I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...


high-amp
celtic66

Honestly, I was moved by your post. Thank you for sharing.
I didn’t realize the there was so much passion regarding this subject. Obviously, more than I imagined.
I thank you all for contributions. A lot of the technical jargon is over my head, but I am just happy that my post has generated so much interest and discussions. I really look forward to reading more of all your thoughts on this subject and learning from the more vested.
Just an update on the Buchardt as they now offering mastertunings  for
the A700. They even have amastertuning which the A500 does not. Being a 3.5 way speaker the A700 does not need as many variations of the mastertuning programs according to Buchardt. They will be releasing a new app that has an advanced EQ so you can create your own sound profiles for them. When this is released they would also delete many of the balance mastertunings for the A500. The mastertunings are meant to do dramatic design changes such as 2.5 way or 3 way design on the A500, Cardioid or standard on the A700. From there the rest can be done via the app much faster and easier.
Sounds intriguing...


@audio2design --

Unfortunately phusis, your view towards active speakers is simple, just the replacement of passive crossover to active crossover. There is far more possible in terms of active speaker development that cannot be implemented in this piece-wise fashion. Not to mention very few have the tools, knowledge, or space to develop their own crossovers effectively. It is not something that can be done by ear, and done well, requires either a large space for effective gated measurement and/or an anechoic chamber. The goal is not "okay" it is great.

Or maybe you read what I write: simplistically. Do you develop your own active speakers - as a brand, that is? What you point to sounds like a well-known narrative leveled at DIY'ers, that what they're about to embark on can only scratch the surface of what manufacturers can achieve with all of their tools and (self-)proclaimed knowledge. Of course those manufacturers are only trying to protect their business with said (repetitive) narrative, not that I can't understand that, but with the digital tools offered today the individual has far more options into creating the sound of their speakers on their own, and much easier at that. The more they learn the greater it will sound. 

I don't like repeating myself, but what you address is all there in my earlier post; I'm not about to neglect the effort and what's there to be learned about setting up a cross-over digitally by oneself, and when you look into the different technical aspects where audiophiles already invest their time, brain capacity and money implementing their own set-ups, it would seem no further stretch to ask of them to look into digital cross-overs as well. It's a freeing process once you get around the technicalities of using a digital XO, and one where you learn about setting up a cross-over with all the parameters that can be involved, digitally. Forums are there to help if you're stuck, maybe someone you know can help - make the jump and try it out. 

What do you know about the results my friends and I have achieved setting up our active-as-separates set-ups? Nothing. You would assume "okay" only, and yet the speaker systems I've heard here compare and in many areas exceed most everything else I've heard in vital areas in their reproduction. In other words: these set-ups sound great. No need for anechoic chambers than what our listening rooms offered. Measurements, yes, and lots of trial error and listening countless hours.

Yes, predominantly it can and must be done by ear, and the good thing is it needn't sound great anywhere else than in your very own listening room and to your own ears. Manufacturers need to please many ears, have a business to consider, are fiscally restricted and so on, and you don't think that involves severe compromises? Give me a break. 
phusis,

Why are you going on about something that 99.9% of audiophiles have no interest in doing, and 9/10 of the remaining 0.1% are going to screw up?

I am very cognizant of the DIY speaker community. There is some great craftsmanship, and some very good mid-level speakers, but at the top end, I can't say I have heard much.

That you keep repeating "Digital Cross-over" like it is the be all and end all shows how large the gap is between the average DIYer / probably most DIYers and truly professional designers working on advanced active speakers. It is not simply a matter of getting some amps, even expensive ones, and a DSP and playing with digital crossover implementations, and no, I don't care how long you listen to it, you will never achieve a very good design without complementing that with a lot of measurements, and again, most DIYers have fairly basic measurement capability for advanced speaker design. I know ... pretty much the same techniques, but better S/W than what I was using to DIY 20+ years ago.

The implementation of a design I was involved in required a custom amplifier topology that you cannot buy off the shelf. The techniques implemented go beyond simple digital cross-over design and are beyond almost all DIYers as it would be rare to find that cross disciplinary expertise. That is not even getting into things like finite element analysis to optimize bracing or complex acoustic field simulation to optimize the lenses.  The drivers were not off the shelf, but optimized for our drive/control methodology. Again, not available to the DIY community.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great DIY designs out there, but as you move into active designs, the complexity of what is possible just went well beyond "DIY". Its a lot more than just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)