Well I certainly don't like running compression drivers straight from the amp, they don't sound good. A series resistor, or a resistive divider works well. SOme folks like a transformer or autoformer better.
The DEQX aligns everything from measurement using the amp/speaker combination for each driver/crossover set, so anything added/subtracted by each amp is cancelled by the calibration. Yes I agree that theoretically A/D/A shouldn't sound as transparent but it really does to me. I have listened critically to Anthony Gallo's, Top end B&W Nautilus and Wilson Watt/Puppy's in great systems but I honestly think what I have now sounds more natural. Unbelievable I know but it has to be the box of tricks doing this. I have spent decades trying to find sound as good as the best live events and I'm closer now to that than I have ever heard. Of course I realise that live music isn't always regarded as HI-Fi but I want - punch in the stomach, almost zero audible distortion and a sense of the real musical performance in front of me. I now have that, albeit comparing to what I like in a mic'd, amp'd venue. Even so, a solo voice and especially an acoustic guitar or piano sounds just like the real thing in my room. Solo Drums have absolutely mind blowing attack, you hear the skins themselves being struck in a sort of electrostatic, transparent way. I can't find words to describe it but It's almost EXACTLY as in a great venue. That's why I swore when I first got the thing 'tuned in'
I have a HT system with 24 bit processing that sounds very good with music - it's a bit more neutral spectrally than my all tube two channel HQ audio system - since the Onkyo 9.1 processor does spectral room convolution and delay compensation individually for each channel at the listening position during setup, but it's really not in the same league as far as ultimate soundfield, smoothness, imaging and detail as the all tube system, although the HT system is quite good in each of these regards, IMO. In fact, I tend to be struck how in many ways the two very different systems with different sourcing sonically resemble each other overall.
Hey Pano, interesting comment.
I actually use BOTH a deqx AND a Behringer DEQ2496 on my larger system (the H3 refd in my website). I use the deqx outdoors to get the best "naked, near anechoic" speaker performance. But when used in a room, I find the DEQX "single point in space" tuning is too restrictive, so I then associate the DEQ to correct for the average hemispherical in-room response.
Also, the 64 slot memory function on the DEQ makes it easy to incorporate what i politely call CRC or "commercial recording compensation" with varying degrees of corrections. It's almost mandatory if you like rock and pop from the 70's and 80's (e.g. Allman Bros 1st album is almost unlistenable without some major re-eq compensation - too bad 'cause it's smokin good music!) Press memory button on the deq, select which CRC you want, and.... voila! it becomes listenable and.... very , very enjoyable!
In practice, like you, I have found it necessary to adopt the B&K listening curve... I'm of the opinion that this is due to the way most music is recorded, when I record using a near binaural set-up with a modded Jecklin type disc and calibration mics, the "flat" setting generated by the deqx seems better.
Another comment I might make about the active vs passive debate is that when we are going "active" we have very little "high def, high transparency" equipment to choose from. I often use a Behringer DCX2496 for my clients systems, but it needs some serious modding to sound transparent. And the DEQX has pretty good built-in dacs, but even so it can sound much better with outboard dacs such as the Antelope Zodiac Gold (to name just one I've tried and really liked)
IMO, if we as DIYers and semi-pros (or even pro-pros) had more transparent active crossovers with more options and flexibility, it would be no contest in favor of active.
As it is, when I listen to my FAST type open baffle full-range, driven with a series crossover (yes MiiB, I hear you nodding your head!), and using a single amp driven by a modded DEQ2496, the transparency of this system gives any top end system (including my own) some very serious competition.
I would love to see stuff like the Behringer dcx or Mini-DSP with truly transparent dacs or digital outs at similar prices to the dcx2496... it would make integration with active crossovers much more palatable to those who don't want to have to mod their gear just to get it good enough for rock'n roll.
All of which goes to say that IMO we need to develop some much more transparent active crossover/eq systems before we can convincingly demonstrate how much better active can be. As it stands, unless you're willing to spend big bucks on a deqx with digital outs AND THEN ADD two high quality external dacs, it's pretty hard to get top notch transparency.
So I guess I'm siding with Pano and MiiB on this argument... UNLESS we're using the deq + DEQX + really good external dacs.
Last edited:
Holy crap! This thread goes on and on and on.........
No one has ever made any conclusive statement as to how passive / one amp is better than active multi-amp.
Because it is NOT TRUE.
Grow up. Get over it. Technology is not on your side.
For each infinitesimal arrangement that works its bizarre magic in the passive domain, there are an infinite number of ways to obliterate that into complete insignificance in the active domain.
Like it has been said before. The only argument to be made for passive / single amp is that almost all of the commercially available stuff is made to match this market.
THAT'S IT. That is all you have going for you!
Any system that is design to be active / multi amp from the ground up has the potential to BLOW AWAY a single amp passive system.
End of story.
James.
No one has ever made any conclusive statement as to how passive / one amp is better than active multi-amp.
Because it is NOT TRUE.
Grow up. Get over it. Technology is not on your side.
For each infinitesimal arrangement that works its bizarre magic in the passive domain, there are an infinite number of ways to obliterate that into complete insignificance in the active domain.
Like it has been said before. The only argument to be made for passive / single amp is that almost all of the commercially available stuff is made to match this market.
THAT'S IT. That is all you have going for you!
Any system that is design to be active / multi amp from the ground up has the potential to BLOW AWAY a single amp passive system.
End of story.
James.
Probably because it isn't. It's just a different way to hit a target which may or may not be more convenient to do in a given situation. I really don't understand the absolutist position.
I have seen quite a few -- you have just ignored them because a/ they aren't in your world view or b/ you did not give enuff thot or have enuff understanding to get them. Since which is best is context sensitive there will never be a conclusive one is better than the other.
dave
I agree with James, but perhaps not to the extent of using such extreme language in the favour of passive.
This thread or argument isn't supposed to be about mediocrity or poor implementations, but about the best of the best. In this regard active has passive licked in terms of shear performance and things only go even further in its direction when you add in a really powerful DSP and then amplification that is tailored to the specific drivers.
It is not a trivial or inexpensive task to get a DSP that includes high performance hardware that will run at 192kHz, has very low jitter, includes top of the line digital to analogue converters along with a multi-channel analogue volume solution as to maintain quality.
Get it right though and you'll never go back to passive unless of course you don't want to deal with the added system complexity/hassle of the active system. This doesn't mean that passive is automatically better by default, it is better in terms of how you want to use your system, but it's not better in terms of shear performance. If you think that your passive implementation sounds better then all that really means is a) you're imagining it, or b) you failed with your active crossover. It is very possible however that in the right system both the active and passive implementations will sound the same - active really only starts to sound better when you start exploiting its strengths.
This thread or argument isn't supposed to be about mediocrity or poor implementations, but about the best of the best. In this regard active has passive licked in terms of shear performance and things only go even further in its direction when you add in a really powerful DSP and then amplification that is tailored to the specific drivers.
It is not a trivial or inexpensive task to get a DSP that includes high performance hardware that will run at 192kHz, has very low jitter, includes top of the line digital to analogue converters along with a multi-channel analogue volume solution as to maintain quality.
Get it right though and you'll never go back to passive unless of course you don't want to deal with the added system complexity/hassle of the active system. This doesn't mean that passive is automatically better by default, it is better in terms of how you want to use your system, but it's not better in terms of shear performance. If you think that your passive implementation sounds better then all that really means is a) you're imagining it, or b) you failed with your active crossover. It is very possible however that in the right system both the active and passive implementations will sound the same - active really only starts to sound better when you start exploiting its strengths.
I disagree. There is always context. And a very important contextual variable is budget.
dave
Right. And if to build passive only equivalent of the system I have at home currently would require budget that I would never ever dream about.
Yes but in that respect you can always come up with some reason in favour of the other and it goes on and on. This thread isn't about when you should choose active or when you should choose passive, it's just about the differences between the two and then which ends up on top.
As an example if someone comes in and says, I don't like active, passive is better, because I only need one ampilfier. This imo, isn't a strike against active, it's just how it is. It's like saying a $15 no name soldering iron is better then a Metcal because I cannot afford a Metcal.
It's true: for all the talk, we can't be sure what everyone else's idea of a good speaker is. I went to a 'high end' show recently, and some of the systems that I thought were particularly bad were given rave reviews in various forums on the web, by people who would no doubt slag off my credentials to pass judgement on what sounds good. But for all I know, they only ever listen to smooth jazz, or Frank Sinatra or Dave Brubeck, or middle-of-the-road Eric Clapton, or Adele - or that's all they seemed to be playing at the show, anyway! Everyone here who passes judgement on which speakers sound best are only basing it on their taste in music which, for all we know, may be rather limited.
Fidelity, or Truth, should only be available to those who can afford it. So the active filtered multi amped Reality Conduit cannot be accessed by mainstreeters who are oddly enough the generators of content: artists. The music itself gets lost in this "debate." It seems that diversity is not yet the norm even here. We crave The One and our personal link to It. Rabies is Good!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.