|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
|
|
Planar Speaker Asylum Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences. |
|
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!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - kman9@cox.net 16:46:40 11/26/06 (7)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - rufusen 11:40:23 11/27/06 (1)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - kman9@cox.net 23:51:49 11/27/06 (0)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - andyr 02:21:50 11/27/06 (4)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - kman9@cox.net 06:49:34 11/27/06 (3)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - andyr 12:04:02 11/27/06 (2)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - kman9@cox.net 23:35:15 11/27/06 (1)
- Re: SS Vs.Tube Xover - andyr 00:28:03 11/28/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
