The point is: you have your vinyl and you want to play it.
100 years ago you just had to rotate a crank - the technology for having a linear rotation was developed for watches, no?- later you needed electricity, and you had higher fidelity.
But still in the analog domain.
Same for crossovers: if you have a digital chain etc etc. and you like the sound, nothing stops you from keeping it digital just before the transducer.
But if you don't like it, what was wrong with the previous technique?
100 years ago you just had to rotate a crank - the technology for having a linear rotation was developed for watches, no?- later you needed electricity, and you had higher fidelity.
But still in the analog domain.
Same for crossovers: if you have a digital chain etc etc. and you like the sound, nothing stops you from keeping it digital just before the transducer.
But if you don't like it, what was wrong with the previous technique?
This is what I wondered. We can do from RIAA to room/speaker correction in digital domain at once and it would not only be more linear preproduction of the recorded music, but it would be much simpler solution compared to dealing everything in analog domain...
well ignoring snarks from a certain luddite the fact that there are choices is what makes this hobby fun.
But I note the OP started this as a trolling thread as he hasn't posted on it since he started it, so he wasn't really interested in opinions as Scottmoose pointed out a few pages back.
But I note the OP started this as a trolling thread as he hasn't posted on it since he started it, so he wasn't really interested in opinions as Scottmoose pointed out a few pages back.
Nothing wrong with old way of reproduction, and I actually love the sound of Victrola and vintage speakers. I just wondered why digital processing is not a popular choice for LP vinyl playback. I use digital correction for vintage speakers, and it's just great.
Because it's simple as it is. I mean, you can just amplify that signal -sometimes you can hear some acoustical signal exiting the cartridge!- but no, it's got to enter a comparator and a slicer etc. etc. etc. then again and again. I'd say- peace!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Bill, isn’t it the case that so few have really enough experience of both active and passive that this is a thread about opinion, preference and debate - anybody in control of their senses will see that they should not rely on us to make their decision.
That's a bit the problem here, many see their opinion, or the opinion from others that they support as the only true way to enjoy music. But there are many ways and opinions and i think diyaudio should leave place for all (which they do in a certain way). If you like it all digital, that's good for you. But i like analog rigs, i like vinyl, fullrange speakers and tubes. You don't have to like that, just like i don't have to like all digital multiway rigs with class d chipamps. As long as you enjoy the music/movies/... that your devices reproduce, it's good. Because at the end that is what it is about.
How has DEQX been for you? I’ve been using MiniDSP but just got a pair of Hypex FA123’s that arrived today. I’m staying active because I really enjoy the optimization process with a computer and can really dial-in the sound for my space.
What are your reasons to choose passive over active crossovers?
I'll post this one more time because it was buried in a heated debate. It really is a profound difference that cannot be done with passive implementations.
I'll post this one more time because it was buried in a heated debate. It really is a profound difference that cannot be done with passive implementations.
Hi Remlab, my experience too.
It's hard to overstate the value of being able to hear, easy to make, real-time, xover changes.
I enjoy the same capability you displayed 🙂
Complete control of a processor, real-time via a PC.
And can also, instantly, without click or glitch....use unlimited presets to switch between one xover setup to another. (or complete speaker tuning set)
Can even do the same, IIR vs linear phase. (And FIR vs FIR)
The new tools are simply awesome imho !!
Agreed. There are certainly many ways to optimize your project, but I really enjoy the constant feedback loop I have with active. I can have my computer open along with my measurement mic and test, tweak, test, tweak, test. The end result is I spend more time on the final sound and less time on getting my drivers into an enclosure.
It isn’t for everyone, but it works great for me and apparently a lot of other people.
I do both active and passive speakers. Last month I was assembling passive crossovers for a 2-way mini-monitor. It seemed to take me a solid eight hours to layout components, drill holes, zip tie, hot glue and point-to-point solder crossovers for only a 2-way speaker! I felt like a caveman. It was downright primitive work. A woodworking comparison would be trying to do fine woodworking with only a stone axe. It can definitely be done, but requires considerable skill and experience. Why waste so much time when precision hand tools and power tools are readily available.
I'd say the reason for doing passive crossovers can only be for only the convenience of using the end product. It definitely isn't for ease of development, accuracy and performance.
I'd say the reason for doing passive crossovers can only be for only the convenience of using the end product. It definitely isn't for ease of development, accuracy and performance.
This can be a very difficult question to answer. On my horn system, I had a top of the line DEQX system set up by a knowledgeable audio club member using 5 pairs of SET mono blocks---sounded BAD, unmusical, unnatural. The high quality, simple, 6db crossover smoked the DEQX. However, the field coil compression drivers I use have a very flat impedance, and extended frequency response so the drivers are very similar. If you are trying to match very different types of drivers, it is much easier using digital processing to get them to play nice together.
Meet Joe, and his amazing DIY horn speakers - YouTube
Joe
Meet Joe, and his amazing DIY horn speakers - YouTube
Joe
Yep, it can be a drag. I know a lot of people enjoy it though and more power to them.
For setup, I love my new Hypex plate amps. Just plug in Toslink/SPDIF and off I go. So much less clutter, and the NCore amps are crazy good. Class D is making leaps and bounds. It may never catch up to true Class-A entirely, but that last 0.01% of difference is something I can forego for a more enjoyable project.
Hi, i use a mix of both digital and analog attenuators:
I have a three 'presets' analog attenuator between the out of my dacs and the amps input with three predetermined spl ( loud (regular listening level for my own use around 85dbspl at listening point)- medium (between 70 and 75db spl) and low ( 65dbspl).
Each settings corespond to an use ( medium for my family and low for late night listening) and fine tuning of levels are done digitally at the dsp digital input attenuator ( eithr from the dsp adc ( which are my main adc - and dac- for analog sources or digital aes stream from pc).
It is a compromise (for me, i would prefer a total analog attenuator with switched steps with 0,5db resolution) but acceptable on a day to day basis as i can lock features on the dsp (this won't let anyone in the family play with xover points except myself) and still give an usable attenuator range and easily identified by non qualified operators. 😉
Last edited:
If you’re using a digital source, often that will handle the volume directly and pass that on to your DSP which will then control the voltage output to the amps.
The Hypex and MiniDSP plate amps all will accept incoming volume control on a digital line, but I’m not 100% sure about the analog input being controllable upstream.
Hypex does have a remote control kit as well for their plate amps which can control the master and slave speaker quite easily, but I have yet to try it.
I'm OK with digital attenuator inserted before xover filters. I use a USB volume knob controlling a fader on Studio One. We don't want to send 0dB digital stream directly to DSP filter because it could be overloaded.
Yeah Plasnu. That is (more than) ok at home.
When i work i sometimes need to know if clipping occurs at DA and so my preference for an analog att after the dacs... but this is not something most peoples cares about and i could live only with digital attenuator at home.
But as it is my work place from time to time ( didn't happened since i moved 2 years ago though)...
When i work i sometimes need to know if clipping occurs at DA and so my preference for an analog att after the dacs... but this is not something most peoples cares about and i could live only with digital attenuator at home.
But as it is my work place from time to time ( didn't happened since i moved 2 years ago though)...
Last edited: