|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
92.232.186.234
In Reply to: RE: A trully great system posted by Bill the K on September 24, 2015 at 03:40:28
No.
It shows that active line level crossovers are superior to passive speaker level crossovers.
There is no need to build the amps into the speaker cab and indeed top-of-the-range Genelecs and other main monitors have the amps and crossovers housed separately in a rack.
The really important part is that every driver is coupled directly to its own amp.
It also shows that ample headroom is important. Genelec uses a 300W amp for the tweeter, 600W for the mid and 2x1100W for the bass in their 1036A and that really fancy 'audiophile-approved' amps are of very limited importance.
Follow Ups:
Here is a link to that speaker $42000 each
http://www.shopbot.ca/ps-genelec-1036a-each-88269299.html
Alan
US equivalent would be $31,500.
Quite an assumption , so no it doesnt prove active is better than passive , there are advantages and disadvantages, it does prove most systems are under powered , as expressed many times here before ..Imo , The OP system is greatly under powered for his speakers , so not suprised by the reaction ...
Regards
Edits: 09/24/15 09/24/15
I can think of advantages of an active system but besides the need for more amps I cannot think of a single disadvantage.
Theres no free ride , so there will always be disadvantages with anything , Active systems places more electronics into the chain , this is never "better" not to mention you are strapped to the sound of said electronics and their associated sonic signature and noise , active can match or better passive in the lower frequencies, due to insertion loss and complexities associated with a passive xver ..
Hybrid active , with active on the bass / passive for mid-high is what i have found to be the best compromise ...
Regards
Edits: 09/24/15
How are you necessarily tied to the electronics?
My speakers are active and I can just as easily swap or exchange amps as one can do with passives.
I can also change the crossover itself if I so desire and active crossovers can be substantially more precise in the job they do than passives could ever be especially if they are DSP-based.
Time and phase alignment is doddle while passive time alignment smears even more detail than a simple passive crossover does.
Crossover slopes can be made arbitrarily steep without any danger of ringing or putting more passive components between amp and driver which is never a good idea.
For mids and bass the control by the amp actives allow is a large and easily audible benefit provided one uses an amp with a suitably low output impedance.
Over the course of my audio life I have converted a few speakers to active and the bottom line is that actives with cheap(ish) amps easily outperform an otherwise identical passive with ANY amp.
For some who like the sound of tubes active speakers are typically solid state. I love tubes but really liked the Genelec
Alan
I too love tubes but only before anything gets recorded (or may be during).
Once a signal has been recorded I insist on SS amplification as it is far more accurate.
I have 200w per size. Previously had 400w per size. Much better with 200w because the amps are a better amp. Also my room is only 15x12
Alan
It shows that active line level crossovers are superior to passive speaker level crossovers.
eliminating the need for them altogether.
Agreed. There's NOTHING more seamless than full-range.
The problem with full-range are the very audible IM distortions and excessive beaming at higher frequencies.
Panel speakers also lack dynamic headroom (ie they don't go loud enough) and whizzer cones as used on many dynamic full-rangers are just crap and have very little to do with high fidelity.
We are both talking about large area full range stats where your first comment doesn't apply. As for the second, I don't suffer that issue with the Sound Lab design with its faceted panel approach. Are you familiar with the design?
Playing music with peaks in the mid 90s db range is all I desire. My ears stay the healthier for it as well.
I continue to marvel that the soundfield changes very little as I walk around my listening room - either in front of or behind the speakers. The notion of optimal seating position with respect to tweeter height is absent. Radiation at six inches above the floor as the same as six feet.
To each his own.
Similar experience to my Tannoy based speakers then but I expect my speakers to be capable of delivering peaks of 110dBspl or more as I listen in the mid 90s at times and to cover peaks cleanly I insist on 12dB headroom as an absolute minimum.
My ears seem to be fine. I can still hear my supertweeters which kick in above 15kHz which is far better than one would expect at my age.
As for panels in general I've listened to QUAD ESL 57&63 and decided that they are not for me.
Not least because my speakers inevitably find themselves with their backs on a wall so no OBs for me either.
As for panels in general I've listened to QUAD ESL 57&63 and decided that they are not for me.
Agreed. I've also heard stacked 57s and they didn't do it for me either. Unlike the U-1s, they cannot do 30 hz.
I gather you are not familiar with the unique SL panel approach. It uses a single diaphragm, but across a faceted grid in a curved arc. Mine radiate across 90 degrees.
Click here for a rear shot that might help illustrate the approach.
Not least because my speakers inevitably find themselves with their backs on a wall so no OBs for me either.
I am fortunate having a dedicated listening room that allow the freedom to place them optimally. They're about eight feet out from back wall (pics in my gallery if you're interested).
Interesting speakers!
And yeah the advantage of living in North America which is largely empty compared to Europe is that space is cheap so I don't have the luxury of a large enough dedicated listening room.
He said dynamic headroom , ESL panels dont do soft , they do soft or loud , so they lack dynamic range, micro dynamics is essential to good dynamic range , unfortunately there are those who think loud is dynamics..
Agree with the advantages of a linesource , they have a big advantage over point source, due to the lower distortion from a larger surface area ...
Really? Whatever you say!
Read my post again ....
They also do in between. :)
micro dynamics is essential to good dynamic range
I certainly agree. What made the biggest difference in that regard with my system was replacing the preamp.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: