It is possible to build an all analog active loudspeaker. SGR Audio in Melbourne, Australia have been doing so for well over 20 years now.
Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?
- Thread starter musicfirst1
- Start date
Ultimately one day I want to try an active analog crossover and multi amps to each driver of my speaker. Sort of like Linkwitz speakers. But my assumption is, you applying a filter to the signal and what damage did that do. I would start out with full active until I figured out the specification. Then have someone make me an analog one.
Why not? If you can make a truly full range active speaker that sounds better across every genre of music, whether that be streamed or from a phono preamp, for less than 100,000 AUD, I will buy it.
Last edited:
Martion orgon or bullfrog a (pure analog active speaker with class a amps if you wish) or with dsp.
1. You will lose one of the main advantages of a digital crossover as a developer, the ability to quickly iterate and experiment. The development time and cost will skyrocket compared to a digital crossover. As a natural outcome of this, the end result will not be as good.
2. A competent digital crossover will be at least as transparent and more efficient than an analog crossover. It also have capabilities to do more and different things. As an example we use 1.order, phase linear crossover filters, but they are asymmetric. So further down, the slopes get steeper. Which means you get the benefit of the phase linearity and natural sound of a traditional 1.order filter, combined with the driver protection of a steeper filter.
3. Sound better than what? The SGR Audio speakers? It is not my place as a manufacturer to comment directly on competing products, and I am not familiar with their products. That being said, truly full range active speaker systems is actually our thing.
They sound great across every genre of music whether you stream or play from a phono preamp. And it's all less than 100,000 AUD."Cheap amps with built in dsp" has nothing to do with benefits with active vs passive. You are making a poor strawman argument and attack the player instead of bringing serious arguments in to the discussion. Let's discuss the matter at hand instead.Being involved with speaker design is not an excuse for anything, seems like you cannot trow a rock in Scandinavia without hitting someone thinking they have cracked the code of designing the perfect speaker. Cheap amps with built in dsp everywhere seems to make these delusions of grandeur even more prevalent, diy people calling themselves manufacturers included. Meridian are still trying 30 years later, but most audiophiles are not buying that "perfect" speaker either. Good enough for the home theater, but not for a serious audiophile !
An active solution can of course involve external components. And very expensive amps for that matter, though price and quality here doesn't necessarily go hand in hand (we have repaired and up graded expensive gear FIR).
An external crossover with external amps is the better solution IMO, though internal can certainly work great if they measure well. But he best measuring components today are external, so that's what I would choose.
The result of Meridian alone doesn't tell us much about active vs passive. Same speaker with both options or same design as a start but with the options of deviations with extra freedom active gives, would be a right comparison.
A passive crossover network will generally lead to higher intermodulation distortion and put a veil with less detail and resolution over the sound. That's not high-fidelity.
Does the use of the term "generally" imply there are instances where it does not (in your experience)?
You keep on talking about active versus passive. I don't like the sound of active digital speakers, active speakers with analog crossovers are definitely contenders for great sound, the digital versions not so much !
Last edited:
you have answered your own question about where active digital crossovers belong. at the modest end of the marketplace. where development and build costs are more an issue. no one is claiming there is not a place for this technology. cost of building crossovers or the investment in it's design, are not relatively significant parts of a 'super' speaker. whereas at the other end of the price ranges it is.
you have a big hill to climb. good luck.
Last edited:
It's not really about cost, it's about approaching it in a completely novel way, when you suddenly has the ability to do tens or even hundreds of iterations over a relatively small period of time. If during a listening session I hear something is off in some part of the frequency spectrum, I can experiment and adjust, and be back to listening in a few minutes.
The "super high-end" segment isn't really about better sound, it's about more expensive and exotic materials and design. This is of course completely fine, the experience of owning something exclusive and well built certainly holds value.
Beyond that; You and most others on this forum has concluded on this topic already. You have decided from the get go that digital has to be inferior to analog. You are only looking for confirmation that this is the case, not for evidence of the contrary. So there is little point in me engaging in rational discussion over this topic.
the perspective of many of us is more nuanced than that. we are not 'anti'.....but we have to be convinced. not by words, but we would have to somehow experience it. our own logic says "analog sources + digital crossover + expensive speaker = not compatible. you would have to overcome that.
my own process if i was faced with my ears telling me that a great sounding speaker that i like a lot, has a digital crossover, would be first to ask a lot of questions. then maybe see if i could directly compare it to a known reference speaker i like with an analog crossover. you would need a system with top level analog sources to A/B it. that digital crossover speaker would have to really capture me to motivate me to investigate it. it would need offer me a value proposition to get me excited. that is a big ask.
but short of that sort of process, there will be a degree of dismissal in our reactions to this idea.
sometimes the market demands a certain particular product. other times something happens to open people up to a different direction. digital active crossovers in expensive top market speakers is simply not anything higher end buyers are looking for. but also, most do follow their ears. and so it's wholly on you to break through that reticence and demonstrate you have the better mouse trap.
it's on you to create that experience and buzz.
Sounds like we agree that I won't get anywhere by discussing it here then at least.
tell us where to hear it. hopefully in an analog source context. we will cheer you on in your efforts. but we need hear it.Sounds like we agree that I won't get anywhere by discussing it here then at least.
once that happens there is more to talk about.
We unfortunately only have showroom / demo opportunities in Europe so far.
I think there is an automatic bias based on what currently exists with regards to this. It's easy to draw the conclusion that since most / all high-end loudspeakers use analog crossovers, that must be because that is the best choice. While in reality the reason is a combination of conservative manufacturers and conservative buyers, and they fuel each other. It is not because high end digital crossovers can't be done.
I would argue it's much lower than just the tip top, which is a fraction of a % of total available gear. As I see the current market, DSP is more mid - priced high - end equipment (I guess we'd need to equate to $ for better specificity, but the Sigberg speakers fit the bill) with a key attribute being Class D amps mounted in speakers for space and in many cases cost savings.
Don't agree at all.
Analogue reproduction kit does cost a fortune, but if that investment is put into a first-class digital -only system (and of course better speakers), the end result will almost certainly be better sound quality. It's like digital cameras. 30 years ago, they produced poor pictures compared with film, but technology in digital technology (both in cameras and hifi) has improved to such a degree that virtually no one still uses analogue film. Digital has caught up and surpassed analogue in both fields, but of course there are diehards who cling on to their analogue kit because they have such a huge sum invested in it, both in hardware and software. Do I need to take cover?
You keep on talking about active versus passive. I don't like the sound of active digital speakers, active speakers with analog crossovers are definitely contenders for great sound, the digital versions not so much !
Out of curiosity, which active digital speakers have you heard?
Meridian, B&O, Holm Audio and Dynaudio. The Dynaudio might have been aktive analoge. None of them impressed me especially the treble did not compare to analog.
Last edited:
What is high end? Is it a $$ value or sonic performance?
My perspective is the debate over high end itself is in the air. Would Peter call his old stereo high end? It wasn't natural. Would Bonzo call anytiing but a horn or some planer type high end.
When I talk to people that own horns, what they complain about is the crossover. Every one. They are always working on it. They are all passive. All with issues.
Even a company like Daedalus, what do they do all the time. They update the passive crossover. Speaker designers nerver seem satisfied with the passive crossover. Just look at the Pure Audio Project crowd. Many are messing with the crossover, just like myself. My speaker is supposed to be 96db efficient. Yet Thomas with PAP likes 250 watts to drive them. I have 40 watts, 76 lb monoblocks and my amps can't push through the crossover. Its just sucking and sucking and sucking. Then the hardcore advocates for pasive crossovers start talking about finding caps that are $3500 each. And you need a bunch of them. And chokes that are $1500 each. Pretty soon you have a crossover that is twice the cost of the drivers and enclosure. There is a problem with the technology if that is what it takes. And still these people are not satisfied and feel the need to fiddle.
Now I ask, how many have put the same time and money into investigating active crossovers. Ones made with quality parts. Quality DAC chips. Quality power supplies. I see the manufactures point in not using them purely out of perception. What would the magazines say. ITS THE BEST SOUNDING SPEAKER I EVER HEARD. BUT YOU CAN TELL ITS DIGITAL. Done. Crushed the product. Sales plumet.
Maybe on the very highest level, 1% top performing systems, all analog is best. On some types of music. And whats the source. That leaves 99% of all systems that "might" reach a pinnacle of performance, better than all analog. Implimentation will be key.
As I continue to consider DSP in my system, I think of the best systems I have heard. All those people started with DSP and moved away from it. Hmmmmm
My perspective is the debate over high end itself is in the air. Would Peter call his old stereo high end? It wasn't natural. Would Bonzo call anytiing but a horn or some planer type high end.
When I talk to people that own horns, what they complain about is the crossover. Every one. They are always working on it. They are all passive. All with issues.
Even a company like Daedalus, what do they do all the time. They update the passive crossover. Speaker designers nerver seem satisfied with the passive crossover. Just look at the Pure Audio Project crowd. Many are messing with the crossover, just like myself. My speaker is supposed to be 96db efficient. Yet Thomas with PAP likes 250 watts to drive them. I have 40 watts, 76 lb monoblocks and my amps can't push through the crossover. Its just sucking and sucking and sucking. Then the hardcore advocates for pasive crossovers start talking about finding caps that are $3500 each. And you need a bunch of them. And chokes that are $1500 each. Pretty soon you have a crossover that is twice the cost of the drivers and enclosure. There is a problem with the technology if that is what it takes. And still these people are not satisfied and feel the need to fiddle.
Now I ask, how many have put the same time and money into investigating active crossovers. Ones made with quality parts. Quality DAC chips. Quality power supplies. I see the manufactures point in not using them purely out of perception. What would the magazines say. ITS THE BEST SOUNDING SPEAKER I EVER HEARD. BUT YOU CAN TELL ITS DIGITAL. Done. Crushed the product. Sales plumet.
Maybe on the very highest level, 1% top performing systems, all analog is best. On some types of music. And whats the source. That leaves 99% of all systems that "might" reach a pinnacle of performance, better than all analog. Implimentation will be key.
As I continue to consider DSP in my system, I think of the best systems I have heard. All those people started with DSP and moved away from it. Hmmmmm
Similar threads
