An interesting read about Active Speakers: Has their time come

FrantzM · Mar 9, 2013

Hi

From the ever interesting UltraAudio Website: HERE

In addition it is interesting to remark that many of today's most celebrated speakers have an active section... Evo Acoustics, Genesis, Von Shweikert, Sanders Electrostatics, Scaena, Tidal, etc .. Is this is the beginning of a Tidal wave

?

Bruce B · Mar 9, 2013

I'm reviewing a pair of PTE Phoenix now... it's the real deal!

JackD201 · Mar 10, 2013

When I first got my VR-9 Mk1s and my partner got his DB-99s, I remember a lot of fellow enthusiasts say we were "cheating". As people who are result oriented, we found this both funny but also frustrating. We're both very glad that this mindset has begun to change in the past few years, the mindset against subwoofers as well. Personally I think that not only does active bass make things sound better, it is an elegant, highly flexible engineering solution in that it brings the benefits at much less cost than having to resort to herculean amplification very few examples of which excel sonically at both high and low power. Those that I think do are either close to five figures or well beyond. There are however an embarrassment of riches when it comes to low to mid-powered amplification and at very friendly prices assuring more for everyone.

Personally, I don't see myself going for any loudspeaker that does not provide the option for bi-amplification unless it is a two way monitor.

Holli82 · Mar 10, 2013

The "chior" says Amen!

LL21 · Mar 10, 2013

Great article! One to watch for to be sure!!!

opus111 · Mar 10, 2013

FrantzM said:
From the ever interesting UltraAudio Website: HERE

I see my old colleague Dic (Laurence Dickie) being interviewed there - I have fired off an email to him to ask who he's partnering with in coming up with the digital crossover he mentioned. My guess is its Devialet but I'm keen to hear it 'from the horse's mouth' so to speak.

JonFo · Mar 10, 2013

and another says Amen!

Been preaching and practicing this song for a decade myself. Glad to see the 'industry' finally admitting it is the preferred path, and that it's been the stigma and lack of understanding from many audiophiles (and certain members of the press stuck in another century) that it has not come to the fore until now.

As for more examples of 'Hybrid' high-end manufacturers, the top of the MartinLogan line is now all hybrid Active designs, with newer models (Montis) even featuring DSP-based LF correction.

microstrip · Mar 10, 2013

IMHO , it is one of the most interesting and challenging articles about active speakers we have seen. It shows the good aspects of active speakers, but it also shows the reasons why the audiophile community does not adopt the current implementations. Laurence Dickie created the best active I have ever listened to - the original quad amplified Nautilus. I listened to it in a system having four big similar Krell amplifiers with a Krell custom active crossover and it sounded magnificent, and much later in with another well known brand of electronics sounding very poor.

Payor addresses a very important aspect of active designs: I find that one real challenge is educating the customer that, in a truly high-end system, it is unwise to use radically dissimilar amplifier topologies in a multi-amplified system. In an age where relatively inexpensive class-D amplification is often used in powered subwoofers, it’s sometimes difficult to stress enough the importance of having system amplifiers with the same transfer function if high fidelity is actually the objective. The notion that one can use a 15W single-ended triode for the main amplifier (because it doesn’t have to contend with making bass) coupled to a 1000W class-D amplifier for the bass may sound like the best of both worlds, but in practice it doesn’t work very well.

We need a close cooperation between high-end electronic designers and speaker designers if we want to have high quality fully active designs of hi-end standard.

JonFo · Mar 10, 2013

microstrip said:
...

We need a close cooperation between high-end electronic designers and speaker designers if we want to have high quality fully active designs of hi-end standard.

Actually, the easier path is for vendors to follow the lead established years ago by Meridian, where they design the speaker / amplifier as a system. With that approach, the designer knows exactly what's needed and supplied to meet a target level of system performance. So for instance, it will deliver a consistent frequency response up to its defined upper limit for loudness. This consistent power curve is hard to achieve with 'mix and match' external amplification (as Payor gave in his example).

the current approach to high-end audio is the moral equivalent of selling a Corvette without an engine, and then letting the owners go out and stick a monster 8 cylinder or a small blown V6 or a diesel engine and then complain about inconsistent performance.

flez007 · Mar 10, 2013

I heard a pair of Meridian actives some years back and really liked them, as well as the Sadurni Acoustics which are partially active - I agree on the fact that we will see more options in the shirt term that worth considering.

opus111 · Mar 10, 2013

microstrip said:
Payor addresses a very important aspect of active designs: I find that one real challenge is educating the customer that, in a truly high-end system, it is unwise to use radically dissimilar amplifier topologies in a multi-amplified system. In an age where relatively inexpensive class-D amplification is often used in powered subwoofers, it’s sometimes difficult to stress enough the importance of having system amplifiers with the same transfer function if high fidelity is actually the objective. The notion that one can use a 15W single-ended triode for the main amplifier (because it doesn’t have to contend with making bass) coupled to a 1000W class-D amplifier for the bass may sound like the best of both worlds, but in practice it doesn’t work very well.

Interesting that Dic says the opposite - I find I agree with him and disagree with Payor. Its unclear what he means by 'transfer function'.

dcc · Mar 10, 2013

microstrip said:
it is unwise to use radically dissimilar amplifier topologies in a multi-amplified system. In an age where relatively inexpensive class-D amplification is often used in powered subwoofers, it’s sometimes difficult to stress enough the importance of having system amplifiers with the same transfer function if high fidelity is actually the objective. The notion that one can use a 15W single-ended triode for the main amplifier (because it doesn’t have to contend with making bass) coupled to a 1000W class-D amplifier for the bass may sound like the best of both worlds, but in practice it doesn’t work very well.

I tend to agree with this statement. Coming from an active bi-amped system (Infinity IRS) requiring sourcing for both the low and upper ranges, I found that in order to achieve a coherent sound image, I had to bring in two big stereo Krell powerhouses (not forgetting the additional expenses for interconnect and loudspeakers cables). Switching to more efficient traditional loudspeakers has enabled me to achieve better results as I could spend about the same budget for two stereo amplifiers and additional cables on top of the range mono power amplifiers.

Active bi-amping had however a nice feature: fine-tuning of the lower range through the seperate servo control unit. OK this is equalization but sometimes I am missing it.

Johnny Vinyl · Mar 10, 2013

dcc said:
I tend to agree with this statement. Coming from an active bi-amped system (Infinity IRS) requiring sourcing for both the low and upper ranges, I found that in order to achieve a coherent sound image, I had to bring in two big stereo Krell powerhouses (not forgetting the additional expenses for interconnect and loudspeakers cables). Switching to more efficient traditional loudspeakers has enabled me to achieve better results as I could spend about the same budget for two stereo amplifiers and additional cables on top of the range mono power amplifiers.

Active bi-amping had however a nice feature: fine-tuning of the lower range through the seperate servo control unit. OK this is equalization but sometimes I am missing it.

This is one of the features I love about my Genesis 7.1f's. Call it what you will, but I don't think I could do without it now.

microstrip · Mar 10, 2013

JonFo said:
(...) the current approach to high-end audio is the moral equivalent of selling a Corvette without an engine, and then letting the owners go out and stick a monster 8 cylinder or a small blown V6 or a diesel engine and then complain about inconsistent performance.

JonFo,

We can buy the same car with many types of motor and different powers. This is possible because they are produced and sold in large numbers.

Can you imagine Wilson Audio having to produce five types of XLS speakers for users with different preferences? And shops having to store all of them for demos's?

Bruce B · Mar 10, 2013

John72953 said:
This is one of the features I love about my Genesis 7.1f's. Call it what you will, but I don't think I could do without it now.

Even though my last speakers had an active bottom end, I still couldn't integrate them well in my room.... even with all the variable settings. Maybe it was too complex for the end user. Dealer setup would have been nice....

LL21 · Mar 10, 2013

microstrip said:
JonFo,

We can buy the same car with many types of motor and different powers. This is possible because they are produced and sold in large numbers.

Can you imagine Wilson Audio having to produce five types of XLS speakers for users with different preferences? And shops having to store all of them for demos's?

Yes, and we are amongst the very, very few who obsess about our systems...the true equivalent in cars would be the guys who hotrod their cars. And they definitely put in different engines, new brakes, Nitrous Oxide boosting, extra suspension, air scoops...everything to improve weight/power performance...

andromedaaudio · Mar 11, 2013

I dont agree with the whole thing , first of all i dont want my speakers or drivers driven digital.
secondly i think as is with any profession stay with your trade
Having boulder or zanden designing an amp or having a speakerdesigner do it for you , i would say , staying with ones trade is the best option

Also , a crossover done right is a clear window in the music , without sonic degridation

But hey i am a nobody in the high end scene

andromedaaudio · Mar 11, 2013

In addition to the piece , if you look at Peter breuningers video (great stuff) of the sonja , and the comment of the designerfrom YG in the 6.00 minute of the vid , he states they introduce a new passive X over woofersystem , iirc the anat was a active system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ2ByjN-Qb0

Phelonious Ponk · Mar 11, 2013

Semi-active is, I suppose, a start. But it's kind of like semi-pregnant. Or maybe semi-cured. It's certainly a problem semi-addressed.

You may take the load of the bass off of the amp that is tasked with driving the mids and highs, but you leave one amp still tasked with driving the mids and highs, through a passive crossover; you leave a whole set of problems unaddressed. You learned that they needed to be addressed. You addressed part of them. You are aware of the theoretical benefits and, presumably you hear the real ones. You know how to fix the problems and yet you leave them be above 50 or 60 cycles, where the overwhelming majority of the music is.

How does that make sense to anyone?

And when did Meridian invent the concept of engineered active designs in which the amplifiers are specifically chosen, if not designed for specific, individual drivers? Pro audio started doing this in the late 70s. It had nearly taken over the industry by the mid 80s.

Tim

audioguy · Mar 11, 2013

I remember when John Dunlavy took a pair of experimental active speakers to CES YEARS ago. Sounded very good

I got on the Active Speaker bandwagon about 18 months and love it. It was a most difficult decision, not because of how the speaker/amps (it is tri-amped) crossover actually sound but rather no longer having the choice of deciding on amps, and speaker wire. I have only heard a few active speaker systems and one of the standout qualities across each of them seemed to be dynamics.

When we put systems together, we hope to have synergy in the combination of the wire, amps and speakers. A well designed active speaker has already done that for you. Plus active crossovers have some flexibility that passive ones do not.

I would be more than surprised, however, if this becomes anything like a "trend" in high end audio. I just can't see "purists" allowing someone else to tell them how to wire and power their speakers.

An interesting read about Active Speakers: Has their time come

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Banned

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Similar threads