Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I would have made my guess that the mass market isn't that at all. I would have thought that very few people need anything like that, they're simply too big for most rooms, it's all ego isn't it? Surely the mass market live in smaller dwellings and do fine with smaller speakers? They will mostly end up buying actively amplified bluetooth-connected speakers - although better ones than most of the desktop crap we see today, and low-profile subs for their HT.
Last edited:
Do we really need yet another Active vs Passive crossover thread - where everyone says exactly the same thing? 🙄
Not really, no. There are a lot of useful topics and projects here that aren't repeated ad nauseam.
I was looking at some movie at the tv and my girlfriend asked me " What's that ? Is that a tv ? Isn't it old ?"
I explained to her that those cheap tv boxes were popular in america till the end of the eighties of past century. So what we can say ? Americans weren't interested in high quality tv ( yes: it was inferior in quality of the european ones ) or good looking boxes ?!
So nowadays we see that the new flat tv appears everywhere but somehow the change had happened during the nineties.
So what if we apply it to hifi ?
😉
I explained to her that those cheap tv boxes were popular in america till the end of the eighties of past century. So what we can say ? Americans weren't interested in high quality tv ( yes: it was inferior in quality of the european ones ) or good looking boxes ?!
So nowadays we see that the new flat tv appears everywhere but somehow the change had happened during the nineties.
So what if we apply it to hifi ?
😉
At least those big TV boxes sounded decent, not like our modern flat ( or curved...) smartTVs ...
Not to mention the sound "quality" of those soundbar stuffed with state of the art electronics, rubbish mini fullrange drivers, ******** wireless subwoofers, etc...😀
4K enlightening experiences for the deaf...😕
Not to mention the sound "quality" of those soundbar stuffed with state of the art electronics, rubbish mini fullrange drivers, ******** wireless subwoofers, etc...😀
4K enlightening experiences for the deaf...😕
I feel the music more with headphones - if you are talking emotions (not crying ones but energising and music loving ones).
I'm not sure many people have the luxury of isolation from neighbours to be able to relax with physically moving levels of sound! I guess more so in land-rich countries like the US, but certainly not in cities.
The reason it's more moving is because your brain is more concentrated on it - no other sounds and more often than not, you close your eyes and focus on it. Sitting on the sofa in front of hifi, there are always other distractions (as well as constantly listening out for signs of the neighbours being unhappy, closing of balcony doors etc - hard to relax if it's too loud), not to mention a MUCH higher noise floor.
Once and for all!
A crossover between any two pairs of drivers, regardless of whether it is passively or actively implemented, should:
IF you can meet those two (or better, three) main design criteria, then your crossover will by and large sound "good", i.e. it will be mostly inaudible, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED.
Having said that, given the reality of almost all drivers out there (as well as, often, the presence of an offset between the acoustic centres of the drivers):
- A simple "textbook" passive crossover designed on the basis of the standard formulas floating around in books and on the internet will VERY RARELY be able to achieve goal #1 and NEVER goal #2.
- Likewise, a standard analog active crossover will be JUST AS HOPELESS.
- A digital (DSP) active crossover - provided that the user knows what he/she is doing - makes it easier to achieve goals #1 and #2, and THIS is the main reason why it CAN sometimes sound better.
- However, there is no reason why a properly designed and implemented BESPOKE passive (or analog active) crossover cannot be made to achieve goals #1 and #2 too, and if that is the case, then it will sound essentially just as good as the DSP one.
- Then, IF (big IF!) the fundamental conditions above are met, any differences between the passive / analog active / DSP active crossovers become MUCH more subtle, and may easily stack up in favour of one or the other, depending on the minutiae of how they are actually implemented.
E.g., factors such as the quality of the caps and coils in the passive version vs. the quality of the ICs in the analog active version vs. the quality of the ADC and DAC chips in the DSP active version all come into play.
As of course the type and quality level of the amp(s) used to power the speakers.
So, for instance, all else being equal (w.r.t. conditions #1, #2 and #3 above), a well-designed and implemented passive crossover with top-notch components and fed by a single class A amplifier may well sound better than a cheap DSP active crossover followed by cheap class D amps.
That's basically all there is to it. No magic, no snake oil. Just sound engineering (pun intended).
Marco
A crossover between any two pairs of drivers, regardless of whether it is passively or actively implemented, should:
- Achieve a smooth, flat combined frequency response
- Ensure that there is good phase matching between the acoustic outputs of the two drivers over a sufficiently wide (*) frequency range around the crossover frequency (*: how wide depends on the LP and HP slopes: the more shallow these are, the wider the range should be)
IF you can meet those two (or better, three) main design criteria, then your crossover will by and large sound "good", i.e. it will be mostly inaudible, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED.
Having said that, given the reality of almost all drivers out there (as well as, often, the presence of an offset between the acoustic centres of the drivers):
- A simple "textbook" passive crossover designed on the basis of the standard formulas floating around in books and on the internet will VERY RARELY be able to achieve goal #1 and NEVER goal #2.
- Likewise, a standard analog active crossover will be JUST AS HOPELESS.
- A digital (DSP) active crossover - provided that the user knows what he/she is doing - makes it easier to achieve goals #1 and #2, and THIS is the main reason why it CAN sometimes sound better.
- However, there is no reason why a properly designed and implemented BESPOKE passive (or analog active) crossover cannot be made to achieve goals #1 and #2 too, and if that is the case, then it will sound essentially just as good as the DSP one.
- Then, IF (big IF!) the fundamental conditions above are met, any differences between the passive / analog active / DSP active crossovers become MUCH more subtle, and may easily stack up in favour of one or the other, depending on the minutiae of how they are actually implemented.
E.g., factors such as the quality of the caps and coils in the passive version vs. the quality of the ICs in the analog active version vs. the quality of the ADC and DAC chips in the DSP active version all come into play.
As of course the type and quality level of the amp(s) used to power the speakers.
So, for instance, all else being equal (w.r.t. conditions #1, #2 and #3 above), a well-designed and implemented passive crossover with top-notch components and fed by a single class A amplifier may well sound better than a cheap DSP active crossover followed by cheap class D amps.
That's basically all there is to it. No magic, no snake oil. Just sound engineering (pun intended).
Marco
Omg, sound engineering, once for all you've killed the magic! 😀
Because of this post i am sure thousands of guys will rush and buy one of these low cost amplified pro monitors biamped with dsp inside, because hifi stuff a la papa is just about snake oil...
😱
Audio must be more about culture than about science...🙄
Are the cans made by Beats, or similar?😛
Audio must be more about culture than about science...🙄
Are the cans made by Beats, or similar?😛
Last edited:
Sounds like you've tried it, what didn't you like about it? Didn't it alleviate the inside the head feeling you can get?
My speakers are DSP based active, passive coax and passive vintage. DSP based active is the most accurate, and passive vintage (50's horn multiway) is the most lovely sounding.
If the the high end speaker market keep pursuing the accuracy, I expect is the most passive multi way will become obsolete except nostalgic vintage imitation.
If the the high end speaker market keep pursuing the accuracy, I expect is the most passive multi way will become obsolete except nostalgic vintage imitation.
Last edited:
Well.. who buys high end? Until Sonus Faber embrace active crossovers I'll say there is a future.
Focal has already gone to active in pro world (SM9 or such). The reason why they have not gone to active in consumer world is the market does not accept it due to ignorance, conservatism or some other special condition.
Last edited:
Yeah hence why i editwd my post! I remembered they make active monitors.
In the ultra high end domestic market, I still think 75% of buyers have little idea what they are really buying, it needs to be a convenience product without complications.
B&O and a couple of others are the exception
- Status
- Not open for further replies.