Charles, you say that about what? Meyer?
This is just a 'teaser' i'm pretty sure Meyer can give you all the data you want, but as with many audiopro brands you'll have to be known by them before or being sure that they noticed the big amount of money you have in bank!
If you are not confortable about that advertissement and the relatively low investissment that monitoring represent in the budget of a studio, don't even try to know about the big desks... They cost 10 times more and having information is even more complicated sometimes!
This is just a 'teaser' i'm pretty sure Meyer can give you all the data you want, but as with many audiopro brands you'll have to be known by them before or being sure that they noticed the big amount of money you have in bank!
If you are not confortable about that advertissement and the relatively low investissment that monitoring represent in the budget of a studio, don't even try to know about the big desks... They cost 10 times more and having information is even more complicated sometimes!
Last edited:
An irony
The bigger the size the worse it is. Such big cap might be worse than normal size basic-quality MKP in passive crossover. And it does affect the phase, so...
Charles, you say that about what? Meyer?
This is just a 'teaser' i'm pretty sure Meyer can give you all the data you want, but as with many audiopro brands you'll have to be known by them before or being sure that they noticed the big amount of money you have in bank!
If you are not confortable about that advertissement and the relatively low investissment that monitoring represent in the budget of a studio, don't even try to know about the big desks... They cost 10 times more and having information is even more complicated sometimes!
No, I'm not comfortable about the advert.
The only thing I want to know about large format consoles is why so many people seemingly prefer Neves to SSLs because I don't.
Probably about the worse sound for bigger plastic capacitors, i can't tell. For me it's more important to keep the tweeter safe than something else, it's a collectible item and if destroyed i'll probably couldn't get a new one.
About phase issue, i've done my homework Jay, thanks. It's a 8 ohm unit, so if you use standard freq formulae for cap here whe go: 1/ (2 x Pi x 8 x 0.0002)= 99hz.
As we know a simple high pass using capacitor have phase anomalies up to a decade away from fc so up to 990hz. Given tweeter fc is 4,5khz in original filter and that i pushed it to 6k. I think i'm ok from this point. I could go with lower value about cap you're right but... huh... it's always better that some electrolitycs no?
Please note i could have gone with electrolytics because i'm so used to see them everywhere in any signalpath in consoles and other gear...
Real problem with them is about the fact you need to change them once in a while... and ESR with some, which can be a problem depending their place in schematic.
But ... sorry to get off topic!
Fair. Understand.
I like both. Depend of what you have to do and sound your after. Ease of use and flexibility is different however. But irony lies in the fact that Rupert last inline desk was the Amek 9098I not any of the AMS/NEVE V series or 88r... But it's more on discussion we should have on Gearslutz than here.
Very hard to tell unless the transfer functions of the active and passive were identical (which is probably not the case, and if it were you would probably not be able to pick the difference).
One possible reason is that the passive filter may have been affected by impedance anomalies (tweeter resonant peak not flattened perhaps) whereas the active implementation isn't affected by this, so the active implementation may have better attenuation than the passive leading to less bleed through (Low frequencies getting through that then modulate the higher frequency drivers). edit: so the IM may be in the speakers themselves in the passive rather than coming from the amp...
Tony.
Last edited:
To my ears it sounds as if the lo-pass series inductor 'smears' the connected drivers response.
That is based on my experience with my own Tannoys and some small Dynaudio monitors which came in passive or active. Both used 1st order filters with the same xover point so I assume the transfer function is practically the same.
Some people on the Tannoy Yahoo group built an active crossover designed in principle by the then Tannoy chief engineer which was based on duplicating the passive transfer function and generally they reported similar impressions. However some did and some did not like the results.
Later on I relieved the Tannoy of frequencies below 250Hz by adding a woofer.
The result was similar but not identical. Both resulted in the speaker sounding cleaner and more detailed but while going active mostly cleaned up the bass adding the woofer cleaned up the mids up to the 1.2k crossover point.
Based on my own purely anecdotal evidence I'd say adding the woofer driver induced IM distortions but I only suspect that removing the inductor is the reason for the audible improvement in the bass when going active. It kind of smooths things out making the bass sound softer, friendlier even but less clean or crisp.
In the end I suspect in the active v passive debate two camps will form similar to the transistor v valve argument when it comes to amps: One trying to reproduce the input signal as accurately as possible the other chasing the elusive as 'live' experience in their living room.
(Incidentally I believe the chances of reproducing a 'live' experience via stereo are practically nil and multichannel must be the way to go if that is ones aim.)
Of course this is all just anecdotes, conjecture and impressions but they are my impressions and may be there is some relevancy hidden in there somewhere. Let me know when you find it! ;-)
That is based on my experience with my own Tannoys and some small Dynaudio monitors which came in passive or active. Both used 1st order filters with the same xover point so I assume the transfer function is practically the same.
Some people on the Tannoy Yahoo group built an active crossover designed in principle by the then Tannoy chief engineer which was based on duplicating the passive transfer function and generally they reported similar impressions. However some did and some did not like the results.
Later on I relieved the Tannoy of frequencies below 250Hz by adding a woofer.
The result was similar but not identical. Both resulted in the speaker sounding cleaner and more detailed but while going active mostly cleaned up the bass adding the woofer cleaned up the mids up to the 1.2k crossover point.
Based on my own purely anecdotal evidence I'd say adding the woofer driver induced IM distortions but I only suspect that removing the inductor is the reason for the audible improvement in the bass when going active. It kind of smooths things out making the bass sound softer, friendlier even but less clean or crisp.
In the end I suspect in the active v passive debate two camps will form similar to the transistor v valve argument when it comes to amps: One trying to reproduce the input signal as accurately as possible the other chasing the elusive as 'live' experience in their living room.
(Incidentally I believe the chances of reproducing a 'live' experience via stereo are practically nil and multichannel must be the way to go if that is ones aim.)
Of course this is all just anecdotes, conjecture and impressions but they are my impressions and may be there is some relevancy hidden in there somewhere. Let me know when you find it! ;-)
No, I haven't Krivium. Done it all before I joined here.
The DC is a 3149 ie the one from Little Reds or Little Golds and the woofer is a Volt RV3143 as I wanted an active version of of Tannoys own FSM or 215DMT in a more friendly size. They are still around 200L though.
I probably risk losing my credentials as a Tannerd but I am currently planning a smaller replacement which still gives me <30Hz bass extension.
I think I've decided on the woofer but on the mid/high front I'm still torn between a small co-ax or a 5"+waveguided dome.
Either way I should be able to get the bass from a 60-70L box which is a reasonable saving of space. The box itself will be what I would call 'Quasi soffit mount' as it will be wide, shallow and mounted on the wall rather than in it.
There are still a few theoretical design and more practical building hurdles to jump before I'm satisfied enough to order drivers and chop wood though.
Just checking
I've recently implemented my active crossover, but the gains in clarity I cannot directly attribute to going active. I went from two way using 5" drivers in MTM to effective 3 way adding in 10" woofers crossed at 270 Hz 4th order bessel accoustic slopes.
The gains in clarity are from removing the low frequencies from the MTM's IMO. But maybe spiltting the duty between two amps also helps.
My design blurs the lines between active and passive, in that it is using simulated inductors to mimic an ideal passive circuit. The design of the filter is done using PCD and the caps and coils are then directly simulated in the circuit realizing the exact passive transfer function actively. This allowed me to use PCD to get the acoustic response I wanted without needing any tricky formulas for calculating the active filters
It's still not perfect, but for the time being I'm pretty happy. Tony.
Transmission line PMC stylee.
Replicating the passive xover transfer function was a bit of a challenge as the pepperpot tweeter needs a fair bit of eq massaging to achieve a flat output.
I ended up using a fairly generic 24LR crossover (BSS FDS360) and a parametric equalizer.
If I were to go the Tannoy route again I'd use 3142s instead which would make things a bit simpler and it is allround a better driver.
Replicating the passive xover transfer function was a bit of a challenge as the pepperpot tweeter needs a fair bit of eq massaging to achieve a flat output.
I ended up using a fairly generic 24LR crossover (BSS FDS360) and a parametric equalizer.
If I were to go the Tannoy route again I'd use 3142s instead which would make things a bit simpler and it is allround a better driver.
My design blurs the lines between active and passive, in that it is using simulated inductors to mimic an ideal passive circuit. The design of the filter is done using PCD and the caps and coils are then directly simulated in the circuit realizing the exact passive transfer function actively. This allowed me to use PCD to get the acoustic response I wanted without needing any tricky formulas for calculating the active filters
Tony.
I don't see that as a problem and it's an interesting approach as you have to think like a passive cross-over designer. Certainly more holistic that the approach of Linkwitz, who equalises a driver flat then adds the target curve he wants on top of it. Gets the job done, but can seem a bit brutal!
Yes it is a hybrid. The MTM has a fully passive crossover. It made sense to do the crossover to the woofer actively due to the low frequency and relatively benign behaviour of both the woofer and the MTM.
The mids in the MTM required quite a bit of massaging that I was more comfortable doing passively. At some point I may attempt an (analogue) active crossover for them, but it would be difficult. I've not yet looked into DSP based, which for challenging drivers like these would probably be more appropriate. I'm not sure whether another form of hybrid (passive notch filters) with active main crossover would work for problematic drivers..
Tony.
The mids in the MTM required quite a bit of massaging that I was more comfortable doing passively. At some point I may attempt an (analogue) active crossover for them, but it would be difficult. I've not yet looked into DSP based, which for challenging drivers like these would probably be more appropriate. I'm not sure whether another form of hybrid (passive notch filters) with active main crossover would work for problematic drivers..
Tony.
May i ask why? If you managed to do it passively i don't see why it couldn't be done active at line level.
I suppose it's because of notch or eq related? It's relatively easy do do some clones of the 'original' parametrics eq and you could have it done without capacitors in signal path (up to five parraleled bands with high and low band switchable from shelf/parametric) if that's something which concern you.
And the unit i'm thinking of is one of the better sounding things ever done.
(beside the fact it's opamp based, the first ones units produced being even 'old' opamp based )
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.