Is there a reason more of you aren't running active? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 112 Old 03-01-2013, 12:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
MBentz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

"a more advanced xover with 4th order slopes and EQ would easily be in the $250 price range"

Except I'm not sure any of these speakers would be better off with 4th order electrical slopes and they do include some "eq". The crossovers weren't designed to be cheap......

You said a lot in your post, but I didn't want to quote the whole thing. In summary, my takeaway is you're effectively claiming that a passive xover is the cheapest solution, and then trying to justify why you think it is a "good" solution. To many I agree that it would be good enough.

For me personally, the passive 2-way seos kit thing (or anything similar) does not meet my own personal goals for minimum audio quality. The benefits of a well implemented active xover are not small in my opinion, but then I'm not trying to build an entire system for under $1k either.

I would like to believe there are more people out there in the DIY world that want to take things to the next level. I think it is obvious that passives xovers can sound good because the majority of the home audio industry still uses them. However, that shouldn't be used to belittle what can be achieved with a more advanced active xover architecture.

My points earlier were trying to point out that you would end up spending nearly the same amount on a passive xover that was good enough to be difficult to discern from a well implemented active.

Also, EQ'ing room modes never sounds better - different yes, but it's not actually fixing anything. Focusing on that area of EQ, in my mind, is testament to the maximum level of quality that could be achieved in those listening spaces (the "time issues" of the room are totally going to dominate time-aligning the speaker). Unfortunately that is the reality for the majority of spaces, but that's not an area where I think active xovers (or any speaker topologies) shine their best.

-Mike Bentz
~It's all about compromise~
MBentz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 112 Old 03-01-2013, 12:41 PM
Senior Member
 
WVSyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBentz View Post

...I would like to believe there are more people out there in the DIY world that want to take things to the next level. ...
Agree whole heartily.
Concepts in audio are often conceived long before technology makes them feasible and marketable.

"Beware of Salesmen: They are the modern Svengali, immune to Science and Reality"
WVSyd is offline  
post #93 of 112 Old 03-01-2013, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBentz View Post

I would like to believe there are more people out there in the DIY world that want to take things to the next level.
Agreed. I set a design spec and build to that rather than a budget. I want the best performance I can reasonably get and will save for that rather than try to justify compromises to myself or waste money now on a compromise solution that I will have to discard later to implement the improvements.

However, even at it's most basic implementation, a 2 way active can be built for not much more than a passive. For example a SEOS 2 way. MD + secondhand AVR with multi channel pre ins and a couple of dollars of monoprice cables will allow you to do far more than a passive can, and not constrain you to classic LF alignments to get performance out of an enclosure. LT, 6th order ported, notch filters, steeper slopes (which I remain convinced reduce IMD significantly especially in complex works) etc are available easily in DSP, but are difficult or impossible passively.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #94 of 112 Old 03-04-2013, 11:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
MBentz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 41
One interesting thing you can do with DSP that is impossible in the analog realm is to have steep slopes with a perfect phase response....I'm generally not a fan of FIR filter structures, but the ability to maintain perfect transient response after acoustic summation is a very attractive concept. Well technically you can get there with 1st order slopes, but then distortion kills you.

I think once the AVB/Dante protocols become more prolific and the industry is dominated by streamed (high-fidelity) digital media, that we'll (finally) start seeing the shift towards active speakers dominating the home audio markets. It's already been dominating the pro audio arena for the last 20 years or so (especially the last 10 years) and they say the home audio world usually follows suit about 20 years later. Just think....no more receivers and amplifiers and cd players, etc.....just a tablet and ethernet cables hooking up your speakers wherever you want sound. And you'll already have the FPGA there decoding the digital formats....it's almost a free lunch.

-Mike Bentz
~It's all about compromise~
MBentz is offline  
post #95 of 112 Old 03-07-2013, 08:26 AM
Member
 
cptomes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've been active for every system I've built in the last ten years.

Cost is a factor. Ease of changing a design is a factor. If I need to change a low or mid crossover component, I REALLY don't want to have to buy (or have on hand) another $$$ inductor. Has anyone priced the cost of low DCR coils appropriate for a woofer low pass recently? Just the coils alone for a pair of 3-way (or worse, 4-way!) can cost more than a DCX.

For those who say soldering isn't that hard, why bother learning active's user interface, blah blah...

Have you ever really worked with a full active setup? One cable. Speakon 8 pole connectors. No external boxes or breadboards laying around. Switching to a different speaker design USING THE SAME CROSSOVER AND AMPS is as simple as reconnecting the ONE connector per speaker cabinet (with ZERO chance of mis-wiring the tweeter to the mid or woofer amp channel) and pressing a couple of buttons on the DCX to call up the appropriate saved crossover settings. Changing the settings for a speaker is just a few button presses away.

How many systems can I listen to at once? One. Why would I have more than one set of amps and crossover in a room then? So after buying enough amp channels of sufficient power, and enough active crossover channels, another speaker is MUCH less expensive with an active setup than passive. If you like DESIGNING and BUILDING speakers, you're not going to stop DESIGNING and BUILDING after one set. You're going to keep doing it. It's fun.

Contrast that with a passive system.

Multiple breadboards/external crossover boxes. Soldering iron to warm up. Work surface to solder on. Pile/boxes of different value components. Maybe Speakons, maybe bananas. I doubt anyone working with components and breadboards is going to use an 8 pole Speakon. Reference the "alligator clip" comments in this thread. You do this because it's FUN and it's WHAT YOU WANT TO DO! That's all the justification you need. Don't try to tell me it's any easier than an active setup.

Personally, I like the flexibility and future utility of my active setup. I know that within a wide range of intended applications my setup will drive almost any speaker design I care to attempt. All I need is the drivers and a few dollars of MDF and I have a new system.

My speaker building journey started when I got unhappy with anyone putting drinks on the flat tops of my B&W speakers. Sticky rings are bad enough, spilled pop and beer down my speakers is unacceptable. So I built tall skinny pyramids, with 1.5" square tops. Put a drink on that! So from the beginning, my intent was to make MY speakers MINE and keep other people away from them. It's only a short couple of steps to having a system that no one else in the house can operate. Not a problem. I want it that way. After having to check the knob settings of all my Carver amps every time I wanted to listen to anything because someone tuned one to 11, I have no problem using the DCX as the preamp, and having to work within the +-15dB limit of the input gains. Listening, for me, is a personal experience. I can count on the toes of one camel's foot how many people I've shown my system to at home. I'm not secretive, I post on several forums. I just don't have people over. It's not about showing off, I do this for myself.

There's a mediocre in-wall system installed by a whole-house outfit that runs the HT in the great room, eventually I'll get that system upgraded to something more my style and also functionally equivalent to what's there now. But it's going to wait until the receiver gets replaced, which is going to wait until the ancient rptv dies. In the meantime, it's functioning as well as the day it was installed. wink.gif
cptomes is offline  
post #96 of 112 Old 03-07-2013, 08:37 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,361
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1708 Post(s)
Liked: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptomes View Post

I've been active for every system I've built in the last ten years.

Cost is a factor. Ease of changing a design is a factor. If I need to change a low or mid crossover component, I REALLY don't want to have to buy (or have on hand) another $$$ inductor. Has anyone priced the cost of low DCR coils appropriate for a woofer low pass recently? Just the coils alone for a pair of 3-way (or worse, 4-way!) can cost more than a DCX.

For those who say soldering isn't that hard, why bother learning active's user interface, blah blah...

Have you ever really worked with a full active setup? One cable. Speakon 8 pole connectors. No external boxes or breadboards laying around. Switching to a different speaker design USING THE SAME CROSSOVER AND AMPS is as simple as reconnecting the ONE connector per speaker cabinet (with ZERO chance of mis-wiring the tweeter to the mid or woofer amp channel) and pressing a couple of buttons on the DCX to call up the appropriate saved crossover settings. Changing the settings for a speaker is just a few button presses away.

How many systems can I listen to at once? One. Why would I have more than one set of amps and crossover in a room then? So after buying enough amp channels of sufficient power, and enough active crossover channels, another speaker is MUCH less expensive with an active setup than passive. If you like DESIGNING and BUILDING speakers, you're not going to stop DESIGNING and BUILDING after one set. You're going to keep doing it. It's fun.

Contrast that with a passive system.

Multiple breadboards/external crossover boxes. Soldering iron to warm up. Work surface to solder on. Pile/boxes of different value components. Maybe Speakons, maybe bananas. I doubt anyone working with components and breadboards is going to use an 8 pole Speakon. Reference the "alligator clip" comments in this thread. You do this because it's FUN and it's WHAT YOU WANT TO DO! That's all the justification you need. Don't try to tell me it's any easier than an active setup.

Personally, I like the flexibility and future utility of my active setup. I know that within a wide range of intended applications my setup will drive almost any speaker design I care to attempt. All I need is the drivers and a few dollars of MDF and I have a new system.

My speaker building journey started when I got unhappy with anyone putting drinks on the flat tops of my B&W speakers. Sticky rings are bad enough, spilled pop and beer down my speakers is unacceptable. So I built tall skinny pyramids, with 1.5" square tops. Put a drink on that! So from the beginning, my intent was to make MY speakers MINE and keep other people away from them. It's only a short couple of steps to having a system that no one else in the house can operate. Not a problem. I want it that way. After having to check the knob settings of all my Carver amps every time I wanted to listen to anything because someone tuned one to 11, I have no problem using the DCX as the preamp, and having to work within the +-15dB limit of the input gains. Listening, for me, is a personal experience. I can count on the toes of one camel's foot how many people I've shown my system to at home. I'm not secretive, I post on several forums. I just don't have people over. It's not about showing off, I do this for myself.

There's a mediocre in-wall system installed by a whole-house outfit that runs the HT in the great room, eventually I'll get that system upgraded to something more my style and also functionally equivalent to what's there now. But it's going to wait until the receiver gets replaced, which is going to wait until the ancient rptv dies. In the meantime, it's functioning as well as the day it was installed. wink.gif


Awesome post! Good point about Speakon 8 pole. The Pros already thought all this stuff out a while ago, all a DIYer has to do is follow their lead and get the appropriate gear that will work in-home.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #97 of 112 Old 03-07-2013, 09:02 AM
Senior Member
 
WVSyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Yup - Been doing active for decades in a pro sound context.
FWIW: Active system do not have to be MiniDsp.

"Beware of Salesmen: They are the modern Svengali, immune to Science and Reality"
WVSyd is offline  
post #98 of 112 Old 03-07-2013, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Mbentz-

The answer to the OP's question of why people most of the builds on AVS aren't active DSP is still cost (and time of design). DIYers are generally cheap. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't go active or that passive is superior (although in most cases IMO the audible benefit of active DSP is over stated...but yes it is potentially there...quantifying it is difficult). It is a fact that you have to approximately double the cost of kits that are already in the mid to high market of DIY kits (referring to the SEOS and Pi kits).

The market has answered and the vast majority of DIYers want a kit that is budget friendly and doesn't require the knowledge and skill involved in speaker design, passive or active. Even active design requires a good amount of knowledge and I'd take a well-designed passive overly a hacked active DSP any day. But yes, I'd take a well-designed active DSP over well-designed passive assuming cost wasn't a consideration.

The fact remains that most people are attracted to DSP under the assumption it is a shortcut around having proper design skill. Guys like yourself are the exception given your higher budgets and design skill (same to A9X).

Cptomes-

This isn't a question of designing active DSP vs passive but of people building pre-designed kits for the two approaches.

Your description of designing a passive network shows you either haven't done one or it has been a long time. First, the vast majority of work is done using simulation. You don't need a massive toolbox of every possible component on hand. Second, soldering isn't even necessary. I typically use terminal blocks to tie components together and this makes for swapping the 1-2 components I might tinker with by ear easy as can be.

I don't think anybody is complaining about learning a DSP interface. The DCX and MiniDSP are like programming a microwave oven. The bigger issue is the plethora of newbs who have no clue why you wouldn't want to use four 1" dome tweeters in a square crossed at 700hz to a 15" car subwoofer. Just the concept of acoustic slopes vs electrical slopes is unknown to most.

I'm not saying this is a reason for you to use passive, but the very valid reasons why most do not. Clearly the market disagrees with you.

FYI, I use both and in some cases a hybrid approach.
coctostan is offline  
post #99 of 112 Old 03-08-2013, 10:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
MBentz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

Your description of designing a passive network shows you either haven't done one or it has been a long time. First, the vast majority of work is done using simulation. You don't need a massive toolbox of every possible component on hand. Second, soldering isn't even necessary. I typically use terminal blocks to tie components together and this makes for swapping the 1-2 components I might tinker with by ear easy as can be.

Hitting a target frequency response in a simulation and realizing that in the real world is a piece of cake.....but when voicing a speaker, you don't just pick a flat line or some other shape and call it a day. Reputable loudspeaker manufacturers spend weeks on the voicing - this is what I mean by fine tuning a system. You don't want a flat on-axis response when your power response isn't flat. You may prefer a slightly different xover frequency because you need better distortion coherency and can give up some polar response to get there, etc etc... You simply aren't going to get there in one shot.

For people building kits and not doing design work, then ya, of course there is no iteration on the passive. However, there is no iteration on the active either....settings for any processor could be made available. In fact, Klipsch has been doing that for their home version of the Jubilee. And the cool part about the active in that scenario is that users got minor updates they could load in years after the first design was released. And at that level of fidelity, the comparable passive xover cost $3500....and you could still identify it in a blind listening test. In that scenario, the active solution is actually quite cheaper - easily half the cost.

Btw, I really like cptomes perspective....if you're going to build more than one speaker, then active is going to be cheaper.

-Mike Bentz
~It's all about compromise~
MBentz is offline  
post #100 of 112 Old 03-08-2013, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 5,101
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 572 Post(s)
Liked: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBentz View Post

if you're going to build more than one speaker, then active is going to be cheaper.

I know why people say this, but it's not that simple. I build lots of speakers, but I have a pair up in my living room, 5 speakers in my HT, a pair on my desk, helped my Dad build a pair for his desk, and several iterations of all these locations. I do active and passive, but I tell ya, I usually end up passive if it's a permanent thing. Cross over usually costs less than $50, goes inside that cab and plugs right in. Even if I move it to a different location. Just seems to work out that way...


As for all the talk about active is better if it's high end. Active is better if 3-way. Active is better for voicing the cross over. Ya, I get it, no one is arguing that. I personally do both active and passive. I prefer active. I have for years. I've used the DCX and the minidsp. I'd never do a 3-way passively (for personal use). It's obvious there are advantages. Get that into your head and lay off. Just saying that the passive solution is a very good solution for most projects and active doesn't make a lay person a speaker designer. rolleyes.gif
tuxedocivic is online now  
post #101 of 112 Old 03-08-2013, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tuxedocivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ladysmith, BC
Posts: 5,101
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 572 Post(s)
Liked: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptomes View Post


For those who say soldering isn't that hard, why bother learning active's user interface, blah blah...



Alligator clips. Don't try to tell me it's any easier than an active setup.

I didn't say that. rolleyes.gif

For all the active tight wads around here (where is Penn anyways biggrin.gif ) you sure don't seem to understand the perspective of building 5 x $300 speaker and plugging it into a $500 receiver. That's what most people do, period. Even so, most designers can provide active settings. All you gotta do is ask... I've got a $130 design over on diysoundgroup where MAXPHANE used the active design. A month later he built my passive version. The only other person I'm aware of building one of my active designs, is Lukeamdman built my Fusion Max. Guess what, 4 months later he pm'ed me and built my passive version. I posted some active settings in Bil's AE TD12 SEOS design thread which is fairly high end and it was the sound of crickets. And all others building diysoundgroup kits and pi kits are building passive afaik. So from my perspective, there must be good reason more people aren't going active, and it's not because alligator clips and solder are annoying cool.gif
tuxedocivic is online now  
post #102 of 112 Old 03-08-2013, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 129
I hear ya on voicing, except I know the directivity of the speaker I'm designing and I know the target that will voice best. Of course it doesn't take more than 1-2 values to tweak the voicing by ear after the fact. Of course on more complicated speakers like Jubs active DSP definitely starts to make more sense (in fact I see no point in passive on that speaker). But Jubs are the exception, not the rule.

Once again, this all goes back to the original question of why more people don't use active DSP on AVS builds. With present amp and DSP prices that is not going to change. Of course, if someone wants to design their own (the vast majority do not) active DSP is a good choice but not always better as Tux has described.

Tux's point about passive having its place and active not making a lay person a speaker designer are huge. Like Tux I use both. In most of my personal stuff I use active or a hybrid but when I design something for a friend it is usually passive. If we wanted an experiment Erich could offer a mid to high priced ($3-500/spkr) kit with the choice of passive or active DSP options. I'd bet most would choose passive.
coctostan is offline  
post #103 of 112 Old 03-10-2013, 08:21 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,361
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1708 Post(s)
Liked: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

I didn't say that. rolleyes.gif

For all the active tight wads around here (where is Penn anyways biggrin.gif ) you sure don't seem to understand the perspective of building 5 x $300 speaker and plugging it into a $500 receiver. That's what most people do, period. Even so, most designers can provide active settings. All you gotta do is ask... I've got a $130 design over on diysoundgroup where MAXPHANE used the active design. A month later he built my passive version. The only other person I'm aware of building one of my active designs, is Lukeamdman built my Fusion Max. Guess what, 4 months later he pm'ed me and built my passive version. I posted some active settings in Bil's AE TD12 SEOS design thread which is fairly high end and it was the sound of crickets. And all others building diysoundgroup kits and pi kits are building passive afaik. So from my perspective, there must be good reason more people aren't going active, and it's not because alligator clips and solder are annoying cool.gif

It seems to me there are several flavors of DIY. One is where you get to have a fun weekend project but don't really learn anything. You build five speakers from DIY "kits" and save some money, the results sound great so it's "mission accomplished" when the glue is dry. Plus into receiver and play. That's all great except it's hardly DIY. The next level involves the desire to learn carpentry and wood finishing. This level usually includes at least a casual interest in the technical side of box building and an awareness that crossovers can be an issue if a standardized design isn't used, so there are a lot of builds that use known combinations and vetted designs as a starting point. That's DIY speaker building but it is not DIY speaker design. Finally you've got the DIYers willing to sweat out an entire speaker. Clearly the tools exist to execute passive or active in a very efficient manner and not everyone is aware of all the tools available to DIY speaker designers. That's true DIY in my opinion, and it does not really matter if active or passive solutions are used. I say all this because really, who cares what "most people do, period" Dr. Dre is a billionaire because he put his name on a crappy pair of headphones that cost as much as a good pair of speakers, and far more people bought into that concept than bought into gluing some speakers together over a weekend of beer drinking. Even if there are only a few hundred people out there genuinely designing and building their own speakers, it is their efforts I am most interested in, not the actions of me-too kit builders.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is online now  
post #104 of 112 Old 03-10-2013, 09:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Martycool007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 172
What active crossover brands/models are good for crossing over a trio of 3-way speakers, as well as DSP? I have ordered a minidsp but I want to explore other options as well. Also, are there any books you guys would recommend on crossovers? I have been reading everything that I can get my hands on with regards to speaker design, but have gotten side tracked by with several books on acoustics from the likes of Toole and others. Thanks guys!
Martycool007 is offline  
post #105 of 112 Old 03-10-2013, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 129
iMagic, you are right there varying degrees of DIY depth. IMO they are all DIY. I personally suck at woodworking so I do what I can to minimize ow much of that I do myself. I enjoy the technical side of speaker design. There are others like PassingInterest who are exceptional woodworkers.

For most people there is some progression from building other people's kits to designing their own. Some guys who have been designing speakers for decades started with kits in the 70s which were quite popular. Of course some people are content with building other's designs. People distribute designs to help others get great value, have fun and learn a little. I got my start with other people's designs and my curiosity took over from there.

There are countless people designing their own speakers. You will find them at sites like DIYaudio, HTGuide, TechTalk etc. AVS's DIY forum has traditionally been dominated by subwoofer builds and more recently with kits like SEOS.

The original question was about kits and why more people don't choose active DSP. The answers are plain and simple. For some odd reason any time a reasonable argument against using DSP in some situation brings out the DSP evangelists with arguments like it isn't THAT much more expensive and the complexity isn't any greater IF you already know what you are doing.

The best art is that I use active DSP in many cases. Sit is a tool and like any tool you have to use the right tool for the right job. I'm hardly a hardcore passive guy. I think it is silly that $50k speakers are passive and most in that range are. The reason that is silly is because the DSP cost pennies (and probably a cost savings) at those levels. Worse, the main reason those high end speakers use passive is to lay claim to some level of "purity".

On the other hand it is silly to double the price of a mid range project to use DSP.

Worst is when newbies assume that a DSP is a shortcut to a lay person designing their own speakers. When i advise against going active DSP It is in those situations. A well designed passive is far better than a poorly designed active DSP setup and without certain knowledge a newb will end up with a poorly designed speaker.
coctostan is offline  
post #106 of 112 Old 03-14-2013, 08:17 PM
Newbie
 
Dan1045's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I ran across this thread and found it quite interesting. I biamped my first set of jbls in 1996 using a decoursey 24 db/oct electronic crossover set at 800hz. Further refinements were a 2 inch driver and a biradial horn and a jbl 2404 horn tweeter. I used two carver m1.ot amps to drive things. The system did a superb job recreating the music experience. What was especially of note were the micro transients the setup revealed. At any volume detail rivaled the best of headphones while having the presentation of very large speakers.

I ran the system like that for years until the horn bug bit real bad. I found the plans for and built a set of klipsch belle woofer horns. I used crites woofers which are the copy of the original k33 woofers. With this setup I used a 400hz crossover, the same mid and tweeter horns and thought I was in nirvana even though the horns did not go down below 70hz.

I then bought kits from marchand electronics and built a three way electronic crossover with 24 db/oct slopes with crossover points of 450hz and 4500hz. I use a six channel rotel 956 amp which gives 30wpc for each channel. It is more than enough power with 104db/w/m efficiency.


I found I was lacking bass...that horn wont go below 70hz. I bought a dayton 390hf 15" woofer, a plate amp with 300watts and a 24db/oct electronic slope and built a 4.2 cubic foot box to house the beast. I built a simple enclosed box knowing I would get quite a bit of room gain. I would rather have the transient detail than the low frequency extension.

After getting the sub tuned to the efficiency of the mains, I am in heaven. I have not heard anything that rivals my own cheap home built system. The detail is as good as magnepans, the bass will knock you off the couch, and I get a big grin every time I listen to music or watch a movie.

Go active, you will never go back.

My next excursion will most likely be into the digital range, but I doubt the money would gain much. I am contemplating building a set of jubilee horn woofer enclosures.
Dan1045 is offline  
post #107 of 112 Old 03-15-2013, 12:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
MBentz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by coctostan View Post

I hear ya on voicing, except I know the directivity of the speaker I'm designing and I know the target that will voice best. Of course it doesn't take more than 1-2 values to tweak the voicing by ear after the fact.

Are those not comments from someone settling for "good enough" and not one of someone maximizing performance?

-Mike Bentz
~It's all about compromise~
MBentz is offline  
post #108 of 112 Old 03-15-2013, 10:57 PM
Newbie
 
Dan1045's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBentz View Post

Are those not comments from someone settling for "good enough" and not one of someone maximizing performance?

Sounds like someone on the very far side of diminishing returns. biggrin.gif
Dan1045 is offline  
post #109 of 112 Old 03-15-2013, 11:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan1045 View Post

Sounds like someone on the very far side of diminishing returns. biggrin.gif
Rubbish.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #110 of 112 Old 03-16-2013, 01:12 PM
Newbie
 
Dan1045's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Rubbish.

I raise your rubbish with a poppycock!
Dan1045 is offline  
post #111 of 112 Old 03-16-2013, 01:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coctostan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indy
Posts: 1,960
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBentz View Post

Are those not comments from someone settling for "good enough" and not one of someone maximizing performance?

No those are the comments of experience. Voicing by listening trial and error component swapping (or button fiddling or mouse clocking) is a hack. How many components should I swap to maximize performance? 1-2 is so-so but I could maximize it if I went through 20 different iterations? I'm just trying to get a better feel for maximizing. Can you maximize maximizing? How much time should be spent in simulation? Is more better? How much more more?

The best part about "voicing" by ear is how it changes drastically with the positioning of speakers and the response of the room. I find that there is a predictability in how a speaker performs based on how it measures both on and off axis. Of course I listen to the speaker when it is done and some rooms are more live than others which might mean it could use some tweaking to the top.

Edit: BTW, those 1-2 component swaps post simulation are already simulated so I know what I'm targeting. Yes there is some blurring of objective and subjective at that point but when you go to just ear tweaking it is a mess. The heavy lifting should be objective (aka measurements) and can be done entirely in simulation. Thanks for taking my words out of context as well.

Short of sample size DBTs listening impressions between component changes doesn't work well with speaker design. Of course a company like Harman (or other mega size speaker company) likely does this. That is maximization. Of course the accountants and marketers come in and maximize it for their interests. The horror!

And on the topic of maximization, if your active setup is doing anything less than Dirac grade speaker and room correction right? I hope all of your designs also exhibit perfect directivity (whatever the maximal target would be) over the entire bandwidth. Oh and since budget is not a concern to a "true maximizer" I'll assume that you spare no expense and always use all TAD compression drivers.

The concept of "maximization" rings of a pathetic elitism where anything less than what one individual deems the appropriate level of refinement and budget is sub par. Of course there is always somebody out there who goes a step (or 10) further and could easily look down on that elitist.

I also dabble in the race car world and there are people with similar attitudes. I've come across guys that race Porsche cup cars who look down upon guys racing Spec Miata as though racing Porches is somehow the pinnacle.

BTW, as I have noted when the situation dictates and allows I use active DSP. The problem is that it is absurd to think that it is appropriate in all situations.
coctostan is offline  
post #112 of 112 Old 03-16-2013, 02:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
LTD02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16,841
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 556 Post(s)
Liked: 1164
"Worse, the main reason those high end speakers use passive is..."

...so that they can be paired with the amps that folks have already spent a fortune on. :-)

Listen. It's All Good.
LTD02 is offline  
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off