Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
70.187.207.166
In Reply to: SS Vs.Tube Xover posted by rufusen on November 26, 2006 at 15:44:28:
I have the Marchand XM-26 and XM-9. My XM-9 uses upgraded OP2134 op amps instead of the stock op amps. I am using Sovtek 12ax7s in the XM-26.Overall, I would say the XM-26 sounds very slightly rolled off to me in comparison to the XM-9 but otherwise I think the 2 units sound similar.
The XM-44 and XM-126 can be configured as 3 way crossovers and both share similar architecture with the XM-26 whereas the XM-9 is a somewhat simpler design. One thing I don't like about the XM-26 is that it picks up more noise than the XM-9, probably due to its high (1 Megohm) input impedance.
As far as single ended active crossovers are concerned, I don't think you can go wrong with either the XM-44 or XM-126. You can order the proper filter types from Phil Marchand, he is very willing to work with customers.
I use my crossovers with MG-IIIas. When I owned Typmani 1Ds years ago, I wished I had an active crossover like the XM-44/Xm-126 to use back then! Good luck!
Follow Ups:
Many Thanks for your comments.
I'm undecided between this two units because I'm going to have a vintage all SS setup to drive the glorious Tympani and my doubts are if I'll need a tube unit somewhere in the chain or go for a 100% SS setup.
From what you say the tube xover is not going to add a different signature from the SS xover it is correct?
Thanks again.
Alex.
Hi Alex:Well, IMHO the signatures are similar but YMMV!! Some folks may hear a lot more of a difference than I between these 2 units. And, to tell you the truth, sometimes I prefer the XM-26 and sometimes I prefer the XM-9, it depends on the source material!!
I had Tympani 1Ds back in the 1970s and I used big (ARC) solid state amps to drive them. I also had Tympani IVas in the 1980s, again using big solid state (Spectral) amps. I passively biamped the T-IVas but never tried biamping with the T-1Ds.
I don't think using the XM-26 would "spoil" your SS amp chain though. Given the bass slam and impact you can get out of Tymps, I would always lean toward using SS amps for the bass panels. The mid/highs might sound fine with either tube or SS amps. You would have to experiment with the level settings if you use different amps for bass and mid/high panels though!! And, you will have to order the XM-44/XM-126 filter boards from Marchand with the proper slopes and crossover frequencies for the T-1D-- I don't remember what these were but they were listed in the owners manual I believe.
Good luck, I'd love to hear the T-1Ds again!! In fact I toyed with buying another pair before I settled on the MG-IIIa-- space considerations were the big reason as usual!
Hi kman9,Interested to hear you have both the Marchand XM-26 and XM-9. :-)
I've perused the Marchand site but I don't know their products in detail ... have you merely replaced the external XO with an active or are you running your IIIAs 3-way active?
(I run my IIIAs 3-way active with Rod Elliott's opamp-based actives (www.sound.au.com.) )
If you are currently only running 2-way active and still using the internal passive mid LP/ribbon HP crossover ... why don't you go 3-way active by using both Marchands simultaneously? (I believe Phil supplies different XO modules quite cheaply?)
If the XM9 is a "simpler" architecture, maybe it only allows symmetric LP/HP slopes ... in which case, use this for the mid LP/ribbon HP crossover (as these are both 12dB) and use the XM26 for the "external" bass LP/mid HP crossover (as this is 18dB bass LP/12dB mid HP)?
Of course, you might need to buy a third amp but this doesn't have to be a very powerful one, just for the ribbons! :-))
Getting rid of all them passive components is a biiig step up, IMO!! :-))
Regards,
Hi Andy:I am using the Maggies 2 way active and I use a sub too. Instead of junking the XM-9 and XM-26 and replacing them with an XM-44, I am following the advice of Phil Marchand and feeding the low pass output of the XM-26 into the XM-9 to split between the Maggie bass panel (hi pass out of XM-9) and sub (low pass out of XM-9).
I am tinkering with the notion of doing 3 way active as you suggest but right now there are too many things going on in my life to take on modifying the panels! It seems like I just got them back from Magnepan after refurbing!!
You are right, the XM-9 supports only symmetric slopes whereas the 26, 126 and 44 can support either assymmetric or symmetric.
I use the reissue Mac MC-275IV for the mid and ribbons and a larger Mac solid state amp for the bass panel. Sounds pretty good.
I have the age old problem of "fiddling" with the subs, their placement, crossover frequency, and such. Right now I have gone back to using the subs to augment the Maggies (no high pass) with a 50 Hz crossover, 24 dB/octave L-R, low pass only. There seems to be no end to the number of combinations one can try, it keeps me off the streets......!!
Hi kman,Should be very niice! :-))
Yes, yours sounds like a good XO setup. How have you setup the XM-26 ... 18dB on the bass and 12dB on the mids/ribbons?
And with the XM-9, you're currently running sub LP @ 50Hz, with a 24dB slope ... and running the bass panels full range? If your alternative with the XM-9 is to have 24dB HP @ 50 Hz for the bass panels, I'm not surprised running them full range sounds better. But I have a feeling (because I'm researching subs for my IIIAs right now! :-)) ) that rolling off the bass panels with a 12dB slope at about 70Hz would probably be a good thing.
There is another combo you could try with your XM-9 and XM-26. Given the XM-9 only supports symmetric slopes ... use it for the external bass/mid XO (ie. this changes the bass LP slope from 18dB to 12dB). The III had a 12dB bass LP slope and a friend of mine with IIIAs converted his to 12dB ... and it sounds pretty damn good! :-))
You should use bass LP 12dB @ 290Hz and mid/ribbon HP at 500Hz.
Then use the XM-26 for the sub/bass panel XO ... 24dB @ 50 or 60Hz for the sub LP and a 12dB slope for the bass HP @ 70 or 80Hz.
Just a suggestion! :-))
Regards,
Hi Andy:Yes, I have the XM-26 set up as 18 dB/octave on the bass and 12 dB/octave for the mid/ribbons. Phil Marchand wanted to know the filter characteristic when I ordered these boards for the XM-26 and I said Butterworth-- Magenepan does not really say this in their literature, though.
I have been torn over if and how to hi pass filter the bass panels. Recently, I have gone back to driving the MG-IIIa full range to experiment with running the MC275IV balanced because I have a long cable run between amp and preamp (Mac C41). I use a balanced output from the C41 for the Maggies and an unbalanced output for the XM-9 and then into the sub amp. I have VMPS passive subs so I use another stereo amp with them.
I like to go back to driving the Maggies full range every once in a while to compare how they sound versus biamping. Overall, though, I like the sound of the MG-III biamped and will go back. I have yet to fully evaluate the 340 Hz symmetric L-R crossover suggested by another MUG member too!!
Thanks for your suggestions on crossovers; in fact, I have 50 Hz and 100Hz L-R boards for the XM-26 in addition to the 18/12 Butterworth boards. I also have 50, 70, 85, and 100 Hz L-R plug-ins for the XM-9. I'd have to order to some additional plug-ins for the XM-9 to run it 12 dB/octave at 290/500Hz as you suggest. Sounds interesting though!
I wonder why Magnepan went from 12 to 18 dB/octave on the bass LP slope in the MG-IIIa??
Hi Keith,Why did Magnepan go from 12db to 18 dB/octave on the bass LP slope, from the MG-III to the MG-IIIa ... who knows!!?? :-))
I guess they thought it sounded better but whether it really does or not is anyone's guess!! Well - anyone with a Marchand XO like you, that is! If you get the additional plug-ins from Phil you can tell us!
Regards,
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: