Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused
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.
@mijostyn - didn't know Stressless chairs offered power for anything. I assume either it's for heat or massage. In either case, I'm surprised you would want that noise interfering with the sound from what sounds like an awesome system.
It must be difficult for someone to play exactly what is on your stereo live to do your comparisons. An A/B test must be impossible. |
Yet another point of confusion is that the range of sound quality provided by active speakers, at this time, is significantly wider, and the choices offered are significanlty more diverse, than that of still surviving passive speakers. Lower end passive speakers are all but pushed away by active Bluetooth boomboxes. You can still find small passives at garage sales etc., yet it doesn't appear anyone in industry is investing serious money in further developing or marketing them. High end passives are still going strong, especially in the used market. Moreover, pinnacles of large highest-quality passives took on qualities of antique art - their resale values just keep growing year to year. The actives range from what used to be small cheap passives, with small cheap amps crammed into their boxes without much forethought, to ingenuously designed and carefully assembled dedicated high-end models. Cheap actives tend to use insufficiently sized power supplies, dubious thermal management, and cheap highly-distorting transducers. Correspondingly, they don't sound all that good, and don't last for long either. High-end actives may use literally same or very similar transducers that the best passives have. Their power supplies, thermal management, and amplification stages are all done right. Those sound great, and can last for a long long time. And then we have this area in the middle of actives market, which is the most confusing. There could be seemingly well-made and relatively expensive three way active systems sounding like crap. And there could be inexpensive two-ways that are just ridiculously accurate. There could be inexpensive active speakers that virtually never fail, while being toured for decades. And shiny new expensive ones, even from reputable brands, which reliably fail within few months. By the way, "sounding like crap" could be either an opportunistic market grab by a fly-by-night company making a quick buck reselling cheap Chinese gear with 100% markup, or by design. "By design" is meant to be distorting just below the threshold of being noticeable. Then even a smallest additional distortion of unpleasant nature - typically caused by a recording or mixing mistake - will jump out at the sound engineer. Which is what's desired in this tool. So, a buyer of an active speaker ought to be aware of just as many nuances, in the speakers alone, as an audiophile needs to know about the ADC, DAC, DSP, amplifiers, and passive speakers. I mentioned ADC, DAC, and DSP because some of the active speakers use them internally. A limited number of them use high-quality components, careful design, and well-written software. Most others are ... well, if you can't say anything good, don't say anything :) |
|
Cheap actives tend to use insufficiently sized power supplies, dubious thermal management, and cheap highly-distorting transducers. Correspondingly, they don’t sound all that good, and don’t last for long either. Ahhh, there is a big difference between "cheap" and inexpensive. DTS-Playfi has an ecosystem of manufacturers making "inexpensive" active speakers. The speakers are not high end, but not crappy/cheap. I have a pair of Def-Techs W9’s in the dining room and a pair of Paradigm Shift A2’s in the office connected to a Play Fi preamp, the PW Link. They sound great and I have an outrageous, inexpensive bargain for you that is NOT cheap garbage and around $600 for an entire system, speakers, amps, dac, ARC room correction, and a streamer. It is all built into the speakers, no boxes, no problem. Basically plug and play: But the PW system excelled when I used the two PW 600s as a stereo pair. This can be easily set up in DTS Play-Fi, but you have to remove them from surround-sound mode. Configured as a stereo pair, the PW 600s sounded outstanding, easily rivaling separate speakers and electronics costing many times their $1198/pair price.
|
@kota1 respectfully I will add a few things to your post… I’m a musician long before being a decorated engineer. I’m looking at a 1930 Mason Hamlin double B that’s one of the best pianos in the world, and a room full of instruments that are mine as well from the past. I’ve helped companies like Bricasti and Mytek, to create some of the best DA conversion in the world. I have 1 foot in and 1 foot out of every category here. The thing about a lot of these posts is either it’s an argument for a certain conceptual approach, or a defensiveness about our own purchases, or a look for confirmation of what we’re doing from insecurity … And all of that is the wrong way to go. The right way to go is to understand that there is no perfect, there is no right or wrong, it’s a subjective journey that involves both our taste and a variety of scientific choices that all stem from the notion of positive compromise, meaning that we get the most and lose the least. The notion of right and wrong is completely opposite and narcissistic, as if there is any external standard. So the real challenge of putting together a system is that it has to come from decisions that only you can make for yourself… This is the world of artistry. This is where the two worlds dovetail. Music making uses science, but it’s ultimately a personal decision and putting together a system uses science yet it’s ultimately a personal decision. I science serves the process, it doesn’t dictate the process And anything outside of that is a trap. Music makers and music listeners all have the same goals: connection, community, elevation. Joy. It would be a simpler world if it was possible to come to such things by following directions from outside of ourselves, but that’s not the truth. Enjoy the ride :) |
@donavabdear , before I had room treatments I was stuck. Most of what I could find about acoustic treatments was re: stereo, not Atmos. I had an inspiration to reach out to a studio where they mixed immersive content. I figured these guys are doing the content and if I can setup my room like they do I’ll have a better chance at getting a more accurate reproduction of what they heard in the studio. Can you imagine my surprise when Marti Humphrey from thedubstage replied to my e-mail! I wasn’t a client, a customer, just some guy from Timbuktu and he couldn’t have been nicer. He asked for pics, I sent them and my setup works for Auro 3D and Atmos and I told Marti I like Auro 3D. He copies Wilfried Van Baelen from Galaxy Studios, founder of Auro 3D who checked the pics on my room and they both provided excellent encouragement and feedback. I reached out to Anthony Grimani who also gave me excellent suggestions. So, although I am not a mixer that community you work with is five star, all the way from my experience. When I completed the room treatments as they suggested it sounded nothing like I could have imagined. Now the room correction software I use can do a much better job as room correction is limited in what it can do. Lucky for me I was not only looking to change but got a good roadmap. Thanks. |
@brianlucey , all of these decisions about curating a system require components and that goes hand in hand with risk. Yes, many, many threads here evolve from insecurity, I agree. It is great when you can address that insecurity from the feedback and experiences of fellow members before you pull the trigger. For example, I bought a media player that had amazing upconversion ability for dolby vision. Not expensive but not cheap. I was insecure about the purchase and the claims. The product did what it claimed re: video but the audio was sub par, and the software to run the OS was android based and IDK android beyond using my phone. Glad I didn’t purchase a more expensive model, whew. |
@kota1 talking to people like that is such a gift, they have no reason to do anything but help you, wonderful. What treatment did you perform acoustic or electronic? I don’t know if you read my note about “revealing” speakers sounding bad but it’s true and no one thinks like that. In acoustics flat rooms sound bad for different reasons I spoke to John Storyk, this guy ruled studio design world in the 80/90s he said they don’t design flat studios because they sound bad. So what should you do? Capitol Records sounds weird, Sony sounds strange because it’s so big, Warner Brothers sounds good, but nearly all the smaller rooms to show clients movies sound great. So when you mix the movie and record the music you do it in an odd sounding rooms and when you play it back it’s done in a great room. Error on the dark side for playback in recording it’s a bit like tube amps you want a little ring a little echo, but in playback less big reflections. The floor #1 the ceiling #2, imagine yourself in your listening position then everything except your speakers imagine a mirror whenever you can see your speakers in a reflection work on those areas. Acoustics is often another area of willful denial in physics, huge flat sound consoles right in front of the speakers could you set up a better phase problem if you tried for the original recording engineer then the mix engineer, then the mastering engineer (they usually have a different room). The acoustics company I worked for put in a sound system into the crystal cathedral in Southern California it was a nightmare everything was glass. The answer was small speakers in the back of every seat but that was to expensive the other answer was very directive speakers using the people as absorption looking down. Reflections are your rooms enemy phasing is everything. |
I performed the acoustic treatment first, I used Auralex panels following the suggestions using this "recipe". The recipe is Anthony Grimani’s and I tweaked it with help from Wilfried and Marti such as adding bass traps on the ceiling. The Auralex Geofusors can be back filled with rockwool or polyfil to double as bass traps. Notice how the walls do NOT mirror each other. You have absorption directly opposite diffusion on the side walls. 2D diffusors in front half of the room, 3D diffusors in the back half. I have a "cloud" of acoustic lens 3D diffusors hanging below my PJ right where you see those four checkerboard like panels in the diagram below :
Once I had that dialed in I upgraded my processor to a Pro Audyssey license and bought a calibrated mic and preamp used by professional HT installers to calibrate it. Those are the graphs posted in my profile. I did read your note about revealing high end speakers sounding bad for mixing and that is exactly what Star Wars mixer John Traunwieser said in a recent interview (25 min mark in this video), he says "If you are mixing on a system that is too high fidelity, then it sounds too pretty".
|
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
As for acoustic treatments, it would probably be easier to just get a room kit if I were going to treat another room. They have kits for studios/2 CH and HT that follow that same "recipe". Great support too, Anthony Grimani responded to my e-mails even though I used Auralex panels, he knows the owner and they are friends:
|
@kota1 Really impressive, your commitment to acoustics. There is art in music playback rooms that is very personal and that is if you do have the means and the knowledge to design your system and acoustics how do you want it to sound? Studios used to have a dead end and live end rooms, many were adjustable depending on the kind of music, this was in studios and control rooms I’m not sure this is the norm anymore. If you can design your acoustics in your listening room how much RT-60 do you use (decay). It is a conundrum looking at it from the end user point of view, the recording engineer should put the right amount of room in the original recording based on the type of music but then you are listening in a room with a set amount of room reverb. This is where headphones win. If you make your room to dead just like in the studio dead rooms sound bad, room acoustics need to have a normal decay about 2 seconds and that is around where many vocal reverb settings end up. The pre delay on a reverb unit is most important it tells your mind how big the first reflection is, this is a total electronic trick to the mind. I could ramble on and on about how the entire industry has no really good science behind it. Acoustics is boring but perhaps the most important part of recording and listening. |
@donavabdear , there are equations for RT60 time that factor in the volume of your room. My RT60 is around .28 which is about right for a HT its size. As for the acoustics, I realized that swapping components around would be a money pit if I didn’t get the room right. I didn’t know if an Atmos setup needed a different approach than a studio or 2 CH (they don’t, but I didn’t know that at the time). After Marti and Wilfried’s feedback I did some research. This is a long video but I needed it. Around the :39 minute mark they discuss the best formula for calculating RT60 time. At :49 he discusses the core acoustic "recipe" I posted previously, and at 1:01:45 he talks about the end result being a "smooth and orderly sound field" and diagrams why this recipe works. I’ll check out your new pic, thanks for posting.
|
@secretguy Please tell me more about why the OP is confused about powered speakers, I could give you 2 dozen incontrovertible design advantage for designing the driver for each amp synergistically without a crossover in between. Look at it this way audiophiles like myself have spent millions on sound equipment over the years why would anyone buy an expensive speaker and connect an amp to it that wasn’t designed for that speaker let alone driver in the speaker? Think of impedance mismatch, think of the fact that crossovers have to be designed with speaker level signals adding load, who knows how much, between the amp and the driver. Simple basic things like this show that audiophiles are sill buying such expensive systems with basic design flaws, at best they are playing darts. The note about vibration system was simply about how everyone should know active speakers are a superior design but there will always be vibration in the speaker cabinet although active speakers can have amps apart from the cabinet but then you have speaker cables and can’t use the perfect dampening effect of the amp connected to the driver giving better transient response and reliability. |
| Post removed |
All "Active" speakers I am familiar with use crappy dynamic drivers and garbage class D amps What about the ones you aren’t familiar with? Dynaudio Elac Focal Kef JBL Paradigm Yamaha Definitive Technology McIntosh PMC Neumann and on and on we go. I am afraid you are proving, beyond any doubt, the confusion about active speakers among even dedicated audiophiles like yourself. I would tell you to go audition some Sh-t and hit reset, but that would not be polite.
|
@mijostyn I understand why you would be surprised about reliability. I'm not talking about cheep speakers with amps in them, not at all. I'm talking about what practically all professionals are using in concerts and more and more in studios. When the amp is designed with the driver in mind the end result is a perfect match in impedance and power handling the drivers will last much longer. Also when the amp is directly connected to the driver the driver is dampened perfectly the voice coil will extend and rebound according to the amp, this is only a few reasons why powered speakers are more reliable, do you think live concert companies would use these speakers if they were unreliable. Nope. Also there is the added value of not worrying about speaker cables and saving the cost of the crossover designed with speaker level components not line lever as they should be designed.
|
Advantages of Powered speakers
These are just what I can think of off the top of my head, arguing against powered speakers is saying a random amp and speaker can sound better than a synergisticly designed amp driver system. Powered speakers used at concerts. Meyer Sound (first hand experience with them, great) JBL (great, but not as good as Meyer) QSC (have always been good)
Again I’m talking about best practices not cheep speakers. |
@mijostyn Thank you for the wonderful piano music. Oscar Peterson is of course on of my favorites and I liked the recording, the Maurizio Pollini recording is as you said as if you were in the concert hall from a further distance. Like modern music I guess I prefer close mixing this is because of the multitrack recorder and close miking with proximity effect, I do prefer that sound. The Oscar Peterson recording kept making me think of George Winston so I played GW after I listened to Oscar and the miking technique was nearly the same. December is the biggest solo piano album ever and the imaging is harder to pin down because GW keeps his foot on the sustain peddle so much but the time. The left side sounds farther than the right side just like the Oscar Peterson recording. Oscars recording was from the perspective of the player the panning was 180 degrees. Oscar is the most effortless player ever in my mind, I really enjoyed the deep listen. Thank you. |
Wow! The topic has seen more threads than a vintage Singer sewing machine. You picked a good subject @donavabdear The subject of active vs passive also involves manufacturing efficiencies and economics. It reminds me of the old days when, as a dealer, we were asked why separates cost more than a receiver. Putting aside the fact that there were usually better parts inside, there are also factors involved in producing 3 pieces instead of one. - 3 chassis instead of 1 - 3 faceplates - 3 on/off switches - 3 shipping cartons - 3 sets of packing materials - 3 sets of service literature - 3 sets of promotional materials - 3 cartons shipped instead of 1 And, it goes on and on. So, ALL things being equal (driver quality, amplifier, cabinet integrity, etc.), an active system would cost much less than separates. Or, theoritically, produce a better result at the same price point. However, taking the cost, form factor, weight and other constrains out of the equation, the question becomes if a stellar amplifier coupled with superb raw drivers can overcome the added inefficiencies and distortions caused by exotic passive crossover components? And, that is the real question in my humble opinion. |
| Post removed |
So, ALL things being equal (driver quality, amplifier, cabinet integrity, etc.), an active system would cost much less than separates. Or, theoritically, produce a better result at the same price point. +1, I would add a better result than a passive setup at even a higher price point for all the reasons you stated. This is confirmed by designer Andrew Jones in one of my previous posts in this thread. If you only have two speakers, maybe not such a big deal to splash the extra cash. When you have a HT of 5 or more speakers that splash of cash can become a tsunami that you could have used on better source components, room treatments, preamp, etc.
|
@kota1 @donavabdear , I guess you missed my point. Rash generalization are always a point of concern. They always fail. As far as I am concerned there is no active speaker that can attain the absolute sound. Quite simply I have not seen an 8 foot tall, ESL active loudspeaker. I have not seen an active full range active line source for home use. I have not seen a fully horn loaded active speaker. I have not seen anything but dynamic drivers stuck in a box with an amp and rudimentary digital signal processing. There are many higher performing speaker drivers out there and far more advanced DSP preamps. I am all for digital signal processing. I have been using it for 25 years. There is absolutely no need to shove it into a loudspeaker with what you can assume is a cheap amp. Maybe these things have a use in a studio environment, that is not my area of expertise. My own preference is for very large dipole line sources, specifically ESLs which would disqualify any active speaker I know of. If people want an all in one solution to save space and simplify their situation and they are not that critical I can understand the use of these speakers. |
@mijostyn , I don’t think I missed your point earlier, you made a rash generalization about all active speakers that I started my reply with in the previous post (in italics) and like you said, it failed. This reply about no active speaker attaining absolute sound is interesting. What about the active line array speakers they use at live performances???
OK, I agree you can’t the absolute sound from ANY speaker using a recording, I think you may want to check out the Avante Garde Active, Horn Loaded speaker system. They look CRAZY good and must sound even better. If you like the speakers the new amps they designed for them are just as interesting:
|
@mijostyn - I didn't know that there were true lazy-boy type recliners that are sold as Stressless by Ekornes. I thought they were all minor variations of mine that have separate ottomen. Now I get the batteries or power cord need. I guess they are more for theater type seating in a row where more than one chair with a separate ottoman would look very strange. |
@kota1 Great example, when I hear my active Genelec system it is always striking when the first note hits the transient quickness of even a soft note is odd compared to a normal system. Also in the article they mentioned current amplifiers not "class D" funny. Class D has some obvious advantages over class A but the potential for class D is higher than any other format and I think everyone would admit class D is getting better faster than any other amplifier type. Consider the question, is it better to buy an expensive speaker then power it with an amp that was not made for that speaker no matter what the cost? Clearly the answer is no. Are you saying the answer is yes?
|
@donavabdear , No problem, glad you liked them. Since you like Oscar you should get the whole box. What is REALLY fun is I use Channel D's Pure Vinyl to make 24/192 PCM files of other peoples records. It is a great way to collect out of print recordings. The program has a built in 80 dB/oct 10 Hz rumble filter and built in pop and tic removal which is done prior to the application of RIAA correction. I keep the raw files and apply RIAA correction, rumble and pop filters on playback. You can "render" the album by applying RIAA correction with or without the filters. The rendered file can be played back by anyone just like any FLAC or ALAC file. The only kicker is you need a phono stage with a flat output. (No RIAA correction) I'm sure there are active speakers that surpass the performance of many of the passive speakers on the market. The environment of a concert tour is so different than what you will find in a home. We baby our equipment in comparison. These kinds of speakers are modular and are stacked to form very large linear arrays which works well in the bass and lower midrange but fails dismally in the treble because the tweeters are way to far apart. Ultimate sound quality is usually not the goal here. The finest concert system I have ever heard was used for Return to Forever's "Where have I known You Before" tour. It was a totally passive system performing in real 2 channel stereo. Stanley's bass played through a stack of bass cabinets 20 feet tall which was place right next to him center stage. It was a mind bending performance. RIP Chick. To me, everything you say about active speakers sounds like marketing. I do not hear any specs and usually do not see any. All I see available for home active systems is little point source speakers. I do not like little point source speakers. They do not produce a convincing sound stage and they usually spray sound all over the place leading to more room interaction. |
Confused, nope. Just recall all the junk powered speakers sold, Peavy, Sharper Image crap. I am sure there is some real nice stuff out now. But I will stick with what I have now. Tubes, Class A and Class A-B with well matched passive speakers by Sonner and QLN. Not slamming the door on powered speakers but I am not making any changes. |
@mijostyn the specs for my active speakers are all linked in my profile (no class D amps). Remember, this is about confusion about actives, not a contest. The OP owns both passive and active systems as do I. |
The benefits of the active Magnepan system were snappier transients, increased dynamics, the ability to tame the ribbon tweeter’s aggressiveness, and the ability to do phase/time corrections, especially with regards to integrating the subwoofer. But my effort had much more to do with bypassing the arguably weak Magnepan crossover than finding optimum amplifiers for each of the Maggie’s drivers. I have since gone back to a single amplifier setup with the speakers’ original crossovers. They don’t present as snappy, dynamic or as “live” as they did with the active crossover configuration. Excuse this clumsy attempt to describe what I’m hearing now, but it’s like the edgy corners have been rounded off slightly and the overall presentation is a bit more well-mannered albeit without the sharper imaging within the soundstage. The "rounded corners" may very well have more to do with the potentially weak ADAC in the speaker management unit adding a harsh digital signature than the choice of amplification or any other variable. Which is better? The answer to that question changes frequently. But in both configurations, it’s very, very good. |
@sixfour3 that is a great post, my hat off is to you, obviously hot rodding the Maggies is a great idea trying active. |
Thank you for the reference, but those are not for me. I already use Neumann KH-310 for similar duties. I consider this Neumann an example of a properly designed and well-made mid-level studio monitor of low-distorting variety. As to the PW600s, I couldn't find their measurements. Yet I'm not excited about a speaker with 5" woofer, in such a small box. My guess would be that PW600 natural roll-off starts somewhere between 100Hz and 120Hz. Yet this is compensated for by its internal DSP, so the bass seemingly extends down to ~40 Hz instead. I wouldn't expect PW600 to be low-distorting. There is a price to pay for a small transducer being driven hard by a powerful D-class amplifier. Intermodulation distortions ought to be significant. Contrast this with the KH-310, which meaningfully extends down to 34Hz, even without DSP. Also, its manufacturer publishes detailed measurements, which are confirmed by independent reviewers. Distortions-wise, the KH-310 measures and sounds similarly to good professional headphones. This studio monitor is quite popular for professional studio mixing, including multi-channel, especially in Europe. As to my aspirations, one day I'd like to own a pair of Neumann KH-420 or For kitchen duty, I used to use all-white Yamaha HS8. Then they migrated to my daughter's electronic piano installation. I'm not aware of a better sound-quality bang for a street price buck in active speakers. Interestingly enough, I keep encountering the HS8s in professional studios, owners of which could easily afford much more expensive monitors. HS8s are just uncannily accurate, in an easy to live with format, and virtually never fail. |
@mijostyn I'm not marketing at all I don't care what anyone thinks of any of my systems (I have 4 Dolby Atmos systems in my home) I'm retired after 35 years in sound recording and mixing but I do care about what experienced people in the audiophile world think. I don't know that world so much. I do know physics and have studied all aspects of sound my entire life. This OP started by me pointing out what I thought everyone else already knew but they didn't, powered speakers are the "best practice" in building hi fidelity speakers, who cares how much they cost. Every speaker and amp manufacture who is gouging people for hundreds of thousands of dollars (my self included) for expensive systems knows that sound systems being designed synergistically are best. That is not a generalized opinion it is logical, the converse is what most everyone buys now believing that sound systems should not be designed synergistically. When someone asked how does this amp sound with this speaker now you know by reading this thread that the answer is maybe good maybe bad but it would be much better if the amp didn't have to push through the dozens of objective electronic design problems that happen when speakers and amps aren't made for each other. One simple example other than the obvious crossover problems after the amp in the signal path is how efficient the amp can be when it is directly connect to 1 driver the needed power drops by about ½ and the throw and pull of the driver is perfectly dampened by the amplifier meaning the voice coil lasts a lot longer. It is impossible for normal voice coils to be perfectly dampened because of the unknown loads created by the crossover, connectors, speaker lines, in common in designed speaker amp combinations today. If you say well I like tube amps, ok fine have a company design you a tube amp and a speaker in separate cabinets that are made for each other, fine. You probably can't get a company to do that today but if audiophiles would demand best practices it would happen sooner than you think. The amps are there the crossovers are there and the speakers are there make entire systems that are made for every other component. I have the PS Audio BHK components and I think they work together ok but when they finally made a speaker they didn't make an amp for it they would rather make more money and sell them separately.
|
@fair , Abbey Road used the Neuman's when remastering Pink Floyd for immersive audio. I posted a pic earlier in this thread. You mentioned that there is confusion about cheap active speakers and I agree. Those PW600 are an example of an "inexpensive" active speaker that aren't "cheap". If I were doing a build around a Yamaha HT processor the HS8 would be a match that would be my aspiration. Just thinking about it makes me want to try it. Kitchen duty I have a single Paradigm Active Shift A2 connected to a Klipsch Gate streamer. Thanks for replying. |
Your statement extolling the virtues of active technology is only a half truth, especially the bit about the amp matching malarkey. When you take the crossover out, all you are left with is a simpler load usually a 4 or 8ohm woofer. Any amp can drive that. The amp matching you refer to is more of an issue with passive speakers not active. And in that case the matching must be done by the end user because only the end user has the right to decide what sounds best to his ears. In conclusion, you’re wrong. |
@kenjit no crossover between the amp and speaker is a big deal, you didn't say what frequency you were talking about 20hz or 20khz it makes a big difference in impedance. Also you didn't mention that the cross over was made designed at speaker level not line level like other electronic circuits, you also didn't mention how complicated that crossover was, perhaps you didn't know that today there are some very complicated crossovers for speakers, when was the last time you looked at a speaker ad in TAS and it didn't mention is wow wow wow crossover technology. Wait maybe you forgot to mention the other parts of the speaker, you did mention low frequency, there are other frequencies also thousands of other frequencies if we were to design a speaker with an amp with perfect driver matching it would have an amp for each driver but then you would have 20k amps and a bit of a phase problem. When companies design speakers they add components after the original design to fine tune the overall tone of the speaker this is now done like it was 100 years ago with individual components set in the circuit after the amplifier before the signal gets to the speaker. If this could be done at line level the tuning can be done with a programable chip, yes DSP. Huge amps can sound great in undesigned amp / speaker systems but designed amp / speaker system is a much better way to strive for the best sound. Hope that is clear. Do you realize you are arguing for getting lucky when putting together the two most important parts of a sound system. BTW it is impossible for a undesigned amplifier to be as efficient as a designed speaker if you have more than one driver.
|
@mijostyn another note you can use non class D amps in powered speakers my little Elac Navis powered speakers use BASH amps (hybrid) for the low and mid frequencies and an A/B for the high frequency, (300W total). These speakers sound great for my computer along with a JL sub under my desk for $4k you can have a very nice little powered system, plus a small DAC. |
@donavabdear Tuning the sound at amp level and line level are not the same so you cannot substitute one for the other. Some audiophiles may prefer to tune at one level rather than the other, It all comes down to what is best for your ears. What is your definition of perfect driver matching? And how would it be measured? |
@kenjit Sorry I’m really not communicating well at all, my fault. I’m only talking about the engineering design of the speaker amp combination and when you use powered speakers in which the amp is literally connected with no speaker cable to the amp the crossover is in the circuit before the amp. This gives many benefits one of the many benefits is perfect speaker dampening and transient response. Being able to design the crossover and other circuits that are 600 ohms not 8 ohms allows you to do many things to more perfectly tune the amp to the single speaker driver. Every driver in the speaker needs it’s own amp that is designed for the particular drivers and frequencies that driver will produce. To be more clear in this system there really isn’t a crossover at all it’s simply a simple circuit that only allows frequencies in which the driver is designed for. Hope that’s clear
|
@vinylvalet , if you have time can you please post your virtual system so we can check it out? Sounds great. This thread has a few audio experts with studio or manufacturing experience participating like yourself, has been quite an eye (ear) opener so far. Thanks |
@secretguy Honest question do you feel like audiophiles should demand accurate designs in a synergistic way or do you feel it is more important to having "fun" with putting together systems at random not designed for each other. |
@kota1 , Now those Avant Guard Horns are the first packaged speaker system I would not mind hearing. I did not know they had done that yet. It is still a point source system but at least it is directional (less room interaction.) I bet we can all afford them :-) I have been to probably over 50 stadium concerts. They use line arrays because they are acoustically much more powerful not because they cast a better image. There is no image at these concerts and distortion from a number of factors is very high. The Absolute Sound is not the goal. Home HiFi is a totally different application. Line arrays or line sources are still more powerful but they broadcast a larger more life like image with greater depth. ESLs are renown for being....polite shall we say. They are not known for being power houses and many of them can not achieve realistic levels. Turn them into a full range line source, take the lowest three octaves away from them (subwoofer) and use the right amp they then become a totally different animal. They become as dynamic and as powerful as horns up to 105 dB. Ultimately they loose out to horns and the better dynamic drivers which can make it up to 115 dB (twice as loud!) My loudest listening level is 95 dB. Anything louder will certainly damage your hearing. Within their capability, because they are line sources the sound is more powerful, dynamic yet delicate and detailed. Because line source linear arrays are perfectly directional they reduce room interaction better than any other type of speaker. Room interaction is distortion and it can not be managed with just DSP. Digital has its limits. 0 dBFS is a hard barrier and lowering volume levels decreases the number of bits available. With the faster processors we have now running at high rates this is much less of a problem but 0dBFS remains a hard barrier. The kind of deviations you see in the bass in residential rooms frequently require 10 to 15 dB corrections that can bump into the 0 dBFS barrier or/and push many amps into clipping. You have to try to keep the deviations under 5 dB with acoustic management then DSP can handle the rest. You still need a power house of an amp for the subwoofers and efficient subs is not a bad idea. I am not disagreeing with the basic idea of an active loudspeaker system. In essence I have had one for 25 years. I use all the same tech used in active systems and have much more control over what it does. My new processor will have a complete digital 4 way crossover, bass management, room control and high resolution equalizing capability. Check it out. DEXQ Pre 8. https://www.deqx.com/products/ I can choose amps specifically for the type of driver and frequencies it has to cover. I can chose the quality I can afford. They are right under the speakers keeping speaker wires very short. I use only Kimber Kable 12tc. My subs are wired internally with 12tc. @donavabdear , I totally agree with everything you said, but I am very particular and want to do the designing myself. Manufactures have to survive by selling their product by making a profit and keeping the cost of the product competitive with what their market demands. They tend to cut costs where you can't see it. With audiophile products it is really weird because many of us think if it costs more it must be better. In many instances prices are inflated for that reason alone and I had one manufacturer of cartridges admit that to my face! There are many roads to Rome. Our expectations might also be different. I will probably never use anything but a stereo system, a 2.2 system. IMHO and from what I have heard adding more channels just confuses the issue and adds more distortion. At one point I though of adding rear speakers with adjustable delays to replicate the echo of large venues but I decided not to. I have other sonic priorities. |
