Electronic Crossover?

I believe I already know the answer to this, but I thought I'd get a sanity check.

If I am stuck working with a venue's wound system that only has 2 "2-way" speakers (Peavey PV 112 speakers), is there any point in using an electronic crossover to help divide up the high frequencies and low frequencies? The specs for these speakers says: "Heavy duty crossover network for driver protection and EQ."

So I'm guessing the speaker already does the job. I just thought I remember something form the mists of my memory that sound could be improved with an electronic crossover? I don't really see how since the tweeter and woofer are both in the same speaker. Hence my question.

Thanks!
 
If tweeter and woofer are in the one enclosure with only a single feed in, then they will have an internal cross over and your electronic crossover can't be used.

If the speakers are intended to be bi-amped, they would have separate inputs for top and bottom and no cross over, in which case your crossover would be handy.
 
It might be worth using a crossover just to high-pass the signal going to the speakers. I'd set it to about 50-60Hz. That would relieve it from having to reproduce low bass below its effective range. And if someone wants to bring in a sub to supplement the system you can run the crossover up to 100Hz.
 
Thanks for those replies! Kind of what I was thinking.

I don't actually have an electronic crossover. I was just making sure if I should get one or not. And it wouldn't be helpful, I don't think, to try to high-pass the speakers because the music being amplified at this venue is all acoustic - no bass guitars, no kick drum, etc. So it probably would be of minor benefit.

Thanks again!
 
I've run one theatre PA I have tried-amped. The subs as a channel, then LF and HF to the mid/hi boxes. Last year I had an amp die on me, and with a bit of reprogramming the crossover, and switch flicking on the cabs, enabled the internal crossover and finished the last couple of shows. We always have a 3 month break, and on powering up forgot about the broken amp still in the rack. The point being the sound quality didn't change at all!
 
Properly configured, active crossovers can help squeeze more performance and better sound from a system, but if it's being used well within its limits there won't be much difference. Some good EQ would be more useful.
 
I’ve converted many to run off two amps so I can use electronic crossovers and the success relies on the speaker quality, usually the ability of the HF driver sounding nice. Adjusting the crossover frequency and filter slope often gets you back to what the manufacturer designed into the passive crossover in the box. For me it usually allowed a little more volume at the bottom and less harshness from the top driver by being kinder to it. One pair got returned to original spec after a few years and I never noticed the difference! I don’t do it any more. If they dont have a bi-amp switch, ask yourself why the manufacturer did not put one on them, and make it a feature and extra selling point? Why would an improvement be something their R and D department missed?
 
bi amping is the cHoice to increase the amplitude of the hi's or low. Each having their respective output controls. Instead of a treble and bass knob on a subtractive tone stack.


example-
Hi cabs are 2x10's
low cabs are 2x15s

balance the hi cab and low cabinet with the amplitude "level" knobs. Not treble and bass.. More subtle bi amplification works better to stimulate non-subtractive tone controls. Than stereo left right amp trying to do the same job with equal power sides. Bass needs more watts/ than treble side. THD curves and such reveal limits.

For the Biamplificator, you select where this crossover begins. Which go, to the the biamps high knob , and which to the biamps low knob. THIS SHOULD BE ON EVERY BASS AMP! A CROSSOVER control. X Over should be there.

Biamping is awesome for BASS and vocals
Stereo Amplification is aweome for guitars and keyboards with digital R + L effects
Dual Mono Amplification is awesome for high wattage stereo PA systems and splits the heat for live performances.
 
Last edited:
I don't know offhand, but it could be different number of cabinets in the array, different arc at bottom, indoor vs. outdoor. Basically lots of things besides the crossover. If there's something wrong with the passive crossover design, like a phase mismatch, external processing isn't going to fix it, though other things can be addressed (e.g. a minor frequency deviation). Or maybe a new engineer came in and wanted to put his personal stamp on things with a minor variation.
 
Why do people release new EQs and gizmos? People like to have tweaks. I have a pile of 932's - I certainly won't be changing any of them because some R7D fella has tweaked a new curve that might sound great on whatever it was tested on.Do you really think people using a system twenty years ago had the 'wrong' curve? No - they had the popular one for that period - just like the smiley face of the 70s. The key point in this topic was we were talking about Peavey, not a Versus. You've totally and utterly missed the point. If you work on top end systems and know the R&D guys home phone, you can get the latest updates - chasing updates for firmware, software and adjustments seems to be the modern way to guarantee optimum - yet in the end, it's a personal choice to make something better (as in, different, not better).

Vertec being on revision 5 means one of two things. Their earlier ones were poor (I don't think they were) and the later ones are wonderful (but probably just flavour of the month different)

You carry on with your system tech conversations it will keep you happy. Those tunings you are now unhappy with, are because you like constant updates. Clearly you can hear the difference and like it. Which means your system was poorer before - when you also liked it? Don't confuse the core elements of this topic with your mega tweaking addiction. It's perfectly fine for top end guys like you to pursue excellence if it's dangled before you. That's why you get paid big bucks and are well respected in the industry. The trouble is we also have people with some boxes in a small pile or on a stick who want to make them better. Bi-amping a Peavey with a switch and a soldering iron is a great thing to try to give you more scope for adjusting what comes out to the best you can get it. This is great experimentation. Oddly, very like your top end systems, the results are small tweaks really, not huge differences. The constant twiddling on a budget product just isn't going to happen. On a system where a new driver costs the same as a new PA, tweaks are somewhat more, er, modest in success.

I've no idea why you moved from bi-amping a Peavey through VRX to Vertec. What are we talking five grand a box? You also muddied the waters with the mention of the tunings for the 932LA - this kind of tuning is really just a curve adjustment, and I suspect just a way to tweak further the response when you've used the lo vs hi adjustments as you add more to the curve. My experience is that really bi-amping these boxes is a bit pointless because in normal mode the -3 or +3 switches balance the distant sound more simply and predictably than doing it with two amp lo-hi balance. Each to his own of course.
 
I had a couple of great Peavey full range cabs in the late 80's together with a couple of Peavey bins. The bass bins were 15s... the full range were 15s with an 8 and a bullet horn which were brilliant. The full range had passive X over so I ran the system with a Peavey early DECA digital 700W power amp into a DOD stereo active Electronic X over, splitting the signal at about 120 Hz. The 15s in the full range cabs handled the mid range really well and never experienced any issues using the active and passive crossovers in tandem with each other and the DECA amp had outputs to split the frequencies via the DOD so no need for seperate power amps for each set of speakers. 700W doesnt sound like much but that amp was so efficient, it really kicked! 😉👍
 
Wow! Robby A, rarely have I seen you 'lay into' a poster like that! I shall keep well out of the fray since my knowledge and experience on the subject is practically zilch.

The concept of "bi-amplification" as I recall it grew initially from the shortcomings of early power amplifiers? Certainly back when valves were all you had, a 100W amp was heavy, expensive chunk. The coming of the Silicon transistor eased things a bit but you still needed a pretty massive power traff.

Splitting the spectrum gave the amps an easier time (less IM distrotion) and allowed a ;lower power amp for treble. For the same total amp power you got a greater SPL. The coming of SMPSUs and much cheaper 'watts' means bi amping has maybe lost some of its advantages ?

Bi and tri amping has of course found its true home in studio monitors. The design requirements for PAs are eased considerably when Joe Public can't connect dodgy loads!

Dave.
 
I have a friend - he used to work for me, at my level and now is a system tech on international touring for big name bands. The PA manufacturers constantly fiddle and tweak and send him new files to 'improve' the sound. He installed one ahead of a show in Germany and was very happy. When the next version arrived, he put it in and realised he had mistakenly put in last time an elderly one, and hadn't noticed. I suspect strongly that large format sound systems are so dependent on the spaces they are in that the concept of 'quality' is considerably different. If you have spent vast sums of money on integrated and coordinated systems, then not putting in what the manufactuers sends you is a bit silly. They have the test gear and systems to prove the improvement. Nobody can argue with that. However, I remain uncertain that these 'improvements' are audible. After all, when your ears hear output from multiple sources, you are always compromised. Quantative measurements can be made from simple systems where everything is controlled. With big systems in big spaces, so much time is spent tweaking to try to give as many seats as possible the same sound. I work mainly in big theatres - opera houses, that kind of thing and I quietly grin watching the sound designers wandering all over, tweaking this, tweaking that and then they go away, leaving it in the hands of the show operators. For certain shows nowadays we do a version for people who have specific needs. We call them relaxed performances. So there will be folk with varying degrees of autism, or hearing or sight issues. My role is to watch as much as I can and keep the shows exactly as the Director wanted, putting a stop to slide and shortcuts. As a result I have seen the same production from almost every place, and the sound fares worse than lighting. So I will instruct the sound op to reduce the subs in certain locations where it would be too much, perhaps reduce the top end crispness in others. I'll remove pyrotechnics and cut strobes - all for one, safe, gentle performance for people who cannot take the usual loud, bright, exciteing and sometimes deliberately shocking stuff.

Often, what I do is not at all what the various designers wanted, but for just one show, this is how it is. Many people report they did not notice the changes.

we started this topic with discussion on if it was worth bi-amping smaller boxes that have passive crossovers. I've done this myself and come to the conclusion, it rarely works unless the speakers are designed to allow this - then it does work. Some manufacturers use their own amps to drive their own speakers which is probably the best integration to ensure what comes out is what was intended to come out.

Does anybody remember those Philips motional feedback speaker systems where the speakers sent back information on what they actually did to the amp, which then modified the output to creater a closer replication of the waveform? That concept didn't last very long.

I'm just an old sceptic at heart. Few 'improvements' really jump out anymore. They tell you they're better and people believe them. On this forum, so many times, we have had people suggest products that really break the rules and work. People who have used a mic in a very unusual way, through need, and discovered it really works. Then we have others who dismiss products based on internet gossip and rumour.
Grump over - sorry.
 
I have a friend - he used to work for me, at my level and now is a system tech on international touring for big name bands. The PA manufacturers constantly fiddle and tweak and send him new files to 'improve' the sound. He installed one ahead of a show in Germany and was very happy. When the next version arrived, he put it in and realised he had mistakenly put in last time an elderly one, and hadn't noticed. I suspect strongly that large format sound systems are so dependent on the spaces they are in that the concept of 'quality' is considerably different. If you have spent vast sums of money on integrated and coordinated systems, then not putting in what the manufactuers sends you is a bit silly. They have the test gear and systems to prove the improvement. Nobody can argue with that. However, I remain uncertain that these 'improvements' are audible. After all, when your ears hear output from multiple sources, you are always compromised. Quantative measurements can be made from simple systems where everything is controlled. With big systems in big spaces, so much time is spent tweaking to try to give as many seats as possible the same sound. I work mainly in big theatres - opera houses, that kind of thing and I quietly grin watching the sound designers wandering all over, tweaking this, tweaking that and then they go away, leaving it in the hands of the show operators. For certain shows nowadays we do a version for people who have specific needs. We call them relaxed performances. So there will be folk with varying degrees of autism, or hearing or sight issues. My role is to watch as much as I can and keep the shows exactly as the Director wanted, putting a stop to slide and shortcuts. As a result I have seen the same production from almost every place, and the sound fares worse than lighting. So I will instruct the sound op to reduce the subs in certain locations where it would be too much, perhaps reduce the top end crispness in others. I'll remove pyrotechnics and cut strobes - all for one, safe, gentle performance for people who cannot take the usual loud, bright, exciteing and sometimes deliberately shocking stuff.

Often, what I do is not at all what the various designers wanted, but for just one show, this is how it is. Many people report they did not notice the changes.

we started this topic with discussion on if it was worth bi-amping smaller boxes that have passive crossovers. I've done this myself and come to the conclusion, it rarely works unless the speakers are designed to allow this - then it does work. Some manufacturers use their own amps to drive their own speakers which is probably the best integration to ensure what comes out is what was intended to come out.

Does anybody remember those Philips motional feedback speaker systems where the speakers sent back information on what they actually did to the amp, which then modified the output to creater a closer replication of the waveform? That concept didn't last very long.

I'm just an old sceptic at heart. Few 'improvements' really jump out anymore. They tell you they're better and people believe them. On this forum, so many times, we have had people suggest products that really break the rules and work. People who have used a mic in a very unusual way, through need, and discovered it really works. Then we have others who dismiss products based on internet gossip and rumour.
Grump over - sorry.
Rob, sorry if this sounds like a stupid and inane question... but.

I inherited a nice DOD stereo rackmount active crossover from the break up of a band as part of the share out of gear 27 years ago...I did not want the useless inefficient wardrobe size bass bins of the time 😅 I screwed it into my rack but cant think of any practical use it could have in a home studio application, so it is nice but seems redundant.
Any ideas for use? I suppose I could get sub woofer to link to my studio wall monitors but then I would need the omnidirectional sub powered and with crossover outputs for the top monitor speakers and probably get evicted by the neighbours 😅
Thanks Rob 😉👍
 
I have a friend - he used to work for me, at my level and now is a system tech on international touring for big name bands. The PA manufacturers constantly fiddle and tweak and send him new files to 'improve' the sound. He installed one ahead of a show in Germany and was very happy. When the next version arrived, he put it in and realised he had mistakenly put in last time an elderly one, and hadn't noticed. I suspect strongly that large format sound systems are so dependent on the spaces they are in that the concept of 'quality' is considerably different. If you have spent vast sums of money on integrated and coordinated systems, then not putting in what the manufactuers sends you is a bit silly. They have the test gear and systems to prove the improvement. Nobody can argue with that. However, I remain uncertain that these 'improvements' are audible. After all, when your ears hear output from multiple sources, you are always compromised. Quantative measurements can be made from simple systems where everything is controlled. With big systems in big spaces, so much time is spent tweaking to try to give as many seats as possible the same sound. I work mainly in big theatres - opera houses, that kind of thing and I quietly grin watching the sound designers wandering all over, tweaking this, tweaking that and then they go away, leaving it in the hands of the show operators. For certain shows nowadays we do a version for people who have specific needs. We call them relaxed performances. So there will be folk with varying degrees of autism, or hearing or sight issues. My role is to watch as much as I can and keep the shows exactly as the Director wanted, putting a stop to slide and shortcuts. As a result I have seen the same production from almost every place, and the sound fares worse than lighting. So I will instruct the sound op to reduce the subs in certain locations where it would be too much, perhaps reduce the top end crispness in others. I'll remove pyrotechnics and cut strobes - all for one, safe, gentle performance for people who cannot take the usual loud, bright, exciteing and sometimes deliberately shocking stuff.

Often, what I do is not at all what the various designers wanted, but for just one show, this is how it is. Many people report they did not notice the changes.

we started this topic with discussion on if it was worth bi-amping smaller boxes that have passive crossovers. I've done this myself and come to the conclusion, it rarely works unless the speakers are designed to allow this - then it does work. Some manufacturers use their own amps to drive their own speakers which is probably the best integration to ensure what comes out is what was intended to come out.

Does anybody remember those Philips motional feedback speaker systems where the speakers sent back information on what they actually did to the amp, which then modified the output to creater a closer replication of the waveform? That concept didn't last very long.

I'm just an old sceptic at heart. Few 'improvements' really jump out anymore. They tell you they're better and people believe them. On this forum, so many times, we have had people suggest products that really break the rules and work. People who have used a mic in a very unusual way, through need, and discovered it really works. Then we have others who dismiss products based on internet gossip and rumour.
Grump over - sorry.
Coming back to the active v passive debate, I would just like to add.... and this is MVHO....
I am not a live engineer, just a musician.
From my limited experience I think full range cabs can work ok in a small venue with a passive x-over but... they need bass bins with an active upwards of 200Hz. The passive is ok for the higher frequencies to split between a 12 and an 8 and a bullit but for the lower range I think you really need a dedicated active and the right speakers.

Just MVHO 😉👍
 
I screwed it into my rack but cant think of any practical use it could have in a home studio application, so it is nice but seems redundant.
Any ideas for use? I suppose I could get sub woofer to link to my studio wall monitors but then I would need the omnidirectional sub powered and with cr
In a jam, need a subwoofer. Get a 12volt wall adapter . Bring your car stereo subwoofer inside. Hook it up. Use the 12 volt adapter to power the box. Works amazing if you got a 8-12" enclosure in your trunk.. Mine is on quick disconnects.
 
Back
Top