uli said:
Like your post here, and Cal's reply, and this post.
I don't think he missed anything else. Actually I think he cut some useful posts.
Thanks for keeping us on track Cal.
I have learned a great deal from this post, it has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have a lot of reading and testing to do to process all the helpful information provided by this community.
I have learned a great deal from this post, it has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have a lot of reading and testing to do to process all the helpful information provided by this community.
You guys are a tough crowd.
I've had another look, and this is what I could find that might not have been removed.
By audiokraut:
Just because you like passive, doesn't mean they are better. I've done too much research and a lot of personal experience to be convinced of the opposite.
That even led me at the present state to switch to digital x overs.
By Uli:
For a beginner i is definitely easier to use active circuitry.
Designing passive Xovers needs much experience and knowledge.
There is no better way per se, the point is what a designer is
able to do. An active design is not necessarily better than a
passive one, or vice versa.
Pete H,
I hope this hasn't distracted you too much, I'm hoping we can move on from here.
Cal
I've had another look, and this is what I could find that might not have been removed.
By audiokraut:
Just because you like passive, doesn't mean they are better. I've done too much research and a lot of personal experience to be convinced of the opposite.
That even led me at the present state to switch to digital x overs.
By Uli:
For a beginner i is definitely easier to use active circuitry.
Designing passive Xovers needs much experience and knowledge.
There is no better way per se, the point is what a designer is
able to do. An active design is not necessarily better than a
passive one, or vice versa.
Pete H,
I hope this hasn't distracted you too much, I'm hoping we can move on from here.
Cal
uli said:
Sore loser IMO.
The points that audiobomber raised are all very valid but you still side step the real meat of his posts.
Passive design can be wonderful but active is just plain better sounding. I've tried both with some very nice drivers and the active XO quite easily won exactly because of the points raised by audiobomber and I'm no stranger to passive.
For me it the very real posibilities of EQ and Digital Room Correction that offer the biggest highlights of digital active XO's. These of course can be achieved with passive designs but incur a chain of A-D/D-A conversions all of which add upto inferior results for passive when used in a side-by-side comparison of identical components.
A fully digital chain right upto the amps is a wonderful thing.
For me ,active x-over more easy than passive.
My local speaker vendors almost don't have speaker datasheet.
😡
My local speaker vendors almost don't have speaker datasheet.
😡
With regards to active XO, 2 distinctions must be clarified.
1. Analog or digital?
2. Does the design incorporate the drivers acoustic response?
I don't think an active vs passive debate is of much value unless you properly define the type of active XO.
A very good passive design may easily beat an analog active with textbook electrical XO slopes (eg, Marchand).
A proper XO, passive or active, must incorporate the drivers acoustic response. As such, the design of both is nearly equally complex. The construction of an analog can be significantly more difficult, esp if you have to hand roll your own analog circuit board.
OTOH, a digital active can be easy to implement if your design software can directly download the XO parameters to the digital unit (eg, SoundEasy => DCX2496).
As usual, YMMV.
1. Analog or digital?
2. Does the design incorporate the drivers acoustic response?
I don't think an active vs passive debate is of much value unless you properly define the type of active XO.
A very good passive design may easily beat an analog active with textbook electrical XO slopes (eg, Marchand).
A proper XO, passive or active, must incorporate the drivers acoustic response. As such, the design of both is nearly equally complex. The construction of an analog can be significantly more difficult, esp if you have to hand roll your own analog circuit board.
OTOH, a digital active can be easy to implement if your design software can directly download the XO parameters to the digital unit (eg, SoundEasy => DCX2496).
As usual, YMMV.
Actually, my xover is a Yamaha D2040.
Also, does anybody have an idea why I got so much drop in output volume (like 3/4) when I switch from a 6db crossover slope to 12db , likewise from 12 to 18? I'm pretty sure the unit isn't faulty ans suspect I'm not using it correctly.
The manual for the D2040 can be found here. Perhaps some kind soul can read it & figure what's goin on? TIA
http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/signal/D2040E.pdf
Also, does anybody have an idea why I got so much drop in output volume (like 3/4) when I switch from a 6db crossover slope to 12db , likewise from 12 to 18? I'm pretty sure the unit isn't faulty ans suspect I'm not using it correctly.
The manual for the D2040 can be found here. Perhaps some kind soul can read it & figure what's goin on? TIA
http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/pa/english/signal/D2040E.pdf
audio-kraut said:
Datubie said:
When you have a 1st order crossover, there is more overlap, thus when each band adds the overlap part, you get more energy. When you increase the order of the filter, there is less overlap. So even if the gain of each band is the same, the total energy over the spectrum is reduced.
There are also other things about the driver that needs to be understood to technically make the right active crossover design. These are normally discovered when you are actually able to conduct some acoustic measurements instead of rely on ears.
Is it possible to shape the gain such that it is not flat with digital crossovers?
ocool_15 said:
Well with an active setup the crossover is before the amps. Most home and car speaker sets are unpowered, they assume you have the amp. For a passive system all they need to do is make a simple passive crossover (or in some cases, not so simple), you hook it up to your amp, and you're good to go. Unless the speakers are self-powered, an active setup would be much more complicated for the manufacturer, plus there would be virtually no market for it. I mean honestly, what would they do? I suppose they could include an external crossover module that you would place in between your source and your amps, but then they would have to deal with all of the interconnect types (xlr, rca, digital, etc), and how would they deal with level matching the tweets, mids, etc? Leave it up to the consumer? It could be done but it wouldn't sell very well at all. Passive bi-amping is close, but that still isn't the same as active.
ShinOBIWAN said:
As Uli says, it depends.
Tell me... would you use an active crossover on (my) Epos ES11 speakers?
Woofer is direct, the tweeter has a 1.5uf film cap and a parallel 47R resistor.
Active?
What for?
Another active stage on my system?
No way.
Don't play with the signal, it is too sensitive.
If you make a good active crossover with gain and dispense with the preamp, maby.
Otherwise, another active stage in the way of the signal can only make things worse.
Better choose the right drivers for your speakers and make a passive crossover as simple as possible.😉
carlosfm said:
Add a second stereo amp, replace the tweeter cap and resistor with line level components or a good active first-order crossover, for the tweeter cct, and you'll see what for.
Large caps and resistors between the amp and driver exact a sonic penalty. With the minimalist filter in the Epos, a line-level filter would be the ideal solution.
carlosfm said:
Cheers Audiobomber, would have said that myself 😉
LOL
Sorry to make light of this but its laughable when you consider the immense amount of processing the signal goes through when in the mix/mastering stage before it ever touches your hifi and your saying a tad more is bad??? No it isn't if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, listen to an active setup were each driver has its own amp, each driver has no components between the amp and driver, each driver and amp never "see's" the other drivers impedance/sensitivity, these are very real and quite staggering advantages when compared side-by-side to passive. Then add in EQ and DRC, these are incredible tools, that virtually elliminate your room and its factors so you actually hear the signal that is passing through your amps and not your room - THE biggest contributor of signal distortion.
So you see no amount of extra signal processing added by a good fully realised active XO ever and I mean ever outweighs its advantages. You've just got to be prepared to put in the considerable time and effort to achieve this. Good passive is easy in comparison to what I'm talking about when dealing with digital active XO's.
audiobomber said:
Sure.
Besides a volume pot in the pre, there you go again attenuating the signal for the tweeter.
Attenuate, amplify, attenuate again...
Inserting passive line-level components between the pre and the power amp(s) is not a thing I would do, only if they were inserted inside the power amp, as part of the input stage.
I won't insert another active stage on my system, I've been there, done that.
Active filters are good in some situations, with multi-way speakers, with complex crossovers.
For subwoofers it's what I use, and in this case it's obviously better.
audiobomber said:
Sure.
And what makes you think that that's worse than a cap to ground or across the feedback loop of an active stage?
Depending on the values involved, the single passive crossover on the tweeter may sonically be a much better choice.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Yes.
It's by thinking that way that we have so many bad recordings.😡
ShinOBIWAN said:
You must be joking.
I didn't say it's bad to biamp, did I?
ShinOBIWAN said:
I get the picture...
Gotta run!
Too many times the excuses for a bad system is the room...
carlosfm said:
Hi,
You don't need a cap to ground or acrosss the feedback loop to form a high pass filter. You don't need an additional active stage, either. What you need is a serial-connected cap at the input of an HF output amp. The cap's value may be simply calculated for a given crossover frequency and input impedance of the HP output amp. A cap placed at the amp's input is under much lower stress than when it is placed at the output. It is thus reasonable to expect that the active crossover setup will produce significantly better sonic results.
Regards,
Milan
If you had your way, we'd still be using reel to reel.
Face it, everything that's released now is digitally mastered. If you've bought an album in the last 5 years and thought it sounded great, then digital has passed the test 🙂
There were **** recording back when you were on milk and digital wasn't in the picture then so it all depends on the skill and budget of the mixer, there's good and bad in everything.
You must be joking.
I didn't say it's bad to biamp, did I?
What is with passive XO fans, do they have an aversion to reading, understanding and acknowledging clear highlights of other methods? Yes you can bi-amp with passive but this is optional and does everyone do it? Say active and its mandatory. There's a far more than just tri-amping though, that's a minor tweak IMO compared to others.
I get the picture...
Gotta run!
Too many times the excuses for a bad system is the room... [/B]
Weak come back! Nothing wrong with my speakers, I'd consider them reference level actually.
Carlos do you anything about this stuff? These are tools to help further reproduction if you know how to use them and care about quality, use them. When will people realise that the weak link is the room then the speakers in the audio chain, no matter how good you think your setup is. Sure get your initial design good, no make that great but these additions really move things onto a level you have never heard, including the big hifi shows with the boutique manufacturers.
The room introduces the most distortion into your playback - loads more than any half decent XO. Fine if I correct my rooms impulse response I must be weak. Sure as hell sounds better than without though.
It sounds to me like you've either never heard a decent all digital active setup with DRC or you don't know how to do it right so it must be rubbish. Am I close? 😀
ShinOBIWAN said:
Not as bad as you think.
I still buy bad sounding CDs, SACDs and DVD-As.
Even new albums.
ShinOBIWAN said:
There are good and bad examples, as always.
I recently heard a classical CD from Philips Japan, a fantastic recording.
Ya know what?
That CD was original, in bad shape, from 1985.😱
I'm not a fundamentalist, my ears make the judgement.
Gotta phone my friend to make me a copy.😀
ShinOBIWAN said:
Exactly.
And there were also very good sounding vinyl pressings.
There was also lots of bad ones, of course.
But the goods ones still sound very good today, and they passed a 10~15 years black-hole of (mostly) miserable, unlistenable, digital recordings. Some later re-releases on CD of the same albums are plain junk.
ShinOBIWAN said:
If you think that I'm a fan of passive crossovers then you misunderstood me, as some of you did with Uli.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Equalization and signal processing doesn't really appeal me.
Conversions from analog to digital, back to analog...
Or do you think the only source is digital?
I have others...😀
I've heard the Tact room correction thinggie and what it did to the sound didn't convince me.
No, thanks.
I pass that one.
More jitter?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.