Because the Behringer is a complex device with numerous functions, its user’s manual is extensive, and can be somewhat daunting. For those owners who do not have the time, patience, or inclination to read it, there is a single page in Roger’s speakers’ manual that gives simple, quick, and easy instructions that make it a snap to connect the crossover and make adjustments.
This seems like a good spot for a slight digression on active crossovers. I should first point out that the benefits of active crossovers apply to any speaker with a woofer, not just electrostatic hybrid models. Woofers are by necessity large, with high mass. One of the main factors influencing their transient response is not their ability to start but rather, their ability to stop. Imagine a musical signal with two transients, separated by a very short interval. In response to the first transient the woofer begins to move but as it moves back it overshoots its mark due to inertia, and is therefore unable to respond to the second transient. Accordingly, it is important to prevent — or at least, minimize — the overshoot. Fortunately, there is a straightforward way to do so.
As the woofer moves it generates an electrical signal, termed “back EMF,” which as its name implies, is directed back toward the amplifier. The amplifier resists the back EMF, and thus serves as a “brake” for the woofer. “Damping factor” is a measure of an amplifier’s ability to provide this braking function, and thus its ability to control the woofer. Damping factor is a function of an amp’s output impedance, which explains why solid state amps typically provide better bass control than do tube amps: In most cases, solid state amps have lower output impedance — and thus higher damping factors — than do most tube amps.
Returning to the benefits of active crossovers: A typical solid state amplifier might have a damping factor of between 50 and 100. This is very high and in principle, would provide excellent control of the woofer. But most speakers have a passive cross-over situated between the amplifier and the woofer so, as Hamlet said, there’s the rub. The speaker’s back EMF does not “see” the amplifier but rather, it sees the crossover. An unfortunate consequence of this arrangement is that the damping factor is reduced, usually dramatically. Instead of the amp’s high damping factor, the woofer sees a damping factor as low as only 2 or 3! An excellent discussion of this topic may be found here: http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm. So the amplifier’s very high damping factor is metaphorically cut off at the knees. As a result the woofer is not properly controlled, and we end up with sloppy bass.
The obvious solution to this dilemma is to get the crossover out of the way. One does this by using an active crossover which inserts in the signal chain before the amplifier, rather than after it. In this situation, when the woofer “looks back” it sees the amplifier and its high damping factor, rather than the lower damping factor of a passive crossover. An added benefit of an active crossover is that it provides, at a minimum, the ability to optimize the bass volume for the particular room and tastes of the listener. Though in fairness, a speaker with a passive crossover can be designed so as to provide this as well, though it is less common than with active crossovers.
Spreading the Word — On Dispersion
As noted earlier, the Model 10’s use a flat electrostat panel. By their nature such panels “beam,” and this has been the subject of considerable controversy. Studies by Floyd Toole and Sean Olive of Harmon have shown listener’s preference for speakers with an even power response, i.e., an off-axis response which is similar in frequency response to the on-axis response. But as Roger pointed out to me in one of our many discussions, such studies did not compare speakers with a wide dispersion and even power spectrum, with speakers with narrow dispersion. A sad fact about which many, if not most audiophiles live in denial, is that the room is one of the most important determinants of the sound that reaches our ear. I can’t begin to count the number of times a fellow audiophile has told me how great his DAC, or speakers, or preamp, or amp, is, but then explains that I can’t hear this greatness because of his room. Nor can I count the number of audiophiles who will spend many thousands of dollars on new interconnects, power cords, and even, I kid you not, wall sockets, but will not so much as add some absorption to the first reflection points. Anyone who doubts the contribution of the room need only listen to a pair of headphones. Even modestly priced models will provide greater clarity than most audiophiles will ever hear from their mega-buck systems, and the reason for this is simple: Headphones take the room out of the equation.
But for a variety of legitimate reasons, many of us prefer to not listen to headphones, or at least, not exclusively so. So how can we get around the negative influence of a listening room? If we’re fortunate, we can have a well-designed and well-treated room. But such rooms are expensive and even if money were no object, for most it is simply not possible for reasons of domestic tranquility. So how about if instead, we use speakers that allow us to hear far more of the direct sound, and far less of the indirect, i.e., room-induced sound? Enter the Sanders Sound Model 10 speakers. Interested readers are directed to Roger’s “Dispersion White Paper” on his website.
Because the Model 10’s have narrow dispersion, the energy reaching the listener from the walls is greatly attenuated compared to that reaching the listener directly. A legitimate question, and in fact one I myself asked, relates to the speakers being dipoles: Since as much energy fires out the back — and thus towards the walls — as out the front, wouldn’t this negate the benefits of the narrow dispersion? The explanation lies in the fact that for optimum performance, the Sounders Sound speakers must be aimed directly at the listener. Because of this, the rear wave hits the rear or side wall at a sharp angle, from which it is directed at an equivalent angle toward another wall, and so on. By the time the sound reaches the listener’s ears it is greatly attenuated, and temporally delayed as compared to the direct sound. Under such circumstances our ear/brain can and does distinguish the direct and reflected sounds as separate and distinct, rather than smearing them as occurs if the reflected sound arrives soon after the direct, as occurs with wide dispersion speakers.
- ← Previous page
- (Page 3 of 6)
- Next page →
I have owned the 10c speakers for a couple of years and continue to enjoy them. I obtained a replacement audio output board for the dcx 2496 that simplifies the circuit, uses better opamps, and also uses a remote control to vary gain…it can be used as a system volume control. A board is also available to replace the digital input / clock circuit. All I can tell you is that I wish Roger would offer this as part of his 10c system, it elevates the transparency, removes grundge, and just makes the speakers better. Contact Ward Maas at Pilghamaudio.com for more info.
Roger does not believe op amps make a difference (he used very inexpensive ones in the Innersound crossover amp, and told a friend of mine who is an op amp guru that “they all sound the same”). I replaced five of the op amps at my friends advice and it made a TREMENDOUS difference. I’m very much a fan of science and like much about objectiveness, but while I was once a “doubter” of some of the tweak nature of high end audio, I’ve come to find over time that numerous things I used to mock I could hear differences in if I gave it a chance and a bit of an open mind. Yes, there is snake oil crap, but there are other things that I have noticed making an improvement (like cables, ha ha ha! Yeah, I used to be in the “all sound the same unless poorly designed” camp, and mocked the cable swapping crowd. Then I stopped mocking and started listening more….)
The op amps I was talking about above (that I replaced) are in the Innersound (now Sanders Sound) crossover amp, not a Behringer unit, just to clarify. Have heard the DCX2496 at shows in Roger’s room, but have not tried it yet in my system).
Thanks for both reviewing a great speaker and interviewing one of the great pioneers in high-end audio. I would like to listen to a pair of Model 10s with a DEQX HDP-4 instead of the Behringer. The DEQX would serve as digital crossover with very steep filters (maybe lowering the crossover point below 172Hz significantly), it would correct both speaker and room, and even seamlessly integrate a pair of subwoofers at any reasonable frequency. Let me just dream.
Glad someone in audio review tells it like it is WRT what live music actually sounds like. Having had subscription series to symphony orchestras and listened to more live jazz than most people, I can tell you that imaging is an pot of gold at the end of the audiophile rainbow. Now, that’s not to say that pinpoint imaging doesn’t have its own visceral enticements, but it’s not what real live music sounds like. So, perhaps we need to abandon the notion that audiophiles must pursue “the closest thing to live”. Maybe we should recognize different tastes and expectations for different audiophiles and leave it at that. Personally, I’ll spend my extra money on live music and more vinyl rather than more exotic gear.
Lots of active crossover options listed here (both analog and digital)
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/ActiveCrossover.htm
Has anyone tried a 48dB/oct analog crossover with the model 10s such as the Marchand XM44 and compared with the Behringer?
Chris B
48dB/oct is the standard setting. Roger crosses at 172hz at 48 on both sides.
vdorta
I am test driving a Deqx Premate at the moment, with my 10c s. I am told a HDP4 [ 3 way] has a tweeter x-over that does not go low enough, so you are throwing away a crossover. Save money and buy the 2 way Premate. I have yet to ponder that info. and purchase.
6 weeks later…I have bought the HDP4. For $500 more, you get better transparency and thus imaging. This must be the linear power supply. I saw inside both machines. Anyhow, I thought it no contest in the end. This is so far ahead of my Behringer set up of dcx2496, deq2496 and src2496. I am a happy chappy.
Oh yes…the included asynchronous usb input is truly excellent. I surpasses my Audio-Gd DI V3. I think it injects I2S directly into the digital receiver. I play [a] from a netbook via usb and JRiver,[b] Squeezebox Touch with EDO mod to usb from a SD card [c] cd from Oppo 95 [d] vinyl via SOTA/SME and AQVOX balanced phono stage.
Roger once told me that in order to get the crossover slope that is used in this instance with these speakers, it can only be done in the digital realm to get it low enough. The crossover point in the bass panel amp on my Innersound Eros III amp (his speaker company before Sanders sound, but it’s basically the same speaker), is 310 HZ, higher than what can be done with the DC2496. So that would rule out any analog crossover like the Marchand.
Do you have an active crossover amp, or one of the rare passive crossover Eros models? I have the crossover amp (actually, it’s an Innersound Kaya amp, better transformer and 330 watts at 8 ohms). I have a friend who is an op amp expert, and under his recommendation, I replaced five cheap op amps better (and much more expensive) ones and it made a notable improvement to the sound. I had thought about trying the DCX2496, but afraid the cheap nature of it might ruin the sound (plus I listen to tons of vinyl, have over 3000 lps, so do prefer the idea of not “digitizing” the signal). There are the replacement boards by Pilgham audio mentioned in the first post, so maybe I should pick up a DCX2496 just to try and see if the lower crossover point wins out over my “hotrodded” Innersound crossover amp. If not, I can return the unit. If it shows promise over my crossover amp, then try the upgraded boards mentioned. But….your mention of the Marchand intrigues me. The price is a bit steep (compared to the DCX2496), and I don’t know if Marchand has a return policy, but I do see they sell a board unit only of the crossover which of course is much cheaper. Hmmmm…wonder if it could be installed in my Innersound crossover amp?
I purchased both a Behringer DCX2496 and a Marchand XM44 to try with my Eros MKIII.5. Both tuned to 48dB/oct at 172Hz with the equalization as specified by Roger in his DCX setup manual. They both made the lower midrange much more transparent. There was a “hollow sounding” coloration with the stock crossover. However…. The Behringer obscures microdetail which the Innersound are known for. I preferred the stock crossover for its natural detailed sound despite the lower midrange coloration. Then came the Marchand XM44 with the same tuning as the DCX. The stock Marchand was better than the Behringer for sure but i still felt it was slightly “hifi” sounding. After lots of research, I ordered some dual OPA627 and DEXA discrete opamps from Partsconnexion. I put a pair of DEXA in the input section. I ended up using the OPA627s in the high pass section only since the stock opamps are a little punchier in the low pass. Bingo! This combinations sounds amazing! The lower midrange is seamless now, the bass dynamics and articulation much better, the microdetail is still there, and as an added bonus the high frequencies sound much more extended. Somehow the stock crossover was making the Eros sound muffled. These were always awesome speakers, and now sound even better.
I have the new 10Ds and I have a modded behringer done by Audiosmiles in the UK and it is truly amazing.