Freeland > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/archives > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:27 PM PST US From: Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: Any and all crossover's (passive and/or active) will react with each other if they are near or at the same crossover frequency. The XDP is already beginning to reduce the signal before it reaches 78Hz. 78Hz is usually known as the -3dB pt. But more than that, it becomes unpredictable (unless mathematically reversed engineered) when you combine 2 crossovers so close together. Thus the reduced output you are hearing. It is usually never a good idea to combine crossovers like that. -----Original Message----- From: owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Freeland Subject: XDP4000X-List: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Patrick Freeland" First, I appreciate all your responces. Through the answers and suggestions I recieved, I think that my questions was misunderstood. First let me say that I have the 4 way set up with a JL10 W-7 for the bass (500 watts 4 olms), and the Alpine flagship 3- way (tweet and midrange in fiberglass kickpanels, and the midbass in the doors). Each tweet and midrange is recieving 75 clean watts at 4 olms and each midbass is recieving 150 watts at 4 Olms THESE SPEAKERS ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY MADE OUT OF KEVLER MATERIAL (SPELL CHECK) AND THE MID BASS CAN CLEANLY PLAY NOTES AROUND 60HRTZ WITHOUT DISTORTION, at least to the volume level that I will need to use when I compete in my SQ shows. And as for the responce with time allignment, well that had nothing to due with my question either, but thank you the additional thought. Through all of our discussions, much of what we feel makes the best stereo image will be relative to what we have learned, what we are personally used to hearing, and what we think would be best. Despite the fact that sub bass is not directional, I personally think that the lower the bass you CAN put to the front of the car, the better the resulting stereo image you will have. It makes the sub feel like it is kicking from the front seat, and it makes the midbass and subwoofer interact smoother as the sound is coming from both the front and back of the car. That is my rationale for placing such lower bass to the mid bass speakers. Obviously if you want big bass sound, you would not put this additional strain on the midbass, since the sub can easily handle this. But if you wanted to try to perfect, as much as possible, the stereo image for SQ purposes, then this is one option (and theory) to try. Here was my original question. Lets say I didn't want to use my 4000x sub X over setting because it was not as low as I desired, SO I TUNRED IT ON FULL RANGE and sent this full range signal to my JL amp, which the crossed over setting is at 62 hrtz and down with 24/db slope. I would of coarse not hear that much bass noticeable above 62 hrtz due to the 24/db slope. My question was this: Theorectically, wouldn't I still have the same bass sound if I turned ON MY 4000X CROSSOVER AND THE JL AMPS CROSSOVER, SINCE THE JL AMP IS THE FINAL AND LAST COMPONENT TO MANIPULATE THE SOUND and is lower than the 4000x's crossover point? From my experience I would think that it would produice the same bass sound. But this did not happend why I tired it. This confussed me, so I was wondering what this forum new of the interaction between the 4000x and other components regarding the usage of multiple crossovers being placed in its signal path. Also, if anyone is wondering, I did not have a gap in my sound field from midbass to sub bass. My midbass is playing 62hrtz and up (24/db slope) to 500 hrtz. The 4000x xover point was set at 500hrtz and down, while this signal then hit the JL amp which crossed over the sound to play above 62 hrtz. Thus, resulting in a midbass range of 62 - 500. From there I began to look at resetting the sub crossover point around the 60's, which is when I came up with my questions. Perhaps I should just stick with the 4000x settings, but I am looking to tweak as much as possible. It is wise to look at all the strengths and weaknesses of each component and use them together. With the amps and 4000x, we have many crossover options, perhaps to many....well.... no that is not true :) I hope I have demonstrated meaningful dialouge. If you got this far in reading this, I thank you for your time. Any additional responces are welcomed. Patrick Freeland ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:29:14 PM PST US From: "Roland M" Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: optical vs. coaxial --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" I'd put money on NOT being able to hear a difference especially in car (that is if I had "money" :P )... Though many of the so called "elite" audiophiles would say coax is better (actually they'd say S/PDIF coax is "junk" as well) they probably couldn't hear the difference either. Then again many of the same people "like" tube amps, laserdiscs and records... (No, not trying to start any debates on THOSE now :) )... There is the obvious advantage to Toslink though--it is impervious to EMI/RFI noise affecting the signal (in the cable at least), which proves to be a great advantage when getting sound from a PC which is plaguged with things such as an unshielded power supply and a multitude of wires going everywhere out the back... Roland M. >From: "Eli A." >Reply-To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com >To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com >Subject: XDP4000X-List: optical vs. coaxial >Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:12:49 +0000 > >--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Eli A." > >I have a question, this may be completely of the recent subject. Does >anyone >know of a sonic, discernable difference between optical and coaxial digital >connections? Is there a difference that can be heard? If there is a >difference would wind, road noise affect that? Just wondering......... > > Eli - C90/210EQ/XT40V/XVM-50/XAU40D/CDX838/MDX65/(3)ATS 1-farad >caps/Phoenix Gold ZX350V.2/MTX4300/Boston Acoustics 6.43/Xtant sub > > >The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months > The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:38 PM PST US From: NOTGSXR@aol.com Subject: Re: XDP4000X-List: Center Channels and Rear Fill. --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: NOTGSXR@aol.com In a message dated 1/9/03 3:56:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, mdx400@hotmail.com writes: > Personally, though, I would stay away from the centre channel though, unless > > it is used only for Dolby Surround/Dolby Digital/DTS surround playback that > > has been properly processed by an appropriate decoder. > > Roland M. I'm pretty much on your side.... But figured i would throw it out there :) thanks Dan