Oh you can. It's all about what you believe is important. This year my belief is that one should not compromise digital playback to support analog. Therefore I eschew the concept of an analog preamp and go digital into my mindsp digital crossover. Whilst i continue to believe this is the lowest compromise for my budget it will sound divine. Richard Burwen aside most audio systems involve huge compromises so why not roll with it.
I didn't understand a single world but I'm on Richard Burwen side, whoever he is
Yeah, T keeps breaking his own ignore list taboo.
Only if Jakob(#) gets out of audio business.
Because you heard a difference in your usual subjective auditioning session? You aren't alone. Others have reported such findings too, including myself.
All good argues. This said, for an analog guy, not so complicated. We can adjust easily the (AUR) coils to fulfill precise enough filters.
On my side, i find digital is often a pain for DIYers (IE members of the poor guys hall of fame).
Yeah, T keeps breaking his own ignore list taboo.
Only if Jakob(#) gets out of audio business.
YouTube
Speaker crossover filters are a extremely complicated issue, for many reasons, starting with speakers impedance, nonlinearities and ending with interactions of the FR with the speaker enclosure. Fine tuning a crossover filter is 99% a trial and error job, which is time consuming and expensive. The end result is almost always a compromise, not necessary an optimum one. A DSP is a much simpler, precise and cheaper approach.
Well, the day ( Eastern Dept.) started with how to kill best...at the end of the day we know the answer
Something is simple when you know how to do-it. And a question of habit.
The secret is to flatten the impedances. And little other logical tips.
On my side i'm not able to design a DSP or a DAC from scratch.
Last edited:
Lord have Mercy ! The meaning was stir-it up ... (the shlt).You want to have sex with him? I wasn't too far off the mark then.
I thought it was obvious ;-)
Last edited:
I believe you, it wasn't Bob's meaning though, well, stir it up in one sense
C'mon, your fellow countrymen are kings of super-micro-engineered passive x-overs; think B&W, KEF, Spendor..., all of them.
That editing process wasn't involved in the experiments leading to their publication from 2000, that we were discussing about.
Oohashi et al.; Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect;
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full...id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed
@billshurv,
I remember different experiments back in the old days (means ~1985 -1996) where passive multi-way systems were transformed into active ones.
If the frequency response of the passive version was the target for the activated system, the overall difference was remarkable small (no formal controlled listening test,though).
Same loudspeaker was used, passive crossovers and active electronics in seperate housings.
As it was a quite expensive sytem already in the passive version, parts for the passive crossovers were already carefully selected.
But, of course using digital equilization allows a lot more .....
I remember different experiments back in the old days (means ~1985 -1996) where passive multi-way systems were transformed into active ones.
If the frequency response of the passive version was the target for the activated system, the overall difference was remarkable small (no formal controlled listening test,though).
Same loudspeaker was used, passive crossovers and active electronics in seperate housings.
As it was a quite expensive sytem already in the passive version, parts for the passive crossovers were already carefully selected.
But, of course using digital equilization allows a lot more .....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.