The Active Advantage

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

NorthStar said:
Wow, I missed some for sure: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-active-system&p=344234&viewfull=1#post344234

* Tim has a valid point below; your speakers are not fully active. ;-)

No not at this point. But will be. This passive configuration was just built for reference. They will be fully active soon. This is when I can give a detailed discription of the "active advantage".

However I have tried them with MiniDSP and Hypex DSP Xovers, but the low quality ADC/DAC's in them made them unlistenable to my ears. The passive config sounds light years better because I can use my quality DAC.

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
That suggestion is in your mind. No one over there suggested that component quality has no bearing on the final result of the system.Tim

Or that more money can buy better quality components rather.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
Or that more money can buy better quality components rather.

Of course money can buy "better quality" components. The question is what is the impact of those components in a real system. If, for example, you have an active system in which no drivers require more than 60 watts of high current power into 8 ohms, powered by a single Outlaw 7075, what would you gain, objectively, by powering it with a stack of high-end mono blocks?

Tim

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
Of course money can buy "better quality" components. The question is what is the impact of those components in a real system. If, for example, you have an active system in which no drivers require more than 60 watts of high current power into 8 ohms, powered by a single Outlaw 7075, what would you gain, objectively, by powering it with a stack of high-end mono blocks?

Tim

The quality of the amplification matters. But it's not necessary for the mids and tweets to have a dedicated supply for each driver. I'm going to share a supply for them, and have dedicated supplies for the woofers. But I'm not going to use lower grade amps on the critical mids and tweets just because they require less power. With class D amps watts are cheap anyways. Back in the old days if you were using big inefficient class A amps, then yes building a dedicated 500w amp for each driver may be a waste of money.

If we look at the Kii three for example. The amplifiers used would be 700w a piece into 4 ohms if they had a dedicated supply for each driver. But they use a 1200w supply between 6 amplifiers. So in theory they become 200w each, but the woofers are going to be drawing the majority of the power from the supply, and the mids and tweets will draw very little.

A really good example is the NAD M22 and M27. They both use the exact same Hypex Ncore amp modules, and the exact same supplies. Only difference is one is a 2 channel amp and 1 a 7. If you were building a 3way active system that required 6 channels of amplification, would using 3 seperate Nad M22's sound better than a single M27? Probably not. But personally I'd prefer the power hungry woofers to use a dedicated supply.

View attachment 23797 View attachment 23798

NorthStar · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
No not at this point. But will be. This passive configuration was just built for reference. They will be fully active soon. This is when I can give a detailed discription of the "active advantage".

However I have tried them with MiniDSP and Hypex DSP Xovers, but the low quality ADC/DAC's in them made them unlistenable to my ears. The passive config sounds light years better because I can use my quality DAC.

The speakers you built are simply awesome! And now they're going to be fully active. Last night I read some more from that link you provided and was simply astonished @ your expertise and dedication to the "best" sound.

And I was eventually going to ask you about room EQ systems, and you just mentioned the MiniDSP above. This is of great interest that you mentioned the lower quality AD/DA conversion in the MiniDSP, and that you much prefer the sound with your own DAC.

You have aroused my interest in Active speakers (fully) and your design, and your engineering with DACs, amps, ... and I want to ask you if you experimented with other room EQ systems, and if yes, your take. Are you mainly a hi-fi stereo man? About multichannel music (5.1) with five fully active satellite/monitor speakers with two separate subwoofers?

I don't want to impede on anyone's direction line, I just want to learn, from the pros.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
The quality of the amplification matters. But it's not necessary for the mids and tweets to have a dedicated supply for each driver. I'm going to share a supply for them, and have dedicated supplies for the woofers. But I'm not going to use lower grade amps on the critical mids and tweets just because they require less power. With class D amps watts are cheap anyways. Back in the old days if you were using big inefficient class A amps, then yes building a dedicated 500w amp for each driver may be a waste of money.

If we look at the Kii three for example. The amplifiers used would be 700w a piece into 4 ohms if they had a dedicated supply for each driver. But they use a 1200w supply between 6 amplifiers. So in theory they become 200w each, but the woofers are going to be drawing the majority of the power from the supply, and the mids and tweets will draw very little.

A really good example is the NAD M22 and M27. They both use the exact same Hypex Ncore amp modules, and the exact same supplies. Only difference is one is a 2 channel amp and 1 a 7. If you were building a 3way active system that required 6 channels of amplification, would using 3 seperate Nad M22's sound better than a single M27? Probably not. But personally I'd prefer the power hungry woofers to use a dedicated supply.

View attachment 23797 View attachment 23798

Where do you think the NAD M22 lands in terms of quality/grade? Is that a lower grade power amp? Mid grade? If you used the M27, what would be the negative effect of not having a separate supply for the woofers?

Tim

KeithR · Dec 1, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
No. The religion is the belief that "better," i.e., more expensive amplification, adds value, even when there is no evidence that it is required to do the job at hand. In your particular case, the "religion" is the belief that the same kind of over-engineered audiophile amplifiers required to drive whatever undefined passive load they may be presented with will deliver a benefit when there is no evidence of said benefit other than your ears, which are exceedingly eager to believe you spent your money wisely. This is the "measurement-based forum." Show me. Or go back to church.

Tim

So amps don't sound different? We've reached a new paradigm on WBF.

Problem with most active speakers is that designers often aren't experts in both speaker and amplifier design

853guy · Dec 1, 2015

Hi Tim,

Would you mind clarifying a misunderstanding I have?

In post #1 you say:

Phelonious Ponk said:
I don't expect anyone to provide any measurements...

But then in post #40 you say:

Phelonious Ponk said:
The difference between here and the General Audio Forum, is here, if you claim superior sound, you might be expected to make a fact-based argument to support that statement. "I hear it," isn't enough here.

even though you yourself say in post #1:

Phelonious Ponk said:
This is one of the audio subjects that interests me most, because I have experienced these advantages…

...admitting "I hear it”, but post no measurements to support that statement.

In order to participate, does one need to post measurements even if one is in agreement with you there are advantages to be experienced, or not, which you yourself admit you

Phelonious Ponk said:
...certainly don't have the wherewithal to do...

I think that’d make it easier for us to align the discussion in the direction you intended.

Groucho · Dec 1, 2015

KeithR said:
Problem with most active speakers is that designers often aren't experts in both speaker and amplifier design

Why would that be a problem only for active speakers? At least in an active speaker, the amp's task is much, much easier. If the difference between amps is how they behave when under stress then in the case of the active speaker then maybe they sound even more similar than normal. Plus, the amps' foibles (if they actually exist) are being divided and shared across three frequency bands.

If amps really sound different, what if the amps within one speaker are different types? If amp A is normally known for its "musicality", B for its "piquancy" and C for its "rhythm" how will that sound in a three way active? Reviewers may have to invent some new words.

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

NorthStar said:
The speakers you built are simply awesome! And now they're going to be fully active. Last night I read some more from that link you provided and was simply astonished @ your expertise and dedication to the "best" sound.

And I was eventually going to ask you about room EQ systems, and you just mentioned the MiniDSP above. This is of great interest that you mentioned the lower quality AD/DA conversion in the MiniDSP, and that you much prefer the sound with your own DAC.

You have aroused my interest in Active speakers (fully) and your design, and your engineering with DACs, amps, ... and I want to ask you if you experimented with other room EQ systems, and if yes, your take. Are you mainly a hi-fi stereo man? About multichannel music (5.1) with five fully active satellite/monitor speakers with two separate subwoofers?

I don't want to impede on anyone's direction line, I just want to learn, from the pros.

Thanks for the compliments! I have played with Acourate and REW quite a bit. I don't believe in the 100% FIR approach of putting a mic at listening position, taking a sweep, and processing it with Acourate, and getting perfect sound. There's no substitute for hands on tweaking. I feel that approach brick walls a lot of the natural dynamics. After all it's not the speakers fault it's placed in a bad room. So I'm thinking a blend of both FIR and IIR is the best approach.

My system I'm working on is designed to be scaled up from 2 way mini monitors, to super towers. But also multichannel in every stage as well. The 2 way monitor can be scaled up in 3 times without replacing a single component. And for the other 3 channels, any config can be used from 2 way to 4 way. So the possibilities will be endless.

A $20000 2 way system, will have the potential to scale up to a $200000 4 way 5 channel system.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 1, 2015

KeithR said:
So amps don't sound different? We've reached a new paradigm on WBF.

Problem with most active speakers is that designers often aren't experts in both speaker and amplifier design

Of course. The question is are they necessarily "better" because they're more expensive/audiophile-approved.

Tim

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
Where do you think the NAD M22 lands in terms of quality/grade? Is that a lower grade power amp? Mid grade? If you used the M27, what would be the negative effect of not having a separate supply for the woofers?

Tim

They are probably some of the best amps available for the money at a retail store. Buying manufacturer direct can get better deals though.

If your using power hungry woofers, it's nice to not have the share the power reserves with the mids and tweets. if driven hard the mids/tweets can be temporarily starved for power. There's definitely an audible difference when there's more power reserves available.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 1, 2015

853guy said:
Hi Tim,

Would you mind clarifying a misunderstanding I have?

In post #1 you say:

But then in post #40 you say:

even though you yourself say in post #1:

...admitting "I hear it”, but post no measurements to support that statement.

In order to participate, does one need to post measurements even if one is in agreement with you there are advantages to be experienced, or not, which you yourself admit you

I think that’d make it easier for us to align the discussion in the direction you intended.

It's Amir's forum, maybe he can answer some of your questions, but measurements aren't required to post. IMO, what should be required is a substantive argument. Blizzard's argument seems to be that even though active systems put a much lighter load on an amplifier, heavy duty high-end amps engineered for passive loads will deliver a sonic benefit in active systems. And he says it as if it is just a given; as if it i obvious. He may be right, but it's not obvious to me and I'd like to know what he thinks is in the design and construction of these high-end amps that makes them audibly better in that context. Standard measurements would get us nowhere anyway, we all know there are $500 amps that measure as well as five-figure amps. And amps the measure almost identically but sound different.

Tim

NorthStar · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
Thanks for the compliments! I have played with Acourate and REW quite a bit. I don't believe in the 100% FIR approach of putting a mic at listening position, taking a sweep, and processing it with Acourate, and getting perfect sound. There's no substitute for hands on tweaking. I feel that approach brick walls a lot of the natural dynamics. After all it's not the speakers fault it's placed in a bad room. So I'm thinking a blend of both FIR and IIR is the best approach.
My system I'm working on is designed to be scaled up from 2 way mini monitors, to super towers. But also multichannel in every stage as well. The 2 way monitor can be scaled up in 3 times without replacing a single component. And for the other 3 channels, any config can be used from 2 way to 4 way. So the possibilities will be endless.
A $20000 2 way system, will have the potential to scale up to a $200000 4 way 5 channel system.

Ok, inside an active monitor speaker, can you also implement a DSP Room EQ system utilizing both FIR and IIR filters?
Anthem with ARC does use both type of filters, and I believe Dirac Live too.

And in your opinion what frequency range should have Room EQ, like only from 5Hz to 300Hz, or/and should the higher frequencies also been equalized gently to say 12kHz or so? About a digital parametric EQ with five bands (adjustable from 20 to 150Hz) implemented inside the active monitor? ...Or is Time Domain digital filtration a superior solution for active monitors?

Last, I noticed that the room where you semi-active (for now; bass modules) speakers are in doesn't seem to have acoustic room treatments?

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
Of course. The question is are they necessarily "better" because they're more expensive/audiophile-approved.

Tim

There is actual reasons more expensive amps can be better besides the price tag. It simply costs more money to manufacturer higher end amps, than lower end amps.

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

NorthStar said:
Ok, inside an active monitor speaker, can you also implement a DSP Room EQ system utilizing both FIR and IIR filters?
Anthem with ARC does use both type of filters, and I believe Dirac Live too.

And in your opinion what frequency range should have Room EQ, like only from 5Hz to 300Hz, or/and should the higher frequencies also been equalized gently to say 12kHz or so? About a digital parametric EQ with five bands (adjustable from 20 to 150Hz) implemented inside the active monitor? ...Or is Time Domain digital filtration a superior solution for active monitors?

Last, I noticed that the room where you semi-active (for now; bass modules) speakers are in doesn't seem to have acoustic room treatments?

In order to apply DSP, you must have a DSP chip somewhere in the system, or use PC based DSP. Either way you go you must have multichannel DAC's after the DSP. Sometimes the DACs are built into the DSP chip. You also need a way to keep both speakers in perfect clock sync.

With my experiments so far, EQ under 150hz is where you see most benefit. For higher frequencies, I don't like to mess around too much. I'd rather design the cabinets to minimize diffraction, and use .5 midwoofers to compensate for baffle step.

No, no room treatment in that room. It could use some, but sounds pretty good anyways. When you seal the ports on the woofers, it makes them less room sensitive, yet they still go quite low in room. I prefer the sound sealed, but some may prefer lower extension.

My next speakers will use a completely different cabinet loading scheme.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
There is actual reasons more expensive amps can be better besides the price tag. It simply costs more money to manufacturer higher end amps, than lower end amps.

The actual reasons are what, and they impact sound how? These are the kinds of things we discuss in this sub-forum, even when we have no measurements. And it's great knowledge to share, it's good to understand what makes a difference instead of leaning on the pat answer "everything makes a difference," and the implication that more money = better performance. You've presented one good example -- reserve power, headroom. We agree on that one completely. Clearly, reserve power costs money, but it doesn't have to be "high-end."

Tim

Whatmore · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
There is actual reasons more expensive amps can be better besides the price tag. It simply costs more money to manufacturer higher end amps, than lower end amps.

what do you mean by 'higher end". Where is the "more money" going to?

Blizzard · Dec 1, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
The actual reasons are what, and they impact sound how? These are the kinds of things we discuss in this sub-forum, even when we have no measurements. And it's great knowledge to share, it's good to understand what makes a difference instead of leaning on the pat answer "everything makes a difference," and the implication that more money = better performance. You've presented one good example -- reserve power, headroom. We agree on that one completely. Clearly, reserve power costs money, but it doesn't have to be "high-end."

Tim

Capacitors, resistors, diodes, 4 layer pcb's, PCB material, Thickness of copper traces, transformers, voltage regulators, relays, switches, cables, solder etc, come in several different grades. The higher quality grades are more expensive than the lower quality grades. Higher grades preform better than lower grades. This equals better sound quality. It also means better long term reliability. This all adds up to a higher BOM. On top of that, the engineers who are intelligent enough to design the best circuits charge more money. You are also paying for intellectual property, not just parts. Then there's quality control, some products undergo a much more comprehensive QC process. This costs money as well. The case can be the most expensive component in the amp. This is because many people buy based on looks. Ugly cheap looking amps just don't sell as well. Good quality well damped cases can also help dampen vibration and block EMI. This can result in better sound. Earlier I said the standard in the audio industry for products sold through dealers is BOM x 6= MSRP. So if an amp has a BOM of $1000, you can roughly expect the MSRP to be around $6000.

Phelonious Ponk · Dec 1, 2015

Blizzard said:
Capacitors, resistors, diodes, 4 layer pcb's, PCB material, Thickness of copper traces, transformers, voltage regulators, relays, switches, cables, solder etc, come in several different grades. The higher quality grades are more expensive than the lower quality grades. Higher grades preform better than lower grades. This equals better sound quality. It also means better long term reliability. This all adds up to a higher BOM. On top of that, the engineers who are intelligent enough to design the best circuits charge more money. You are also paying for intellectual property, not just parts. Then there's quality control, some products undergo a much more comprehensive QC process. This costs money as well. The case can be the most expensive component in the amp. This is because many people buy based on looks. Ugly cheap looking amps just don't sell as well. Good quality well damped cases can also help dampen vibration and block EMI. This can result in better sound. Earlier I said the standard in the audio industry for products sold through dealers is BOM x 6= MSRP. So if an amp has a BOM of $1000, you can roughly expect the MSRP to be around $6000.

That's a list of parts. And while it's easy to assume that better quality = better sound, why do we think that is true? At what point are the copper traces thick enough to carry all the current they will ever be tasked with? Is there a reason to go beyond that? Is there no upper limit? If an amp was grossly over spec'd in all of these parameters would it "sound better" than one that was simply built comfortably beyond it's performance requirements? Why?

Tim

The Active Advantage

Banned

Banned

New Member

Banned

Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

Active Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

Banned

New Member

Member

Banned

Banned

New Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

New Member

Similar threads