In its simplest filter form, yes, this is what happens. DIYers have a means
to avoid that and implement 3rd order LP with RLC compensating network
for the impedance peak. Clever choice of filter values would raise the
critical range to a moderate 4 ohm level. So, you don't really need big amps
or perhaps you do. Did I mention that sensitivity changes too.
to avoid that and implement 3rd order LP with RLC compensating network
for the impedance peak. Clever choice of filter values would raise the
critical range to a moderate 4 ohm level. So, you don't really need big amps
or perhaps you do. Did I mention that sensitivity changes too.
And some DIY'ers like the fact that they can justify the monster 150W Amp they built that can also jump start cars and do light welding! Choice, that's what makes this hobby fun 
Being more serious you are absolutely correct BUT it does take a certain type to be good at compensated crossovers. Also requires you to have €€€ invested in components for trying and adjusting. I take my hat off to those who can properly optimise passive crossovers. They have a level of patience I lack.
Being more serious you are absolutely correct BUT it does take a certain type to be good at compensated crossovers. Also requires you to have €€€ invested in components for trying and adjusting. I take my hat off to those who can properly optimise passive crossovers. They have a level of patience I lack.
And some DIY'ers like the fact that they can justify the monster 150W Amp they built that can also jump start cars and do light welding! Choice, that's what makes this hobby fun
Looking at the specs of equivalent active studio monitors is good enough to convince me.
PMC supply their MB2s-A with 325W, 120W and 120W;
ATCs SCM100ASL Pro comes with 200W, 100W and 50W
and Questeds Q210 & Q212 (twin woofers) with a whopping 1450W, 450W and 450W!
Between them they cover most of the driver combinations in this thread.
You can conjugate your speakers passively to make them look resistive.. How would you gain efficiency?
If your aim is "the closest approach to the original sound" - and with drivers of high quality as the ones mentioned in this thread this is not entirely impossible- implementing active drive is not an easy task ; at least not easier than designing a passive crossover.
Cheap active crossover and DSP like MiniDSP or Behringer need not apply : IMHO they superimpose a sort of electronic haze on the music. Furthermore you need 3 VERY high quality stereo amplifiers to maintain transparence instead of just one . In the end cost and effort may be higher than just plying with high quality R, L, C.!
Cheap active crossover and DSP like MiniDSP or Behringer need not apply : IMHO they superimpose a sort of electronic haze on the music. Furthermore you need 3 VERY high quality stereo amplifiers to maintain transparence instead of just one . In the end cost and effort may be higher than just plying with high quality R, L, C.!
This writer found only advantages with going active
active loudspeakers [english]
He also found that smaller/cheaper amps into an active system were more beneficial than a larger, higher grade amplifier into a passive system.
There is a lot of vested interest in passive systems.
active loudspeakers [english]
He also found that smaller/cheaper amps into an active system were more beneficial than a larger, higher grade amplifier into a passive system.
There is a lot of vested interest in passive systems.
Designing a basic passive crossover is not hard but designing one which can closely control the transfer function in the way an active one can is usually impractical if not impossible.
What is the cause of this haze?
An amplifier that drives a passive crossover needs to be more powerful than the sum of those for an active crossover, it needs to handle a more difficult impedance, it needs to maintain high performance over the full 20-20kHz frequency range,... I do not know which would be cheaper for a manufacturer but would expect it to be close. The cost for a DIYer is likely to be different because of the way the market works.
OCD is best left to medical forums.
A man of genius like Peter Walker maintained that all amplifiers sound the same. How many members of this forum would now agree with his thinking?
Electronic haze is something that cannot be descibed exactly or measured; may be some of us are more sensitive to it ; or our brain recognizes it more promptly when we compare ,consciously or unconsciously, the reproduced sound to that of non amplified , live , classical music
I play a Doctor on TV. Anyway, if I see something that resembles OCD, I'll call it as such.
I do, if the non linearities are below known standards of audibility. I've been asking people to demonstrate these purported sonic effects and to date, no one has been able to, even in a Zipser grade test.
Then it's imagined. The Loch Ness Monster of audio. There's always some unexplained lurgy to keep audiophiles out on that cold lake of implausibility.
Thanks for the straightforward answer. If we don't know how to define it or measure it how do we know if it is present or not? Is it perhaps more of a feeling rather than something you can hear in the sound?
Oddly though I am not aware of PW publishing any results of controlled listening tests on this. He also said that his amplifiers were not perfect, but better than anybody elses!
What you are missing is that, for active, you can put 4 or 6 chip amps in the box that a 'classic' stereo AB amp would requre for about the same cost. This is both cost effective and generally gives more headroom. The chipamps will be within their SOA so should sound as good as anything else.
If you believe 3 lower powered amps driving cones directly is not as good as one thumping great monster fighting a complex crossover this approach will not appeal. But both are valid, both can produce great sound and both can be turned into a complete pigs ear in the hands of the unitiated.
I thought he said something along the lines of "all properly designed amplifiers sound the same"
Exactly,Andy. It is a feeling that I have ( but not only me ,I believe) when I "consciously or uncounsciosly compare reproduced sound to that of non amplified live classical music".
That something cannot be defined or measured does not mean that it is not present.. Just to remain in my field, 30 years ago we did not know of the existence of virus C as a leading cause of cirrhosis and cancer of the liver, and 20 years ago we did not know how to measure it.
Now we not only quantify it but we can also cure it.
I don't see why it cannot be measured. If you have a different experience listening to music on hardware that suffers from electronic haze compared to hardware that does not then the electrical activity in your brain will be different and can be measured. If the sound field is measured to be the same within audibility limits then the source of that electronic haze lies elsewhere.
A definition that rests on you telling us how much electronic haze is present is workable but not particularly useful. To be useful others, preferably everybody, need to be able to identify how much is present in a consistent manner. This is likely to be the main stumbling block as with most things audiophile.
Peter Walker was also once asked about the QUAD listening room to which he replied that they haven't got one since everything is designed purely by measurements.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.