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
amfibius OP
282 posts
 
Thank you everyone for your responses. I have spent the past few hours reading reviews and thinking about it. I received this reply via email:

"A valve preamp can be the heart and soul of a good music system but sometimes an active crossover can kill the preamp's musicality. Personally, I would put valve with valve - it may be a little noisier but I would expect the end result to be more satisfying - I had a brief look at your system.... all-valve mid/top with solid-state bass has long been my preferred configuration."

What do you guys think of that? I have a valve pre, and a valve power, and a SS power amp. Would a valve x-over integrate better than the SS x-over?
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.
More to discover