I was reading this post(keep in mind it's 6am) and was
thinking wow, I planning the same thing. Then realized
hey, that is my post. LOL.

I have put the project off.
I have been studying up on designing and building
speakers. Collecting books, software, hardware. Note:
nothing wrong with my WT2 just trying to use it on a
Mac with Win xp. Did not work right, works fine on
pc.
Anyway, ready for first project but the spouse aprovel
factor is preaty bad right now :( So, I may have
gotten all this stuff for nothing.

Richard

--- timboinoz2002 <tim-bailey@...> wrote:

> --- In diy_audio_tweaks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
> Rea"
> <my89_928gt@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a new project, I'm going to go active on my
> front speakers(this
> > system dose both 2ch for music and suround for
> movies). My plan it to
> > do the LCR speakers. I was orginaly planning to
> use some older Marantz
> > MA700 mono blocks for the job. Now I'm thinking of
> useing some Acurus
> > A200 x3 amps. I'm thinking the Acurus may be the
> better sound quality
> > amp. But not sure. Has anyone here owned eithr or
> both amps? Or have
> > had the opertunity to hear them?
> >
> > Also, have not made my mind up on an active
> crossover, any recomended?
> > Both premade or good diy kits or plans?
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
> NB I haven't yet read the other posts.
>
> However, one of the BIG issues with going active on
> existing OEM
> passive xover spkrs is getting a good match to the
> MFR's original
> voicing .......
>
> IF .....
>
> You want to retain that, of course.
>
> further is the issue that - using matching active
> (say 4LR) slopes -
> does require you to use crossover points well within
> the flat pass
> band of each driver. Otherwise your acoustic slopes
> won't match OR BE
> 4LR! One at least will be steeper. IF your fronts
> are 2 by 2-ways, and
> an appolito 3way using the same drivers, you ARE
> facing this risk!
>
> Associated with this is whether you have the
> experience and measuring
> equipment to get the new active xover sounding as
> good or better than
> what the spkrs sound NOW.
>
> AT this point I should perhaps make it clear that
> I'm a simple is best
> / less is MORE guy when it comes to audio!
>
> I'd agree that all other things being equal that
> active or passive
> line level xovers are way better than complex spkr
> level xovers.
>
> My current spkrs are semi-actively biamped, as
> there's no lowpass to
> the mid-bass. I am certain that the HP passive xover
> is too complex,
> even though it uses low-z AIR-core chokes, it also
> uses padding
> resistors which waste even more power!
>
> IME active circuitry often sounds worse than simple
> / passive / line
> level crossovers.
>
> I'd add that IF the 3 spkrs you have for the fronts
> all match, then
> the job should be easier. cos you'll have three goes
> at it!
>
> IF the spkrs use ribbons/planars off a passive I'd
> suggest you do
> consider 4LR minimum for them, even steeper if
> possible, further
> complicating your path, IYTMMeaning.
>
> Timbo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Richard Rea
a man of few words :)