Anything, I mean nothing that you can understand?
When I mentioned "best of X compared with best of Y" will be more objective than comparing X to Y...
Active will be better than passive when it is better implemented. Passive will be better than active when it is better implemented. So we cannot say that active is better than passive or vice versa.
But if we try to find the best of active and the best of passive, things get clearer (more objective) a little.
What claim? I meant to say that the majority, those who didn't deeply involved with audio would prefer active over passive. Just like people prefer bloated bass like in teenagers car audio. It is about taste, acquired taste...
"We" started with preferring bloated bass and treble, then with experience and advancement on budget we acquired new tastes...
I don't build audio stuffs just for myself. If I build for people, I try to understand their taste even tho it is horrible from my POV. But that's reality. Understanding what others want is as important as understanding what our own self want...
No, I didn't say that you have to put more interest in passive. You have heard many passive examples and you have heard many active examples. Those experience is enough for you to know if one is better than the other, or the third choice, that they are different in their own way... Just follow what you prefer, especially if you have experienced the "holly grail"...
Previously you mentioned that we need to trick our brain to enjoy the music. My holly grail is not like that. It's like falling in love, not like trying to love your wife because it is what you have.
If you ask people, you might not get answers that will satisfy you. But YOU can find all the answers to the mysteries and it will SATISFY you. It is open and you just need to follow the path.
What was the problem?
This is the reason why i asked. Maybe the clarity could came from that change alone.
Don't get me wrong, i've already stated this 'clarity' things before in the thread and i tend to agree about that fact but i've too heard same high end speaker active filter multi amp and the same passive version using both the same amps and at the end the passive version had qualities which the multiamp active filtering set up didn't have. And clarity wasn't a problem for both.
Both where state of the art in their implementation and component choosen, paired and all. The only point in which the active setup had a clear advantage was when you pushed up spl (above reasonable level imho). Passive just wasn't able to take the comparison for obvious reason (more current: more heat: drift of passive component values: fc wandering).
So i keep asking to myself from where this could came as we don't have definite answer.
Yes I think you are right about having had this conversation before! 
I've checked out the marchand ones, and they are built for a particular amplifier input impedance if I remember correctly (you get to specify when you order). I guess if you want to go completely passive that's necessary. Personally I'd probably just put a high quality discrete buffer in there so you can fix the impedance the crossover circuit sees, but I guess some people are more purist than me
Tony.
I've checked out the marchand ones, and they are built for a particular amplifier input impedance if I remember correctly (you get to specify when you order). I guess if you want to go completely passive that's necessary. Personally I'd probably just put a high quality discrete buffer in there so you can fix the impedance the crossover circuit sees, but I guess some people are more purist than me Tony.
Last edited:
I just had a quick look at Marchand, they're typically a 1kohm input impedance which is rather gruelling for most line level kit to drive. A headphone buffer would be advisable to get low output impedance and reasonable dynamics.
I agree a bit inconvenient to be tied to a particular loading on the output. Looks to me like a job for a matching transformer....
I agree a bit inconvenient to be tied to a particular loading on the output. Looks to me like a job for a matching transformer....
Maybe, but as I was alluding to one can, for example vero a cross with a shelf and a notch accurately using Rs and Cs in one line level stage, silvered mica, styrene or air dielectric, if that's important.
I was going to suggest to Jay that I consider this technique as essentially active regarding the final effect, and maybe the best from a perfectionist viewpoint. It seems no one talks about it as being active if it has the word passive in it and doesn't have either frequency dependent feedback or some bits.
I was going to suggest to Jay that I consider this technique as essentially active regarding the final effect, and maybe the best from a perfectionist viewpoint. It seems no one talks about it as being active if it has the word passive in it and doesn't have either frequency dependent feedback or some bits.
That the amount of words you use are not adding any direction. Vague would be an accurate description to me. I'll stop trying to get you to share concrete information. It's not helping the thread if I do.
A new start:
I'll go back to another subject and share a bit of my experience. A few pages ago I asked Youknowyou if he had ever done a loop back test of his audio chain. Connecting the output of the DAC with a physical cable connected to the microphone input and running a sweep with a measurement suite.
I used REW like that on my DAC + JRiver chain. What I noticed is that if I used the graphic EQ in JRiver, the measurements showed irregular results.
Using PEQ did exactly what one would expect it to do. Each time I used the graphic EQ, I would see distorted phase and ripple in the group delay plot.
To me, that is useful information. I shared this on my thread. But I cannot say it will be the same for anyone else!
My setup: REW -> JRiver v19 -> Asus Xonar Essence ST optical out -> Musical Fidelity M1 DAC -> cable -> Asus Xonar Essence ST mic in -> REW
It made me test every step in my chain to see it I could measure any strange behaviour. In the same loop back tests I was able to get my signal cleaner by adjusting the Asio buffers within both JRiver and the Asio driver panel. Consistent at different sample rates where before that fine adjustment it was showing apparent differences between 44.100 and 96.000 to name a few.
This info might help others to look into this.
Before this loop back tests I was convinced I heard a difference in SQ between 24/96 files and 44.1/16 bit files. After this test I have no clear indication anymore to know if I'm hearing high resolution files or (only) CD quality. In other words I doubt if I will pass an ABX test as long as both files are mastered the same. Long term listening might be different, but no answer there yet. The difference I thought was there has been greatly reduced.
More info can be found in my thread about my line arrays.
This was the reason I wanted to get Youknowyou to run a few tests. To see if we could link his experience to something we can measure. If we could do that it might even help take away some concerns people have about digital. We all would learn and benefit, right?
This is usually the problems encountered and what i think too. This is the reason i mentionned it's was strange for me if Youknowyou did use Daw level control and not observed the same things.
By the way is see something that bother me in your loopback test: why use mic input? Don't you have a line input? It is usually wise to keep mic preamp out as they can be of possible source of issues (especially when not dedicated units, and because input Z is mic optimised (between 1200r/2400r vs 10kr and up for line in) and line input usually are more straigtforward signal path.
In my Asus setup panel I can switch off any pré-amp that's there. With my microphone I use a separate pré amp and that same mic input. I have seen no differences between using line-in and mic-in as long as the pré amp in the Asus control panel is switched to the off position. But I'd be willing to look at it again. Would you advice using line in for the microphone + separate pré amp as well?
I tend to avoid these methods myself.. even if the reasons are superficial.. but no, I was referring to the way these threads usually go.
Yes if your preamp have a line out. Usually there is no big deal for modern line driver to drive 1k input Z but you could modifiy frequency response of the system if not so well designed.
The 'rule' in studio is the lowest the out Z (around 10r is more or less the norm) the Highest the input Z (10k up to 100k, usually 20 to 50k): give excellent frequency behavior and optimised for voltage transmission between units which is all about when we use line level.
Ok. Could you describe what are your design goals then and in what aspect they should differ between active and passive? I'm curious.
Last edited:
Ok. Could you describe what are your design goals then and in what aspect they should differ between active and passive? I'm curious.
The objective is to get the sound my ears like best, by comparing many options...
Then I learn what my ears like, and design objective will move into more specific focused direction... (I have thresholds for design variables).
I pay a lot of attention to phase behavior. And distortion (and noise) is the key variable.
I think the difference here is that I BUILD and COMPARE, and let my ears to be the judge. Technicalities are only the tool to narrow the options.
Active and passive are clearly different. There are things that are "possible" with active but not with passive (and vice versa). The best compromise with passive would be different with the best compromise with active. If we build the best passive and optimize it to the extreme, then there is bigger possibility that an active copy will not be as good.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.