That's how things are done nowadays. You advertise for a positive review, make sure your product isn't utter crap and voila, you are a brilliant designer. And when they politely suggest you install the latest Mundorf caps, you better comply or else... or else what, or else use your imagination. 
This has been proven to be insignificant. You can make active and passive virtually identical.
I was talking about exact. Not some generalizations based on case-depend empirical study. Source resistance is one possible tool to reduce non-linear distortion in some cases, but that's not the only remaining and possibly audible difference in practice assuming that active filter is able to correct linear distortion only. I have designed speakers which need passive filter for noise reduction of power amplifier. Noise has been significant problem with ~115 dB/2.83/1m drivers. Not with all power amps, but the most silent ones may not sound good enough or don't have adequate features for the project.
I can agree that the r2.5 has some poor performancies, like the peaky bass response that can be problematic in some cases and rooms. But in many other ways the 2.5 has a very good behavior, exceptionally well so for a speaker of its type. so it is no coincidence that many have liked this speaker over these years
No it's not, but source resistance is able to reduce motor-based non-linear distortion of electro-dynamic driver. This is basic advantage of increased current driving.
^We were talking about imitating passive with active. Not crossover or driver issues. Some passive XOs have series resistance which reduces non-linear. We could also design passive speaker optimizing current driving features - especially multi-mid constructions having drivers with high voltage sensitivity and non-conductive voice coil former. Improvement could be surprising.
Significance is just a word/decision for personal use. It does not have constant global value worth to repeat here.
Significance is just a word/decision for personal use. It does not have constant global value worth to repeat here.
They might be enjoyable for some but its about elevating the game
From Scottmoose: "the enclosure alignment dominates"
I believe the peak in the alignment is what I hear from 2.5, no matter the position of the speaker. It's not something that I want and a speaker that has high praise shouldn't have it.
There is an old post by Speaker Dave(I have it saved somewhere) where They did a blind test comparing a box alignment with a peaky response to a flat aligned speaker that was equalized to have the same response as the speaker with the peaky response. No one could hear the difference between the two.. Not something a good speaker should have, IMO
Which can be done, properly.. I can think of many reasons why two separate tests might end up sounding different but to suggest it is the crossover is a conflation of facts.
They might be enjoyable for some but its about elevating the game
From Scottmoose: "the enclosure alignment dominates"
I believe the peak in the alignment is what I hear from 2.5, no matter the position of the speaker. It's not something that I want and a speaker that has high praise shouldn't have it.
There is an old post by Speaker Dave(I have it saved somewhere) where They did a blind test comparing a box alignment with a peaky response to a flat aligned speaker that was equalized to have the same response as the speaker with the peaky response. No one could hear the difference between the two.. Not something a good speaker should have, IMO
Have you tried to block the vent output or alter the vent tuning freq?
Do you know if these drivers where sent to the dealer from proac and then where sent to your friend? Or could the dealer just have sent him drivers without ordering them from proac? There are different version of this driver.
Good question. I don't really know.. I know appearance and markings on the boxes and drivers were the same as what I'd seen from my Solen purchases.
They might be enjoyable for some but its about elevating the game
Rather, it's about finding something more suited to your requirements. That doesn't necessarily mean 'elevating the game' in a macro sense, since that would imply that your preferences and requirements from a speaker are universally applicable.
From Scottmoose: "the enclosure alignment dominates"
I believe the peak in the alignment is what I hear from 2.5, no matter the position of the speaker. It's not something that I want and a speaker that has high praise shouldn't have it.
Since this is a partial quote, in justice to myself and anyone else reading, I shall now put the context back in so the phrase means what it is supposed to, and not the opposite, as this half-sentence extract would otherwise imply.
The full sentence read: 'Well, the enclosure alignment dominates rather than the position of the vent on the front or rear baffle as such.'. It was written in response to a previous post you made, to explain that the acoustic alignment of a regular vented box has a greater influence on the LF balance than the location of the vent termini on the front or rear baffle (maintaining the same location in the vertical plane).
The bass alignment, assuming a stock Scan 18W/8535-01 isn't one I favour myself either. However, it is balanced for a given set of results, preferably away from boundaries, and just because you or I prefer other alignments (or drive unit selection for that matter) that doesn't mean our preferences should be taken as some kind of standard for everybody else. The fact is, a lot of people loved the R2.5 as it was, and you can see why; its general balance is one similar to what many older reflex designs had, which were popular with music lovers who preferred a bias toward the LF. Which is fair enough.
Speaking purely in a general sense, what I find slightly ironic about the R2.5 is that from everything I've seen, it was actually a reasonable piece of production design. Critiques of it generally centre around the theme that some people wish it was something different. But criticising it on that basis is a little like criticising a Bentley for not being a Lamborghini. The fact is, the R2.5 was a medium-sized 2-way commercial floorstander designed / voiced for a slightly elevated and well-extended LF balance (unless we're honestly expected to believe that was a mistake that simply wasn't noticed in the design & production stages), a slightly elevated on-axis HF (ditto) and as a result, a relatively smooth midband with the aforementioned factored in. Being a commercial product, it was also presumably designed to make money, so had to be relatively affordable to produce and sell to distributors or dealers at the target price point, who in turn also have to make a profit. That was what the R2.5 was meant to be and was, and it had roughly a 7 year production lifespan.
Not a bad record for a failure.
Last edited:
That doesn't necessarily mean 'elevating the game' in a macro sense, since that would imply that your preferences and requirements from a speaker are universally applicable.
"Elevating the Game" meant improvements based on the science that shows a flat response(among other things) adds less coloration recorded music, so in turn the sound is more natural and desirable. It's definitely the way I hear it.
"Since this is a partial quote, in justice to myself and anyone else reading."
My apologies. I shouldn't have quoted you. I was trying to stress the point that One can't escape the audible effects of the box alignment.
R2.5 was not a failure due to the fact that it was a commercial success!
"Elevating the Game" meant improvements based on the science that shows a flat response(among other things) adds less coloration recorded music, so in turn the sound is more natural and desirable. It's definitely the way I hear it.
"Since this is a partial quote, in justice to myself and anyone else reading."
My apologies. I shouldn't have quoted you. I was trying to stress the point that One can't escape the audible effects of the box alignment.
R2.5 was not a failure due to the fact that it was a commercial success!
Last edited:
Thanks, I think the same, and I will not sell my DTQWT in the years that I have left .....