vnzbd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Because most people want to retain the high SNR ratios and overall high signal quality instead of running them through an $80 electronic X-over. I can see that an active could add some noise to the system. But I can also see how the passive wastes some of the amps power as heat. I am thinking that is the amps power is delivered to the driver alone and dosen't have to contend with the typical impedence dips that it would be a fair trade off. I would expect a more dynamic sound, and that is one reason that I have been a fan of Klipsch. And I would expect that you could spend more than $80 on the active crossover! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Because most people want to retain the high SNR ratios and overall high signal quality instead of running them through an $80 electronic X-over. I can see that an active could add some noise to the system. But I can also see how the passive wastes some of the amps power as heat. I am thinking that is the amps power is delivered to the driver alone and dosen't have to contend with the typical impedence dips that it would be a fair trade off. I would expect a more dynamic sound, and that is one reason that I have been a fan of Klipsch. And I would expect that you could spend more than $80 on the active crossover! Whether your running an AVR or 20K worth of high dollar amps and pre's, your signal will be degraded to some point. Adding electronic filters from an Electronic X-over and what not will never improve your signal. It may be an upgrade in the sound from a totally shot passive you're running, but it will never improve your signal quality. Having said this, this is coming from someone that cant stand Audyssey as well. I believe in keeping things as raw and direct as you can when it comes to your signal and its path. As far as wasting power, sure it happens, especially with a specially designed constant impedance passive that a few here run. Although there may be some heat generated from a swamping resistor, the efficiency of our speakers make up for this and some constant impedance designs offer much better transparency with dialogue, vocals and delicate passages. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Whether your running an AVR or 20K worth of high dollar amps and pre's, your signal will be degraded to some point. Adding electronic filters from an Electronic X-over and what not will never improve your signal. It may be an upgrade in the sound from a totally shot passive you're running, but it will never improve your signal quality. Having said this, this is coming from someone that cant stand Audyssey as well. I believe in keeping things as raw and direct as you can when it comes to your signal and its path. As far as wasting power, sure it happens, especially with a specially designed constant impedance passive that a few here run. Although there may be some heat generated from a swamping resistor, the efficiency of our speakers make up for this and some constant impedance designs offer much better transparency with dialogue, vocals and delicate passages. A simple analog electronic crossover has the deficiencies you are talking about and will not make much of an improvement when used with speakers like Khorns, or any other speaker with time alignment problems. A digital loudspeaker processor is another matter. The digital processor has the capability for various filter types and slopes, including FIR filters in some units, time alignment, PEQing, limiting, and other features at the touch of a button. Crossover settings can be stored, modified, and recalled easily. The more expensive processors are quite transparent sound quality wise and are not the limiting factor in the signal chain. The best way to see what I mean is to listen to a properly aligned pair of triamped Khorns compared with passively crossed pair. The difference is not subtle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 The difference is not subtle. Neither is the cost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Because most people want to retain the high SNR ratios and overall high signal quality instead of running them through an $80 electronic X-over. I can see that an active could add some noise to the system. But I can also see how the passive wastes some of the amps power as heat. I am thinking that is the amps power is delivered to the driver alone and dosen't have to contend with the typical impedence dips that it would be a fair trade off. I would expect a more dynamic sound, and that is one reason that I have been a fan of Klipsch. And I would expect that you could spend more than $80 on the active crossover! Whether your running an AVR or 20K worth of high dollar amps and pre's, your signal will be degraded to some point. Adding electronic filters from an Electronic X-over and what not will never improve your signal. It may be an upgrade in the sound from a totally shot passive you're running, but it will never improve your signal quality. Having said this, this is coming from someone that cant stand Audyssey as well. I can't stand Audyssey either, and I agree with your sentiments about simplifying the signal path. However, I'd ask you to consider what happens to the signal path when you start with a digital source. With a passive xover: CD -> D/A -> Amplifier -> Passive Xover -> Speaker With an active xover: CD -> Digital Xover -> D/A - Amplifier -> Speaker Both stages consist of the CD, D/A, Amplifier, and Speaker - the only difference is a passive xover versus a digital xover. The gain structures are certainly different, so it may be worthwhile to spec different amplifiers so we're not locked into maximizing dynamic range for two different types of signals, but that's just an implementation detail and getting off topic. For someone starting with an analog source, you do add an extra A/D + D/A conversion - and for some that is a non-starter. For those people, just stick to your passive - you're probably part of an older generation that is more forgiving of the artifacts present in all the music you have enjoyed over your entire life, and also less forgiving of these new artifacts that you've never heard before. Just keep in mind that the younger generations grew up learning to ignore digital artifacts and have a hard time tuning out what you grew up with and don't even notice anymore. (Nothing better about either - it's just a cultural phenomenon). Back to the signal path analogy, I would argue that a digital xover is better at the xovery functions: The passive xover presents a frequency specific impedance to voltage divide the signal against the frequency specific impedance of the driver. As the driver moves, the driver impedance changes slightly and that in turn results in the filter changing with signal level and frequency content. The filter itself is also trying to present an accurate impedance to a signal containing a lot of energy - which means there is more stress on the electrical components. There are massive amounts of energy being reacted which cause the electrical properties to change with the signal level. We have two degrees of modulation happening - so a great way to minimize that effect is to minimize the impedance dependency by reducing the slopes (going to a simple first order) - however at the expense of doppler effect which Mark alluded to. The digital xover removes the filter's dependency on the driver impedance, and also removes any modulation of the filter shape itself. You still have the driver non-linearity, but that driver non-linearity actually improves when you improve the electrical damping of the circuit by removing that big impedance in the middle from the passive xover. So technically, we're improving the driver behavior as well. By having a more static system, you can move to higher order filters, and you can even implement filters that can't exist in the analog realm - and it is possible to do it without introducing any of the phase issues that creative (elliptical filter) passive xovers impart. I know all of this just makes the analog purists cringe, but the performance bar of the analog realm is not really moving forward. Anyone seeing any major changes or trends in the analog domain? How old is vinyl again? A lot of this stuff is limited by materials science and just plain old physics. One of the reasons so much of audio is moving into the digital realm is because of the problems that could otherwise never be solved. It's kinda funny for me to say that because in my other circles I'm the jaded old fart fighting for the simple analog solutions. If something has to be digital (for whatever reason), then I'm going to make sure it sounds as analog as possible - and I think some people (if they were open-minded) would be surprised at how well that can be accomplished. I think give it another 15 years and the digital label won't be so repulsive anymore - and mostly because a lot of the digital designs are maturing back into more analog'ish behavior. Btw, how many people here have actually compared the two signal paths presented above? I've only seen a couple people with that digital xover signal path, and they all love their systems. The only complaints I've seen are from people concerned about noise - who I'd argue aren't using the right processor/amplifier combination. Anyways, all that to say - the signal path complexity I'd argue is less with a properly implemented active xover. I hope I wasn't being too long winded and anecdotal. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Because most people want to retain the high SNR ratios and overall high signal quality instead of running them through an $80 electronic X-over. I can see that an active could add some noise to the system. But I can also see how the passive wastes some of the amps power as heat. I am thinking that is the amps power is delivered to the driver alone and dosen't have to contend with the typical impedence dips that it would be a fair trade off. I would expect a more dynamic sound, and that is one reason that I have been a fan of Klipsch. And I would expect that you could spend more than $80 on the active crossover! Whether your running an AVR or 20K worth of high dollar amps and pre's, your signal will be degraded to some point. Adding electronic filters from an Electronic X-over and what not will never improve your signal. It may be an upgrade in the sound from a totally shot passive you're running, but it will never improve your signal quality. Having said this, this is coming from someone that cant stand Audyssey as well. I believe in keeping things as raw and direct as you can when it comes to your signal and its path. As far as wasting power, sure it happens, especially with a specially designed constant impedance passive that a few here run. Although there may be some heat generated from a swamping resistor, the efficiency of our speakers make up for this and some constant impedance designs offer much better transparency with dialogue, vocals and delicate passages. Well, then let's agree to disagree. My best friend/audiophile of 40 years just spent $13,000 on a turntable and arm. He will NOT do anything but custom passives on his OB speakers. He has all pro software and measuring equipment. IOW, he knows what he's doing and has one of the best 2-channel systems I've heard (a $6,000 Pass Pre Amp and other stuff to match, if you get my drift). He spent a weekend here listening to my "lowly setup." The BEST thing I ever did for my 2.1/7.1 setup is to upgrade to Audyssey XT/32. It does an incredible job of cleaning up the room for my horn stack and subs. All this from a refrubished $600 AVR, with my bass horns (my own design) running through a lowly Behringer driven by SPEAKER outputs to get the voltage high enough. Apparently I'm doing it all wrong, but he was blown away by what is achievable on a budget. Everyone, without exception, who has heard my setup has been properly impressed. It's not the tools, it's what you do with them. I don't care about passive vs. active, I use BOTH at whichever they are best at doing. EVERYTHING in audio is relative. There are no ABSOLUTES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The difference is not subtle.Neither is the cost. One of the forum members here has spent over $3,000 and probably as much in labor building the ultimate passive network for his 2-ways Jubes with TAD drivers.No time delay on those. Cost is a relative thing and an Ashley Xover would have done much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Anyways, all that to say - the signal path complexity I'd argue is less with a properly implemented active xover. I hope I wasn't being too long winded and anecdotal. Actually it was a much more cogent summary than your usual. Excellent post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) For the camp that falls into the highend crossover are worth it I would ask the question why not remove the passive and go to active crossovers? Because most people want to retain the high SNR ratios and overall high signal quality instead of running them through an $80 electronic X-over. That's not a fair statement. Let's talk dollar for dollar and your signal to noise ratios are suddenly very close. It's not fair to compare cheap electronics to ridculously expensive passives. At some point one needs to "cross over" (pun intended) to the other side. There's been way more improvement in the active side since Linkwitz and Riley came up with their filter scheme. There is denial abound here. Edited June 10, 2014 by ClaudeJ1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Great info guys. I probably should be a little more open minded on the active side. I know they are much more practical when used with arrays and pro setups and with the custom guys piecing systems together. I don't deny the convenience, adjustability, time aligning and basic necessity of them with the given application, The turnoff I have are the basic specs of the majority and how there is some downgrading of the signal none the less. Lets say you're quality amp is putting out 2 watts at .0007% THD, yet your processor manufactures .05% (with a manu stated number no less), well you have taken a step backwards. Your two watts have taken a hit in THD and even so at full power from the same amp rated at .005% Now don't roll your eyes just yet On top of that, lets say this fine amp has an SNR ratio of 105db at 2 watts yet the constant number the processor can produce is 102db. Once again, a step backwards. Take the amp to full power with a 120+db SNR and you are brought back to 102db from the processor. You have lost some of the blackness of the amp that may or may not be heard in delicate passages or pauses in some musical content. I know these are just readings on paper, but these are the numbers amp manu's strive to improve. My point and only point here is the source signal is not as clean as it once was after going through a processor using a modern "quality" amp or amps and a clean pre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) This thread has been great for business. I'm already a month behind again.Deneen is the only one that gets it. Given a choice, most would prefer to spend a lot less money, have a cleaner signal path, with less complexity. Edited June 10, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 My understanding of Dean's perspective is that the stock Klipsch xovers are not high quality. It is only when more expensive inductors and capacitors are added that he feels they turn into a high quality xover. That is completely incorrect. If I thought they were bad designs, I wouldn't build them. Good parts don't make a poor design sound good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Adding electronic filters from an Electronic X-over and what not will never improve your signal. Not true. Since the room is the 90% of the sound, improving the signal there as "feedback" ahead of the non-linear electro-mechanical transducers feeding a non-linear room, improves the SOUND to our ears, which is the final determinant, not the .00009% you all seem to be chasing in the electronics and passive components. Talk about barking up the wrong trees, and there is no lack of those in the "Hi-Fi" world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 You have lost some of the blackness of the amp that may or may not be heard in delicate passages or pauses in some musical content. I know these are just readings on paper, but these are the numbers amp manu's strive to improve Why worry about amplifier S/N, which is usually from 100-1,000 watt amplifiers referenced to full output, where we need less than single watt with horns? At that point, 80, is probably a better number on power amps. Besides, find me recordings that have an S/N ratio greater than 60 db, and you have 40 DB leftover NOT to worry about. This, BTW, is the headroom built into my system, just in case some recording studio knob twiddler ever decides to run the full dynamics of their mike/preamp systems and ship non-compressed, 96Khz PCM to us on Blue Ray Audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 If I thought they were bad designs, I wouldn't build them. Good parts don't make a poor design sound good. I agree with this notion. When I upgraded my 30 year old capacitors in my Khorns, many moons ago, I was startled by the midrange and treble clarity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cradeldorf Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The difference is not subtle.Neither is the cost. Took the words right out of my mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cradeldorf Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 This thread has been great for business. I'm already a month behind again. Deneen is the only one that gets it. Given a choice, most would prefer to spend a lot less money, have a cleaner signal path, with less complexity. Your wrong, I get it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) My apologies - you and several others. Based on Mike's last post, I think he gets it too - I just don't get his weird recollection of the events in Michigan that night. I mean, I solidified my place with that network, and Craig is still using the thing almost 7 years later. Plus he's been through several horn and driver changes with no desire to change it. So, how does sucky sound produce these results -- and the "expectation bias" answer doesn't work on any level -- only three people even knew I was changing out the networks: Craig, Colter, and Roger Chase. The rest of the room was oblivious -- until the music came back on. Mike, there was the year after that, with the two sets of Jubilees in the room. Are you sure that it isn't that what you're remembering - because that was pretty bad. Opamps and a $50 CD player sure didn't carry the night - at least not for me. Edited June 12, 2014 by DeanG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Mike, there was the year after that, with the two sets of Jubilees in the room. Are you sure that it isn't that what you're remembering - because that was pretty bad. Opamps and a $50 CD player sure didn't carry the night - at least not for me. I wasn't very impressed that night either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.