Funk Audio 8.2P Floorstanding Loudspeaker Preview

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why is it silly? I think passive crossovers are the norm because consumers can't futz with them and screw them up, like they could with an active design. That and the cost difference, of course.

My Orion has a complex active XO. It was kind of a pain hooking it to my 8ch of amps and to the Orion. The XO alone cost like $900.

Active bi-amp costs more money too.

Yeah, active speakers with complex XO/DSP will cost a pretty penny.

The question is, are the active speakers w/ fancy complex Digital DSP/XO TRULY better than passive designs from Revel, KEF, TAD, Salk/Philharmonic?

 

[Nuance AH]

.

The question is, are the active speakers w/ fancy complex Digital DSP/XO TRULY better than passive designs from Revel, KEF, TAD, Salk/Philharmonic?

Yup, that's the $64,000 question. An active speaker certainly has its advantages, but does it apply in real life? In other words, will it sound better the majority of the time? Does the fact the industry is heavily geared toward passive designs already answer my (our) questions?

 

[jinjuku]

The question is, are the active speakers w/ fancy complex Digital DSP/XO TRULY better than passive designs from Revel, KEF, TAD, Salk/Philharmonic?

The answer is they can be. As an example Damping factor goes out the window with passive crossover networks. For damping to be effective the amp needs to see the voice coil of the attached driver/s in the raw.

Also you can get way with less amp since up to 1/3 of the power is converted to heat at the passive crossover.

Also in the digital domain 48 and 96 dB slopes are achievable with out effecting the time domain.

 

[monkish54]

Does the fact the industry is heavily geared toward passive designs already answer my (our) questions?

Not at all. I REALLY have to sleep now (I have finals at 4:00pm) but one must realize the industry is not us. It's not enthusiasts, it's not DIYers, it is companies (corporations even..look up who owns Denon.. ) that want to make money. Marketing a passive variant is a MUCH easier sell. An amp per channel vs an amp per driver! Not to mention the cost of implementing an active crossover, and the effort the consumer has to put into it.

Look at DIY. There are many more active designs in DIY than retail. This is due to the versatility of active crossovers and the overall better performance.

Real companies like FUNK do what is best for quality, and not what is easiest to market.

THANK YOU FUNK AUDIO.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

I'm typing off of a phone.

So the gentleman that commented about the differences between passive and active in terms of listening.

Fairly substantial difference when taken holisticly.


Just because we are offered passive crossovers does not mean they are better. They are decidedly not better. They are cheaper. End of point.

I have been in this business for a long time. And your jaw would hit the floor if you knew the cost of your favorite mass produced high end speakers.

Cost wise, as a small OEM we don't get an enormous cut on the Xover parts. We use good quality parts and they quickly add up.

An active crossover is many times cheaper than a properly executed passive. Espeacially when working with higher order Xovers. A fourth oder for example, with proper impedance compensation can be quite expensive.

Mark

 

[Nuance AH]

Not at all. I REALLY have to sleep now (I have finals at 4:00pm) but one must realize the industry is not us. It's not enthusiasts, it's not DIYers, it is companies (corporations even..look up who owns Denon.. ) that want to make money. Marketing a passive variant is a MUCH easier sell. An amp per channel vs an amp per driver! Not to mention the cost of implementing an active crossover, and the effort the consumer has to put into it.

Look at DIY. There are many more active designs in DIY than retail. This is due to the versatility of active crossovers and the overall better performance.

To play Devil's Advocate, prove what you just said.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The answer is they can be. As an example Damping factor goes out the window with passive crossover networks. For damping to be effective the amp needs to see the voice coil of the attached driver/s in the raw.

Also you can get way with less amp since up to 1/3 of the power is converted to heat at the passive crossover.

Also in the digital domain 48 and 96 dB slopes are achievable with out effecting the time domain.

I think everyone agrees here. Sure, Active CAN be better. Those points and more.

But theoretical improvement vs realistic actual (real life) SIGNIFICANT improvement is the question. And the key is SIGNIFICANT AUDIBLE improvement.

And then there's the "This one Active design is NOT significant and isn't better, but this one Active design IS significant and is better."

It's a hobby. There's a speaker for everyone. Diversity, variety, and individuality makes the world go around.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not at all. I REALLY have to sleep now (I have finals at 4:00pm) but one must realize the industry is not us. It's not enthusiasts, it's not DIYers, it is companies (corporations even..look up who owns Denon.. ) that want to make money. Marketing a passive variant is a MUCH easier sell. An amp per channel vs an amp per driver! Not to mention the cost of implementing an active crossover, and the effort the consumer has to put into it.

Look at DIY. There are many more active designs in DIY than retail. This is due to the versatility of active crossovers and the overall better performance.

Real companies like FUNK do what is best for quality, and not what is easiest to market.

THANK YOU FUNK AUDIO.

What are you doing here on exam finals day? Don't get distracted!

But, yes, thank you Funk Audio.

 

[cpp]

Don't get me started on that again. LOL

But it's the truth

 

[agarwalro]

Ten DSP bins per channel. And those DSP bins allow for anything my evil little heart desires. EQ, delay, shelving. Anything that we need to push the envelop to it's highest potential.

Mark,

I have a idea, MiniDSP bundle. You can configure your speaker crossover on the input filters and that leaves the output filters for in room correction EQ.

You don't even need to provide the box, just a parameter file for the user to upload. This option can even be used with a DCX2496, "Budget Option".

Another option, DEQX with in home/on site configuration service, "Premium Option".

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Mark,*I have a idea, MiniDSP bundle. You can configure your speaker crossover on the input filters and that leaves the output filters for in room correction EQ.*You don't even need to provide the box, just a parameter file for the user to upload. This option can even be used with a DCX2496, "Budget Option".Another option, DEQX with in home/on site configuration service, "Premium Option".

What Funk Audio uses is not available to the consumer.

I have used a Beringher unit. Thay are OK.

MiniDSP are again OK. But highly limited compared to our product.

So short answer it will ship as is. Nothing tweekable to any large extent. We are working on some gentle room contour capability. But it to is not as simple as it seems.

Nathan and I have discussed some of the setup ideas in our forth coming premium speakers. But they will be substantially larger. And just slightly more expensive.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Sonic differences between active and passive Xovers.

Take this into consideration.

No inductors. No power saturation distortion.
Easy phase angle for the amplfier because there are no capacitors in the diect signal path.

The signal shaping is done in the DSP unit. Not going through small crumby capacitors or cheap resistors.

Passive components effect mainly the midrange.

Our music resides in this range as does our greatest hearing accuity.

So does it matter?



Absolutely. The differences can be detected by a moderatly knowledgable listener.

 

[Nuance AH]

Sonic differences between active and passive Xovers.

Take this into consideration.

No inductors. No power saturation distortion.
Easy phase angle for the amplfier because there are no capacitors in the diect signal path.

The signal shaping is done in the DSP unit. Not going through small crumby capacitors or cheap resistors.

Passive components effect mainly the midrange.

Our music resides in this range as does our greatest hearing accuity.

So does it matter?



Absolutely. The differences can be detected by a moderatly knowledgable listener.

I'm not doubting you fellas, by the way. I am playing Devil's Advocate to Monkish's statements, that's all.

Regarding the sound quality benefits of active vs. passive, I've seen well regarded manufactures take both sides, so I'm just as confused as I was when I first started looking into this topic. I'll just have to listen to well regarded passive and active designs and decide for myself. So just let me know when you're ready to send me a pair of 8.2P's for comparison.

 

[shadyJ]

Why would anyone want passive crossovers in an ideal setup? Aside from cost, I don't see any advantages in a passive crossover. Anyone have a link to somewhere I can read up on this?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

?.. I don't see any advantages in a passive crossover.

The advantage of a passive design is that I can connect multiple speakers to an Adcom or Bryston speaker selector and share the same amps and Funk subs with all my passive speakers.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

The greatest difference is a direct connection between the driver and the amplifier.

Passive components have electrical characteristics that are not that easy on amplifiers. The more work done to tame or shape a drivers response the greater the phase lag and associated difficulty in the output stages of an amplifier.

Literally an amplifier can be driven into distortion by a poorly implemented crossover.

Or you may be required to match up an amplifier that has to be so bullet proof that it's cost becomes very prohibitive.

Some of the very well designed offerings from Thiele, electrostatics and hybrids of these systems are good examples of difficult amplifier loads.

And having done a fair bit of speaker design I can say this emphaticly.

You could match any contour done electronicaly in the passive networks.

At the expense of efficiency and cost very quickly outstripping the price of the electronics.

Large guage inductors are expensive as are sonicaly neutral resistors and capacitors when used in the values required for passive networks.

I know beating a dead horse with thus post.

 

[Steve81]

Anyone have a link to somewhere I can read up on this?

Active Vs. Passive Crossovers

First result on a Google search even

 

[mwmkravchenko]

At leAst it's A good result!

 

[Steve81]

At leAst it's A good result!

Indeed. I'd guess the vast majority of the technical knowledge that I've accumulated over the years on the topic of home audio (which isn't necessarily a whole lot in the grand scheme of things ) has come from either there or here at AH.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Yes concise and to the point.

I like it.