My new DeanG networks…

[Guest Steven1963]

Seriously guys. quiet. Someone just needs to walk away and this will end.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Steven1963

[NOSValves]

That would be no fun at all

Edited July 22, 2014 by NOSValves

[Deang]

?.. So while a good crossover will upgrade most OEM crossover, it can't compete against a properly set up active system which enables the listener to tailor the sound he's hearing.

For people who's hobby simply is listening to music; stick with a proper crossover ... For those who want to be in full control and want to be able to adapt almost anything to their liking ... go for a good quality active setup IMO.

My builds replace active setups on a regular basis. Most don't have the necessary tools to create "...a properly set up active system".

I would agree, "for people who's hobby simply is listening to music; stick with a proper crossover." : )

[Deang]

but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content?

I would think if overdone like anyting, but doesn't a crossover change the responses also, I thought that was the reason newer designed crossovers sound better, it removes or raises where needed past what originals did (besides better parts)? Any crossover changes the signal doesn't it?

I addressed this earlier. Sound passing through a bunch of digital filters and opamps doesn't sound as good as an analog filter built with high quality discrete components.

If you use drivers and horns that play well together and produce a well behaved response, you really don't all of the correction (EQ).

[NOSValves]

Dean,

I figure some folks are just not happy unless they have a knob or two to play with.........it matters little if the thing is destroying the signal sent out to the speaker or not... I love the bypass switch comments....just crack one of those god awful things open and trace the signal path from input to bypass switch to output....yup it doesn't effect the music signal at all!! Boy those traces on the circuit board are thing to behold!!

[Chief bonehead]

Lol!!! I can imagine if ones business was to build "circuit boards with all those traces" what the perspective would be then!!!! Hee hee!!!!

[mikebse2a3]

I addressed this earlier. Sound passing through a bunch of digital filters and opamps doesn't sound as good as an analog filter built with high quality discrete components.

Well that settles that....

Yet there are those who would still disagree........

miketn

[Max2]

Back to the active setups

In the old days, 30 years ago or so, there were a few integrated amps that had built in EQ's. I actually had an old 40 watt JVC that was this way. Anyway, at upper levels it always produced the best sound at a flat setting on the EQ across the board. Now I get the whole EQ creating dynamic power from boosting frequencies and the increasing THD issues this creates with the internal amp and any setup like this is always going to make the cleanest power without any EQ changes. Now going active, lets say if you have a 6db boost in a given frequency range and you're cutting 4-6db from the digital filters in another area and then amplify that signal to upper limits for that given driver, aren't you counting on the DSP or active EQ to keep that boost as clean as it was with out the raising or cutting? Hence, it doesn't matter how clean your Amp and Pre are, now you are incorporating the manipulation of the signal whether you are boosting it or adding a filter and hoping you are not creating digital Halo's or funking up the noise floor in the pauses and delicate passages of the music content? It seems to me like the 2" mid drivers that a lot of the pro series setups and custom boxes use would be very sensitive to this. With the signal change your McIntosh, Bryston, Mark Levinson or whatever fancy flavor you're running just got a little bit tainted from the not so clean bloodstream of your DSP/EQ. Now I totally understand the need for this in very large rooms with multi channel setups that are bi and tri/ amping, but with a two channel setup and basic rooms that most people have here, is it really a step in a better direction unless you just have to do it?

Maybe my analogies are off base here, but I sure would like to hear two active speakers to put my "old school" views to bed and show me that you can go active and it not sound like a setup in a night club or something.

[dtel]

Now going active, lets say if you have a 6db boost in a given frequency range and you're cutting 4-6db from the digital filters in another area and then amplify that signal to upper limits for that given driver, aren't you counting on the DSP or active EQ to keep that boost as clean as it was with out the raising or cutting? Hence, it doesn't matter how clean your Amp and Pre are, now you are incorporating the manipulation of the signal whether you are boosting it or adding a filter and hoping you are not creating digital Halo's or funking up the noise floor in the pauses and delicate passages of the music content? It seems to me like the 2" mid drivers that a lot of the pro series setups and custom boxes use would be very sensitive to this.

Not directed at you Max, you just gave me ideas to talk about

They are very sensitive to this, but I hear 0 hiss or noise with two little 30 wpc amp's, active EQ and this is very highly efficient speakers, maby the highest Klipsch makes. I don't remember the exact efficiency, I have heard different numbers 105- 108.

It's a BR player into a DAC to a EV DX38 on to two Crown D-75 amps out to speakers. Turned up 3/4 and between songs or nothing playing NO hiss or hum or noise at all with your head a foot from the speaker ? No fancy Cd player, standard BR player and amps so it's not like high quality.

One thing to consider is I am using probably less than 10% of the power the drivers are rated for so there barely working, if they were really being pushed things may be different ?

Not wanting to be involved in the technical end of this hobby I just use what was proven to work with the pre established EQ settings established after the speaker was ran through the anechoic chamber.

You will never see me argue technical points here, (that would be silly) I can only give an opinion on what I can hear and have heard and experienced.

I have heard jubs with active EQ and SS, then switched out for VERY expensive passive crossovers with high priced tube amps.

Considering the tube amps and crossovers were considerably more expensive than what the jubs cost, like 2x plus, it was good quality, the crossovers alone were way more expensive than a good active setup. The amps were way more expensive than a set of jubes. With that at least it should have been noticeably better wouldn't you think ? Personally to me it was a toss up, so I guess everyone should just write this off to, this idiot is deaf, but I was not alone.

There was not a clear winner ( to me and others) to warrant spending even twice as much for the passive's with tubes much less many times the cost of active. ? I am sure

some would rather the passive, but all who were there would probably admit for the price of what we heard the cost of demising returns were extreme.

I am not saying passives need to be this expensive, cost was only brought up to give an idea it was not junk thrown together being compared. Also I am not saying passives can't be better than active ? This was only what I heard myself, really I would have no problem going with passive, but I could not come close to being able to afford what I heard that day so for the little differences I heard I will just suffer and stick with this lifeless manipulated sound which I have yet to hear anything better at any cost......except for the TAD drivers, well it's true.

Just another opinion, it's all I have.................just ignore this if it doesn't fit

Edited July 23, 2014 by dtel

[Max2]

Now going active, lets say if you have a 6db boost in a given frequency range and you're cutting 4-6db from the digital filters in another area and then amplify that signal to upper limits for that given driver, aren't you counting on the DSP or active EQ to keep that boost as clean as it was with out the raising or cutting? Hence, it doesn't matter how clean your Amp and Pre are, now you are incorporating the manipulation of the signal whether you are boosting it or adding a filter and hoping you are not creating digital Halo's or funking up the noise floor in the pauses and delicate passages of the music content? It seems to me like the 2" mid drivers that a lot of the pro series setups and custom boxes use would be very sensitive to this.

Not directed at you Max, you just gave me ideas to talk about

They are very sensitive to this, but I hear 0 hiss or noise with two little 30 wpc amp's, active EQ and this is very highly efficient speakers, maby the highest Klipsch makes. I don't remember the exact efficiency, I have heard different numbers 105- 108.

It's a BR player into a DAC to a EV DX38 on to two Crown D-75 amps out to speakers. Turned up 3/4 and between songs or nothing playing NO hiss or hum or noise at all with your head a foot from the speaker ? No fancy Cd player, standard BR player and amps so it's not like high quality.

One thing to consider is I am using probably less than 10% of the power the drivers are rated for so there barely working, if they were really being pushed things may be different ?

Not wanting to be involved in the technical end of this hobby I just use what was proven to work with the pre established EQ settings established after the speaker was ran through the anechoic chamber.

You will never see me argue technical points here, (that would be silly) I can only give an opinion on what I can hear and have heard and experienced.

I have heard jubs with active EQ and SS, then switched out for VERY expensive passive crossovers with high priced tube amps.

Considering the tube amps and crossovers were considerably more expensive than what the jubs cost, like 2x plus, it was good quality, the crossovers alone were way more expensive than a good active setup. The amps were way more expensive than a set of jubes. With that at least it should have been noticeably better wouldn't you think ? Personally to me it was a toss up, so I guess everyone should just write this off to, this idiot is deaf, but I was not alone.

There was not a clear winner ( to me and others) to warrant spending even twice as much for the passive's with tubes much less many times the cost of active. ? I am sure

some would rather the passive, but all who were there would probably admit for the price of what we heard the cost of demising returns were extreme.

I am not saying passives need to be this expensive, cost was only brought up to give an idea it was not junk thrown together being compared. Also I am not saying passives can't be better than active ? This was only what I heard myself, really I would have no problem going with passive, but I could not come close to being able to afford what I heard that day so for the little differences I heard I will just suffer and stick with this lifeless manipulated sound which I have yet to hear anything better at any cost......except for the TAD drivers, well it's true.

Just another opinion, it's all I have.................just ignore this if it doesn't fit

Geez Dtel, as usual your 2 cents always seem to roll off with charming, charismatic restraint just like a school lesson from Yoda or Obi Juan I see you wandering the forums with pockets full of olive branches, hidden wisdom and knowledge held only until needed and always lifting up instead of putting down. My somewhat crude, deducted logic of an active system is just that, but I'm here to learn and always willing to give credit where credit is due. I appreciate your generous candor as many active users here would have pulled the gloves off. I must say, you have me digging around looking at DSP's and other active setups just to get a better understanding. It sounds like you have a really cool system and I wish I was just a little bit closer to come get enlightened on an active setup among your other equipment as well. My wife has been out of state for 10 days and I have had the inlaws staying with me to help with our 7 month old. That being told, I have actually been taking care of the "little," which is teething right now and feeding and entertaining the Gramp and Grammy (which I must add are super people and have been a huge help!) all this time with no music! Come Friday, the "disturbance" in the Force will be gone (sigh...) and hopefully my setup will sound better than ever Thanks for breaking down your components and your past experiences. Cheers my friend !

[Deang]

I built a nice set of passives for my Jubilees that I think ran me around $600. I ran it with a Crown D-45 and it sounded much better than the two Crown xTi amplifiers with all of the gee-whiz crap in it.

I was at the demo that dtel is talking about, the sound from the active system actually made me wince a little -- the passives sounded infinitely better to me, and believe me when I say this, I wanted the active set up to sound better.

[dtel]

I built a nice set of passives for my Jubilees that I think ran me around $600. I ran it with a Crown D-45 and it sounded much better than the two Crown xTi amplifiers with all of the gee-whiz crap in it.

I was at the demo that dtel is talking about, the sound from the active system actually made me wince a little -- the passives sounded infinitely better to me, and believe me when I say this, I wanted the active set up to sound better.

I knew you were there and I did hear a difference but to me the biggest difference was the TAD.s by far. I may have been more impressed if it were not for the sticker shock and sheer size of the passive crossovers, the tube amps used were so far away from what I could afford I as afraid to even walk close to them. To me I didn't hear any differences to get excited about. Remember I don't have trained ears, that are use to listening for certain things, really I try to avoid that and just listen to the overall sound.

After thinking about this I realized what I use here is not what we spent most of the time on that day so really very few, if anyone is using exactly what I am ? The other thing is DrWho did play around with the DX-38 I use to adjust the gain to fit better with home stuff, something about the gain being different from Pro to home audio ? Dean you know more about this so you probably have a better understanding about that.

I will say one thing for others out there reading if you can in any way have Dean work on your crossovers don't hesitate. I say this because of my limited experience of only hearing the difference with new caps in a crossover, the difference was something anyone could easily hear. Add to that someone who is passionate about what they do making a few design changes with better parts and I wouldn't hesitate.

You won't be sorry

Edited July 23, 2014 by dtel

[dtel]

Max that's not Olive branches, I was just happy to see you , sorry couldn't help it, always liked Mae West.

I can not talk about technical things (without just making it up ) only experiences. Everything I say is just an opinion, no better than the other opinions, ask my wife and kids !

Glad your getting time with the mini you, teething can be bad sometimes, ours are all in there thirties now but still whine off and on, you never stop being a parent.

I know you will be happy to get back home to listening, and see the wife and get back to a normal life.

[Marvel]

I was just happy to see you , sorry couldn't help it, always liked Mae West.

That's a little creepy!

[dtel]

Could be if I were serious, just seen something with Mae West on it and some old time comedians, it was simple things back then but funny . I like to catch people off guard with silly stuff.

[Deang]

Dtel, I never heard the TAD set ups, I only came to the initial get-together. I remember looking at Rigma from across the room to see if maybe I could get some confirmation on whether or not he was hearing what I was hearing during the active spin up. I couldn't see him, but I could see his wife, and the WTF look on her face, which was pretty much all of the confirmation I needed.

I don't know what your audio background is, but I had almost as much into my cartridge as I had into my turntable, and that setup was almost as much as my amp and preamp combined. I didn't start saying goodbye to my albums until they quit pressing my favorite bands. I finally let myself get sucked into the digital hype, and then like a lot of folks, started spending stupid amounts of money trying to get rid of the underlying grit in all of my new music.

As they keep saying, digital has come a long way, and I think finally sounds as good as something like a 500 Series Dual loaded up with Shure V-15 Type III cartridge - and that's GOOD digital. If you're willing to invest in a decent player, digital hash is a thing of the past too. "Decent" means that the input and output stages have been given a little bit of extra attention.

A simple system made up of a few nice, high quality pieces will always sound good. Always.

Now we have these other devices to deal with, and I don't think the likes of Behringer, EV, Crown, etc., are putting the quality of parts into their input and output stages as someone like Oppo might. Then there is the gain structure issue to contend with -- there is 14dB difference between pro and consumer gear. So, I think there is a quality of service issue with this kind of set up from beginning to end. I don't understand how people can't hear the hash riding along with the recording -- or maybe they hear it but don't care.

Less is more. Less with better parts is much more.

[dtel]

To me the TAD's were considerable better, but expensive and not easy to find. I would think Rigma made a lot of changes to his room and speakers before he was done, if he is done yet, he does have an advantage, he can try about anything he wants.

I never had tubes, but started with the receivers like Sansui and HK, a Akai RTR, Yamaha and Technics turntables and JBL speakers were my first real setup. Changes here and there for the next bunch of years, kind of got sucked into the HT thing, it was only pro logic back then but something new. CD's came long promising everything and I got rid of my whole setup for CD's and a HT setup.

Got burned out on the HT thing, so my pre HDMI HT receiver sits connected to 6 fortes and a BD player and gets used every few months at the most, really just for the kids to watch movies.

Have HK 930 connected to Cornwalls in the bedroom and the 2 ch in the living room, we never sit to listen but it's playing all the time unless someone is watching tv. Another setup outside in the tiki bar and other yard party speakers.

After the last 35 + years I am about tired of swapping out things, and this is the best sound I have ever had so really I am done and just enjoy the music. If I had the money to try things I would try passives with different amps just for fun, maby some tubes for the Cornwalls and a new HT receiver but I have other projects and other hobbies so for the most part I am just happily listening.

Well this should bore everyone to the point of forgetting what they were arguing about my job is done, keep up the good work and say hello to the wife please.

Edited July 24, 2014 by dtel

[Heritage_Head]

Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? 30 years ago jacking the bass and treble knobs was a sign of not enjoying what your speakers were producing. I understand the active guys having to go this route with bi and tri-amping, but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I don't have any experience with this, but I know my Audyssey XT 32 steals all the magic from my upper crust recordings. I don't care what REW says and how it changes my room acoustics at 100+db, at 85-95 db where I listen, a flat pure signal always brings out the little details you never knew were on a recording.

This is the same as using sauce on your steak. Some people wont do it even if it did taste better. If its me I go with better is better.

[Max2]

Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? 30 years ago jacking the bass and treble knobs was a sign of not enjoying what your speakers were producing. I understand the active guys having to go this route with bi and tri-amping, but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I don't have any experience with this, but I know my Audyssey XT 32 steals all the magic from my upper crust recordings. I don't care what REW says and how it changes my room acoustics at 100+db, at 85-95 db where I listen, a flat pure signal always brings out the little details you never knew were on a recording.

This is the same as using sauce on your steak. Some people wont do it even if it did taste better. If its me I go with better is better.

Very good analogy. I totally agree with you and everyone has a right to like what they like, whether its theirs ears or their taste buds. However, I bet the best steak you have ever eaten never needed any sauce, did it?

[Heritage_Head]

Does anyone appreciate the preservation of the original source anymore? 30 years ago jacking the bass and treble knobs was a sign of not enjoying what your speakers were producing. I understand the active guys having to go this route with bi and tri-amping, but isn't kind of a sin to run your source through a bunch of digital filters adding and whacking response only to make it gloss over or remove all the minute details and passages in the content? I don't have any experience with this, but I know my Audyssey XT 32 steals all the magic from my upper crust recordings. I don't care what REW says and how it changes my room acoustics at 100+db, at 85-95 db where I listen, a flat pure signal always brings out the little details you never knew were on a recording.

This is the same as using sauce on your steak. Some people wont do it even if it did taste better. If its me I go with better is better.

Very good analogy. I totally agree with you and everyone has a right to like what they like, whether its theirs ears or their taste buds. However, I bet the best steak you have ever eaten never needed any sauce, did it?

Well if the best steak still tasted better with a sauce I can see using it (for that person). It would be just fine to eat without but if its better its better.

Imo the eq is a tool not a band aid. A system would not need one but if that system sounded better I can see no reason not to use one. I know for some its a code or something that you don't use it. Same with steak sauce. Every system I have had or been around sounded better for my ears with a little eq.

And really how it sounds is way more important than how we got there. I see nothing wrong with not using one. But saying or sounding like using one is crossing some audio code/line seems a bit harsh .

Edited July 26, 2014 by reference_head