Active crossovers measurably better?

[dallasjustice]

@dallasjustice when you get the chance, please post comparisons.

Too many things changed in my system to do a fair overlay comparison. You can look at the 4367 step response I posted on this thread and compare with the step response posted on this thread:
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...m2-audiolense-digital-crossovers-w-subs.2369/

 

[svart-hvitt]

Too many things changed in my system to do a fair overlay comparison. You can look at the 4367 step response I posted on this thread and compare with the step response posted on this thread:
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...m2-audiolense-digital-crossovers-w-subs.2369/

What’s your subjective thoughts?

 

[dallasjustice]

What’s your subjective thoughts?

Because they are different speakers it’s hard to say what to attribute the different sound to. I think the M2 are more 3 dimensional. I would say the big differences are in the spatial cues. They are more acurrate with the M2.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Because they are different speakers it’s hard to say what to attribute the different sound to. I think the M2 are more 3 dimensional. I would say the big differences are in the spatial cues. They are more acurrate with the M2.

Thanks! I treasure the subjective comments of those who are objectively oriented.

 

[Vintage57]

A link to a review of the ATC SCM 50 Active vs Passive, unfortunately in German.
The passive was given 63/70 points and the active 62/70. Too close to call me thinks but not a clear win for active in any case.

http://www.studio-hifi.com/images/ATC_SCM50_aktiv-passiv-Stpl-4-2011.pdf

 

[RayDunzl]

The active version is deficient in Feinauflösung.

 

[Levino Tittaferrante]

Feinauflösung = Fine resolution

 

[Wombat]

I looked for doppelblindversuch and doppelblindstudie but couldn't find them. I am not a German speaker so reference to the listening evaluation method may have eluded me.

The article does resemble a typical magazine review.

Google translate would not work on this document.

 

[stunta]

When active and passive versions of the same speaker measure/sound the same, I wonder if its because the active version is poorly implemented or is the passive crossover well designed or both. Perhaps, the difference is not audible which is why I started this thread. On paper, active makes sense but should I be replacing the passive speakers and amps I have with active versions? I don't have a clear answer yet.

 

[RayDunzl]

Should I be replacing the passive speakers and amps I have with active versions?

Do you have any corrective capacity now?

I'm pleased with having a little DSP in the signal chain.

 

[Levino Tittaferrante]

It maybe one of those topics of endless debates in Audio. You know, tubes vs SS, analog vs digital, etc..

 

[stunta]

Do you have any corrective capacity now?

I'm pleased with having a little DSP in the signal chain.

I don't know how to measure the distortion introduced by the passive crossovers in my speakers. If I did spend the time to learn, measure it, correct it, the question is if all this time/effort be worthwhile and there will be an audible difference.

It maybe one of those topics of endless debates in Audio. You know, tubes vs SS, analog vs digital, etc..

I don't think its the same topic. Tubes are well known to introduce distortion and sometimes it can be pleasing. Personally I have found that tubes can make poor recordings sound better sometimes. Analog vs. digital arguments always tend to go in the wrong direction; IMO it all depends on the quality of the recording/mastering. I have hundreds of LPs and an expensive turntable setup and I love the sound of it but I wouldn't call this "accurate"; its just fun.

 

[Levino Tittaferrante]

I’m don’t believe that the debates are over because some have confirmed a position for themselves. IMHO

 

[Cosmik]

When active and passive versions of the same speaker measure/sound the same, I wonder if its because the active version is poorly implemented or is the passive crossover well designed or both. Perhaps, the difference is not audible which is why I started this thread. On paper, active makes sense but should I be replacing the passive speakers and amps I have with active versions? I don't have a clear answer yet.

I think you are right that no one ever identifies any measurements that the active crossover improves. At the same time I think that that slightly misses the point. My observations would be:

1. In the steady state, magnitude only, frequency domain-centric view of audio, the active crossover's advantages may not even be visible in the measurements.
2. A passive speaker is already compromised through its whole design, and converting it to active is not really using the 'active advantage' to its maximum.

For example, because of the need to make a passive speaker sufficiently sensitive, the designer may have used a port for the bass. It may look perfect in the magnitude-only, steady state frequency response measurements, but really it is a honking resonator that is destroying the precision of transients; plus it rolls off unnaturally rapidly below resonance coupled with poor control of the cone; it also bleeds mid range through the hole and makes chuffing noises. The active speaker designer doesn't need to worry about overall sensitivity or the relative sensitivities of the drivers and so can indulge himself with the precision that a sealed box gives. He can also use electronic EQ to tailor the response even more precisely.

The passive speaker designer fears the extra complexity and sonic side effects of the crossover filter and so may stretch the frequency ranges over which his drivers have to work. The drivers have to handle more power; they have to work in the regions in which they begin to break up; they go into beaming; they produce more Doppler distortion. Damping is poorer. The EQ is not as precise as the active alternative. The load on the single amplifier working over a wide frequency range is very heavy. But again, all this general 'stress' may not show up decisively in the conventional measurements if you don't look for it, and even if you do may just be of 'academic' interest to most people in comparison to the conventional figures of merit.

Justifying the use of passive crossovers is an exercise in defensiveness; active crossovers are clearly the right way of solving the problem of making several transducers behave as a single ideal unit, and the only arguments against them are 'tradition'.

 

[DonH56]

The components in a passive crossover can add distortion, e.g. hysteresis and voltage nonlinearity in the capacitors, inductors can be overdriven and become quite nonlinear, series resistance hurts dampening, etc. But the real differences lie less in what the crossover's components themselves do and more in the impact of the crossover design itself. Directly connecting the amplifier to the drivers eliminates the impact of the crossover components, but moreover allows much steeper crossover slopes so drivers interact less outside their target frequency ranges (as Cosmik said) providing cleaner sound with less blurring of the image as sounds transition across drivers. DSP allows precise alignment of phase and time among drivers for a more cohesive wavefront so better impulse response, etc.

All of this is quite measurable but I don't have any papers at hand. One of those things that has been done so many times it is generally accepted without repeating measurements, and done by people with better equipment and test methodology than most of us, sort of like repeating the speed of light experiment done in HS/college physics classes. Not much point. As one of my college professors was fond of saying "it's intuitively obvious". To him, anyway...

Not sure I buy the only argument is "defensiveness"; actives require speaker manufacturers to supply electronics and audiophiles to use them. Many folk simply want to plug and play, others are suspicious of anything they can't control (like swapping amplifiers and crossovers), and the speaker designers also have to worry about handing crossovers over to folk who might royally mess them up (if they can, e.g. reprogramming the DSP to "taste") then trash their design. It also requires a separate box these days to implement the crossover unless it is built into the speaker. It would require a paradigm shift in many ways, from including more advanced crossover functionality in things like AVRs, to changing the mindset of many listeners (and reviewers) to let active designs take over. Heck, what about the extra wiring to bring power to an active surround speaker? I have heard the "actives are better and so must inevitably replace passive speakers" since the 1970's and I am sure others who've been around longer can readily top that.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Justifying the use of passive crossovers is an exercise in defensiveness; active crossovers are clearly the right way of solving the problem of making several transducers behave as a single ideal unit, and the only arguments against them are 'tradition'.

Yes, tradition, but there is also cost to the maker and also often to the consumer in total system cost in added electronics and amps, not offset by eliminating passive components.

I think the real issue for most existing speaker makers, particularly in the boutiquey world of small manufacturers, is that it requires them to acquire expertise in areas where they lack it and the technical resources. Most do not make amps or active electronics. They don't know how, so they would have to partner with someone else - horrors.

 

[dallasjustice]

I’ve asked different speaker designers who exclusively design passive speakers this question. I’ve also asked their sales people. The answers I’ve received from speaker designers have been nonsensical. It’s the kind of stuff I know they’d never say publicly. One designer insisted that he tried to design an active speaker with digital crossovers but the preringing in the digital filters was too much. He also said he thought amplifiers could control drivers better with a passive crossover. It was such a dumb exchange, I didn’t bother asking too many follow-up questions. This is like asking a jury why they voted the way they did after the trial is over. I’ve tried hundreds of jury trials. Early on, I made a habit of talking to jurors afterward. But I eventually discovered that jurors will always lie about the reasons for their decision. So I don’t talk to them unless they seek me out.

This is a good question to ask. But you must ask the right people. I have also asked the sales people why no active speakers. Their answers are much more honest. They tell me “their” customers want to use their own amplifiers, cables and DACs. This is probably the most accurate assessment of sentiment. But sentiment can change. So it’s really up to the customers to demand more flexibility from speaker designers.

Should there be new speaker designers who can serve these new customers? I’m talking about customers who want their cake and eat it too. These customers want a great active speaker, using their own amps, speaker cables and DAC.

There is a way forward. There are only a few speakers available today which have external crossovers or allow the user to connect each driver without a passive crossover network interposed between the driver and the amplifier. There is no reason why many more speakers couldn’t be made this way. I do think it takes much more than that. I believe the manufacturer would need a system in place to help the customer install/setup each speaker. I think it would be labor intensive at first. But it would be well worth it. For me, Audiolense is a great solution. Maybe others would rather use different software. The manufacturer can make recommendations concerning crossovers, slopes and delay. I think there’s no legitimate reason to not use linear phase crossovers. This sort of effort would demand a lot of service and expertise from dealers and manufacturers. (Something we don’t see anymore). For customers who don’t want/need room EQ with same gain amps, it would be very simple to let the customer download the convolution .wav impulses and config files for Roon or Jriver and install them. (5 minutes max). Is this too much to ask from consumers who already download firmware, drivers and regularly update playback software? I’m not in this business so maybe this all seems silly to someone who does this for their living. But it’s the only way I can see active speakers take off in the audiophile community.

The only active speakers we’ve seen so far are “lifestyle” or “pro audio” products. There’s still nothing attractive for die hard audiophiles.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I’ve asked different speaker designers who exclusively design passive speakers this question. I’ve also asked their sales people. The answers I’ve received from speaker designers have been nonsensical. It’s the kind of stuff I know they’d never say publicly. One designer insisted that he tried to design an active speaker with digital crossovers but the preringing in the digital filters was too much. He also said he thought amplifiers could control drivers better with a passive crossover. It was such a dumb exchange, I didn’t bother asking too many follow-up questions. This is like asking a jury why they voted the way they did after the trial is over. I’ve tried hundreds of jury trials. Early on, I made a habit of talking to jurors afterward. But I eventually discovered that jurors will always lie about the reasons for their decision. So I don’t talk to them unless they seek me out.

This is a good question to ask. But you must ask the right people. I have also asked the sales people why no active speakers. Their answers are much more honest. They tell me “their” customers want to use their own amplifiers, cables and DACs. This is probably the most accurate assessment of sentiment. But sentiment can change. So it’s really up to the customers to demand more flexibility from speaker designers.

Should there be new speaker designers who can serve these new customers? I’m talking about customers who want their cake and eat it too. These customers want a great active speaker, using their own amps, speaker cables and DAC.

There is a way forward. There are only a few speakers available today which have external crossovers or allow the user to connect each driver without a passive crossover network interposed between the driver and the amplifier. There is no reason why many more speakers couldn’t be made this way. I do think it takes much more than that. I believe the manufacturer would need a system in place to help the customer install/setup each speaker. I think it would be labor intensive at first. But it would be well worth it. For me, Audiolense is a great solution. Maybe others would rather use different software. The manufacturer can make recommendations concerning crossovers, slopes and delay. I think there’s no legitimate reason to not use linear phase crossovers. This sort of effort would demand a lot of service and expertise from dealers and manufacturers. (Something we don’t see anymore). For customers who don’t want/need room EQ, it would be very simple to let the customer download the convolution .wav impulses and config files for Roon or Jriver and install them. (5 minutes max). Is this too much to ask from consumers who already download firmware, drivers and regularly update playback software? I’m not in this business so maybe this all seems silly to someone who does this for their living. But it’s the only way I can see active speakers take off in the audiophile community.

The only active speakers we’ve seen so far are “lifestyle” or “pro audio” products. There’s still nothing attractive for die hard audiophiles.

Interesting!

In the same vein, talking about the most elegant solutions, why wouldn’t you go for a setup that includes speakers, amps and DSP including room compensation from one company like this:

https://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/1236a-sam-studio-monitor

Wouldn’t this 1236 system in a box simplify your existing system even more?

Could such a system be the last step on your journey from the audiophile outset?

 

[Vintage57]

“Should there be new speaker designers who can serve these new customers? I’m talking about customers who want their cake and eat it too. These customers want a great active speaker, using their own amps, speaker cables and DAC.”

Actually there is. Bryston is now selling their Middle T, and T models as a well designed compliment of drivers in a cabinet with 3 inputs only. Customer chooses crossover and power. They can go with Bryston but don’t need to as it’s sold a la-carte. If this idea is well received there may be others.

 

[RayDunzl]

There’s still nothing attractive for die hard audiophiles.

Anything New and Improved! must be met with the proper dose of skepticism.

I remember seeing new and improved refried beans. New was no lard, but composed of trans-fats.

I'm "die hard" if the definition includes people that already have speakers they like and suitable amplification and a nice little box that converts digits to waves and they don't feel too much like parting with them, or adding more amplifier stages, or spending lots of money as the case may be, to become "active".

I'm not "die hard" if the definition doesn't include people willing to play whack-a-mole with those bit perfect via DSP.

So far I can't say I've seen (for sure not heard, being a hermit) any convincing evidence that active (speaker corrected) is demonstrably better than just adjusting the signal (AKA Room Correction) going to a passive, when viewed from the listening position, which is where I listen.


My passive MartinLogans show the same frequency aberrations as my "active" JBL 308s, and both benefit from a little extra signal correction to defeat their over-achieving low end here. The -2dB trim switch on the JBL isn't enough, the -4dB on the MartinLogans isn't either.

---

I'm adding a minDSP 2x4HD ($205) for some individual cheezewoofer control...

---

Ooh, the cheezewoofers were on sale, $175 delivered, but ends today (3/11/18).

---

I'll probably try turning them into sealed instead of ported (23hz), to match the mains, and relocate them when that is the only thing I have better to do.

---

Ignore all the above if a pair of M2 hit the Neverland East loading dock. That could give me the religion.