Is There Such A Thing As "SYNERGY" Between Components In An Audio Chain?

[amirm]

the AHEE teaching over the years that midrange is the frequency range where music belongs and IMHO this is one of myths in audio high end and one of the worst and " corrupted " information we learnend.

"AHEE" doesn't teach us that. The science of human hearing system teaches us that. Your ear is most sensitive in that region. Getting that right *is* the most important. Here is the Fltecher-Munson graph:

Whatever level of distortion you strive for, it needs to be lower for the mid-range frequencies.

The music BELONG to a very wide frequency range where midrange is only a fraction of it. If was true that midrange is where music belongs then all the music instruments and music compositions/scores only concentrate/perform in the midrange frequency range and you , everyone and me knows that this not happen.

I have not heard a single person say that all music occurs in mid-frequencies. So let's not state the obvious and say you are correcting others. What people say is that they value the fidelity of mid-range. Per above, there is good science to back that.

As better your frequency extreme quality performance as better the midrange not the other way around, midrange depend on the frequency extremes quality in your system.

Mid-range is mid-range. *It* doesn't depend on anything. The entire music spectrum has other frequencies but what your ear detects as mid-range, would be mid-range even if you chopped off everything else.

So, IMHO as wider and better are both frequency extremes as better is the whole quality performance in any home audio system.

You are inverting the logic and expecting it to be true. Just because someone says they love good mid-range, doesn't mean they want to hear highs at 20% distortion. They are simply saying that their mid-range sounds better than other systems like it.

Now, if like Steve posted in this thread and other threads that the Lamms amplifiers has a midrange to " died for it " or " Tim you will like the Lamms because its midrange " or that in your system you have great midrange or that you feel that needs to improve your midrange then what you have is a poor equilibrum/ tonal balance where because deficient frequency extremes the midrange is the " great " frequency range is the one that always take your attention when hearing your system.

Again, you are misunderstanding the statement. Assume someone takes your system and improves its midrange performance. Are you going to say there is something wrong with it? Again, you keep inverting logic and expecting to be true. Just because they say they have good midrange, it doesn't mean they have bad highs and lows. I have heard Steve's system. Its midrange is wonderful. But it is also quite good in other areas.

IMHO no tube amplifier and I mean no one can honor music home reproduction. A tube amplifier ( all ) are severe faulty at both frequency extremes and that's why the midrange " take your attention " and not because the tube midrange is great but because the tube frequency extremes are really bad are inaccurate and don't put the right " frame " to the midrange and to the MUSIC.

Well, in case of Steve, he is using a sub for low-frequencies. So maybe that is the formula to get good performance across wider range of frequencies.

The answer to this kind of problem certainly is the SS technology. Why the people does not like a good and accurate SS design?, IMHO because when they introduce that good and accurate SS design electronics in their system all the system problems that were hide behind those heavy distortions and inaccuracies that has tube electronics comes " alive " and the tube system owner instead to research where are or where comes all those " quality performance problems " with the SS electronics decide with out any real foundation that the SS electronics are the culprit! and decide that " only tubes " are the ones: wrong terrible wrong audio asumption.

You are declaring something as proof. There is a higher bar for the latter . Check this scenario:

I take a DVD-Audio source and run it through a dedicated Mark Levinson Dac. Then I run it into two versions of Stax headphones: one transistor and one tube. The latter sounds better. Is it your contention that the above system was so fault that the tube managed to hide more of its faults? If so, I doubt it very much . I buy the sound is more colored way before I buy the theory that tubes by magic hide all sorts of distortions.

 

[JackD201]

As bass is the hardest, most expensive or complicated to get right, it is usually the case that that is the part most often missing from a system, and as such is most useful to illustrate how the perception of midrange itself is affected by changes in the bass.

How painfully true on all counts.This gave birth to the general consensus that it's better to have no bass than bad bass. I would heartily agree. Personally I could live with a system that does 14 or 16kHz to 40kHz. Of course I don't but only because I'm, as I like to put it, more "committed" than the average person on the street, who most likely thinks I am not "committed" but should be. Hehehehe. It still doesn't invalidate the fact that frequency limited systems can most definitely be VERY enjoyable. I've heard a few single driver OBs(truly crossover less ) and SETs. The charm is hard to ignore.

Here's a curveball on the economic side of audio. Many folks bemoan the prices of flagship or halo loudspeakers almost all of which claim to be flat down to the low 20's. If you really think about it. The price differential with the bread and butter offerings from the same companies is small compared to one major thing. The cost of the land, structure, finishing, electricals, air conditioning, room treatments, furniture and minibar ( ) required to get those speakers to do what they are supposed to do. Dang!!!!!

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Minibar, eh???? Hmmmm, I think that might be the next "tweak" for my room.

John

 

[JackD201]

Universally accepted as the best LEGAL tweak for any system :lol:

 

[silviajulieta]

Tom

+++++++++++++" Dear Tom: Magic on Cramolin?, certainly not is only a good alternative. The very great discover was and is that today ( as I posted on that Agon link. ) I have every single electrical power supply/transmision/conductor soldered directly inside the electronics with nothing in between both ends in the power cable other than in one end the circuit breaker where the power comes and in the other end the audio item circuit board.

Tom in purple, that makes sense, because there is a lot of current flow through these connectors. Good Idea! Perhaps someday you can solder in the small signal audio interconnect cables as well, as that is also where there will be room for improvement. This is an advantage of an integrated amplifier, where it is even better because you do not have "interconnect cables and connections" at all (assume they are soldered of course..not always the case). " ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Quote.



Dear Tom If you read in my virtual system description you will read that: The audio signal from my Phonolinepreamp goes directly soldered to the Levinson's circuit boards and for speakers these ones are hard wired from each one speaker driver all way down to amplifier outputs passing for the external speakers hardwired true tri-wired passive crossover ( Flat silver wire inductors, teflon caps, Caddock resistors, etc. )


Yes, you are right these " moves " make a huge differences for the better.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Regarding midrange reproduction, its range, and its relationship to the extremes (inside of which is how I defined midrange, btw): What Amir said.

Regarding passive vs. active crossovers: Of course it's about the implementation, and of course there are bad and good implementations of both. But the fact that the crossover comes before amplification is the point of active designs. And when it is implemented well, it is what allows amplification to be directly matched to the impedance characteristics of individual drivers resulting in much better driver control, resulting in greater clarity, reduced distortion, faster driver response, cleaner more precise bass, better imaging, yada, yada, yada. Yes, I can run down to Guitar Center this afternoon and find a pair of active speakers that sound pretty bad. But if choose more carefully, I can also find a pair of active speakers that will exceed the clarity and control of any passive system of similar size and range at a fraction of the price. Carried to the extreme - custom-designed studio mid-field monitors powered by digital crossovers and triamped by racks of pro amplifiers - actives, in my opinion, cannot be matched by passive systems at any price. It's not even a fair contest, because they really aren't the same thing. But taste does enter into it somewhere, one man's precise is another's clinical, and there are some passive systems out there that are really, really good. As fast? No. As resolving? Haven't heard that. But really, really good.

Tim

 

[silviajulieta]

Tom

Dear Tom: Yes, you are right someway or the other almost all electronics are " tone controls " it self but the differences are that exist some SS electronics that are very good on " tone control " and with exemplary accuracy, this is what I'm experienced right now.

I always read ( twice ) the JA measurements, always. During our Phonolinepreamplifier design ( build ) we made several scientific tests including what you mentioned even we made comparison between our design against a simple wire where signal pass through and we tested severalphono stages and line stages too: SS and tubes.
Our main target in our design was neutrality, not an easy task due what you already states and many other subjects and fortunatelly IMHO I think we " made it ".

Yes too, I agree that STEREO is not the EXCELLENCE but that's what I have and inside STEREO what I want is to achieve a EXCELLENCE level on quality audio system performance. Thank's for the link.


Btw, those old times with expanders, equalizers, sub-harmonic syntethizers, DBX and the like were " fun " times. I owned every single external " tone control " I found it: as more leds as better/more exiting! ( especially at night. ). Glorious times and IMHO an important part of my audio learning curve/ladder.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[c1ferrari]

THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF HIGH QUALITY ANALOG ACTIVE XOs for domestic signal standards (reference voltages). I am shouting because I am frustrated because I want one.

Fascinating...just for fun, I'm considering implementing a truly balanced, active, external, valve crossover for my MegaLine loudspeakers. It'll give me a reason and great learning opportunity to use some testing and measuring apparatus.

Maybe, it'll work!!

 

[JackD201]

TIM wrote

"But if choose more carefully, I can also find a pair of active speakers that will exceed the clarity and control of any passive system of similar size and range at a fraction of the price."

Do this for me and you will be my, and my family's hero for life. You should also grab the dealership, go on a road show and make millions.

Anyhow, we again agree more than a quick read will reveal. We both agree that what causes the problems is when an amp loses control. That is the central point of my post. It is not where the signal is chopped up but rather if the amp can control the driver (active) or drivers (passive) when the impedances rise and fall. I think we can agree that no driver is perfectly flat in impedance throughout it's entire operating range hence the touted advantages of the SOTA DSP based correction/crossover devices which actually include driver correction in cognizance of this.

In light of Tom's post on the topic as it relates to clarity, and my own experiences on the same when it comes to sound reinforcement, there is one factor that needs to be brought up. Heat. Professional gear is designed to be run hard for long periods of time, day in and day out. Failure is not an option as failure means you lose that next gig as a result of ruining your present one. The biggest advantage of active is power efficiency translated to less heat in both the amps and speakers because there are no coil inductors and caps to heat up. Voice coils however still do. What gives that clarity is the much lower levels of thermal compression in the amps and again an absence of passive crossover thermal compression because there is none. Contrary to popular belief it is this that is the major advantage rather than where the signal is crossed over. A passive XO begins to distort when they begin to saturate. This point becomes an issue of design and parts quality/tolerances, which must follow the intended use. The same thing will happen with an active crossover fed a signal that is too hot from a stereo bus of a mixer or a line-stage.

The thing is we are talking about very different applications, different intended use. I'm sure we have quite a few headbangers here. Heck we have one that uses audio to give himself massages The greater majority however do not listen for more than a few hours at a time and an even greater majority of us do not listen at levels so high as to require so much current needed that OPT cores saturate nor do our passive crossovers. The "Clarity" and "Lower Distortion" advantages so obvious in professional applications not just in theory but actual application, suddenly is not so obvious within the domestic context. To throw a curveball, look at the horn crowd. Many use the exact same professional drivers which boast very high efficiencies as well as robust power handling. Listen to a SET based system with these and the really good ones with nothing more than a L-pads and you'd find no such rolled off highs that is the stereotype for SETs. It is speaker amp matching. Synergy.

The big ATCs, Westlakes, PMCs, Genelecs do not come cheap. Neither are they fractions of the costs of loudspeakers with similar driver configurations once you factor in the costs of having to design and build proper soffit mounting for them lest they shake the very foundations of their home structures. What you say may be generally true cost wise into mid-sized/mid-field monitor ranges ( up to single 8" woofs on sats and active subs) as far as driver control goes but certainly not across the full spectrum where you will find twin 12"s, 15"s or even 18"s per side. We're just talking cost now not even tastes.

I'm not being contrarian, it's just that I am not comfortable with generalities and sweeping statements. Especially when the same ones keep on popping up and are unchallenged. What I am again pointing out is that yes we agree that an amp and a driver must be complementary. What I am saying is that active does not guarantee that amps and driver are complementary but rather when they are, someone took the effort to make sure they were. In that respect there is no difference between the designer of the active user's speakers and non active XO users finding the best amps for their speaker, including the folks that take the crossover debate to the utmost extreme, pure crossover-less single driver owner.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Do this for me and you will be my, and my family's hero for life. You should also grab the dealership, go on a road show and make millions.

There are many pro monitors out there that will deliver greater clarity and control for you at much lower cost than comparable passive systems. Remember that the domestic system, to even approach the clarity and control of good active systems, requires over-engineered amplification, preamps, cabling, etc. We're not just price comparing loudspeakers. But don't bother taking it on the road in hopes of making millions. Audiophiles will not give up their stacks of boxes, nests of cable and endless upgrading that easily, or actives would, at least, have a big piece of the market. Performance is not really the stumbling block.

What I am saying is that active does not guarantee that amps and driver are complementary but rather when they are, someone took the effort to make sure they were. In that respect there is no difference between the designer of the active user's speakers and non active XO users finding the best amps for their speaker, including the folks that take the crossover debate to the utmost extreme, pure crossover-less single driver owner.

I've made this point here before, but audiophile boards are nothing if not redundant, so here goes: There is one practical difference. Few audiophiles are going to make that match as well as a good engineer, and far fewer (maybe none?) will make that match as well as the good engineer who is not just finding a good match, but designing that match. And there is an absolute difference: The advantages of amplification after crossover and individual amps for individual drivers is pretty well-documented. Can you get really close with a lot of research, a lot of time, a lot of money? Maybe.

And yes, when you get into massive systems with huge multiple bass drivers, the cost gap begins to close; I don't mean to speak in sweeping generalities. But those systems are at the very extreme end of that broom's reach. The overwhelming majority of "high-end" systems can be met or exceeded in performance, at substantial savings, with a combination of active monitors and subs. One serious drawback, though, is they won't be nearly as pretty.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

There are many pro monitors out there that will deliver greater clarity and control for you at much lower cost than comparable passive systems.

For sheer fidelity and low distortion I'll pit a pair of Mackie 824s against almost anything else, except when extremely loud levels are needed in a very large living room.

--Ethan

 

[JackD201]

I'll resort to this format if you don't mind. Tim in Black, Jack in Blue

There are many pro monitors out there that will deliver greater clarity and control for you at much lower cost than comparable passive systems. Remember that the domestic system, to even approach the clarity and control of good active systems, requires over-engineered amplification, preamps, cabling, etc.

Sez who? The good active systems HAVE over-engineered amplification, input sections and cabling too. That's why they sound consistent and are reliable. They are also expensive. They are less expensive but to say by much might be a stretch. I'd pit a Dynaudio Focus 140 with a Virtue amp against the active model using similarly sized tweets and AA woofers listening mid field in a home. Wait bad example the Focus + Virtue might actually be cheaper. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We're not just price comparing loudspeakers. But don't bother taking it on the road in hopes of making millions. Audiophiles will not give up their stacks of boxes, nests of cable and endless upgrading that easily, or actives would, at least, have a big piece of the market. Performance is not really the stumbling block.

Performance will always be a stumbling block whenever something doesn't satisfy the needs much less the wants whatever those might be. One thing for sure is that actives studio monitors give home studios and small studios an affordable and dependable solution. They do not offer by virtue of design philosophy alone more enjoyment to individuals who are more self aware when it comes to their personal preferences. One thing for sure is that passives rule the top cinema soundstage control rooms and mastering rooms and that is about performance not cost.

I've made this point here before, but audiophile boards are nothing if not redundant,

You think audiophile boards are redundant? What are the pro boards then? They're worse!

so here goes: There is one practical difference. Few audiophiles are going to make that match as well as a good engineer, and far fewer (maybe none?) will make that match as well as the good engineer who is not just finding a good match, but designing that match.

Fair enough, electrically speaking but not aesthetically. We already agree about preferences.

And there is an absolute difference: The advantages of amplification after crossover and individual amps for individual drivers is pretty well-documented.

Within the context I had given earlier covering professional applications and the attendant practical, financial and actual legislated requirements, yes. For domestic requirements an "absolute" right back at you, no.


And yes, when you get into massive systems with huge multiple bass drivers, the cost gap begins to close; I don't mean to speak in sweeping generalities. But those systems are at the very extreme end of that broom's reach. The overwhelming majority of "high-end" systems can be met or exceeded in performance, at substantial savings, with a combination of active monitors and subs. One serious drawback, though, is they won't be nearly as pretty.

Now THAT is the stumbling block nobody seems to want to talk about. All I can say is I married my wife because she has a beautiful soul. That she's beautiful outside as well was really incidental

 

[amirm]

Question for you Jack: if I took whatever passive speaker you pick, do you think it is impossible to improve its performance by removing the crossover, using an active cross over and separate amps to drive it?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

never mind.

 

[JackD201]

Nothing is impossible but please let me be clear, passive superiority is not my point. My point is we have to take things on a case to case basis because things still boils down to the overall result you envision at the end. This is after all a thread that deals with synergy/system matching. To take the passive XO out and improve it by going active, before anything else, the active crossover itself must have a sonic signature you agree with because in my experience they all do. They all have output sections after all. Not all active crossovers sound the same even given selection of the same slopes and gain. Even DSP XOs output through analog sections. No different than two CD players having the same transports and chipsets sounding different because one uses say op-amps and the other j-fets. We can all also agree that different doesn't always mean "better" either. In the DSP case there's the issue of ADC quality too. Then there's the quality of the programming of the algorithms. Then there's the susceptibility of these output sections to the requisite cabling, some may be very susceptible and others not anywhere near as much. That's 2,3 or 4 more areas for EMI and RFI to potentially come in. Are the output sections balanced or single ended? What about their power supplies? Every line stage issue, you will find in an active crossover down to the quality of the attenuators. I failed to mention that in many analog XOs there have variable input gain sections. These are full dual mono 2 channel pre's in 3way stereo models or true mono in the more common 2or 3 way models where you will need two units to do 3 way. that will feed the crossover circuits. We haven't even gotten to the amps for each driver yet.

What I'm saying is there are no silver bullets. Every solution creates its own set of problems down the road that have to be dealt with in turn. We all know that.

If you read back you'll see I made a stronger case for active systems than many of their advocates. Why? Because when it comes to sound reinforcement I am one. I have been since I was 16 years old setting up, tuning and tearing down our DJ rig which was comprised of JBL compression drivers for the highs and mids and 18" CV Jr. Earthquakes powered by Fostex then later Crest amplifiers. Even at that age, the choice of active XO was a difficult one where I ended up choosing finally a unit from Furman (before they focused solely on power) over Rane (and Ashley ...added) because it was smoother up top and had a warmer tone than the Rane and clearer in the midband than the Ashley. There are synergy/matching issues in selecting an active XO. Now there are actives and there are actives. JBL engineered the EON series from the ground up as a plug and play solution. These pale in comparison to the separates by the same company's same division. Again the argument that just because a product is engineered from end to end means it is automatically better, is to my mind a hollow one. The separates (speakers, own line of amps, and crossovers) are meant to be mixed and matched depending on the technical requirements of each contract and not by the designing engineers but by their contractor clients.

When it comes to critical listening, I am not so dyed in the wool. The professional monitoring approach is one of brute force to control the drivers. The hi-end approach is to use lighter and stiffer diaphragms and more powerful magnet structures to make the drivers easier to control. Two approaches towards the same goal. Either can be successful and in the SOTA both are. We go full circle to the human component. What will the engineer ultimately be more comfortable working with to ensure his work translates well and what ultimately the home listener will discern as the system comfortable for his own listening habits?

Now if one were lucky as Tim was to find an engineer whose vision is so in line with his own that he need do nothing more than plug the system in and do minor fiddling, fantastic! But let's be honest here. In the age of a thousand brands of drinking water, what are the odds of that? I believe that you get out what you put in so yes Amir, anything is possible. I never said it wasn't.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So....it all depends on the implementation, then?

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Hahahahahaha. Yes

Oops. I missed the comma.

Then hopefully we can get our cake and eat it too

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hahahahahaha. Yes

Oops. I missed the comma.

Then hopefully we can get our cake and eat it too

Nothing to argue with there, but I still suspect that, given good implementation, the same speakers in an active configuration with properly matched amplifiers would out-perform, by nearly all objective metrics, the passive versions. And I also suspect that when you're not making a nuanced argument about implementation, that you know that's true. Would they be less expensive? They certainly could be, or they could be much more expensive. That, too, depends on implementation.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I know it is definitely, undeniably, tantalizingly possible. That is for sure

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I know it is definitely, undeniably, tantalizingly possible. That is for sure

Tim