I'm afraid that most people experience accurate speakers as being sterile. There is no difference if it is passive, active analog or digital in my experience. When you remove shelves, peaks, dips, resonances, distortions, hums, buzzes and clicks from loudspeaker what remains is the recording and it is what it is. There's nothing you can do about it.
There is a resonance of cabinets at a certain frequency that adds to that wooden feeling when listening music, so organic and warm. When resonance is removed, speaker is more accurate but that feeling disappears. Having it there is a thing of preference but it is clear what is more accurate.
So i guess that people choose their poison, as always. You can choose loudspeaker with set of colourations that you like but it is not superior in any way to more accurate loudspeaker. I guess that the way music is produced will have to evolve to allow more advanced loudspeakers to shine - adding that kind of stuff in the music instead relying on loudspeaker imperfection to amplify the thing that someone (or all of us?) like.
P.S. I thought i should mention that i only design passive crossovers but i do have extensive listening experience with active analog and even some with dsp powered loudspeakers.
There is a resonance of cabinets at a certain frequency that adds to that wooden feeling when listening music, so organic and warm. When resonance is removed, speaker is more accurate but that feeling disappears. Having it there is a thing of preference but it is clear what is more accurate.
So i guess that people choose their poison, as always. You can choose loudspeaker with set of colourations that you like but it is not superior in any way to more accurate loudspeaker. I guess that the way music is produced will have to evolve to allow more advanced loudspeakers to shine - adding that kind of stuff in the music instead relying on loudspeaker imperfection to amplify the thing that someone (or all of us?) like.
P.S. I thought i should mention that i only design passive crossovers but i do have extensive listening experience with active analog and even some with dsp powered loudspeakers.
Last edited:
You can use any type of amplifiers you want. If you feel inclined to using tube amplifiers going active is a great way of not having to deal with the horrors of output transformer parasitics to the extent you would when using such an amplifier full range.
From where did you pluck this ridiculous false generalisation? Don't bother replying, it is a rhetorical question, if that wasn't blindingly obvious.
Hmmmm While I don't build many speakers I love music and I try and listen to a lot. I use a combination of techniques to give me the result I want.
Currently a 4-Way using both cheap Behringer XO and a passive on the tweeter. Good enough for me and not at all unmusical
It's a cheap shot celef, bordering on trolling and not at all true, well at least for me it isn't
I see your point, but I certainly wasn't flaming. What I was pointing out was simply that if the passive crossover advocates haven't heard what a good DSP-based system can do, then they're not in a position to make sweeping statements about which is superior.
You'll note that, after my original post (which I thought was quite fair to each camp), I was addressing one poster in particular who seemed determined to say that passive crossovers are superior, no matter what.
Having played around with DSP-based systems for a good number of years, IMO the only way to use DSP and maintain true high-fidelity is by having a digital source and a digital amplifier. The signal should remain digital all the way through the signal chain.
FWIW, I use passive crossovers in most of my home HiFi speakers, and sometimes use some DSP in the PC source to tweak the overall response. I like passive crossovers for their convenience - being able to use a single stereo amp really helps when other people also have to be able to use the system.
Chris
Last edited:
Given any set of driver/enclosure combination, an active version can always be made to measure and sound better than a passive version.
This should not be an object of discussion because it follows from undeniable logic: it is not that hard to emulate with active components the behaviour of any passive filter. In other words, if passive is the base line, active can do that too. But then, active can do much more. Especially time alignment and corrections. And so, by going active, you can make improvements over the base line, so it must be better, both from a technical and a hifi perspective.
Now, another question is, is is better for you? As has been mentioned in this thread, some have a preference for the quirks of passive filters. And those with vested interests in amplifiers, for them passive may be better too. Imo it is only because of fragmentation on the producer side that the consumer market has not gone fully active yet. The advantages are undeniable.
This should not be an object of discussion because it follows from undeniable logic: it is not that hard to emulate with active components the behaviour of any passive filter. In other words, if passive is the base line, active can do that too. But then, active can do much more. Especially time alignment and corrections. And so, by going active, you can make improvements over the base line, so it must be better, both from a technical and a hifi perspective.
Now, another question is, is is better for you? As has been mentioned in this thread, some have a preference for the quirks of passive filters. And those with vested interests in amplifiers, for them passive may be better too. Imo it is only because of fragmentation on the producer side that the consumer market has not gone fully active yet. The advantages are undeniable.
Hey - wait a minute.
You are comparing apples and bananas
No one said that extra features gives a better result in any way. You have to make sure that the extra features makes it possible to correct a problem, without making a new one!
Home theater is a different beast than active speakers in general. Most have experience with surround products, that tries to make the best of a bunch of passive speakers that people hang around their room, to enjoy a movie at home.
Active systems, with a DSP, that acts as a filter and correction for linear distortion, is of course only a good thing, if you understand how to use it
Thanks perceval, for bringing me up to 21st century, ha ha. Multi-way should be where I am. I didn't know full range meant 'single driver' - I was thinking 'full range system'.
JT
Horrors seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Yes the transformer is a challenge in full range tube amps (other than output transformerless) but it isn't as bad as all that IMO. Each technology has its own set of challenges so we each pick our poison as it were.
Good wide range performance well down into the 30s and up into the ultrasonic region is quite common. That said it is much easier (and cheaper) to get the last octave or so using solid state and in fact I do so myself but the challenge is primarily getting both ends of the audio spectrum at the same time.
It is theoretically possible to bi-amp using OPTs optimized for each end of the spectrum but the advantages of the vacuum state in the lowest octaves is not great enough to justify the expense for most. So transformers wound for woofer only use would be a custom proposition by and large. It would be fun however to experiment with overspec'ed off the shelf OPTs for low end bi-amp duty. Sufficiently de-rated I suspect reasonable performance down to 20Hz would be doable.
I have often wondered what a 1950s technology approach to getting the 32' pitches would look like. The trick is large enough core and inductance to support it without saturation. Achieving this is quite a bit easier if you are not worried about anything above a few Khz as parasitics are not an issue at those frequencies. An efficient sub/woofer design would go a long way toward making that possible. Of course an inverted futterman would be another approach.
Last edited:
To clarify I am one who will use either passive, active, or both as the situation warrants. I am not interested in DSP except in the case or sound reinforcement applications or all digital situations (I use it in my virtual pipe organ for example).
Right now for example I am using the built in analog EQ to fake out a low pass for a subwoofer until I get the preamp with active sub crossover built. The same sub and amp handles both the VPO and the stereo. The main channel for the VPO uses DSP but the stereo is all analog for LP playback and all analog after the CDP for playing CDs. The main stereo speakers use passive crossover between the full range drivers and the helper woofers.
Right now for example I am using the built in analog EQ to fake out a low pass for a subwoofer until I get the preamp with active sub crossover built. The same sub and amp handles both the VPO and the stereo. The main channel for the VPO uses DSP but the stereo is all analog for LP playback and all analog after the CDP for playing CDs. The main stereo speakers use passive crossover between the full range drivers and the helper woofers.
My apologies Pano, for accidentally starting another passive/active debate, but for me, the newcomer, it's good. I needed to hear the intelligent responses. My experience with fully active crossovers is limited, and a very good point is made by Brett, that tweeter protection is a result of 'system design'.
Lastly, Charlie makes a good, and simple suggestion with "leave the amps on". Hey really ... the music should never go off anyway, right?
JT
Lastly, Charlie makes a good, and simple suggestion with "leave the amps on". Hey really ... the music should never go off anyway, right?
JT
I've been to AXPONA and heard the so-called SOTA DSP-base loudspeakers most people rave about currently. Kii III being one of them, and I didn't like it at all.
Meniscus built a Mandolin passive and Mandolin active where they matched the transfer functions with a DSP based solution. I did not like the active, and could immediately tell which was which without question as this was not stated beforehand.
I heard the Grimm Audio (with L22 and DXT) at AXPONA a few years ago, but this was the model without the subwoofer. I did not like that one either.
It could be the person setting these things up, but I've not ever made the statement that a DSP-based design sounded as clear and open as a passive design to me.
Sterile is not a proper design cue. These kind of descriptions have to do with tonal balance. Neutral is murky and bland, IMO. I prefer the 'clean' or 'realistic' balance, whereas bright and clinical are not right either on the opposite end of Sterile and Neutral. The emotional attachment stems from a more realistic source than that of blandness.
Later,
Wolf
Meniscus built a Mandolin passive and Mandolin active where they matched the transfer functions with a DSP based solution. I did not like the active, and could immediately tell which was which without question as this was not stated beforehand.
I heard the Grimm Audio (with L22 and DXT) at AXPONA a few years ago, but this was the model without the subwoofer. I did not like that one either.
It could be the person setting these things up, but I've not ever made the statement that a DSP-based design sounded as clear and open as a passive design to me.
Sterile is not a proper design cue. These kind of descriptions have to do with tonal balance. Neutral is murky and bland, IMO. I prefer the 'clean' or 'realistic' balance, whereas bright and clinical are not right either on the opposite end of Sterile and Neutral. The emotional attachment stems from a more realistic source than that of blandness.
Later,
Wolf
Last edited:
some smart guy once said something like: what the eye likes is not always what the ears like
and i think it is true
some products looks very good on paper and spec but fails considerable sound wise, and for some products the opposite is true
i think we need a different scale to judge performance then numbers and curves
and i think it is true
some products looks very good on paper and spec but fails considerable sound wise, and for some products the opposite is true
i think we need a different scale to judge performance then numbers and curves
The problem with that being (broadly speaking I agree with you) that some systems measure badly, sound shocking by some people's lights, but I promise you, they'll also have others nodding along sagely. For instance, there is 'a certain speaker'. I shall not name it, other than to state it uses a 12in wideband driver from a well-known pro-audio manufacturer, in an acoustically small sealed box. A number of people I know love it to bits. Me? Even approaching 60 degrees off-axis, with a high output impedance amplifier, I still felt the need to peel my lips from the back of my head. Midband & HF rougher than a badger's badger; it's like having a stilletto rammed into your eardrum.
I retreated. Politely.
I retreated. Politely.
If you like active crossover you should to read:
Grimm Audio LS1 active speakers with DSP and Hypex NC500
[PDF] https://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/speakers.pdf
Grimm Audio LS1 active speakers with DSP and Hypex NC500
[PDF] https://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/speakers.pdf
I do not think it is true, i have restes and measured many drivers and it is not always the best sounding drivers measured best
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.