Linkwitz Orion Honeymoon

[JerryLove]

If I read this right: You wouldn't be able to enjoy a Linkwitz Orion because you don't understand the engineering approach and math behind it?

What happened to just enjoying something for enjoyment it brings?

Where the heck did I say that? We are all a curious lot here and most of us don't let not understanding something get in the way of enjoying it.

Chill out.

(In case the point is being missed: You completely mis-characterized what I originally said. Oddly enough, you used language very similar to the language I had used and you had mis-characterized. So I asked if your very similar language should be interpreted in a very similar way (by assuming it should and asking you the question you asked me).

It's interesting that you don't see in your own writing what you assert to see in mine. It's even more interesting that when I said what you said nigh-verbatim, you feel I'm insufficiently chill.

I've asked questions about the design. If you don't want to discuss my questions: then don't. If you want to know who first made a personal comment, and inference about how someone should or should not use their own time and money, look at post 14.

I truly hope with this post we can bring an end to this stupid meta-conversation about who enjoys what and which enjoyment is more legitimate and discuss the speaker instead. )

No, it's a statement of immorality.

I'm not going to argue the point: it's irrelevant to the topic.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

First, congrats on your honeymoon.

The Linkwitz Orions are definitely on my extremely short list of speakers; I would say they are #1 on the list.

I plan on auditioning them in December.

I do like the fact that each Orion speaker requires 4 amps (1 amp for the dual tweeters, 1 amp for the single midrange, and 1 amp for each of the dual woofers).

I would like it even better if they required 5 amps per speaker (1 amp each for the dual tweeters), although they don't require more than 1 amp.

I would also like it even better if Siegfried Linkwitz would "APPROVE" the use of more powerful amps like 150WPC x 8Ch, instead of the 60WPC x 8Ch.

Although I suppose the 60WPC x 4Ch = 240 Watts per speaker. And since The Audio Critic measured the ATI AT6012 amp to be 80WPC, I guess it's more like 80WPC x 4Ch = 320 Watts per speaker.

But 150WPC x 4 = 600W per speaker would have been cooler.

It seems like everyone who has listened to the Orions have been impressed.

So the question is HOW IMPRESSED were you when you had time to listen?

 

[TLS Guy]

First, congrats on your honeymoon.

The Linkwitz Orions are definitely on my extremely short list of speakers; I would say they are #1 on the list.

I plan on auditioning them in December.

I do like the fact that each Orion speaker requires 4 amps (1 amp for the dual tweeters, 1 amp for the single midrange, and 1 amp for each of the dual woofers).

I would like it even better if they required 5 amps per speaker (1 amp each for the dual tweeters), although they don't require more than 1 amp.

I would also like it even better if Siegfried Linkwitz would "APPROVE" the use of more powerful amps like 150WPC x 8Ch, instead of the 60WPC x 8Ch.

Although I suppose the 60WPC x 4Ch = 240 Watts per speaker. And since The Audio Critic measured the ATI AT6012 amp to be 80WPC, I guess it's more like 80WPC x 4Ch = 320 Watts per speaker.

But 150WPC x 4 = 600W per speaker would have been cooler.

It seems like everyone who has listened to the Orions have been impressed.

So the question is HOW IMPRESSED were you when you had time to listen?

Don't forget that 2/3 of your amp power is usually wasted in the passive crossover. In an active speaker all the amp power goes to the driver, so you don't need as much power and Siegfried is right, you could easily blow a driver with too much power.

 

[Shike]

Don't forget that 2/3 of your amp power is usually wasted in the passive crossover. In an active speaker all the amp power goes to the driver, so you don't need as much power and Siegfried is right, you could easily blow a driver with too much power.

Isn't it actually closer to 1/2 wasted in the xover? I have yet to see an example go over that.

I dislike the idea of companies implementing amps directly into their speakers as it's likely they're going to overcharge or over-design for unnecessary reasons. I like being able to use a simple chipamp for my application. On the other hand, I also dislike having to break my amplifier down to two feeds per speaker too.

I guess I'm in the passive camp . . . I can deal with power being wasted in the crossover because even if it is the sensitivity and impedance curves still work for me at 20W/ch. I guess those in a larger room with less sensitive speakers though would benefit from active designs though.

 

[JerryLove]

I dislike the idea of companies implementing amps directly into their speakers as it's likely they're going to overcharge or over-design for unnecessary reasons.

I like choices.

That said: I don't see how buying two products from two companies (a speaker set and amp) is going to be more efficient than buying from one. There are certainly construction savings to be had no longer needing much of a case for the amp, and being able to match exactly to needs, and not having to build a crossover (an electronic crossover can be very inexpensive)

I guess I'm in the passive camp . . . I can deal with power being wasted in the crossover because even if it is the sensitivity and impedance curves still work for me at 20W/ch. I guess those in a larger room with less sensitive speakers though would benefit from active designs though.

If it were only about wasted power I would likely be there with you.

There's also phase issues, and signal separation, and distortion caused by the crossover filters, and the inability to modify the behavior from stock without a soldering iron... and a dozen more things I am sure TLS guy can list.

Especially at the high end: an active system can (will?) sound better, cost less, and be more energy efficient.

 

[Shike]

I like choices.

That said: I don't see how buying two products from two companies (a speaker set and amp) is going to be more efficient than buying from one. There are certainly construction savings to be had no longer needing much of a case for the amp, and being able to match exactly to needs, and not having to build a crossover (an electronic crossover can be very inexpensive)

Once again though, that's assuming the amp you get is identical to what's found in the speaker. I see it as a chance to maximize on marketing blurbs. "All digital circuitry crossover" and "Specially matched amp for maximum performance" sounds like a way of slapping a higher pricetag on it.

The cynic in me isn't too trusting of audiophillia culture.

If it were only about wasted power I would likely be there with you.

There's also phase issues, and signal separation, and distortion caused by the crossover filters, and the inability to modify the behavior from stock without a soldering iron... and a dozen more things I am sure TLS guy can list.

Phase issues are so-so, not every speaker that's passive will have them. If they do picking the right amp for the job is required but can still work out. I'm not sure what you mean by distortion caused by passive filters - there's passive designs that have extremely low distortion? I really don't like the idea of modifying an already done design from stock - there's a reason it's built the way it is. Why are you modifying it, is there an actual reason with evidence as to why you must?

Especially at the high end: an active system can (will?) sound better, cost less, and be more energy efficient.

I disagree, it can but won't necessarily sound better (transducer distortion, decay, transients, etc play a much larger part), will only cost less if the manufacture prices fairly (I doubt it). All I'm seeing is energy efficiency.

 

[JerryLove]

Once again though, that's assuming the amp you get is identical to what's found in the speaker. I see it as a chance to maximize on marketing blurbs. "All digital circuitry crossover" and "Specially matched amp for maximum performance" sounds like a way of slapping a higher pricetag on it.

I am sure some will. Given that pretty much all subwoofers on the market have built-in amps and I don't have trouble find those without unusually high markups; I don't think your fears have a real basis.

Phase issues are so-so, not every speaker that's passive will have them. If they do picking the right amp for the job is required but can still work out. I'm not sure what you mean by distortion caused by passive filters - there's passive designs that have extremely low distortion? I really don't like the idea of modifying an already done design from stock - there's a reason it's built the way it is. Why are you modifying it, is there an actual reason with evidence as to why you must?

Phase issues are not caused by the amplifier and so cannot be fixed there. Phase variation between drivers starts no earlier than the crossover.

You don't know what I mean by distortion? Ok. Tell me why the audio industry didn't just standardize on 24db-octive passive crossovers and, in doing so, get away with cheaper cones.

I disagree, it can but won't necessarily sound better (transducer distortion, decay, transients, etc play a much larger part), will only cost less if the manufacture prices fairly (I doubt it). All I'm seeing is energy efficiency.

Again, I'll let someone else (TLS) pull out numbers. But your assertion that passive crossovers are the equal of active crossovers, especially without being more expensive than the minimum set by a good active, is not one shared by any of the people here I can think I'd ask to build a speaker.

It certainly was not WmAx's position. It clearly is not TLS's. I can talk logic all day but in the end I am simply accepting their far greater experience on what presents better or worse performance. Both are very experienced at crossover design; and no comparable builders have offered a dissenting opinion.

 

[Shike]

I am sure some will. Given that pretty much all subwoofers on the market have built-in amps and I don't have trouble find those without unusually high markups; I don't think your fears have a real basis.

Many aren't transformer based either and use cheaper switching supplies or similar. Considering the former, I'm going to beg to differ - they DO have unusually high markups. That's why I have a DIY sub.

Phase issues are not caused by the amplifier and so cannot be fixed there. Phase variation between drivers starts no earlier than the crossover.

I thought we were speaking of electrical phase. If you're talking of tweeter and driver phase, the crossover can be an issue. It isn't always an issue though, there's good designs and bad designs like any circuit.

You don't know what I mean by distortion? Ok. Tell me why the audio industry didn't just standardize on 24db-octive passive crossovers and, in doing so, get away with cheaper cones.

I'm seriously asking what type of distortion you're going on about, not being a jerk (why you can't get this I don't understand). Are you talking ringing and overshoot, or something else entirely?

You're going to have to be very specific on what measurable parameter you're getting at, because obviously I don't know what you're talking about. Being rude isn't going to accomplish anything, it's not like I made snarky comments about a certain thing you said earlier.

Again, I'll let someone else (TLS) pull out numbers. But your assertion that passive crossovers are the equal of active crossovers

Woah, when the hell did I say that? I'm saying that active isn't necessary for every application. The potential for better design is there, but it's hardly guaranteed that it will be better and at the same or equivalent cost to consumers. Unless you can prove that self amplified bookshelves with an active crossover are going to be able to decimate measurable performance at the $200 of similar passive speaker designs then I have some reservations. I'm also talking $200 commercial cost btw.

especially without being more expensive than the minimum set by a good active, is not one shared by any of the people here I can think I'd ask to build a speaker.

DIY or commission isn't commercial building now is it? Or are they working at larger name manufacturers?

It certainly was not WmAx's position. It clearly is not TLS's. I can talk logic all day but in the end I am simply accepting their far greater experience on what presents better or worse performance. Both are very experienced at crossover design; and no comparable builders have offered a dissenting opinion.

I'm just saying it doesn't seem necessary in every system, and can't be implemented in every system at every price range. I know the benefits of active for the most part, but they really aren't all that high for MY situation (and if read my first post regarding it you would understand that by now).



Still, you know another reason I have problem with an internal amplifier design? Oops, amp goes shot, transistor can no longer be sourced, gotta replace the whole board. Oh, you were out of warranty? It's only going to cost an arm, a leg, and a kidney.

Oh, better yet. "We no longer support that model, you will need to purchase a new one" <- heard this before.

Imagine how wonderful it would feel to not just throw the amp, but the speaker too.

For this reason alone I'd still want to keep the amp outside of the speaker. Now if the speaker provides active components and uses a separate amp (I believe this was done with the NHT xD, no?) then it becomes less of an issue. Still, you're spending more on amplifier resources . . . so the perpetual cost performance circlejerk continues.

 

[TLS Guy]

Isn't it actually closer to 1/2 wasted in the xover? I have yet to see an example go over that.

I dislike the idea of companies implementing amps directly into their speakers as it's likely they're going to overcharge or over-design for unnecessary reasons. I like being able to use a simple chipamp for my application. On the other hand, I also dislike having to break my amplifier down to two feeds per speaker too.

I guess I'm in the passive camp . . . I can deal with power being wasted in the crossover because even if it is the sensitivity and impedance curves still work for me at 20W/ch. I guess those in a larger room with less sensitive speakers though would benefit from active designs though.

Loss is around 1.5 to 2db per order. So a fourth order crossover costs you 5 to 6 db. more if it is a three way.

I agree for a two way a passive crossover is not a terrible solution, however for three ways it is a really bad idea. Passive crossovers below 350 Hz are a nightmare, and in my opinion no longer have any justification.

So many crossovers these days are made with small iron cored inductors with far too small a gauge of wire and electrolytic caps, that have no business in a passive speaker.

Passive crossovers induce distortion and create dreadful loads for amps, especially crossovers at low frequency. I would not design a three way any longer, that was not at least active for the lower crossover.

Basically if the industry got organized round active crossovers and efficient class D amps designed as a unit with their respective drivers, we could produce much better speakers at a lower price and not have to cram 7 high powered amps in one box along with complex processing circuitry and radio circuits.

 

[TLS Guy]

Many aren't transformer based either and use cheaper switching supplies or similar. Considering the former, I'm going to beg to differ - they DO have unusually high markups. That's why I have a DIY sub.



I thought we were speaking of electrical phase. If you're talking of tweeter and driver phase, the crossover can be an issue. It isn't always an issue though, there's good designs and bad designs like any circuit.



I'm seriously asking what type of distortion you're going on about, not being a jerk (why you can't get this I don't understand). Are you talking ringing and overshoot, or something else entirely?

You're going to have to be very specific on what measurable parameter you're getting at, because obviously I don't know what you're talking about. Being rude isn't going to accomplish anything, it's not like I made snarky comments about a certain thing you said earlier.



Woah, when the hell did I say that? I'm saying that active isn't necessary for every application. The potential for better design is there, but it's hardly guaranteed that it will be better and at the same or equivalent cost to consumers. Unless you can prove that self amplified bookshelves with an active crossover are going to be able to decimate measurable performance at the $200 of similar passive speaker designs then I have some reservations. I'm also talking $200 commercial cost btw.



DIY or commission isn't commercial building now is it? Or are they working at larger name manufacturers?



I'm just saying it doesn't seem necessary in every system, and can't be implemented in every system at every price range. I know the benefits of active for the most part, but they really aren't all that high for MY situation (and if read my first post regarding it you would understand that by now).



Still, you know another reason I have problem with an internal amplifier design? Oops, amp goes shot, transistor can no longer be sourced, gotta replace the whole board. Oh, you were out of warranty? It's only going to cost an arm, a leg, and a kidney.

Oh, better yet. "We no longer support that model, you will need to purchase a new one" <- heard this before.

Imagine how wonderful it would feel to not just throw the amp, but the speaker too.

For this reason alone I'd still want to keep the amp outside of the speaker. Now if the speaker provides active components and uses a separate amp (I believe this was done with the NHT xD, no?) then it becomes less of an issue. Still, you're spending more on amplifier resources . . . so the perpetual cost performance circlejerk continues.

There will be a phase shift of 90 degrees per order for every electrical analog filter whether passive or active. Once zero phase digital filters become common place and reasonably priced, the passive speaker will be as dead as a dodo.

 

[GranteedEV]

With car audio digital crossovers like the Bitone and JBL MS-8, and Pro audio ones like the DCX, it seems the hi fi market continues to get the snub in terms of these things.

While the MiniDSP, the Hypex Bi-Amp, and Mark Seaton's Catalyst are all a choice, none of them seem to have the form factor I really associate with Home Electronics (and one is a whole speaker mind you)

 

[Shike]

There will be a phase shift of 90 degrees per order for every electrical analog filter whether passive or active. Once zero phase digital filters become common place and reasonably priced, the passive speaker will be as dead as a dodo.

That's only if the big manufactures say so unfortunately, but for higher-end speaker designs I'd hope to see such a shift eventually. At least for 3-ways as you mention.


I notice you and Jerry mention distortion. Are you talking THD, IMD, or another type?

 

[TLS Guy]

That's only if the big manufactures say so unfortunately, but for higher-end speaker designs I'd hope to see such a shift eventually. At least for 3-ways as you mention.


I notice you and Jerry mention distortion. Are you talking THD, IMD, or another type?

Yes, we are talking THD, hysteresis and IMD distortion.

The leader in zero phase crossovers and and time aligned crossovers are the Australian company DESQ. They have 20 years experience in this field. I have watched their progress with interest for a long time now. They used to cost a small fortune. Their prices are now in the range where I am seriously interested in purchasing one of their units, at least for my mains.

The other proponent who has a true digital crossover in the field is Roger Quested who has a unit and a line of active monitors using digital active crossovers. His crossover is still very pricey, but versatile and professional.

You can purchase one here.

You can purchase a DESQ unit direct for $1950 USD.

I have a feeling this technology is soon going to burst out mainstream

 

[jp_over]

TLS Guy - if you implemented this (DESQ unit) for your mains, how would you reconcile the difference in sound for your center? Perhaps a "defeat" switch during HT use? Also, sounds like you would need to also add a component to switch RCA to XLR and back?

Fascinating discussion by the way. I'm very interested in the Orions for my final (retirement home) 2 channel system.

Joe

 

[Shike]

Yes, we are talking THD, hysteresis and IMD distortion.

The leader in zero phase crossovers and and time aligned crossovers are the Australian company DESQ. They have 20 years experience in this field. I have watched their progress with interest for a long time now. They used to cost a small fortune. Their prices are now in the range where I am seriously interested in purchasing one of their units, at least for my mains.

The other proponent who has a true digital crossover in the field is Roger Quested who has a unit and a line of active monitors using digital active crossovers. His crossover is still very pricey, but versatile and professional.

You can purchase one here.

You can purchase a DESQ unit direct for $1950 USD.

I have a feeling this technology is soon going to burst out mainstream

Mainstream is a lot lower than that though, so we'll see

Here's my next question regarding distortions from crossover, how much on average is it and where do you have it measured? Do you measure it at the speaker with test signals, or the crossover network itself?

I haven't seen a lot of IMD tests on speakers, and very few THD honestly. Any links to tests done on them would be helpful.

 

[JerryLove]

Many aren't transformer based either and use cheaper switching supplies or similar. Considering the former, I'm going to beg to differ - they DO have unusually high markups. That's why I have a DIY sub.

Please quantify "unusually high". Passive speaker markups are about 4x manufacturing costs. What are the markups on active speakers?

I thought we were speaking of electrical phase. If you're talking of tweeter and driver phase, the crossover can be an issue. It isn't always an issue though, there's good designs and bad designs like any circuit.

An amplifier channel only puts out one electrical signal. There's nothing for it to be out of phase with?

We are discussing speakers. The worst of phase problems occur when two drivers vibrating at the same frequency are doing so out-of-phase (particularly around 180, 540, etc). It is not possible for this situation to be cause by the amp (well, I suppose an active system with dissimilar amps), and so is caused by the crossover and driver.

In particular, as has been pointed out, high-pass and low-pass filters are both out of phase with the source and with each other.

I'm seriously asking what type of distortion you're going on about, not being a jerk (why you can't get this I don't understand). Are you talking ringing and overshoot, or something else entirely?

I'm not trying to be a jerk either, but why do people claim they are not trying to be a jerk right before they say something jerkish?

TLS answered, and is far more capable of being specific, so I'll not respond in favor of that discussion.

You're going to have to be very specific on what measurable parameter you're getting at, because obviously I don't know what you're talking about. Being rude isn't going to accomplish anything, it's not like I made snarky comments about a certain thing you said earlier.

I didn't make a snarky comment. I asked a question which, in the process of answering, I expected you to find on your own the point I was driving at.

In answering why the industry didn't always use 24db crossovers, you would have had to, to your own satisfaction, describe the problems in such crossovers. The problems in other crossovers can be found the same way. By you answering the question, rather than me telling, you should get an answer that satisfies you.

Woah, when the hell did I say that? I'm saying that active isn't necessary for every application. The potential for better design is there, but it's hardly guaranteed that it will be better and at the same or equivalent cost to consumers. Unless you can prove that self amplified bookshelves with an active crossover are going to be able to decimate measurable performance at the $200 of similar passive speaker designs then I have some reservations. I'm also talking $200 commercial cost btw.

To begin with: it's not apples-to-apples: as you are not accounting for the cost of amplification of the passives.

That said: replacing the passive crossover in a set of Primus 162's has been done to great effect. The advantages are certainly even more pronounced when we move into three-way and four-way designs. My best speakers are a pair of Primus 362's with bracing added and the crossover replaced with an active.

I'll have to go look up: I do remember a pair of active 2-way speakers that used dual amps and an active crossover. Heck: My Velodyne ULD-15 uses an active crossover.

The detail aside: the point is true that there are circumstances where the passive crossover is cheap enough to undercut an active crossover; and where sound quality is a compromise the customer chooses to make.

DIY or commission isn't commercial building now is it? Or are they working at larger name manufacturers?

You were discussing commercial mark-ups; we are therefore discussing commercial speakers.

I referenced commercial markups on passives to state that commercial markups on actives are not, as you have suggested, far worse.

If you want to discuss DIY we can. Please resist changing topics back and forth to suite your position.

I'm just saying it doesn't seem necessary in every system, and can't be implemented in every system at every price range. I know the benefits of active for the most part, but they really aren't all that high for MY situation (and if read my first post regarding it you would understand that by now).

Then you are saying something unrelated to what I am saying. It's odd to me how you seem to keep doing so as though disagreeing.

Still, you know another reason I have problem with an internal amplifier design? Oops, amp goes shot, transistor can no longer be sourced, gotta replace the whole board. Oh, you were out of warranty? It's only going to cost an arm, a leg, and a kidney.

Oh, better yet. "We no longer support that model, you will need to purchase a new one" <- heard this before.

Imagine how wonderful it would feel to not just throw the amp, but the speaker too.

So I assume you feel the same about putting amps (and DACs) in pre-amps making receivers, or including power-supplies and tuners in TV screens? When the power-supply goes, you loose the TV too.

Or are speakers a special case?

But you've changed the subject again. Your original assertion was that there was no advantage other than power consumption. *That* is the assertion I have taken issue with.

What you subjectively decide are and are not good compromises are irrelevant to me; as my subjective choices are irrelevant to you.

 

[Captain Audio]

What about insertion loss in passive crossovers? The higher the order the more insertion loss! What about out of phase crossovers? What about driver alignment (time)? Cabinet resonances? What about metal film resistors in active crossover circuits? What about all the passive components that make up an active crossover? What about Baltic Birch plywood instead of MDF for loudspeaker cabinets?

The problem here is that everyone that renders an opinion here is still just giving their opinion. There is no best way to design a loudspeaker, YET! The fact of the matter is that the Orion is a great speaker from a very good designer. Are there other ways to skin this cat? Of course there is. The technology used to design a loudspeaker isn't as important as the end product. Many, and I say many, loudspeakers use what are deemed as inferior technology and parts but sound quite good.

 

[JerryLove]

What about insertion loss in passive crossovers? The higher the order the more insertion loss!

That's part of the compromise.

What about out of phase crossovers? What about driver alignment (time)?

Absolute phase coherency is irrelevant. Relative phase coherency is clearly a problem at 180-degrees, though that can generally be rectified by a phase inversion.

The speakers about which this thread is based use an active crossover. No phase problems, no insertion loss.

Cabinet resonances? What about metal film resistors in active crossover circuits? What about all the passive components that make up an active crossover? What about Baltic Birch plywood instead of MDF for loudspeaker cabinets?

The speakers on this thread don't really have cabinets to speak of. They don't use passive crossovers.

 

[Shike]

Please quantify "unusually high". Passive speaker markups are about 4x manufacturing costs. What are the markups on active speakers?

Good question, I know the general markup of subs but let's be honest: there hasn't been a lot of active speakers to gauge. Especially ones that are tested in THD and other necessary perimeters for true comparisons.

An amplifier channel only puts out one electrical signal. There's nothing for it to be out of phase with?

Electrical phase since they are inductive loads is what I was getting at. You have power loss with electrical phase, which is why your statement confused me. Phase shift I would have known what you were talking about.

We are discussing speakers. The worst of phase problems occur when two drivers vibrating at the same frequency are doing so out-of-phase (particularly around 180, 540, etc). It is not possible for this situation to be cause by the amp (well, I suppose an active system with dissimilar amps), and so is caused by the crossover and driver.

I see, but the goal of crossover design is to prevent such a situation. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Not necessarily.

I'm not trying to be a jerk either, but why do people claim they are not trying to be a jerk right before they say something jerkish?

I said something jerkish now?

I didn't make a snarky comment. I asked a question which, in the process of answering, I expected you to find on your own the point I was driving at.

Actually, I was saying stop taking your misplaced anger from another member out on me. I'm not good picking up tones on the net.

In answering why the industry didn't always use 24db crossovers, you would have had to, to your own satisfaction, describe the problems in such crossovers. The problems in other crossovers can be found the same way. By you answering the question, rather than me telling, you should get an answer that satisfies you.

Not really, the only thing I found was regarding ringing and overshoot. In research 4th orders fixed phase issues, but led to power loss which is what I said in the beginning.

To begin with: it's not apples-to-apples: as you are not accounting for the cost of amplification of the passives.

Yes, but they aren't going to inherently be apples to apples anyway. You have variance in driver construction among other things, arguably which will have a larger impact than going active is what I'm also getting at.

You also fail to take into account that with actives you're most likely going to be dealing with two amplifiers unless you're able to route from one to another ala PC speakers because you must include a PSU in each one.

Lastly: one size fits all. Are manufactures going to offer a 20W model for someone like me that doesn't need excessive power? If they do it will drive up cost as you're back to lack of standardization issues.

I'll have to go look up: I do remember a pair of active 2-way speakers that used dual amps and an active crossover. Heck: My Velodyne ULD-15 uses an active crossover.

Technically using LFE with a receiver can act as a active Xover >_>'

The detail aside: the point is true that there are circumstances where the passive crossover is cheap enough to undercut an active crossover; and where sound quality is a compromise the customer chooses to make.

That's assuming sound quality is compromised. A bookshelf with a fourth order could probably get away with a lot in comparison. Of course, we're looking at higher insertion loss (power) which isn't the best, but manageable.

You were discussing commercial mark-ups; we are therefore discussing commercial speakers.

You were talking about people you'd ask to build a speaker before. Please read the context of what you're quoting again.

I referenced commercial markups on passives to state that commercial markups on actives are not, as you have suggested, far worse.

I'm stating that plate amps have tremendous markup considering the lack of parts. These amps though would most likely cause issues if deployed in a full range speaker - they really aren't meant for it. Especially if deploying switching supplies which is extremely cheap overall. It only gets worse when you add multiple transformers. Then it's the question of does one size fits all: am I paying for more than I need for me?

If you want to discuss DIY we can. Please resist changing topics back and forth to suite your position.

You were the one that posted:

especially without being more expensive than the minimum set by a good active, is not one shared by any of the people here I can think I'd ask to build a speaker.

That's why I asked which you were talking about. You led it there, not me.

Then you are saying something unrelated to what I am saying. It's odd to me how you seem to keep doing so as though disagreeing.

If you'd keep the context it wouldn't be so odd.

So I assume you feel the same about putting amps (and DACs) in pre-amps making receivers, or including power-supplies and tuners in TV screens? When the power-supply goes, you loose the TV too.

Now you're just trying to take the piss for the hell of it. Let me ask you this since you decided to be like that: if you paid an extra $500+ for a TV with an integrated Blu-Ray player, are you going to be irritated if the TV breaks and integrated BR has to be thrown out with it - even though it's perfectly fine?

I'm saying that the amplifier is a significant cost that shouldn't be carried with the speaker. Besides, how does the company decide how much power is necessary at what distance?

20W is fine for me on a passive speaker. A guy trying to fill up his whole living room with high vault ceilings wouldn't be happy. Are companies going to cater to order? If so, wouldn't that raise production cost for lack of standardization?

Amplifiers in the speaker isn't a good idea since power needs are going to vary drastically. Another reason that I went DIY with subs, but let's not head that direction.

But you've changed the subject again. Your original assertion was that there was no advantage other than power consumption. *That* is the assertion I have taken issue with.

No, I said there was no advantage for ME besides power consumption if you go buy how it related to ME. Even though you're talking time domain phase it still really doesn't impact my situation since a pair of bookshelves isn't going to benefit that much. If we're arguing phase shift it can be corrected in a 4th order iirc.

Maybe it would be good if we had a direct cost comparison of straight digital xover vs. passive over and not get the active amplification involved so we could figure out costs of that first?

What you subjectively decide are and are not good compromises are irrelevant to me; as my subjective choices are irrelevant to you.

Considering it started out what was subjectively good for me then what was the point? It started off saying I was willing for the compromises, then you started saying active speakers are cost effective, then keep bouncing between active speaker and active xovers. It's . . . so . . . '

 

[TLS Guy]

TLS Guy - if you implemented this (DESQ unit) for your mains, how would you reconcile the difference in sound for your center? Perhaps a "defeat" switch during HT use? Also, sounds like you would need to also add a component to switch RCA to XLR and back?

Fascinating discussion by the way. I'm very interested in the Orions for my final (retirement home) 2 channel system.

Joe

I have never heard the Orions, so I can't guide you. However I hate resonant speakers, so I likely would like them, I wonder what spl they generate though, as I hate speakers weak in the wind. I favor low Qt speaker systems. I like around 0.5 which is lower than usual. But that way piano, bass strings and tymps sound right.

As far as matching is concerned, good is good. Good speakers match each other. Timber matching as I have stated many times is what I consider error matching.

When I design a speaker, no matter what drivers I pick, I do the following.

1). I'm absolutely obsessional about getting a flat mid band response.

2), Design for low Q preferably with TL if space permits.

3). Aim for as wide a horizontal dispersion as possible mirroring on axis response.

4). Optimize step loss compensation specific to the speakers position and environment.

5). Try and limit vertical dispersion.

6). Limit cabinet resonances as much as possible.

7). Do as little violence to time and phase as possible, consistent with a very smooth mid band response and keeping the drivers within their pass bands.

The end result is that what ever the drivers there is a strong similarity between all my speakers.

Now in my mains there are already two active crossovers and one active crossover on the center. I have passive crossovers to the tweeters on both mains and centers. I have had a hard time justifying another three amp channels to get ride of those passive crossovers. I build my crossovers with very high quality components and they are built to a standard only found in very expensive speakers indeed.

As you can see the center uses different drivers and in fact coaxial ones, although the lower tweeter only is used.

Centers are a problem. You want a nice coherent source for voice. You need it close to the screen. You want dispersion to just cover the listening area, so as not to excessively interact with the mains.

The only option would have been a full three way with the tweeter below the mid and two woofers either side. However for optimal speech you need a mid driver with enough bandwidth to crossover 400 Hz and 4 kHz. Only three mid ranges fit the bill. The B & W, but they won't supply them.

The Dynaudio D76. They kindly supplied two for my system downstairs.

See if I could get ATC to provide one of their units, or PMC supply me one of their ATC modified units.

So I settled for the best coaxial unit around. The downside is inter modulation distortion because the tweeter boundary moves.

In the event it has worked out well. You here no change across the front sound stage. Opera singers left, right center or anywhere between have the same vocal presence and intonation.

But I might get curious and see what zero phase time aligned digital crossovers can do for us. For a speaker system of this value the cost is now ball park.