Funny this.. these two points are exactly the reason this topic exists.. these two points are ever more becoming less valid with ever smaller, cheaper high quality amps and DSP crossovers.
Except for the simplest of 1st order filter functions for 2-ways, my own experience is different - certainly in the context of the "high end" included in title of this thread. Depending on your criteria what a passive "done right" needs to accomplish - for some that often means more than simple filtering, and can include a higher parts count than the filter itself- a passive network, whether series or parallel, can cost several hundred dollars - without getting into 6moons approved audionervosa parts (Deuland, AudioNote etc) .
As for the simplicity - if using simple online calculators, maybe - but that won't include the enclosure's effect on driver's impedance and or diffraction / directivity, which can obviously vary depending on enclosure loading, and for which only real world acoustic measurements will suffice. The exact number and nature and required time for those will vary, but on the last two that I had designed for me by a local engineer , each took about 2 hours of measurements, and probably half a dozen hours of modeling different scenarios. In the end they worked out substantially better to my ears than simple 1st order passive line level & bi-amping.
I've yet to hear, or drop the coin for a minidsp or similar type of system - which aside from incredible flexibility would no doubt have their own complications (learning curve) and expense (software, and of course multiple amps)
Last edited:
Who sais that the DSP people don't do that? There is obviously no point in starting of with a poor design. Some things just cannot be DSP'ed away, so a sound base is always needed. But in the end any speaker is a compromise, and different people make different choices. One does not need to be less valid than the other since how we perceive sound is mostly subjective anyway. And yes, you can objectively judge the quality, but in the end, some ears need to like it.
I think in the main it has already disappeared the mainstream has already been digital XO or amp.or both for a while, on more than the occasional midi system.
I can't say I'd abandon passive altogether.
DSP isn't nearly as brilliantly implemented in the cheaper options, yet...
I still have complete sets of drivers, XO parts and wood sat around waiting to be built....and I've had the eldest 'kit' nearly a decade!!!
But my mains are active 2 ways using analogue filtering. I have a couple of behringer DSP racks and they do some exciting things to 'enhancer'. But the 'gimmick' wears off and now it's never used (except for movies).
The few class D amps I've heard have sucked after a while, not refined or smooth but they offer Wattage bang for buck and efficiency and in another decades time I'm certain real audiophile quality, wattage and efficiency will all be lunch money cheap.
So I guess I'm a DSP resistance member! But one that knows soon enough there won't be a reason to have my misgivings.
I see at system design.
A passive speaker is a smaller system than an active one, suddenly the designer has to integrate the amplifier. In the typical high system this is easy, the market is going this way also.
When audiophiles come in, some wanting to use e.g. mini DSP and a boutique valve amplifier...suddenly there's possibly integration issues that can't be designed for 100% of the time. For that reason, passive or even just analogue amplification analog and filtration will remain.
We just remain even more die hard than now!!!
I can't say I'd abandon passive altogether.
DSP isn't nearly as brilliantly implemented in the cheaper options, yet...
I still have complete sets of drivers, XO parts and wood sat around waiting to be built....and I've had the eldest 'kit' nearly a decade!!!
But my mains are active 2 ways using analogue filtering. I have a couple of behringer DSP racks and they do some exciting things to 'enhancer'. But the 'gimmick' wears off and now it's never used (except for movies).
The few class D amps I've heard have sucked after a while, not refined or smooth but they offer Wattage bang for buck and efficiency and in another decades time I'm certain real audiophile quality, wattage and efficiency will all be lunch money cheap.
So I guess I'm a DSP resistance member! But one that knows soon enough there won't be a reason to have my misgivings.
I see at system design.
A passive speaker is a smaller system than an active one, suddenly the designer has to integrate the amplifier. In the typical high system this is easy, the market is going this way also.
When audiophiles come in, some wanting to use e.g. mini DSP and a boutique valve amplifier...suddenly there's possibly integration issues that can't be designed for 100% of the time. For that reason, passive or even just analogue amplification analog and filtration will remain.
We just remain even more die hard than now!!!
Last edited:
subjective test comparing passive vs active speakers keep on showing just how good passive are compared to the best active speakers.
just recently a guy compared his passive atc scm40v2 vs the kii three and preferred the ATC
ime, DSP sucks the life of music a little bit. class d sounds pretty bland compared to tube or class a discrete ss and vinyl is still much better then any DAC ive ever owned or heard.
just recently a guy compared his passive atc scm40v2 vs the kii three and preferred the ATC
ime, DSP sucks the life of music a little bit. class d sounds pretty bland compared to tube or class a discrete ss and vinyl is still much better then any DAC ive ever owned or heard.
Last edited:
3. Wider amplifier choice
4. Wider technology choices
5. Upgrade path
6. Fewer chipamps
You're essentially predicting the death of passive speakers and dedicated amplifiers, all evidence to the contrary. When you get around to binning that useless, legacy woo-woo Goldmund, Levinson or FM Acoustics amp I'll be happy to help you save on the electronic disposal fees.
Call me.
The engineer who designed my last 2 passive networks is equally happy to work in both worlds - indeed his day job is as a network engineer for a national cable / phone provider, and he has more than passing familiarity with what digital signal processing can and cannot do.
DSP is a powerful tool than can make child's play of tasks that are difficult, if not impossible to achieve with analog processing, and is definitely not a gag suppressant or band-aid. No doubt there are some functions such as conjugate filters for resonance traps or zobels for dynamic impedance compensate that are easily accomplished with analog passive filters. A couple of those features were included in his recent designs for me, and certainly added to the complexity and cost of design.
There is no single best approach
DSP is a powerful tool than can make child's play of tasks that are difficult, if not impossible to achieve with analog processing, and is definitely not a gag suppressant or band-aid. No doubt there are some functions such as conjugate filters for resonance traps or zobels for dynamic impedance compensate that are easily accomplished with analog passive filters. A couple of those features were included in his recent designs for me, and certainly added to the complexity and cost of design.
There is no single best approach
The observation Siegfried makes in the last paragraphs here are interesting Pluto + subwoofer I seem to recall that elsewhere in his extensive writing he suggests that any speaker type so long as it integrates with the room and can accurately reproduce the recorded material will ultimately sound very similar
Put a 1 in your "other way around" list. I like the challenge of building truly excellent passives, as well as being sensitive to the extra components required (specifically, rack space is an issue with my large multisource system).
Of course, I still dabble in active and will return to it soon I'm sure.
For non-DIYer's... I'd say the future for passive is limited, but not obsolete. Your garden variety millennial likes the romanticism of vinyl but doesn't know what a soldering iron is. Some esoteric people will always have amplifiers or receivers. The only thing that is changing (of significance) is the ability to sample or test this equipment, since Mom and Dad Mortamer went out of business 20 years ago, and Circuit City went out 10 years ago. Many consumers have to read reviews to test the equipment nowadays. Exciting times... this age where we're forced to listen to everyone else's opinion... on everything.
I have no idea why the latest forum software won't allow to edit but whatever...
.... and the odd equilibrium of all this (in my view)... when you can't test drive something, human nature will cause the mfr. of this item to make it worse (cheaper). But the relationship of sound is organic, we already have ears. So long as "Class A" has to adhere to the physics of the universe, there will always be a small market for high-end equipment, speakers included. But the price will be reflected in this niche. And then there's DIY, as we come full-circle, because people are inherently both frugal and smart. How Organic is that?
.... and the odd equilibrium of all this (in my view)... when you can't test drive something, human nature will cause the mfr. of this item to make it worse (cheaper). But the relationship of sound is organic, we already have ears. So long as "Class A" has to adhere to the physics of the universe, there will always be a small market for high-end equipment, speakers included. But the price will be reflected in this niche. And then there's DIY, as we come full-circle, because people are inherently both frugal and smart. How Organic is that?
If active crossovers, op amps, surround sound and active subwoofers couldn't spell the end for two-channel, tube powered, passive multi-way speakers, I don't see how DSP is going to drive passive networks into extinction.
Class D amplifiers are already made so small we take it for granted, and this push had nothing to do with high-end audio enthusiasts clamoring for more compact systems (as if). It was your average electronics consumer who places greater value in size/portability, convenience and brand recognition than in audio fidelity, with top-selling Bluetooth powered devices and bass-heavy headphone brands springing to mind. With the massive shift to personal electronic devices, the loudspeaker industry is having to resort to secondary sources of revenue, such as commercial and industrial applications. And I just don't hear office complexes, restaurants and cafes demanding the capabilities afforded by DSP.
So while I definitely think DSP is a wonderful, capable tool that can resolve many issues, I have a hard time imagining a paradigm shift that spells doom for passive loudspeaker networks that by the same token doesn't also spell doom for loudspeaker manufacturing in general.
Class D amplifiers are already made so small we take it for granted, and this push had nothing to do with high-end audio enthusiasts clamoring for more compact systems (as if). It was your average electronics consumer who places greater value in size/portability, convenience and brand recognition than in audio fidelity, with top-selling Bluetooth powered devices and bass-heavy headphone brands springing to mind. With the massive shift to personal electronic devices, the loudspeaker industry is having to resort to secondary sources of revenue, such as commercial and industrial applications. And I just don't hear office complexes, restaurants and cafes demanding the capabilities afforded by DSP.
So while I definitely think DSP is a wonderful, capable tool that can resolve many issues, I have a hard time imagining a paradigm shift that spells doom for passive loudspeaker networks that by the same token doesn't also spell doom for loudspeaker manufacturing in general.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.