I think the people still into passive use the fact the audio industry still massively go for passive. But the audio industry is the biggest pile of **** rip off companies going. They only use passive because its easier as the only practical way to do active is all in one box solution, amps in speakers etc. Because separates are just that separate all the dealers can make more money as well as the manufacturers selling all these different magic boxes, look at naim for example and they completely useless and flawed idea of external PSUs.
The punters are none the wiser, because its possible to convince someone they are hearing something they are not and because sound is so subjective they can get away with it. The punters are also so stupid most of the time they will trust the people that are selling them the pointless stuff they are being sold and think they are being helped!
The reason this forum doesn't like active is the same reason people still like tubes too, if your brought up with the way something sounds that's what you gonna like. Everyone has learnt what they think things should sound like on passives so actives sound wrong when in fact they are the correct ones.
The entire hifi industry is utter rubbish and a farce and unfortunately this gets filtered down a little and finds its way making impressions in the DIY community.
Don't be scared of change embrace better things! You know you want to!
What a post eh?
The punters are none the wiser, because its possible to convince someone they are hearing something they are not and because sound is so subjective they can get away with it. The punters are also so stupid most of the time they will trust the people that are selling them the pointless stuff they are being sold and think they are being helped!
The reason this forum doesn't like active is the same reason people still like tubes too, if your brought up with the way something sounds that's what you gonna like. Everyone has learnt what they think things should sound like on passives so actives sound wrong when in fact they are the correct ones.
The entire hifi industry is utter rubbish and a farce and unfortunately this gets filtered down a little and finds its way making impressions in the DIY community.
Don't be scared of change embrace better things! You know you want to!
What a post eh?
what...
oh lord, nothing could be more wrongyou dont get around much my friend
but why do some sound so angry, or offended ? I don't see any reason to say those things like that, just because some people have different opinions
besides, most tube guys are probably over at full range forum if you want to talk to them
This is what is commonly known as a "Straw Man Argument." I haven't seen anyone in this thread proclaiming "a single amp and a passive crossover is the only way to go". (Did I miss it?) Most of the arguments I've read here in support of passive crossovers have come from those who use both active and passive and understand how each works, and how to design either.
So far, no one has "proven" either to be superior for Hi-Fi use. The opening post states that active is superior, but offers no proof.
That would go for bad solid state amps, too - you know.
Anyway, how can you say this forum doesn't like active? Where did that idea come from?
You may be right about current drive, I have not tried that in practice. but current would for sure lock the drivers more firmly in terms of local generated back currents, but weather it alter the dynamic changes in character on the individual driver with amplitude is beyond my experience. the obvious would be that the current is locked and back current is integrated into the driving current in an additive process,
But that does not mean that the driver does not change sound character under different amplitudes. Its this change of character that needs to be dissipated/reflected into the other drivers in the system to maintain the coherence. so my immediate speculative assumption is that current drive may better it but not solve it.
Mind you that my knowledge on voltage drive is a result of more than 10 years working professionally with this..
I suspect to gain similar knowledge about speaker drivers behaviour under current-drive would take some years too.. so I'am out on the ice here...
But that does not mean that the driver does not change sound character under different amplitudes. Its this change of character that needs to be dissipated/reflected into the other drivers in the system to maintain the coherence. so my immediate speculative assumption is that current drive may better it but not solve it.
Mind you that my knowledge on voltage drive is a result of more than 10 years working professionally with this..
I suspect to gain similar knowledge about speaker drivers behaviour under current-drive would take some years too..
so I'am out on the ice here...
You'll have to forgive me, because I'm still not getting this.
A capacitor, or an inductor, will always introduce a frequency-dependent phase shift into the signal.
This being the case, how, pray tell, are the drivers prevented from "drifting apart"?
... and I can't understand why you think feeding the back EMF of the woofer into the tweeter could possibly be a good thing - surely distortion from the tweeter would increase?
Chris
Series vs. Parallel Crossover Networks
The low pass and high pass sections still have a phase difference that varies with frequency.
How, then, does that mean the drivers are "tied together"?
The low pass and high pass sections still have a phase difference that varies with frequency.
How, then, does that mean the drivers are "tied together"?
In the cross-over region they share the same current. Because of that the blend does not drift with amplitude. like it would if you separate the drivers in parallel or active crossovers.
Good link... read the graphs and understand why the changes in the mid/base is reflected into the tweeter.
Good link... read the graphs and understand why the changes in the mid/base is reflected into the tweeter.
Last edited:
Chris,
In a series XO, the value of every component, including the driver, affect the functioning of every other part. So if a part shifts (as under dynamic conditions) then this shift is reflected in the function of every other component.
Series XOs are less common than parallel, as they get much harder to do as the order increases past 1st order (since the change in one component affects every other component).
dave
In a series XO, the value of every component, including the driver, affect the functioning of every other part. So if a part shifts (as under dynamic conditions) then this shift is reflected in the function of every other component.
Series XOs are less common than parallel, as they get much harder to do as the order increases past 1st order (since the change in one component affects every other component).
dave
Let's get real here for a moment!
The fact that we need any kind of crossover is because it is very difficult to make a single driver speaker system that covers the entire range of audio. Right?
So not matter what method you use, if you are making a speaker system with multiple drivers to cover different parts of the audio range, you are compromising!
There is no such thing as a perfect speaker!
It's all a compromise!
If there was such a thing as the de-facto perfect system, we would not be having any of these conversations. There would be only one way to do it.
James.
The fact that we need any kind of crossover is because it is very difficult to make a single driver speaker system that covers the entire range of audio. Right?
So not matter what method you use, if you are making a speaker system with multiple drivers to cover different parts of the audio range, you are compromising!
There is no such thing as a perfect speaker!
It's all a compromise!
If there was such a thing as the de-facto perfect system, we would not be having any of these conversations. There would be only one way to do it.
James.
Series XOs are not without their issues. DaveR (considered a master series XO designer in this corner of the world) would disagree with you on the use of domaes at least.
My modest efforts put the XO <400 Hz, have been 1st order, have very careful driver choice, and deal with mid-tweeter resonance peak acoustically. We have achieved outstanding performance at a modest price.
dave
There is no such thing as a perfect speaker!
It's all a compromise!
If there was such a thing as the de-facto perfect system, we would not be having any of these conversations. There would be only one way to do it.
This is indeed true. I estimate that even the very best speakers are 10% of the way to "perfect". The art of loudspeaker design is in choosing a set of compromises. And since different people best tolerate different mixes of compromises, one can have equally valid speakers that sound quite different.
dave
I clearly remember my teacher saying, series xo are mostly always good, mostly never really bad, but never really good either
sorry I said that
guess I can blame him for avoiding all designs using series xo
makes me wonder ..... active series xo.....
I don't about that
wouldn't it depend on who you are, and what you expect of a speaker ?
sorry I said that
guess I can blame him for avoiding all designs using series xo
makes me wonder ..... active series xo.....
There is no such thing as a perfect speaker!
It's all a compromise!
I don't about that
wouldn't it depend on who you are, and what you expect of a speaker ?
series XO's relies on really good drivers..If you don't have the ingredients you can't cook anything worth eating.
No such thing as the perfect speaker, but you can weight and select your compromises so what it brings out is so natural that it may fool you to believe it's the real deal.
No such thing as the perfect speaker, but you can weight and select your compromises so what it brings out is so natural that it may fool you to believe it's the real deal.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.