17 of 23 speakers in my studio and home theater systems are internally powered. My studio system is all Genelec and sounds very accurate. I know the best new concert and studio speakers are internally powered there are great technical reasons to design a speaker and an amp synergistically, this concept is much more important to sound quality than the vibration systems we often buy. How can an audiophile justify a vibration system of any sort with this in mind.
That you for continuing to carry the torch. @lonemountainsame, here and on the other thread. Some people want to learn. Some people want to move forward. Others don't want to learn. Others don't want to move forward. Some who don't want to move forward, don't even want others to move forward, and even some who do move forward don't want other to move forward faster than they are.
I have noticed just how few people from industry, even the audiophile industry post here. There is one amplifier designer / vendor. There are some who sell questionable products, but I don't count them. Given how my posts have been met, I am not surprised. I provided some links above, some heady reading, some pretty easy on where active speakers can and are heading. The only reply, derisive.
Are audiophiles confused? Perhaps. Perhaps they just don't want to move forward and don't want others to either.
@thespeakerdude Are audiophiles confused? I think I know the why of the answer. Great music is emotional when it sounds great and you've spent 100s of thousands of dollars getting there it's not only emotional but it crosses the line to something that stock traders call overconfidence bias as its name implies the person thinks they are right about the equipment they've chosen and how it sounds. Audiophiles rest on many emotions even peer pressure to show how cool their equipment is. All these emotions add up to someone who will pay $1000 for an AC cable 3 feet long that sits between standard Romex and 16 gage internal wire in an amp, not to mention the $400 custom fuse that sits between PC board tracers.
Moving forward in sound is a little like dating a beautiful woman you must be very careful of the emotional issues which make the actual practical issues more difficult to see and understand. Music is close to our hears and our wallets both are fragile and self serving.
@pcrhkrMy question is not that you bought a great amp and speaker, but that you are listening not to the speaker, but mostly wire. IF anyone realized how much wire is in a good LF inductor, then additional wire in the other inductors for midrange etc, they would be horrified. It's tens of feet -maybe even a hundred feet of wire in a giant LF inductor set up for a very low crossover point. We all know what 3- 6 feet of speaker wire between amp and speaker can do, imagine all that wire in the [passive] crossover does AND YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT. Does anyone actually think they are using Cardas in that Inductor? In active, there is about 12 inches of wire and no big inductors in the single path.
I never said I was using a pure chain, just saying active isn't the be all end all. There are pitfalls to it just as well as passive. In theory they are better but in practice I haven't heard a powered speaker system I have really liked, I've heard a few active systems where the passive crossover is bypassed that sounded good, but not one that the speaker manufacturer provides the amplification.
So, I agree, there are tradeoffs in everything. Can you give us an example of a "pure chain" in theory?? I am sure it exists, but how do you know what to match with what? Is there a checklist somewhere?
I am not busting your chops, TAS, Stereopile,What HiFi all give out awards and prizes for individual components, what about how to match them??
See if you like Andrew Jones take on active vs passive(about the 2:00 min mark he gets on a roll) The way he describes being able to match a class D amp for the bass driver and then class A/B amps for the midrange and tweeter because you get rid of the limiting factors in a passive network sounds pretty "pure" to me. After watching this video he makes a VERY strong case for the advantages (both SQ and price point) for active:
"The ($750 active) speakers are so good they can do justice compared to the same speaker in the passive version matched with $4500 of electronics" (6:00 minute mark)
It's tens of feet -maybe even a hundred feet of wire in a giant LF inductor set up for a very low crossover point.
No maybe. If someone makes a design choice to use an air core inductor on a woofer circuit in a 3 way, it does not even need to be that low of frequency for there to be a couple hundred feet. Go for a low frequency and you can be above 500 feet of wire. Then they may compound that by using Litz increasing the resistance without benefit.
Audiophiles clearly care about speaker wire a lot, there's a huge industry built around it. Somehow all the wire inside a passive speaker's crossover is just forgotten about. When the differences in wire are so widely accepted, I can't imagine how a person who invested in great speaker wire would think the much longer length of wire in the speakers crossover inductors is in any way sonically invisible.
I have to view purity from a throughput from the input to the amplifier to what comes out of the drivers. I don't think a case can be made, with any set of drivers, where the purity from input to output cannot be superior with an active configuration. That does not mean you are going to prefer an active speaker, or even that you will prefer an active version of a speaker over an equivalent passive as the frequency response may be different which may not be to your taste, or may not work as well in your listening space. If the speaker design does not have good matching of the dispersion between drivers at the crossover points, than crossover differences between an active and passive version of the same design could have a pronounced in room difference. Flat baffles for tweeters and even some mid-range drivers should go the way of the Dodo (IMHO).
Wise comments about purity. It is absolutely true that not everyone prefers the active version of a well executed design. I sometimes wonder if posting in favor of active makes people think there is no alternative. I've done this demo, this comparison, I've demo'd active vs passive (ATC SCM40) of the same speaker using the same amplifiers right next to each other in the same room. Despite the audibly clear advantage of the active to me, some still picked passive (without knowing which was which). I have noticed how seating position can impact this choice, so a great observation that crossover differences can lead to room differences that may be part of the listener's choice.
There is no such thing as a pure chain, there are tradeoffs. I never said passive was better than active, what I said was I didn't like the sound of the powered speakers that I have heard. I do like active systems that I can pick the amplifiers and not be stuck with what comes with the speaker.
@invalid, how do you measure purity? No driver is a perfect radiator, so they are not pure. Electronics can be, for any reasonable measure, pure. I see active speakers as the melding of electronics which can be pure, with drivers that are not, such that the combination exceeds the two combined independently.
This is only controversial at the consumer end. At the development end, for those working on active speakers, there is no controversy that an active speaker is better able to achieve measurements of purity. We define purity as reduced distortion, flatter response, better dispersion.
One on the BIG tradeoffs is budget. If I have $$$ to invest in a speaker/amp/cable chain I think active will be preferable on a value for SQ basis.
Another BIG tradeoff is convenience and a one box solution is very convenient (although you do need additional outlets).
Another BIG tradeoff is risk. When I get an active speaker I know what it will sound like. When I get a passive speaker I have to risk picking an amp and amps can get expensive then I have to risk getting a good speaker cable (if you believe those matter).
Amps are the same? Where did anyone say that? Sounds like you are pulling in a different argument io you don’t have to listen to these ideas anymore.
In this thread we have good examples of both onboard and outboard amp active systems. Its NOT about amplifiers! It is clear you too have fallen victim to high end amp marketing,
Active is NOT about where the amp is, it’s about where the crossover is!
Why do I feel like I am standing at the end of the dock arguing that you really won't fall off the end of the ocean?
... In theory they are better but in practice I haven’t heard a powered speaker system I have really liked, I’ve heard a few active systems where the passive crossover is bypassed that sounded good, but not one that the speaker manufacturer provides the amplification.
...
I never said passive was better than active, what I said was I didn’t like the sound of the powered speakers that I have heard. I do like active systems that I can pick the amplifiers and not be stuck with what comes with the speaker.
You are one of the very few around here that actually distinguishes between a bundled, active speaker setup on the one side, and an active system as separates on the other - not least as an individual that has experience with both of these scenarios sonically.
Notwithstanding the specifics of your context I find your observations interesting and to have merit, because it points to your actual experience as a consumer preferring the scenario that, certainly to some manufacturers of active speakers, is the theoretically inferior one. There are countless examples of this for sure, but at the end of the day it’s what meets the ears of a given individual and what he/she prefers, while also putting into question what the advantages of a bundled active solution amount to when viewed in its totality as a design vs. an active system of separates; does the bundled solution encompass every speaker principle, design and size? No. What’s the core benefits of active vs. its claimed more intricate pairing of drivers and amps of bundled active, and to which degree do they matter in the broader scheme of things?
Remember, we’re essentially comparing active vs. active here, and both sides have degrees to which they can, more or less successfully, be matched as a complete setup. I too (with an active-as-separates system) have looked into the importance of a uniform dispersion pattern at the crossover, and achieved it, while having a narrower dispersion pattern overall for less room interaction. Headroom galore with ultra low distortion via prodigious air displacement area and high sensitivity. 20Hz extension at war volume (i.e.: +125dB capacity). Amps by choice and matched by ears with the same topology used throughout for better coherency. Measurements to aid active filter settings, all done from the listening position in my listening room.
Your context experiencing active systems as separates is likely different, and yet you’ve found them to be preferable compared to any active, bundled speakers you’ve heard. Certainly in your case, what’s all the intricate matching of bundled really worth, in whatever specific iteration as such, when what meets the ears can’t stand the test?
So now all amplifiers sound the same.
Definitely not, but as I’m sure will be pointed it’s more about their implementation.
@lonemountain when did I say passive was better than active? I have no problem with a line level crossover, some even prefer PLLXO to active crossovers with the right system for it.
Has anyone auditioned the relatively new Dynaudio active Focus line (10, 30, or 50)? The 10 had a positive review in the new Stereophile and online. The 50 has had some solid reviews as well.
Some notes on my professional mixing system. I'm very happy with "The Ones" from Genelec seems the professionals I've spoken to have really liked them, it's a little strange but monitoring speakers tend to stay in studios for a long time they aren't in and out like in audiophile rooms, "The Ones" are such a big advance studios and trucks would like to us them but simply can't. The biggest difference is the razor sharp imaging it's a little strange how tight a point source speaker can image it makes a lot of music sound like mistakes. It reminds me of how the makeup department hated HD video when we switched from film to video on movie productions film wasn't near as edgy and had a soft edge on the actors making them look better and thus the makeup department looked better, that's a bit how my new Genelec speakers are, I like them and they're not fatiguing but they aren't as satisfying as my home system. The active speakers are shocking every time I listen to them there is so much resolution in the music. I hear the term "highly resolving stereo system" that is sorta code for an expensive system that should show a higher level of wow to the music but these Genelec speakers show resolution higher than the speakers I've heard in the original recording at the original studio with the original musicians. I'm in a bit of a quandary trying to decide how to deal with this exactly like the Director of Photography people were when we went to HD video in the movies.
Takes time and acclimatization. Once you get used to that resolution, there is no going back. It's harsh at first but then you get used to it. I think the same could be said about film/digital. Disconcerting at first, then you get used to it, then you are very aware of what you are missing when you go back. You even miss the warts. Non amplified live music has none of those pleasant artifacts that are added. Even amplified music, even if the equipment is inferior, is missing the processing that often softens the music. We love it non the less. Something visceral and ultimately natural about it.
Commentary that some do not want to learn and/or move forward smacks of a bit of arrogance. New is not always better. If not broken, why fix it. Buy and enjoy the audio hobby as each desires.
Regarding comments made implying active speaker superiority backed by some level of personal technical knowledge, many only repeat common talking points originating who knows where. Every speaker, active or passive, is designed to a price point. That demands some degree of engineering compromise in every case. From the simple minded perspective of active speaker parts count, a failure rate prediction calculation will show an active speaker less reliable than a passive. The only approach to remedy that situation is to increase cost of the design process, component quality, and testing. Forget about engineering for serviceability or parts obsolescence.
In the end, make your choice and hopefully be happy. Lecturing from the high castle to save the ignorant unwashed from themselves, kindly save that for the new is always better club meeting.
Look how the amp is driving blind in the passive speaker vs the active amp can be individually matched to the driver (by the speaker designer who know how to max the performance of those drivers):
@kota1Yes, during the discussion of this subject the main problem I see for active speakers is ease of repair, internal vibration and perhaps extra cost. Your chart shows exactly how the guesswork is taken out of proper speaker synergy.
Again we are talking best practices not looking at price points. To me this discussion is simply a commentary on the gullibility of the audiophile community. Everyone should know that synergistically amp and speaker drivers designed for each other is best practice either inside the speaker cabinet or outside, this has been known since at least 1967 but the sound equipment business can get people to mix and match and experiment with foolish ideas about how electronic components work together and simply sell more of this mythological puzzle to try to find audio magic.
@kota1I have a question for you, I'm considering moving my professional surround sound speakers away from the walls and hang them from the ceiling. It's a hard decision many companies only want 5.1 anyway so why am I worrying about 7.4.1 so much. Do you think good DSP can compensate for the speakers not being symmetrical to my mixing position, because Atmos is object based it would seem that DSP can fix the symmetry problems or am I look at that incorrectly I use Lyngdorf "Room Prefect" DSP. To me it seems that If I can get object based cues to work with a generally but not exactly symmetrical based system well an exactly symmetrical system would work as well, hope that's a little clear. Thanks
This is a good question. You surround sound "bed channels" should be at ear level because you want to separate them from the height channels. if you have the bed channels near the ceiling they will bleed into the height channels and DSP won’t help that.
You have leeway with DSP if let’s say your front channels are closer to the MLP than the rear surround channels. DSP can add a time delay so the sound arrives at the same time. The same applies to the height channels if front height and rear height channels are different distances from the MLP. However, you need to keep a distance between the bed and height channels to clearly hear the sound in the height channels as separate from the bed channels.
Here is a tip about height channel placement. The Dolby diagram shows the top middle channels in alignment with frony L-R speakers. Don’t do that. Bring them in a bit closer to the center of the room to prevent sound from your surround bed channels bleeding into the top middle channels. Having them a little bit closer to center will anchor the height effects better.
The reason to learn 7.1.4 NOW is it is still early days and it will be both profitable and fun. Atmos is growing in both music and movies and you will have a crossover opportunity in both markets.
When I look at this pic I see your workstation the L and R speakers look fine (I know you brought the CC down a bit). The right surround speaker is about 110 degrees behind you, fine. You can place the left surround speaker on a stand to mirror it. The Genelec height speakers are not angled down toward the MLP and not in ideal locations. Given your MLP position I think a top middle/rear height configuration on your ceiling would work great as you have a high ceiling. If you get mounts similar to these you could mount the top middle channels above the MLP in alignment with your L and R front speakers (or a little more in toward the center) and point them straight down and the rear height speakers about the same distance (maybe a little closer to the MLP) as the ceiling lights in the middle of the room angled toward the MLP. Given your room I t think a 5.1.4 mix station will be fine for 90% of your projects. If someone wants a 7.1.4 bring the rear surround speakers out on a pair of stands and put them away when you finish so it doesn’t block the view of the fireplace from your lounger in your other system:
Try to get as close to the angle as possible. DSP will help if your front angle is say 55 degrees and your rear angle is say 155 degrees meaning the distance to the MLP is different. In the pic the speakers are pointed straight down, if possible tilt the tweeters toward the MLP.
@donavabdearwhen you say bring it away from the walls do you mean speakers now somewhat up against the wall but will now be mounted some fixed distance from the wall but suspended? Basics but DSP can compensate for boundary reinforcement but it can't compensate for boundary interference (though some active speakers do ..)
Interesting that you start with accusation of a "snipe account" to frame your support of active speaker superiority. Regarding requisite personal knowledge, not a single post in this thread provides verifiable technical bona fides, only opinions or recitation of personal system usage experience.
To follow your logic about fuel injection and electronic engine controls, indeed look where we are now - after decades of refinement. Wonderful technology when it works. Repairs require expensive troubleshooting by trained mechanics at a high cost followed by expensive replacement parts. In addition, alternatives to that situation are virtually non-existent. Good model for audio to follow.
Regarding requisite personal knowledge, not a single post in this thread provides verifiable technical bona fides, only opinions or recitation of personal system usage experience.
I strongly encourage you to point out exactly where anything I said is not supported either by current products in the market or current research into active speaker design. Not one thing I have posted is an opinion. Everything I have posted is factually supported including advanced active speaker methods which I provided many of the more simple links available for people to read up on the topic not that many posts behind your own. You made 2 posts in 3 months, both negative against people with industry knowledge.
Carburettors are in constant need of adjustment, cleaning, and perform poorly across engine loading, temperature, and other environmental conditions and while being comparatively inefficient. While easy to repair, that repair rate is much higher all while experiencing a significantly inferior experience. You would be hard pressed to find a fuel injected outboard motor owner who wants to transition back to carbureted. They exist, but they are a minority.
The potential longevity of stereo equipment is at odds with the fully integrated active speaker implementation for a portion of the market. However, the potential for superior performance at a reduced system prices (speaker, amp, DAC, cables), means that reduced total potential life is balanced by lower cost of ownership and lower lost opportunity costs of tied up capital easily offsetting the lack of highly extended life. There is even the potential for entrepreneurs to offer new business models.
@kota1@thespeakerdude
Thank you guys for your notes I know you are both correct acoustically about my speaker placement. I very much appreciate your thoughts even though I sorta already knew the answer.
I don't understand the antagonistic people that want to jump up and criticize, hopefully that aspect of this forum will go away soon. I know both of your strengths and appreciate your notes. Thanks
No, you have posted opinions, the facts that would support your opinions are very vague. You make claims about your creds and have posted zilch, not even a pic of your system. I think I know why you are an expert on "snipe" accounts.
Shoving a bunch of links into a post and demanding people read them is ridiculous. Why not just post a subscription to AES?
1) " every speaker passive or active is designed to a price point". Absolutely not true! I can tell you as fact that many products are engineered and then the manufacturer/engineering department figures out how much it will cost to build and sell. My own manufacturer, ATC, does not design to price point and its frustrates many people on the business side as the price point steps are not what the end users would like. It has holes and odd steps in value that relate to parts and improvements in major components (such as discrete vs non discrete amplifiers) but not nice even steps that relate to a person deciding what to spend- should it be $5 grand or $10 grand or $15 grand? Instead there are jumps like 5K to 15K with nothing in between- which appears curious to end users.
2) Many consumer lines that are owned by investment companies DO design to a price point, are heavily researched, even employ focus groups and definitely have product management departments that have targets- we need something at "5K, 10K and 15K" etc. These assumptions of price steps are logical and make dealers and distributors happy that a nice logical path exists to "step up" quality. Such even steps may not exist in terms of actual product engineering- meaning there are many exam plus of a class D 50W amp costing no less to build than a much larger one. A 15 inch woofer costs nearly the same to build as a 10 inch, but everyone expects the prices to be radically different because a 15 is "more".
Virtually every one of our great speaker companies, KEF comes to mind, was engineering driven and to hell with price. It costs what it costs and this continued while the founder was in charge, usually to some point where the company became large enough that it was beyond the scope of a product engineer to manage it.
3) The reliability likelihood relating to parts count in active vs passive is not an accurate way to look at it: Active speakers are a speaker + amplifiers just as a passive system is a speaker + amplifiers. When one party has control over more elements of the system from an engineering perspective, you can make it MORE reliable. Everyone in engineering and repair knows the failures most often occur where there are connectors, and passive systems typically more connectors (inside and outside) than active system do. In addition, these passive connectors are more likely to have end users using those connectors hooking and unhooking amplifiers from speakers to change them out. The very process is where many failures originate.
We have active systems in play 18 hours a day at high SPL levels for 15 years plus- NO FAILURES- with routine maintenance. Locations like Blackbird in Nashville, Sterling Mastering and Dolby Labs use these speakers constantly. There are no reliability issues.
A 15 inch woofer costs nearly the same to build as a 10 inch, but everyone expects the prices to be radically different because a 15 is "more".
If the price is the same for any product offering "more" power, size, weight, etc. if the price isn’t higher consumers suspect shenanigans. Sometimes paying MORE is a badge of honor (keeping up with the neighbors, status, etc). I have seen members here like @ghdprenticeactually post the prices he perceives that will let you into the rarified stratosphere of elite/reference/end game performance.
Face it, nobody that dropped $4500K on electronics plus $ on speakers want it bested by a $750 active speaker (the example Andrew Jones gave in the video). The people that splashed the cash need to defend their choices else risk being seen as gullible or whatever.
If a speaker company needs to charge MORE in order to be perceived as higher value or whatever, more power to them.
Case in point, HDFury sells a video device for 4K around $500. The NEW device for 8K video was priced around the same or a little lower. People complained on youtube it didn't cost more and you know how this story ends, an instant $100 price hike on the new model.
Further, @kota1, for trying to raise the knowledge of the group I have received abusive replies like yours. Now it is like you are actively trying to stunt other people's knowledge. Why is that?
You can read them or not read them. It is your choice to educate yourself in an area you clearly are not educated in, or to not educate yourself.
Of course, anyone who claims to be a knowledgeable audiophile and up on active speaker technology should know some of the things I have mentioned, that go beyond simple active crossovers, are already on the market,
http://www.kiiaudio.com/acoustics.php. The Dutch and Dutch 8C also plays some DSP tricks in addition to their acoustic advances. Somewhere out there, you can also find Bruno talking about tight integration of speakers and amplifiers as simple voltage drive is not the best drive solution.
Appreciate your comments about personal corporate experience. My personal experience is based on working with Fortune 500 and Fortune 100 companies. Regardless of what any of those companies professed, the engineering department never won against the bean counters. That is truly a good think if ATC engineers always win.
As you cite KEF as an example, they survived the bean counter battles to become immune to cost??? Many more "cost is no object" startups do not survive when financial reality appears.
Electronics most frequently fail due to overstress. Either design parameters are exceeded or the design was not robust initially. Connectors are a problem area. Primarily poor design choices to save a few pennies. Whether active or passive speaker, push on connectors internally are a very poor choice but do save pennies.
@thespeakerdude
It is impossible to have a knowledgeable discussion on a topic if you lack knowledge of the topic.
Took a while for this attitude to appear. Reminds me of another forum claiming to be a place for learning. Until - - reasonable questions seeking knowledge are met with similar "you need to read this book, that report, seven research papers" before being qualified to engage in discussion.
Back to the topic of technical superiority. A completely vague and undefined terminology. What is the measurement? What is the environment? What is the standard of comparison? How is good, better, best, superior defined? If an active speaker FR is 1%, 5%, 10% flatter than a passive speaker FR does it sound better?
I really don't care how anyone decides on a speaker purchase. Research minutiae for months or pick based on listening only or pick the sexiest package. The original post set the tone to promote controversy. SUCCESS. Not much but hot air followed.
@lonemountain, I would "question" saying a 15" woofer costs almost the same as the 10, especially at current aluminum prices. It is not just the added material costs of the basket, but amortized tooling of what is invariably lower volume, and a much bigger tool as well. That is not even getting into cabinet size, packaging, and shipping. It may seem neither here nor there for active speakers, but a product goal of active speakers is delivering superior performance in a smaller package for those who either don't want a larger unit, or cannot support a large unit in their environment.
Reliability is a different argument for professional and consumer speakers. Professional users expect they are going to replace their speakers every 10-15 years, or sooner, and will have fully depreciated them by that time. Resale does not have a lot of meaning. Audiophiles keep their products a lot longer. To your point, the lack of connections aids reliability, and being able to control designs means being able to alleviate electrical stress. For the consumer market, at an elevated price point, the issue is not failure rate, but the ability to repair a product that may be 20+ years old. We, like other vendors (one hopes), track failure rates and adjust our spare parts and spare assemblies stock to ensure we can support a specific service life. Finance accepts that is a cost of doing business and builds it into cost. Engineering attempts to minimize BOM creep and increase reuse.
We don't have large cost gaps in our product families, but that is intentional, and is a marketing and engineering design collaboration. Know what the "best" model in the family will cost and then understand how to build out the family while maintaining product goals. You don't have to be Fortunate 500 to have a good product plan. Active speakers significantly help in regards to supporting that business model.
@texbychoice, it is not attitude it is simply a matter of fact. Mentioning frequency response is my point. It is inconsequential for a basic active speaker. Any active speaker with a DSP crossover can have an effectively perfect on axis response. Balancing perfect on-axis response with off-axis energy is where it is at. With active speakers, like the example I gave above, Kii 3, you don't have to rely purely on an inflexible acoustic design to do that. How about being able to push a driver 6db higher in output while maintaining the same distortion? How about reducing IM distortion in a small mid-woof 10db at elevated volumes. How about an electrical drive method that reduces the impact of power compression. How about an electrical drive method that can reduce breakup? If you wonder if any of those things improve the sound, they most certainly do.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
