I have been looking at several active loudspeakers, Heavenly soundworks, Buchardt, and, and KEF LS50 wireless II. Any thoughts on these or are there others you think are better? Thanks!!!
Not all active speakers contain op amps. Defenitely not referencing the Kiis with that statement.
Digital domain active xover is even worse than analog active xovers to my ears for sterility. And yes I have heard the Kii’s setup by the trained importer/distributer (same guy that setup Darko’s video) because I believe that video was done at Darko’s flat in Balmain Australia before he left for UK or somewhere over there. . I was not impressed with the lack of musicality, (very etched sound), like the harmonic structure 2nd 3rd 4th etc to the fundamental was stripped away, I lasted a couple of albums with them. And I heard them in a much better room than Darko’s.
Stereophile: Kii review What happened to the warmth? Isn't it a bit bright? Is there a midrange suckout? Are the rear-mounted drivers spraying sound out the back to be washed back at me
These are the similar things I kept saying to myself. This reviewer eventually got used to them, I couldn't.
Also you don’t get to use your prize dac you have to listen to whatever they give you inside that speaker box.
Added note: The original TL074 op-amp slew rate was 13v/µs, new LM6172’s are 3000v/µs. Noise and distortion is also lower. Make your own crossovers and enjoy.
Theoretically, active loudspeakers could be amazing...until you add in the profit motive. I have not heard one yet that amazed me.
Profit motive? I’ve heard so much bland passively configured that it tires the mind, and the by comparison few active iterations that have entered the stage have, by and large, been delightful deviations to that (passive) trend.
The best active systems I’ve heard are non-bundled, separate component solutions that’ve been setup and fine tuned by their users in specific acoustic environments over months of time. No restrictions wrt. speaker size, type, sensitivity or component choices in general - just carte blanche. Those are the set-ups that have truly blown my mind and that have left most everything passive fighting in vain for similar scale, cohesion, dynamics, resolution, ease, stability, etc.
A worthwhile takeaway with such separate component active solutions: typically they’re much less expensive for what they offer sonically.
IME, listening to passive speakers anywhere but your own room and system is a waste if time. Active dsp reduces the variables and many of the designs control disbursion (no clue) to minimize room acoustics, so if you like the sound of a properly setup active dsp system at a shop you’ll probably like them at home. Simply said, the components have already been maximized in an active dsp system.
Theoretically, active loudspeakers could be amazing...until you add in the profit motive. I have not heard one yet that amazed me.
georgehifi, what on gods green earth are you talking about? I also have large ESL with subwoofers to which I cross at 120 hz using a full two way digital cross over. In my system everything stays digital until the final DACs right in front of the amps. I digitize my phono stage so it will fit in. There is only one digital to analog conversion. Once you are in numbers you can do whatever you want within limits without causing ANY distortion. This includes, crossovers, room control, EQ and adjusting group delays. The distortion is magnitudes less then analog gear and taking the bass out of the ESLs cleans them up to a remarkable degree. This is the state of the current art. Not using a digital high pass filter on your ESLs is audio suicide!
”I wouldn't want to come across claiming that every serious home audio reproduction "adventurer," for him/her to actually be serious, should pursue active as the one and only route achieving great sound. Mostly what it comes down to, to me, is letting people know that active configuration, one way or the other, holds great and different potential, and that in the face of many audiophiles effectively dismissing active for reasons that seem.. shall we say, questionable.”
I agree…it is when things that are not understood, such as not knowing the vast capabilities of active speakers which causes or propagates the idealism that active is hard and challenging…it is different and one needs to use the proper tools like other aspects in this hobby to achieve optimal results.
Here is my analogy with a robust active setup using advanced DSP and measurement equipment; like sports car tuning, where you map each rpm with the air/fuel mixture to maintain steady air/fuel flow across the rpm range as it increases…I would envision a properly setup active solution would incorporate a relatively good frequency plot in the room as the volume levels increase. Most room measuring is done at a static loudness reference point of about 80db and that’s fine and dandy for a measured and tuned response at that level. But, when volume goes up, room modes get excited or exacerbated more, and the static tune, let’s say for subs only, will have to deal with an increase in output levels which will skew the tuned plot at anything above 80db. A property tuned active speaker solution should be able to ameliorate this affect as volume goes up by accounting for the volume level increasing and it’s effect on the frequencies in room mode excitation because measured bass response in the room is not the same at 95db vs 75db…it’s just physics. As the output level increases so does the amplitude of any and all frequencies. This is where I think active makes it money. The above remark about MAP tuning in cars is still fresh in my mind. Had a laptop plugged into the OBD connector with a customizable tune and a buddy sitting in the passenger seat of my Corvette Z06 with said laptop as he monitored me go from 75mph to 185 mph as he filled in the variables for each rpm to maintain correct air/fuel while driving on the Autobahn. That was so analog, now, you can get a real dyno tune with live feedback of HP at RPM.
Thanks by the way, and yes, no issues with the T1.5s providing exceptional sound. Since I am a hobbyist, I also spent time and money to ensure that the environment, room, had the least amount of frequency smearing anomalies as measured at 80db (probably should measure at 90db😀), at the listening position. They are field coil speakers with exceptional speed and dynamics. Unfortunately, many folks don’t take the time to understand or don’t know that in order to maximize your listening experience, it’s going to take some work either way. A true plug and play solution exists for those who don’t know, don’t care, or are happy with as is. Either way, one can find great pleasure in either speaker solution as long as it is optimized properly within their listening environment.
I don’t know if spending time going active, researching amps and/DSPs, measuring each change is worth my time and effort when I have such really great satisfying results with my non active speakers. Granted, I have measured in room response and treated frequency anomalies with appropriate diffusers or absorption material as needed. I would suggest anyone serious about this hobby to at least take the time to measure the room to identity problem frequencies. My room is also built to soundproof specs which also increases my listening pleasure. At the end of the day, I can’t say that I would disagree with anyone wanting to go active, it would be different in other ways. If it works for you, go for it. It’s not for me, for the reasons stated above, I am out.
I wouldn't want to come across claiming that every serious home audio reproduction "adventurer," for him/her to actually be serious, should pursue active as the one and only route achieving great sound. Mostly what it comes down to, to me, is letting people know that active configuration, one way or the other, holds great and different potential, and that in the face of many audiophiles effectively dismissing active for reasons that seem.. shall we say, questionable.
In your specific context I can only imagine the T1.5 Reference model from Classic Audio Loudspeakers (with associated equipment + acoustics) to be extremely well-sounding and versatile - I've certainly always been intrigued by their range of speakers and endeavor at large. Being as happy with their sound as you appear to be I wouldn't change anything, let alone convert them into active config. Not that it wouldn't be interesting to explore their performance envelope this way, but as is in their current passive state I'm sure they've been optimized into a very capable package.
The only active speaker I heard that I really liked was the MBL101s. In second place, the Legacy Aeris. I have listened to Avant-garde and active Klipschorns previously, but they did not make me want to jump into the active speaker lifestyle. Note, I stated that the Legacy Aeris and MBL101 were the best active I heard, but not the “BEST” I heard. That testament goes to my recently acquired non active Classic Audio Loudspeakers T1.5 reference. While looking for my next big speaker splurge, and with a substantial budget to help, I listened to everything. To my ears, the T1.5 reference brought to my attention, the immediacy, delicate voice, and instantaneous snap of drums that to my ears, made music sound more realistic and live. To my ears, I could sense the artifact of DSP used with the Legacy Aeris and it just seemed to me that it needed more work and tweaking to get the sound right. This was with the Wavelet DSP device.
Like all things in this hobby, such as tube rolling, subwoofer integration, cartridge and tonearm matching, it takes some work to optimize your system. Going active may have its merits, but it also requires a certain amount of work to get it right. Some people may feel more comfortable at measuring each driver for latency and delay, roll off, phase etc., while others not. Simply powering each driver in a speaker without actually measuring the in-room response could cause other problems. So, it does take more time and effort initially to get active setup in a way that would overcome room speaker artifacts as described above. But, one must do the same with non active speakers as well. I don’t know if spending time going active, researching amps and/DSPs, measuring each change is worth my time and effort when I have such really great satisfying results with my non active speakers. Granted, I have measured in room response and treated frequency anomalies with appropriate diffusers or absorption material as needed. I would suggest anyone serious about this hobby to at least take the time to measure the room to identity problem frequencies. My room is also built to soundproof specs which also increases my listening pleasure. At the end of the day, I can’t say that I would disagree with anyone wanting to go active, it would be different in other ways. If it works for you, go for it. It’s not for me, for the reasons stated above, I am out.
It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.
With passive, there’s nothing to setup. You just hook to the amp and that’s about it.
You're asking for conflicting things here:
The way most would approach active, i.e.: as a bundled product, it’s even less complicated as there’s not even amps or possibly a DAC + associated cables to connect and setup. Obviously this robs flexibility.
If you want flexibility from an active setup you’d approach it as a separate component solution, with non-preset filter values if none are available, but this adds complexity per above.
Seems to me it’s about making up one’s mind and stop placing unwinnable roadblocks in your way; if ease of setup and plug-and-play is desired it’s bundled active speakers for you. Conversely if flexibility is sought it’s rolling up one’s sleeves a bit and go the route of separates and prepare to learn about filter settings.
As I said complexity mostly comes into play when setting up filter values. The addition of extra amps and an active cross-over is really the least of it.
Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?
It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.
With passive, there's nothing to setup. You just hook to the amp and that's about it.
Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive.
Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?
Whether or not going active, be that bundled/preset or as separates/DIY, is "worth the trouble" is up to each to decide, but I'd wager active being less popular is very much due to conjecture, habitual use and conservativism rather than assessing it, openly, on its own merits and the basis of sound quality.
Cheap class D are not going to cut it. Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with.
Active configuration renders amplification less vital, meaning cheaper amps in particular will perform somewhat better (and closer to their über-priced brethren) in active config's being given better conditions not looking into a passive cross-over, with all that entails. That doesn't mean you have to go cheap, but conversely going very expensive here won't bring the same potential advantages compared to a passively configured context. The resolving capabilities of active however more clearly exposes changes on the side of the front end, cabling, wall power and such.
Maybe an issue with active config, from the perspective of certain amp manufacturers, is that amps matter less here, but it may also present an issue to those costumers who buys with their expectations and wallets rather than with their ears and assimilating to the proper (active) context.
Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive. Cheap class D are not going to cut it. Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with.
I started off making my own 12db/octave actives in 1976 with a TL074 op-amp, poly caps and metal film resistors, no pots. I did use manufactured crossovers to select the slope that I liked best, but after that removed it. The new LM6172IN opamps are killer and do sound better. Still using all fixed components, switches to select xover frequencies. I’ve settled on the slope and crossover frequencies that work the best for me, so no switches or pots. Yes, all analog. Three class A amplifiers.
HI Georgehifi I have no doubt you experienced what you say as I can see you have written a enthusiastic response. AS one who's been in audio a lifetime, I have been completely convinced by a demo I discovered later was a flawed. I too have heard some crossovers I do not like, especially the digital kind. I do believe digital DSP can be neutral, Weiss is a good example but its SO expensive. I also believe Class D can be good, example is Theta Digital, also quite pricey.
The science on this is quite clear: the passive arrangement introduces a large array of significant artifacts, all measurable and audible. Active also has some artifacts, but far fewer and more difficult to measure and hear. The reduction of audible errors in total is the goal of properly executed active design. Its a holistic design approach if you will. Solve the biggest issues first and then work to get the rest down. Distortion is the enemy, and once inside the driver, whether created by the driver itself or what comes before is impossible to remove. How about we prevent its creation? The speaker company I'm associated with pursues this goal though engineering in every move they make.
DSP is not an inevitable "must have" part of an active design. Well executed actives are available that are 100% analog, input to speaker output, with high end discrete variants available for those with bigger budgets.
I think the number one reason commercially available actives lack consumer appeal is the lack of "amp upgradeability". Phusis is talking about the future when you can set your active system yourself, choose your crossover points and amplifiers. I know that with active the preamps, cables, sources, etc all become much more audible and fun to change out. The degree of change from these front end changes with a high performance active are more noticeable due to the increased resolution that reveals these audible changes. I am convinced the audiophile in an active world will be turning their focus to the front end, swapping these parts and pieces and have just as much fun in doing so as they did with amps. From a scientific perspective the obsession with amps driving this hunk of lossy wire and passive parts, that reduce control and efficiency, isolated from the drivers, will be looked back upon as so "I can believe we used to do that". Brad
Personally I think discussions about active vs. passive speakers are always biased in that they ignore one aspect or another of design. I strongly suggest you go by your own ears and listening location.
You might also want to look into and listen to Legacy.
Also, you may want to examine pro powered speakers as well.
As with analog active xover in the mids and highs, you’ll have at least a dozen more opamps pots, switches powersupplies interconnects etc etc in the signal path, and to me the that’s opposite of what you just said, there’s more distortions, they also strip the natural decay from the music going through all that ****.
That's not taking into account the impact of a passive cross-overs between the amp(s) and speakers in all their more or less complex varieties and differences in quality, how they take away from a given amp's potential and its control over the drivers, and how this scenario compares to an active solution with its own set of (to my mind lesser) compromises.
Oftentimes that's the discussion on active configuration in a nutshell; it's in a hurry to highlight, not least theoretically, the deficiencies of active without considering passive a rather substantial compromise itself. Passive is most widely used, yes, but that only makes it a reference in light of what's more widely implemented and habitually assessed.
Georgehifi "Active xover for the bass yes for me. But not for the mids/highs, they always sound "etched" and loose their "musical ease", become in your face."
HI George Sure don’t agree with this statement at all. That description would fit only a high distortion system, not an active one!
Sorry not for me, to me the that’s opposite of what you just said. I’ve had many of the top analog active xovers (except the Pass FW B-4) here. And the top (it’s said) digital xovers here being a friend of mine who owns the company just up the road, who invented the Fairlight Synth all those years ago here in Au. As with analog active xover in the mids and highs, you’ll have at least a dozen more opamps pots, switches powersupplies interconnects etc etc in the signal path, and to me the that’s opposite of what you just said, there’s more distortions, they also strip the natural decay from the music going through all that ****.
And the it’s reason I say in the mids/highs it sounds "etched" "sterile" and looses it’s "musical ease" to become in your face, it seems to strip the mids/highs harmonic structure (decay) leaving mostly just the bare fundamental, when going active xover in the analog domain and even MORE SO when it’s done in the digital domain.
And this can be picked up quite easily on my Martin Logan (Neolith paneled) Monolith ESL’s down to 150hz and from 12khz up Plasma tweeters not that it matters go out to 200khz
I have been looking at several active loudspeakers, Heavenly soundworks, Buchardt, and, and KEF LS50 wireless II. Any thoughts on these or are there others you think are better? Thanks!!!
Bundled active speakers such as ATC come recommended. Most don’t seem to realize though that ’active’ isn’t only an all-in-one solution, but simply means the cross-over functions on signal level prior to amplification, and as such can be a separate component choice as well where you get to choose your own digital/electronic cross-over, amps and the whole shebang. This entails setting up the filter values by yourself (unless pre-set like from Sanders Sound), and can take some time getting right. You may know your sonic preferences and have sharp hearing acuity, but knowing which filter values and their combinations(!) that lead to a desired sonic outcome - with the aid of knowing specs and likely involving measurements - isn’t something one simply does overnight. This can take weeks, months even, but a manageable outcome can often be had within shortly; it’s the fine tuning that’s "a bitch," but the more work you put into it and experience is gained, the more rewarding the process (and outcome) becomes.
@lonemountain --
... Every A/B I’ve ever done proves again and again that same exact speaker, same exact amplifiers, active means imaging is better, fine details more clear, resolution is higher.
My assessment as well. More transparent, stable, fluid, less smear, and indeed somewhat better resolved. Heavy DSP processing/correction I find impacts the top end in particular, making it too distinct and at times coarse, which is why the less-is-more approach into PEQ is my preferred scenario. Fiddling with acoustics, speaker placement and overall design decisions is paramount here to ease the processing part, and this involves the low end as well. Done right such an active set-up - tailored to a specific acoustic environment and from a given listening position - simply steamrolls over most any passive dittos I’ve heard.
@fiesta75 --
So many here on AG have no clue about active crossovers and the benefits. Actives can improve the entire spectrum, midrange is so much clearer and detailed. It sure does remove distortion like IM, the most irritating, just plain gone. I’ve mostly given up trying to help because many THINK they know best. Time is a wasting!
There’s a very conservative/stifled/prejudiced attitude towards active configuration in audiophiles communities in general, yes. I would gather most speak from limited experience, and certainly active-as-separates is something very few have heard let alone had their hands on.
Once juggling with filter values actively feels more natural and "learned" - in the listening position from your laptop/tablet and on the fly - it becomes an indispensable tool where corrections can be made to accommodate a variety of situations. I can’t imagine ever going back passive again.
So many here on AG have no clue about active crossovers and the benefits. Actives can improve the entire spectrum, midrange is so much clearer and detailed. It sure does remove distortion like IM, the most irritating, just plain gone. I've mostly given up trying to help because many THINK they know best. Time is a wasting!
Georgehifi "Active xover for the bass yes for me. But not for the mids/highs, they always sound "etched" and loose their "musical ease", become in your face."
HI George Sure don't agree with this statement at all. That description would fit only a high distortion system, not an active one! There is nothing in active (as a process) that would cause what you are saying to happen. Active REMOVES distortion generating devices in the signal path. Every A/B I've ever done proves again and again that same exact speaker, same exact amplifiers, active means imaging is better, fine details more clear, resolution is higher.
You don't mention price but I would look at Dutch and Dutch 8c and Genelec the Ones. Ignore comments about cheap class D etc.. for the price there isn't a passive speaker around that will do what these can do.
For me with big ESL’s and large bass units 20hz -150hz Active xover for the bass yes for me. But not for the mids/highs, they always sound "etched" and loose their "musical ease", become in your face.
With total active speakers it’s the same for me, either the (analog active xovers that are full of opamps) or the (digital domain xover if used that way) which btw "waists out" your good dac as they come after it, or the cheaper types of amps used in active speakers.
Fiesta 75 It makes so much sense to take all that wire and inductors out of the signal flow to the speakers. With so much focus on speaker cables, I wonder how many people realize how much wire is part of a large air core inductor used for LF crossovers? Then all that after the amplifier at speaker level? That will seem so ancient in 20 years time. And yes, no reason you cannot use your own amps if you can get the crossover right and the power right.. Brad
I love my meridian dsp8000se. Even semi active will often ‘fix the problem many floor standers have because the bass will offer some adjustability. There are some good threads on this forum that describe active, semi active and active dsp in detail and explain the advantages and disadvantages. My Meridians, for example, the display on the master speaker failed and i can’t use them at all until they’re repaired.
You can take a look at some of the legacy Meridian DSPs. For example, the DSP5000s or even DSP6000s if you want something larger. Their amps are class A, and both of these models can be bought for a fraction of their original retail price nowadays.
lonemountain - Got a chuckle out of your "active is so poorly understood" comment. Active speakers are generally great, but with the cheap class D amps available, one needs to actually listen. I've been bi-amp and tri-amping for 40+ years, but use my own amplifier choices along with crossover points and slopes. There IS a reason why pros use actives.
The first significant players in active were Genelec and ATC. ATC is about 50/50 pro and consumer and Genelec historically was focused on pro. In consumer Linn and Meridian did some good work. In pro, additional players got involved as the business evolved. Now you see price driving some active speaker development in both markets as its possible to integrate cheap parts including little modular Class D amps into small affordable speaker "packages".
Since active is so poorly understood, especially in consumer were many still think its just a "powered" speaker, support (sales) for it in consumer specifically has been weak. I think its finally growing now, as the science is becoming clear to many. There just aren't that many active models in consumer and many manufacturers are avoiding it entirely as it requires significant additional engineering support. In pro, active completely dominates the speaker [monitor] business close to 99%. There's a couple of big passive monitors still sold (like Augsperger designs and Westlake) and a very small number of low cost monitors. New pro passives are very hard to find and don’t sell well unless the pro user is very budget driven. Brad
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.
