http://linkwitzlab.com/LX521/DSP_challenge.htm
http://linkwitzlab.com/LX521/Supplies.htm#Construction
The version I heard used a 7 channel amp, so each driver had the same gain stage.
I think it was an Emotiva, but don't clearly recall. The presentation was compelling.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Well...sort of. Of course, affordable means different things to different people. Someone buying those $600k Wilson WAMM sure thinks a $50k speaker is affordable while for me they would be out of reach.
I agree going analog to digital and back to analog again is a bit of an issue. But if you start digital, do all the processing, and then go analog you can do all of what is being described. In fact many people do that, including myself.
I was an analog purist, but have moved away convinced by the combination of sound and convenience. My source today is a highly optimized computer that runs filters that enable 4-way stereo, time alignment of drivers, linearization, and room correction. This is done in Acourate (software), which you run to analyze and build the filters, then you don't use again except when you want to tweak something (which DIYers LOVE to do
).The computer feeds an 8-channel audio DAC. In my case a Lynx Hilo (6-analog channels) plus a Metrum Octave receiving 2 digital channels from Hilo and driving the subwoofers plate amps. The analog out drives the amplifiers of your choice. In my case plate amps for the subs, Hypex for the midbass, and McIntosh tubes for the tweeter/midrange. And working on a high efficiency speaker so I can use 45 SET amps for tweeter and midrange. Ao you can definitely choose your amp!
The challenge with all this is how involved one has to get to get things working well. Certainly not plug and play, and herein the challenge for mainstream usage. Passive crossovers do exactly that: allow plug and play, no worries, no training. I'm not saying passive xo cannot sound super, though. They can, the same as digital xo can, but not always do, just like everything else it's a matter of implementation.
I suggest a couple of articles that were inflection points in my journey: on Computeraudiophile.com, search for two articles by mitchco. One called something like introduction to Acourate (this one discusses room correction), and the other advanced walkthrough (this one active xo, time alignment, linearization)
I love the fact I'm combining old school (tubes/SET) and very new. I have my library, plus Tidal and Roon, and can have super purist SET on midrange and treble and very powerful SS for the bottom. I do put up with a lot of switches to listen to music, though - something my wife doesn't appreciate that much
I'm definitely not a purist. I do prefer fewer stages between the media and output. Complexity peaked for me in trying out 7.1 surround sound.
I'm not denying that DIY drives commercial products forward, Sanders excellent gear is an obvious example.
What I'm saying is that if a mouse and operating manual are required, it won't have 'legs'. It's why Sonos sells well.
I figure our hobby is in competition for dollars going to antique cars, boating, watch collecting, etc.
To true we all have a point of discomfort when buying such luxuries.
For me it was my NAD M51.
A younger version of myself would find my current outlay breathtaking and extravagant.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
I'm not denying that DIY drives commercial products forward, Sanders excellent gear is an obvious example.
What I'm saying is that if a mouse and operating manual are required, it won't have 'legs'. It's why Sonos sells well.
I figure our hobby is in competition for dollars going to antique cars, boating, watch collecting, etc.
To true we all have a point of discomfort when buying such luxuries.
For me it was my NAD M51.
A younger version of myself would find my current outlay breathtaking and extravagant.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.