I agree, that’s why I like to prototype in foam core.
I should try covering it with the faux ebony vinyl!
They look great. Plenty of fine speakers you've made there. Those mini monitors almost look like a blank canvas. You could go any way with those, would be nice to have something individual as well.
Tubemax,
Your build looks great!
Visaton WS130 isn't a driver I have used yet, but it looks to be a fairly nice paper cone, somewhat cheaper than the AL130, but it is used extensively in Visaton kits.
The tweeter is unknown to me.
I've recently gone off textile domes, so I'd probably choose something else - but does anyone even make a mylar or polycarbonate dome, these days?
West sounds,
I avoid DSP if I can (I'm funny and like analogue better),
But going active will absolutely remove another veil from the sound, sounding all subjective and 6moonsy.
Going active, even just analogue active (if you believe its sound is lesser than DSP) is like night and day, comparing to a good passive XO.
Your build looks great!
Visaton WS130 isn't a driver I have used yet, but it looks to be a fairly nice paper cone, somewhat cheaper than the AL130, but it is used extensively in Visaton kits.
The tweeter is unknown to me.
I've recently gone off textile domes, so I'd probably choose something else - but does anyone even make a mylar or polycarbonate dome, these days?
West sounds,
I avoid DSP if I can (I'm funny and like analogue better),
But going active will absolutely remove another veil from the sound, sounding all subjective and 6moonsy.
Going active, even just analogue active (if you believe its sound is lesser than DSP) is like night and day, comparing to a good passive XO.
Going active, even just analogue active (if you believe its sound is lesser than DSP) is like night and day, comparing to a good passive XO.
No: if the acoustic output of the driver is exactly the same and levels are carefully matched you will not hear any difference between active and passive analogue. Many statements like the quote above are made on the basis of differences between the transfer function of the passive and the active filters.
No: if the acoustic output of the driver is exactly the same and levels are carefully matched you will not hear any difference between active and passive analogue. Many statements like the quote above are made on the basis of differences between the transfer function of the passive and the active filters.
Believe me if I knew how to design and make a crossover I would be the same as you. I would way prefer to have a good passive analogue crossover. The only way I stand any chance of tailor designing a crossover to make subtle changes will be take the learning curve with a DSP. I would rather a nice crossover and one set of wires going to my speakers rather than DSP, extra amplifiers for individual drive units etc. I'm not trying to learn crossover building now, be nice to know exactly what they did in some of the greats like the LS3/5As and others like ProAc, but no its not going to happen. Tweakery via a digital crossover will be far easier to master for me.
Personally I would agree with this I don't think its any different the only thing with DSP is more possible parameters for adjustment and fine tuning being almost infinite, but this could be done with passive as well, but its easier and instantly measurable with a DSP. Sound wise I would say they are no different, passive crossover done well is just as good as any DSP. And the same for no crossover components (or minimum then) as some speakers have is no different to passive or active either. A good design is a good sounding design regardless the system of connecting the drivers to the amplifier. If a system sounds good I dont think anyone could tell what type of crossover has been employed.
I have gotten very good at passive crossovers; I do it by trial and error. I spend a great deal of time playing around and experimenting. I can do this now because I am fully retired so I have all the time in the world. If done correctly; the sound improvement is sometimes as good if not better than any DSP, analog, digital or any other electronic or active crossover.
I started this crazy hobby when I was about 12 years old; I am now in my mid 60's so decades of experience and practice for sure...
I started this crazy hobby when I was about 12 years old; I am now in my mid 60's so decades of experience and practice for sure...
With tools like Xsim, VituixCAD, or Jeff Bagby’s PCD spreadsheet, REW and a calibrated mic for FRD flies, a DATS or REW for ZMA files, and some patience, you can design a passive crossover. I used to use DSP for years, but I like the convenience of a passive XO and ultimately, lower noise of passive XO. It lets me compare amps without making two amps.
I pretty much go through all the steps how to do it in my thread here. Especially the part where you measure tweeter, woofer, and tweeter and woofer in parallel without touching the speaker or the mic, in order to do acoustic interferometry to deduce the acoustic offsets. You must get that right or the phase offsets won’t be accurate and the XO simulator will not predict accurately what happens.
I pretty much go through all the steps how to do it in my thread here. Especially the part where you measure tweeter, woofer, and tweeter and woofer in parallel without touching the speaker or the mic, in order to do acoustic interferometry to deduce the acoustic offsets. You must get that right or the phase offsets won’t be accurate and the XO simulator will not predict accurately what happens.
Yes I would rather passives if I could only do it. Speaker building is an art and a science but getting the crossovers perfected is a bit of a fine craft in itself. Wish I had been more interested over the years and picked things up. Reading everything now just boggles my mind. What I really need is neighbours like you guys were I could just call in, I'd sure I'd learn a great deal just by osmosis. But the practical approach would work better with me than trawling through tons of threads.
I does look really great what youve learnt to do wish I had your knowledge and skills to go at it.
Haha I must just be talking horse sheiße!
All I can say is, one amp per driver makes thing sound a whole lot better than a stereo amp, feeding a 2nd order network! Yes that's my experience, and whether anyone agrees with my opinion is largely irrelevant.
Less noise? Well yeah.. duh...you're on the high level end of things...and that's the first time I have ever heard noise used as a good reason for a passive high level XO.
All I can say is, one amp per driver makes thing sound a whole lot better than a stereo amp, feeding a 2nd order network! Yes that's my experience, and whether anyone agrees with my opinion is largely irrelevant.
Less noise? Well yeah.. duh...you're on the high level end of things...and that's the first time I have ever heard noise used as a good reason for a passive high level XO.
You do make an excellent point. And it is logical one amp per driver would seem the idealistic way to run any loudspeaker. With DSP as long as its decent and perfectly transparent acousticly other than the adjustments it would in theory be a better load for the amplifier as well. Practically its not the most simplistic but setting it up would be easier I'd say. I think it could be the best method but I still would rather at the moment a well designed fit and forget passive and one good amp. But my opinions may change once I have tried a few actives. I have tried bi amp'ing before with bi wire speakers but I never felt it was night and day better, just double the cost of amplifier and speaker cables. I'd rather upgrade to one better amplifier. But using a DSP is slightly different though where there is more scope for control.
My honest opinion?
DSP for a passively filtered (conventional high level) it little more than a complex GEQ.
DSP, or other low level filtration, plus amplifiers, one per driver, is an active system.
Depending on if you want the ease of use and affordability, then DSP is powerful and a worthy buy, certainly compared with doing similar, within limits in an analogue filter circuit.
I just like analogue, and the biggest thumbs down for me regarding DSP is the low level signal input, meaning I'd probably need to attenuated before the DSP, and amplify again afterwards (XRKs point about noise?).
I dont need to do that in analogue, at unity gain, or in the Behringer GEQ that I have used in the past.
DSP for a passively filtered (conventional high level) it little more than a complex GEQ.
DSP, or other low level filtration, plus amplifiers, one per driver, is an active system.
Depending on if you want the ease of use and affordability, then DSP is powerful and a worthy buy, certainly compared with doing similar, within limits in an analogue filter circuit.
I just like analogue, and the biggest thumbs down for me regarding DSP is the low level signal input, meaning I'd probably need to attenuated before the DSP, and amplify again afterwards (XRKs point about noise?).
I dont need to do that in analogue, at unity gain, or in the Behringer GEQ that I have used in the past.
Yes DSP at high level is as you say just a complex GEQ I don't think many are aimed at that though. Most seem to be at line level though I don't know of any at high level even basic graphic eq's.
Its all about the frequencies and levels ultimately. Whether its done, digitally, electronically or with hardwired electronics to attenuate or strengthen certain frequencies and levels does it really matter what method is used. I'm sure it can be done successfully with any method well or poorly depending on equipment used. Whatever method used to change those levels/frequencies as long as it doesn't distort (but even that can prove pleasing to the ear), add or take away anything to the signal being passed through apart from some form of linear adjustment as possible, I can't see why anything can be called a better method other than what suits the user or perhaps just more practical application.
No.
I meant DSP in addition to a traditional crossover network (passive) is just a flexible GEQ.
The most valuable thing in DSP is the ability to convolve time, and provide the correct wave front impulse.
phase alignment/time alignment (though the terms are misused all the time)
It would be pretty pointless using DSP to try and achieve impulse response perfection with a load of passive components in the way. More work than necessary in that case, its easier to remove all passives and start with DSP - I'd imagine...
I meant DSP in addition to a traditional crossover network (passive) is just a flexible GEQ.
The most valuable thing in DSP is the ability to convolve time, and provide the correct wave front impulse.
phase alignment/time alignment (though the terms are misused all the time)
It would be pretty pointless using DSP to try and achieve impulse response perfection with a load of passive components in the way. More work than necessary in that case, its easier to remove all passives and start with DSP - I'd imagine...
Fair enough.
But to convince me: show me overlays in Arta of active and passively filtered driver outputs of those systems that coincide/match within a decibel, both in level and amplitude, and I might reconsider.
The fascinating part of the generic "better/worse" statements in audio is, that they are rarely accompanied or backed up by any measurements.
But to convince me: show me overlays in Arta of active and passively filtered driver outputs of those systems that coincide/match within a decibel, both in level and amplitude, and I might reconsider.
The fascinating part of the generic "better/worse" statements in audio is, that they are rarely accompanied or backed up by any measurements.
Boden,
Noone is going to perform the duty for you, and make a proof.
There is nothing wrong with objectivity.
I try to avoid subjectivity, and I hate using words like Veiled when describing a change in sound, but I have no other vocabulary.
I can't measure the "veil lifting" but I could measure the TF of each system.
Relieving the amplifier of complex impedance loads, and the effects this can have on the amplifiers feedback loop, is enough of a reason for me to advocate active filters and amplification.
(In other words, a passive zobel network/impedance equalizing network, has probably less affect on the sound, that the lack of a zobel - I would even use on fullrange drivers)
Noone is going to perform the duty for you, and make a proof.
There is nothing wrong with objectivity.
I try to avoid subjectivity, and I hate using words like Veiled when describing a change in sound, but I have no other vocabulary.
I can't measure the "veil lifting" but I could measure the TF of each system.
Relieving the amplifier of complex impedance loads, and the effects this can have on the amplifiers feedback loop, is enough of a reason for me to advocate active filters and amplification.
(In other words, a passive zobel network/impedance equalizing network, has probably less affect on the sound, that the lack of a zobel - I would even use on fullrange drivers)
Last edited:
Some of what we hear and like or prefer over other is how our brains do their magic; sometimes this can't be measured with test equipment. I can immediately tell sometimes the improvements made between one capacitor vs another but I think these things may be beyond measurement; at least without very sophisticated and expensive test and measurement equipment. I spent my entire career as Technician and Engineer surrounded by test and measurement equipment so I know the meaning of accurate and repeatable measurements with known good and properly working instruments (verified and calibrated every 6 months traceable back to NIST standards). I was also a musician so I do most of my final tweaks and tuning based on what my ears are telling me. If there are particular issues; I do troubleshooting as I was always taught. I have a calibrated mic and interface; REW and ARTA now but am still learning how to use this "new" technology. Again; we can compare this to art; sometimes it just comes down to personal tastes or preferences and that there is (or MAY be) more than just one "right" "answer".
