Apelizzo, no need to leave, your input is valuable. Please continue to post.
You have not done anything wrong.
But here at diyAudio we need to tighten up our posting and be clear about what is fact and what is opinion. There are too many readers here who simply don't know which is which.
I have edited my post above.
You have not done anything wrong.
But here at diyAudio we need to tighten up our posting and be clear about what is fact and what is opinion. There are too many readers here who simply don't know which is which.
I have edited my post above.
I am not completely convinced that the moderators know the difference either. Nor that such a thing can be completely determined. When is something "proven" and what isn't "opinion"? I testify in law suites all the time, it's always opinion, it's the "credentials" that make the difference.
The best method to do an active crossover is the dsp.
There is a cheap dsp module to do it on:
MiniDSP - miniDSP Kits
but I don't like it because this still have only 16bit 44KHz I2S outputs also if internal processing at 28bit with coefficient at 56bit.
The idea could be connect in spdif the CD or the PC and get I2S signals to change the DAC with AD1955 or AK4397.
Using the actual release of this module is possible add 2 x TD1541 on I2S outputs and ear CD with the best dac quality.
I am waiting soon the upgrade to 192KHz 24bit.
In any case this is a good solution only if you ear only digital software not vinyl.
There is a cheap dsp module to do it on:
MiniDSP - miniDSP Kits
but I don't like it because this still have only 16bit 44KHz I2S outputs also if internal processing at 28bit with coefficient at 56bit.
The idea could be connect in spdif the CD or the PC and get I2S signals to change the DAC with AD1955 or AK4397.
Using the actual release of this module is possible add 2 x TD1541 on I2S outputs and ear CD with the best dac quality.
I am waiting soon the upgrade to 192KHz 24bit.
In any case this is a good solution only if you ear only digital software not vinyl.
Last edited:
The unique problem of this module are the I2S outputs with only 16bit 44KHz also if internal processing is at 28bit with coefficient at 56bit.
The my idea for the future is use this module, connect in spdif the CD or the PC and get I2S signals to drive hi-performance DAC chip like the AD1955 or the AK4397.
Using the actual release of this module is possible add 2 x TD1541 on I2S outputs and ear CD with the best dac quality.
I consider as the best DAC chip at 44KHz the AD1865 but this does not use I2S signals.
I am waiting soon the upgrade to 192KHz 24bit I2S outputs.
The my idea for the future is use this module, connect in spdif the CD or the PC and get I2S signals to drive hi-performance DAC chip like the AD1955 or the AK4397.
Using the actual release of this module is possible add 2 x TD1541 on I2S outputs and ear CD with the best dac quality.
I consider as the best DAC chip at 44KHz the AD1865 but this does not use I2S signals.
I am waiting soon the upgrade to 192KHz 24bit I2S outputs.
I do disagree with that opinion but Im not an expert. I just know that active designs have a much lower cost (Time) to them for me. Designing passive crossovers to get a working speaker would have cost me about $5K in my time. Active crossovers only cost me about $1K of my time. You have to worrying about impedance in passive designs, I do not. I can EQ on the fly in my designs saving different settings for different moods, you need new speakers for that. I can Set my slope to 48dB, I love to see the crossover schematic for that one.
SQ is subjective and I would agree that an incredible passive design will sound awesome and the active design can only hope to match it but all the other benefits of active simply make passive designs a waste of time for those of us who have active equipment.
Interesting discussion that I would love to read in another thread. I would love to know why you think it costs more (outside of the DCX costs). It takes more time to solder,wire all that stuff up then it does to plug in some numbers in under 3 minutes (software is easy!!). Time is money (if its a business) about $100/hr in my world.
Last edited:
Doug
Your point of view is stricktly DIY, from a business point of view of selling a product it makes no sense. Thats exactly the way I was looking at it. We wanted to know if the OBJECTIVE or subjective data could support the substantial additional cost of an active crossover and another amplifier. The answer was of course no. Time to develop the crossover is the same active or passive and that all gets wrapped into the overhead costs anyways so that is irrellavent. Someone would be out of their mind to pay $100 / hr. for someone to wire a crossover from a photo. I pay about $10 / hr. Its really no contest when you are not DIY and looking to be market competitive.
DIY, almost no amount of cost on parts matters, its all small change.
Your point of view is stricktly DIY, from a business point of view of selling a product it makes no sense. Thats exactly the way I was looking at it. We wanted to know if the OBJECTIVE or subjective data could support the substantial additional cost of an active crossover and another amplifier. The answer was of course no. Time to develop the crossover is the same active or passive and that all gets wrapped into the overhead costs anyways so that is irrellavent. Someone would be out of their mind to pay $100 / hr. for someone to wire a crossover from a photo. I pay about $10 / hr. Its really no contest when you are not DIY and looking to be market competitive.
DIY, almost no amount of cost on parts matters, its all small change.
Research, Education or Engineering Accounting
Engineering time per unit does change the cost per unit ratio but most diy'ers don't pay them selves anyway. Now commercial is a whole different model completely....
Engineering time per unit does change the cost per unit ratio but most diy'ers don't pay them selves anyway. Now commercial is a whole different model completely....
Hi Andrea,
FWIW: I used standard SCR metalized film caps (no teflon, etc.) in the X-O I designed for my 3 way Onkens. It was suggested by a friend that these might not be the best sounding caps for the application, I however thought they sounded fine, but admitted that price had been a primary consideration in their selection.
Warning: Somewhat subjective and opinionated comments follow..
I subsequently upgraded one of the X-O with Clarity Cap SA and compared it to the remaining unmodified unit. (I purchased the parts to do both simultaneously, but wanted to see if I could hear a difference.) Indeed the Clarity Cap SA was a rather significant improvement in speed, detail, resolution, and depth. A not so subtle veil (?) of upper mids/HF distortion seemed to disappear as well. These caps actually are not much more expensive than the SCR caps they replaced, and seemed a worthwhile upgrade in my opinion.
Room measurements indicated that no significant (within discernable measurement error) changes in frequency response had occurred.
Probably all I am trying to express here is that I don't think the standard SCR metalized film cap is all that great. (I've had the same ephiphany in low level applications with the smaller values as well.)
Just my
and YMMV (Y KM/L M V )
Pretty much have to agree with you there, and why I finally abandoned my plans for an active X-O in my current system. Three sets of expensive tube amplifiers and all the supporting electronics.. The one instance where I've found it makes a difference is when very high spls are desired and the LF signal content causes the power amplifier to clip an appreciable amount of the time - Active may sound significantly better in that situation. Certainly was the case with the MI amps I worked on long ago at Fishman. (Did the electronics design, specified the acoustic design)
We are both being subjective on this and its a matter of choice.
If Im not enjoying something then there is a HUGE cost to me and passive crossover design is the least enjoyable part of building speakers. Active just sets us free from that restriction.
The cost for me is the fact that I can build speakers without worrying about XO schematic details, etc. $300 for a DCX or paying someone $300. If I build 6 sets of speakers then the passive crossovers over time will cost more then the $300 so in the end its cheaper for me. Im on my 4th set now with the DCX.
You do release you are being 100% subjective when you post "from a business point of view of selling a product it makes no sense" because we both can list > 10 different companies that do it sucessfully for a long time. I was not thinking DIY either because one just has to look at Danley designs or Seaton Catalysts designs to know its make more sense to some businesses then you may currently understand.
Im sure JBL would diagree with Dr. Geddes view on how to run a speaker business too
In the end I like full controls over speakers in my room, when more people realize that sort of flexibility then what you consider the "extra cost" is worth it for most. Again, its not that much as a ratio to the cost of the speakers.
Last edited:
Now Doug.....
Designing filters for your DCX with something like LspCAD or SoundEasy isn't all that different than designing a passive crossover with the same software.
And capacitors and coils don't hiss.
To go into the details, Domes do not hiss. Ribbons do hiss and CDs do hiss, they just have huge sensitivity. I have done all the tests now and its simply the tweeter/amp (tried many amps, all are in 1 or 2 dBs) then the DCX. DCX on MUTE is about 56dB at the CD mouth, DCX off Mute its 60dB.
Pad down the ribbon or CD by 10dB with a simple LPad and the hiss is < 50dB no more then most room noise. This is all when nothing is playing, when we have sound the "hiss" is not audible.
Last edited:
I saw those in the other thread but Im still looking for a "completed" kit for a guy like me. One who does not want anything to do with building little DSP kits.
IMO, I think the Hypex amps are the best choices out there...and they are a great price in Europe. Exchange is getting better with the US$ so I hope to snag two of them in the coming months.
The other point about active crossovers is that I can save 3 different designs and compare them in room with one speaker. Can not do that with passive!!
Last edited:
Im sure JBL would diagree with Dr. Geddes view on how to run a speaker business too
I wouldn't be too sure about that. They copy my stuff more than anyone else and they have bought more copies of my books and software than any other company in the world.
Your very touchy about this aren't you? If you like active, fine, just don't expect me to ever use it in my products. I like to only pay for things that make a difference.
Last edited:
Im not touchy at all, just posting points countering to your opinion about actives. I enjoy the discussion actually. Sorry I did not mean to offend either, I was provide several instances where it obviously makes sense in business.
Im not even asking you to build active speakers but you should atleast admit its a very viable option for DIYers and companies since other companies have sucess with active design business models.
As for your JBL comment, you ask me if Im being touchy?
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
...the best active can do is equal a passive at a much higher cost.
In my humble opinion there is more to it.
I have three systems which I converted from passive crossovers to active and in each case it was vast improvement in overall sound quality. In all three cases it allowed me to use low powered tube amps for midrange/heights, which would otherwise fail to power full speaker.
I am not going to comment on active vs passive crossover otherwise, its been discussed ad nauseam. All I wanted to brink this point of view here.
...the best active can do is equal a passive at a much higher cost.
In my humble opinion there is more to it.
I have three systems which I converted from passive crossovers to active and in each case it was vast improvement in overall sound quality. In all three cases it allowed me to use low powered tube amps for midrange/heights, which would otherwise fail to power full speaker.
I am not going to comment on active vs passive crossover otherwise, its been discussed ad nauseam. All I wanted to brink this point of view here.
Yea, right. And of course had they NOT sounded better, or more likely worse, you would have been ready to admit that as well?
In my case I had measurements as well as subjective data from several people. All of them were consistant that there was no perceptable change.
Could an active filter improve a bad crossover design (most of them!) - sure, no problem. It just couldn't improve on mine.
For DIYers it absolutely makes sense - I'm not a DIYer, never have been. I hate building speakers, its just the only way that I could get anything decent.
But for a business I don't think that it makes nearly as much sense unless its an embedded system, then it can actually be cheaper. But embedded systems have huge entry costs - and I mean huge. We looked at this quite intensely at AI because my partner was a big fan of active. In the end he had to agree that the advantages did not look attractive enough to justify the costs.
As for your JBL comment, you ask me if Im being touchy?
Thats because your comment was an insult. I never insulted you.
One point that is of interest. We found that we were blowing up a lot of compression drivers and almost 2:1 in passive systems (about 1/2 of the systems were active at the time). Then I figured it out. The active system always had some HF limiting on clipped harmonics (LP). No one (that I know of) LP filters the passive system at 20 kHz or so to keep the clipping harmonics out. Once we started doing that the failures equalized out. Clipping in the clubs in Thailand was a constant state of affairs. Asians it seems have a passion for bad sound - "It ain't right till its clippin'"