@devinplombier wrote:
I (largely) agree with you on this subject. I’ve auditioned high-end active setups and found that they sounded wonderful.
A conundrum and bottleneck of sorts is the DSP unit. As you pointed out, quality is important. Relatively few choices exist, and most come from the pro world (which I don’t consider a disqualifier in and of itself; indeed, folks who do audio for a living have long since solved problems that leave seasoned Audiophiles drowning in a glass of water - especially in the digital realm. But I digress).
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, a DSP unit of lesser quality can be a bottleneck itself, but putting it into perspective you could argue whether it’s an issue of equal, relative importance next to passive crossovers and them being a bottleneck both due to their placement in the chain, as well as the quality (or lack thereof) and complexity of the passive crossovers themselves.
It’s not only about passive vs. active crossover (electronic/analogue or DSP) in an isolated sense, but also what the latter facilitates with multiple, independently loaded amps that are freed of running a full-range signal, and which gives active a further advantage. Not to mention making better use of a given amp’s potential in an active context when it’s presented with an oftentimes significantly easier load. Speaking of which: I suspect many of the larger, ultra expensive and passively configured speakers (like Wilson Audio and others) require overbuilt amps costing a downright fortune not so much due to added speaker transparency, but in particular because they’re an extremely difficult load that’s in need of monster amps to have them come alive and maintain decent control. Actively you could "get away" with much less, and still come out better in the end.
And yes, not many quality DSP units are readily available, at least not that I’m aware of, and the ones I’d recommend are mostly from the pro sector. It’s makes for fewer choices, but if they’re to be had locally then many more options mayn’t be necessary insofar they can accommodate the requirements.
A DSP / crossover unit does add an AD/DA conversion, usually whether it’s needed or not. In fairness, the benefits of DSP largely outweigh whatever sound degradation may happen as a result of that conversion.
It’s certainly a matter of seeing the forest for trees here, yes.
A DSP unit needs to have the appropriate IO combination for your project. For instance, a dbx venu360, which is a 3x6 unit, works well controlling a pair of 3-way speakers, but has no additional outputs in case you wish to add subs later.
True. Although DSP’s with 8 output channels are fairly common and which should accommodate most speaker designs, but 5-way designs might face issues with DSP availability.
Also, most DSP units support rates up to 24/96 or 48/96, so if DSD is your thing the DSP unit will convert and resample it.
Correct, and then it’s up to each to decide whether that’s an acceptable compromise or not - not least given the potential gains more broadly speaking with active config. I’m amazed by the potential of a lossless PCM 16/44.1kHz signal with a quality recording and excellent front-end + active speaker setup, not least seeing the outcome of remastered high-res versions very often leaving a lot to be desired. Truth be told I don’t really care that much about high-res, certainly not as a necessary quality marker in itself in every case, but I’m aware many may disagree on this.
Notwithstanding the above, active / DSP speakers sound wonderful. I would definitely recommend anyone serious about gear audition them.
Indeed, but it’s not easy to persuade people into giving outboard active a fair shot, and I can see why in many cases. It’s tempting to tell them instead go experimenting with a secondary setup with more limited means, but really it’s the more all-out approach over an existing main system that will show the true mettle of outboard active config., and the positive experiences that need to be exposed here.
