Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Active vs. passive XOs.An opinion is forming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Active vs. passive XOs.An opinion is forming...

    Hello,

    Stay with me in this post for a while, and in the end I think that there is a point being made....

    Some of you may remember that I have stated that I think that the greatest lift in SQ in my main system

    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/album.php?albumid=160

    was when I tri-amped the system prior to introducing DSP and DCX2496 and stuff.

    Now I have tweaked another system that I have "plagued" you with info on, The KEF-system in this album:

    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/album.php?albumid=485
    Perry Mason talking to his dentist:

    "Do you swear to take the tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth, so help you God?"

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3

      Comment


      • #4

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by IBM5150 View Post
          lasse:
          No experience with DCX2496 but I tried MiniDSP in two different ways, using it as a subwoofer crossover and using it as a 2 way crossover. At first I liked it, there was a noticeable change. After a while I just didn't enjoy listening to the speakers at all with either scenario, sub or 2-way. I switched the sub to speaker level and line level inputs and thought either sounded better than the MiniDSP. Also put back the passive crossovers in the Pee Creek speakers and thought it sounded better than the MiniDSP. Of course this could all be operator dependent or maybe my screwing around damaged the MiniDSP. Also possible someone who knew what they were doing could program the MiniDSP that would give better results than I achieved. I was using the EMM-6 mic and REW to get my frequency response graphs and adjusted from there.

          Eric
          Questions:
          • How similar were the frequency responses of the system when you used the MiniDSP crossover versus "the other way"?
          • If you went from passive to active, how were you sure that you duplicated the transfer functions using the MiniDSP?
          • You mentioned that you used the EMM-6 to "get my frequency response graphs" - did you measure both on and off axis?

          It seems that many i's were not dotted and t's not crossed in your comparison, at least based on what you DIDN'T mention. Can you give more info?

          -Charlie
          Charlie's Audio Pages: http://audio.claub.net

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cptomes View Post
            How does the dbx sound better?
            The DR260 costs 3x what a DCX does so it MUST sound better.. or at least that's what most people would expect, but personally I don't buy it because I can't perceive that the DCX has any characteristic sound whatsoever and that's comparing it to a very good Rane analog crossover.
            Paul O

            Comment


            • #7

              Comment


              • #8
                "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
                "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
                "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
                "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

                *InDIYana event website*

                Photobucket pages:
                https://app.photobucket.com/u/wolf_teeth_speaker

                My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
                http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

                Comment


                • #9
                  Perry Mason talking to his dentist:

                  "Do you swear to take the tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth, so help you God?"

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by clydethecat View Post
                      It's all about the transfer function. A speaker with a well-designed passive crossover will outperform one with an active crossover, if the active is using generic filter shapes.
                      Yes, but what about active crossovers with minor passive tweaks? Best of both worlds?
                      "We are just statistics, born to consume resources."
                      ~Horace~, 65-8 BC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...innell-or-Bust You can build a great passive system but the room can really mess you up without EQ.

                        Ron
                        C-Note Iron Driver Build
                        The Lydias
                        The Cherry π's
                        The Champs - Iron Driver 2015 Entry
                        My Projects Page

                        The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. - Neil deGrasse Tyson
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by clydethecat View Post
                          It's all about the transfer function. A speaker with a well-designed passive crossover will outperform one with an active crossover, if the active is using generic filter shapes.
                          This. Assuming the same transfer function can be achieved by both methods (NOT always or even usually the case, and certainly active opens the door for a lot more potential driver pairings because things such as relative efficiency differences become basically irrelevant) the only sonic difference is that passive requires a smidge more power (due to insertion losses) to achieve the same SPL.

                          Originally posted by Tin_Ears View Post
                          Yes, but what about active crossovers with minor passive tweaks? Best of both worlds?
                          Why do anything passive, if there is enough DSP horsepower to get the desired transfer function without it? There's no benefit to it, unless we're talking about something like making a 3-way stereo speaker pair using a 2x4 miniDSP.
                          --
                          "Based on my library and laboratory research, I have concluded, as have others, that the best measures of speaker quality are frequency response and dispersion pattern. I have not found any credible research showing that most of the differences we hear among loudspeakers cannot be explained by examining these two variables." -Alvin Foster, 22 BAS Speaker 2 (May, 1999)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Perry Mason talking to his dentist:

                            "Do you swear to take the tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth, so help you God?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paul O View Post
                              The DR260 costs 3x what a DCX does so it MUST sound better.. or at least that's what most people would expect, but personally I don't buy it because I can't perceive that the DCX has any characteristic sound whatsoever and that's comparing it to a very good Rane analog crossover.
                              Loren Jones

                              http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...-sound-drivers

                              http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...for-live-sound

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X