Please define active. To me it is one that uses feedback to achieve higher slopes. There is a loose contemporary acceptance of digital which carries the implication of a direct amp to speaker connection. So if I bi-amp with crossover at line level then does that count as active? The line level crossover is purely passive. What if I add a further passive crossover after the amp? Why are you asking this question?
This falls into the bin of dismissive, pointless chum that illustrates arrogance without authority. Basta! The adults are talking.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Once the source has been converted, I prefer it stay in that domain. DSP that handles the signal digitally before amplification sounds fine.
This is still a fairly expensive proposition, and expensive compared to other choices of similar quality.
It is also my opinion that controlling polar responses does more for the sound in a real room than EQ, as demonstrated by Kii and the B&O flagship.
There are passive approaches that work as well, with a lower purchase cost. The gap between these solutions is rapidly closing.
FWIW- I prefer a smaller parts count and fewer computers in the playback chain. Simple is good.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
This is still a fairly expensive proposition, and expensive compared to other choices of similar quality.
It is also my opinion that controlling polar responses does more for the sound in a real room than EQ, as demonstrated by Kii and the B&O flagship.
There are passive approaches that work as well, with a lower purchase cost. The gap between these solutions is rapidly closing.
FWIW- I prefer a smaller parts count and fewer computers in the playback chain. Simple is good.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
I use active (dsp) with eq and all (delay, allpass filters, limiting,...) with pretty good converters and minimalist signal path once dac send its signal (wire,passive attenuator, wire, amp, wire, loudspeaker)(one exception for tweeter which see a bank* of capacitor for protection purpose - *a bank because analog filter created fc is a decade lower than lowest frequency the tweeter is reproducing).
Because it is the only solution to have a minimalist signal path with my constraints (spl capability to follow k-20 monitoring requirement at 1.5m being one of them so multiway...), but it is complex to control (multiple volume control, you must follow an order to switch on and off the system, lot of amp...).
For diyers it is easier to have great sounding results this way imho.
But the best sounding system i've heard is a passive one.... 🙂
Because it is the only solution to have a minimalist signal path with my constraints (spl capability to follow k-20 monitoring requirement at 1.5m being one of them so multiway...), but it is complex to control (multiple volume control, you must follow an order to switch on and off the system, lot of amp...).
For diyers it is easier to have great sounding results this way imho.
But the best sounding system i've heard is a passive one.... 🙂
Could it be because they are actually listening to them, instead of believing what someone else has told them is better? No, that's crazy talk!
Could it be because they are actually listening to them, instead of believing what someone else has told them is better? No, that's crazy talk!
''Worst'' case scenario ?
Both passive and active sounds equal (i.e. they cannot be identified in a blind test)
but still, the active (DSP) remains as the better tool... hihihi
I answered passive because of SQ and the degredation of SQ after multiple levels of digital filter ringing added with each ADDA process.
I believe technically ''Passive'' could be translated into ''post-amplifier-stage'' and ''Active'' as the opposite. But that is my understanding only...
Anyway, I myself consider the ''true'' Active as by using DSP, not crossovers at line level.
Maybe the same questionning could apply regarding the EQ... Is people here are using PA analog equalizers ?
I mean, there is a lot of ways to make a pie, and only 10 possible options for a poll! 😱
Eldam is probably right: people tend to underestimate the importance of conversions A/D & D/A.
If your source is analog, then you go through a double conversion (and maybe third if its a digital music file) which is not ideal. The miniDSP, by example, even the 4x10HD, cannot brag about his converters quality: it's average at best. But then, why not use the (cheaper) nanoDIGI and stay as long as possible in the digital domain, then use real good dedicated DAC(s)... At least on the high frequencies where it counts the most ?
Even with DEQX, i cannot say the converter's quality is spectacular. Surely better than miniDSP but not as good as the best dedicated machines out there. But then again, there is the DEQX option for digital outputs (which i use for 2 years now), so no problem really.
but is the DAC the weak link in your system?
In mine, I know the weak link is the room, at least down low.
Up top, its most likely the CD
In mine, I know the weak link is the room, at least down low.
Up top, its most likely the CD
The real real weakest link, i believe it's the transducer's technology.
I'd expect from a ''perfect'' system to mimic every real sounds, including thunderstrikes, airplanes passing by, a trumpet from 3 meters, a drum, etc...
But all i see, all i ear, it's inefficient transducers that struggles to reproduce both tiny, realistic, details and big amount of acoustic energy.
The good news is, though, by using a DSP with the EQ, you have the chance to extract the most from those poor bastards. 😀
I forgot the elephant mating call. There is not Scan-speak transducers that can perfectly mimic the mating call from an elephant.
I currently use passive XO with parametric room EQ and have several other friends who do too. I'd vote in the poll but my combination is not there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.