2. amps-preamps
  3. 154746-139155

Is Parasound on to something? Or, How important is crossover management in preamps?

How important is crossover management in mid-fi receiver?

I auditioned Parasound separates yesterday — P6 and A23+ and the dealer emphasized how useful it would be to be able to control the crossover *both* for the subwoofer (I have a Rel 328) and the bookshelves (TBD, but I'm looking at Dynaudios and Salk WOW1's). Not many preamps have this, and I'm wondering how important it is. I'm also quite interested in PS Audio's separates (Stellar Gaincell + S300) but they do not have these, nor do they have tone controls.

So how valuable is Parasound's controls? What is the significance (positive or negative) control over the crossover — especially of the *main* speakers themselves? The positive, I read, is that it (a) allows mains to do a more precise job by relieving them of the burden of the bottom end, and (b) it increase the efficacy of the power amp in driving the mains. Is there a negative? Is there something "improper" about limiting the demands on mains, especially given their designed frequency range?

As you can see, the answer to this question helps determine whether Parasound has a major value-adding feature in these crossover controls.

Obviously, at the end of the day, auditioning pre's and poweramps (or integrateds) is crucial, as is match to speakers, etc. But if this feature is very important for fitting sub and mains together — and fitting speakers to room environments — then it will help me weigh the Parasound or any other preamp with this feature.

P.S. To those who keep seeing my newbie questions, I hope they're not irksome. I'm posting so often because I'm researching purchases for a whole system, of some cost, and so I'm really digging into these questions about all aspects. And I'm having a blast.
hilde45

Showing 4 responses by cal3713

cal3713's avatar
cal3713
1,421 posts
 
Someone has to control the crossover point.  As you pointed out above, it can be convenient to have the option in a preamp, but it's also more circuitry that could be done better with a separate component or within the speaker itself.  I don't see any sense in which it is wrong, and certainly there are some situations/gear in which it could sound better than not using it.  If not, why would they ever have put in the feature. 

Hell, if you really want to control the crossover you can put a Pass Labs XVR1 after your preamp, buy the gear to biamp/triamp and then pull all the inductors/caps/resistors out of your speaker and connect your amps directly to the drivers.  That'd probably sound better once you find all the correct crossover values and levels, but it would potentially double the cost of your system and you'd have to spend many many hours working with the XVR settings.  A first order crossover?  Second?  Fourth?  How many poles do you want in your LP filter?  Plenty of people do that, but they're mostly over on DIYAudio, not here on Agon.  
cal3713's avatar
cal3713
1,421 posts
 
I don't think PSA's argument is specious at all.  When you change the crossover point, you really are arguing with the speaker designer.  Not that the Parasound feature is likely to be used for anything other than sub integration.  It's also a rare feature, so I don't think PSA was being defensive at all.  Most subs are active and come with a built in crossover that allows you to integrate with your main speakers, so sending them a full signal is normal and expected.  The passive ones expect you to pair them with a subwoofer amplifier that also has gain and crossover controls, also expecting a full range signal.  In both of those cases skipping that circuitry (which is probably coming from a $200 plate amp) and relying on the Parasound probably will improve the crossover quality.
cal3713's avatar
cal3713
1,421 posts
 
@hilde45 & @lukaszwk  Agreed that people with an axe to grind hurt the forums... disagreed that this makes the place worthless.  I've learned so much here.  If you hang out enough you can get a sense of who to trust... and learn a lot in the process.  

As a shortcut judgment...  always believe @almarg .  And if you click on a username you can go look at their last X posts and see what you think about their recent contributions.  
cal3713's avatar
cal3713
1,421 posts
 
Thanks Al, I appreciate it.

To the OP, I'd also just like to note that Douglas is very right... given that your sub already has a crossover, you are completely fine without one. The Salk will play just like it was intended/designed without removing low frequencies and the sub crossover will allow you to integrate the two just as the sub was intended/designed to be used.

Again, as Douglas started, perhaps you'll be able to squeeze out a tiny bit more performance with a crossover, but honestly, I wouldn't worry about it at this stage. It might be fun to play with, or the process might drive you insane, but until you're thinking about pulling crossover components or building your own speakers, this is almost entirely academic.  I do still think (hope) the discussion is valuable and educational for you and future readers learning about these issues themselves...
More to discover