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.

128x128donavabdear

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.

The whole premise of the B&O 90 is advanced active speaker techniques for directivity control:  http://https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/us/speakers/beolab-90

Of course, it is not like Samsung (Harman) is asleep at the switch: 
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170188150A1/en

I could go on, but I have real work to do, you know, with speakers, that people buy.

 

@lonemountain 

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.