Jump to content

Two way active crossover to drive Maggie’s


Recommended Posts

Price Range: Up to $1200
Item Condition: Good

Looking for a Marchand two or three way active crossover to get the most out of my Magnepan’s, or the equivalent please.  Thank you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You could also use a miniDSP 2x4HD, if all you want is a 2-way active XO.

 

Or the Rod Elliott P09 XO board, if you are DIY-inclined (I used them with my 3-way Maggies for 25 years!).

 

Which Maggies do you have, btw?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Andy, thanks for this. I have a pair of LRS & rebuilding a pair of 1.6’s. I’m looking at adding subs To them and from what I can find, an active crossover is the best way to go for removing sub levels from Maggie’s before sending the bass signal to the subs. I think that is the way as I understand it?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you very much. 🙏.  John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ratfink903 said:

Good afternoon Andy, thanks for this. I have a pair of LRS & rebuilding a pair of 1.6’s. I’m looking at adding subs To them and from what I can find, an active crossover is the best way to go for removing sub levels from Maggie’s before sending the bass signal to the subs. I think that is the way as I understand it?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you very much. 🙏.  John

 

Hi John,

 

OK ... rebuilding some 1.6s.  Do you have their XO diagram?  (I can give it to you, if you don't - the factory sent it to me in the mid 90s.  I can also give you some slightly "tweaked" XO values which smooth out their FR.  :smile: )

 

Not sure whether you want some active XOs to replace the internal Maggie XOs ... or simply add the subs; if the former, you need 3-way active - if the latter, 2-way.

 

Yes - particularly with Maggies ... it is better to limit the LFs going to the bass panel (as lower frequs means more excursion of the mylar away from the panel magnets ... which means less magnetic field ... which means less bass control.

 

The Marchand gear is great - but not cheap!  :sad:  A great advantage of their XOs is (if you buy the right model) the exchangeable filter modules ... which enable you to easily experiment with different high-pass & low-pass filter combinations.

 

A miniDSP unit enables you to do this with software - and also offers EQ to tame room modes plus delay ... to make sure the subs are correctly time-aligned with the Maggies.

 

BTW, are you aware of this resource on the Planar Asylum?

 

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/tweaks/index.html

 

(Here, you can find an article on III/IIIA rebuilding that I wrote in the late 90s.)

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ratfink903 said:

Good afternoon Andy, thanks for this. I have a pair of LRS & rebuilding a pair of 1.6’s. I’m looking at adding subs To them and from what I can find, an active crossover is the best way to go for removing sub levels from Maggie’s before sending the bass signal to the subs. I think that is the way as I understand it?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you very much. 🙏.  John

 

Please read this. It explains the pros and cons of different bass management strategies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Andy, thank you very much, I would really appreciate the schematics for th3 XO, I am undecided as yet whether to go active or rebuild to spec/ improved as I haven't actually heard a pair of these in the flesh. If there is a clear advantage going one way or the other then obviously I’d prefer to go down that path and save the time and money in the long run. My priority at the moment is the LRS, as we are currently renovating to sell in October so the majority of my system is in storage until the move is completed. I’m just trying to get as much information as possible between now and then so when I am good to go we can hit the ground running! Well let the serious confusion begin!

with the amount of information out there that the awesome members of this community have, it is going to take a bit of Time to sift through it and do it properly the first time. Mind you I’m always running to a budget and this is no exception. 
my priority at the moment is getting the best out of what I am currently listening to which is the LRS. Without modifying this bad boy- if I don’t have to… I’d probably lean toward something- not the cheapest but best bang for your buck and possibly something that I could use elsewhere. Question, would you put Quad ESL57’s in the same category? Eventually I’d like to do something similar to a pair of these.  
thanks again 🙏🙏🙏🙏.    John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Ratfink903 said:

Andy, thank you very much, I would really appreciate the schematics for the XO, I am undecided as yet whether to go active or rebuild to spec/ improved as I haven't actually heard a pair of these in the flesh. If there is a clear advantage going one way or the other then obviously I’d prefer to go down that path and save the time and money in the long run. My priority at the moment is the LRS, as we are currently renovating to sell in October so the majority of my system is in storage until the move is completed. I’m just trying to get as much information as possible between now and then so when I am good to go we can hit the ground running! Well let the serious confusion begin!

 

OK, you need to PM me your email address, so I can send you the 1.6 XO.

 

As regards:

  • going active with these
  • or rebuild / improve the passive XO

... that needs serious consideration.  :smile:

 

My view is that active is better - but this means you:

a. need to use an active XO

b. need to remove/bypass the passive XO, and

c. need to buy a second power amp

 

... and you end up with a more complicated system.

 

11 hours ago, Ratfink903 said:

my priority at the moment is getting the best out of what I am currently listening to - which is the LRS. Without modifying this bad boy - if I don’t have to… I’d probably lean toward something- not the cheapest but best bang for your buck and possibly something that I could use elsewhere.

 

The LRS seems to be a great spkr - so:

a. it's probably not worth modifying, so

b. the best upgrade you can do is buy a good amp - by which I mean something that:

  • probably delivers at least 150w into 8 ohms
  • and can 'double down' (or nearly so) into 4 ohms.

 

11 hours ago, Ratfink903 said:

Question, would you put Quad ESL57’s in the same category? Eventually I’d like to do something similar to a pair of these. 

 

I would suspect Quad 57s:

  • do not go as high as LRSs
  • nor go lower than LRSs
  • and can't be driven actively.

 

So they are not in the same category.

 

Edited by andyr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was me, and I could, I would restore/upgrade/leave all 3 speakers to their standard configuration and use a software driven solution to limit the bass to the panels and funnel low freqs to sub(s).

 

You would need a software driven solution as all 3 speakers would need something different as far as parameters and settings are concerned.

 

I used to have MG3.6R's actively bi-amped plus subs, but considering the extra power amp, cables and complexity, I am not convinced that it was worth the effort.  These days I use Maggies in their standard state (with passive XO) with a suitable power amp.  The DEQX adds sub integration, speaker calibration,  EQ, pre-amp function etc.

But of course this suits me as I am completely disinterested/unknowledgeable as far as electronics goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top