I'm a proponent of passive XO. My current speakers never sounded nearly as good active (Minidsp Nanodigi), with any tried settings, as they did with even with the prototype passive xo (with the same DAC and amp).
Some things are completely overlooked in this thread so far...
We should remember that when all the drivers are in parallel (or in series) in passive crossover, they create electrically and acoustically "a new driver". Parallel drivers damp other parallel drivers, interfere with other drivers via acoustic parths (acoustic feedback, speaker acting as a microphone) and so on. Interactions are numerous. Passively crossovered speakers create a whole new circuit with the amplifier and act very differently as a system than when driven one by one. This "crosstalk" and interaction cannot be replicated with active crossover. Passive crossover also introduces current drive situations for the drivers (decouples the drivers electrically from the driving amplifier), which also cannot be replicated with active xo. And on a more basic level, also the load impedance and phase is very different to the driving amplifier. The amplifier-speaker interaction is different. It's getting late and I'm propably just repeating myself...
I believe all these "little" things, mainly the interactions part, is what makes passively xo'ed drivers work as one, cohesively, which is the main selling point of passive crossover's sound signature. They sound very natural and coherent in their tone, everything works in unison, and not like there is "three very different kind of drivers". Everything is smoother, more liquid, free-flowing, analog.
These two systems just cannot be equalled for the above mentioned reasons (and there is more, I just don't know them).
Another intertesting topic would be what quality of electrical crossover will surpass acoustical crossover? I'd say.... propably none, acoustical crossover might be the reference. It's the only kind of crossover that has the ability to reduce distortion that the driver generates. Hard to design and can only be used for woofers and midranges, not for tweeters which will always need an electrical HPF. Almost lost form of art nowadays in speaker design, cross where the fence is low? I highly suggest trying acoustical xo, let the purism take over you.
I have passive components in my setup, even though one might call my approach active.
When I said I wanted to test that I got a lot of questions asking why... not all of it stayed but there's still some coils, resistors and capacitors in my setup. It makes my total speaker impedance/phase look like this:
(the bottom one being impedance)
I wouldn't know what crossovers sound like (anymore) though. I don't have any...
Last edited:
I would not avoid it if going in digitally, but I would avoid the extra conversion going ADDA in all of them I have ever tried. It shows up on esses and T's quite easily on highly dynamic speakers. I do not like a chain of conversion. If going in analog from digital source with the gear we have now, I would prefer to stay analog whether active or passive. Too many ADDA conversions take an audible toll imo.
My typical path is
CD (or file) -da-
AVpreamp -ada-
minidsp - adspa- -> 4x10HD version, not 2x4
power amp
speaker (driver)
-->Total 5 conversions and I like it! No hum or noise, clear transients etc. (I can avoid the first one, but I don't hear any difference)
All analog pathway vinyl-cartridge-riaa-amplifier-speaker makes more noise and distortion, which I can hear. It's problems can also be measured easily.
We like and fear of different things.
Beolab 90, Kii3, pro active studio monitors etc. are good examples of highly praised dsp-controlled active speakers. http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2015/10/06/beolab-90-behind-the-scenes/
Active multi-way system couples the driver directly to the amplifier (no capacitors, coils), which is a good thing for most amplifiers, specifically for bass. A driver's impedance is much more benign than most complex crossover circuits+drivers have. And we can compensate for anomalies by eq and even do phase correction per each unit.
CD (or file) -da-
AVpreamp -ada-
minidsp - adspa- -> 4x10HD version, not 2x4
power amp
speaker (driver)
-->Total 5 conversions and I like it! No hum or noise, clear transients etc. (I can avoid the first one, but I don't hear any difference)
All analog pathway vinyl-cartridge-riaa-amplifier-speaker makes more noise and distortion, which I can hear. It's problems can also be measured easily.
We like and fear of different things.
Beolab 90, Kii3, pro active studio monitors etc. are good examples of highly praised dsp-controlled active speakers. http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2015/10/06/beolab-90-behind-the-scenes/
Active multi-way system couples the driver directly to the amplifier (no capacitors, coils), which is a good thing for most amplifiers, specifically for bass. A driver's impedance is much more benign than most complex crossover circuits+drivers have. And we can compensate for anomalies by eq and even do phase correction per each unit.
Last edited:
Both interesting points
I have to say Juhazi hits on something.
Fear.
But the AD - DA cycle starts earlier; in recording, mastering, and encoding to CD/.x file type
I also think Pete has a point.
You see the recording/mastering and to a lesser extent don't really worry me. It's top end tech, even if it's a decade or so old.
(I work with some data logging equipment of some 25 years old, that most modern ADC couldn't compete with (despite higher bit depth, speed and claimed accuracy).
I therefore have huge scepticism on the claimed specs of much of what I have seen as DSP aimed at our market.
Don't take me wrong, there are some good and very interesting DSPs out there, it's just they cost what I'd expect to pay for good DSP. (Too much for me)
I play mainly CDS straight to speakers, via active analogue XO and amplifier, or with passive speaker level XO.
I like the sound of the active. The benefit of losing the extra reactance a passive network is noticeable. The sound is more focused, clarity is certainly improved.
I don't doubt the high end DSP systems sound fantastic. Beam steering seems the most interesting and worthwhile use of DSP in my opinion.
I just don't like the Aiwa approach
You should never attempt to polish a t***
I have to say Juhazi hits on something.
Fear.
But the AD - DA cycle starts earlier; in recording, mastering, and encoding to CD/.x file type
I also think Pete has a point.
You see the recording/mastering and to a lesser extent don't really worry me. It's top end tech, even if it's a decade or so old.
(I work with some data logging equipment of some 25 years old, that most modern ADC couldn't compete with (despite higher bit depth, speed and claimed accuracy).
I therefore have huge scepticism on the claimed specs of much of what I have seen as DSP aimed at our market.
Don't take me wrong, there are some good and very interesting DSPs out there, it's just they cost what I'd expect to pay for good DSP. (Too much for me
)I play mainly CDS straight to speakers, via active analogue XO and amplifier, or with passive speaker level XO.
I like the sound of the active. The benefit of losing the extra reactance a passive network is noticeable. The sound is more focused, clarity is certainly improved.
I don't doubt the high end DSP systems sound fantastic. Beam steering seems the most interesting and worthwhile use of DSP in my opinion.
I just don't like the Aiwa approach
You should never attempt to polish a t***
I''m from pro audio world, and has been working as a studio engineer for more than 20 years.
1. Many of the high end professional studio monitors today are multi amp driven with active crossover to achieve better linearity.
2. The good sounding line level analog EQ/ filter design is extremely difficult. It doesn't really matter if one is discrete or opamp based. Really good sounding filter / EQ is rare and usually super expensive. Today's top professional digital EQ / filter sounds better (or at least more transparent) than the most analog units.
3. All of digital EQ / filter do not sound the same. Some sound much better than the other. Also there are different type of algorithm for digital filter, FIR, IIR and convolution. Digital EQ design has been improved a lot last 5 years, and most of the old digital EQ sounds horrible.
4. Extra AD/DA conversion is an issue. One box solution such as laptop, or a master clock synchronized digital connection is the solution.
5. DSP crossover has an obvious benefit. Precise time and phase alignment. Those are the things that tend to be underestimated by the high end audio crowd.
1. Many of the high end professional studio monitors today are multi amp driven with active crossover to achieve better linearity.
2. The good sounding line level analog EQ/ filter design is extremely difficult. It doesn't really matter if one is discrete or opamp based. Really good sounding filter / EQ is rare and usually super expensive. Today's top professional digital EQ / filter sounds better (or at least more transparent) than the most analog units.
3. All of digital EQ / filter do not sound the same. Some sound much better than the other. Also there are different type of algorithm for digital filter, FIR, IIR and convolution. Digital EQ design has been improved a lot last 5 years, and most of the old digital EQ sounds horrible.
4. Extra AD/DA conversion is an issue. One box solution such as laptop, or a master clock synchronized digital connection is the solution.
5. DSP crossover has an obvious benefit. Precise time and phase alignment. Those are the things that tend to be underestimated by the high end audio crowd.
Last edited:
I believe all these "little" things, mainly the interactions part, is what makes passively xo'ed drivers work as one, cohesively, which is the main selling point of passive crossover's sound signature. They sound very natural and coherent in their tone, everything works in unison, and not like there is "three very different kind of drivers". Everything is smoother, more liquid, free-flowing, analog.
Typical irrational, audio way of viewing matters.
The contraption of Inductors, Capacitors and Resistors, loaded by VC impedance, is called a "circuit" .
There is nothing mysterious about it; even the simplest of circuit simulators can give you a very accurate picture of what each filler component contributes to the circuit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with analogue smoothness, whatever that may be.
Regards,
Eelco
Typical irrational, audio way of viewing matters.
The contraption of Inductors, Capacitors and Resistors, loaded by VC impedance, is called a "circuit" .
There is nothing mysterious about it; even the simplest of circuit simulators can give you a very accurate picture of what each filler component contributes to the circuit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with analogue smoothness, whatever that may be.
Regards,
Eelco
No, in my opinion speaker level crossover is musically and timbrally the most transparent electrical domain crossover. Crossovers upper in the signal path, ie. line level, have more profound effect on sound quality than crossovers that are later in the signal path, ie. speaker level. Speaker level passive xo preserves the signal's purity the longest and the crossover induced colorations are propably the least harmfull for speaker level signal. Those colorations can be kept at bare minimum with smart xo design (smart acoustical design before that) and high quality passive components.
With active xo one can get the most balanced frequency response more easily than passively (unless the acoustical design of ther speaker is flawless, which should be the goal in both active and passive approaches), but the sound is usually slightly robotic and due to lost micro details the acoustical instuments do not sound as real as with passive xo. The sound can be as detailed on the primary level of the sound but the inner resolution is not as high definition. Sound field and the space around the instruments is collapsed compared to passive xo's dimensional sound that floats in the air. The sound feels more dead and artificial.
It was revelatory for me to experience how even an average designed prototype passive xo with average passive components sounded just so much better than the "passive xo imitation" with an active xo. Amp and dac were the same, Minidsp Nanodigi was just replaced with passive xo. Local colleague also commented the same, it was the third time for him to hear my system when I had converted to passive. It all just fell into the place after going passive.
Perhaps acoustical domain crossover is the best kind but they are hard to implement and propably almost impossible to compare 1:1 to direct radiating systems because the two systems has to be made acoustically so different that the differences cannot be compensated by electrical means.
Last edited:
By 'lots' what do you mean? And do you have any published references for this?
published reference? wat do u mean?
far from scientific but in gearslutz many users seem to go back to passive but i think both method have the same potential.
i personally prefer to have no dsp, no conversion and keep my signal path as pure as possible with highest quality amp which would be too pricey have multiple channel of amps for active. my sub are active but not innthe signal path of the mains.
far from scientific but in gearslutz many users seem to go back to passive but i think both method have the same potential.
i personally prefer to have no dsp, no conversion and keep my signal path as pure as possible with highest quality amp which would be too pricey have multiple channel of amps for active. my sub are active but not innthe signal path of the mains.
Last edited:
There isn't much scientific or Engineering evidence to back up that theory. I am sure in your experience you end up preferring a passive crossover, but how much of that is bias and how much is something else its hard to tell.
A lot? Who are they? We don't call Gearslutz guys studio guys, usually. They are Gearsluz guys...
Last edited:
I mean some studios that have gone on record that they have gone passive. Not spotty McOik in his bedroom studio.
Well as 99.9% of recording is done digitally these days you have to convert somewhere.
Sounds to me like you're happier with the passive solution, but I don't follow your rationale here... there are many ways on both paths to get it right or wrong. I just like the fact that I can do things in DSP that no amount of passive components can give me. And I can tell you that too can lead to very convincing and satisfying sound. You'd have to look a lot closer to conclude both setups were indeed performing comparable.
With the widely varying sounds I have heard in my many experiments I can say small details can make or break the results. It's most satisfying to get it right though. For me personally, DSP can certainly get you there.
I did not exactly use a standard off the shelf approach but it isn't magic either.
The true magic is in the recordings. Our job is to unleash it to the best of our abilities. Be it with passives or DSP...
DSP certainly doesn't have to sound unnatural or without the traits you mention, read the review of my system written by a friend of mine, who does not feel the need to know how I do it but is as demanding and critical as I am to what he hears: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-making-two-towers-25-driver-full-range-line-array-169.html#post4589772
I did not bribe him to write this... he was listening to a DSP controlled setup.
One that I could not have created to perform on this level with passive means only.
But no need to burn one way or the other. My setup is completely digital up to the DAC feeding the amps. So the source is digital too. That actually meant I had to wait years to get to play some (of my favorite) material as good as I remembered them sounding on vinyl. Not that vinyl is better or CD is worse. But mastering decisions can change how we perceive certain pieces. But that doesn't mean any one format is superior to the other either.
How many recordings were mixed and mastered with pure passive setups anyway? Not many of those around anymore I'd guess. So why be afraid of using the same type of technology reproducing those recordings? What is that pure signal path really, when you think about what pieces of equipment were used along the way to create that final recording on either a digital or analog carrier.
For me the purity is in how well that recorded wave form is preserved when it's arriving at my ears.
Last edited:
many active speakers use ad/da and that is never a good idea. better use a dac once.
did i say that all studio are going back to passive? i shouldnt have phrase it the way i did. let me rephrase.from wat i see at gearslutz, it seems that compared to 10 year ago, passive a coming back.
proac studio 100 is recommended and now many known amphion users like dave reitzas, jj blair, etc.
I think you're talking about prosumer monitors or low end professional monitors. Top end monitors like ATC, Barefoot etc. do not use digital crossover, and digital crossover is not always a bad thing, if implemented correctly.
some high end monitors use dsp, some dont. kii three, genelec 8351 do, atc, geithain, barefoot dont.
id personally stay away from those that use ad/da
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.