Active vrs passive - Page 13 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18th October 2012, 03:22 PM   #121
diyAudio Member
 
john k...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinitus View Post
in a few years, and it may not be so far away, any ordinary sound systems will have a voice controlled computer
and you just ask it to play any kind of music, in any way you like, slower, faster, brighter, anything
it will even do that with absolute 100% perfection, no errors, nada
but if we are still around we will probably sit back and remember the days when there was more fun in life
I think you are wrong. In a few years we will all have implants embedded into out brains. All information of all types will be directly transmitted to us. We will be feed intravenously and will never leave our homes let along "living chambers". Will will exist is a 3-d world delivered to us wirelessly. It will all be part of socialized medicine and the Green revolution. We will all become extensions of the Cloud. We will all find our place in the Matrix. Neo, are you there?
__________________
John k.... Music and Design NaO Dipole Loudspeakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 03:32 PM   #122
system7 is offline system7  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
system7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
I think you are wrong. In a few years we will all have implants embedded into out brains. All information of all types will be directly transmitted to us. We will be feed intravenously and will never leave our homes let along "living chambers". Will will exist is a 3-d world delivered to us wirelessly. It will all be part of socialized medicine and the Green revolution. We will all become extensions of the Cloud. We will all find our place in the Matrix. Neo, are you there?
That would be a lonely business, John. Might as well put on some good headphones given that Cochlear implants are kinda basic (ca. 20 nerve connections) at the moment.

Click the image to open in full size.

No. We like speakers because we can share the music, even if only with the neighbours. Parties are better though.
__________________
Good Night, and Good Luck. Best regards from Steve in Portsmouth, UK.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 04:29 PM   #123
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
There're people controlling robotic arms using neural implants. Not many, admittedly, but now that its been shown to work, I suspect expansion into other parts of the body could be rapid.

I don't want to be plugged in - real life is too interesting.

Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 05:01 PM   #124
diyAudio Member
 
5th element's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates_(film)
__________________
What the hell are you screamin' for? Every five minutes there's a bomb or somethin'! I'm leavin! bzzzz!
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 06:05 PM   #125
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by system7 View Post
I think you've answered your own question there.

You're comparing a second order butterworth closed box response with a 4th order (overdamped?) reflex type response. I think I could hear the difference. It's not a valid comparison.
Hi Steve,

I am still waiting for an explanation where you get the closed box response from.
Are you saying that an overdamped (that's what Tannoy call it) second order xover at 1.2k changes the response of a ported box at 50Hz to that of a closed box while a 4th order L-R at 1.2k doesn't?

I am very much confused…
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 06:35 PM   #126
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by john k... View Post
I think you are wrong. In a few years we will all have implants embedded into out brains.
you dont need the implant for the scenario you describe
from what I hear that scenario is already a reality today
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 07:25 PM   #127
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
I have never and would never do that. It makes no sense. Either it is Hi-Fi or it is not. You can "deviate" and optimized design to add some "magic" and call it Hi-Fi. Its called "coloring the sound to suite your taste".
Well then, I ask what the passive crossover designer is doing that a computer cannot do, given the appropriate measurements? What's all the fuss about?

If the passive crossover design can be churned out with the crank of a handle, well so can a digital crossover design. And the digital crossover can be demonstrated to be more optimal than any passive design ever could be, based on calculations and measurements alone - which is apparently what you're all using to create your scientific passive crossovers.

Where's the magic? If there's no magic it seems that the only thing in favour of the passive crossover is sentiment, or superstition, or purely non-DIY considerations like hardware cost or size.

Glad we've settled it, finally.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 07:36 PM   #128
cotdt is offline cotdt  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Send a message via AIM to cotdt
I agree that active is theoretically superior just because there are less components in the signal path, however the arguments in favor of active such as damping factor, efficiency and temperature stability is rubbish. People keep parroting these things. Look at the math, do some measurements. The minor differences with passive are not going to matter.

Last edited by cotdt; 18th October 2012 at 07:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 08:16 PM   #129
diyAudio Member
 
5th element's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
Well then, I ask what the passive crossover designer is doing that a computer cannot do, given the appropriate measurements?
Nothing, but programming one to do it correctly is another thing entirely.

Quote:
If the passive crossover design can be churned out with the crank of a handle, well so can a digital crossover design. And the digital crossover can be demonstrated to be more optimal than any passive design ever could be, based on calculations and measurements alone - which is apparently what you're all using to create your scientific passive crossovers.
The active dsp version will always do exactly what you want it to do also, as in component tolerances don't matter one bit, it's maths that defines the filter not a passive component with ±5%.

Quote:
Where's the magic? If there's no magic it seems that the only thing in favour of the passive crossover is sentiment, or superstition, or purely non-DIY considerations like hardware cost or size.
Nowadays the design of loudspeakers is essentially science, not an art form and not magic. Now before measurements and CAD became the norm, there was a degree of art and magic to it because you were flying blind most of the time and when you ended up with a design that actually worked properly it was magical.

There are lots of people that will still try and argue that there's some voodoo involved, but the most respected designers I know build all their designs based off of logic and sound scientific reasoning.

I think it's clear from this thread that there's a lot of subjective comments thrown around in favour or against one type or another and this doesn't help the issue. It also doesn't help the issue that active loudspeakers are by no means the norm in audiophile circles. What also doesn't help is that it is a lot easier to put together a good quality system around 2 channels, but then once asked to do it for 6, normally something gives and the quality level drops. One also then compares a stock Behringer inserted in the wrong way to a well designed and put together passive system and that ends in disappointment.

It is extremely easy to understand why people can have bad experiences with active xovers and for who the best sound they have ever heard, has been from a passive system.

Getting an active system right is quite difficult in terms of making sure the quality of the hardware for the 6-8 channels is of equal quality to that of what would have been a 2 channel system and then to make sure that the active design itself is implemented correctly.

The kind of digital system that incorporates all of the system elements in the correct way to maximise performance is not anything close to the norm. Most simple systems made out of the miniDSP or the Behringer unit are inadequate when it comes to the best of what you could actually achieve, they are a compromise, but what you gain is tremendous flexibility for little outlay. Adding Jan Didden's mod to the Behringer unit though helps to improve a lot upon its major short coming.

If you want to look at it objectively without any audiophoolery threatening to cloud the issue, then yes active is superior to passive and there is simply no way to argue otherwise because its quite basic to understand why. I don't think anyone has really been arguing against this though, the trouble is that it's a bad question. It's far too simple a question as it doesn't include any of the outside factors that are crucial in assuring that either of the two approaches have been implemented properly and hence arguing ensues.

Is active better then passive? Yes.

Then someone says - no because if you go active you've got ground loops and noise and XYZ getting in the way. All of the above will no doubt be true if the system is implemented incorrectly and then one someone says it can never be better because you've put an opamp in the way... well then now we're onto the good old subjective vs objective discussions and we all know how those end up.

If you ignore what needs to be ignored to save us all from going crazy, then yes active is better. Is it always going to sound better? This much is less clear because even the objective side of things can recognise when a passive crossover is perfectly adequate to the cause and that going active isn't going to bring about any real worthwhile gains. Is going active in this case ever going to sound worse, no, it shouldn't, unless you've done something wrong.
__________________
What the hell are you screamin' for? Every five minutes there's a bomb or somethin'! I'm leavin! bzzzz!
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th October 2012, 08:17 PM   #130
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cotdt View Post
I agree that active is theoretically superior just because there are less components in the signal path
no, there are more, but much smaller

actually its funny that its called active
basicly its still just passive components
but positioned in the electronic environment
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Active or Passive bjackson Multi-Way 30 4th April 2005 10:49 PM
Passive into active MethMan Multi-Way 8 12th January 2005 04:58 PM
Active of passive audiobomber Multi-Way 9 31st July 2004 02:31 AM
dB loss by using passive crossovers? Active vs Passive and 1st vs 4th order Hybrid fourdoor Multi-Way 3 11th July 2004 09:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2