What rough price does Hi-Fi sound start at ?

[Vladimir]

1) The person who benefits from an active crossover with fixed settings is the speaker designer himself. The consumer simply buys the end result, regardless what methodology to achieve it is being used, passive or active.

2) On the other hand an active electronic crossover with adjustable settings is beneficial for the tech-knowledgable consumer.

3) The worst active is not better than the best passive loudspeaker.

4) Lhc, read the postulate of Hanlon's razor.

5) Ashley James is Satan.

 

[The_Lhc]

4) Lhc, read the postulate of Hanlon's razor.

I was feeling generous, don't know what came over me...

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Vlad, understand I am not undermining ether method one way or the other but....

Not so long ago a couple of decades maybe, they had these things called graphic equalisers - some crazy notion that allowed users to tailor the sound of the set to the individuals liking.

Then for some reason the idea was frowned upon by purists and they were gone. today on many 'soft' players this idea has been introduced quietly again similar principle to your active crossover systems.

Why?.....it looks like only the manufacturers know what their kit is supposed to sound like - hence the lack of tone controls on their kit.

This is wear I think your current irk should lie. Not the output of devices but the ability to tailor the sound you've spent $$$ for, just so that you can achieve what you want with a little band tweaking.

I mean putting attenuaters so you have a wider volume sweep on an amp you''ve forked out close to a grand for to save you from suspected clipping?

for goodness sake...

Actually is this the right thread?

If not sorry, just quickly passing through....lol

1) The person who benefits from an active crossover with fixed settings is the speaker designer himself. The consumer simply buys the end result, regardless what methodology to achieve it is being used, passive or active.?

2) On the other hand an active electronic crossover with adjustable settings is beneficial for the tech-knowledgable consumer.

3) The worst active is not better than the best passive loudspeaker.

4) Lhc, read the postulate of Hanlon's razor.

5) Ashley James is Satan.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

The end result is the same Dave. Provided the electrical signal to the speaker is sufficient to allow the speaker to deliver its full harmonics without distortion...... It's all good.

The idea active is..... is just a myth.

David......

The principle behind those 2 diagrams is the same.

Difference being were the signal is split or the placement of the crossover.

Look at them. To suggest one config is superior to the other is silly.

Its just two design philosophlies being executed.

I know you Have a thing of passive being inferior - but a single box, solid state integrated amp will perform equal to any 'active' system you may care to pit it against.

But the active system will lack the flexibility of improving your amplification if you choose to do so.

And please spare me ant talk of 'in an active system the amps are designed to optimal specification to work with the speakers.'

I know, it's another blind test challenge isn't it?

Look at and compare these diagrams, it might help.

But then again, clearly it might not, oh well........*dash1*

You need to investgate the difference between active and passive crossovers and also the effect that passive crossovers have on the signal being sent to the speaker from the amplifier.

Take your time.

 

[Vladimir]

I use DSP in JRiver to tailor the sound I like, as well as bass traps and even speaker damping stuffing. Tone controls are a blunt instrument IMO, don't want them, don't need them.

I have volume attenuation on my audio interface so I'm good on that front as well. Those that don't have the means to attenuate CD/DAC/AI output may need inline attenuators, and as we saw, a pair of good ones is under 40 quid. No drama.

I really don't understand the nature of your protest.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Protest?.... What protest?

If we lived near each other Vlad we could pop round each other's place and tinker with set-ups.

I don't know the environment your system is in or have an understanding of its acoustic property's so will accept all you do to achieve the sound you want is necessary.

I don't use any of those and I'm happy with the sound I have achieved.

A graphic equaliser could achieve all you have was all I was suggesting.

I use DSP in JRiver to tailor the sound I like, as well as bass traps and even speaker damping stuffing. Tone controls are a blunt instrument IMO, don't want them, don't need them.

I have volume attenuation on my audio interface so I'm good on that front as well. Those that don't have the means to attenuate CD/DAC/AI output may need inline attenuators, and as we saw, a pair of good ones is under 40 quid. No drama.

I really don't understand the nature of your protest. 

 

[relocated]

The accuracy of headphones drove me on to find a speaker system that could compete and when I found it, it was one of the most glorious moments in my life.

A somewhat 'over-the-top' reaction to just finding a hi-fi you really liked.

Your ignorant and small minded comment is a sad reflection on you Chebby. I feel sorry for you.

When are the forum moderators going to step in and stop these overly common trollish and personally insulting posts from the AVI gang?

If it's "never" that's OK. At least we would all know where we stand then.

Yes, let's try to avoid personal insults.

You are having a laugh, right? I express a difference of opinion in non aggressive, non bad language terms and this draws comment from you. Yet someone can use the term 'fuckwit' [yes I know it wasn't aimed at anyone] without comment or moderating?????????

Let's have a flat playing field here. I get it that WHF have a problem with me, for some misguided reason, but this is out of order and completely unnecessary.

 

[relocated]

David......

The principle behind those 2 diagrams is the same.

Difference being were the signal is split or the placement of the crossover.

Look at them. To suggest one config is superior to the other is silly.

Its just two design philosophlies being executed.

I know you Have a thing of passive being inferior - but a single box, solid state integrated amp will perform equal to any 'active' system you may care to pit it against.

But the active system will lack the flexibility of improving your amplification if you choose to do so.

And please spare me ant talk of 'in an active system the amps are designed to optimal specification to work with the speakers.'

I know, it's another blind test challenge isn't it?

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

*biggrin*

 

[BigH]

Protest?.... What protest?

If we lived near each other Vlad we could pop round each other's place and tinker with set-ups.

I don't know the environment your system is in or have an understanding of its acoustic property's so will accept all you do to achieve the sound you want is necessary.

I don't use any of those and I'm happy with the sound I have achieved.

A graphic equaliser could achieve all you have was all I was suggesting.

I use DSP in JRiver to tailor the sound I like, as well as bass traps and even speaker damping stuffing. Tone controls are a blunt instrument IMO, don't want them, don't need them.

I have volume attenuation on my audio interface so I'm good on that front as well. Those that don't have the means to attenuate CD/DAC/AI output may need inline attenuators, and as we saw, a pair of good ones is under 40 quid. No drama.

I really don't understand the nature of your protest.

What is your system?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Test - having issues posting

 

[Thompsonuxb]

@bigH

NAD c660 dual deck cdplayer/recorder.

QED quennex1 / P75 coax.
Yamaha DSP ax-620

Mission 782se

Biwired QED Silver Anniversary and unknown cable.

Works well across all genres it really does. Would challenge any other system in this forum with it......

 

[Vladimir]

Would challenge any other system in this forum with it......

You do realise there are members here with corner speakers bigger than most bathrooms?

Can you expand further on this challenge you are offering? Don't spare us the details.

 

[The_Lhc]

Yes, let's try to avoid personal insults.

You are having a laugh, right? I express a difference of opinion in non aggressive, non bad language terms and this draws comment from you. Yet someone can use the term 'fuckwit' [yes I know it wasn't aimed at anyone] without comment or moderating?????????

Hummm, you know I was kind of expecting the swear filter to remove that word when I typed it. We do still have a swear filter right? *scratch_one-s_head*

 

[relocated]

Yes, let's try to avoid personal insults.

You are having a laugh, right? I express a difference of opinion in non aggressive, non bad language terms and this draws comment from you. Yet someone can use the term 'fuckwit' [yes I know it wasn't aimed at anyone] without comment or moderating?????????

Hummm, you know I was kind of expecting the swear filter to remove that word when I typed it. We do still have a swear filter right? *scratch_one-s_head*

Well I did wonder, as I don't remember you being a circumventor of the [now non-existant?????] swear filter. There have been a number of posts since the 'upgrade' about the uselessness of the swear filter, but unfortunately it seems that this info has not produced any solution.

 

[The_Lhc]

Yes, let's try to avoid personal insults.

You are having a laugh, right? I express a difference of opinion in non aggressive, non bad language terms and this draws comment from you. Yet someone can use the term 'fuckwit' [yes I know it wasn't aimed at anyone] without comment or moderating?????????

Hummm, you know I was kind of expecting the swear filter to remove that word when I typed it. We do still have a swear filter right? *scratch_one-s_head*

Well I did wonder, as I don't remember you being a circumventor of the [now non-existant?????] swear filter. There have been a number of posts since the 'upgrade' about the uselessness of the swear filter, but unfortunately it seems that this info has not produced any solution.

I've not investigated it but I recall with the old one there were certain combinations of words that the old filter would pass even if it would have blocked one or more of the individual words on their own, so perhaps that's what's happened there. I'm not going to run any trials though!

Annoying though, with a working filter you just type what's coming out of your brain without having to stop the flow to self-edit the swearing. Guess I'll have to be more pro-active (sorry!) on that front now.

 

[steve_1979]

Guess I'll have to be more pro-active (sorry!)

That would only cause more swearing.

 

[relocated]

Guess I'll have to be more pro-active (sorry!)

That would only cause more swearing.

You beat me to it Steve. Congrats LHC. *mosking* Not that I know what 'mosking' means.

 

[The_Lhc]

Guess I'll have to be more pro-active (sorry!)

That would only cause more swearing.

You beat me to it Steve. Congrats LHC. *mosking*

I only meant I'd need to be more pro-active about editing my own swearing, that was all, I wasn't suggesting I'm going to be posting more than usual. The "sorry" was for using such a hideous word as "pro-active", I'm already hating myself for it...

 

[relocated]

Guess I'll have to be more pro-active (sorry!)

That would only cause more swearing.

You beat me to it Steve. Congrats LHC. *mosking*

I only meant I'd need to be more pro-active about editing my own swearing, that was all, I wasn't suggesting I'm going to be posting more than usual. The "sorry" was for using such a hideous word as "pro-active", I'm already hating myself for it...

And so you should, you absolute Boundah!

Oh damn I probably shouldn't have said that. And now I've used damn, so I might get put on the naughty step. Oh woe is me, in this intricate nest of vipers, that is the WHF Forums, it doth show that I should spend more time in 'I've got a very pretty pussy cat' fora.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol.....

It was not a real challenge, just a 'it's as good as anything...' thing.

I've ventured into upgrading and honestly, I heard different but not better.

It suits the room it's in perfectly.

Would challenge any other system in this forum with it......

You do realise there are members here with corner speakers bigger than most bathrooms?

Can you expand further on this challenge you are offering? Don't spare us the details.

 

[BigH]

@bigH

NAD c660 dual deck cdplayer/recorder.

QED quennex1 / P75 coax. Yamaha DSP ax-620

Mission 782se

Biwired QED Silver Anniversary and unknown cable.

Works well across all genres it really does. Would challenge any other system in this forum with it......

Really I had some Misson speakers, I thought they were good until I got my new system. Of course biwiring makes so much diffeence.