active vs. better passive crossover
- Thread starter john & Jake
- Start date
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Something went a bit awry there in editing my last post!
No problem serge .... I do have a lot of respect for your technical opinions... It just seems that you are not hearing the same things as the rest of us! When you claimed that even turntable and arms and most cartridges sound the same i couldn't let it go unchallenged any longer though....
No problem serge .... I do have a lot of respect for your technical opinions... It just seems that you are not hearing the same things as the rest of us! When you claimed that even turntable and arms and most cartridges sound the same i couldn't let it go unchallenged any longer though....
Having studied this post, I suppose what is trivial to one person is not to someone else.
I'm afraid not having the equipment to measure anything electrical I just use my ears, so don't have to obsess about measurements.
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Show me how Serge. Look at all the measurements for the TEAD Vibe and show me where it is audibly worse than a fixed wire with gain.
http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Product-Reviews/Hi-Fi/tom-evans-audio-design-athe-vibea-preamplifier.html
sergeauckland
pfm Member
From the Test Report, that active pre-amp would be indistinguishable from a passive. It is transparent under any sort of objective criteria.
Consequently, if anyone said it sounded better than an appropriately used passive, I would have to question the test methodology. Properly blind? Properly level matched?
S.
Years ago over at the Naim forum there was talk about having 'dangling' crossovers on naim speakers. The idea was to minimize acoustical vibrations on the crossovers by detaching them from the speakers and some thought that a considerable part of the benefit of going active was just this acoustic insulation.
john & Jake
Jake was smarter than me
Can I come in from the other end and state that if it is indistinguishable from a passive, why not save $8500 and use a passive
.When I changed some capacitors and wire on my JBL K2 speakers the crossover had to be on the floor behind the speakers. The DNM solid core cable would not fold up inside as the original "Monster Cable" had.
Without isolation under the crossover the sound is greatly degraded. I don't think "dangling" would isolate them.
That tells us more about the Naim forum than anything else. Active operation, properly-implemented (not the half-baked and incredibly expensive Naim version of active) is always a lot better than passive, for well-understood reasons, and this has nothing to do with danging or "isolated" passive crossovers.
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Can I come in from the other end and state that if it is indistinguishable from a passive, why not save $8500 and use a passive
I'm sure we would all do that if it were the case.
Life is however far too short and otherwise interesting to enter into a circular argument with Serge about this. There's an election on!
Good idea. JRiver and Pure Music in stock form allow you to setup simple software crossovers, but I tend to prefer one of several solutions that allow you full EQ: this works particularly well with full-range drivers.
I know there's a strong belief on this forum that anything in the digital domain is terrifically painless and difficult to get wrong - so I'm surprised there isn't more interest in doing away with both inelegant solutions (ie, passive XO and D-A-D-A conversion) and harnessing the processing power of the computer.
It seems to be one of those obvious ideas that has been overlooked.
Don't stumble over the word. Then call it 'acoustically isolated crossovers'.
Attitude issues Bub? The benefits of going active weren't in doubt. The claim was that there were two effects, and that the second effect was considerable. Or at least cheap.
htm_1968
pfm Member
I like all the cheap shots at Naim, they're very funny.
I do hold the view that the best thing to do with a Naim passive crossover is to remove (not dangle) it wherever possible. Naim speakers are OK driven passively, but are totally different beasts when actively driven. In an active setup Naim speakers can produce some lovely music.
I would also hold the same view about most Linn speakers I've heard. Passively driven, they tend sound a bit flabby in the bass to my ears. Actively driven on the other hand the Linn bass is leaner and punchy (for want of a better description). Much more impressive when Aktiv. Similarly, I much prefer the active ATC speakers I've had the chance to listen to over the passive alternatives.
I do hold the view that the best thing to do with a Naim passive crossover is to remove (not dangle) it wherever possible. Naim speakers are OK driven passively, but are totally different beasts when actively driven. In an active setup Naim speakers can produce some lovely music.
I would also hold the same view about most Linn speakers I've heard. Passively driven, they tend sound a bit flabby in the bass to my ears. Actively driven on the other hand the Linn bass is leaner and punchy (for want of a better description). Much more impressive when Aktiv. Similarly, I much prefer the active ATC speakers I've had the chance to listen to over the passive alternatives.
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
How can you be a big fan of Naim when you don't like their amplifiers or loudspeakers?
Perhaps a little fan of Naim, or more specifically dedicated fanboi for the NAC52 and CDS2?
Perhaps I like most of their preamps as well, James, and most of their CD players, and the Aro as well. But that wouldn't be quite as much spiteful forum fun for you.
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Hardly spiteful, Bub. I really rate the NAC52 and I'm never parting with my ARO. But I don't consider myself a BIG fan of Naim, for similar reasons to yours.