Active vrs passive

[john k...]

Originally Posted by tinitus

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?

[system7]

Originally Posted by john k...

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.



No. We like speakers because we can share the music, even if only with the neighbours. Parties are better though.

[chris661]

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

[5th element]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogates_(film)

[Charles Darwin]

Originally Posted by system7

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…

[tinitus]

Originally Posted by john k...

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

[CopperTop]

Originally Posted by gedlee

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.

[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.

[5th element]

Originally Posted by CopperTop

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.

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%.

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.

[tinitus]

Originally Posted by cotdt

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