or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Speakers ~$10K for rock, alternative and some pop. Not Jazz or Classical.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Speakers ~$10K for rock, alternative and some pop. Not Jazz or Classical. - Page 3

post #61 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post

Train, that is what I thought an active crossover/eq with some DSP. QSC makes a unit to some guys manipulate subs with. Now I also agree with you that eq, Audessey, ARC, Trinnov etc to fix the room it does indeed affect the speakers based on what is fed to them since the speaker is the final link in the chain.

Now not to debate your inside track info at GE or DefTec those Chineese parts still sounded good to me. Many US Brands use Chineese drivers but have not reduced pricing...

Im not saying the "chinese parts" sounded bad.........but when you spend 4-5 figures on a speaker, you would like the components and materials to be of a higher quality.....know what I mean? If your spending $10,000(Or even a full $1k) on a speaker, don't you want it built with something other than a $25 sheet of MDF, few bucks worth of passive xover parts, some cheap knockoff chinese drivers, plastic binding posts and cover cap etc? See what Im saying? Once you hit that 4 figure range, Id like to see some real wood tossed in, nice quality binding posts, drivers, etc etc. If you can buy a top quality 50" plasma TV for $1000-1500 which has significantly higher cost on materials, parts and production, then I would expect my dollar to stretch a bit more when buying a pair of wood(not even wood....mdf most times, lol)boxes.
post #62 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post

Now I also agree with you that eq, Audessey, ARC, Trinnov etc to fix the room it does indeed affect the speakers based on what is fed to them since the speaker is the final link in the chain.

You're right, it does, but it only changes what is fed to the speaker; it doesn't change the speaker itself. While the sound is changing, the speaker is not, and if the speaker started as a bad speaker then it is still a bad speaker. EQ cannot fix a lousy crossover, poor driver selection, cabinet resonance, phase issues in the crossover region, off-axis response, sound power, etc.

Folks, ntrain sings the same tune in every thread, so please do not feed his necessity to take this thread off topic. His claims are always unfounded and he never provides proof, so lets just ignore him. Do a search on his posts if you want proof of what his agenda is.
post #63 of 411
Ntrain, is there any good EQ with digital spdif in + out?
post #64 of 411
Nu, agreed but if the crossover has certain crossover points and the drivers have roll off at certain frequency then eq tweaks wll competevwith that design to some degree. True if the speaker is black it won't paint it red.
post #65 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

You're right, it does, but it only changes what is fed to the speaker; it doesn't change the speaker itself. While the sound is changing, the speaker is not, and if the speaker started as a bad speaker then it is still a bad speaker. EQ cannot fix a lousy crossover, poor driver selection, cabinet resonance, phase issues in the crossover region, off-axis response, sound power, etc.

Folks, ntrain sings the same tune in every thread, so please do not feed his necessity to take this thread off topic. His claims are always unfounded and he never provides proof, so lets just ignore him. Do a search on his posts if you want proof of what his agenda is.

My agenda? Please, if people do a search, they will see you and a select few others(always the same ones) who have issues when people like myself do not agree or compliment your own posts. You along with a few others have a problem with your own views being questioned and debated.

I don't need to tell others to ignore you, or make childish remarks because of opposing views. WHat does that tell you? Time to grow up a bit.

Regardless Im going to highly debate your argument above the childish paragraph at the bottom.


Your right an "EQ" specifically cannot fix poor xovers, phase/time alignment issues, cabinet resonances etc........but that doesnt mean a speaker cannot be fixed.


This is where for a example a product like the DCX2496 comes into play as an example. Its not just an "EQ", its also an infinitely adjustable xover, 3 way time delay processor, with 6 section parametric EQ.

OK, so have a speaker with a bad passive xover? One that also has time/phase dealy issues? Maybe some "cabinet" resonances etc?

Easy fixes, especially if your not all THUMBS(or narrowminded for that matter).

To take care of the bad passive xover......first thing is first.....REMOVE it altogether! Not exactly a hard job. In one swoop you can take care of the poor passive xover, phase/time alignment issues by simply BYPASSING the pass xover altogether(Its what I did on a few pairs of my speakers). RUn the speaker fully active.

Oh but the cabinet of the speaker "resonates".......OK will then, get your DIY gloves back on and reinforce the cabinet. Using DIY cascading bracing, resin, ACE, multi layered damping materials, you can easily and cheaply reinforce the cabinet to completely reduce unwanted cabinet resonances. Again this isnt a hard job to do, nor is it expensive either. Most cabinets are made with minimal bracing and damping materials, its not too hard to modify the inside of a speaker cabinet if it resonates where it actually affects the sound of the speaker.

So lets see, we started off with a speaker with nasty cabinet resonances, a poor passive xover with potentially mismatched drivers. So we have reinforced the cabinet via DIY mods, and removed the passive xover. And for sh!ts and gigles, lets say we also got rid of those cheap plastic binding posts with some nice Cardas units as well......

So, now since your running the speaker fully active, your able to:

A. Level set each individual driver relative to the others both L&R
B. Set each individual xover point and slope for each individual driver
C. Correctly setup phase and time alignment for each individual driver relative to the listening area
D. Individually EQ each driver to the rooms natural accoustics at the listening area.


So we took a "flawed" poorly designed passive speaker, and significantly improved it. We got rid of the poor passive xover, beefed up the bracing of the cabinet to remove the nasty resonance it had, and optimally set up the individual levels,xover points and slopes of each driver,properly set up phase and time alignment, and then EQ'd out each driver to the rooms natural accoustical properties at the listening area...........


So yes, a flawed speaker CAN be "fixed" in reality. This can be done with pretty much any speaker on the market. If you doubt this or question this, then its time for you to start perusing the DIY sections on this and other AV forums.
post #66 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Your right an "EQ" specifically cannot fix poor xovers, phase/time alignment issues, cabinet resonances etc........but that doesnt mean a speaker cannot be fixed.


This is where for a example a product like the DCX2496 comes into play as an example. Its not just an "EQ", its also an infinitely adjustable xover, 3 way time delay processor, with 6 section parametric EQ.

OK, so have a speaker with a bad passive xover? One that also has time/phase dealy issues? Maybe some "cabinet" resonances etc?

Easy fixes, especially if your not all THUMBS(or narrowminded for that matter).

To take care of the bad passive xover......first thing is first.....REMOVE it altogether! Not exactly a hard job. In one swoop you can take care of the poor passive xover, phase/time alignment issues by simply BYPASSING the pass xover altogether(Its what I did on a few pairs of my speakers). RUn the speaker fully active.

Oh but the cabinet of the speaker "resonates".......OK will then, get your DIY gloves back on and reinforce the cabinet. Using DIY cascading bracing, resin, ACE, multi layered damping materials, you can easily and cheaply reinforce the cabinet to completely reduce unwanted cabinet resonances. Again this isnt a hard job to do, nor is it expensive either. Most cabinets are made with minimal bracing and damping materials, its not too hard to modify the inside of a speaker cabinet if it resonates where it actually affects the sound of the speaker.

So lets see, we started off with a speaker with nasty cabinet resonances, a poor passive xover with potentially mismatched drivers. So we have reinforced the cabinet via DIY mods, and removed the passive xover. And for sh!ts and gigles, lets say we also got rid of those cheap plastic binding posts with some nice Cardas units as well......

So, now since your running the speaker fully active, your able to:

A. Level set each individual driver relative to the others both L&R
B. Set each individual xover point and slope for each individual driver
C. Correctly setup phase and time alignment for each individual driver relative to the listening area
D. Individually EQ each driver to the rooms natural accoustics at the listening area.


So we took a "flawed" poorly designed passive speaker, and significantly improved it. We got rid of the poor passive xover, beefed up the bracing of the cabinet to remove the nasty resonance it had, and optimally set up the individual levels,xover points and slopes of each driver,properly set up phase and time alignment, and then EQ'd out each driver to the rooms natural accoustical properties at the listening area...........


So yes, a flawed speaker CAN be "fixed" in reality. This can be done with pretty much any speaker on the market. If you doubt this or question this, then its time for you to start perusing the DIY sections on this and other AV forums.

That isn't "fixing" the speaker. Once you remove components, ie. the passive crossover, it isn't the same speaker. You have basically turned it into a DIY project.

You haven't addressed the off-axis issue as well.

Without having to open the speaker, can you fix it?
post #67 of 411
I"d venture to say that most people looking to spend 10k on two speakers would not be the type to modfy them.
post #68 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

That isn't "fixing" the speaker. Once you remove components, ie. the passive crossover, it isn't the same speaker. You have basically turned it into a DIY project.

You haven't addressed the off-axis issue as well.

Without having to open the speaker, can you fix it?

Exactly. This has been brought to his attention in the past, but he just ignores the facts. Unless you're talking about digital crossovers, which then is NOT fixing a speaker but completely changing it into something else, EQ cannot fix a speaker. ntrain doesn't seem to understand that, hence my link to Floyd Toole's book; if he read it he'd learn a thing or 2 (or 50 or 60 ). He claims a few us (it's actually a lot of people) refute his claims because he disagrees with us, but it is actually because he is feeding false information, which we've proven time and time again. He'll continue spinning it however he wants to, though, and as usual threads will be taken off track and frequent visitors will lose interest; hopefully one of those people isn't the OP.

At the risk of feeding into the off-topic conversation, please prove what you're stating ntrain. You've been asked to do this 100 times in the past, and have yet to do so. Instead you just report posts. How about proving what you claim this time? As for me proving what I claim, I've already done so numerous times, and generally simply regurgitate what industry professionals such as Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Tom Nousaine (spelling?), etc have already proven. Google is your friend, as is the search tool in this forum. If you use the latter you'll see numerous responses from many people (myself included) who have already proven what we state, thus proving you wrong. The debate in which you claimed Revel's Salon2's uses a total of $300 in parts comes to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saeyedoc View Post

I"d venture to say that most people looking to spend 10k on two speakers would not be the type to modfy them.

Exactly, thus ntrain is yet again taking a thread off topic. Same stuff, different day.
post #69 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda View Post

Ntrain, is there any good EQ with digital spdif in + out?

Off hand that comes stock? I can't think of any, but I do know alot of these units have places that will add them in for a nominal fee. Some gentleman at the Audio Circle has a fully modded DCX2496 with all active inputs/outputs, clock upgrade, spdif inputs/outputs, and a linear power upgrade as well. Basically find a specific piece that has the features your looking for in a speaker management tool, and then check out the forums on that unit and see what upgrades/mods are offered. Regardless there may very well be some pro units that have the inputs/outputs your looking for. Ive just never done research for that specific featureset.
post #70 of 411
So jima4a what speakers have you bought or have you changed hobbies?
post #71 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post

So jima4a what speakers have you bought or have you changed hobbies?

LOL - good one.
post #72 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Exactly, thus ntrain is yet again taking a thread off topic. Same stuff, different day.

Indeed but he does have some merits in educating others on what is possible. Even if overboard and completely off topic
post #73 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

That isn't "fixing" the speaker. Once you remove components, ie. the passive crossover, it isn't the same speaker. You have basically turned it into a DIY project.

You haven't addressed the off-axis issue as well.

Without having to open the speaker, can you fix it?

Of course its the same speaker. THe model # or basic designed box, drivers and tuning hasnt changed. Your not swapping out the main compoents either which are the drivers themselves.

The mains problems were solved. The passive xovers were obviously poor to begin with, so fix the heart of the matter. Same with cabinet resonances.

Again, a speaker is a pretty simple item to work on and "fix". Assuming it needs to be "fixed" to begin with.


I havent addressed the "off axis" issue to begin with because the follow up questions were not answered. Again too off axis response does not necessarily mean a poor set of speakers if at the listening position the response is correct and even. As stated, I would need to know specifics as to how the off axis response was detrimental to the listeners ears before it can be answered and under the assumption that the speaker design originally doesnt account for off axis response being detrimental as well.
post #74 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Off hand that comes stock? I can't think of any, but I do know alot of these units have places that will add them in for a nominal fee. Some gentleman at the Audio Circle has a fully modded DCX2496 with all active inputs/outputs, clock upgrade, spdif inputs/outputs, and a linear power upgrade as well. Basically find a specific piece that has the features your looking for in a speaker management tool, and then check out the forums on that unit and see what upgrades/mods are offered.

Is it possible to have all these without spending DIY effort and just drop the cash? I mean time is far more expensive... Ultimate sound should be available for "cheap"
post #75 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Of course its the same speaker. THe model # or basic designed box, drivers and tuning hasnt changed. Your not swapping out the main compoents either which are the drivers themselves.

The mains problems were solved. The passive xovers were obviously poor to begin with, so fix the heart of the matter. Same with cabinet resonances.

Again, a speaker is a pretty simple item to work on and "fix". Assuming it needs to be "fixed" to begin with.


I havent addressed the "off axis" issue to begin with because the follow up questions were not answered. Again too off axis response does not necessarily mean a poor set of speakers if at the listening position the response is correct and even. As stated, I would need to know specifics as to how the off axis response was detrimental to the listeners ears before it can be answered and under the assumption that the speaker design originally doesnt account for off axis response being detrimental as well.

Ummm...excuse me, but the crossover IS a MAIN component. It is part of the main design.

Once again...can you fix the speaker without opening it?
post #76 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Exactly. This has been brought to his attention in the past, but he just ignores the facts. Unless you're talking about digital crossovers, which then is NOT fixing a speaker but completely changing it into something else, EQ cannot fix a speaker. ntrain doesn't seem to understand that, hence my link to Floyd Toole's book; if he read it he'd learn a thing or 2 (or 50 or 60 ). He claims a few us (it's actually a lot of people) refute his claims because he disagrees with us, but it is actually because he is feeding false information, which we've proven time and time again. He'll continue spinning it however he wants to, though, and as usual threads will be taken off track and frequent visitors will lose interest; hopefully one of those people isn't the OP.

At the risk of feeding into the off-topic conversation, please prove what you're stating ntrain. You've been asked to do this 100 times in the past, and have yet to do so. Instead you just report posts. How about proving what you claim this time? As for me proving what I claim, I've already done so numerous times, and generally simply regurgitate what industry professionals such as Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Tom Nousaine (spelling?), etc have already proven. Google is your friend, as is the search tool in this forum. If you use the latter you'll see numerous responses from many people (myself included) who have already proven what we state, thus proving you wrong. The debate in which you claimed Revel's Salon2's uses a total of $300 in parts comes to mind.



Exactly, thus ntrain is yet again taking a thread off topic. Same stuff, different day.

Again your just assuming the management units Im using as examples to be just "EQ's" and they are not. THey are alot more than that. THey are fully adjustable independant xovers, and time delay alowing to make sure phase/time alignment is correct, not just signal/frequency response. You are just ignorant to the fact of what is possible and available towards having true high end, state of the art sound.

Passive speaker boxes("flawed" as in your definition or otherwise).........actually pretty much all of them are actually "flawed". But active speaker management systems remove alot of these inherant flaws that you mention. You can literally "shape" the sound of one speaker and emulate another, flaws and all if you really wanted to.

Pro audio is in countless ways vastly superior and light years ahead of the enthusiast "high end" home A/V market and their products. Alot of the home audio "high end" resides in the pricetag and marketing, not the product itself.
post #77 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda View Post

Indeed but he does have some merits in educating others on what is possible. Even if overboard and completely off topic

LOL, this is true. Anything is possible I suppose, but I am not going to recommend someone build a rocket pack and fly that to the local Starbucks when they could get there easier by simply driving their Toyota Corolla. It's all about practicality, and in this case about how much great performance you can get from a passive design that you don't have to build or modify. There is a DIY section of the forum you know who should be hanging out on, but instead he bombards the speaker section...and it's getting tiresome.
post #78 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Ummm...excuse me, but the crossover IS a MAIN component. It is part of the main design.

Yep and by removing the passive xover(for a main component as you state, it 99.99% of the time uses dirt cheap parts regardless of speaker cost).

Regardless, you can remove the passvie xover and still fully mimic its xover points and slopes perfectly and thus the speakers full original design, and do so without the poor matched parts tolerances of the passive xover parts as well. And even after mimicing the xover points(if they prove to be the best ones)and slopes, you can still fix phase/time alignment issues if they exist since your system is fully active regardless. And still on top of that, you still have the ability to level match each individual driver.
post #79 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Yep and by removing the passive xover(for a main component as you state, it 99.99% of the time uses dirt cheap parts regardless of speaker cost).

Regardless, you can remove the passvie xover and still fully mimic its xover points and slopes perfectly and thus the speakers full original design, and do so without the poor matched parts tolerances of the passive xover parts as well. And even after mimicing the xover points(if they prove to be the best ones)and slopes, you can still fix phase/time alignment issues if they exist since your system is fully active regardless. And still on top of that, you still have the ability to level match each individual driver.

I'll ask again..

Can you fix the speaker without opening it up?

We are all very aware of what can be done with systems such as DEQX or DCX2496.
post #80 of 411
If only every *recording* was perfect.....and every room.....and every person's hearing system....then a perfect speaker would be the right choice.

And measurements do not tell the whole story of what a specific speaker sounds like to a particular person. I'm no tinfoil hat hand-wringing audiophile that believes in half-baked theories filled with mystical concepts usually only found in fiction books about wizards (I own the Lord Of The Rings trilogy in book & dvd form so everyone calm down ), but I DO know that despite seeing near-identical frequency response charts of many speakers over the years, they certainly do not sound the same to me. An electrostatic speaker sounding the same as a horn-equipped speaker?! Uh uh.

I own the David Crosby album If I Could Only Remember My Name in CD and 192kHz/24bit dvd-audio formats, both sourced from the same remastered analog tape. Luckily it's not overcompressed like so many remasters these days, but I have a strong feeling the remastering engineer, Stephen Barncard (who also engineered the original recording back in '73) has some rather severe high frequency hearing loss because both formats sound like I have my receiver's treble control jammed all the way to "10". Awful. So for me it would be quite unpleasant to listen to them via ruler-flat speakers, as it's already rather difficult to listen to them even with my warm-sounding Radio Shack Minimus 77s.
post #81 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Of course its the same speaker. THe model # or basic designed box, drivers and tuning hasnt changed. Your not swapping out the main compoents either which are the drivers themselves.

The mains problems were solved. The passive xovers were obviously poor to begin with, so fix the heart of the matter. Same with cabinet resonances.

Again, a speaker is a pretty simple item to work on and "fix". Assuming it needs to be "fixed" to begin with.


I havent addressed the "off axis" issue to begin with because the follow up questions were not answered. Again too off axis response does not necessarily mean a poor set of speakers if at the listening position the response is correct and even. As stated, I would need to know specifics as to how the off axis response was detrimental to the listeners ears before it can be answered and under the assumption that the speaker design originally doesnt account for off axis response being detrimental as well.

As already stated, the crossover is one of the main components in a speaker. It could be argued it will effect the sound more than anything. Drivers are just drivers without a crossover to hone them in.

As for off-axis response, your questions prove how little understanding of the topic you have. A speaker will almost always be listened to in a room, and the off-axis and sound power response will interact with that room and can make a break the sound. If a speaker with poor off-axis/sound power response interacts with the room (and it always will - it's called reflections), it'll smear the sound because it doesn't stay linear. Likewise, if it stays linear and follows the same response curve it can add to the perceived "apparent source width," which was found to be a very appealing characteristic based on Floyd Toole's and Sean Olive's case studies.

Ripping out the passive crossovers and going with active instead is not fixing a speaker; it's changing it completely. Also, no one ever said there is such thing as a perfect speaker, or that speakers with identical measurements sound the same. Where did you get that idea from, ntrain and donutfan? What measurements can tell you is which speakers have flaws, whether intentional or not. You still need to actually listen to them to make a decision. But for those that have practiced correlated measurements to listening, measurements are extremely helpful is ruling out poor designs.
post #82 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

LOL, this is true. Anything is possible I suppose, but I am not going to recommend someone build a rocket pack and fly that to the local Starbucks when they could get there easier by simply driving their Toyota Corolla.

But in reality thats what you try and do with your own recommendations many times........not build a rocketpack per se...........but to BUY one..............when in reality all your doing is masking that Toyota Corolla and claiming its something its not.


In terms of practicality.......sure maybe people dont want to mod and upgrade their cabinets, but bypassing the passive xovers is an easy 5 minute job. Running your speaker "actively" is not a hard or impractical thing to do. Alot of people do it. And until you have actually heard your favorite speaker run actively, dont knock it.

Which is why I recommended to Jim to think about running his current XQ's he has on hand actively to see what they are TRUELY capable of in terms of absolute SQ. He can do it for relatively cheap money and a bit of his own time, and he might have alot of fun doing it too. The differences in SQ can be startling. In the end it might help him save serious $$$,help him gain knowledge and insight and potentially make a better informed decision for HIMSELF on his choice for his next set of "retirement" speakers.
post #83 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

I'll ask again..

Can you fix the speaker without opening it up?

We are all very aware of what can be done with systems such as DEQX or DCX2496.

Depends on what the potential issues are with it to begin with I guess. But what is the problem with opening up a speaker to begin with? Especially if easy improvements can be made to it?

Trust me if everyone was aware of what a product like the DCX can do, then half the debate wouldnt even be here, especially from Nuance, whose own posts make it plain and obvious that he had no idea what its truely capable of in terms of SQ enhancement/improvement and the parameters available on hand. Your making assumptions for others thats obviously not fully inline.
post #84 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

As already stated, the crossover is one of the main components in a speaker. It could be argued it will effect the sound more than anything. Drivers are just drivers without a crossover to hone them in.

As for off-axis response, your questions prove how little understanding of the topic you have. A speaker will almost always be listened to in a room, and the off-axis and sound power response will interact with that room and can make a break the sound. If a speaker with poor off-axis/sound power response interacts with the room (and it always will - it's called reflections), it'll smear the sound because it doesn't stay linear. Likewise, if it stays linear and follows the same response curve it can add to the perceived "apparent source width," which was found to be a very appealing characteristic based on Floyd Toole's and Sean Olive's case studies.

Ripping out the passive crossovers and going with active instead is not fixing a speaker; it's changing it completely. Also, no one ever said there is such thing as a perfect speaker, or that speakers with identical measurements sound the same. Where did you get that idea from, ntrain and donutfan? What measurements can tell you is which speakers have flaws, whether intentional or not. You still need to actually listen to them to make a decision. But for those that have practiced correlated measurements to listening, measurements are extremely helpful is ruling out poor designs.

Read post #78 and then get back to me.
post #85 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Depends on what the potential issues are with it to begin with I guess. But what is the problem with opening up a speaker to begin with? Especially if easy improvements can be made to it?

Trust me if everyone was aware of what a product like the DCX can do, then half the debate wouldnt even be here, especially from Nuance, whose own posts make it plain and obvious that he had no idea what its truely capable of in terms of SQ enhancement/improvement and the parameters available on hand. Your making assumptions for others thats obviously not fully inline.

The same issues you used the DCX to "fix" in your example. I know you are trying to work around the question. So in using your same example, the answer is "no".

Many people are not inclined to open a speaker to work on it...just like the masses not wanting to change the oil in their cars on their own.

DSP units such as the DCX, also cost money...more than a passive crossover. It isn't viable to be packaged in a speaker set for the masses. It has also been shown that a properly designed passive XO speaker and the use of a DCX or DEQX on that same speaker, is not distinguishable.
post #86 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

DSP units such as the DCX, also cost money...more than a passive crossover. It isn't viable to be packaged in a speaker set for the masses.

http://www.emeraldphysics.com/2012/01/cs27.html
post #87 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

I'll ask again..

Can you fix the speaker without opening it up?

We are all very aware of what can be done with systems such as DEQX or DCX2496.

+1. I've played with DEQ and know what it is capable of. Ntrain you are completely missing the point and still have not answered any technical questions or proven what you claim. We're all waiting for your proof (personal claims aren't proof). Show us the proof, and start a new thread if you ever decide to attempt to show this proof; you've taken this thread far enough off topic. You really should be posting in the DIY speaker forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post


DSP units such as the DCX, also cost money...more than a passive crossover. It isn't viable to be packaged in a speaker set for the masses. It has also been shown that a properly designed passive XO speaker and the use of a DCX or DEQX on that same speaker, is not distinguishable.

Boom - headshot. . This too has been brought to his attention but he refuses to accept it
post #88 of 411
Train, What DBX unit did you mention?
post #89 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

In terms of practicality.......sure maybe people dont want to mod and upgrade their cabinets, but bypassing the passive xovers is an easy 5 minute job. Running your speaker "actively" is not a hard or impractical thing to do.

Not all speakers have easily removable terminal at the back. Speakers like the Sierras only have binding posts sticking out. I hate having to go through one of the drivers...
post #90 of 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

It has also been shown that a properly designed passive XO speaker and the use of a DCX or DEQX on that same speaker, is not distinguishable.

"And the use of".............how specifically was it "used"? Link? If it was just used to mimic the xover points and slopes, Im sure it was basically indistinguishable to the typical listener. Again, a very vague statement with no specifics though on the implementation of the DCX.

But this broad and vague comment does push another one of my points that extra processing "downstream" of the main transport/DAC will not audibly alter the purity of the sound in any audible way in reality.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Speakers ~$10K for rock, alternative and some pop. Not Jazz or Classical.