The whole high-end hifi market is built on complexity and snake oil.
Anything that will promote simplicity and proven efficiency won't be allowed.
Until that conservatism implodes.
Which is, essentially, the core subject of this thread.
I say 2030.
Buff studio gear market is not much better... Never read chats of guys sharing their experiences with sound cards, sound fx machines or software, monitors, etc at Gearslutz...
Funny that nobody on this thread (forum?) seems willing to accept what I highlighted above in bold.
I guess it could be either because (i) few have the skills required to design and implement a really top-notch passive crossover? and/or (ii) few if any have ever heard a how a really top-notch class A amp sounds when driving such a passive loudspeaker?
Whatever. If DSP crossovers work for you, by all means use those.
Actually, I have no axe to grind, and as I said in my previous post, indeed that may often be the easiest way to obtain optimal results, AND in the end, if properly implemented all solutions can sound very good indeed and remarkably similar to one another.
But it does irk me a bit to hear all the dogmatism about this being THE ONLY SUPERIOR WAY to do things.
In fact, it sounds so very similar to the same dumb dogmatism that's being ascribed to the maligned "hi-end audiophools"...
Oh well.
Marco
I am sure people agree with you but hesitate to confirm that specifically, like myself.
Last edited:
I might agree in the case of a simple 2 ways design, involving small value caps and coils, but personnally would go no further in passive.
Even stubborn purists like Troels G. are changing their minds, gradually introducing class D plate amps (though obsolete models...😀) in his designs...
Even stubborn purists like Troels G. are changing their minds, gradually introducing class D plate amps (though obsolete models...😀) in his designs...
I've said the same thing in all the other passive vs active threads that pop up. I didn't say it here because - why? It's been said dozens of times before.
Active crossovers are for wimps - real men design passive crossovers.
There. Happy now? 😀
Or how about...
(iii) I must have underestimated the intelligence of the audience, because what I just wrote is actually self-evident.
😀
jokes aside, nothing wrong with your dissertation, regards. 🙂
OP's question is conditional, and we are talking about high-end multi-way. A cheap DSP active crossover followed by cheap class D is not considered to be high end.
From Wiki
...High-end could be defined as "gear below which’s price and performance one could not go without compromising the music and the sound". Harry Pearson, founder of The Absolute Sound magazine, is widely acknowledged to have coined the term "high-end audio".
We should compare the best DSP active crossover with the best passive crossover in this tread. 🙂
The audiophilness in all his splendor has taken ground in this thread ?
Should we stay passive ? I think not. We will actively defend ourselves against that inducting conservatism. We MUST resist.
Should we stay passive ? I think not. We will actively defend ourselves against that inducting conservatism. We MUST resist.
I guess most people who says he prefers passive crossover probably have never experienced with the top notch DSP crossover available today, and he thinks DSP is easy to implement. Implementing un-compromised DSP crossover is not easy at all in my experience. A lot of knowledge about digital technology is required.
Jokes aside...
1. Steeper slopes xover are better in most cases. Therefore 1-0 electronic xover.
2. Less component between the amplifier and the transducer is better. Therefore 2-0 electronic xover.
3. Easy & quick A/B comparisons is not possible with passive. Therefore 3-0 electronic xover.
4. The Equalisation (control over the FR) is probably the single most important and audible feature implemented in the world of speakers... since, i don't know, the invention of speakers? 4-0 electronic DSP
Basically: more control, more precise R&D for better designs and EQ corrections that saves headaches and blind navigation through a sea of snake oil.
1. Steeper slopes xover are better in most cases. Therefore 1-0 electronic xover.
2. Less component between the amplifier and the transducer is better. Therefore 2-0 electronic xover.
3. Easy & quick A/B comparisons is not possible with passive. Therefore 3-0 electronic xover.
4. The Equalisation (control over the FR) is probably the single most important and audible feature implemented in the world of speakers... since, i don't know, the invention of speakers? 4-0 electronic DSP
Basically: more control, more precise R&D for better designs and EQ corrections that saves headaches and blind navigation through a sea of snake oil.
Same old argument Plasnu. And it's incorrect.
I sincerely would like to ask you how my understanding is incorrect.
Buff, top notch, uncompromised, best in the world... What else, cost no object?🙄
These are word for capricious kids, not mature guys!😀
These are word for capricious kids, not mature guys!😀
Well, then I'm the first then I guess. I've had active 2, 3 and 4 way, several times in the past. I'm back to passive for sheer simplicity of configuration and operation.
Active crossover disadvantage: a system the wife can't turn on (or off). Wires all over the place.
And the biggie: volume control. Is there a standardized way people do it without sending a line level analog signal to the speaker (with amps built into it rather than somewhere else in the room), and crossing over there? Because I start with digital in my system anymore, and I don't want to chain D over to A to send to the speaker, then back to D for crossover, then back to A to drive power amplifiers.
How do you get a volume control to run both channels together simultaneously other than having a pile of amps and crossover parts and a bundle of speaker level cable to each cabinet? If there's a standard, easily implemented way to do that, it would probably turn me back to active. I wish there was a way to send SPDIF or TOSLINK to each speaker with a user adjustable volume level code combined into it. I can apply gain reduction to a digital stream with a pad or smart phone, and then send the stream to both speakers to control volume, but the idea of throwing away bits in an audio stream also doesn't appeal.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.