We can argue about that until 2030, but the real answer would come from a test.
A blind test.
Ready for it ?
Design your top notch passive crossover, hook it up on your best single class A amp, i'll DSP-mimic your crossover then i'll hook it up on a modest ICEpower amp.
Listened on a shared DIY 2-way speakers. SPL-adjusted 0.3db or better.
If your classy and expensive set-up is indistinguishable from mine, you lose.
I put 1000$ on the table, you game?
OK, I'll say it yet again - in this thread.
Active is easy compared to passive. And it's much faster. Good results in a short time probably leads many to believe that active is "better" and then they work backward to justify that belief. See any thread on the subject.
Who knows what most people have heard? I do know that there are others like me who prefer passive crossovers and have heard the very best that active and/or DSP has to offer. To claim that those who prefer passive haven't heard the best that active has to offer is just guessing and conjecture. In my case, and several other that I know, your statement is not true
But I'm tilting against windmills. People are easily seduced by the whizz-bang sound of active and DSP and will never wipe the stardust from their ears. Just because it's seductive, doesn't make it better. This is not an argument that I'll ever win, but it can be a good way to sell speakers. 😉
Personally I like digital EQ and passive crossovers. Active is amazing for prototyping. Enough said, until this next one of these threads comes along.
hahaha, I agree with the wife part. I had the same problem with our living room active system, so I went to back to passive. Almost all the time she wanted to play music, no sound coming from the speakers. 🙁
Regarding the volume control, I use 32 bit un-dithered software based volume control. I use separate dither algo. The analog gain stage is optimized for the max output level of DAC (Not much gain as regular audio system).
Have you ever seen/heard Danley Synergy speakers?
Well, I can think of one very real difference -- adjusting delays between drivers is absolutely trivial with a DPS crossover and, for all practical purposes, basically impossible with analog. I've added delay networks for tweeters -- 12 components in just the delay section for not even 250usec of delay.
Active crossovers via DSP do indeed have some technical advantages, but for most people the technical advantages only matter at the time of purchase while the practical issues (wires, volume control) matter every day afterwards. It seems the industry could standardize on a way to give analog volume control to each power amp, operating in concert all together from a single remote. Maybe there is, but I've never heard of it.
Not the "feeling" part I was getting at. In all honesty my speaker setup wins in both categories. It has taken me a while to achieve and I'm not done yet.
The feeling of the energy is a pré for actual speakers in my book.
Agreed, this probably gives the best of both worlds in a simple and convenient way, including any dsp madness like xover xcess phase correction, linkwitz transforms, drc, etc, for the good and the evil of these...
Maybe active is only required for very special and weird designs as SL's Orion, Pluto, Lxs, etc...🙄
Yeah, but what do you exactly need that for?
Make achievable the preconceived idea of how an xover should work, aligning things that do not really need to be aligned?🙄
Last edited:
Bill. When I ran active crossovers I used ganged stepped attenuators. 4 gang is easy to find, even motorized pots, 6 gang or more, not so easy.
But in the end I found it didn't matter, digital attenuation was just fine, if not better, better than analog. Once my gain structure was in place then 10dB of volume range was all that was ever needed. As the playback software volume is done in 32 or 64 bit float, then output to 24 bit integer, the bit loss did not matter. I measured, I listened, I could tell no difference. And if someone is worried about digital resolution loss, they shouldn't be using a DSP crossover anyway. 🙂
But in the end I found it didn't matter, digital attenuation was just fine, if not better, better than analog. Once my gain structure was in place then 10dB of volume range was all that was ever needed. As the playback software volume is done in 32 or 64 bit float, then output to 24 bit integer, the bit loss did not matter. I measured, I listened, I could tell no difference. And if someone is worried about digital resolution loss, they shouldn't be using a DSP crossover anyway. 🙂
Hi Pano, thank you for the long and detailed answer. I have to disagree with you about one part.
It should not be easier nor faster to setup good sounding DSP crossover, and there is no commercial all-in-a-box DSP crossover that sounds good as far as I know. For me the only acceptable DSP crossover is a custom made one in a very fast computer, and I think only a few people has done that in this forum. If you could set up DSP quick while comparing with analog, that DSP is most likely low end for me, sorry. It is also untrue that changing the parameter is fast and easy with DSP. A lot of experience is needed to make DSP sounds good while changing parameters. FIR/IIR, window function, choice of curve (not the pole), phase, tap, dither, oversampling etc. Simply, too many possibilities. It is much more time consuming than capacitor swapping, in my experience.
I’m not advocating DSP unconditionally. Two of my favorite speakers are passive and no plan to make them active in the future for now. I think I know the advantage of analog crossover, and limitation of DSP. For accuracy, DSP probably wins in most cases, but it does not mean it is subjectively the better sounding method for all the people in all the situation.
To tell you the truth, I have compared DSP and passive directly only one time, and it was somewhat unfair. Speakers are UREI 813C, crossover network is factory default recapped with audiophile grade films, but they are not Mundorf nor Duelund. The response is not flat with analog crossover. DSP was a hands down winner in that case due to additional EQ for flatter response and precise time/phase alignment, but I think I should shut my mouth until I have a chance to compare DSP with the analog in fair condition. 🙂
If you mean feel in the physical sense on your body - I rarely get that in real sound/music in real life. To do so would be a construct to deliberately do so - i.e. rarely a natural occurance.
That said, if we're talking sound effects for field recordings or film to recreate an event rather than for enjoying music, physical thump of helecopter or an eruption etc, I would agree totally. Binaural plus external bass, say < 200Hz is a great immersive experience.
Dance music I like and go out to dance to is, yep, very loud and physical but that's because I didn't choose it that way. I much prefer it not that way but instead I'd chose replay where I can hear every snap and rythmic entity, not encumbered by overhang of physical vibration of a real thing, room modes and all that.
MUCH faster brain engagement and connection with the music via lower levels than high levels in my opinion and experience.
I never really get that inside the head feeling.. in fact when I have had it it has been with speakers! I remember getting it when first listening to some Celestion SL600s. I don't know why, was odd. Once my brain adjusted to the sound it went away. I get an "around my head" sound which, when you consider where the mics are placed most of the time, is how it should sound (not in front of you like speakers enforce).
I also love listening to all the little "studio" techniques used in the production, some of which are all about the differences in left and right - slight delays, out of phase etc. Crossfeed masks that a little harder to hear.
I won't try to persuade you, though I was talking about music.
I don't listen to Dance all that often though learned to appreciate it more.
To me, envelopment, dynamics and even that snap becomes more real when I feel it even on my eye lids. My listening is done at a 85-88 dB on average and I did the best I can to get the room to play along as much as possible.
I still believe that's a part where we can win the most with DIY, be it passive or active.
I don't listen to Dance all that often though learned to appreciate it more.
To me, envelopment, dynamics and even that snap becomes more real when I feel it even on my eye lids. My listening is done at a 85-88 dB on average and I did the best I can to get the room to play along as much as possible.
I still believe that's a part where we can win the most with DIY, be it passive or active.
Buff, loud clean sound as usual, and little more required....😡
End of hifi, return of spartan barbarians and their ghetto blasters...
Studio techniques for un sophisticated sound fx... Lol...
Like Daesh, but in audio...😀😀
End of hifi, return of spartan barbarians and their ghetto blasters...
Studio techniques for un sophisticated sound fx... Lol...
Like Daesh, but in audio...😀😀
Last edited:
Audio is more about hearing and enjoyment than about science. Obviously you use science to get to the hearing part first..
I am going to use this reply as an opportunity to advertise in ear monitors made by Flare Audio. I'm adicted to them..
Their old 2015 models can be picked up for less than £50 on ebay secondhand, R2 series (there were 3 versions using different metals for the housing, all else the same). But now they have a new model out that sounds even better.
FLARES PRO | Flare Audio Ltd
Not that great value as the old ones if you don't want a bluetooth module (which lets face it is just a simple Qualcomm CSR8645 implementation) even if it sounds good, a little smake oil in my opinion with the different tips, but still sound amazing to me.
But no, not Beats.. 😀
Ok, that's different .. and at 85-88dB. I personally feel more enveloped with in-ear headphones, I think just the isolation from all other sound (other than breathing, heart, rustling from the cable etc).
Sounds like a "tuning" with the room you could only get with DSP?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.