Active vrs passive - Page 74 - 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 9th November 2012, 10:41 PM   #731
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lima, Peru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywater View Post
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...
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 10:49 PM   #732
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
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.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 10:55 PM   #733
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 10:55 PM   #734
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
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.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 11:13 PM   #735
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by planet10 View Post
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 . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by flavio81 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 11:22 PM   #736
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
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.
__________________
Big Altec Moving Sale!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2012, 11:45 PM   #737
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by flavio81 View Post
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:


Quote:
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2012, 01:12 AM   #738
krivium is offline krivium  France
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywater View Post
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.

Last edited by krivium; 10th November 2012 at 01:32 AM. Reason: precisions, re-wording
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2012, 01:13 AM   #739
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Those are very high SPL levels. Maybe relevant for PA systems at 10m listening distance
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2012, 02:33 AM   #740
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barleywater View Post
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.
  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 11:49 PM
Passive into active MethMan Multi-Way 8 12th January 2005 05:58 PM
Active of passive audiobomber Multi-Way 9 31st July 2004 03:31 AM
dB loss by using passive crossovers? Active vs Passive and 1st vs 4th order Hybrid fourdoor Multi-Way 3 11th July 2004 10:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 PM.


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