Yeah, This... Especially true when discussing a 3-way speaker, with the lower crossover in the 200 - 300 Hz range... those low crossovers get pretty expensive.
My next project will be a DSP active 3 way, for many reasons, but cost is part of it. I think I will still spend more for the active approach, but not that much more...
The fact: If you want to keep the system all analogue - source must be vinyl, tape, radio ( in order of fidelity ) OR if you fell ok with digital. The development and consequences of your particular choice driven by taste and not merely economical fact.
I mean, I'm ok with a low level TT since it brings me analogue source.
I mean, I'm ok with a low level TT since it brings me analogue source.
Indeed. The parts for the passive XOs in our big MTM ML-TL WAWs at 250Hz cost more than the PLLXO and a 4 x 100 (4Ω) Class D amp for the bass used for biamping.
dave
What good quality amps are you getting for a few dollars and where are you buying your crossover parts? From everything I've been told by people I know who build amps (some for a living at non-audiophile companies) you still need to spend a few hundred to get something good quality with a nice power supply.
I've build 3-way crossovers for less than $75 before with the woofer having a 300 Hz crossover. You don't have to use air-core inductors in every location. And the side benefit is I don't have 3-6 amplifiers and numerous cables all over the place and I can take my speakers anywhere or put them in any room easily connected to any regular amp.
I also agree. I'm not the snake oil snob that think only a zillion dollar costing amp can do the job, but those cheap class D boards don't do it for me, and i don't like the sound of pcm processing that all dsp's have (i know it's sometimes unavoidable). A very good amp can be had for a few hundreds, that is true, and dsp can do a lot of things analog can't. But i also think other scenarios are still valid, and you need to look at the whole picture of the project. In some cases cheap class d amps and dsp is the solution, but in others expensive SET's or very complex passive crossovers are better.
But in this section of the forum there are many attacks on everybody who only start thinking about this non dsp solutions and this has to stop. It chases a lot of crowd away to other fora. There should be place for all styles of multiway setups on this forum i think. It also makes me look less at this section, or post my thoughts, plans or questions here because i will again have to defend myself why i don't want dsp or cheap class d amp boards for my project...
Well, many, if not most, of the studio reference monitor loudspeakers that are used to mix the music most of us listen to, use class D amps nowadays. They are good enough to make the music, they are certainly good enough to listen to it. Most cheap class D amps now have specs that are better than the limits of human hearing, so they are audibly perfect, as long as you keep them out of clipping.
And it isn't hard to find, say, a two-channel class D board that will deliver 2x50 watts RMS into 8 ohms, for under $20. Because these are stereo amps, one board is enough for both woofer and tweeter in a two-way system. Add another $20 or $30 for a switch-mode power supply, and you're mostly there. The wood for the cabinets will probably be the most expensive item in the build, unless you choose expensive drivers.
IMO, DSP filters have both advantages and disadvantages. The chief advantage is that it's very easy to generate any reasonable frequency response, and you can easily change it if necessary.
The chief disadvantage is that there can be quite a lot of time delay in the process, often milliseconds of it, mostly caused by the A/D, D/A, and their associated data buffers. Unless care is taken, this can be the time-delay equivalent of mounting one driver a few feet further from the listener than the other - not a very good way to get a well-behaved crossover!
If you don't want to use DSP filters, a few dual or quad op-amps, some 1% or 2% caps and resistors, and a scrap of protoboard is all it takes to make a better active crossover than just about any passive crossover network you can DIY.
For those who revere single ended triodes and similar overpriced esoterica, all I can offer is my sympathy. There is no known cure, except maybe being forced to declare personal bankruptcy.
-Gnobuddy
And it isn't hard to find, say, a two-channel class D board that will deliver 2x50 watts RMS into 8 ohms, for under $20. Because these are stereo amps, one board is enough for both woofer and tweeter in a two-way system. Add another $20 or $30 for a switch-mode power supply, and you're mostly there. The wood for the cabinets will probably be the most expensive item in the build, unless you choose expensive drivers.
IMO, DSP filters have both advantages and disadvantages. The chief advantage is that it's very easy to generate any reasonable frequency response, and you can easily change it if necessary.
The chief disadvantage is that there can be quite a lot of time delay in the process, often milliseconds of it, mostly caused by the A/D, D/A, and their associated data buffers. Unless care is taken, this can be the time-delay equivalent of mounting one driver a few feet further from the listener than the other - not a very good way to get a well-behaved crossover!
If you don't want to use DSP filters, a few dual or quad op-amps, some 1% or 2% caps and resistors, and a scrap of protoboard is all it takes to make a better active crossover than just about any passive crossover network you can DIY.
For those who revere single ended triodes and similar overpriced esoterica, all I can offer is my sympathy. There is no known cure, except maybe being forced to declare personal bankruptcy.
-Gnobuddy
You are right if you suppose that everyone wants that clean dry analytical sound that studiomonitors require. But i've worked in studio's with fairly good monitoring (PMC, ATC, Westlake, B&W) and fitting amps so i know the deal. But i don't enjoy music on those speakers, they are to clinical. I want speakers that give the illusion that i'm seeing the musicians in front of me, and often that is done by colouring the sound the right way. That is what tube amps give me, and what dsp disturbs for me. But if you are after the clean analytical sound, class D and dsp is certainly a valid option. I would only use higher quality class D (like Ncore or so) than those cheap boards.
But as always, each to his own, and that is the point i want to make. If someone wants to talk about passive analoge crossovers, don't push your dsp in his throat. If you got nothing constructive to say, search a more interesting tread to read and discuss. If he/she did his homework, he/she should know about dsp.
But lets get back on topic...
But as always, each to his own, and that is the point i want to make. If someone wants to talk about passive analoge crossovers, don't push your dsp in his throat. If you got nothing constructive to say, search a more interesting tread to read and discuss. If he/she did his homework, he/she should know about dsp.
But lets get back on topic...
Me? No way. Why would I be so silly as to think that everyone wants the same thing? Evidence to the contrary is everywhere!
I rarely go to a shopping mall, but whenever I do, I marvel at all the thousands and thousands of things for sale that I don't want at all, but which many other people seem to want quite badly. Clearly, we don't want the same things!
That's the definition of ideal Hi-Fi - no audible alterations to the signal. Like a good camera, that takes accurate photos with no visual or colour distortions.
I agree that tube amps can cause pleasant sonic colouration, but this is not Hi-Fi. It's something else, like photos that have been heavily Photoshopped.
Now there is certainly nothing evil about Photoshopped pictures (they are everywhere in advertising, film, TV, and the 'Web). And there is nothing evil about music that has been distorted to your personal tastes, either. But IMO it just confuses the issue when people call this sort of thing Hi-Fi, because that's not what it is. There should be a separate term for it, but I don't think there is a recognized one; perhaps "My-Fi", which rhymes with "Hi-Fi", but indicates the subjective and variable nature of the thing?
I like distorting tube amps too, but not for music listening. I use tube amps that distort by design for my electric guitars, where my goal is to create a pleasant sound, rather than reproduce a music signal accurately. Here I'm looking for 5% - 50% THD, instead of 0.1% or less for Hi-Fi.
Me? Are you sure you've read my posts on this thread? Because I've done no such thing as push DSP down anyone's throat.
In fact, my preference is for old-school active analogue crossovers, mainly for reasons of time delay in DSP codecs, which can be considerable. (If you sample at 44.1 kHz and have a small data buffer of only 256 samples, that's already nearly 6 milliseconds of delay - equivalent to the speaker being moved away from the listener by about 6 feet.)
But I think you and I basically agree on the point you're making. These days our world is filled with really serious problems that literally threaten most life on earth; in the face of that, it's hard to understand why anybody would take loudspeaker crossover design so seriously as to get upset about it, or try to force their own viewpoint on anybody else. It just isn't that important...
Funny thing: most of my music listening these days is done during my commute to and from work - on the stock factory-installed speakers in my vehicle, which are probably the cheapest the manufacturer could find. There's some hollow boomy bass down low, a huge lack of midrange, and some harsh tizz-tizz noises up high in the frequency range. Goodness knows what sort of crossover is being used.
But the genius of Neil Finn's songwriting and Crowded House's musicianship comes through just fine. There is no version of low-Fi or My-Fi so bad as to prevent that.
-Gnobuddy
The same ol' story
There's difference between production and re-production
?
Or not !?
Well I am going to quibble a bit...
That is one definition of HiFi, but not one I agree with... I used to, but not any more. In my view, HiFi is about creating a pleasant illusion of a real performance.
I am about halfway through an excellent book "Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms" by Floyd Toole. He states the goal of HiFI better than anyone ever has to me... "Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction liberates a new level of artistic creativity. Capturing the total essence of a "live" event is no longer the only, or even best, objective"
Toole's view is that a real speakers, located in real rooms, must create a spatial illusion even if the original 2-track recording lacks the necessary spatial information (which studio recordings often due).
I buy into this line of thinking... and I extend it beyond loudspeakers to the whole reproduction chain. If a person finds that a set of KT-88s does a better job creating the illusion than does a row of transistors, then that is what that person needs. For some people, the signal chain must remain analog for them to be immersed. I don't know what exactly they are hearing, but I don't question that they are hearing something... similarly, I hear a distinct improvement with High Resolution digital audio. 24 bit 96 kHz sounds better to me than 16 bit 44.1, and the difference is not that subtle. Apparently, other people don't hear much difference. This does not mean that they are not listening closely or that they are imperceptive. Nor does it mean that I am imagining things. It means we are both right, and people hear things differently.
Regarding studio monitors in particular: The ones I have heard have been highly revealing, but I would not want to listen to them for pleasure. loudspeaker must serve the art, and if the music is not pleasurable, the artistic expression is not being conveyed. But I have freinds who really enjoy a highly detailed, etched, presentation, and they like studio-monitor-type speakers... For them, it works.
That is one definition of HiFi, but not one I agree with... I used to, but not any more. In my view, HiFi is about creating a pleasant illusion of a real performance.
I am about halfway through an excellent book "Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms" by Floyd Toole. He states the goal of HiFI better than anyone ever has to me... "Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction liberates a new level of artistic creativity. Capturing the total essence of a "live" event is no longer the only, or even best, objective"
Toole's view is that a real speakers, located in real rooms, must create a spatial illusion even if the original 2-track recording lacks the necessary spatial information (which studio recordings often due).
I buy into this line of thinking... and I extend it beyond loudspeakers to the whole reproduction chain. If a person finds that a set of KT-88s does a better job creating the illusion than does a row of transistors, then that is what that person needs. For some people, the signal chain must remain analog for them to be immersed. I don't know what exactly they are hearing, but I don't question that they are hearing something... similarly, I hear a distinct improvement with High Resolution digital audio. 24 bit 96 kHz sounds better to me than 16 bit 44.1, and the difference is not that subtle. Apparently, other people don't hear much difference. This does not mean that they are not listening closely or that they are imperceptive. Nor does it mean that I am imagining things. It means we are both right, and people hear things differently.
Regarding studio monitors in particular: The ones I have heard have been highly revealing, but I would not want to listen to them for pleasure. loudspeaker must serve the art, and if the music is not pleasurable, the artistic expression is not being conveyed. But I have freinds who really enjoy a highly detailed, etched, presentation, and they like studio-monitor-type speakers... For them, it works.
I completely agree that there should be no "attacks" on anyone based on their preferences.
A year ago I was very skeptical of Class D amplification. I had heard several mediocre examples, and I just thought that the whole Class D thing was "too good to be true". I was also very skeptical that an analog signal could be converted to digital, processed, and converted back to analog using an inexpensive "mini-DSP" and there would be no resulting degradation in sound quality.
Two things changed my mind... first I heard the NAD M22 class D amp, and I was pretty amazed. This thing is serious high end and to my ear it competes with the best amps out there. This is an N-core technology amp.... Second thing to change my mind: The Dutch&Dutch 8c speaker. This 3 way active speaker turned all my pre-concieved notions upside down. it uses DSP filtering and Class D amplification. Whatever quality is lost by the A/D and D/A process is made up for in the other advantages that come with an active speaker.
Well, I'm going to quibble with your quibbling.
"Hi-Fi" is a contraction of "high fidelity". The word "fidelity" means the act of being faithful - in this context, faithful to the original sound or signal. So "High Fidelity", which became "Hi-Fi", quite literally means "audio equipment which accurately reproduces the original signal".
We need a different term for that, and I'm proposing "My Fi" - which proposal, I'm sure, will be thoroughly ignored.
Hi-Fi is a field of engineering, with clear goals and scientifically measurable objective outcomes, such as "frequency response flat to within +/- 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz". Because the methodology of science could be applied, sound reproduction improved incalculably and rapidly, going from the thin tinny sound of an Edison tinfoil phonograph in 1877 to the remarkably good sound of a decent CD-based Hi-Fi system, circa 1987, one hundred years later.
My-Fi, on the other hand, is a personal preference, completely unrelated to science or engineering or objectivity, like, say, having a preference for Granny Smith apples over Gala apples. You can't measure or quantify it, it's just an idiosyncratic personal preference.
Apples don't get better over time, because there is no objective standard for "goodness" of an apple. Sure, new strains might be bred, and they may taste slightly different, and public tastes might change. But apples in 1987 weren't significantly better in any notable way than apples in 1887.
My-Fi won't get any better either, for similar reasons. There is no objective basis for improvement, therefore there won't be any systematic improvement. Like all subjective, sense-limited human endeavors - cooking, say - it's ultimately a dead-end; the basic recipe for stew or tamales hasn't changed for an estimated 8000 years and 7000 years respectively.
Not that Hi-Fi has a lot of evolution left in it; for some thirty-five years now, since the CD player became widely available, every component in the Hi-Fi chain - except for loudspeakers and listening rooms - has been audibly perfect (all defects are too small for human senses to detect). All we've got left to improve are speakers, and the rooms in which we listen to them.
But we can always spend the next 100 years arguing about the merits of directional cabling, Shakti stones, amplifier spikes, Mpingo discs, and primitive pre-WWII triode valves manufactured in Hitler's Nazi Germany.
I'll munch on a Gala apple and listen, or maybe I'll have some stew or tamales. -Gnobuddy
Do they make the music?The same ol' story
There's difference between production and re-production
?
Or not !?
The thing is, we did. Several decades ago, based on thousands of carefully controlled listening tests conducted by qualified researchers and engineers, using lab-grade equipment, and carefully statistically analyzed by people who actually knew the meaning of terms like "standard deviation" and "correlation coefficient".
By the time the CD arrived, we had the technology to make every step in the audio chain audibly perfect, except for microphones at the recording end, and loudspeakers / listening rooms at the listening end. Wow? Gone. Flutter? Gone. Rumble? Gone. Hiss? Below audibility. Stereo separation? More than you could ever need. Print-through? Gone. Frequency response? Ruler flat through the ear's entire range. Harmonic distortion? Below audibility at all frequencies and SPLs up to clipping. Intermodulation distortion? Ditto.
Their work done, the researchers and scientists largely left the field, leaving it open for the lunatic fringe to come in, throw away all that hard-won knowledge, and replace it with superstitious beliefs about single-crystal conductors, magic-wood discs, et cetera.
Peter Walker said it decades ago - the loudspeaker and its interaction with the listening room is the dominant remaining imperfection. The statement has only become truer with time, as all the electronic links in the chain matured to audible perfection.
But when you actually find the Holy Grail, after decades of hunting for it,what do you do? It's not so easy to acknowledge that the search of your life is over. So you throw it away, pour scorn on it, claim it wasn't sufficiently Graily, and go Holy Grailing some more. Pretty much exactly what we did with the Compact Disc.
-Gnobuddy
I don't there is any need to involve the lunatic fringe
For example, do you think it's possible to hear the difference between two preamps, the only significant difference between them being bandwidth, 1MHz compared to 100kHz? Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.