HI Georgehifi
I have no doubt you experienced what you say as I can see you have written a enthusiastic response. AS one who's been in audio a lifetime, I have been completely convinced by a demo I discovered later was a flawed. I too have heard some crossovers I do not like, especially the digital kind. I do believe digital DSP can be neutral, Weiss is a good example but its SO expensive. I also believe Class D can be good, example is Theta Digital, also quite pricey.
The science on this is quite clear: the passive arrangement introduces a large array of significant artifacts, all measurable and audible. Active also has some artifacts, but far fewer and more difficult to measure and hear. The reduction of audible errors in total is the goal of properly executed active design. Its a holistic design approach if you will. Solve the biggest issues first and then work to get the rest down. Distortion is the enemy, and once inside the driver, whether created by the driver itself or what comes before is impossible to remove. How about we prevent its creation? The speaker company I'm associated with pursues this goal though engineering in every move they make.
DSP is not an inevitable "must have" part of an active design. Well executed actives are available that are 100% analog, input to speaker output, with high end discrete variants available for those with bigger budgets.
Brad
|
I started off making my own 12db/octave actives in 1976 with a TL074 op-amp, poly caps and metal film resistors, no pots. I did use manufactured crossovers to select the slope that I liked best, but after that removed it. The new LM6172IN opamps are killer and do sound better. Still using all fixed components, switches to select xover frequencies. I’ve settled on the slope and crossover frequencies that work the best for me, so no switches or pots. Yes, all analog. Three class A amplifiers. |
Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive. Cheap class D are not going to cut it. Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with. |
@andy2 --
Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive.
Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?
Whether or not going active, be that bundled/preset or as separates/DIY, is "worth the trouble" is up to each to decide, but I'd wager active being less popular is very much due to conjecture, habitual use and conservativism rather than assessing it, openly, on its own merits and the basis of sound quality.
Cheap class D are not going to cut it. Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with. Active configuration renders amplification less vital, meaning cheaper amps in particular will perform somewhat better (and closer to their über-priced brethren) in active config's being given better conditions not looking into a passive cross-over, with all that entails. That doesn't mean you have to go cheap, but conversely going very expensive here won't bring the same potential advantages compared to a passively configured context. The resolving capabilities of active however more clearly exposes changes on the side of the front end, cabling, wall power and such. Maybe an issue with active config, from the perspective of certain amp manufacturers, is that amps matter less here, but it may also present an issue to those costumers who buys with their expectations and wallets rather than with their ears and assimilating to the proper (active) context. |
Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?
It seems pretty complicated the way you described it. With passive, there's nothing to setup. You just hook to the amp and that's about it. |
