• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

JBL M2 Audiolense Digital Crossovers w/Subs

TitaniumTroy

Well-Known Member
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...m2-audiolense-digital-crossovers-w-subs.2369/

A guy in another forum has upgraded from my current speakers JBL 4367's to JBL M2's, with four subs, and is also using a DSP program called Audiolense. His goal was to overcome room nodes, to smooth out the bass response of his room.

Would like to get opinions on whether the OP's goals seem to have been met, and thoughts on his overall system approach? Also any thoughts on the passive 4367's vs the active M2's performance?

Thanks
 
I'll write more later, but you surely remember my tutorials on active crossovers and direct coupled amps. They are vastly superior to passive crossovers.
 
I didn't have time to read his entire post, so I don't know exactly what he is doing but in general I would only use digital crossover/DSP if the signal is already in the digital domain from a source component. Doing an analog to digital conversion, then doing the crossover/DSP, then doing a digital to analog conversion just for the sake of the digital processing is not great in my opinion. The loss in the conversions is greater than the gain to be had of the DSP. Active crossovers are always going to be better than passive ones though, however implemented.
 
As a rule, passive crossovers are inherently flawed for a number of reasons, including component tolerance, total decoupling from the amp, impedance variance caused by the driver aging over time, VC temperatures, and inductance fluctuation as it moves through the magnetic gap. The easiest of these to measure is the impedance response of a driver at various practical input voltages. Basically, things just get very messy as the passive crossover, basically a resonant filter, deals with the insanely varying load from the voice coil in motion. This is why some speakers seem to perform best at lower levels and others at higher listening levels. But, in almost every instance, properly designing an active system eliminates all those issues and results in clearer performance at all levels.
 
Thanks for the replies, yes I remember that digital crossovers and direct coupled amps are better.

Any thoughts on his efforts to smooth out the bass response of his room, with the Rythmik high range subwoofers up front, next to the JBL's and two subs behind him? Also how does his frequency response look for room and speakers on those charts he posted?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top