In any case, we agree that low efficiency, multi driver speakers in boxes with complex crossovers unsuccessfully trying to get them integrated is not the way to go.
Active DSP crossovers negate many of those issues.
Speakers The single most critical component
I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>>
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system.
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity.
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers.
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs.
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic.
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y.
So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
the Shanling
only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17.
Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds.
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy.
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years,
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances.
To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver.
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system.
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity.
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers.
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs.
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic.
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y.
So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
the Shanling
only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17.
Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds.
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy.
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years,
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances.
To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver.
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
- ...
- 353 posts total
Here you can witness a early test model Voxitva in action 2015. Grant it the room edxpensive treatment, regardless I can hear the sonics of the driver , separated from room acoustical treatment. This early model Viox blows away any/every/all box/xover designs in its class. That is under $20K and weiging less than 100 lbs. Box/xovers can not compete with this level of high fidelity which i have coined the term ~~Super High Fidelity~~~ = SHF. Which is a more appropriate term for Full range in general, well no actually Full range will now be tagged High Fidelity whereas the Term Super High Fidelity can and will only be allpied to Voxativ. , All Vox's speakers are ~~SHF~~~ You can not employ this term SHF with any speaker in existence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfWL7-EF2vU |
Active DSP crossovers negate many of those issues. point taken You can also implement DSP in a digital front end but impossible to implement in my analog chain .... Turntable >> Phono stage >> volume control >> amplifier >> speaker without digitizing my signal which is a non-starter. It also adds another layer of complexity and expense to a digital path that many wish to avoid. however, if already in the digital domain I'm not opposed to additional processing as I do have convolution filters created using AudioLense implemented in HQplayer |
I bet any money, If you tooka group of audiophilesm, seasoned ones, not greenies who don’t know how to listen to a speakers performance/grading qualities. So we placea huge paper thin curtain in front a massive collection of speakers, lerts see amp will be one of Jadis’s , lets take the jadis Orch Refer, nice lil amp, no tell ya what, Lets take Richard Gray’s modded Dyanco ST70 amp, The Baby Gray, something anyone can afford, EL34’s. Source, any old cd player, cabels Rat Shak <specials> we used to buy back in the 70;’s. OK now, we will blind test speakers, I’d bet any money the **Full range** 8 inch + TI Horns will get the most votes over all of Troel Gravensen’s ScanSpeak/Seas designs with 8 inch midwoofers. . Once we pull the curtain after testing,, folks will be shocked their beloved box/xover designs has lost the contest. You don’t believe me, Richard Gray tells me about these type stunts he pulls on audiophiles with their rigid hot heads. |
By sunday this topic will have over ~~~~3,000~~~ views, Just waiting on the box/xover fanatics to bring on some better, more substance aginst FR and for xover/box tradtional style speakers, At this point in this topic, I wish to thank all the members here for keeping things civil, respectful as honorable gentlemen and scholars . ~~~just wish we had more participation , I know there are some of you here that are side lining on us, and wish you would jump in this converstaion. |
- 353 posts total