There is no perfect speaker . . . - Page 17 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
First ... 15  16  17
Speakers > There is no perfect speaker . . .
NIN74's Avatar NIN74 03:25 PM 08-30-2009
What I'm saying is that it is not black and white. Active filter are NOT always better than passive ones. It depends on the implementation of all parts.
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
vantagesc's Avatar vantagesc 12:24 AM 10-17-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

It depends on the implementation of all parts.

Yes, this is true of anything really. Unfortunately, some designers that are experienced with passive crossovers cannot achieve the same result using active crossovers out of inexperience. I was reading the design blog of a designer who sells speakers for $5-15k. He used made a quick active crossover to test the drivers, but his passive version beat it out. He admitted that this was his first active attempt. Others simply use off the shelf crossovers like DEQX. Point is, there is performance left on the table. There are some benefits of active that cannot be replicated in a passive system (such as having the amplifier in direct control over the voicecoil) even if the passive crossover is of the highest quality. On the flip side, I'd love to hear from a designer if there are things that passive crossovers can do that active cannot, other than things related to convenience and cost.

I wish more designers would gain experience with active and try it, but unfortunately, I think cost and convenience will not make it popular any time soon. I can't imagine someone going into a dealer to buy a Revel system would be happy to have to buy 6-8 channels of amplification!
NIN74's Avatar NIN74 05:49 AM 10-17-2009
Ingvar Öhman of Ino audio and Guru pro is one designer that think passive filter can do stuff that active can't.
penngray's Avatar penngray 05:55 AM 10-17-2009
Quote:


I can't imagine someone going into a dealer to buy a Revel system would be happy to have to buy 6-8 channels of amplification!

2-way, 3-way active solutions like these would have an amp built into the speaker, high end pro designs have been doing it for years, Mark Seaton does it too.

I think something like the Hypex Amps are pretty damn cool and have all the DSP goodies one needs to build a great active speaker!
vantagesc's Avatar vantagesc 10:27 AM 10-17-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

Ingvar Öhman of Ino audio and Guru pro is one designer that think passive filter can do stuff that active can't.

Please share more details. I keep searching the web and so far I've only found benefits of active, but nothing for passive other than cost and convenience. Since I am not a designer I don't see the reasoning or how passive can do things that active can't, seeing as how you can build an analog active crossover...

Wish someone who builds both could explain to us all of this.
vantagesc's Avatar vantagesc 10:34 AM 10-17-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

2-way, 3-way active solutions like these would have an amp built into the speaker, high end pro designs have been doing it for years, Mark Seaton does it too.

I think something like the Hypex Amps are pretty damn cool and have all the DSP goodies one needs to build a great active speaker!

That's true..would be easiest that way. I'd probably prefer that too, so I wouldn't have to worry about another piece of equipment on the rack.

One of the arguments against active is that "audiophiles" want to choose their own amps, which is really no argument at all, because active doesn't require that the amp be built into the speaker.
mpmct's Avatar mpmct 02:57 PM 10-17-2009
1)
"Crossovers may be implemented either as passive RLC networks,
as active filters with operational amplifier circuits or with DSP engines and software.
The only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost.
Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers.
They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion.
They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal.
SL ( Siegfried Linkwitz ) - October 2009"

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

2)
ATI's 12 channel amplifier, 60w per, that is as good as any other
solid state amp, is ~$2000-2500 msrp.
Rotel's 8 channel amplifier, 40w per, is $800 msrp.
( Active x-overs require much less power than passive x-overs. )

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...eId=5&blogId=1
filecat13's Avatar filecat13 06:10 AM 10-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpmct View Post

1)


2)
ATI's 12 channel amplifier, 60w per, that is as good as any other
solid state amp, is ~$2000-2500 msrp.
Rotel's 8 channel amplifier, 40w per, is $800 msrp.
( Active x-overs require much less power than passive x-overs. )

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...eId=5&blogId=1

I don't know the Rotel, but I can verify that the ATI is one robust piece of equipment. It seems to have the capability to do more with 60W/ch than many bigger amps I've heard. I know a guy near here who uses one to run all the drivers on his JBL Ti10K towers independently (4 amplifier channels each), and also runs the center and surrounds off it., using 11 channels of the amp's 12. He's not concerned about bi-amping the 2-way Ti2K speakers for movies, but he really gets amazing reproduction of 2-channel music out of the towers.
mpmct's Avatar mpmct 07:08 AM 10-18-2009
All reasonably well designed/built solid states amps sound the same.
The wide variability of passive crossovers suggest being prudent,
and having lots of power at the ready. Active, line-level crossovers
remove this issue entirely. This fellow's article explains in detail:

http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

........

Two amplifiers, two very different prices:

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=18&blogId=1

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=21&blogId=1

........

Couldn't hear differences between amps, when a fair test was conducted:

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
vantagesc's Avatar vantagesc 12:46 PM 10-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

I don't know the Rotel, but I can verify that the ATI is one robust piece of equipment. It seems to have the capability to do more with 60W/ch than many bigger amps I've heard. I know a guy near here who uses one to run all the drivers on his JBL Ti10K towers independently (4 amplifier channels each), and also runs the center and surrounds off it., using 11 channels of the amp's 12. He's not concerned about bi-amping the 2-way Ti2K speakers for movies, but he really gets amazing reproduction of 2-channel music out of the towers.

The ATI is definitely rated at a real 60wpc. All channels driven, with a full range load. I suspect you might get a little more power out of it than that under real life conditions.

I might have bought one to run my Orions, were the ATI not so damn heavy.
NIN74's Avatar NIN74 07:08 PM 10-18-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by vantagesc View Post

Please share more details. I keep searching the web and so far I've only found benefits of active, but nothing for passive other than cost and convenience. Since I am not a designer I don't see the reasoning or how passive can do things that active can't, seeing as how you can build an analog active crossover...

Wish someone who builds both could explain to us all of this.


Most is written in Swedish so it is hard for you to read them.
wse's Avatar wse 10:45 PM 11-12-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

There is no perfect speaker . . . because no two recordings are alike. This became crystal clear when I installed a Mac Mini in my rack that I use as a music server. .....


Tim, this is great at last someone who is willing to look at reality. By the way why Mac Mini vs Apple TV or Ipod Classic with Wadia 170i?
hifisponge's Avatar hifisponge 11:59 PM 11-12-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Tim, this is great at last someone who is willing to look at reality. By the way why Mac Mini vs Apple TV or Ipod Classic with Wadia 170i?

Yeah, I'm a truth seeker . I prefer not being led around by the nose by the audiophile press, and I don't subscribe to audiophile "common knowledge", yet I still have a thing for high end audio gear.

I considered the options you mentioned above, but they wouldn't work for my needs. A) I did not have hard drive space elsewhere from which to stream to an ATV. I only have a laptop with 160GB of total space and wanted 750GB at least. I could have bought a small server tucked in a closet or something, and streamed from that to an ATV, but the Mac Mini with a 750GB HD connected to it just seemed simpler. B) I don't believe that you can stream a 96KHz signal to ATV, and I wanted the option. C) I wanted access to the full iTunes interface via my TV.

As far as the Ipod option, the HD capacity is simply too low. I store all my music as Apple Lossless files, which would chew up a lot of space quickly on an iPod.
NIN74's Avatar NIN74 05:48 AM 11-13-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Tim, this is great at last someone who is willing to look at reality. By the way why Mac Mini vs Apple TV or Ipod Classic with Wadia 170i?


No, I don't agree that is reality. Or are you saying there is no good projectors because all movies are not looking the same? The thing is, as long as the goal is reproducing the signal, there is really good speakers and there is bad ones. Just because you see a lot of grain on a old lowbudget movie with Sim2 5000 don't say that it is a bad PJ.
hifisponge's Avatar hifisponge 08:14 PM 11-13-2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

No, I don't agree that is reality. Or are you saying there is no good projectors because all movies are not looking the same? The thing is, as long as the goal is reproducing the signal, there is really good speakers and there is bad ones. Just because you see a lot of grain on a old lowbudget movie with Sim2 5000 don't say that it is a bad PJ.

I fully agree, there are good speakers and there are bad speakers, if faithful signal reproduction is the goal, but no one ever said the goal was to faithfully reproduce the signal. Consumers don't audition speakers with spectrum analyzers, they use their ears and a variety of musical recordings to judge the fidelity of said speakers. Since we usually know nothing about how the recordings were mastered, and it is very rare that you would have been present at the time of the recording, there is no way to know which speaker is better at reproducing the signal. And if the less accurate speaker makes your bright pop recordings sound better, then which is truly the better speaker?

I was recently told about an article that Sean Olive did on a similar subject, entitled The Audio Circle of Confusion.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/1...confusion.html
NIN74's Avatar NIN74 06:25 AM 11-14-2009
What one can listen for is the speaker that gives the most difference to the albums.
First ... 15  16  17

Up
Mobile  Desktop