@mehtayoungs --
Great thread initiation.
Exactly; many if not most are stuck with believing active necessarily means an all-in-one package, but as you point out the core distinction of active is simply that the filtration is done prior to amplification, and on signal/line level. I’ve been beating this horse for a while now, but to no avail really.
When I converted to my present, all-active set-up from the previous one with passive main speakers and actively driven subs (meaning my 3-way passive main speakers were replaced with 2-way mains meant for active config.), I had enough outputs on my existing Xilica digital cross-over (that I had so far only used in conjunction with my pair of subs) to feed a pair of 2-way main speakers instead. This meant, after adding another stereo amp, that I had to apply the cross-over settings by myself (and later with the help of a friend for the fine tuning, who’s himself well versed using Xilica XO’s in his own system), and it was/is a great learning process while being as well so much easier since it’s done on the fly from the listening position via one’s laptop (or tablet).
I can understand the reticence among audiophiles to dive into setting up XO values by themselves - if ever considered, and in the digital domain no less - but once you get into the modular approach and overall technical understanding with all that entails (which, I believe, isn’t too much too ask of the audiophile who’s moderately technically savvy), it’s really freeing and only opens up the possibilities of choices. And I haven’t even gotten into the sonic advancements very potentially in the wait with active config.
Indeed, the inertia and habits of what already exists weighs heavily. I know, because I’ve been there (i.e.: with passive config.) predominantly as well. From what I can understand quite a few developers/manufacturers are keen on going active, one way or the other, but can’t really find the costumers to embrace and support it; the bundled package robs Hi-Fi Joe or Jane of choices with amps and potentially DAC’s, in addition perhaps of a tactile sense of "what’s in the package?," and the separates solution - while allowing for flexibility and apart from the element of potential complexity - appears to have the physically visible digital XO/DSP rub some among the audiophile inclined the wrong way, or that’s my guess. Not to mention (the thought of) the possible addition of a A/D-D/A conversion process in the digital XO with analogue inputs only.
Whereas conversely in the realm of audiophilia pro products can be had relatively cheap, certainly compared to the segment of high-end audio gear against which a range of pro gear - again, cheaper at that - compares favorably to my ears.
This is interesting, and I’d mirror those findings of yours in my own experience about the importance of the midbass and lower midrange. To leave this area untarnished of a cross-over is not trivial, sonically speaking, even when it may involve other compromises. My own 2-way main speakers comprise 2 x 15" woofers per channel run up to almost 800Hz while being high-passed at ~85Hz, and a horn-loaded 2" exit compression driver (w/3" voice coil) then covers the remaining band upwards. On paper at least a 3-way system could be preferable with such a driver constellation, and it may be in some variations, but I’m enjoying the audible positives as perceived with a 2-way system in this case vs. a 3-way (passive) ditto.
Very interesting. A blatant suggestion: how about, at some point, trying out a high efficiency 12" midrange coupled to a high eff. horn- or waveguide-loaded AMT unit? A similar XO-region could be chosen, even.
Great thread initiation.
[...] active has nothing to do with whether the amp is installed in the speaker or not. It refers to whether the crossover is before or after the power stage. Having an active crossover at line level and then using each amplifier channel’s full potential for only the frequency bands that the driver should receive opens up so many doorways as a designer that is doesn’t make sense to do it any other way now.
Exactly; many if not most are stuck with believing active necessarily means an all-in-one package, but as you point out the core distinction of active is simply that the filtration is done prior to amplification, and on signal/line level. I’ve been beating this horse for a while now, but to no avail really.
As consumers, we like to select components. That’s the fun part. And frankly, 95% of powered speakers have absolute crap amps. I get the resistance to letting the speaker designer pick your amp.
What is means in the best case scenario is a perfectly-matched and very convenient system. I have considered using an outboard processor, and then allowing the user to select their own amplification, but it’s not a simple amp setup - you need two channels of 150 watts @ 8 ohm and 1 channel of 600 watts @ 2 ohm, with the gains very precisely dialed for the voicing to be correct. I would need to personally attend every time the system was set up :P
When I converted to my present, all-active set-up from the previous one with passive main speakers and actively driven subs (meaning my 3-way passive main speakers were replaced with 2-way mains meant for active config.), I had enough outputs on my existing Xilica digital cross-over (that I had so far only used in conjunction with my pair of subs) to feed a pair of 2-way main speakers instead. This meant, after adding another stereo amp, that I had to apply the cross-over settings by myself (and later with the help of a friend for the fine tuning, who’s himself well versed using Xilica XO’s in his own system), and it was/is a great learning process while being as well so much easier since it’s done on the fly from the listening position via one’s laptop (or tablet).
I can understand the reticence among audiophiles to dive into setting up XO values by themselves - if ever considered, and in the digital domain no less - but once you get into the modular approach and overall technical understanding with all that entails (which, I believe, isn’t too much too ask of the audiophile who’s moderately technically savvy), it’s really freeing and only opens up the possibilities of choices. And I haven’t even gotten into the sonic advancements very potentially in the wait with active config.
Unfortunately, the hifi industry is fickle as anything, driven by nostalgia and consumer trends rather than science. In general, passive systems with perfect separate amps are going to be more accessible than true high-end active systems.
Indeed, the inertia and habits of what already exists weighs heavily. I know, because I’ve been there (i.e.: with passive config.) predominantly as well. From what I can understand quite a few developers/manufacturers are keen on going active, one way or the other, but can’t really find the costumers to embrace and support it; the bundled package robs Hi-Fi Joe or Jane of choices with amps and potentially DAC’s, in addition perhaps of a tactile sense of "what’s in the package?," and the separates solution - while allowing for flexibility and apart from the element of potential complexity - appears to have the physically visible digital XO/DSP rub some among the audiophile inclined the wrong way, or that’s my guess. Not to mention (the thought of) the possible addition of a A/D-D/A conversion process in the digital XO with analogue inputs only.
Pro stuff just isn’t cheap, and a whole generation of producers has been sold a lie that you can create great music without any dedication. That’s a whole other story. I support the democratization of the music industry for sure, but there is a dark side to it as well, which is getting quite off -topic now.
Whereas conversely in the realm of audiophilia pro products can be had relatively cheap, certainly compared to the segment of high-end audio gear against which a range of pro gear - again, cheaper at that - compares favorably to my ears.
I have a very different approach to midrange. Midbass and low mid coherence is very important. I’m a baritone vocalist and bass guitarist, so I don’t like it when the "power zone" is disembodied from the low midrange.
Most musical fundamentals are found between 150 and 600hz. This is what people people call "warmth" in music (trust that I’m willing to die on this hill, warmth = low midrange). That is the range of the fundamental tones of our voices.
330hz, the typical crossover point for the famous ATC 3" dome mid, this right in the heart of what we consider to be musical frequency. It is the critical midrange.
This is interesting, and I’d mirror those findings of yours in my own experience about the importance of the midbass and lower midrange. To leave this area untarnished of a cross-over is not trivial, sonically speaking, even when it may involve other compromises. My own 2-way main speakers comprise 2 x 15" woofers per channel run up to almost 800Hz while being high-passed at ~85Hz, and a horn-loaded 2" exit compression driver (w/3" voice coil) then covers the remaining band upwards. On paper at least a 3-way system could be preferable with such a driver constellation, and it may be in some variations, but I’m enjoying the audible positives as perceived with a 2-way system in this case vs. a 3-way (passive) ditto.
My design uses a 5.25" midrange crossed nearly 200hz lower. Of course, such a large midrange will beam if it is crossed too high, and like any 5" or larger driver (that I’ve found) the response starts to lose precision above 1000hz.
For many people, upper midrange, 1k-3k is the critical zone. Certainly, those frequencies are more present - they are what we call "presence" when we are discussing audio.
Our tweeter is planar, and we cross it much lower than standard, even lower than Dutch & Dutch 8c. It covers from 1k - 35khz, a phenomenal range for a single driver. What those numbers don’t tell you is the phenomenal resolution of both detail and dynamics.
The system uses two critically dampened cabinets. We will include an adjustable, non-resonant pole, so that the top will sit at the optimum height. In practice, the mid and top would be fairly close together, as the low driver will be about 20 inches off the ground. There will also be the option of using a very hefty stand and fully decoupling the bass driver from the floor.
Very interesting. A blatant suggestion: how about, at some point, trying out a high efficiency 12" midrange coupled to a high eff. horn- or waveguide-loaded AMT unit? A similar XO-region could be chosen, even.