DSP vs. active analog crossover vs. passive analog crossover. What is your take?

@tannoy56 wrote:

... if I had learn anything from the past, there is no substitute for large drivers.

Indeed - there’s no replacement for displacement, as they say.

Cool speaker setup of yours, btw. Wasn’t aware Tannoy made this line/type of speakers. Should be both potent and very well sounding. Down the line I’d definitely go with a (Lake-based) DSP cross-over, as has been suggested.

@kingharold wrote:

I use a DEQX DSP which uses PCM coding, not DSD. DEQX is coming out with a new line of DSPs, supposedly this quarter. I wish they would use the DSD, but I doubt it. Whatever they use I am looking forward to upgrading.

Drool inducing new upcoming line a products. Wouldn’t mind a Pre-8 lying under the Christmas tree in the near future..

I use Bill Fitzmaurice designed HT Tuba folded corner horn bass bins driven by 15" woofers which at 200 Hz cross over to Oris 150 horns with AER BD3 drivers. The Oris AER combo plays the range from 200 Hz up to 8 kHz where Fostex t900a bullet tweeters take over. Thanks to DSP the system is remarkably flat from 25 HZ where the output is identical to that of the 1 kHz reference output up to a little over 20kHz. The roll off below 25 Hz is typical for a horn loaded woofer.

I place great value on the system being fully horn loaded. Horn bass is the icing on the cake. It lends a smooth continuity and rightness to the SQ that I don’t feel is achievable by hybrid systems mixing horns with other bass alignments.

Kudos, absolutely agree on your assessment of horn bass and its contribution to the overall sound. I use a pair of tapped horns myself (i.e.: MicroWrecker). How many THT’s have you implemented?

Considering that Mobile Fidelity got away with sneaking a A/D conversion and a D/A conversion into their Original Master LPs for fifteen years perhaps analog purist aren't as able to hear digital processing as they have believed themselves to be.

DSP uage in its different varieties of functions and the assessments of it has a tendency to be very unspecific - i.e.: the context of its implementation is unclear, and typically the statements are rather heavily theorized and not coming as much from personal experience.

In this particular context the big win of omitting the passive cross-over (with a DSP acting instead, actively, as a XO) is something it would seem few have experienced and can actually comment on. 

I think this is an exciting area of discussion and practice for audiophiles.

There's no clear winner among all of the choices.  Convenience matters a lot.  I run passive crossovers with my main speakers, but active to my sub which right now is only for home theater.

I've been toying with a supreme 3-way center channel build.  Fully active crossovers. 

My take is that this is a hobby and you should focus on what you want to learn and how much of your system do you want to build vs. buy.  How important is it for you to have separates?  After a lifetime of buying into the all separates mentality I've given up.  Separates are not actually better. 

I got to hear the original B&W Nautilus driven by a ridiculous number of Krell amplifiers and crossovers. It was not all that. 

Enjoy the hobby, but don't obsess or think any particular way here is THE way.

Hey, phusis.  I only use two HT Tuba folded corner horns.  Considering that the enclosures are eighteen cubic feet each even that occupies a fair amount of floor real estate.  Besides that my room only has two suitable corners.

@kingharold wrote:

Hey, phusis. I only use two HT Tuba folded corner horns. Considering that the enclosures are eighteen cubic feet each even that occupies a fair amount of floor real estate. Besides that my room only has two suitable corners.

Two of them certainly gets the job done properly. A single quarter wavelength horn-loaded 15" with a tune around 25Hz (or just below) will do stuff not only in quantity that far exceeds a 15" direct radiating driver. My MW’s are 20cf. each, also 15"-loaded and placed in their respective corner, so in the same ballpark as your HT Tuba’s. Powerful stuff, as it should be and with headroom to spare.

@erik_squires wrote:

There’s no clear winner among all of the choices. Convenience matters a lot. I run passive crossovers with my main speakers, but active to my sub which right now is only for home theater.

Why wouldn’t there be a winner? Not trying to turn this into a contest or throw about absolutes, but to those willing to go the distance and forego convenience there very well could be a winner - and by wide margin.

My take is that this is a hobby and you should focus on what you want to learn and how much of your system do you want to build vs. buy. How important is it for you to have separates? After a lifetime of buying into the all separates mentality I’ve given up. Separates are not actually better.

With an active setup using a DSP acting as a digital XO only and sans any kind of passive XO in the mix, a separates solution isn’t only or as much about importance than it is necessity - unless you’re buying a pre-developed and -assembled finished product that is already bundled.

A bundled active speaker as such can be great while potentially expensive, but as a "DIY" option - at least as it pertains to just using separately housed amps and DSP and setting up filter values by yourself - a separates solution IMO is just easier and more straight forward to install instead of building everything into the speakers (pre-assembled or not), while offering the choice of components and quality as well as their wider range more easily.

Where importance really enters the stage to me is the uninhibited nature of putting together an active-as-separates DSP-based setup and the unrestricted physics and principles it offers with speakers in particular. Unless we’re talking larger ATC models like the SCM 150 or 300A’s, actively configured speakers only really come in bundled, smaller direct radiating packages, and they just don’t float my boat. The larger mentioned ATC models are great, but even so a carefully implemented large horn-based setup simply takes it to another level in several respects. It’s just physics, and no they’re not in vain nor overkill in domestic environments.

I got to hear the original B&W Nautilus driven by a ridiculous number of Krell amplifiers and crossovers. It was not all that.

Actively driven? Well, it’s an expensive setup (which is not saying much), and only one of many.

Enjoy the hobby, but don’t obsess or think any particular way here is THE way.

Again, why not? Why not obsess and go bonkers with what one finds is the way? It’s not preaching the gospel; to most it’s just a single-minded adventure into realizing sonic goals, and with no self-imposed convenience restrictions or other and a dedicated space to go sound galore - well, let’s go explore and party :)

Phusis:

First, I only answer a few points because it's clear to me you are now using circular logic.  You point left and then right, much like Kenjit.  Are you kenjit?

Why wouldn’t there be a winner?

Because of:

• personal values 
• The impossibility of trying to define best.
• The diversity in implementations. 

For a consumer, you can no more define best type of crossover than you can best type of amplifier.  An absolute inviolate hieararchy is impossible.

Actively driven? Well, it’s an expensive setup (which is not saying much), and only one of many.

And this is where you go 100% kenjit.  You argue in the same piece there must be a best, and then that one example doesn't prove anything.  You can't have it both ways, Kenjit-lite.