An interesting read about Active Speakers: Has their time come

[microstrip]

In order to allow meaningful comparison of loudspeakers they must be placed in exactly the same position in the listening room:

(...)


My position on this is that there may be audible differences but since sighted testing is flawed from the beginning I for one don't consider results of such tests as evidence. As long as a test method includes parameters which are known to have an effect on the result, you have to control them. If you compare two speakers and you place them side to side, they will couple in different manners to the room modes and they will generate different reflections (in terms of reflection path length, hence level and delay, and spectrum), one speaker may even generate reflections of very short delay (think of cabinet edge diffraction) for the other.

Klaus

Klaus,

Ignoring all the vast empirical knowledge that was acquired in sighted conditions and could not be proved or confirmed in blind tests can be essential for audio science, but is a minus in high-end speaker design. Personally I doubt that high-end loudspeaker design has reached a point in which it can be totally scientific and rely exclusively on measurements and decisions taken in fully controlled conditions. IMHO the possible controlled conditions are too restrictive to reproduce audiophile conditions, and will compromise the final result. IMHO here also means I will not quote anyone famous to support my view.

 

[microstrip]

One important aspect no one addressed is the cost of development of active speakers. How does it compare to the cost of developing a passive? Could a small company, similar in size to those manufacturing many high-end speakers, afford to develop competitive designs?

 

[opus111]

One important aspect no one addressed is the cost of development of active speakers. How does it compare to the cost of developing a passive?

Considerably more - the active speaker contains much of the circuitry of a preamp, as well as two or three channels of poweramp.

Could a small company, similar in size to those manufacturing many high-end speakers, afford to develop competitive designs?

I suspect the marketing is still more of a challenge than the engineering for actives. Many active speakers (practically all that I've examined first-hand) have precious little original design work put into the active circuitry, presumably because the economics are so much more challenging than for a passive design.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

One important aspect no one addressed is the cost of development of active speakers. How does it compare to the cost of developing a passive? Could a small company, similar in size to those manufacturing many high-end speakers, afford to develop competitive designs?

They have. I guess that means they could.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Considerably more - the active speaker contains much of the circuitry of a preamp, as well as two or three channels of poweramp.



I suspect the marketing is still more of a challenge than the engineering for actives. Many active speakers (practically all that I've examined first-hand) have precious little original design work put into the active circuitry, presumably because the economics are so much more challenging than for a passive design.

Hi

A few things. Active doesn't necessarily means everything in one box. So I can well see a preamp outside the (speaker) box. All this as part of the Active Speaker System offering. Not much of an issue IMHO.

For the Amplification channels, it may no tbe necessary to approach it with all the brute force of an All-purpose amplifier that is designed to see all audible frequencies. An Active speaker can have an amplifier designed specifically and optimized for a given driver. The imperative for a woofer are not that of a midrange or a tweeter . Tweeters and midrange are usually much more sensitive/efficient than woofers. So the expense could be well spread on the three different amplifiers with different characteristics. For example in the low bass many would be surprised to hear how well really run of the mill, even inexpensive Pro amps work. This was related by a fellow in AVS Forum, who moved from a Krell amp to A Crown with great results for his Wilson XS subwoofer. The Crown amplifier wasn't a cheapie though ...
Lastly in this world of >50K speakers being the norm rather than the exception, price, not cost (I am not sure High End designs cost as much as we are often led to believe) would not be a great factor in the big scheme of things. For now the audiophile market is extremely conservative and move very slowly. Acceptance of new ideas is very difficult. It took us a while to subscribe to digital audio, to music server and even to now-trivial things like subwoofers. Anything that threatens our ways and our tinkering will be met with immense and fierce resistance. Time will tell


One last thing. Active speakers may even predate Meridian. I had in my home when I was a teen (13~15 years maybe) early 70's a Phillips Motional Feedback speaker for audition. I thought it sounded good (for the time) don't know how I would take it today

 

[opus111]

For the Amplification channels, it may no tbe necessary to approach it with all the brute force of an All-purpose amplifier that is designed to see all audible frequencies. An Active speaker can have an amplifier designed specifically and optimized for a given driver. The imperative for a woofer are not that of a midrange or a tweeter . Tweeters and midrange are usually much more sensitive/efficient than woofers. So the expense could be well spread on the three different amplifiers with different characteristics. For example in the low bass many would be surprised to hear how well really run of the mill, even inexpensive Pro amps work. This was related by a fellow in AVS Forum, who moved from a Krell amp to A Crown with great results for his Wilson XS subwoofer. The Crown amplifier wasn't a cheapie though ...

Yes, the amplification quality matters much less at the LF end. Which means a standard chipamp is going to be as good as it gets, or even a classD. But you really do not want to be powering your mid and tweeter amps from the same rails, which many designs do. I do have a small bookshelf Chinese design though which has a separate linear regulator for the tweeter amp - admirable at the price

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Goldmund is not that well seen here on the WBF. I did hear the Apologie (or was it the Epilogue?) back then extensively and thought them to be very, very good. Their top of the line certainly Goldmund-priced the Epilogue Anniversary is an Active system with 3600 watts of Goldmund extremely dear amplification...

 

[Robh3606]

One last thing. Active speakers may even predate Meridian.

For sure JBL had an active option for home systems in the 60's.

Rob

 

[JackD201]

Much earlier.

1924 Rice and Washburn Kellog of General Electric patented the moving coil/direct radiator loudspeaker.

1926 Went to market under the name Radiola

It was a single driver loudspeaker sold as a system (single chassis) with it's own amplifier. The first electrical loudspeaker was active.

 

[Robh3606]

It was a single driver loudspeaker sold as a system (single chassis) with it's own amplifier. The first electrical loudspeaker was active.

Back then they had field coil drivers as the magnets at the time were not strong enough for the flux needed. So are we talking field coils or a soup to nuts active set-up?? A field ciol driver has it's own DC power supply.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

Much earlier.

1924 Rice and Washburn Kellog of General Electric patented the moving coil/direct radiator loudspeaker.

1926 Went to market under the name Radiola

It was a single driver loudspeaker sold as a system (single chassis) with it's own amplifier. The first electrical loudspeaker was active.

Jack,

Very interesting. But the concept of the dynamic loudspeaker comes from the 19th century - already in 1878 Werner von Siemens received a patent in Germany for the electrodynamic loudspeaker as it is still used today. Unhappily at that time there were no electronic amplifiers to use it!

 

[JackD201]

Back then they had field coil drivers as the magnets at the time were not strong enough for the flux needed. So are we talking field coils or a soup to nuts active set-up?? A field ciol driver has it's own DC power supply.

Rob

Field Coils were marketed in the 1930s still sold as part of closed systems (mainly radios) therefore considered active.

It looks like the right time to make a distinction between active and passive with closed systems not being the determinant rather that the inclusion of speaker level HP and LP filters. After all these entered consoles before amplifiers were marketed separately.

Things may get a bit cloudy however because as far as I know, the first two ways used in cinema were multi-amped but had speaker and not line level filters.

 

[JackD201]

Jack,

Very interesting. But the concept of the dynamic loudspeaker comes from the 19th century - already in 1878 Werner von Siemens received a patent in Germany for the electrodynamic loudspeaker as it is still used today. Unhappily at that time there were no electronic amplifiers to use it!

Yessir. Same way the fax was done before the telephone was even invented. That's why I put the emphasis on market entry and penetration. The first practical loudspeaker was active. It had an amp to activate it

This could also explain why Magnavox was denied a patent. By that time Siemens patent would have entered the public domain. The GE boys however came up with something unique with regards to driver resonances.

From a historical perspective maybe the thread should be "has their time come again".

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frantz,

Happily the audiophile market is prudently conservative. Otherwise we would all have sold our LP collections when perfect sound forever was launched, enlarging the number of sad people regretting it . BTW, we should clearly separate convenience, sound quality and value for money when debating audio. Most of the time there is not a winner in all aspects.

I have no problem accepting new ideas, but only adopt them after I see they are firmly implemented and please my preferences. Even Martin Colloms in his favorable comments about actives states that reliability can be an issue in actives. Serviceability is also a problem. Other aspects, such as re-sales value and long term maintenance were never debated. Do not expect me to be the guinea-pig. Would you really consider buying an 10k active tomorrow?

Nice to know that you also listened to an Active Loudspeaker Philips Motional Feedback Loudspeaker - it was quite popular in Europe at that period. We still can buy them at eBay at around usd 25 an unit!

I wouldn't worry myself over being the guinea pig, micro. Active monitors have been the standard in studios for a couple of decades, and actives have a huge chunk of the sound reinforcement business as well, where they are in a constant loop of set up, tear down, load out and load in, and bounding around in the back of a truck in between, without significant reliability problems. No need to worry about servicability either. They are amps in a box; they just happens to share that box with some transducers. They are not inherently more or less difficult to service than amps in a separate steel box.

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

Field Coils were marketed in the 1930s still sold as part of closed systems (mainly radios) therefore considered active.

They were also sold as independent systems. All the original cinema speakers were field coils with 2 inputs per driver on for the DC and a second for the signal for the voice coil from seperate amps.

Here is an intersting read on the Lansing Iconic as well as the one for the Shearer Horn Project. With the Iconic you can clearly see the Field Coil power supply and crossover mounted up next to the HF horn/compression driver.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/iconic.htm

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/shearer.htm

Rob

 

[microstrip]

I wouldn't worry myself over being the guinea pig, micro. Active monitors have been the standard in studios for a couple of decades, and actives have a huge chunk of the sound reinforcement business as well, where they are in a constant loop of set up, tear down, load out and load in, and bounding around in the back of a truck in between, without significant reliability problems. No need to worry about servicability either. They are amps in a box; they just happens to share that box with some transducers. They are not inherently more or less difficult to service than amps in a separate steel box.

Tim

Tim,

One distributor of high-end in my country also distributes and services professional equipment. He has told me once that he wins more money servicing professional equipment than selling high-end. I have met a few people who own studios and repairs are part of their life. Everyone acknowledges that electronics to be used in actives needs to be very effectively protected against possible failure modes or any DC drift. Even aspects such as safety certification can be very different for passive speakers or active speakers. Aspects such as where you place the power on switch can be a nuisance.

IMHO as long as the attitude of active speakers defenders will go on hiding the intrinsic problems and limitations they will not earn people acceptance. They will be shown in forums as the technically perfect devices that are too good for the audiophiles, but success will be very little.

 

[FrantzM]

microstrip

You may have to learn to tone down the "us against them" atttitude. All audiophiles do nto share your world-view and some aren't into Lp or analog at all , does that make them less worthy of being audiophile than you? it is not an issue of Active speakers defensers. Do they have advantage? yes they do. Prove that wrong if you can. If you come up with substantiation aside from anecdotes they must be taken at face values else ... anecdotes point of views.. your words against mine or them ...

Yo must be kidding. We, Audiophiles are very used to be guinea pigs .. Where else can people accept without breaking stride the notion of $10,000 power cords or $50,000 cable ?? or $500,000 amplifiers? Many an audiophile have spent serious money on companies with great sounding products that disappear a few months after launch ... Where else but the high end where leading edge and avant guarde products can be tested? We all take some chances with companies.. They may become the next Wilson or the next Halcro we just don't know but take the chance nonetheless .. That's part of the game for us if we are after "great sound".. Else we would be buying in the safe zone of Bose et all.. We don;t ... We go for companies we know not much about .. I don't think most of the High End companies publish anything about their internal state of health.. maybe Haman, maybe some of the Japanese biggies like Tad or maybe B&W .. But not Wilson, Not Krell, no FMA, not Lamm, not Wavac, etc not most (any?) of the brands we so dearly love or discuss about...

 

[JackD201]

They were also sold as independent systems. All the original cinema speakers were field coils with 2 inputs per driver on for the DC and a second for the signal for the voice coil from seperate amps.

Here is an intersting read on the Lansing Iconic as well as the one for the Shearer Horn Project. With the Iconic you can clearly see the Field Coil power supply and crossover mounted up next to the HF horn/compression driver.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/iconic.htm

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/shearer.htm

Rob

Thanks for the links Rob I haven't visited the Lansing Heritage site in ages! It was the 30's indeed and it was Cinema.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

One distributor of high-end in my country also distributes and services professional equipment. He has told me once that he wins more money servicing professional equipment than selling high-end. I have met a few people who own studios and repairs are part of their life. Everyone acknowledges that electronics to be used in actives needs to be very effectively protected against possible failure modes or any DC drift. Even aspects such as safety certification can be very different for passive speakers or active speakers. Aspects such as where you place the power on switch can be a nuisance.

IMHO as long as the attitude of active speakers defenders will go on hiding the intrinsic problems and limitations they will not earn people acceptance. They will be shown in forums as the technically perfect devices that are too good for the audiophiles, but success will be very little.

Anecdotal at best. I don't know the gentleman, or his business, but if he's having any reasonable success at distributing and servicing pro audio it's likely that the high end represents a small fraction of his business by comparison. It would be no surprise that he services more of what he sells more of.

I have known many people who own, operate and work in studios and in pro sound reinforcement. The equipment they use is run hard, many hours a day, and system connections are yanked in and out and reconfigured regularly (daily in sound reinforcement). Light pro use would constitute abuse in the high-end world. And yet I can't recall anyone complaining about equipment consistently breaking down. Also anecdotal, but based on a much broader cross section of anecdotes than one distributor. At the risk of joining your list of the paternal and condescending, let me say that, if you're trying to imply that pro gear is more fragile, less robust than average high-end gear, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I could drop a 30 year old Crown off the back of a truck and crush your turntable with it and still make the gig. We can argue all day about what people hear from high end vs. pro products, the notion that high end gear is more reliable than even decent pro gear is ludicrous.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Anecdotal at best. I don't know the gentleman, or his business, but if he's having any reasonable success at distributing and servicing pro audio it's likely that the high end represents a small fraction of his business by comparison. It would be no surprise that he services more of what he sells more of.

I have known many people who own, operate and work in studios and in pro sound reinforcement. The equipment they use is run hard, many hours a day, and system connections are yanked in and out and reconfigured regularly (daily in sound reinforcement). Light pro use would constitute abuse in the high-end world. And yet I can't recall anyone complaining about equipment consistently breaking down. Also anecdotal, but based on a much broader cross section of anecdotes than one distributor. At the risk of joining your list of the paternal and condescending, let me say that, if you're trying to imply that pro gear is more fragile, less robust than average high-end gear, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I could drop a 30 year old Crown off the back of a truck and crush your turntable with it and still make the gig. We can argue all day about what people hear from high end vs. pro products, the notion that high end gear is more reliable than even decent pro gear is ludicrous.

Tim

Tim ,

I am no way making any comparison between reliability of professional gear or consumer gear - you are doing it and putting them in my mouth. I simply stated that professional gear can break and logically active speakers once they are faced with the needs of high-end sound will also break.

Anyway I have now contributed enough to this thread. None of the more significant concerns I exposed have been addressed, only my style and attitude problems seem to be noted. Please go on glorifying the faultless active speaker - it seems the purpose of this thread.