personal expeiences are very good, and worth gold
just don't claim they are facts overruling anyone elses
Tweeter still obeys laws of physics; it still has mass and motion, and a system for returning it to rest position. As such it does store energy, does have resonance (be it very low), and in large signal domain exhibits other limitations of other electromechanical devices.
Why and how does the back EMF of one driver compose the behavior of another driver? What can a midrange or woofer tell you perfect tweeter to do better? Behave poorly so as not to make the other driver's poor performance stick out?
Amplifiers don't sound like anything, drivers make sound.
High fidelity is the reason that active monitors have become standard in professional studios around the world.
If a human can hear a difference between two systems, these differences can be measured and quantified.
You subjective impressions of speaker behavior is detached from reality.
Regards,
Andrew
I take it passive for the tweeter midrange and active for the base section...??
That is a feasible path, since our ears are less sensitive to the dynamic discontinuities in This region.. (though active is still difficult here)
I don't believe in fashion, but I do believe in challenging the performance barriers. An extraordinary system will always have a market.
Engineering... Problem is what is the target... linearity, transient response...coherence, mechanical noise..You simply can't target all these issues actively. You aim for one or two and loose the rest.
To me there is a true correlation to what we perceive as sounding natural to the coherence of the speaker system. And by full active this is exactly what you loose. the coherence as each driver lives it's own life separated from the rest
This big room breathing, this sense of being there is forever lost. Instead you get Sound I don't care one second for sound. I want the emotion and the sense of live.
Well Maybe it just me that can't make it work...
Glad I have a little grasp of passive...
That is a feasible path, since our ears are less sensitive to the dynamic discontinuities in This region.. (though active is still difficult here)
I don't believe in fashion, but I do believe in challenging the performance barriers. An extraordinary system will always have a market.
Engineering... Problem is what is the target... linearity, transient response...coherence, mechanical noise..You simply can't target all these issues actively. You aim for one or two and loose the rest.
To me there is a true correlation to what we perceive as sounding natural to the coherence of the speaker system. And by full active this is exactly what you loose. the coherence as each driver lives it's own life separated from the rest
This big room breathing, this sense of being there is forever lost. Instead you get Sound I don't care one second for sound. I want the emotion and the sense of live.
Well Maybe it just me that can't make it work...
Glad I have a little grasp of passive...
I'll second that.
As I said before there is a reason why practically the only people who get to compare the live performance with what comes out of the speakers choose active ones.
I have yet to come across any passive 'audiophile' speakers which come close to some of the active ones I mentioned earlier in terms of accuracy.
not too late to learn how it works
it can be done, absolutely 100%
but yeah, passive can do it too
so the big question is, why bother
active doing what you ask will have to involve all amplification
so already there many 'customers' will be lost
and its probably the same with DIY
people like some freedom, and fun
I find my active 4ways allow me more freedom as I can change any of the four stereo amps at any time if I feel like it and since each speaker consists of two separate boxes I could change drivers at a whim too without having to necessarily design a completely new crossover regardless of impedances or sensitivities. I'd just possibly have to make up new frequency plug-in cards.
Yeah, probably. Or at least not do easily. (see above)
OK, so what?
I don't follow your logic. Pro audio and living room Hi-Fi are not the same thing. Horses for courses. SQ is important in pro audio, but usually takes a back seat to SPL and ruggedness. Active crossovers are great for that in pro use. For work, I use all powered speakers (Meyer Sound, JBL, QSC) and love them. Pro audio has to work, or you don't get paid- bottom line. All other considerations come after that. For high power, high SPL use, actives are best - no doubt.
I have seen passive crossovers used in pro audio, even in current production. I've also seen passive crossovers catch fire during a concert. Amusing, but not really desirable.
It's one of the main reasons I use active. Of course as the years go on you end up making designs that simply cannot work passively, at least not without a significant changes, so the choice of active or passive is made for you.
Fully adjustable analogue xovers with millions of trim pots are doable and practical, but are a PITA to use. Going for a DSP is the best solution, but as P10 alluded to earlier on, getting one that does everything without compromise is either very expensive or not even possible unless you build it yourself.
The flexibility benefits though are really only important to those who tinker, change their main designs, or like to experiment with lots of different ideas. If you're the kind of person who builds a proven design and listens to it only, or the kind that designs a system and is happy leaving it alone, then perhaps going active isn't seen as being as much of a benefit as it can be.
Certainly though, building a proven passive design by an experienced designer is going to give you a better pair of sounding speakers then if you cobble some active design design together on your own, but it is likely to be nowhere near as fun or rewarding, especially if you're intending things to be the start of a long learning process.
Fully adjustable analogue xovers with millions of trim pots are doable and practical, but are a PITA to use. Going for a DSP is the best solution, but as P10 alluded to earlier on, getting one that does everything without compromise is either very expensive or not even possible unless you build it yourself.
The flexibility benefits though are really only important to those who tinker, change their main designs, or like to experiment with lots of different ideas. If you're the kind of person who builds a proven design and listens to it only, or the kind that designs a system and is happy leaving it alone, then perhaps going active isn't seen as being as much of a benefit as it can be.
Certainly though, building a proven passive design by an experienced designer is going to give you a better pair of sounding speakers then if you cobble some active design design together on your own, but it is likely to be nowhere near as fun or rewarding, especially if you're intending things to be the start of a long learning process.
Michael, please don't, a lot has gelled from just the few posts you have made.
When i said the same thing in post #6 in a more simplisrtic way it was ignored. Your posts added to my understanding & seems to have made a few people sit up and pay attention.
When you are pushing the edges of the art, you do have to have a tough skin, many of the members get a bit testy when outside their comfort zone, and that space is often only a small subset of all the possibilities. Series XOs, current drive, and more are often than not outside that comfort zone.
Just remember that even if a member does not want to expand their understanding of the field, you don't have to listen to their hifi
dave
CopperTop, that is brilliant summary.
dave
With that attitude, you surely limit the potential of your hifi.
dave
I think there is an underlying theme here that has not come out in the open.
Some of you who hang on to the notion that a single amp and a passive crossover is the only way to go are in love with your amp! You probably spent a lot of money on it and it's your baby. The idea of subordinating it to only a portion of the audio spectrum and letting other amps into the scene is abhorrent to you.
Whatever....
Class D amp boards are cheap, versatile and readily available.
If it's not your thing, fine. But get over the idea that it's not as good as what you have.
Some of you who hang on to the notion that a single amp and a passive crossover is the only way to go are in love with your amp! You probably spent a lot of money on it and it's your baby. The idea of subordinating it to only a portion of the audio spectrum and letting other amps into the scene is abhorrent to you.
Whatever....
Class D amp boards are cheap, versatile and readily available.
If it's not your thing, fine. But get over the idea that it's not as good as what you have.
That is not my notion.
My notion is that those who say one is always better than the other are mistaken. My belief is that XOs are inherently "evil" (thank you to Earl Geddes for that), avoid them as much as possible and if i have to live with an XO, put it where the evils can be minimized.
A question was asked, what can a passive do that no active can do. I answered that in Post #6, and Michael nicely expanded on that with a more technical analysis.
dave
in love with your amp! ...
no, haven't met them in this thread evil xo's ...funny thought...but what would we do without them ?
I love crossovers.... so much fun
I totally appreciate both kinds of multi-way speaker systems. I also understand and respect the merits of a full-range, single driver system!
They are just different ideas and they all have their merits.
I even get the idea of wanting to use the full range of one really nice amp.
But you just cannot get the control and versatility of a multi-amp active system any other way.
Try designing a passive crossover that works in the digital domain!
James.
They are just different ideas and they all have their merits.
I even get the idea of wanting to use the full range of one really nice amp.
But you just cannot get the control and versatility of a multi-amp active system any other way.
Try designing a passive crossover that works in the digital domain!
James.
We at Raidho have always used serial (current diversion) X-overs. exactly for that reason. when the two drivers share current in the crossover region they are locked together and can't drift apart.
The dynamic changes particular in the mid/bas generates back emf. some of this generated current bleeds into the tweeter and alters the character to fit that of the mid/base. This is in my book vital to the coherence of the system.
Now I know this is not trivial or basic and might take some thinking to understand. For most people making speakers and X-overs is how to target good linearity...with smooth even SPL.... But SPL is NOT SPL.. it's a vector sum of all contributions some in phase and some out of phase...To understand this is an absolute key. Altering the phase content of a given SPL dynamically by tying the drivers together in that vital frequency band is of great importance...and that you can never do actively.
The dynamic changes particular in the mid/bas generates back emf. some of this generated current bleeds into the tweeter and alters the character to fit that of the mid/base. This is in my book vital to the coherence of the system.
Now I know this is not trivial or basic and might take some thinking to understand. For most people making speakers and X-overs is how to target good linearity...with smooth even SPL.... But SPL is NOT SPL.. it's a vector sum of all contributions some in phase and some out of phase...To understand this is an absolute key. Altering the phase content of a given SPL dynamically by tying the drivers together in that vital frequency band is of great importance...and that you can never do actively.
PRO and HI FI is absolutely two different things.. PRO is tools and is mainly used for monitoring levels. I have my monitors in some quite High Ticket studios where they are used for mixing of voices etc etc...
A Sub is needed to monitor the levels of bass on recordings...
The sound engineer learns to know his gear his tools.. like I have learned to know the shortcomings on my measurement gear and amplifiers, they are also tools and does not have to be the best in the world if you know how to use them...but they need to be reliable..
Talked to David Chesky last weekend in Denver. where we talked exactly about this... to check the fidelity he uses good headphones, which is also my reference for tonal balance and detail in my systems...
A Sub is needed to monitor the levels of bass on recordings...
The sound engineer learns to know his gear his tools.. like I have learned to know the shortcomings on my measurement gear and amplifiers, they are also tools and does not have to be the best in the world if you know how to use them...but they need to be reliable..
Talked to David Chesky last weekend in Denver. where we talked exactly about this... to check the fidelity he uses good headphones, which is also my reference for tonal balance and detail in my systems...
Michael,
care to comment my post #287? https://production.diyaudio.com/community/index.php?posts/3209567/
I think this addresses a way to deal with the problem by trying to eliminate the root cause(s), doesn't it?
I for sure respect your work and care for subtle details, further I for one am interested in a constructive discussion.
care to comment my post #287? https://production.diyaudio.com/community/index.php?posts/3209567/
I think this addresses a way to deal with the problem by trying to eliminate the root cause(s), doesn't it?
I for sure respect your work and care for subtle details, further I for one am interested in a constructive discussion.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.