Ajani said:
I was waiting all those years for enlightenment and you finally gave it.
I am a convert
I was waiting all those years for enlightenment and you finally gave it.
I am a convert
steve_1979 said:
Steve, you didn't quote everything that Ashley James said. Go on quote it all, including his and JCBrums and your follow up posts.
I think it's very poor form what you and Ashley James and JCbrum have written on that AVI forum thread.
Instead of coming up with any sort of answer to what I have written here, the 3 of you have focused on insulting me personally.
lindsayt said:
As you no doubt know, this kind of behaviour is true to form and one of the reasons why no serious-minded people pay any attention to him. (I could give other reasons.)
Can someone with more technical know-how explain what happened in that German article with the ATCs? Ashley or Lindsay, anyone?
steve_1979
Well-known member
steve_1979
Well-known member
lindsayt said:
With all due respect all of your previous comments clearly show you've totally failed to understand this point:
Re: Passive speakers[/u]
"for no sound to come out a driver, the passive crossover must effectively disconnect the amp from it. The impedance seen by the amp starts to rise from a few hundred Hz. It is this action, far more than the resistance of the inductors, that reduces damping right through the range and dramatically."
Re: Active speakers[/u]
"In an active design, the crossover doesn't use lossy and distortion introducing inductors and it is placed before the power amp, which remains permanently connected to the driver and maintaining maximum damping/control over its entire operating range."
lindsayt said:
Me? I've said nothing personally insulting about you. Nor would I.
A heated debate is all good fun IMO and best not to be taken too seriously. But if I've said anything that's actually caused you genuine offence then I apologize.
steve_1979 said:
The problem is that heated debates usually are taken too seriously. Else they'd be cool rather than heated. I think the problem is that no one is going to change their position, so it's just knowing when to let go of the argument. Let's be real here, neither side of this debate is really taking the technical explanations of the other side seriously. I'm sure most persons on the active side regard lindsayt's points as nonsense, just as he seems to regard all their explanations. So eventually it just descends to frustration and possibly name calling. So best just to let go. Nothing you say will change his opinion just as nothing he says will change yours.
steve_1979
Well-known member
Ajani said:
Quite right. That pretty much sums up all magic cable, digital vs vinyl and high rez music threads too.
Lets all chill and be nice to one another (even when we're disagreeing). It's Christmas after all. *drinks*
matt49 said:
While I'd never say any of things Ash does, I can somewhat understand why he's so abrasive. If you really believe that most of HiFi is a blatant ripoff based around selling foo, then it might be hard to keep your cool as you try to explain for the thousandth time why X/Y doesn't make sense. I've always felt he'd better off just not bothering to explain and letting his products speak for themselves.
Ajani said:
That is very charitable. I'm afraid I can't agree. But in the spirit of seasonal goodwill, I'll leave it at that.
I'm not really participating, but finding it interesting. I don't have the technical understanding the fully grasp the theoretical reasons why one would be superior to the other and have no way of experiencing the things lindsayt describes, but I find it interesting to consider nonetheless. Maybe I'm not bothered by cognitive dissonance or maybe not everything is as cut and dried or absolute as some online arguments seem to get.
I agree that neither side is going to be swayed by one another's arguments but it is interesting to have them out there.
I agree that neither side is going to be swayed by one another's arguments but it is interesting to have them out there.
matt49 said:
Fair enough.
Anyway, I asked this question in your system thread but since it's an old thread I'm not sure you still monitor it:
Cool setup, but what's the point of using the Audiolab MDAC? Since I note that you have it between the DSPeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 and your amp.
ID. said:
Yep, ain't that the truth.
Nothing is 100% clear in HiFi. As much as I value equipment measuring well, it's obvious that we don't know how to measure all the relevant variables. If we did, then you could simply look at the measurements for a speaker and know exactly how it will sound. So no need to audition anything.
I do look forward to the day when we know how to measure everything, even your sonic preferences. A HiFi system would be like a properly tailored suit. Designed to meet your tastes, living conditions etc...
Im late to this topic but the amp should ideally not be in the cabinet for simple acoustics reasons. So lets take the amps out the active speaker cabinet. Then the question is about crossover in the speaker vs 'crossover in the amp'. I doubt there is a clear winner there so I'd say that it resume with multiple amp vs single question. I think a single is better, a very good toroidal with precisely matched handpicked components for the circuit is just too expensive to do 4 or 6 times just for a pair of speakers. Good speaker builder and amp designer should not be the same team because its different skills. Separation leads to specialization. Not to mention that I can plug another amp and enjoy my speakers better. But I could also mimatch. Assuming I wont mismatch I believe that passive is better.
Ajani said:
Sorry, I don't check that thread very often.
As it happens, I'm not using the M-DAC any more, just using the Anti-Mode as DRC, DAC and pre-amp. So your question was right on the money. I initially used the M-DAC because I prefer its remote control to the Anti-Mode's, which has to be one of the cheapest bits of rubbish there is. But eventually the appeal of simplicity won out.
The longer-term plan is to replace the Anti-Mode with John Westlake's new F-DAC, currently in development. The F-DAC is successor to the M-DAC, but a completely new SOTA design. It'll incorporate DRC with Dirac, so making the Anti-Mode redundant.
steve_1979 said:lindsayt said:
With all due respect all of your previous comments clearly show you've totally failed to understand this point:
Re: Passive speakers
"for no sound to come out a driver, the passive crossover must effectively disconnect the amp from it. The impedance seen by the amp starts to rise from a few hundred Hz. It is this action, far more than the resistance of the inductors, that reduces damping right through the range and dramatically."
Re: Active speakers
"In an active design, the crossover doesn't use lossy and distortion introducing inductors and it is placed before the power amp, which remains permanently connected to the driver and maintaining maximum damping/control over its entire operating range."
lindsayt said:
Me? I've said nothing personally insulting about you. Nor would I.
A heated debate is all good fun IMO and best not to be taken too seriously. But if I've said anything that's actually caused you genuine offence then I apologize.
Steve, I fully understand the totally MISLEADING nature of the two paragraphs you have quoted.
I have already given a partial explanation as to why they are misleading in my previous posts in this thread, including #35 #89 and #93.
Is there anything in those posts that you disagree with? Is there anything that you don't understand in those posts? (Please please please play the ball here (with the "ball" being posts #35, #75, #89 & #93). Please don't play the man).
The active vs passive debate ineveitably leads onto discussions about speaker design - which is a complex subject full of swings and roundabouts compromises.
At this point I want to re-state my position on actives vs passives. Which is: in some scenarios actives will sound overall better, in others passive will sound overall better.
Let's dissect Ashley James MISLEADING statement "re: Passive speakers"
Remember this circuit diagram from #89:
The amplifier output is not shown in this diagram. It's connected to the terminals on the left.
Please note that the midrange unit and treble units are wired in paralled with the bass units.
Ashley James said "for no sound to come out a driver, the passive crossover must effectively disconnect the amp from it". Disconnect is not the word I would use to describe what's happening in the most appropriate manner.
The reality of what's happening is that as the frequency rises, inparticular above the crossover frequency of 400hz, the reactance of inductor L1 increases. We can calculate by how much by using this tool (that I mentioned in #89) http://www.electronics2000.co.uk/calc/reactance-calculator.php
So that for my 1.58mH L1 inductor:
At 400 hz: 4 ohms reactance
At 800 hz: 8 ohms
At 1600 hz: 16 ohms
At 3200 hz: 31.8 ohms
What this means is that as the electricity coming from the amp increases in frequency, it will be increasingly directed to the midrange unit. Directed because the midrange unit is wired in parallel. And because electricity will flow most via the path of least resistance.
OK we could say that the amp has been disconnected from the bass unit at higher frequencies. But the trouble with that is that it implies something bad is happening, because disconnection implies a lack of control and control is generally a good thing. The reality is that all that's happening is that less electricity is going to the bass unit and more is going to the midrange unit at these higher frequencies. After all, that is what we want!
Something else that we need to remember is that the bass drivers will have a natural fall off in output as the frequency rises. This is something that anyone can test by wiring an amp directly to a bass driver and playing full range music through it (please never do the same test with midrange units or tweeters as there's an extremely high chance you will break them).
So that at 1600 hz, for example, my bass cones are receiving little electricity (thank to L1) and are converting an extremely low amount of that electricity to sound (thanks to the natural roll off in efficiency of that driver as frequencies rise).
Ashley James said "The impedance seen by the amp starts to rise from a few hundred Hz". It is true that the impedance / reactance of the bass driver part of the circuit rises from a few hundred HZ. But, because we have midrange units / tweeters wired in parallel, the impedance seen by the amp will be largely dependent on the impedance of the midrange / tweeter part of the speaker circuit.
"It is this action, far more than the resistance of the inductors, that reduces damping right through the range and dramatically."
The Wikipedia entry on damping factor says: "In loudspeaker systems, the value of the damping factor between a particular loudspeaker and a particular amplifier describes the ability of the amplifier to control undesirable movement of the speaker cone near the resonant frequency of the speaker system. It is usually used in the context of low-frequency driver behavior, and especially so in the case of electrodynamic drivers, which use a magnetic motor to generate the forces which move the diaphragm."
It is unimportant if we have a high electrical damping factor way outside the resonant frequency of the speaker - eg 120 hz and above on my bass units. Why? Because at those frequencies the speaker cone will have it's own natural mechanical damping (I will be happy to discuss damping and spring effects on bass cones in another post).
I will address the MISLEADING statements made by Ashley James on Active Crossovers in another post.
BigH
Well-known member
pyrrhon said:
You have missed out several points. One the speaker maunfacturer does not know what amp will be used and also the amp. manufacturer does not know what speakers you will use. So yes there will be many mismatches. With active they do know the demands of each, therefore can tailor the amp. for each speaker, ie. you can have 200w for the bass/mid driver and 50w for the tweeters for instance. They will know how many Ohms also. I don't agree that active crossovers and passive are the same and many speakers use cheap crossovers. You can look at the PMC video about active and passive speakers, that will explain some of the advantages of active, they make both types. I have tried both from what I heard my active ones were better than the passive systems I heard costing upto 50% more, I'm sure you can find a perfect passive match but its not easy. Also the cost was/is lower for active and you don't need to buy any speaker cables, which is another factor, so no need to spend 100s on cables to get that night and day difference. You want to read this: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0403/
and this: http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm
I'm not saying everyone will prefer active but I think they should be auditioned when choosing a system.
Ajani said:
Would you please stop being so reasonable!
It's becoming annoying now and is creating far to much feel-good-factor.
BigH said:
But at least you should agree that the amp should not be in the cabinet to start the reasoning. Then you don't accept the second point that solving the frequency overlap of tweeter/woofer can be done equally well if the crossover is in the speaker rather then the amp. What's left is really a matter of having multiple amps but they are not tailored to the woofer in the way you think, it's a question of economy, if they put 100 watt on the tweater amp they will have to put resistance in the circuit because it needs less juice to play the same level. Having more amps brings a full set of problems. My m3-8 are tri amplified so by your theory they should best yours. They have 3 gain adjuster at the back making an awesome equalizer but the linearity of the volume is not perfect and I use calibration tool to verify. When you start to hear how a good amp affect sound you'll quickly agree that you can't afford 2 or 3 per speaker. Amps have to be isolated from vibration and cabinet should not be filled, even more so with electronics.
IMO a lot of things writen about actives are just pure marketing BS. Amplifiers speacially matched, specially designed electronic crossovers, etc. All pure rubbish. They use the cheapest ready made stuff that will do the job, things that make audiophiles hair stand on end. And they openly lie/mislead about the specified performance no less than AVR and mini system manufacturers. it's what all businesses do by default in order to compete. I can list plenty of examples even at high priced gear, but I better spare owners egos. I looked at amplification used in many actives and I think I need to spend many thousands of pounds to come close to the quality of amps I've owend with my passive speakers for much less money. The drivers they use are off the shelf stuff, some modifications perhaps, but nothing to write home about.
The point of that German test in the article is to show that with good speakers differences between active and passive can be either way and certanly not night and day in good designs. Is this the same valid for all actives/passives, I don't know. I'd like to find out but unfortunatly that wont happen in this thread the way things are progressing.
My undecided position now is that a well designed speaker sounds good, no matter the technology or even quality of parts. John Dunlavy was notorious for using cheaper stuff because it measured better or it was as good as the boutique parts. His speakers were hi-end killers and are still hoarded by studio owners. I now have a pair of small plastic China Made actives that sound very very good to my ears and they are made very very cheaply, but the design on system level (not component level) is probably the reason why they sound this good. When we come down to component level, we are not seing the forest for the trees.
The standards for a good speaker in studios and domestic hi-fi are obviously different. In the former neutrality, details and balance, and the later looks, quality feel and euphonic sound. Higher price will buy you higher quality build in each. So if you want neutrality, balance and details, no domestic hi-fi is good enough for you. If you want looks, quality feel and euphonic sound, no studio monitor will end up in your living room.
That AVI company of that wan*er Ashley James is obviously trying to bridge this gap and many have found it as a brilliant product. However, the fact is it is some sort of a tranny, those that like euphonic sound, don't care if AVI looks and feels good and will just ignore the product, don't even have to listen to it. Same for studio engineers. They will not pay extra for nice veneers and more audiophile amps, expensive drivers. They will just buy the studio pro ugly ducklings that do the job, they are tools after all. Ashley James is not an educator, not an engineer, he is a businessman. What he thinks and what he says dosn't matter. It's what he does. Studio pros don't give a to**er who Ashley James is so he is giving his best to leverage as many people from the audiophile euophonic loving crowd into his niche with more neutral sound. That's why he is telling that everyone who likes euophonic is an indoctrinated fool. The man just wants to sell his product and survive on the market. Obviously it's not winning him any friends, but that's not his motivation. Businesses want (returning) customers.
This thread pi$$es me off. Steve, you are a genius! *biggrin*
The point of that German test in the article is to show that with good speakers differences between active and passive can be either way and certanly not night and day in good designs. Is this the same valid for all actives/passives, I don't know. I'd like to find out but unfortunatly that wont happen in this thread the way things are progressing.
My undecided position now is that a well designed speaker sounds good, no matter the technology or even quality of parts. John Dunlavy was notorious for using cheaper stuff because it measured better or it was as good as the boutique parts. His speakers were hi-end killers and are still hoarded by studio owners. I now have a pair of small plastic China Made actives that sound very very good to my ears and they are made very very cheaply, but the design on system level (not component level) is probably the reason why they sound this good. When we come down to component level, we are not seing the forest for the trees.
The standards for a good speaker in studios and domestic hi-fi are obviously different. In the former neutrality, details and balance, and the later looks, quality feel and euphonic sound. Higher price will buy you higher quality build in each. So if you want neutrality, balance and details, no domestic hi-fi is good enough for you. If you want looks, quality feel and euphonic sound, no studio monitor will end up in your living room.
That AVI company of that wan*er Ashley James is obviously trying to bridge this gap and many have found it as a brilliant product. However, the fact is it is some sort of a tranny, those that like euphonic sound, don't care if AVI looks and feels good and will just ignore the product, don't even have to listen to it. Same for studio engineers. They will not pay extra for nice veneers and more audiophile amps, expensive drivers. They will just buy the studio pro ugly ducklings that do the job, they are tools after all. Ashley James is not an educator, not an engineer, he is a businessman. What he thinks and what he says dosn't matter. It's what he does. Studio pros don't give a to**er who Ashley James is so he is giving his best to leverage as many people from the audiophile euophonic loving crowd into his niche with more neutral sound. That's why he is telling that everyone who likes euophonic is an indoctrinated fool. The man just wants to sell his product and survive on the market. Obviously it's not winning him any friends, but that's not his motivation. Businesses want (returning) customers.
This thread pi$$es me off. Steve, you are a genius! *biggrin*
steve_1979
Well-known member
Vladimir said:
Genius? I'm an idiot more like!
I knew from the start that this thread should have been avoided (like all cable and other similar threads) but I went ahead and jumped in anyway. Also my earlier comment about tossing in a granade as this thread being to polite and friendly was only intended to be in jest BTW guys.
Anyway... Merry Christmas all. *drinks*
First of all, you should know that passive crossovers are microphonic too, perhaps more so than solid state electronics, so by your logic should not be in the enclosure either.
Secondly, if the tweeters have the same sensitivity as the bass drivers (in a two way) then there will be no attenuating network and the peak power requirement is the same as for the woofers. It is true that the continuous power will be much less but that is simply to do with the way that musical energy is distributed through the frequency range.
In the pro world, integrating the electronics with the speaker is primarily for practical reasons and in the budget 'prosumer' range for cost reasons. 'Plate' amplifiers are built to be good enough for the application, no more that is wasting money, however 'good enough' in this context is audibly and measurably transparent. Replacing the 'good enough' plate amplifier with a 'better' amplifier will make no difference in this case, virtually by definition.
The reason better amplifiers sound better than less good amplifiers with passive speakers is that the less good amplifiers were not up to the job in the first place, something that should not be the case with active designs. I say 'should' as there are some really bad active speakers out there, much the same as regular hi-fi in fact.
Secondly, if the tweeters have the same sensitivity as the bass drivers (in a two way) then there will be no attenuating network and the peak power requirement is the same as for the woofers. It is true that the continuous power will be much less but that is simply to do with the way that musical energy is distributed through the frequency range.
In the pro world, integrating the electronics with the speaker is primarily for practical reasons and in the budget 'prosumer' range for cost reasons. 'Plate' amplifiers are built to be good enough for the application, no more that is wasting money, however 'good enough' in this context is audibly and measurably transparent. Replacing the 'good enough' plate amplifier with a 'better' amplifier will make no difference in this case, virtually by definition.
The reason better amplifiers sound better than less good amplifiers with passive speakers is that the less good amplifiers were not up to the job in the first place, something that should not be the case with active designs. I say 'should' as there are some really bad active speakers out there, much the same as regular hi-fi in fact.
I landed on the grenade, but it's all banter and in good fun. Not to be taken too seriously. Merry X! *drinks*
steve_1979 said:It's pointless dissecting your various posts as you ask. You have written many long posts yet you keep completely failing to grasp the basic concepts of what has been discussed here. Until you can understand the points made below all that further discussion on this subject will achieve is wasted time and fustration for us both as we go around in circles getting nowhere. Also it's Christmas and I have much more interesting thigs to do with my time than spend the next few days arguing with internet strangers about a subject that I don't even care much about.
1. Why steeper crossovers are better than shallow crossovers (in both 2 and 3 way speakers) because it reduces the the amount of audio the drivers are playing outside of the range they can handle.
2. Why having a crossover between the amplifier and driver progressively removes control of the amplifier the closer to the crossover frequency it gets in order to stop the full range signal from the amplifier from reaching a driver. Like I said in my first post this is like the amplifier in a passive system is trying to push the driver in and out using a spring instead of having a a tight grip on the movement of the driver.
3. Why point 2 above also means that the amplifier has to work twice as hard in a passive system as the amplifiers do in an active system.
The bolded part. I've noticed on several articles in Stereophile JA would criticize certain speakers that didn't have steep enough crossover attenuation and a driver is going into breakup mode just enough audible to cause coloration that may be interpreted as midrange detail, presence or when played at louder volumes as brightness and harshness.
If you are tuning the speakers by ear, you may think you got good results and now the midrange is more detailed and alive with less crossover parts, not knowing this is false impression due to audible breakup modes. He Zu Audio Essence is the main go to example how simplicity and ignoring engineering basics results in outright sh*t. But, there are people outhere who think that is good euphonic sound and will buy it and praise it more than any other more neutral speaker (like the Revel Salon 2s).
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram