DrWho Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Do any of you think that the day will come where some amp manufacturer will come out with a six channel digital amp, with unbalanced inputs, with crossover capabilities, and with DSP including EQ and signal alignment, and at a reasonable price?? Not asking for too much am I? Might as well ask for measurement capabilities as well. Heck, it's already here. Call Shawn and have him set you up with his modified Panasonic/Behringer combo. I've got one too, but mine has (or rather will have) the amps and crossover all in the same box [](or you can get the crossover separately) Eventually we'll add lossless wireless streaming from your computer and then hopefully some video switching and processing to make it a full blown receiver (with 8 channels for surround sound of course). Talk about expensive though... I honestly feel it is the future of high-fidelity home audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaspr Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Sounds promising Doc...you could even offer to preset the signal alignment and the EQ based on what the customer has for speakers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 We were thinking of maybe adding an SD card or USB slot that could be easily mailed around and just plugged into the back of the unit that way people that don't want to think about it can have someone else do the configuring for them. I think it'd be a lot less hassle than dealing with the hassle of connecting a computer/laptop to the stereo during the initlization stage. Of course there should always be full configurability from the front panel. Any thoughts? Maybe I should start a new thread since by now we've gone wayyyy off topic. So many things to do and so little time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Naaaahhhhh !!!! dont bother,,,It would just cut into your time in getting your design project done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbobusa65 Posted February 3, 2008 Author Share Posted February 3, 2008 Thank"s guy's I am weighing the posibility of maybe trying to build al-k's universal I dont have alot of book smart's but do have a fair amount of common sence. my first shot at building a big block vega wagon went low low 10's, I also turned all the wrenches on my turbocharged 2001 suzuki hayabusa!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Addressing the PWK article, point by point. Things were a little different in 1972 than they are now: 1) Instrumentation is a bit better now even if you consider very expensive time and frequency domain analyzers from that period with inexpensive gear now. Some of the comments about the effects of active vs. passive frequency response and relative phasing in the crossover regions lead me to believe that the instrumentation limitations may not have been as evident to PWK then. Looking at Klipsch's crossover designs from that time period would lead me to believe that this is a major factor. 2) Protection of drivers via protection limiters is now available as a standard feature on DSP amplifiers and other active crossover gear--that wasn't true then. 3) Amplifer power - today's high-quality power amplifiers (SS) are still in excess of what is needed to drive horn-loaded speakers. The up side is that it is very inexpensive now--it wasn't then. 4) Putting active crossovers in the hands of those today: well, the cost of all that measurement gear is now much less. I think that trade today is in the favor of "put a few sheckels into some measurement gear". That wasn't possible then. It would have cost 10s of thousands of dollars, corrected to current year, to do that in 1972. 5) I can hear the differences when I change my active crossover settings on the fly - I don't know if PWK could do that in 1972. Maybe that would have caused him to change his mind. I see where some misunderstanding of the urban myth of "golden ears" might have started then--use of one's ears to balance speaker networks was an advantage then. I don't think it is now because of the economics of measurement equipment have changed. To measure a home setup then was prohibitively expensive but not now. If you want to take the time now to measure, the economics are in your favor. Just think about the time spent to build custom cabinets and crossovers and compare that to active crossovers/amplifers with that build time instead spent measuring and correcting (yes, I'm talking about "minimum phase here" so you can relax). It is possible now to correct for having more people in the room and have those settings ready to change on the fly. That was not true in 1972. 6) It is now much cheaper to provide active crossovers, embedded in the Crown XTi for instance plus you get amplification, than to buy a set of passive crossovers from any third party today. This is the part that got my attention when I went to invest. Cost always matters. 7) It would be great if Klipsch (Hope, AR) published active crossover settings, EQ and delay for "real" polyamplification of its Heritage series (i.e., removal of the passive networks from the circuitry) but I'm sure that Roy and others there need to spend their time on things that will increase their bottom line. I'm not sure Roy could sell the systematic testing and publishing of results for each Heritage speaker system and still turn a profit. However, amateurs might be able to do that for him, assuming they would be willing to collaborate with guidance(?). Bottom line stuff: A) Active crossovers are not as effective in improving sound as would buying a better speaker system to start with. The trade for crossovers is dominated by driver/horn trades and room acoustics, then crossovers, probably in that order. Other electronics and connector/cabling issues are down the list. It's much cheaper today to realize active crossovers and assocated test instrumentation than in 1972. C) I believe that credit must be given to home enthusiasts to be able to learn by doing, rather than assuming that complexity will overwhelm informed consumers. All the arguments that PWK puts forward are apologetics for passive crossovers, i.e., he isn't arguing that actives are inferior but that passives are not inferior. I think time and economics have changed that equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Gee, I have to run out and I come back and there is no scathing personal attack...I am rather disappointed! Ok...I'll try... With all your loving comments about passives, alignments, lobes and the like... I thought I was reading comments by Al K... are you related? (ok, how'd I do?) That is priceless... except he knocks extreme slope crossovers. I built a set of the DHA2 crossovers, and they were not very expensive at all. Plus they added the constant impedance into the mix, which is a real plus with my SET amps. Marion uses passives in his Jubs, powered by 300B amps. I would love to hear those sometime. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbobusa65 Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Thank's for the help everyone, but I have chose Mr. Al's universals....... Dr Who, from what I have read, It seems that there are advantages to going active. But in the hands of a novice "me" I am shure I would let the magic smoke out of my speakers. I have an aweful lot to learn. Thank's again!! 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.