Did you measure the Zu mid driver response? (close range, to isolate the room response)? I can bet it is more a bell curve than a straight line.... you may like what you hear, just be aware of the compromises....
Magico Ultimate 3
- Thread starter stereo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- magico ultimate
Did you measure the Zu mid driver response? (close range, to isolate the room response)? I can bet it is more a bell curve than a straight line.... you may like what you hear, just be aware of the compromises....
Yes, you were lucky with your old Antileon... I sold mine which needed maintenance for $500, and was happy to get rid of it. I need air conditioning, not 1000W heaters at home.
Just to clarify: I know of another Ultimate buyer who will go the same direction as me. We share the required development for a 5 ways full active system. I know also of an active WBF poster who has decided to use also the Conbrio for his Q7 system.
It is pretty clear that a well implemented active XO is better… Except costs.
The major advantages of active systems using an active crossover are as follows:
1) Low intermodulation distortion (IMD)
The IMD is low because the power amplifiers work in a smaller bandwidth. IMD is produced from different frequencies that modulate each other producing new frequency products that don't exist in the original signal. The amplifiers work easier and cant effect the other amplifiers. Also clipping from low frequency overloads of the amplifier in multiway active systems is not present because here only the loudspeaker can limit the signal.
2) Larger Dynamic range
A 60W and 30W amplifier in an active system will clip at the same level as an 175W amplifier in a passive system. When a low and high frequency signal are amplified at the same time there is at high levels a sink of the maximum level because the low frequency signal makes the power supply voltages lower due to high current need. That's why active systems always sound dynamic and louder than passive systems.
3) Better Impulse behavior
Great impulses in music reproduction create sudden and high current transients on the way from amplifier to speaker. These impulses from musical instruments hold almost all of the important information about the instruments sound and character and the room acoustics of the recording. So they carry eventually essential information that is needed to reconstruct the spatial sound image of simultaneously playing instruments in a room and this is very critical and sensitive. Any distortion of these characteristics changes the whole reproduction of recorded music so that's why different speakers sound different.
4) Better coupling between amplifier and speakers
Amplifier and speakers are better coupled directly and introduced resonances from passive crossovers are avoided. When you use a speaker cable with larger cross section the sound get better. This is always noticeable. The reason is that with lower output resistance the amplifier controls the load better. It has a better damping factor as known. Passive crossovers have a larger share of resistance losses then the cable and make the situation worse since the passive components produce distortions.
5) Better function of the crossovers that work with a constant load
In a passive crossover the voice coil of the speaker is always a part of the crossover. There is a very big variation in the speakers impedance from low dips to high resistances. This means there has to be a correction circuit that equalizes the impedance to more constant. In an active crossover that is placed before the amplifiers the speaker impedance is of no importance. The cut off frequency and the filter characteristics stay constant whatever the input of the amplifier is. This is very good for the DIYer who wants to experiment with the least mistakes and problems. Even a 24 dB/octave filter is practical without any of the known problem of the passive filters (most important coils and high cost of the passive elements).
6) Better subjectively sound quality
The sound quality of an active crossover is subjectively higher than a high level passive crossover. There is a big difference in working with millivolt and microampere level signals and with high current, high voltage signals. The second had problems like micro phony effect, a lot of solder points, high currents to handle with the least losses and the quality of the passive elements plays a significant role in the overall performance and quality (that's why a speaker like the Magico Q7 uses huge, pricey XO components).
7) Easy level control
Designing active crossovers is easy and there is a great freedom in controlling the different sensitivities of the speakers. When the tweeter plays too loud you can't just put a resistor in the passive crossover to change the level (I know Wilson does that, doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do). It will most possibly change the cutoff frequency or other characteristics of the filter. In an active crossover you can control the various levels through trimmers before the amplifiers like the volume control.
8) Easy design
With active crossovers it is very easy to manipulate phase, time delays, resonances, amplitude shaping...
Those are the advantages of an active system. But someone might ask, is there no disadvantage? Well of course there is. The only disadvantage is that the cost is a lot higher then a conventional system since it needs more discrete amplifiers /DACs plus an extra active device (the active crossover), with a good clock to synchronize all equipments. This disadvantage is mitigated for DIY, who can decide to spend money where it really matters...
Cost is very important though in commercial equipment where low cost is a major matter. Apart from that there is one thing that can make the cost lower. Each amplifier as stated before can be a lot smaller than the one very big one needed in a passive system. As conclusion I think it is worth it.
In a no holds barred system, I would say so, but it is kind of chumming the waters to suggest so.
I am just saying it is controversial. It is not an opinion of consensus and prone to create controversy amongst high end users.
I use an active system and would always prefer it that way.
I use an active system and would always prefer it that way.
Hi STereo, there is an article (I posted a link under active crossover elsewhere on WBF) where they interview Andy Payor of Rockport, Richard Vandersteen and Laurence Dickie of Giya/B&W Nautilus. I think all of them agreed on the benefits of Active Crossovers, particularly in bass where the amp/cone interface, mass of the passive network, etc was considered problematic relative to active. However, I think at least one of them (Andy Payor?) found complications in doing active on upper ranges where he said a well executed passive could sometimes be better. Don't know if that is marketing speak (i'm no techie), but I found the article a very interesting one.
Again, its from Ultraaudio and I think I posted the link under Active Crossover here on WBF.
Stereo, you may be right that my Zu Full Range Drivers show a less than flat response thru their frequency range, but they sure sound good. I really feel the lack of crossover in their critical 35Hz-12kHz range really gives a jump factor and tone dense sound I didn't experience auditioning up to 3x more expensive ProAcs, B&Ws, Wilsons, Magicos etc. But, that's me. Personally, I find a lot of high end spkr buyers are missing a trick by not investigating, at the very least, slightly left-field options like Zu.
But this is your thread, enough of the Zus. If you're going to use the Conbrio as a digital preamp, will you be setting volume from the server and then into the 5 dacs, thence fwd to the amps? Or will information from the server go into the dacs, and then BACK to the Conbrio xover/volume control, and THEN to thence fwd to the amps? Ie neccesitating doubling up on cables?
It would be pretty cool if it was the former: 3 box source/volume control/xover, 4 amps (stereo)/8 (monoblocks), spkrs. Minimalist, even.
But this is your thread, enough of the Zus. If you're going to use the Conbrio as a digital preamp, will you be setting volume from the server and then into the 5 dacs, thence fwd to the amps? Or will information from the server go into the dacs, and then BACK to the Conbrio xover/volume control, and THEN to thence fwd to the amps? Ie neccesitating doubling up on cables?
It would be pretty cool if it was the former: 3 box source/volume control/xover, 4 amps (stereo)/8 (monoblocks), spkrs. Minimalist, even.
Yet the Vandersteen 7 will be available in completely active form sometime soon with a push-push amplifier driving the top end.
I am no techie but read the 2 opinions from Andy Payor and Laurence Dickie regarding fully active vs hybrid of active woofer and passive upper/mids...seems its only a matter of time for fully active.
Below is the excerpt from that Ultraaudio Review:
"...'ANDY PAYOR: I believe the performance gains when going completely active do not outweigh some of the benefits of properly executed passive crossovers in the mid- and high-frequency sections of the loudspeaker, and therefore have ultimately not yet been achieved. Without the use of sophisticated DSP (and its sonic consequences), it is difficult, within the context of an active crossover, to implement some of the subtler curve shaping that is necessary to overcome cabinet diffraction issues and driver nonlinearities. This same curve shaping is relatively easy to implement in the context of a passive crossover, and without signal degradation. Still, I believe these limitations will be overcome in the future, and that the ultimate loudspeaker will comprise a fully active, multi-driver solution.'
Laurence Dickie seems ready to take up the “ultimate loudspeaker” gauntlet laid down by Payor by developing Vivid Audio’s Giya into a quad-amplified, fully active, four-driver loudspeaker system. In any event, and for now, Andy Payor concluded that, “the best available architecture is a combination of active and passive crossovers within a biamplified, multi-driver loudspeaker system.” From what I saw at CES 2013, it looks as if Richard Vandersteen, who long ago included powered LF as part of his Quatro, 5a Carbon, and Seven models, agrees. I asked him to explain the imminent addition to his product line of the M7-HPA high-pass monoblock amplifier. With its launch, Vandersteen will be able to offer a complete amplification system for the combination of active and passive crossovers at the heart of his own biamplified, multi-driver loudspeakers.
'Vandersteen: Amplifiers designed to drive loudspeakers full range include many extra components because they need to do bass and treble without knowing what or how extreme the load will be. Many of those necessary components compromise transparency. Our M7-HPA is designed to drive the top part of the Model Seven (or Quatro or 5a Carbon). Large improvements in transparency ensue when the circuit can be optimized for the speaker. In the M7-HPA we incorporate the high-pass filter and avoid emitter resistors and the large amount of output devices otherwise necessary for woofers. Woofers tend to like feedback for control, while high-frequency transparency and imaging can be improved by using no-feedback circuits. The only cost is the market acceptance of powered speakers. This is why I decided to make a high-pass monoblock designed to be located next to the speaker. This leaves the customer with the choice, and the decision then will come down to the demo.'..."
Below is the excerpt from that Ultraaudio Review:
"...'ANDY PAYOR: I believe the performance gains when going completely active do not outweigh some of the benefits of properly executed passive crossovers in the mid- and high-frequency sections of the loudspeaker, and therefore have ultimately not yet been achieved. Without the use of sophisticated DSP (and its sonic consequences), it is difficult, within the context of an active crossover, to implement some of the subtler curve shaping that is necessary to overcome cabinet diffraction issues and driver nonlinearities. This same curve shaping is relatively easy to implement in the context of a passive crossover, and without signal degradation. Still, I believe these limitations will be overcome in the future, and that the ultimate loudspeaker will comprise a fully active, multi-driver solution.'
Laurence Dickie seems ready to take up the “ultimate loudspeaker” gauntlet laid down by Payor by developing Vivid Audio’s Giya into a quad-amplified, fully active, four-driver loudspeaker system. In any event, and for now, Andy Payor concluded that, “the best available architecture is a combination of active and passive crossovers within a biamplified, multi-driver loudspeaker system.” From what I saw at CES 2013, it looks as if Richard Vandersteen, who long ago included powered LF as part of his Quatro, 5a Carbon, and Seven models, agrees. I asked him to explain the imminent addition to his product line of the M7-HPA high-pass monoblock amplifier. With its launch, Vandersteen will be able to offer a complete amplification system for the combination of active and passive crossovers at the heart of his own biamplified, multi-driver loudspeakers.
'Vandersteen: Amplifiers designed to drive loudspeakers full range include many extra components because they need to do bass and treble without knowing what or how extreme the load will be. Many of those necessary components compromise transparency. Our M7-HPA is designed to drive the top part of the Model Seven (or Quatro or 5a Carbon). Large improvements in transparency ensue when the circuit can be optimized for the speaker. In the M7-HPA we incorporate the high-pass filter and avoid emitter resistors and the large amount of output devices otherwise necessary for woofers. Woofers tend to like feedback for control, while high-frequency transparency and imaging can be improved by using no-feedback circuits. The only cost is the market acceptance of powered speakers. This is why I decided to make a high-pass monoblock designed to be located next to the speaker. This leaves the customer with the choice, and the decision then will come down to the demo.'..."
I could be wrong but I believe and active version of a speaker can, (and usually will) still have a passive cross-over. For fully active cross-over, the speaker would need a separate amplifier for each driver. I have not read the article but I'm not sure that is what the Vandersteen is planning to do - probably just one bass amp, and one for the mid/highs with passive Xover. My Linn Klimax 340A center channel is fully active with five amplifiers build in.
Keep in mind that "setting volume control at the server" implies a digital volume control. For this extremely high sensitivity speaker to play at normal listening levels, you probably need 50-60dB attenuation. I'm sure the digital luminaries can do the math and chime in, but it is very conceivable this is outside of the range of what can be done digitally without losing information.
If, so this leave two options for volume control. Passive and active analog. The best implementation of passive would be integrated in the DAC and VC between the DACs synched up with RS232 or some proprietary link between the DACs sending VC information (MSB could do this). The other option is active, which would be either a custom build 10 channel amp, or daisy chained high grade preamp amps like EMM Labs or Ayre. You can probably do the same with say VTL 7.5 which is a 2-chassis box with one box sending VC data to the actual amps. Whether passive or active analog will sound better is probably a bit of a crapshoot, to be testing empirically before committing to one architecture over the other. Just throwing out some thoughts here.
Stereo,
Although I could easily agree with the 8 points you refer IMHO the main question is : Who is going to do the setup and fine tuning of these fantastic active systems?
I think First Watt SIT-1s would be my top choice for this speaker and I'd save 50k in the process and have better sound.
KeithR
It is an option I am considering. Question is how silent it is: official specs are always BS, you need to connect one on a horn driver to know... And problem is how much heat they dissipate. Worth a try!
Alon Wolf will do the setup in my room. We are two buyers who will have the same set up, both of us having enough knowledge to know what we are doing (I am by far the less knowledgeable of the 2)- this helps to experiment and learn from each other.
obviously Conbrio only remotely controls the volume (in a synchronized and calibrated fashion), we don't double-up on cables.
You are missing DACs in your list.... it is Conbrio source (with integrated XO)- DAC-(tbd passive pre, maybe I do volume adjustment in digital domain)- power amp- driver. Not fundamentally different than a passive set up!
digital volume control in Conbrio is maximum -36dB / +12dB in 64bit math precision to output 24bits signal with144dB theoretical SNR, so no theoretical loss of resolution. Gain structure of entire system is designed so that we need minimum attenuation, definitely less than "50-60dB" as it would be stupid to build such a high resolution and super sensitive system and then attenuate the crap out of the signal. Also, again, "volume control" in Conbrio doesn't automatically imply digital volume control, it can also be configured to control the volume of either a custom-made pre-amp/volume controller or to interface to other devices (mechanically or electronically) which control the volume. The main point is that the volume control is entirely integrated into the iPad and hard-button remote control of Conbrio and that it is synchronized amongst all drivers and calibrated within 0.1dB to maintain perfect linearity at all volume levels, regardless if done electronically or mechanically.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |