Active vrs passive

[flavio81]

Originally Posted by Barleywater

Very low distortion and compression driver don't belong in the same sentance

Regards,

Andrew

This perhaps was true before the 1980s. Modern horns not only are free from higher order distortions and pretty controlled in 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortions, but more importantly the big efficiency increase allows the driver itself to work less and thus achieve lower distortion.

Furthermore high efficiency (>100dB) allows the use of the purest, most natural sounding amps available. Which can elimminate the nastiest non-linear distortions.

There is a reason many of the best high-loudness studio monitors in the world are using horns on their drivers.

Not all horns are created equal...

[SY]

flavio, a few minutes spent with a CAD program will usefully demonstrate that poor quality drivers whose responses change (that's an inevitable consequence of parameter changes) fare poorly with either active or passive. The impedance doesn't change without frequency response, sensitivity, and distortion changing as well.

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by SY

In these days of CAD, you can hit just about any desired transfer function with a passive. It's not 1978 anymore.

Yes, with programs like PCD you can cobble up a 10 or 15 or even 20 element "passive" crossover that will "hit [the] desired transfer function", at least close enough for audio work and without presenting too silly a load to the amplifier (and wasting too much power). But only an idiot (and a rich one at that) would build it.

I'm not arguing that you can't build servicable two-way surrounds with passive crossovers to use with your AV receiver's built in amps. That's what I've done for mine. It takes fewer wires than an amplifier in every box would, too. But you won't find Linkwitz transforms and dipole correction and inter-driver delays quite so simple, regardless your "CAD" skills . . . and you won't find the 8.3 mH inductor that the program calls for all that easy to adjust if it turns out that 9.1 actually works better when you build it.

It's kind of quaint, though, using "modern" CAD software to design using 1978 (obsolete) technology for the build. If you're going to design it on a computer then why not implement it on a computer (DSP chip) as well?

[SY]

Note post 727.

Also, I had a typo in that one- should be "Likewise, it doesn't mean that one way won't be more practical to implement than another. " Homer nods.

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by planet10

It would be a bitch to get the active XO to track the changes in a drivers response under dynamic changes in the music

Yes, it is a bitch trying to correct one nonlinear distortion with another (hopefully inverse) nonlinear distortion. I sure souldn't count on any simple "passive" device doing it . . .

Originally Posted by flavio81

Pardon me if i'm ignorant of something, but i thought we wanted to elliminate the problems brought by the varying load presented by the drivers.

Yes . . . at least that's generally what I want to do. And the tool for doing it is an amplifier, a device which has a constant input impedance and, if properly matched, an output that is immune to the driver's impedance curve.

[Pano]

Originally Posted by SY

I should add (and I feel safe saying that Pano would agree) that just because a particular transfer function is desired and can be done doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Pano agrees.

DSP is cool because you can do all sorts of corrections, large or small. A poke here, a prod there and you can really whip things into shape. With passive it's not so easy, but there are some clever things you can do. I work and work at finding a crossover that does what I want with the fewest components. For example my current crossover for the VOTT A5 + tweeter has 12 parts. 3 for the low pass, 5 for the midrange, 4 for the tweeter. 5 inductors, 3 caps, 4 resistors total. Not bad for a three-way. It could be done with fewer, but would not sound right (I've tried; 1st order crossovers are not for me).

Very steep filters, which DSP is good at, fail to convince me sonically. Yes, they keep the drivers perfectly within their ideal bandwidth, but they sound segmented to me. Maybe my ear needs more of a blend between the drivers - a psychoacoustic thing. Not everyone may object to them.

[Barleywater]

Originally Posted by flavio81

This perhaps was true before the 1980s. Modern horns not only are free from higher order distortions and pretty controlled in 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortions, but more importantly the big efficiency increase allows the driver itself to work less and thus achieve lower distortion.

Furthermore high efficiency (>100dB) allows the use of the purest, most natural sounding amps available. Which can elimminate the nastiest non-linear distortions.

There is a reason many of the best high-loudness studio monitors in the world are using horns on their drivers.

Not all horns are created equal...

high loudness studio monitors = deaf engineer = poor mix.

Please show me something better than results in High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation thread:

2) The dual sine wave “mid” test using 1046 &1865 Hz came out with a different order at the bottom in a close race, the DH1a again the top driver in terms of clean output capability.
02dsMid+3 104 dB, 7% 2ndHD
PAdsMid+6 104 dB, 7% 2ndHD
52dsMid+3 104.8 dB, 10 % 2ndHD
50dsMid+3 105.7 dB, 8 % 2ndHD
82dsMid+3 106.6 dB, 6% 2ndHD
1AdsMid+9 112.1 dB, 10% 2ndHD

3) The “Hi” test using 2093 & 3729 Hz resulted in less disparity between the drivers, the EV still providing the most output at a reasonable distortion %.
PAdsHi 106.4 dB <4 % 2ndHD
02dsHi+6 108.4 dB, 4% 2ndHD
52dsHi 110.3 dB, < 6% 2ndHD
50dsHi 110.7 dB, 6% 2ndHD
82dsHi+6 111.1 dB, 5% 2ndHD
1AdsHi+3 112.9 dB, < 6% 2ndHD

These are post 1980 drivers. 4%-10% 2nd harmonic is not natural or reasonable for high fidelity, and whatever a "pure amplifier" is, it's not going to fix this.
What is mechanism for "pure" amplifiers elimination of driver distortion?

Regards,

Andrew

[krivium]

Originally Posted by Barleywater

high loudness studio monitors = deaf engineer = poor mix.

Far too simplified situation. I don't want to sound harsh but work in studio is divided into phase and each phase as differents needs relative to monitoring and you don't seem to understand this requirements.

In recording phase you need a playback system able to reproduce 'real' dynamic of the instrument recorded, and in case of drum in big control room highly dead (RT60 <0,3seconds with sweet spot 3/4 meters distance from loudspeakers ) high efficiency is the only way imho. Recording through small monitors (NS10 or Genelec or Adam or...you name it) give numerous artifacts and big problems during mixing with as a result = poor mix, because sound of album is made during takes, not really at mixing stage (because crap in=crap out).

For mixing situation is different as the action is relative to levels and equilibrium between instruments or group of instruments, fx, etc,etc... and small nearfield monitors well known by enginneers can give great results at moderate reproduction levels. But in this case big mains monitors are used to check work regularly ( not for high SPL but mainly for bandwith and soundstage) same rooms used as for recording with same acoustical characteristics.

For mastering you need systems as transparent as possible and without any compression artifacts on any peaks, with ability to discern very subtle corrections (eq or compressions) in great acoustics (not as dead as recording studios, more live and closer to 'livingroom' acoustics) . No nearfield allowed, mainly midfield reproduction and only high quality systems used (Dunlavy, B&W, Pmc, Atc, Klinger-Favre, Tannoy, Quested, Kinoshita/Rey Audio,...) with moderate levels of approximately 85db spl (with 20db peaks allowed: at max 105db spl peak at sweet spot, search for K-system on google).

Many infos about recording industry process and habits can be founds in Philipp Newell's 'recording studio acoustics' book on Focal Press with an impressive chapter dedicated on loudspeakers technology and choice relative to end use.

Apologize for the Off Topic.

[davidsrsb]

Those are very high SPL levels. Maybe relevant for PA systems at 10m listening distance

[Charles Darwin]

Originally Posted by Barleywater

high loudness studio monitors = deaf engineer = poor mix.

Please show me something better than results in High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation thread:




These are post 1980 drivers. 4%-10% 2nd harmonic is not natural or reasonable for high fidelity, and whatever a "pure amplifier" is, it's not going to fix this.
What is mechanism for "pure" amplifiers elimination of driver distortion?

Regards,

Andrew

I wonder how many dome tweeters stay below those THD levels when you feed them the 100-200W necessary to reach those SPL levels.