I think it's less important what we use, it's what we do with it that counts, right?
As long as we're enjoying the route we're on it doesn't matter what route it really is.
There's room for more than one way to enjoyment. Give each other that space.
Lately I read a lot of "what's (the) best xxx". Is there such a thing as best? See what fits your needs without worrying about the "best". Look for what suits you.
There will always be more than one way, now and in the future.
As long as we're enjoying the route we're on it doesn't matter what route it really is.
There's room for more than one way to enjoyment. Give each other that space.
Lately I read a lot of "what's (the) best xxx". Is there such a thing as best? See what fits your needs without worrying about the "best". Look for what suits you.
There will always be more than one way, now and in the future.
Indeed a crossover is a one dimensional pathway. Important, yes, and limited in scope.
Of course.
Yea. I'd like a simple, tidy, cool-running multi-amp package.
I went from full active (3 -> 2 amps) to reduce the cable clutter and generate less heat, not because it improved sound quality.
Ideally, I'd buy a bunch of low powered amp boards and a bare-board DSP, and mount them in a (single) chassis, but so far I've been too lazy. I wish the pictured manufacturer would do that for me (and drop the tube gimmick).
Attachments
Jon, did you ever tried to EQ a 8" Full range in an OB or even without OB bafle to flat the 400-800 Hz bump above its natural roll off then EQ a little below 400 to rise the low end and targett a 250 Hz to ....(the XO you like in treble but > 8 K) ! Sorta of Linkwitz EQ but with a FR ?!
According to you does it make sense ? I mean some 8" Full range like a PM6a has some high xmax (>6 mm iirc) !
To stay more in the topic, I'm sure some guys like IanCanada could make a multiway, multi output RasPi hat with uf-l I2S output to plug some really good DAC ! If the device can transmit the EQ made in the digital domain on your pc soft on the different channels and even delay like the nano !
I don't see how the best speaker of the world can sound good and natural with a simple MiniDSP... and even in the upper bass and bass a good dac stays important (there is defintly huge difference between DACs, the same like with a sota vynil system and a basic one) ? Even with a good EQ there is too much difference between two dacs with microdetails, natural of presentation and tones... at least in my simple passive low efficienty system between two dacs ! So active system, why not, but if a lot of money, space and wires to match the waited quality !
Sometimes I'm also ask myself why a guy like Troels for instance don't use MiniDSP or like to work rapidly on the filter then swap with the accurate passive parts ??? Is the room staying the biggest factor in the result ???
The big plus of diy and having an active system is to match fastier the combo speaker design/room targett: not sure the best passive speaker (at 50 000 or more bucks as now there is no limit in the "folie") can do better than a proper integration ! Yes for me DAC and the room are more the weak point ! (can be solved with money but as say Wesayso, it's less funny, we have a hobby and it is always better when you have margins for progression
) . Big headroom in designing active device to improve best passive speakers with the plus of room integration (to play with the time delays).
For instance when I see a Focal Supra 2 with the tweeter in front of the mid-woof, I'm asking how it can sound really good (but have to admit my speaker design understanding is very low !)
According to you does it make sense ? I mean some 8" Full range like a PM6a has some high xmax (>6 mm iirc) !
To stay more in the topic, I'm sure some guys like IanCanada could make a multiway, multi output RasPi hat with uf-l I2S output to plug some really good DAC ! If the device can transmit the EQ made in the digital domain on your pc soft on the different channels and even delay like the nano !
I don't see how the best speaker of the world can sound good and natural with a simple MiniDSP... and even in the upper bass and bass a good dac stays important (there is defintly huge difference between DACs, the same like with a sota vynil system and a basic one) ? Even with a good EQ there is too much difference between two dacs with microdetails, natural of presentation and tones... at least in my simple passive low efficienty system between two dacs ! So active system, why not, but if a lot of money, space and wires to match the waited quality !
Sometimes I'm also ask myself why a guy like Troels for instance don't use MiniDSP or like to work rapidly on the filter then swap with the accurate passive parts ??? Is the room staying the biggest factor in the result ???
The big plus of diy and having an active system is to match fastier the combo speaker design/room targett: not sure the best passive speaker (at 50 000 or more bucks as now there is no limit in the "folie") can do better than a proper integration ! Yes for me DAC and the room are more the weak point ! (can be solved with money but as say Wesayso, it's less funny, we have a hobby and it is always better when you have margins for progression
) . Big headroom in designing active device to improve best passive speakers with the plus of room integration (to play with the time delays).For instance when I see a Focal Supra 2 with the tweeter in front of the mid-woof, I'm asking how it can sound really good (but have to admit my speaker design understanding is very low !)
Last edited:
Huge potential from this product, but it is still quite expensive at $4000 USD for the PreMate.
It sounds terrific, but costs more than the rest of my gear altogether.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Those are very good questions, which I could not answer from TG's excellent and well documented site.
I'm under the impression that he has sufficient resources to use whatever device he thinks best. The absence of DSP in his designs speaks for itself.
In my opinion, DSP is an excellent tool, if used sparingly like pitch correction and editing in production. Too much seasoning will spoil the soup.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
One could also see the group delay from conventional speakers with crossovers as a form of seasoning. It is a time stamp that is applied to every piece of music that goes trough it.
I'm using an HDP-5 (& older HDP-3) - shortly moving to a 4 way OB & twin sub setup with these DEQX units daisy-chained. Expensive but the only way I was able to perfect the speaker-room interface. Worth every penny for the clarity & transparency it produces (..I'm a mostly vinyl listener too!)
My understanding Troels G. uses a very good soft as well (SoundEasy), good ressources + long experience is the way ! But for me DIY is also (butthe hobby of hifi) because I can not afford sota expensive design (so making a ton of DIY is a no go for me, also for ecologic consideration (hey I have already three speakers!) ! So the day I will go for a diy speaker (because I'm found of what some can do here with their brain on this speaker forum, always a pleasure to read) I will jump for MiniDSP not for everyday listening but for the room setuping about the filter as I already use a calibrated german mic and Arta !
cheers
cheers
Last edited:
Active can sound very good, but it's very expensive and complex to do it right. Therefor i choose passive as it's easier (no matching amplifiers and so) to do it right. But both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Also, i'm not fond of digital processing, i prefer to stay all analog when the source is analog (wich is often the case in my case) so a dsp is out of the question for me.
But that is my opinion, feel free to disagree
Also, i'm not fond of digital processing, i prefer to stay all analog when the source is analog (wich is often the case in my case) so a dsp is out of the question for me.
But that is my opinion, feel free to disagree
Expanding on a couple of posts I made earlier...
Probably in common with many others on this forum, my hifi system sounds great (I'm using my own Open Baffle Speakers with subs just for the lowest octaves). For the past few years I’ve had no desire to change anything & I also know that this will persist for the rest of my days...
But…
I’m nearly 60 & the hifi graveyard in my loft is over filled with amps, speakers, phono stages, CD players, DACs, cables etc. I have sold a few bits recently but it’s only a fraction of what my widow or kids will dispose of.
I listen to a lot of vinyl but also use CD, SACD & streamed FLACs.
Never satisfied, over the years I tried everything - power conditioning, power regeneration, bi-wiring, bi-amping, isolation, metal racks, glass, stone, slate, wood, a bespoke listening room (the so called ‘golden ratio’). Even adding acoustic treatment still didn’t make it always sound perfect (I admit to being OCD).
Until...
A few years ago I discovered DSP and realised that really, the ONLY thing holding my system back was the room I was listening in & how it screwed up all the lovely speakers I had owned, far more than the relatively small differences between all that other gear.
Anyway, my moment of revelation came when I heard an active system running Dirac and then another using MiniDSP. Both were as realistic sounding as any hifi dealer demo, exhibition or house system I had heard. This certainly got me interested but as a bit of an analogue snob, I assumed that there must be some digital glare or lack of transparency involved because it just sounded too good.
Then…
in 2011 I went to listen to a friends DEQX processor, Horn based system and this literally blew me away (try reading the press reviews on their site if you think I am exaggerating). I had previously heard that this niche, specialist and expensive Australian product had been used in Abbey Road studios so my interest was already piqued. The clarity, imaging, realism, soundstaging and most of all, exceptional frequency response top-bottom was a revelation. Unbelievable really - I had to have one of these whatever the cost.
So…
In 2012 I found a dealer over in Holland & purchased the HDP-3 processor, spent the next 6 months researching & learning how to configure the thing & without going into all the boring detail here, I am now 4 years down the line, have the latest HDP-5 as well as the -3 & a room/system that really is as near musical perfection as I could possibly want. I do consider myself pretty experienced using these units so a while back I decided to bring some of that old gear out of retirement to try out a second system with the older processor.
And…
Using amps as simple as an old NAD 3020 or a Krell/Conrad Johnson pairing, Meridians or Quads with speakers from stand mount JBLs, through Royds, B&Ws & Shainians, even some active monitors. Once configured correctly with the DEQX, the end result is equally spectacular with slightly different sonic signatures but all combos have the same trademark clarity, imaging, smooth frequency response & total lack of room colouration. All are extremely satisfying and I tried this out in two separate rooms where the processor negates the differences so you just hear the system, absolutely nothing else. I never cease to be amazed by this.
Yes…
All those source components and amps, even speakers could have been great if I had only found this out years ago. Chasing this particular hifi dragon was basically a waste of time & a huge amount of cash because most speaker designers obviously know what they are doing (& I didn’t).
Feel free to be cynical about all this - I know I probably would be if I read such rantings! However I can honestly say that I have a system that has no detriment whatsoever on my musical pleasure & no need to seek anything more. Everyone else that hears it seems to say exactly the same thing.
…I love music!
Probably in common with many others on this forum, my hifi system sounds great (I'm using my own Open Baffle Speakers with subs just for the lowest octaves). For the past few years I’ve had no desire to change anything & I also know that this will persist for the rest of my days...
But…
I’m nearly 60 & the hifi graveyard in my loft is over filled with amps, speakers, phono stages, CD players, DACs, cables etc. I have sold a few bits recently but it’s only a fraction of what my widow or kids will dispose of.
I listen to a lot of vinyl but also use CD, SACD & streamed FLACs.
Never satisfied, over the years I tried everything - power conditioning, power regeneration, bi-wiring, bi-amping, isolation, metal racks, glass, stone, slate, wood, a bespoke listening room (the so called ‘golden ratio’). Even adding acoustic treatment still didn’t make it always sound perfect (I admit to being OCD).
Until...
A few years ago I discovered DSP and realised that really, the ONLY thing holding my system back was the room I was listening in & how it screwed up all the lovely speakers I had owned, far more than the relatively small differences between all that other gear.
Anyway, my moment of revelation came when I heard an active system running Dirac and then another using MiniDSP. Both were as realistic sounding as any hifi dealer demo, exhibition or house system I had heard. This certainly got me interested but as a bit of an analogue snob, I assumed that there must be some digital glare or lack of transparency involved because it just sounded too good.
Then…
in 2011 I went to listen to a friends DEQX processor, Horn based system and this literally blew me away (try reading the press reviews on their site if you think I am exaggerating). I had previously heard that this niche, specialist and expensive Australian product had been used in Abbey Road studios so my interest was already piqued. The clarity, imaging, realism, soundstaging and most of all, exceptional frequency response top-bottom was a revelation. Unbelievable really - I had to have one of these whatever the cost.
So…
In 2012 I found a dealer over in Holland & purchased the HDP-3 processor, spent the next 6 months researching & learning how to configure the thing & without going into all the boring detail here, I am now 4 years down the line, have the latest HDP-5 as well as the -3 & a room/system that really is as near musical perfection as I could possibly want. I do consider myself pretty experienced using these units so a while back I decided to bring some of that old gear out of retirement to try out a second system with the older processor.
And…
Using amps as simple as an old NAD 3020 or a Krell/Conrad Johnson pairing, Meridians or Quads with speakers from stand mount JBLs, through Royds, B&Ws & Shainians, even some active monitors. Once configured correctly with the DEQX, the end result is equally spectacular with slightly different sonic signatures but all combos have the same trademark clarity, imaging, smooth frequency response & total lack of room colouration. All are extremely satisfying and I tried this out in two separate rooms where the processor negates the differences so you just hear the system, absolutely nothing else. I never cease to be amazed by this.
Yes…
All those source components and amps, even speakers could have been great if I had only found this out years ago. Chasing this particular hifi dragon was basically a waste of time & a huge amount of cash because most speaker designers obviously know what they are doing (& I didn’t).
Feel free to be cynical about all this - I know I probably would be if I read such rantings! However I can honestly say that I have a system that has no detriment whatsoever on my musical pleasure & no need to seek anything more. Everyone else that hears it seems to say exactly the same thing.
…I love music!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
One of the challenges with active is the commercial landscape. There are speaker manufacturers and there are electronics manufacturers. They have grown up selling separately what works best when designed together. If you're designing and selling speakers you want to be able to tell your prospective customers that your speakers will produce great sound with whatever hi-end system they are using and passive x-over fits the bill. Let's say that everyone goes active. The speaker manufacturer is now selling a box with drivers in it and no x-over. Where is their added value, how do they market something like that ? the drivers are bought in and the sound quality is now down to the electronics that they don't provide. That leaves them as a supplier of furniture and they aren't going to get such high margins anymore like that. It takes a more integrated company to offer an active solution, such as B&O, Bose, Sonos etc. This leaves the traditional speaker guys out in the cold. And it starts to leave the traditional amplifier guys out in the cold too. You see companies like Bryston in Canada who used to pair up with PMC in England going their own way with their own brand of speaker. This gives them a gateway to providing active systems. Other industry players will follow this path until there are just a few 'jewel' makers left.
The home theatre guys need to wake up and realize they are potentially way ahead here. They have great penetration into the home with a multi-amp system with processing power. But they are talk 'movies and home theatre' because that sells best. Eventually they'll start talking 'music' more. Oppo are already doing it. Passive cross overs will be as arcane as SET amplifiers once this happens.
The home theatre guys need to wake up and realize they are potentially way ahead here. They have great penetration into the home with a multi-amp system with processing power. But they are talk 'movies and home theatre' because that sells best. Eventually they'll start talking 'music' more. Oppo are already doing it. Passive cross overs will be as arcane as SET amplifiers once this happens.
Last edited:
Was going to 'vote' but it seems a completely lacking of purpose poll.
Asking other's opinions of what sounds better (erm.. is most popular).. really?
Want to know the differences are (there are Many! imo)
Try them all (or at least the ones that intrigue) for yourself... Dohhh.
Everybody hears differently and Clearly most of us focus on entirely different .. everything.
Asking other's opinions of what sounds better (erm.. is most popular).. really?
Want to know the differences are (there are Many! imo)
Try them all (or at least the ones that intrigue) for yourself... Dohhh.
Everybody hears differently and Clearly most of us focus on entirely different .. everything.
I would have gone with that. I only went passive because my wife said the active set up would be too complicated for her if I died! To be fair, that was after a bad motorbike crash.
And the active set up sounded better to me. Analogue active crossover with 3 different types of amplification.
Spent probably over 2000 hours playing with the DEQX and close to 1000 hours playing with various miniDSP (plate amps, 4x10HD, 2x4, etc..) and there is things i like that i have on the DEQX and other things that i prefer on the miniDSP plug-ins.
And i'm not talking about D/A or A/D converters, because they're not very good on both, even though the ones on DEQX are much better... Still not enough for my taste.
But, DEQX forte is the linear phase xover up to 300db/oct which is very nice and works better 99% of time than smoother slopes. But the downside of the DEQX is the limitation of 10 EQ points. Also, it's 3 way max, and you cannot overlap nor make more than 1 bandpass.
miniDSP on the other hand, is a bit more ''poweruser'' and flexible, but a bit more limited. 48db/oct max, no linear phase only butterworth and LR, also a larger total of EQ points BUT limited to 5 or 6 per channel.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.