2. tech-talk
  3. 1285797018

Help me choose an active crossover

I need an extremely high quality 3-way crossover for a high resolution system (see virtual system). The midrange/tweeter unit will be crossed over at 600Hz, and will use a Cary CAD-211AE amplifier. The woofer will be bandpassed between 80-600Hz, and will be powered by a solid state amp. Everything below 80Hz will be sent to stereo subs.

I have narrowed down my selection to two models in the Marchand catalog - the XM44, and the XM126.

The XM44 is a solid state crossover, which can be ordered with any frequency slope from 6dB/oct - 48dB/oct. You can specify optional daughter boards, including notch filters, baffle step compensation, delay sections, and Linkwitz transform. It is relatively affordable - specified for my needs it would cost $1350. Link is here: http://www.marchandelec.com/xm44.html

The XM126 is a valve based crossover, only available at a maximum 24dB/oct slope (although 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order slopes are available). The website does not list any optional daughter boards. My understanding is that the XM126 does not use any op-amps, and all the circuitry is discrete. Which probably accounts for its whopper of an asking price - $4700 (with attenuator, balanced option, and 3 way). Link is here: http://www.marchandelec.com/xm126.html

As far as I can see, the extra money for the XM126 buys you a better volume control (i.e. a stepped attenuator instead of a potentiometer), and it buys you discrete circuitry instead of op-amps.

Now, I do not have a philosophical objection to op-amps per se. I would not exclude a product simply because it uses op-amps, as long as the result is what I want - clean, dynamic, with a low noise floor and extremely high resolution. I do not care so much about the superior tonality of valves, because I have already achieved the tone I want elsewhere in the system.

Obviously I would prefer to spend less, but I am prepared to save for a better crossover if need be. I also wonder whether I should consider a crossover from Nelson Pass or Bryston instead of the Marchand. Your opinions?
amfibius
racamuti's avatar
racamuti
362 posts
 
Hi Amfibius, I'm going to through in one more option into the mix- "Space-Tech" its a small company in Canada that builds tube equipment and he has crossovers of various designs.
I have never heard his products but thought you might be interested. Good Luck! Tish
amfibius OP
282 posts
 
I have ordered the XM44 crossover. What tipped the balance is availability of various daughter boards, so this is a highly customizable solution. Phil Marchand himself thinks there is little difference between the two when it comes to resolution. Reviews elsewhere on the net say that the two crossovers run very close.
jallen
502 posts
 
The two Xovers do sound different, but they are both musical. More body with 126, less with the XM44, but the 44 is a slave to the signal. Both are winners. I chose the XM44.........Jallen
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
I have had several Marchand crossovers. They work fine, but I found that the replacement of modules to change frequency was a hassle. The Ashly crossover I use now employs the same 24 dB L/R circuit implemented with OP Amps as the Marchand units.
barrysandy
192 posts
 
I have been using active XOs for over 25 years & personally like the Pass Labs XVR-1. You can change gain, slopes, & Qs almost on the fly much easier than inserting new boards. I would have needed a lot of boards to make the comparisons I did with the Pass. It's very transparent.

The build quality is great even better than Bryston and certainly much better than any Pro digital piece. I don't know why you'd put a digital pro unit in a tube system but maybe that's just me.

I haven't tried the Marchand tube or ss units but they look very nice and i was seriously considering the XM126.

Pass's First Watt is soon to come out with an XO the B4 & 5 that would be less expensive, about $1500 and very good sounding I'm sure.
More to discover