I have read rumors either here or another forum that a full DSP crossover Giya is in the works. With the G1 Spirit having external crossovers, this seems to be one more step towards that direction? Anyone else with more information?
Interesting. Has the Nautilus always had a DSP crossover? I ask because they were in my final knockout audition when I chose new speakers about 20 years ago. I knew they were active and 8 mono amps were used in the demo but hadn't realised the crossover had any digital technology in it. I believe the Apogee DAX was a digital active crossover (it was active Apogee Divas I was replacing)It makes sense for two reasons, if true:
1. Dick designed the nautilus and it has a DSP crossover. He's also made favorable comments in the past about DSP crossovers.
2. As you say, the spirit has an external crossover, which is a first for vivid.
Im considering going fully active with my giya spirits ..
There was a fully DSP active spirit at Munich..tho no impressions were posted that I can find
I would use class D amps .. something like the D-sonic amps that use the pascal module and use 3 of their 600w amps for the mid/treble side and a 1.5kw module for the bass. In terms of price the 4 amps isnt too bad..$9k all in .. the spirits can handle 1650w rms on a coninual basis .. insane levels for a 92db speaker
The issue for me is the DSP crossover..at Munich , a trinnov altitude 32 was used and it is rather pricey ($20 000 to $30 000) ... beyond what I would pay ... I would most likely use a MiniDSP or some other DSP unit and would need dickies "recipe" as going DIY DSP active and getting all the settings right is beyond me.
However , According to Philip Guttentag , boss man of Vivid , there is no HUGE benefit in going fully DSP active anyway..
I have had active , DSP active and passive setups and can't say that active beats passive when it comes to sound quality
Vivid will not warranty the spirits if you do go DIY dsp actives.. very easy to damage drivers in that scenario..
A loudspeaker test technique is described which depends on nearfield pressure measurements made in a nonanechoic environment. The technique allows extremely simple measurements to be made of frequency response, power response, distortion, and electroacoustical efficiency.
To me, trying to jerry rig a speaker originally designed to be passive into an active with digital XO has zero appeal.
IMO, the best digital active speakers were designed that way from the ground up. I'm looking forward to the Lexicon Sl-1; Not to be confused with LS1.
Really Vivid Giya speakers have the best off-axis response of any passive speaker. I used to own the G3. It's a wonderful speaker. My dealer owns the G1. Its also awesome. My issues with Vivid has nothing to do with the speaker's performance. I honestly don't know whether using a digital crossover could significantly improve the Giya's off-axis. Maybe the on axis could be more tailored to the listener's liking. But the same thing could also be done with Dirac Live or Acourate.I am taking an educated guess that they were designed/simulated with DSP then the passive crossovers were built to approximate them since the passive crossovers are 4th order L-R.
I agree unless the designer gave me his exact DSP settings, I wouldn't want to do it myself (or let a third party) with a speaker at the level of the Vivid; you'd need an anechoic chamber and plenty of knowledge to do it properly with just the basic information of "4th order L-R". A fully active Salon 2 would also be of interest to me, but the G3's polars look better.
Really Vivid Giya speakers have the best off-axis response of any passive speaker. I used to own the G3. It's a wonderful speaker. My dealer owns the G1. Its also awesome. My issues with Vivid has nothing to do with the speaker's performance. I honestly don't know whether using a digital crossover could significantly improve the Giya's off-axis. Maybe the on axis could be more tailored to the listener's liking. But the same thing could also be done with Dirac Live or Acourate.
When it comes to digital XOs and active speakers. I really think no current speaker's technology has scratched the surface of what is really possible. That's exciting and depressing, at the same time.
I wouldn't be trying to improve the off axis, but the step response.
Beolab 90's ..the only speaker I would have considered vs my spirits .. but not a pair in sight in Sunny South Africa.
I think the off axis response of the spirits is in a different league to the G1's .. walk from the listening position and the soundstage and imaging only collapse once you physically behind the speakers ..
I have a theory that DSP is not taking off all that quickly because people are misusing it. Give them a microphone and some pretty graphs, and their natural instinct is to try to make what reaches their ear look like the signal. In other words, whether they know it or not, they are trying to get the speaker/room combination to sound like an anechoic chamber - something they wouldn't want even if they could achieve it. Instead they get something that is the worst of all worlds: it doesn't sound like the signal, and it doesn't sound like the signal with added real, coherent, acoustic room ambience.
They need to use DSP to create a neutral speaker only, and then they will find themselves reminded of the best hi-fi experiences they had before the invention of DSP* - the ones that addicted them to hi-fi in the first place - but even better.
* and the ubiquity of bass reflex