Active crossovers

[@markmeridian3360]

Paul's explanation is probably correct for the majority of people - many people don't like overly complicated things. However, there are still many Audiophiles who want an option to actually improve their audio quality that actually works and could pass a blind A/B listening test - unlike expensive speaker cables, noise cancelling power cables, and even power conditioners. Active crossovers can provide real benefits, digital equalizers too. Just because Paul doesn't have those things to sell doesn't mean that he should discount their real value.

[@Rowuk2024]

Active crossovers do not have to mean tons of dials. Fact is, phase is hard to do with speaker level crossovers. Powered speakers do not have to be difficult to setup. I do believe that better sound is possible.

[@elginoctave]

I recall that with a triamplified system, with each speaker/driver being connected directly to an amplifier output, that the damping factor of each speaker would be ideal, due to the close to ideal zero ohm output of amplifiers. This theoretically would provide better impulse response in all of the drivers....... But the bigger issue is, who is the user of the system and what are his interests? Yes, there are people who as you said, just want their speaker to sound good out of the box and not mess with anything. However, if the author of the letter is a technically inclined experimenter, having an adjustable active crossover system, where one could not only adjust cut off frequencies and the order of roll-off, but to also adjust the filter response type could be most fascinating. Of course experimenting by ear may do, but probably such a person would also want to measure their actual acoustic responses, adding more interest. And even being able to adjust the locations of each driver (well, the upper and midrange drivers relative to the bass driver) would all be of great interest. And goodness knows there are probably many other interesting variable to investigate. So I think you may have given a simple answer that didn't address the apparent interests of your letter writer. Maybe you can provide an answer getting into the nuances of having an all active cross over system. It could be quite fascinating! ...... Thank you,,,,,,,,, Chuck

[@ThinkingBetter]

Some day PS Audio will realize they need to add support for active cross-over filtering both inside speakers as well as as external products. I'm sure Paul is aware active cross-over filtering has some superior attributes like the improved damping factor you are mentioning, and many others. However, the underlying problem here is that PS Audio is riding on an already dead horse called DSD being promoted as the better format for content distribution and DSD is unable to support active cross-over filtering via DSP without first being converted to PCM.

[@Fastvoice]

Don't forget that many professional studio speakers are already equipped with discrete amps for every chassis and a crossover right after the input of the cabinet (you may call it an "active crossover"). So you just plug in your (mono) audio cable from the mixing desk or audio interface and a power cable in every cabinet and you're already good to go.

[@matteyles7466]

There was no going back after incorporating a DEQX crossover processor into my system, it is just phenomenal, but it's more than just a crossover it connects timing issues, and room room modes.

[@ThinkingBetter]

Yes that is exactly right. If you want superior performance to a passive speaker, you need active cross-over and the gain is huge when you also can tweak it against the room acoustics, personal tonal balance preference and age related higher treble loss (call it rejuvenation EQ). And let’s not forget the extremely important loudness issue of Fletcher Munson where you really must consider how loud you play for optimum experience. These things are infinitely more essential to the best of audio experience than some far-fetched imaginary benefits of using a US$1000 power cable (that cost US$20 to manufacture FOB China)…

[@Canadian_Eh_I]

yup Ive got one too. makes about 1000x the difference than a cable ever will lmao

[@ThinkingBetter]

One really good reason is that active cross-over is superior from an audio perspective (precision of frequency response, phase, damping factor etc.). Come on Paul, there is hugely more audiophile value in active cross-over than in snake oil power cables, for example. None of us should doubt that the speakers are where most of the magic happens and the cross-over is indeed one hugely important attribute. It’s not about any desire of messing around with controls but about our pursuit as audiophile towards best possible audio!!! Then another super important benefit of active cross-over is that suddenly you also have excellent control of achieving optimal performance against your room acoustics, personal preference and the all too important equal loudness issue (Fletcher Munson effect) making your speakers perform at their best at your typical listening volume level. And of course this is only for those who are willing to spend time in tuning their system with some significant effort or expert support. Let’s be honest about this subject please.

[@delcampbell9558]

Have recently gone back to active crossover. Splurged for an active speaker that has powered low end and needs amp on top. Came with a crossover (and processor) with preset setting by speaker manf, only thing I adjusted was for gain on my amp vs there's. I do not plan on adjusting infinitely. I may add another setting or two, but not getting this and investing so much just to tweak, but to dial it in for my ears, my room, my music.

[@ThinkingBetter]

@@delcampbell9558 I recently bought a pair of KEF LS60 and love the ability to tweak them.

[@ivanaviNiebla]

These active crossovers alter the signal digitally or analogically? Because I don't really understand how would they work digitally, like, are they DACs too? but if they are analog, then wouldn't the sound quality degrade? (if the active crossover isn't big and expensive enough to carry components like the ones used in passive XOs)

[@ThinkingBetter]

@@ivanaviNiebla Nowadays active cross-over only makes sense on the digital output of your streamer device. So you connect streamer to DSP box (with DAC) to amps to speaker drivers. You need as many amps as “ways” in your speakers. A pair of 3 way speakers will need 6 amps.

[@ivanaviNiebla]

@@ThinkingBetter Thanks for the explanation. Honestly I was under the impression that active XOs would be more affordable to implement

[@PSA78]

I'm not sure why anyone would continue to mess with it, you go through the process of setting it up with measuring and listening and that's that. One reason why DIY could easily knock a zero of a complete system today is because things like DSP is so cheap compared to passive components, another reason is that you don't have to spend your way through every single cable and component from the wall jacket to the drivers in the speakers. And... I guess that's the actual issue for most audiophiles, they want to change stuff from time to time, and also don't mind paying for it.

[@West3rror]

And then you find that there needs to be a fine adjustment, then happy again and repeat...😂

[@PSA78]

@@West3rror I actually don't mess much with my system, I did in the beginning to a degree but I realised that it sounded better (to me) the less I tried to either force a flat response or one by my preference.

[@mariancol2428]

What you say is correct, I'm an electronics technician and I have a tendency to get involved in technology. A few years ago I made a system with an active crossover, many amplifiers, cables and a lot of money, I was never satisfied, I was adjusting the crossover all day and I had no time to listen to music. I'm back to passive with premium components.

[@shangrilaladeda]

It’s a set it and forget it when you know what you’re doing

[@ThinkingBetter]

I have several active cross-over systems and I have not gone through adjusting the cross-over all day because it's not all that time consuming. But one thing that helps is to have a calibrated microphone (I use Studio Six Digital software on an iPad with it) that you can place in your exact listening position to dial in the best tonal balance. The current microphone I use was bought at miniDSP. If you are a passionate audiophile, this work is actually very rewarding because typically you have already spent a ton of time on room treatment and speaker placement when you finally precision tweak your filters to your exact preference. This can also include the Fletcher Munson loudness calibration against your preferred volume setting and in my case I tweak the treble up at 5dB at 12kHz to compensate for some age related treble drop (totally normal). This "rejuvenation EQ" is really awesome and in itself a major reason I enjoy DSP EQ and cross-over filtering. And the beauty of such calibration capability is that you can often FOR FREE tweak it further if you notice something you don't like. If the room has some resonance at some frequency, you can fix it. Good luck buying expensive cables for 1000s of Dollars fixing anything LOL...

[@ofergover2978]

In the system in question, I have utilized a complete digital crossover implemented using a computer and a professional audio interface. Measurements, crossover, and room correction were performed using Audiolense and implemented via HLC. This route is not for the faint-hearted and involves a lot of futzing (it's always nice to learn a new word). Previously, the crossover was implemented using miniDSP and REW. That method is less intensive and very stable, but the results are not as refined as with Audiolense because it uses IIR filters, whereas Audiolense uses FIR filters. When the system is calibrated and time-aligned at the listening position, it sounds incredible. The optimization flexibility is vast and much more predictable than switching cables, amps, etc. With an amp to each FR you don't need expensive amps, my most expensive amp is the Emotiva XPA 200, used.

[@funny0000000]

You are so right. That is what Steve Jobs built apple on. Having things "just work" was so much different than a PC which back in the 80's and 90's you would turn it on and there would be a blinking curser and 99.9% of the people had no idea what to do to make it do anything. Apple in the in the early 80's had a user interface on computers that kids could understand. Cars are the same way. Once fuel injection came around they "just worked". No more adjusting carburetors, timing, and chokes every time the temperatures changed and so on. This is a good time to make sure people buy the Aspen FR-30 speakers if they want a system that "just works" and sounds as it should. If real audiophiles wanted active crossovers Paul would be making them.

[@Langeloudspeakers]

I believe that active systems can achieve better results compared to passive systems, if designed correctly. There are also systems that integrate everything needed for their management within themselves and do not require any intervention from the end user.

[@atzeotze2256]

I think it will come. Not now, not tommorrow but it will. Same as the analogue and the digital photography.

[@DrNoahBoddy004]

Outstanding! As always Mr McGowan. I’ll keep it even MORE brief, and succinct: My 1990s system is Completely THIRD-TIER from Flagship BI-Amplified, and the ONLY stratospheric High-End component I’ve ever wanted was a Statement Preamp. I’ve always ADORED drop-dead gorgeous, VERY HEAVY GUAGE Control Knobs. They telegraph to the guests a NORAD, adult seriousness in the proceedings! lol !! So much so, that it would be THE ONLY item displayed in that listening room on an outrageously expensive rack with the rest of the entire system in a whole other room.

[@gotham61]

Now I’m really confused. Paul says audiophiles don’t want active crossovers because they don’t want to have to fiddle with level controls, crossover points and phase adjustments, but he also repeatedly says every system should include a powered subwoofer, which requires adjusting a crossover with level controls, crossover points and phase adjustments to fiddle with.

[@oliverbeard7912]

My thoughts too.I think it's more of a case of it's OK for him if it's a subwoofer, but not for anything else. Although Paul has also mentioned the idea of making tone controls, albeit digitally,which would encourage yet more knob twiddling and fussing with "favourite" settings.

[@NoEgg4u]

A subwoffer, when added to a revealing system, would generally use a passive high-pass filter, such that the signal going to the main speakers is harmed the least -- and the signal going to the subwoofers will fill in the bass that is missing from the main speakers. Not every system should have a subwoofer -- at least not for the reasons Paul has stated. Generally speaking, you would want a subwoofer if your seated position is not receiving proper bass, due to the room's acoustics. But if your room is properly treated, and happens to have good acoustics, and you are getting excellent bass in your seated position, then a subwoofer is not a priority. Other than fixing for a lack of bass, due to room acoustics, the main reason for using subwoffers is to relieve your amps of producing powerful, deep notes, and also to have less shaking coming from your main speakers. With your main amps dealing with less bass, they will send a cleaner signal to your main speakers. With your main speakers producing less bass, their cabinets will shake less, resulting in its midrange driver and tweeter shaking less, resulting in better focused sound.

[@oliverbeard7912]

@@NoEgg4u Hi.I concur and understand all the points raised.All perfectly valid.It's more of a case of Paul seemingly contradicting himself, which I think we all do from time to time.

[@MrBravo143]

Yea.. they don’t want to fiddle with active crossover but don’t know how to connect a single HDMI cable to a soundbar, but happy to spent hours to adjust speaker positioning and toe in, and prefer separates than integrated and don’t mind spending money and time for connecting each equipment..😅

[@BlankBrain]

@@oliverbeard7912 It's not a matter of Paul contradicting himself. He just doesn't sell active crossovers.

[@turboboost99]

The very small improvement in sound using a 3-way active crossover isn't worth the extra effort and expense for most people, even those with very expensive systems. Plus, adding components (amps and the x-over) and additional cabling runs the risk of adding noise to the system. For most, a more sensible option is to choose speakers that have very well designed passive crossovers.

[@tomday7309]

I'm with you Paul. The technology is already there in TV's to automatically hook to external sources using bluetooth and wi-fi. My TV sound system came with a wireless woofer as many do. But my "traditional" stereo system is my trusty Pioneer SX series receiver with a CD player and DAC. Most audiophiles will likely laugh at my 50 year old system of amplification (bought it new), but it sounds fine for my 10x12 office with cathedral ceiling through new speakers. I'm sure PS Audio will get the call after I win the lottery!

[@itschubbwithans]

I’m Mr. Meeseeks, look at me!!!

[@chrissingleton7801]

Best thing I ever did was going to active XOs, in my case it’s 4 of everything so it’s expensive but the difference is night and day, if you can afford it do it

[@a.o.424]

Audiophile consumers are conditioned by advertising to want huge power amplifiers that heat up the whole room and dim the lights of the whole house. The heavier the better. For pride of ownership, we want at least 200 watts per channel. We don't want 6 channels of 50 watts each, even though that might be ideal for an active system. Active systems need less power because fewer watts are converted to heat.

[@Acoustas]

That is a very good point. Hopefully some people are smart and are willing to learn and can understand this.

[@ruthnumsolutions]

Ive studied sound engineering back in the 90s/2000s but never got inro it till 2016. The active xover has its place in large venues where you got the have multiple bass, mid and high drivers that can be placed out over large enough distances to various lisgening points that will require time and phase adjustments. Depending on what speaker enclosure you decide to use, crossover points can vary requiring a customizable xover frequency

[@stabilityball]

I use a Helix DSP running my Morel speakers in my Jeep. Too much?

[@aronake]

Aspen FR10 at 9.999 USD a pair is probably also not for "most people" ;)

[@L.Scott_Music]

The goals of pro audio (mixing and mastering) are different from audiophile systems. The mix engineer wants to hear what is bad in a mix and is not interested in the speaker making things sound better. Both want a revealing system but what an audiophile system does to be revealing and sound great might hide a problem in a developing mix.

[@5thlevelweb887]

Just like the best sounding preamp is no preamp, the best sounding passive crossover is none. HUGE different converting my NHT speakers to an active system ... that said, the active crossover needs to be high quality or it can add a veil to the music. I tried using a dbx professional active crossover with my Martin Logan ESLs to add subs and immediately heard a difference in transparency. I'm working on a DIY version of the active crossover based on a Nelson Pass design to have a more transparent version.

[@TTTzzzz]

Of course triamplified systems aren't the way to go. Because PS doesn't sell them.

[@Mark-lq3sb]

Why so butt hurt?

[@janinapalmer8368]

I've always liked the idea of active XO's ... they're great in theory ... but totally impossible to get right unless you have the individual anechoic response curves ( including phase response) of each respective driver. Even then you don't really know what kind of slope to set for what kind response at the particular XO frequency. You must have access to a really good audio analysis system which can measure the overall phase and linearity response. .... at the end of the day you probably couldn't discriminate from the active XO speaker and it's equivalent passive XO ...

[@ThinkingBetter]

It's not all that hard. Personally I use some calibrated microphone from miniDSP with a tool called Studio Six Digital running on my iPad. This software is not free, but has quite a few features for measurements.

[@rollingtroll]

Also I'd say part of the 'pride' of a speaker designer is designing a well working cross-over. If they don't, a speaker can severely under-perform and that's not great advertisement for said speaker maker.

[@RandySmith-iz1ml]

You're right Paul, most people just want something that is dependable and it works, that's why Apple & Toyota products are so popular.

[@ThinkingBetter]

True, but audiophiles are passionate in getting max audio performance like computer gamers are passionate in getting max gaming performance and car aficionados are passionate in getting max driving performance. Audiophile systems, gaming PCs and super cars each exist to serve the highest level of passion in their respective categories even they are not the easiest to operate. The equivalent to Apple and Toyota in audio is Bose...and yeah, most people are happy with such brands.

[@stevehollingbery9744]

Great Paul, the more human approach. Just listen to the music. Nice answer. Cheers

[@n.m.saseendran7270]

Your videos are very useful and informative for audiophiles

[@NateEll]

Oh-Fehr

[@jmggsantos]

Perfect Wave Preamp? It is a new product?

[@AALavdas]

I run a 5-way active system, and I wouldn't go back! The effortlessness with which it can play anything, including a full, 100-instrument symphony orchestra, does not compare with passive systems. I listen 95% of the time to classical music, so this makes a huge difference for me.

[@julesc8054]

Food for thought. How often has a Professional PA system shipped with the X over and delay parameters not been predefined and locked by the manufacturer for the speakers. The inefficiency and inability of per band delay offsets of passive crossovers means they are not often used in professional environments either in studio or live performances. In most professional environments the crossover is set by the manufacturer along with amplifier power recommendations for each band, the per band hard limiters are also most often set and locked in the crossover. In nearly most studio monitors the crossovers and amps are built into the cabinets for absolute control over the output behaviour. Another reason professionals don't use passive crossovers is that it is nearly impossible to control cancelation over the crossover frequencies. In Hi-fi speaker this "feature" is often used to smooth this range for a more pleasing sound, in professional audio this leads to issues equalizing these frequencies among other issues, for this reason it is more difficult to design a hi-fi speaker with active crossovers that sounds good with a variety of setups and most Hi-Fi's don't use amps, larger that 400w where live sound 400w is to drive the tweeters for example, so the efficiency is not a real concern. Listening to music on a system that stirs your emotion is far more important that the specifics of the technology you using to do it with. Remember: If its louder that 79db use hearing protection 😊

[@ShahidiSabri]

Analogue loudspeaker crossover , i do understand , it's a two port network , it's a pi or tee , LC , arrangement , calculatable , low pass , band pass or high pass LC network , but an active crossover , is it , an electronic gimmick circuit ?

[@Acoustas]

Not at all. You can do everything you mentioned in analog or digital domain. With active crossovers, you get more precision and more control.

[@seedney]

If it was all monoblocks the reasons are obvious. Just money and space factor here… If I can I will go the route of everything separated. But I’m poor guy who likes music.

[@TriAmpHiFi]

. Poor, is why I TriAmp. People always miss the one glaring economic benefit. Which is......................

[@BlankBrain]

If you can afford it, tri-amping can be amazing. If you want simplicity, forget speaker placement or buy a boom box.

[@spentron1]

Crossover-driver setup is speaker design, not system setup. The electronic crossovers used in sound reinforcement are almost all 24 dB/octave or higher to reduce issues, but such systems tend to be highly flawed in any case. Active crossovers are quite popular in powered speakers, but with seperates the crossover should be dedicated designs that come with the speakers, possibly the amps too.

[@craigellsworth3952]

Most people don't want to futz with them? Seriously Paul? Audiophiles are all about futzing everything.

[@VanillaIceCoffee]

Quad amplification, active crossover… I’ll never go back to analog, there is a learning curve for sure but once you master it, it’s day n night! Just perfection unattainable with traditional analog and physical time alignment. I just wish there was a very high end plate amplifier on the market.

[@sudd3660]

active crossover as in dsp i easier than passive, thats how i got into speaker design. but for hifi listeners they should not need to do much than plugs things in.

[@VanillaIceCoffee]

@@sudd3660 yes so a preconfigured active speaker with plate amp, only one wire, even wireless!

[@volpedo2000]

Paul what about active speakers with electronic crossovers and A/B amplifiers built inside?

[@budgetaudiophilelife-long5461]

🤗PRETTY GOOD GUESS ,PAUL 😁😎💚💚💚

[@finscreenname]

Just sounds like another way around from using an EQ. I passive bi-amped my Infinity RS IIIa's and use an (old) EQ and (imho) there is nothing better especially when it comes to money. I use amps that were 2 grand each when new (not that I paid a quarter of that) but there is no way I'm going to drop another 2 grand each just to give them a run to find out if they suck. Wasted time and wasted money. I could spend 25 grand on speaker cables and interconnects and then the next great thing comes along, what do you do with your old cables, throw them in a box? 90% of most people's issues could be solved by a simple EQ.

[@TriAmpHiFi]

. Tell me how to EQ the following. In my 3-way driver speakers, I replace the paper cone midrange w/ a FR of 85Hz-4KHz to a compression driver horn midrange with a FR of 800Hz-8KHz. How are you going to EQ that in a 3-way? Remembering EQ's are line level resistor/op-amp banks. Acid Jazz, Funk & Brass 🔈🔉🔊

[@TriAmpHiFi]

. By changing out one driver, I am effectively getting 2 pair of speakers. I just went from a JBL L-100 to Klipsh Heresy's with one affordable driver change. Acid Jazz, Funk & Brass 🔈🔉🔊

[@jiml20]

This is one area where I disagree with you Paul the sound is much better when an amplifier can focus on one particular frequency range I have had this setup in my cars and was very happy and the dynamic range is second to none I think it is a big mistake that many audio manufacturers do not provide these crossovers for the consumer. Yes it does take a few more cables but in the end you will be much more happy than one amplifier covering the entire frequency spectrum

[@jakeslavin9355]

The point of having to adjust the crossover just makes no sense. The designer will do that work. The end user just needs to hook it up to the network and hit play. There are so many advantages to an active crossover and people seem to beat around the bush in the high end audio world. The only real argument against it that I see being valid is that you do need a lot of extra cables(if the amps are external), it’s expensive, and that having amps inside the cabinet isn’t good from an isolation standpoint. All valid. Talk about that. This is the real crux of the issue.

[@joelowens5211]

Engineers enjoy screwing with things. Mass music public wants plug and play.

[@stevenoconnor5693]

I agree and disagree with it because there are a whole bunch of people that are all about the technical aspects about equally as the sound as crazy as that seems it should in my opinion always be about the sound, but there are so many angles people come out with this hobbyI would say have something just work almost sounds like Bose and a lot of people are not thrilled with them just saying

[@claybob7729]

Adding an active crossover is another component that will “colour” the sound. It’s nice to have, especially a digital version but if you’re a purist, then a passive crossover will be the better way to go, because it was designed for the drivers connected to it.

[@ThinkingBetter]

An active cross-over doesn’t “color” the sound unless it’s what you configured it to do. The downsides of active digital cross-over are more cost spent on amplifiers and more time needed for tuning the system. It’s also only great if you don’t have analog sources and can run your digital source signal through the DSP lossless without sample rate conversion. But what you gain is way better ability to optimize your cross over filtering against driver performance, room acoustics and personal preference. There is insanely more audio fidelity improvement headroom in this relative to swapping cables, for example.

[@ThinkingBetter]

My intuition tells me that Paul is somewhat struggling with this subject because he can't both claim DSD to be the best sounding digital distribution format and at the same time say active cross-over is the superior sounding method of doing cross-over for digital audio systems. Reason is that DSD is incompatible with digital active cross-over filtering, as it first has to get converted to PCM to get digitally filtered. In my opinion, PS Audio should stop being so silly about DSD, because DSD has no real future as distribution format for this reason and many others. Besides any digital mastering of music even using DSD format for the input tracks always outputs PCM (call it DXD or whatever) as original master format. Transcoding DXD to DSD and claim your master is DSD is plain false as the transcoded DSD file is a lossy version of the PCM original DXD (whatever sample rate/resolution) version.

[@subculture-records]

Interesting perspective. However, audiophiles are easily convinced by snake oil statements, and products. As an example, believing that the use of gold plated interconnects between components is beneficial, as gold has such low resistance, and therefore paying the ridiculous prices for such is folly, at best. Unless the entire signal path of all equipment utilised in a system is gold, the benefits are annulled. That won't prevent an audiophile from spending the money, though. Hope in vain.

[@ifarotht5149]

I have been using active crossover for 10 years 3 amps per speaker. I recently made a good passive crossover and the passive crossover sound much better!

[@stimpy1226]

Something I would never even consider doing yet it sounds like many of the comments are doing similar things. How strange. You will never enjoy what real music is all about. Especially with a digital crossover 😱

[@NoEgg4u]

@0:05 "I have a 3-way, active, crossover system." @0:24 "This configuration is common in professional audio..." And that, folks, explains why so much of what gets released to the public has sub-par sound quality. Active crossovers are the Kryptonite of audio excellence. And those folks call their equipment "Professional" audio. Mutilated audio would be more descriptive. Those into professional audio gear can never get enough dopamine from equalizers, compressors, and the rest, all of which colors and degrades the sound quality. They can never have too many boxes adding distortion, which is cumulative, to the signal chain. They can never satisfy their obsession with processing a signal. Too much over-processing is never enough. If it sounds fantastic, they have to fix it. If it sounds natural, they have to enhance it. It must have enhancements. Why? It is like a narcotic. Yes, they have control over everything, which results in ruining that which those controls should not have disturbed. But it makes them happy. May they live blissfully.

[@oliverbeard7912]

Hello again. I'm with you on this point too.

[@claybob7729]

When doing events with “professional audio” equipment, often the venues are not ideal listening environments for music, with all sorts of peaks and valleys in the audio spectrum, audio processing like EQ, delay etc are required in the mix to make the music more pleasant to the audience

[@NoEgg4u]

@@claybob7729 Yes, I agree with that usage of fixing issues with room acoustics. When a band plays at a baseball stadium, or at Madison Square Garden, etc, no promoter is going to spend oceans of $cash, trying to treat those environments to get better sound quality. EQ and the rest are ideal for those environments. But for home use, they should be the last resort for fixing your listening room's sound issues. Of course, if you only have $100 to fix your room's sound issues, then use digital signal processing fixes, and use EQ, etc. But if you can budget doing it the best way, then steer clear of using DSP and EQ.

[@ThinkingBetter]

That’s totally false. Rather, best is to carefully optimize your room and speaker placement before you do minor tweaks with a DSP for getting the final result perfected. It’s idiotic to add distortion in my opinion. That’s also why I don’t like tube amps adding “musical” even harmonics to my music. Heck no, I don’t want any adding distortion either from a DSP or tubes. What you want with a DSP in an already excellent system is to get it closer to perfect natural sound. If I have a spike of 6dB at 500Hz and I can’t get rid of it from optimizing my room, I can make huge improvement with a DSP, for example. And this can apply for a US$10,000 or US$200,000 system equally.