Your speaker setup?

[DigiPete]

Please choose what best describes your current main system.

 

Please note that it is a multi choice poll.

You can thus choose a combination like:

 

X Passive main speakers (X-over after amps)

X Active sub (X-over before amps)

X Multible subs

X Analogue EQ / Room correction

X Digital EQ / Room correction / DSP

[guydebord]

Active main speakers + Digital room correction

[DigiPete]

Active main speakers + Digital room correction

 

 

guydebord, could I urge you to register your vote at the poll as well, thanks :-)

[mwheelerk]

I saw the poll title but didn't notice the OP. I read the poll and knew immediately that's a DigiPete poll. They have a distinct character of their own.

[guydebord]

Done, for whatever reason the poll was not showing, now it is

[DigiPete]

100% Digital signal ways / cables only (AES/EBU all the way to subs/speakers)

100% Digital X-overs

100% DSP

100% Build in DAC's

 

100% Analogue class A/B build in amps ;-)

[DigiPete]

I saw the poll title but didn't notice the OP.

I read the poll and knew immediately that's a DigiPete poll.

They have a distinct character of their own.

 

 

Thanks, I quite enjoy being a bit of an original rather than a copy ;-)

 

I actually find these polls quite informative and quite good discussion starters.

The maximum of 10 questions forces you to think really hard before posting, and yet somebody always comes up with suggestions to how it could have been improved B).

 

Fortunately quite a few people keeps the steady flow of intriguing polls going.

Thanks for keeping it interesting!

[spdif-usb]

I voted passive full range without anything else (because I don't count digital volume control at the software player as "DSP"). About two weeks from now, I will be upgrading to a quadrophonic / hybrid system, meaning it will be remote control switchable between what I voted and passive full range fronts combined with digitally X-overed active surrounds, as well as combined with digital EQ / room correction. I already ordered the necessary components for that to happen. They are the Emotiva UMC-200 and the Emotiva Pro Airmotiv 5.

[wgscott]

I saw the poll title but didn't notice the OP. I read the poll and knew immediately that's a DigiPete poll. They have a distinct character of their own.

 

How much do you spend on speaker wire vs. dog food?

[quad]

Passive mains + identical rears for quadraphonic joy

A/B amps (separate) for fronts/rears

Pre/pro with digitally controlled analogue volume (music in fully analogue domain)

Dual active subs (front)

Digital EQ/room correction/DSP + DAC

[guydebord]

So the majority in the forum use the most complicated and thus most imperfect setup possible: Passive speakers + Active Sub

[quad]

So the majority in the forum use the most complicated and thus most imperfect setup possible: Passive speakers + Active Sub

 

 

A presumptious & ignorant statement given you know nothing of how the subs may be connected.

[DigiPete]

So the majority in the forum use the most complicated and thus most imperfect setup possible:

Passive speakers + Active Sub

 

Great passive speakers are but a few upgrades short of becoming great active monitors.

Say:

 

Some active X-overs - analogue or digital

A few extra amps

Possibly a little careful DSP

[DigiPete]

A presumptious & ignorant statement given you know nothing of how the subs may be connected.

 

True, an active sub is often the "most bang for the buck" upgrade to a passive rig.

Clean up the sound from the woofer of the main speakers and ensure full SPL in the lower octaves in the same package.

Very dependent on sub placement and proper EQ / DSP.

[robbbby]

Full range speakers with no crossover here. I'm a bit surprised at how many people selected passive main speakers with crossovers after the amp. I'm a bit unfamiliar with these sorts of setups, what kind of crossover are people between the amps and speakers? Do the speakers not have crossovers of their own built in? What sort of benefit is there to have a crossover before the crossovers built into the speakers?

[guydebord]

A presumptious & ignorant statement given you know nothing of how the subs may be connected.

 

As the majority use this setup I knew my comment was not going to go well, but surely all of you know of the major weaknesses that come with the "bang for the buck" active sub:

 

- Room & Placement. Perhaps the most critical issue, you should have a lot of flexibility to get it right, trying different locations and measuring the room's response at 1khz intervals (or so), this is incredibly time consuming and requires expertise and help, of course you can aid the process with software but still there are to many variables, Im not arguing that you cannot get it right, but few people can or go to the extend needed to really dial a sub vis a vis the room's response and passive speaker response, plus most pro's would seriously recommend room treatment due to the massive LF Energy produced.

 

- Crossover. The dip, the quality and again, the need to sweep and analyze. Getting a smooth frequency response is very difficult and taking into account that in most sub settings the sub acts as a general crossover to the music signal, the quality and implementation of that crossover better be matching to your passive's. Of course you can avoid hi-passing the passives but this brings another set of complications.

 

- And all the other variables that come with it: phase, polarity, volume and LF filter(s).

 

Perhaps all of you in defense have managed to dial it right, of course it can be done and many recording studios that opt for subwoofers somehow manage to do it, but in a home setup... well, I stand by my comment that its the most complicated path for a speaker setup and thus more prone to imperfection.

[mav52]

ah man, forgot to add the sub in my choices ; (2) Active subs (X-over before amps)

[mayhem13]

 

As the majority use this setup I knew my comment was not going to go well, but surely all of you know of the major weaknesses that come with the "bang for the buck" active sub:

 

- Room & Placement. Perhaps the most critical issue, you should have a lot of flexibility to get it right, trying different locations and measuring the room's response at 1khz intervals (or so), this is incredibly time consuming and requires expertise and help, of course you can aid the process with software but still there are to many variables, Im not arguing that you cannot get it right, but few people can or go to the extend needed to really dial a sub vis a vis the room's response and passive speaker response, plus most pro's would seriously recommend room treatment due to the massive LF Energy produced.

 

- Crossover. The dip, the quality and again, the need to sweep and analyze. Getting a smooth frequency response is very difficult and taking into account that in most sub settings the sub acts as a general crossover to the music signal, the quality and implementation of that crossover better be matching to your passive's. Of course you can avoid hi-passing the passives but this brings another set of complications.

 

- And all the other variables that come with it: phase, polarity, volume and LF filter(s).

 

Perhaps all of you in defense have managed to dial it right, of course it can be done and many recording studios that opt for subwoofers somehow manage to do it, but in a home setup... well, I stand by my comment that its the most complicated path for a speaker setup and thus more prone to imperfection.

 

NOTHING is different here over a pair of stand alone passive speakers EXCEPT for the fact that now you have two LF producing elements located in positions in the listening room least favorable for these frequencies. What appears to be the common 'fix' for this issue is the all too common two way MT speaker that avoids the issue all together by eliminating the problem....meaning little to no useful content below 50hz. And we get all the oohs and aaas of clean, fast, articulate blah blah blah......Which for here as an audiophile site is useless to sacrifice audible content on one front and vilify such sacrificial processes on the MP3 front.

[Robert Hutton]

Actually, I use passive main speakers - full range - with supertweeters. I am surprised that on a forum where hi-res music is usually discussed there is not a category in the question for supertweeters although there is one at the other end for subs!

[mayhem13]

Probobly because human hearing doesn't extend past 20khz, and even less so for middle aged men and those that've abused their hearing over time.

[mav52]

Actually, I use passive main speakers - full range - with supertweeters. I am surprised that on a forum where hi-res music is usually discussed there is not a category in the question for supertweeters although there is one at the other end for subs!

 

Agree, as I have pair of speakers with RAAL tweeters

[PewterTA]

Full Range Speakers... no X-overs here, and that's the way I like it. Yeah I might loose a little low end that I could gain with a sub...but I don't really find anything I listen to go that low (except movies which I do use a sub with).

[Guidof]

Full range passive main speakers. Single active subwoofer crossed over at 30Hz. Digital room correction below 150Hz. Works exceedingly well for me. Alas, we are soon moving into a smaller house with a much smaller music room, so all bets are off . . .

 

Guido F.

[bikemig]

I like the simplicity of 2 full range speakers for music which I use for my main 2 channel rig. I use a 2.1 set up for my desk top; small desktop speakers can use some help from a sub.

[monteverdi]

There are by now 21 responders for option 5. I doubt that so many use crossover less speakers (with full range drivers). I have my crossover built in my amp (so not quite before the amp).