There’s no extra A to D conversion if you treat digital as your primary source, as I do. My DEQX electronic crossover does steep crossover, impulse response correction, and parametric EQ all in software and gives me three coax digital outs to feed my chosen dacs (Directstream Seniors). The crossover has multiple digital inputs (coax, optical, AES/EBU, USB) plus both single ended and balanced analogue inputs (the internal A to D converters do a great job of digitising the output of my scratchy thing, via a GCPH).
1 Like
Indeed, just as I do.
Different approach though, doesn’t suit all 
That’s my point as well. I’m running my DSD Sr. into a 24BIt/48kHz MiniDSP and any changes made at the DSD Sr., I can clearly hear at the output of the MiniDSP.
1 Like
Rudolf, in your first post within this thread you said:
For those re entering or starting in high end in modern and often small homes active speakers offer:
*** less wiring**
*** more space**
*** avoidance of room treatments, that are for most living rooms simply unacceptable**
*** flexible, close to the wall, even corner placement**
*** superb best controlled soundstage**
*** bass frequencies that go deeper than comparable priced separate speakers can ever offer**
I enjoy reading your posts but what you stated is extremely misleading (although you did make the point about small homes). Virtually every point you make has nothing whatsoever to do with active speakers. The points might relate to a specific implementation of an active speaker and that speaker system would need to include something like Dirac to attempt to resolve impulse response anomalies at the listening position. As I’ve said on several occasions I’ve created an active speaker system which is huge and if I commented on your points I’d say:
-less wiring - you should see the mass of wiring in my system, there are the inputs to the crossover, the three coax leads that lead to reclockers (they need power), leads then go to three directstreams (they need power) and then balanced cables go to the power amps (they need power) and finally the sets of leads to the drivers
-more space - all my boxes take a huge amount of space
-avoidance of room treatments - I have lots of room treatments. The crossover has impulse response correction (close miked) and I absolutely require EQ capability within the crossover to counteract the affect of the room treatment (one day I might add a processor to see what Dirac would do at the listening position). Ordinary active speakers do not obviate the need for room treatment
-flexible, close to the wall, even corner placement - whatever the active speaker is it would need EQ and/or something like Dirac - there is nothing about an active speaker that requires it to have these features
-superb best controlled soundstage - a well implemented active speaker should improve on speakers with passive crossovers if DSP is used to improve phase control between drivers, damping of drivers, etc.
-bass frequencies that go deeper … - again, a well implemented active speaker could achieve this especially if it has EQ - not all active speakers do have EQ
Just saying.
1 Like
That is OK, I realize that there are active systems with separate cross over boxes or DSP, and power amps.
You are right, not many of the “advantages“ I mentioned apply to those systems.
The system I have in mind has all those units included in the loudspeaker enclosure. I prefer active speakers with analog cross overs. As I prefer vinyl and DSD.
Off course room treatments will still benefit you, but I indeed referenced modern homes and small living rooms and should perhaps have mentioned my wife.
Speakers are barely accepted, extra boxes like subwoofers are to be avoided.
So I prefer the real full range Abacus Triton speakers connected to a preamp with integrated phono stage and DAC / streamer.
So that was the kind of system I referred to and you are correct.
1 Like