Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
69.65.66.188
In Reply to: RE: MMG MiniDSP and bi-amp Questions posted by neolith on February 24, 2012 at 18:32:30
Neo, I was wondering if we were talking about 2 different things. By asymmetric, I meant the original MMG xover with the mix of 1st/2nd order slopes. In this case, the current design would be symmetric for having 1st/1st.Perhaps the symmetry you refer to is with regard to another set of parameters? I believe you mean that the points for each driver are at the same frequency. This latter case is when one should expect to see no difference? I guess this is it. Which would explain why, by being asymmetric in this sense, I didn't see what I expected from a current design. Of course, MMGs don't want to use the same points because, hey, that would be boring and conventional. LOL!
So, both MMG xover designs share this kind of approach to frequency point asymmetry. In addition, the original design is further asymmetric in the slopes used.
All of which helps us have so much fun. :-))
Edits: 02/24/12Follow Ups:
It's my understanding that a symmetric crossover is like the typical L-R in that the fc of the LP and HP are the same as are the orders of the two filters. Anything else is asymmetric. Magnepan almost exclusivly uses asymmetric crossovers with the exception of the SMG(a)(series 1st order) and IIa (parallel 3rd order).
On the violin: "Heaven reward the man who first hit on the idea of sawing the innards of a cat with the tail of horse."
Edits: 02/25/12
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: