Well this is embarrassing! I'm sorry guys I just feel quite passionately about it. I want everyone to benefit. Is that such a bad thing?
I don't think you're embarrassed.
I just don't think this is the audience you're looking for since you seem to be stuck with Bill Murray on Groundhog Day. There's a generally higher level of audio understanding and sophistication from the users here than you would find on other forums. Active versus passive discussions are old hat and most have an appreciation for the benefits and trade-offs involved with either approach.
If you're looking for some mindless nodding head agreements or shaking of the head disagreements, there are quite a few other forums I could recommend. 🙂
Dave.
I just don't think this is the audience you're looking for since you seem to be stuck with Bill Murray on Groundhog Day. There's a generally higher level of audio understanding and sophistication from the users here than you would find on other forums. Active versus passive discussions are old hat and most have an appreciation for the benefits and trade-offs involved with either approach.
If you're looking for some mindless nodding head agreements or shaking of the head disagreements, there are quite a few other forums I could recommend. 🙂
Dave.
another opinion!
I don't know if any of you have seen this but Douglas Self makes a very credible argument for actives. It is from a Burning Amp Festival a couple of years ago and it is very worth watching whatever your position is on the subject. 😀
Here is the link: DOUGLAS SELF AT BURNING AMP FESTIVAL 2011 - YouTube
I don't know if any of you have seen this but Douglas Self makes a very credible argument for actives. It is from a Burning Amp Festival a couple of years ago and it is very worth watching whatever your position is on the subject. 😀
Here is the link: DOUGLAS SELF AT BURNING AMP FESTIVAL 2011 - YouTube
SoundStage! Ultra | SoundStageUltra.com (UltraAudio.com) | Active Loudspeaker Systems on the Rise: Peter Roth Talks With Andy Payor, Laurence Dickie, and Richard Vandersteen
Interesting article with various designers contributing their views on actives. I especially warm to Vandersteen's approach of optimizing the design of the amp for the specific driver its going to 'see'.
Interesting article with various designers contributing their views on actives. I especially warm to Vandersteen's approach of optimizing the design of the amp for the specific driver its going to 'see'.
Passive filters will usually have less distortion and, of course, will always have less noise than active filters, across the board. Not sure why you are so anxious to add unnecessary SS/digital distortion to your speakers. Whether or not you can hear such things, I can.
He can't unless he deliberately selects substandard components.
Besides, he has no answer for speakers more complex than 2-way unless one wants to add amplifiers and processing beyond the means that most people would consider.
With passive xovers, I can get response peaks over 10db higher at the speaker terminals than at the amplifier terminals - that, of course, is impossible with only active xovers. One would have to upgrade to amplifiers having up to 10 times the power in this case with an active-only xover approach.
Last edited:
I've already got 8 channels of amplification for my HT system. Each speaker has 3 frequency select bands. Just the thought of going to 24 channels of amplification is cringe inducing to me, not to mention the large jump in speaker cabling needed.
I think the idea of getting the maximum possible SPL before distortion for a given amount of amplification power is most germane for professional applications. Except for speakers using professional drivers or horn systems, home-quality drivers themselves will start creating distortion at SPL levels that will reduce the SPL advantages of active EQ, IAC.
I think the idea of getting the maximum possible SPL before distortion for a given amount of amplification power is most germane for professional applications. Except for speakers using professional drivers or horn systems, home-quality drivers themselves will start creating distortion at SPL levels that will reduce the SPL advantages of active EQ, IAC.
Last edited:
IMO the "real" way to go active is when you have everything within the same box. It spares you from using kilometres of cabling.
Regarding te OT: I also belong to the ones believing that active is usually better. But by mindless use of textbook filters alone one doesn't get you too far unfortunately. And I doubt the usefulness and neccessity of any analog crossover beyond 4th order.
Regards
Charles
How are the off axis issues different between active and passive? Can someone help me understand what is going on here, if I am shaping the frequency response of the driver (first electrical/digital, which then results in an acoustic response), why does it matter "how" I shaped the signal?
I am asking because I am getting ready to jump into a substantial project around a miniDSP 4x10 Hd. I don't think this will automatically give me anything superior to a passive crossover project by the way, and it pains me to see a thread started off with such a trolling post.... I would just like to say that some of us are "hopeful" that digital active speakers will offer some tangible benefits, if not now then someday soon, and I like the idea that I can keep learning/experimenting/upgrading the hardware/software in a unit or two while leaving my speaker drivers/cabinets alone and not dealing with a bunch of parts and a soldering gun (and I know for some of you that is the fun part, and that is cool).
Anyways, it seems like I should be taking many measurements at various points on and off axis and that this would be accounted for in much the same way regardless of how one is implementing the crossover, active or passive?
For my project I chose 12" inch woofer, 6.5" mid-bass, 2" mid-dome, and 1" tweeter so that the transition from driver to driver would share a power response profile as much as possible before I even hit the DSP settings.
Any thoughts? Can we turn this thread into something much more positive and useful than the original direction? I am assuming that in this case, one need to apologize for thread jacking 🙄
I am asking because I am getting ready to jump into a substantial project around a miniDSP 4x10 Hd. I don't think this will automatically give me anything superior to a passive crossover project by the way, and it pains me to see a thread started off with such a trolling post.... I would just like to say that some of us are "hopeful" that digital active speakers will offer some tangible benefits, if not now then someday soon, and I like the idea that I can keep learning/experimenting/upgrading the hardware/software in a unit or two while leaving my speaker drivers/cabinets alone and not dealing with a bunch of parts and a soldering gun (and I know for some of you that is the fun part, and that is cool).
Anyways, it seems like I should be taking many measurements at various points on and off axis and that this would be accounted for in much the same way regardless of how one is implementing the crossover, active or passive?
For my project I chose 12" inch woofer, 6.5" mid-bass, 2" mid-dome, and 1" tweeter so that the transition from driver to driver would share a power response profile as much as possible before I even hit the DSP settings.
Any thoughts? Can we turn this thread into something much more positive and useful than the original direction? I am assuming that in this case, one need to apologize for thread jacking 🙄
I doubt it. A number of people have asked reasonable questions earlier in the thread without getting a reply from contributors or the OP. The OP is clearly not interested in discussion and the contributors seem happy to go along with it. I expect you will get a better response if you repost your questions in a separate thread.
Please start a new thread, Greggo!
I believe that many others are interested in trying minidsp. I have some experience with it and it is really a fun learning project! Trial and error without extra cost, endless iterations... A measurement system is a must, but REW and UMIK-1 are just fine and easy partners. Please consider a 4" cone midrange to avoid crossing between 1-2kHz!
Not at all, directly. The problem is just that with active, and especially digital, there's the temptation to go for very high order "brick wall" filters that nobody in their right mind would try to impleement with a passive crossover.
I wouldn't. They can be very effective indeed at shunting cone breakup (I hate that phrase but you know what I mean) to a decently low level -rather more so in some cases than just trying to notch it out, which has its own problems. Certainly neither cheap nor easy though.
I don't understand why you regard this as a problem. This is the intrinsic advantage driving the original post.
The dissipation of heat is admittedly traditional in the audio community, so there will always be a certain reactionary element clinging to the worst of yesterday's technology.
It really is tiresome to behold the continuous efforts being made in some quarters to raise clouds of confusion around the putative advantages of any new technology, when the very persistence of these individuals makes it clear that it this does not result from unusual insights, but rather a constitutional inability to accept any position other than centre stage.
It is perfectly obvious that an active (multi-amplifier) system can extract at least as much audio performance from a given driver set as a single amplifier and crossover, with an improved efficiency.
Hi Juha,
2" dome mids can be crossed at 700 or 800 Hz without
a problem if drivers are reasonably well built.
Theoretically greater ease of implementing high order filters is one advantage of active systems. But high order filters are not automatically superior to lower order filters, irrespective of the means employed. Period. That is not reactionary, that is engineering fact. Each has its own balance of attributes, with positive features and problematic ones.
Exactly the same applies to active and passive filters for loudspeakers. Also engineering, and practical, fact. It is not a matter that is black and white, however much people might wish it to be. Life would be much easier if it were.
No problem i all you care about is on-axis frequency response. Possible problems off axis and in the time domain have been mentioned, starting with the second post.
I will start a new thread on my project and miniDSP experience (once I get it and start moving forward)...
But while I am here.
There is a good chance I will cross around 1.8 kHz plus or minus a bit, because I really to maximize the tweeter (Satori in this case). The mid dome is the Morel EM1308, so it can be crossed as low as 600 Hz according to a write up forthcoming from Jeff Bagby. I am using the dome mid as a filler driver to ensure there is less strain and better power response alignment between the Satori mid-bass and the Satori tweeter. I have read volumes from different folks I trust on the crossover point issue and it is less of an issue for me now, I am comfortable with a crossover point just about anywhere. I am more concerned about what I will be asking each driver to cover, wanting to minimize distortion and keep directivity as constant as possible (though not narrow, which was an initial goal that I decided to scrap for this one and maybe try on a future project).
But while I am here.
There is a good chance I will cross around 1.8 kHz plus or minus a bit, because I really to maximize the tweeter (Satori in this case). The mid dome is the Morel EM1308, so it can be crossed as low as 600 Hz according to a write up forthcoming from Jeff Bagby. I am using the dome mid as a filler driver to ensure there is less strain and better power response alignment between the Satori mid-bass and the Satori tweeter. I have read volumes from different folks I trust on the crossover point issue and it is less of an issue for me now, I am comfortable with a crossover point just about anywhere. I am more concerned about what I will be asking each driver to cover, wanting to minimize distortion and keep directivity as constant as possible (though not narrow, which was an initial goal that I decided to scrap for this one and maybe try on a future project).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.