Not trying to argue. Just pointing out facts. Generally, the more complicated you make the system, the more complicated the problems and distortion get. I've seen what it takes to make an active crossover that replicates what a well designed passive can do and it's a fairly monumental task with debatable benefits. The question is why more people don't do what you suggest and that's the answer. It's extremely complicated and the results aren't really worth the hassle.
Is Speaker design evolution stagnant
Based on what I read from speaker manufacturers, many use the same drivers but apply different crossover philosophies to achieve a particular sound.
My simplistic understanding is that while limiting the range of high or low signals , the remaining signal is corrupted ( phase inversions, roll off, etc.. ).
With today’s technology, why aren’t more speaker manufacturers using active crossovers to be connected after the preamp and sending exact spectrum signals separately to be amplified to each driver. That would Eliminate all electronics inside the speaker cabinet except the drivers. Each driver gets fed only the signal that it works best at. No out of phase, half phase, quarter phase issues, no phase angle issues. 100% of the power goes to each driver without limiters to scale it back. I think Bryston Model T Actives is designed this way ( don’t work for them and not pushing any product). Am I looking at it too simply? Do electronic crossover play havoc on signals the way inductors and capacitors do?
Some speaker manufacturers have gone half way with built in woofer amps ( Vaughn?)
Of course you would need a 3 channel amp for each side ( based on W/M/T config) or some variable of mono amps, whatever.
- ...
- 39 posts total
- 39 posts total