@douglas_schroeder -- Further, so now it’s being said that you can have an "active" speaker without the amps in the box! Well, isn’t THAT a revelation! I always thought that was designated a speaker with an active x-over. That opens up questions, doesn’t it? So, you apparently, according to some, do not need the amps in the box to have an active speaker. Huh, I thought the amp right there without cables was supposed to be a huge boon to the result. Apparently in the minds of some, that’s not so important; we can just screw around with the build and no problem, "active" is still better! Of course, no actual comparisons are necessary, as is typical when someone makes conclusions based on mind experiments rather than actual system building. Do we see a pattern here? Of course; the same pattern that plagues the entire hobby and this site.
Yes, an active speaker should have (at least) build-in amps and DSP/electronic cross-over to be called exactly that. However, when pointed out the negatives of not being able to choose your own amps, DSP/elec. XO or even DAC in such a bundled constellation, it implicitly begs: what if we could choose our own electronic devices as a solution of separates that’s so urgently desired, and uphold it as an active set-up? Well, sure we can! Ask yourself: why be limited to an active speaker as one of a bundled package (that can still be a great one), typically pre-assembled and -configured, when an active configuration is defined through the cross-over being placed prior to amplification on signal level? Yes, cables are likely to be longer with active-as-separates, certainly IC’s depending on the physical config., but you still get the essential benefit of active, and you can get to choose the components YOU prefer - like you would with a passive set-up. Of course: it involves your part to set it up, and so is not one thought out for you - mostly, at least. I can’t speak for others, but drawing comparisons on passive vs. active would of course entail the active solution having being done to full completion from scratch and to more than hold its own vs. the passive counterpart. More on that below. I don’t understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active crossover and your choice of amps.
Um, kind of sort of, but not fully. There are a couple of things you are missing:
1 - Crossovers are more than Hz and slope. They also have EQ features and level matching.
2 - You have to remove the internal crossover to achieve all the benefits of an active speaker system, especially higher efficiency.
Consider for instance that most tweeters are padded down because they tend to have a higher sensitivity than their mid/woofer counter parts. That is, there are resistors in there which are converting power to heat. If you remove them, then there’s no such waste.
Next, your external crossover is additive, not in place of the existing crossover and slope, so things get complicated. Now instead of 1 high-pass filter, and 1 low pass filter you have 2 of each.
So, if you do remove the internal crossover, you will also have to make up for any EQ that was built in.
I mean, it’s not a completely useless idea to use an external crossover on a speaker designed to be bi-wired or bi-amped, but it’s also not the same as a fully active system.
Yes it is; filtration prior to amplification on signal level, sans any passive filters between the amp(s) and drivers, is a fully active configuration - be that as a bundled package or one of separates. As separates it isn’t an ’active speaker’ per se, but it’s still fully actively configured. The speaker set-ups I’ve heard where comparisons between passive and active could be "investigated," were passive speaker set-ups converted to active dittos by wholly extracting the passive cross-over(s), and then adding an external digital XO and more amp channels (plus extra cables). New filter settings were then implemented digitally from scratch, and in some cases with waveguide designs with non-linear acoustic amplification that’s no easy task. My own horns amplify linearly, so that was somewhat easier. Doing the filter settings by yourself, sans passive filters, involves everything - be that from gain matching between drivers and to the subs, choosing XO frequencies, filter slope type and steepness, delay, PEQ with q-values and their frequency settings and gain, measurements, etc. An arduous task for sure, but it’s a steep learning curve well rewarded, and moreover setting up the cross-over digitally can be done on-the-fly, from the listening position with your laptop/tablet. Once you get a hang of it it’s actually quite freeing. So, active-as-separates IS fully active when configured as outlined above. Where it potentially involves a lot is on the part of setting up the cross-over digitally by oneself. An intimidating thought for many, as it was for me, but get your head around it and the effort will be rewarded. |
@audio2design --
Unfortunately phusis, your view towards active speakers is simple, just the replacement of passive crossover to active crossover. There is far more possible in terms of active speaker development that cannot be implemented in this piece-wise fashion. Not to mention very few have the tools, knowledge, or space to develop their own crossovers effectively. It is not something that can be done by ear, and done well, requires either a large space for effective gated measurement and/or an anechoic chamber. The goal is not "okay" it is great.
Or maybe you read what I write: simplistically. Do you develop your own active speakers - as a brand, that is? What you point to sounds like a well-known narrative leveled at DIY'ers, that what they're about to embark on can only scratch the surface of what manufacturers can achieve with all of their tools and (self-)proclaimed knowledge. Of course those manufacturers are only trying to protect their business with said (repetitive) narrative, not that I can't understand that, but with the digital tools offered today the individual has far more options into creating the sound of their speakers on their own, and much easier at that. The more they learn the greater it will sound. I don't like repeating myself, but what you address is all there in my earlier post; I'm not about to neglect the effort and what's there to be learned about setting up a cross-over digitally by oneself, and when you look into the different technical aspects where audiophiles already invest their time, brain capacity and money implementing their own set-ups, it would seem no further stretch to ask of them to look into digital cross-overs as well. It's a freeing process once you get around the technicalities of using a digital XO, and one where you learn about setting up a cross-over with all the parameters that can be involved, digitally. Forums are there to help if you're stuck, maybe someone you know can help - make the jump and try it out. What do you know about the results my friends and I have achieved setting up our active-as-separates set-ups? Nothing. You would assume "okay" only, and yet the speaker systems I've heard here compare and in many areas exceed most everything else I've heard in vital areas in their reproduction. In other words: these set-ups sound great. No need for anechoic chambers than what our listening rooms offered. Measurements, yes, and lots of trial error and listening countless hours. Yes, predominantly it can and must be done by ear, and the good thing is it needn't sound great anywhere else than in your very own listening room and to your own ears. Manufacturers need to please many ears, have a business to consider, are fiscally restricted and so on, and you don't think that involves severe compromises? Give me a break. |
@audio2design -- Time I picked up on this: Why are you going on about something that 99.9% of audiophiles have no interest in doing, and 9/10 of the remaining 0.1% are going to screw up? To begin with most audiophiles seem to have no concept of active-as-separates as an option for hi-fi use, let alone the sonic results produced here (unless you assume all of the 99.9% supposed disinterested audiophiles know what they’re turning their back on and that’s the basis of their claimed disinterest?), so an introduction into its existence and possibility of successful use seems prudent - not least coming from someone with several very positive experiences of this solution that trumps most passive and (bundled) active set-ups that have been auditioned, regardless of price. On the face of it your stance here sounds more like wanting to instill discouragement (and protecting your own business) than a level-headed assessment on the interest in and potential of active-as-separates as a DIY approach. 1-2/10 mayn’t achieve greater results, but if a higher percentage instead of those 0.1% that remain interested would break the mold of their hi-fi dogma, unawareness, prejudice, or other and invest some time into active-as-separates, then we’d see a wider and very different playing field that would seriously challenge the established norms of passive configuration and the existing bundled active approach, and one that would as well bring with it even more tweaking possibilities than the passive set-up - not to mention the all-in-on active package. I am very cognizant of the DIY speaker community. There is some great craftsmanship, and some very good mid-level speakers, but at the top end, I can’t say I have heard much.
The best active-as-separates systems I’ve auditioned distanced themselves from most of the best passive set-ups I’ve heard as being a cleaner, less smeared, more resolved, transparent, coherent, and dynamically uninhibited sounding package. That you keep repeating "Digital Cross-over" like it is the be all and end all shows how large the gap is between the average DIYer / probably most DIYers and truly professional designers working on advanced active speakers. It is not simply a matter of getting some amps, even expensive ones, and a DSP and playing with digital crossover implementations, and no, I don’t care how long you listen to it, you will never achieve a very good design without complementing that with a lot of measurements, and again, most DIYers have fairly basic measurement capability for advanced speaker design. I know ... pretty much the same techniques, but better S/W than what I was using to DIY 20+ years ago.
Most "truly professional designers" work to create bundled, all-in-one active speakers, and while I’ve auditioned a few excellent sounding iterations here, ATC and Grimm Audio being perhaps the most noteworthy examples, I haven’t found them to better, or even fully approach the best DIY active-as-separates systems I’ve heard, likely for other reasons than their specific active configuration. I couldn’t care less about the work, dedication and claimed sophistication that went into these bundled, preassembled and -developed actives by said professionals when what I’ve actually heard hasn’t convinced me of their supposed merits, except named examples. As an outset IT IS about simply getting that quality digital XO hooked up and extra amps and cables all connected, preferable on a smaller secondary 2-way speaker set-up to experiment with, and then work one’s way around the basics. I didn’t take me long (i.e.: mere minutes) to figure out the potential of active-as-separates and how it would come to eclipse its passive iteration, even with initial filter settings, and from then on it’s about fine tuning with the aid of measurements, hours of listening with the input and help from friends and a lot of trial and error/exploration with filter settings and their influence on the sound. Getting rid of the cross-over on the power side of an amplifier and instead letting the amps see their respective drivers directly is in itself of significant importance, both in regard to letting the amps work at their fuller potential (effectively minimizing the need for amp prowess here) and bypassing the sonic bottleneck a passive cross-over, not least a more complex one, is, for a sonically less degradable XO option prior to amplification. The implementation of a design I was involved in required a custom amplifier topology that you cannot buy off the shelf. The techniques implemented go beyond simple digital cross-over design and are beyond almost all DIYers as it would be rare to find that cross disciplinary expertise. That is not even getting into things like finite element analysis to optimize bracing or complex acoustic field simulation to optimize the lenses. The drivers were not off the shelf, but optimized for our drive/control methodology. Again, not available to the DIY community.
Conversely I’d level at you: you stress the implementation of non off-the-shelf items "not available to to the DIY community" as if to signal exclusivity and something we as DIY’ers can only dream of attaining - unless of course we indulge in your narrative and buy your product. Haven’t we heard that song before. It’s a trait claimed by other manufacturers out there, and by and large - as heard in-the-flesh - it hasn’t made me appreciate the sound of those products more than others. Too many factors of implementation are at play to single out that one contribution as anything of outright significance. The DIY’er into active-as-separates has the option to optimize and go tweak galore on all product category fronts, and as well go all-in with regard to accommodate physics and a pre-existing, passive speaker package - not to mention what can be learned in the process. Don’t get me wrong, there are some great DIY designs out there, but as you move into active designs, the complexity of what is possible just went well beyond "DIY". Its a lot more than just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)
You’re evading an important point: with the complexity chosen in the active-as-separates set-ups I’ve heard, an outset that could as well be favorably chosen by others, the results are great - not to say among the best I’ve ever heard. They better their passive iteration (if they were such to begin with) by a noticeable margin, and in general outperform a range of much more expensive set-ups I’ve heard - mostly passives, because all-in-one active set-ups are relatively far and few between. Whichever way you want to bend it we’ve gone beyond "... just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)" and in doing so created impressive sounding set-ups, so we get the gist. Which is to say: DIY’ers/audiophiles can certainly tackle an active-as-separates approach if they set their minds on it, and in the process produce great results. Whether that complies with your methods and ultimately to your liking is another matter, and not really relevant it would seem. |
@jon_5912 --
Ad 1: Indeed, agreed. Seeing the somewhat easier load presented to an amp when coupled directly to a driver without the interference of a passive cross-over, the "impedance matching" of amps to drivers that is often heralded as an advantage with active speaking in effect is mostly about scaling down/specifying the amp to its intended (and easier load) usage. That's not that to say it's really an advantage in absolute sonic terms; if one were to use more "all out," non-tailored amps to each driver section instead it wouldn't be detrimental to the sound, just more expensive overall. That is to say: the claimed "advantage" earlier mentioned with tailored amps comes down to cost savings, most of all. The one true advantage in sonic terms is the active configuration itself with all that implies.
Ad 2: Again, agree, and this ties into what I've written above.
Ad 3: Agree.
Ad 4: Certainly; having the XO prior to amplification on signal level naturally leaves it impervious to load variations on the power side.
With regard to mentioned advantage with passive and the choice of amplification: to my mind this is in part a forced choice and mostly comes down to the disadvantage of passive: its cross-over and the greater importance and stress it puts on the amp(s), and thereby the rather varying results that may come of using different amps. While amps are also consciously chosen to active speakers as pre-build and all-in-one solutions and one would not be able to exchange them for a more tailored sonic result to each individual, I'd argue the sonic differences would also be somewhat less outspoken here compared to swapping amps with passive speakers.
You can however also use an active configuration as a solution of separate components and choose your amps. That's what I do myself, and that also involves and element of tailoring; pure Class A amp to the compression driver handling the mids on up, and even more powerful Class D variants for the midbass section and the subs. |
@erik_squires wrote:
Thanks, but in the interest of staying with the OP’s topic, I’m NOT discussing the use of external crossovers and amps.
Not only was that not mentioned in his post, but the use of active crossovers and external amps in the home is probably the very rarest of beasts. I’ll happily engage in that topic elsewhere.
And what exactly is the interest of the OP in this regard going by his threat opener? He only says the following:
I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...
No specific implementation of active configuration is mentioned, so that holds every route open here, as long as it’s active. Moreover, the threat is over 3 years old (with an activity pause almost as long) - the OP might have gotten along since then, and so what we’re venturing into at this point, for as long as we’re continuing with active as a general topic that isn’t at odds with the OP, I’d say it’s all safe to go.
But really, you’re no admin of this threat (or even if you are, I’m within the confines of the OP) nor the OP poster, so loosen up on specifying what we can or cannot discuss. It seems to me it’s about what YOU would like the specific context (of active configuration) of this threat to be about, rather than the OP. My take: chart off in any direction of active as you see fit and let others do the same, and if the OP has a problem with that, he can chime in.
With regard to the link of his: Steve’s rant on active goes on to state - 2:15 into the video - that the Parasound A21 power amp (as an example) doesn’t fit into most any speaker, and you’d believe he really wanted it to if it weren’t so darn impractical. That way of thinking of his tells me Steve is not even considering that the A21 doesn’t have to fit into a speaker (for it to still be active), so my deduction is that ’active’ to him is defined as a bundled approach, and he’s stuck with that. Really, he doesn’t get it.
Take the ATC SCM300 Pro ASL. It’s an actively configured speaker through and through, yet the amps and electronic crossover are outboard, most likely due to the power requirements of the amps and the physical size this would necessitate. The JBL M2’s - another example. Sanders Sound as well. Even if there are only a few such examples of active, it doesn’t make it conspicuous or other - it’s just outboard.
Where it gets more hairy is setting the DSP filter parameters by oneself, and I’m assuming this goes for your DIY center channel as well? You think the OP initially considered a DIY approach of active like that? Maybe he didn’t even consider outboard active, and that’s where I feel correcting Steve in his video rant is appropriate. It only broadens the opportunities while potentially raising the bar even further.
I’m just saying that coming to some universal truth about the desirability of an active vs. passive speaker in the home is never going to happen.
At this point it seems the overall purpose is merely to have audiophiles accept active configuration as a viable approach next to passive, and get rid of some of the misconceptions here. Once there active can really begin its ascent into wider use (and configurations) in the domestic milieus.
|
@lonemountain wrote:
... I cannot believe there is this much misinformation about active.
Indeed there is.
|
@erik_squires --
Kudos on your active center channel speaker achievement.
Without getting too much into the alleged technical merits of each design, the thing that passive speakers give me is the ability to chose a very colorful amplifier.
You can do that actively as well, any amp you want. I mean, if you’re going to go active and do the filter settings yourself anyway, I’d say the more compelling route - unless your main objective is to minimize the component count, and insofar you intend to go more all-out with an active approach - is to go outboard active and that way get to choose any of the components as you see fit; power amps, DSP, DAC - that is, any separate outboard component here. No different compared to a passive setup except more amps to the separate driver sections, and a DSP (instead of a passive ditto) to handle filter settings. It’s still, per definition, active configuration, certainly if the filtration is done prior to amplification on signal level.
I just built a fully active, DSP driven center channel. What did I get? Excellent off-axis frequency response and massive dynamic range (comparable to ATC’s claimed figures) in a compact package along with objectively neutral frequency response which doesn’t mind being on a shelf while avoiding the need for yet another amplifier in my rack. Much as I love my Luxman integrated, I keep asking myself if I wouldn’t rather make 2 more active speakers and reduce my combined HT/stereo setup to 1 processor instead.
If you really want to pick your amp, go with passive. If you want to pick a speaker and not have to worry about your amp, go with active, but in no case should you pick speaker A over speaker B based on which of these types they are.
Your premise rests on the notion of limiting active configuration to a bundled solution with plate amps vs. the free choice of any amp passively. As such your "strong opinions" only cover so much of the actual potential of active to make it a worthwhile, more nuanced take comparing it to passive iterations. And that’s just with a center speaker. Imagine taking the next step to the main speakers.
From a certain perspective there’s some merit to your boldfaced part, in that actively the choice amp is less of a deal since the exclusion of a passive filter between amp and speaker frees up the workload of the amp considerably, and thereby maximizes its potential. This shaves off power requirement and harnesses better overall sound quality.
The choice of amp still makes a difference though, and although less so to my ears (compared to passive) it’s still a vital tweaking parameter with outboard active, that actually offers you this opportunity, instead of being stuck with a limited range of plate amps in a bundled solution.
In relation to pre-assembled active speakers the compelling reasons for a manufacturer to go bundled shouldn’t, and couldn’t necessarily apply similarly to the DIY segment. Coming down to it I’ll maintain DIY’ers and manufacturers are limiting themselves with a bundled approach only.
In the consumer world there are a lot of benefits to active speakers we may not care about. Dynamic range and power loss for instance. In the pro world we need every watt, and active crossovers deliver that. In the home world we are fine losing many DB’s of output due to massively overbought amps. 😀 That is, I can point to some technical benefits of active crossovers/speakers which are true, but perhaps irrelevant?
Depends on your benchmark. You want more headroom freeing up the amps (with less distortion to boot) and controlling the drivers more effectively, active makes a significant difference - not only in a pro environment, and not only providing more decibels; sonically, at all levels, the takeaway is there to savor as well.
As a consumer, do you really care that building a DSP crossover is much easier (not easy!) than passive, since we aren’t swapping parts in and out during the prototype phase? Not really. Does the digital time delay and off-axis frequency response matter to you? Most passive speakers do an excellent job with horizontal dispersion. The center I built though needed excellent vertical as well as horizontal dispersion, and that’s a feature I could only really consider in active/DSP configuration. Point is, a lot of the technical differences vanish for most of us.
Apart from the advantages I’ve mentioned earlier, DSP filter parameters with active config. matter a lot to me, also integrating subs. Actually integrating subs without the intricacy of parameters offered by a separate, quality DSP is severely hampered, from my point of view.
Having an active speaker with DSP doesn’t necessarily mean they let you adjust it for your room. You can use the DSP just for the crossover, like you would an active speaker.
This is an important point that I’ve raised quite a few times myself.
|
