I'm still an advocate of passive, as the sound quality of active dsp based crossovers is not there yet compared to a well done passive. And active is not cheaper, it's only cheaper if you use very cheap amplifiers and dsp/adda boards that sound bad.
I would love to see a real high end sounding dsp, that does not cost a fortune. Minidsp HD or Hypex DSP are great tools, but the ad/da is not good enough, and adding external ad/da convertors is still very expensive to do it right. So for me, passive analog is still the best. But i'm sure there will be a day that this changes if you see how fast it goes.
And yes, i know i'll be dissed here by the dsp fanatics. That is why not many passive crossover lovers (there are many here on the forum) interact and you got a very one-side-of-the-story view. The few that interacted were already dissed i see btw. It's a general problem in audio, that other opinions need to be slaughtered by some...
I would love to see a real high end sounding dsp, that does not cost a fortune. Minidsp HD or Hypex DSP are great tools, but the ad/da is not good enough, and adding external ad/da convertors is still very expensive to do it right. So for me, passive analog is still the best. But i'm sure there will be a day that this changes if you see how fast it goes.
And yes, i know i'll be dissed here by the dsp fanatics. That is why not many passive crossover lovers (there are many here on the forum) interact and you got a very one-side-of-the-story view. The few that interacted were already dissed i see btw. It's a general problem in audio, that other opinions need to be slaughtered by some...
Most DSP based active crossovers would not sound as good as analog ones even if the source is digital with no extra ADA conversion.
A lot of people seem to think that all digital filters sound the same, but a good sounding digital filter is very hard to find. Ones that used for mastering, such as Weiss and EQuilibrium is good, but they are all for professionals. Digital filter design is esoteric, only a few people seem to know how to properly design gain stage, oversampling, dither, etc. and it's impossible to reverse engineer those black boxes.
Also, FIR requires crazy amount of processing power. Don't ever think our average 6000 taps can sound good. It's simply impossible. IMO, audiophile should use at least 100,000 tap, and you would clearly hear the difference.
A lot of people seem to think that all digital filters sound the same, but a good sounding digital filter is very hard to find. Ones that used for mastering, such as Weiss and EQuilibrium is good, but they are all for professionals. Digital filter design is esoteric, only a few people seem to know how to properly design gain stage, oversampling, dither, etc. and it's impossible to reverse engineer those black boxes.
Also, FIR requires crazy amount of processing power. Don't ever think our average 6000 taps can sound good. It's simply impossible. IMO, audiophile should use at least 100,000 tap, and you would clearly hear the difference.
Totally agree.
It's a legitimate argument - also regularly put forward by the aforementioned artisan and other audio industry pros.
Fortunately, I largely parted ways with analog sources years ago, as I (also) believe digital media is the future.
DSP devices get better every year, but quality comes at a price.
This is the only MiniDSP product I'd consider buying:
Attachments
Last edited:
Especially in the US, one of these oldies can be bought second hand for a couple of hundred bucks.
These are OK wrt measured performance and sound quality:
These are OK wrt measured performance and sound quality:
Attachments
Last edited:
Considering the large number of (interdependent) parameters involved, this is an oversimplification imo.
Last edited:
Plasnu, no offense intended, but I have to call total BS on every point made.
Please don't spread such absurdities.....
Kinda yeah. But that is also because many active filters are used for efficiency and huge sound venues, where a bit of hiss from the tweeter is not heard easily.
I only tried one DSP that I believe to be very low noise and of good quality - which is my Groundsound filters. Some are getting better, but my products are 15 years old - way ahead of any other products avaiable. I think minidsp made 1 product last year - via an upgrade - where the SN came down to a usefull level. So I agree that we're not still there in all terms.
But you can still do things with an active filter, that is impossible with passives. And this is where it becomes exciting. And I agree that it is a type of art to build good passive crossovers, since they are way more complicated than using a DSP.
But I do love my DSP - cause I bought one that works in all areas - and therfore has given me sound pleasure for many years - even before a DSP became truly mainstream and relatively cheap.
I don't post very often, but this is a topic which I'm very interested in, so here are my thoughts.
Back when I did rock band sound reinforcement, we had a 3-way active crossover system. This was mostly to reduce our amplifier needs. A side benefit was better sound quality. Another benefit was the ability to change settings if we changed some speakers.
Here, in this thread, the discussion/"argument" seems to be about digital versus analog, rather than active versus passive. I am hard-pressed to find fault with active crossovers, other than the additional costs.
On the topic of MiniDSP (the company/product), Siegfried Linkwitz's home system, where he used MiniDSP, was among the top best stereo systems I've ever heard. So, whatever the supposed shortcomings of it are, it's pretty damn good.
Back when I did rock band sound reinforcement, we had a 3-way active crossover system. This was mostly to reduce our amplifier needs. A side benefit was better sound quality. Another benefit was the ability to change settings if we changed some speakers.
Here, in this thread, the discussion/"argument" seems to be about digital versus analog, rather than active versus passive. I am hard-pressed to find fault with active crossovers, other than the additional costs.
On the topic of MiniDSP (the company/product), Siegfried Linkwitz's home system, where he used MiniDSP, was among the top best stereo systems I've ever heard. So, whatever the supposed shortcomings of it are, it's pretty damn good.
Wait - what? If they just pull them selves together. Then you can make great DSP's and analogo will forever be lost. And no amount of AD og DA is ever gonna be a problem - as long as you dont screw up the design. Not even that expensive.
And remember. This brute force road - to get good FR. Is never gonna sound good.
Even with DSP - it's still an art to build a good speaker, chose the right drivers and combine everything wisely.
A DSP has some clear advantages over analog. But it's not some magic box, that can just relieve you from doing basic work properly. Hopefully no one ever tried to say anything else.
Every speaker design, present some challenges. And if you dont fully understand these - then you are not going to use the right or best solution to work yourself around each and one of them. More taps just equals more computing power and more dealy. Who says that this would be the best solution for any speaker? If the speaker is just "born" as a bad design to begin with. No amount of digital trickery is going to fix that. Might sound a little better... but it will always sound like a "patches" design and not a good one
Precisely - well said.
All speakers systems are a compromise. So when building a system - try to chose compromises, that are least likely to be heard
Ultimately, all that matters is what reaches you at the listening seat, and whether or not that makes you happy. My father(Back in 96. As you can see, at that time I was an "audiophile"), thought my Conrad Johnson and Dunlavy setup was ridiculous. He listened to all his jazz and classical on a boombox he acquired at the thrift store and was immensely happy with it. He thought my system sounded amazing, but he also thought that the search for great sound made one neurotic and that neurosis ultimately keeps you from enjoying music to the fullest. He was also a musician.
YES, absolutely.Precisely - well said.
All speakers systems are a compromise. So when building a system - try to chose compromises, that are least likely to be heard
Sorry but this is not true ( about hiss, other point is real in big venues): do you think that a FOH will tolerate hiss in a large venue and you won't hear it? Really? With some Vdosc or other line arrays or nice big PA? Something with 115db/1w/1m efficiency?
This isn't serious comment to anyone which goes to amplified events whatever the genre of music played. Even more when you have to setup a system like this.
About processor quality i don't know your Groundsound, but mine is even older ( it started it's life around 2000 iirc) and i can tell you it is still on par with 'dedicated' studio converters units ( i recently compared it to Antelope recent unit and won't spend any money on new high end dac at this time, not enough difference natively, zero once clocked to a wordclock generator).
And i don't even talk about the filters algo quality ( fir or iir, here i agree with Plasnu all soft filters doesn't sound the same), which is still on par with other recent dedicated loudspeaker management system ( less powerful very probably but sound as good or better).
The issue i see a lot in amateur world is to think only gear they have access to is worth it. Don't forget there is a field where people earn their life with this, and the gear is on par with this requirements, iow serious gear, not toys.
Of course it is not cheap, of course it doesn't integrate seamlessly with amateur 'standard' ( either connector or levels) but nothing impossible to do.
A tool is a tool: the operator is in charge of end results. Telling 'this is brute force it can't sound good' doesn't mean anything except the operator is less skilled than another.
As if there was only one road to 'good sound' whatever it means...
I remember back in the late nineties or early 2000's, Dave Wilson had a system set up at a high end show with his top of the line speakers and the best electronics money could buy. After it received "best sound at show" he revealed that his speakers were actually being driven by nothing but midfi equipment(Behind the proverbial curtain). Although he did this to make a point about how important speakers were compared to the importance of esoteric electronics, the high end reviewers that were fooled were not happy, and the high end electronic equipment manufacturers that exhibited with him at that show, never exhibited with him again. He lost a lot of friends over that stunt.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.