Your versatility will go down through the floor without digital processing.
Analog and losing op amps will get you through the basement.
OK we can even design simplistic passive RC line filters. Then you need to buffer them. Say you use 2SK170 single fet buffer. Now its attractive for ''less is more''.
Try to shape your off axis after the prototype now. Good luck.
Analog and losing op amps will get you through the basement.
OK we can even design simplistic passive RC line filters. Then you need to buffer them. Say you use 2SK170 single fet buffer. Now its attractive for ''less is more''.
Try to shape your off axis after the prototype now. Good luck.
salas said:
Are you telling me that the passive crossover cannot be re-synthesized using active filters ?? You may not realize that the passive crossover design was most likely a compromise right from the start
Try Sallen and Key active filter networks with simple compound or darlington transistor pairs
No need for opamps if you don't want them What's all of the fuss about ??Anyway if you think these passive crossovers are so complex that they can't be duplicated by any other means then just replace the faulty parts in it and be done with it. What is there to tweak ??
Read my posts again and see what I tell you: Absolutely re-synthesizing a prototype evolved in the passive domain is no simple even in the digital domain. And its complex and costly if done in top quality.
Don't be so sure that passive is a compromise when the handled power isn't extraordinary. I.e. predominantly in domestic applications.
There are systems begging for active due to application, SPL, out of band driver needed control. Others are lending for passive easier.
Even Earl Geddes does the Summa in passive, and has explained how it is viable, non compromised and economically / practically preferable for the given speaker. Call Dr. Geddes a subjectivist with not enough tech understanding. He has presented extraordinary DI control over 90deg with passive and his OS WG.
An open minded engineer does both, picking up what is best given the application and budget or complexity allowances.
Trenching is passe.
Don't be so sure that passive is a compromise when the handled power isn't extraordinary. I.e. predominantly in domestic applications.
There are systems begging for active due to application, SPL, out of band driver needed control. Others are lending for passive easier.
Even Earl Geddes does the Summa in passive, and has explained how it is viable, non compromised and economically / practically preferable for the given speaker. Call Dr. Geddes a subjectivist with not enough tech understanding. He has presented extraordinary DI control over 90deg with passive and his OS WG.
An open minded engineer does both, picking up what is best given the application and budget or complexity allowances.
Trenching is passe.
salas said:
You're splitting hairs now.
I only mentioned the active filter approach because people were concerned about the use of iron cored inductors and replacing them with expensive silver wired inductors etc. With active filters you don't need inductors at all and you don't have to worry about core saturation, eddy current losses or skin effect. It just doesn't exist
Not only that you can tweak an active filter all you like using simple pots etc rather than having to change inductors and capacitors and all of the problems of getting exact values of these rather large and expensive components etc. After all this thread was about tweaking wasn't it
Re: passive vs. active, in the end, there is really only one way to find out, and that is to try it. In the case of the NS1000 family of loudspeakers, if someone wants to try extensively tweaking their crossover, going to an outboard crossover might not be a bad idea in any case. If someone goes to an outboard crossover, not only can they try all sorts of tweaks on the crossover itself, they can experiment with bi-amping (hybrid active + passive) and tri-amping as well. Many people will be able to arrange to borrow an electronic crossover from a friend, and there are also plenty of inexpensive sound cards that could be set up to serve as active crossovers if one does not mind getting involved with the digital domain, etc. If I was to go this route, I would keep one speaker "original" (unless some of the capacitor values were so far off that the original sound had long since disappeared anyway, in which case I would effect the bare minimum of repairs needed to approximate the original sound) and play with the other speaker. That way there would be a constant reference for comparison between "before" and "after" . . . then, after enough tweaking and plenty of time (weeks or months) to let it all sink in, I would finally know what was the ideal solution for my particular situation. I don't think we need to be overly dogmatic about one approach or the other. In the end, if it sounds good, if it sounds better than it did before, that's what counts. Oh, and keeping the (more or less) original crossovers on hand will probably help to retain some resale value if and when the speakers are ever divested. (Depending on what one does to the speakers, the resale value could go up or down quite a bit . . . it's a lot easier to go down than up.)
-- Chris
P.S. BTW Snoopy, the horn loudspeaker company in question was Cessaro Horn Acoustics, under the leadership of Ralph Krebs.
-- Chris
P.S. BTW Snoopy, the horn loudspeaker company in question was Cessaro Horn Acoustics, under the leadership of Ralph Krebs.
Hi All audiophiles!
This is getting stupid to compared active vs. passive filters.WHo think's that is easy to buy or made three or two stereo amps driving with active xo plus three pair of expensive speakers cables, just do it.
I have here three way passive loudspeakers and for high end listening I just listen them directly from one big amplifier 42 kg of weight which is my home made.
When I want to feel more sound pressure I can easy switch bypass switch on my active xo. it is just a two-way, and cut the freq on around 75 Hz, and other bass part of the sound goes to another amplifier just for my sub woofers, but in my loudspeakers which now runs as a satellites is also inside three way passive crossovers.
As some said before a very rare example of very good active speaker is Genelec but everything is inside box, filters amps P.S., so it is a compact piece and you need just a good cd player to connect.
This is getting stupid to compared active vs. passive filters.WHo think's that is easy to buy or made three or two stereo amps driving with active xo plus three pair of expensive speakers cables, just do it.
I have here three way passive loudspeakers and for high end listening I just listen them directly from one big amplifier 42 kg of weight which is my home made.
When I want to feel more sound pressure I can easy switch bypass switch on my active xo. it is just a two-way, and cut the freq on around 75 Hz, and other bass part of the sound goes to another amplifier just for my sub woofers, but in my loudspeakers which now runs as a satellites is also inside three way passive crossovers.
As some said before a very rare example of very good active speaker is Genelec but everything is inside box, filters amps P.S., so it is a compact piece and you need just a good cd player to connect.
Attachments
NO Owen, the sound was cleaner more refined and more detailed at the same time as sounder louder. It did not sound more distorted. The bass notes had more detail and better definition to them as well as going deeper and louder.
I may spend a lot of time switching over capacitos but i have yards of experience in the sound effects of changing caps in many different units. Each cap in my and many many others experience have a signature sound which is often consistently present whether it be used in a cd player or speaker, power supply or signal path. I can predict the characteritic sound changes that each type of cap will have.
In a similar vein you all go on about active versus passive, yet it makes me laugh when I realize how the soud of every piece of equipment can be altered and tuned according to your own taste by changing components, wiring, interconnects, power supply conditioners , mumetal shielding around transformers etc etc etc. There are a hundred ways to reach the same end.
I may spend a lot of time switching over capacitos but i have yards of experience in the sound effects of changing caps in many different units. Each cap in my and many many others experience have a signature sound which is often consistently present whether it be used in a cd player or speaker, power supply or signal path. I can predict the characteritic sound changes that each type of cap will have.
In a similar vein you all go on about active versus passive, yet it makes me laugh when I realize how the soud of every piece of equipment can be altered and tuned according to your own taste by changing components, wiring, interconnects, power supply conditioners , mumetal shielding around transformers etc etc etc. There are a hundred ways to reach the same end.
Snoopy!
The person who start this thread just wants to get more quality of normally good speakers, like they came out from the factory, and if you going to remake all, I mean on adding active xo and all other devices than , these speakers would not be Yamaha ns 1000 any more , but ?????Active.???Speakers!
the purpose is to improve only passive elements inside and keep originally look of speakers ant not making a building from a house!!!!
Active crossover for some other project, just a home made build.
The person who start this thread just wants to get more quality of normally good speakers, like they came out from the factory, and if you going to remake all, I mean on adding active xo and all other devices than , these speakers would not be Yamaha ns 1000 any more , but ?????Active.???Speakers!
the purpose is to improve only passive elements inside and keep originally look of speakers ant not making a building from a house!!!!
Active crossover for some other project, just a home made build.
First, active crossovers should use opamps in the design, they don't do the crossing over, its the buffering effect which is very necassary. If you don't, then differences in amplifier and preamplifier impedance will change the crossover points. Thats why most all decent active crossovers use them. Second, you can still use, and in fact, the best active crossovers do use indocutors, its just very hard and very expensive to design this way. However, I have made active filters using nothing but inductors and resistors, with not a single capacitor other than for the power supply, and I felt they sounded much better.
