Active vs passive speaker set ups

[Blizzard]

Maybe it is more about the quality of the results. What level of quality is needed in a passive crossover to give equivalently good crossovers compared to DSP? Is it even possible? Why is less expensive DSP with great results given less credence than fancy, overbuilt, expensive passive parts that still can't compete in providing as well controlled a crossover when all is said or done?

Of course some fear the mythical demonic digital process. So even stepping back to analog crossovers at line level and using multiple amps we still have a situation where speaker level passives are not able to give equivalently good results. So how do "quality of parts" that still don't provide a better result overcome this?

Yes of course I'm talking about when your doing both ways the best way possible. For example, in my current passive system, the mid is running full range, and the woofer only has a single Mundorf Zero Ohm inductor in the signal path. It's pretty much like having nothing in the signal path. The time alignment and phase response is almost perfect the way things turned out. I'm enjoying 98% the advantages of an active system, yet using top DAC's and amps that are typical in a 2 channel $50000 system. For me to make this system on the same level active, it would turn into a $100000 system.

So yes it's all about the final implementation. Absolutely stellar systems can be built both ways.

 

[esldude]

Yes of course I'm talking about when your doing both ways the best way possible. For example, in my current passive system, the mid is running full range, and the woofer only has a single Mundorf Zero Ohm inductor in the signal path. It's pretty much like having nothing in the signal path. The time alignment and phase response is almost perfect the way things turned out. I'm enjoying 98% the advantages of an active system, yet using top DAC's and amps that are typical in a 2 channel $50000 system. For me to make this system on the same level active, it would turn into a $100000 system.

So yes it's all about the final implementation. Absolutely stellar systems can be built both ways.

Your Mundorf inductor is not even an air coil inductor. A pair of them cost enough to have an active crossover. Of course I am judging by the results of the crossover signal.

Your mid would likely be better behaved if aided by a nice active crossover. The chance it is as close to perfect as you say is not really very high. Not saying it isn't good, but it is very likely an active two way x-over done prior to amps would give a better result. Why you insist on it costing twice as much to match this I don't know. It is likely you could exceed it for less money. But as Tomelex described you won't believe it.

Speakers make so much more difference than amps. You think you need two of your amps to be happy. Chances are amps costing 1/4 of your current amps are so close you would never notice if an active system helped the speaker to behave better. The better behaved speaker would swamp any difference from the amps.

 

[Blizzard]

Your Mundorf inductor is not even an air coil inductor. A pair of them cost enough to have an active crossover. Of course I am judging by the results of the crossover signal.

Your mid would likely be better behaved if aided by a nice active crossover. The chance it is as close to perfect as you say is not really very high. Not saying it isn't good, but it is very likely an active two way x-over done prior to amps would give a better result. Why you insist on it costing twice as much to match this I don't know. It is likely you could exceed it for less money. But as Tomelex described you won't believe it.

Speakers make so much more difference than amps. You think you need two of your amps to be happy. Chances are amps costing 1/4 of your current amps are so close you would never notice if an active system helped the speaker to behave better. The better behaved speaker would swamp any difference from the amps.

The Mundorf Zero ohm inductor is the best inductor on the planet for low frequencies. Come listen to this system. I haven't had a person listen to it yet who hasn't said it was the best sound they ever heard. Your wrong about amps not mattering as much. Everything has a big impact. You system is only ever as good as the weakest link.

And don't think I have a bias against active. I'm developing a SOTA active system as we speak. To think that component quality no longer has a bearing when it comes to active systems is complete ignorance.

 

[esldude]

The Mundorf Zero ohm inductor is the best inductor on the planet for low frequencies. Come listen to this system. I haven't had a person listen to it yet who hasn't said it was the best sound they ever heard. Your wrong about amps not mattering as much. Everything has a big impact. You system is only ever as good as the weakest link.

And don't think I have a bias against active. I'm developing a SOTA active system as we speak. To think that component quality no longer has a bearing when it comes to active systems is complete ignorance.

The speaker is the weakest link in your system. The best inductor on the planet doesn't beat having a direct connection to an amp. I never said component quality has no bearing.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I asked dickie why they didnt do the G1's in active form , a la his nautiluses, his reply was they couldnt better the passive performance..

 

[Blizzard]

The speaker is the weakest link in your system. The best inductor on the planet doesn't beat having a direct connection to an amp. I never said component quality has no bearing.

With that statement you have provided the answer to the level of your knowledge when it comes to passive xover components. Enough said. Your forgetting that what comes before it also matters. But I suppose that's the difference between real world practice, and reading forum posts for education.

 

[esldude]

With that statement you have provided the answer to the level of your knowledge when it comes to passive xover components. Enough said. Your forgetting that what comes before it also matters. But I suppose that's the difference between real world practice, and reading forum posts for education.

Your speakers, my speakers, any speakers anywhere are the weak link. While it would be possible to put something in front of them worse or to use them in an inappropriate setup to point the setup was to blame, I gave you credit as having good equipment in front of the speaker, and good setup in room. The point being that technically, an active version of your speaker is almost sure to be better done properly. Doing it properly need not be rocket science or difficult or enormously expensive to improve upon the passive version of even your simple crossover. The weak link being the speaker, means worthwhile improvements here make the biggest improvements you can hear.

 

[Blizzard]

Your speakers, my speakers, any speakers anywhere are the weak link. While it would be possible to put something in front of them worse or to use them in an inappropriate setup to point the setup was to blame, I gave you credit as having good equipment in front of the speaker, and good setup in room. The point being that technically, an active version of your speaker is almost sure to be better done properly. Doing it properly need not be rocket science or difficult or enormously expensive to improve upon the passive version of even your simple crossover. The weak link being the speaker, means worthwhile improvements here make the biggest improvements you can hear.

And I agree, for double the cost of the electronics before the speakers, it could be possible to gain a few % better performance.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think we need a science thread on this subject.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And I agree, for double the cost of the electronics before the speakers, it could be possible to gain a few % better performance.

Yes, if you insist on buying audiophile amplifiers engineered to drive any passive, multi-driver load they might be presented with, instead of powering individual drivers based on their requirements, active will be a very expensive proposition. Similarly, if you choose to move a couple of Honda Civics by pushing them down the road with a tractor trailer truck, that will be a less efficient solution than a couple of well-engineered 4 cylinder engines. Won't go as fast or handle as well either.

Tim

 

[esldude]

I think we need a science thread on this subject.

Tim

Not necessarily a bad idea if you want to start one. Perhaps in the Measurements forum.

The link I posted up thread covers most of the basics of why active has advantages and what they are. l think the only thing missed is how active speakers don't clip as obviously as passives. You clip your amp in a passive and all the harmonics go right on thru to the tweeter. If you clip a multi-way active speaker, the other drivers never see the clipping, and likely the clipped woofer or midrange won't produce all the harmonics of clipped material. So it is still clipped and distortion increases, but not over the whole bandwidth of the system and it isn't the danger to tweeters.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Completely agree the most successful actives I have heard, have been systems designed from a blank piece of paper, the Grimm LS1 for example superb loudspeakers/system.
Keith.

This. If one insists on building an active system from the same components you would assemble a passive system from, based on a simplistic audiophile view of "everything matters," without paying attention to what matters and how much it matters in context, it will be a very expensive proposition, of course. And if you insist on doing it DIY, with little experience, ignoring the core advantage - individual amplifiers controlling individual drivers - and the real-world requirements of those drivers, it'll be pure luck if it sounds good at all, because you clearly don't know what you're doing. On the other hand, if you're Dr. Linkwitz, or the engineering team at JBL and you have many years of designing active systems under your belt, you can turn out SOTA systems with a theoretical, actual, measurable and audible advantage over the best passive systems, for a fraction of cost. They not only can do it, they are doing it.

I will start that science thread. I can't imagine how any of our engineer/members can measure this, but perhaps we can discuss it freely without being interrupted by those who seem to believe that if they only spend enough money, they'll be smarter than Siegfried Linkwitz and the Harman team that designed that company's flagship product.

Tim

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Not necessarily a bad idea if you want to start one. Perhaps in the Measurements forum.

The link I posted up thread covers most of the basics of why active has advantages and what they are. l think the only thing missed is how active speakers don't clip as obviously as passives. You clip your amp in a passive and all the harmonics go right on thru to the tweeter. If you clip a multi-way active speaker, the other drivers never see the clipping, and likely the clipped woofer or midrange won't produce all the harmonics of clipped material. So it is still clipped and distortion increases, but not over the whole bandwidth of the system and it isn't the danger to tweeters.

Yes, but you gain essentially the same advantage going "semi-active", using an active subwoofer(s) containing an active xover together with a conventional passive speaker/amp high passed above that. If there's going to be clipping, it is going to be in the deep bass, which is where most of the power is needed.

 

[esldude]

Yes, but you gain essentially the same advantage going "semi-active", using an active subwoofer(s) containing an active xover together with a conventional passive speaker/amp high passed above that. If there's going to be clipping, it is going to be in the deep bass, which is where most of the power is needed.

You get a hybrid with some of the same advantages.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, but you gain essentially the same advantage going "semi-active", using an active subwoofer(s) containing an active xover together with a conventional passive speaker/amp high passed above that. If there's going to be clipping, it is going to be in the deep bass, which is where most of the power is needed.

You don't get the same advantage because you still have a passive system where the midrange or mid-bass driver crosses over to the tweeter and the inherent problems are much more audible there.

Tim

 

[Blizzard]

Yes, if you insist on buying audiophile amplifiers engineered to drive any passive, multi-driver load they might be presented with, instead of powering individual drivers based on their requirements, active will be a very expensive proposition. Similarly, if you choose to move a couple of Honda Civics by pushing them down the road with a tractor trailer truck, that will be a less efficient solution than a couple of well-engineered 4 cylinder engines. Won't go as fast or handle as well either.

Tim

On paper many of these things may be true. But in practice everything matters. Better quality amplifiers make better quality sound, even when driving each individual driver direct. Same with the DAC's. This system I'm building is going to be "No compromise" Every component is going to be the same grade you would expect to see in a $80000 2 channel passive system. Think 8 channels of Lampi GG quality DAC's, but with pure class A discrete output stages instead of tubes. And much better Ravenna interface with ultra low phase noise clocks with a 10Hz phase noise spec of -114dbC. Rather than the Amanero clocks the GG uses that have a 10hz phase noise spec of -70dbC (+- 30%). Mola Mola Kaluga quality monoblock dedicated to each driver. A DSP engine capable of processing the most sophisticated 64 bit floating point DSP algorithms on a DSD 256 signal, for Xovers and room correction.

 

[esldude]

I will start that science thread. I can't imagine how any of our engineer/members can measure this, but perhaps we can discuss it freely without being interrupted by those who seem to believe that if they only spend enough money, they'll be smarter than Siegfried Linkwitz and the Harman team that designed that company's flagship product.

Tim

I thought high end design was different. Some mystical process involved with the good designers since so much of their advantages seem beyond measurement or even physics. You can only comment if you have personally auditioned the device as there is no other suitable evaluation method. Somehow more trouble, more expense, and in the end more money always matters. Eventually you separate the wheat from the chaff and only those who spend enough money listen and determine that more is better. RROI (relative return on investment) seems not just an alien, but a detrimental concept. Even though speakers clearly have the most room for improvement everything matters including very expensive upstream components that show no definite difference yet are somehow equal in importance to anything else regardless of the size of improvement vs amount of resources involved. Of course my whining and complaining is only because I am not rich enough to be really smart about high end audio.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

On paper many of these things may be true. But in practice everything matters. Better quality amplifiers make better quality sound, even when driving each individual driver direct. Same with the DAC's. This system I'm building is going to be "No compromise" Every component is going to be the same grade you would expect to see in a $80000 2 channel passive system. Think 8 channels of Lampi GG quality DAC's, but with pure class A discrete output stages instead of tubes. And much better Ravenna interface with ultra low phase noise clocks with a 10Hz phase noise spec of -114dbC. Rather than the Amanero clocks the GG uses that have a 10hz phase noise spec of -70dbC (+- 30%). Mola Mola Kaluga quality monoblock dedicated to each driver. A DSP engine capable of processing the most sophisticated 64 bit floating point DSP algorithms on a DSD 256 signal, for Xovers and room correction.

What esldude said, or alternately, you and I have different hobbies. Or this:

I will start that science thread. I can't imagine how any of our engineer/members can measure this, but perhaps we can discuss it freely without being interrupted by those who seem to believe that if they only spend enough money, they'll be smarter than Siegfried Linkwitz and the Harman team that designed that company's flagship product.

Tim

Tim

 

[Blizzard]

What esldude said, or alternately, you and I have different hobbies. Or this:


Tim

We have to understand that the Linkwitz kits are designed to be at a price point. If this price point is increased, higher quality components could be used, that would result in a high quality end result. This is not at all saying that they are poor designs. They just aren't cost no object "no compromise" designs.

 

[Groucho]

This system I'm building is going to be "No compromise" Every component is going to be the same grade you would expect to see in a $80000 2 channel passive system.

Why only $80000? That doesn't sound like no-compromise to me.