Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I was asking for substance and real data, not evasive claims or general feelings. Thanks for your advice about using Google, but I prefer to use it to find I never had the pleasure of listening to a fully active speaker that could outperform the best passives most of us are referring in another thread about the best systems we have listened to.

BTW, the best active (multi-amplifier) system I have heard about was a mix of passive and active crossover.

I didn't give you any evasive claims or general feelings, micro. I asked you to do your own research.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I didn't give you any evasive claims or general feelings, micro. I asked you to do your own research.

Tim

Tim,
So you want me to carry my own research using google to find reasons to support your feelings on active speakers? Curious idea of debating concepts ...
One of the nice things about WBF is that it is full of surprises!

 

[mep]

Tim,
So you want me to carry my own research using google to find reasons to support your feelings on active speakers? Curious idea of debating concepts ...
One of the nice things about WBF is that it is full of surprises!

That's how I read it too. Tim throws down the gauntlet of superiority and you have to do the research to prove him correct. Get with it Micro! Time to do Tim's research. Google is your friend!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

the best active speakers i've heard are the big ATC's and that was a number of years ago. they were better than ok, but not special sounding overall. they did have great dynamics, but lacked subtlety......and were fatiguing for extended listening to my ears. was it the amps? was it the drivers? who knows? i preferred the performance of a number of similarly priced passive speaker-amp combinations at that time.

other actives i've heard are pretty much forgetable to downright bad (Linn, Meridian). it seemed that the designers of these speakers might have succeeded with part of the design, but missed a step somewhere and the result was not good. too many moving parts and opportinities for problems. OTOH the target audience for those products were not 2-channel audio for the most part.

i agree that the theory of active speakers is sound (pun intended). in a perfect world a great amp designer and a great speaker designer would get together and optimize the advantages of active speakers. however, the marketplace is not asking for this to be done.

active (DSP) crossovers are inherently evil in every way.

i am a huge fan of active speakers for the deep bass; since we have small form factor very efficient class D amps that are more linear in the bass than conventional topography amps which are better for mids and highs. it makes perfect sense to be able to tailor the mid and high frequency amplifier to taste, and let the brute force digital amp do the heavy lifting in the deep bass.

i don't see world class, mostly quite expensive, amps being integrated into speaker cabinets and crossovers. there is no market pressure to do it for a number of reasons. i'm not against active speakers, but none i've heard have ever performed at a level that got my attention.

 

[GaryProtein]

I started to write a post on why active crossovers and separate amplifiers for each group of drivers in a given frequency range is better than passive crossovers in a speaker, but I decided to delete it because this is a topic where there will be no final consensus. We will all just have to agree to disagree.

I will say one thing about active crossovers. They come as analog and digital varieties, and I prefer the analog.

 

[mep]

We agree to disagree about everything on this forum so it's no big deal.

 

[treitz3]

Regardless, Mr. Lavigne...I appreciate your input, feedback and observations on post #715. I have heard the results of speakers similar to mine with upgraded innards and those results were positive IMO/IME. Some folks I know have suggested that I go active. My limited observations on active systems echo what you have relayed to us on that post. Thank you, sir.

Tom

 

[cjfrbw]

I started to write a post on why active crossovers and separate amplifiers for each group of drivers in a given frequency range is better than passive crossovers in a speaker, but I decided to delete it because this is a topic where there will be no final consensus. We will all just have to agree to disagree.

I will say one thing about active crossovers. They come as analog and digital varieties, and I prefer the analog.

This is my opinion as well. Analog active crossovers.

Digitals have great flexibility, but sound quality over the long run?. I have heard about users on the blogosphere and one Apogee lover who used DSPs and digital amps extensively, and eventually migrated back to analog active crossovers and non-digital amps.

I wouldn't mind experimenting with the Accuphase digital active crossovers, but my prejudices are that even they might not be keepers compared to analog crossovers.

Preferring vinyl, I also just prefer keeping my front end all analog.

I use DSP for bass and surround management, where it does the job very well.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You will not find much in the way of big, full-range active speakers operating in the sphere of Wilsons, Sonus Fabers, etc, for the simple reason that there is not a market for them. Audiophiles love their toys. It's the nature of the beast. Integrate the amps with the speakers so there is no upgrade path, there are no cables, the beautiful boxes disappear, there is no synergy to worry over, and they lose interest. Or never develop it in the first place. And of course they will never accept that a couple of pair of active monitors and a sub or three will compete with the gleaming stacks and towers. But the advantages of the technology are almost impossible to deny (though some of you seem to be up to the task). Don't believe me; ask the experts on the board. Ask Sean. Ask Gary. Ask Mark. Ask them if exactly the same high-end speakers in a very well-designed, well-executed active implementation would not be better.

I'm not saying you all should sell your big, beautiful speakers and go to actives. Passive can be done very, very well, though the price is dear. Pay the price and enjoy what you enjoy.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's how I read it too. Tim throws down the gauntlet of superiority and you have to do the research to prove him correct. Get with it Micro! Time to do Tim's research. Google is your friend!

Here you go...

MHO. YMMV. I trust my ears, and this is what I hear.

Tim

Yeah, I see your point. I really slapped you boys with the glove and dared you to meet me on the field at dawn.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I started to write a post on why active crossovers and separate amplifiers for each group of drivers in a given frequency range is better than passive crossovers in a speaker, but I decided to delete it because this is a topic where there will be no final consensus. We will all just have to agree to disagree.

I will say one thing about active crossovers. They come as analog and digital varieties, and I prefer the analog.

Since no one wants to defend active speakers seriously, I point a reference : Martin Colloms "High Performance Loudspeakers" , sixth edition, Wiley, page 327-328, topic 6.5 Active speakers.

It says "Important benefits include:" and lists and debates no less than 10 important aspects, followed by more interesting 15 pages about actives implementation.

 

[mep]

I’m really neutral on the whole passive vs. active debate. All I know is that what people consider to be the world’s greatest speakers are all passive. Maybe it’s all a giant conspiracy between the passive speaker manufacturers and the amplifier manufacturers.

 

[GaryProtein]

Active crossovers and separate amplifiers is more important than "active" (self powered) speakers.

 

[terryj]

I’m really neutral on the whole passive vs. active debate. All I know is that what people consider to be the world’s greatest speakers are all passive. Maybe it’s all a giant conspiracy between the passive speaker manufacturers and the amplifier manufacturers.

Or simply reflects what is on the market and which products get reviewed.

Of course all the reviews usually waffle on about all the various night and day differences found when changing this amp for that, this cable for t'other one. So apart from simply reflecting market 'reality' (in terms of what is available) and serving a self fulfilling prophecy function (ie the only speakers considered world class are passives simply because no actives are ever reviewed), what earthly use is a standard review when there is that much variation p) when a simple interconnect is changed, from one you most likely never had to another you would most likely never get, how the hell can you glean anything about how that speaker sounds?

If you needed to get an answer to the question it is not 'how does THIS passive sound vs THAT active), surely you can only evaluate with an identical speaker, one with a passive xover and the other made active.

Then you can delve into digital vs passive active etc.

So there is actually a lot of fiddling and tweaking room if you go active anyway when you sit and think a bit!

 

[NorthStar]

---Wow, 725 posts! ...Very popular subject!
...Must have some' to do with the quality level (caliber) of the members here. :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I’m really neutral on the whole passive vs. active debate. All I know is that what people consider to be the world’s greatest speakers are all passive. Maybe it’s all a giant conspiracy between the passive speaker manufacturers and the amplifier manufacturers.

No conspiracy required. A couple of high end speaker manufacturers on this board have said they'd like to make them but can't sell them. Actives are not wanted by high end consumers. Simple as that.

Tim

 

[Raffles]

Thought readers might be interested in this from Resolution - The Audio Production Magazine

http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/DRAGONS/CROSSO~1.PDF

Assuming a two-way speaker, the crossover itself must produce a pair of signals that sum to the original waveform. The drive units themselves must have sufficiently good phase and frequency responses and directivity characteristics that there is a reasonably wide band of frequency in which either drive unit could be used. The crossover frequency can then be placed within this band. Finally the physical arrangement of the drive units must be such that the acoustic summation of sounds from two drive units must be the inverse of the subtraction that took place in the crossover. Failure to address any one of these problems will result in a system that has audible deficiencies.

Looking first at the crossover itself, it’s an obvious requirement that the two output signals, high pass and low pass, should be capable of being summed together to recreate the original signal. Unfortunately in the vast majority of loudspeakers this doesn’t happen. It’s a simple fact that in order to get a pair of complementary signals it is necessary to use a subtraction stage in the crossover. This is fundamentally impossible in a passive crossover because passive circuitry can’t subtract. Thus passive crossovers are not crossovers at all, but a pair of filters, one high pass and one low pass, whose turnover frequencies happen to be similar.

The outputs of these crossovers cannot and do not sum to the original waveform. Instead the crossover frequency range is subject to a variety of deficiencies in amplitude, power and timing. The vast number of passive crossover topologies available simply fuels an endless debate about which one does the least harm, when the goal ought to be to do no harm at all. Thus, by definition, a passive two-way loudspeaker cannot reproduce the input waveform and cannot display linear phase through the crossover band...

The way forward in loudspeaker performance is clearly to use active technology. The problem is that just because a loudspeaker is active it doesn’t mean that it meets any of the criteria explained here. An active loudspeaker may be no more than a passive loudspeaker and passive crossover with a built in amplifier. An active loudspeaker having a line level crossover might be a better bet, but the crossover may just be a line level version of the traditional passive crossover. In this case the only benefit is reduced intermodulation. A further problem is that when the speaker is active, it costs more, so the manufacturer may be tempted to cut corners to get the price down. This isn’t logical, as the purchaser doesn’t need to buy a power amplifier, but then we don’t live in a logical world.

 

[microstrip]

Thought readers might be interested in this from Resolution - The Audio Production Magazine

http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/DRAGONS/CROSSO~1.PDF

The author assumes that it is fundamental for audio reproduction that the sum of the output of the crossover channels equates the input signal - something that I have never seen as being the more important criteria for loudspeaker design. If the task was so easy any of us could pick a Behringer DCX2496 Ultradrive pro and implement a perfect speaker at home in about thirty minutes - it allows you to filter and subtract. I have done it sometime ago, when carrying experiments for matching a home made subwoofer with Soundlabs.

IMHO, it is the type of paper you write when you are so obsessed with signal integrity that you forget the real objectives of sound reproduction.

BTW, I found that the more interesting part of the paper are the recipes for evaluating speakers - listening from next room, something subjective listeners often refer.

 

[microstrip]

No conspiracy required. A couple of high end speaker manufacturers on this board have said they'd like to make them but can't sell them. Actives are not wanted by high end consumers. Simple as that.

Tim

Tim,

I find astonishing, may be amusing, that you write about active loudspeakers and audiophiles and seem to completely ignore the best existing high-end active loudspeakers ...

Do you know that there is high end outside your country? Please google for Backes & Müller and Cabasse, for example.

 

[Raffles]

The author assumes that it is fundamental for audio reproduction that the sum of the output of the crossover channels equates the input signal - something that I have never seen as being the more important criteria for loudspeaker design. If the task was so easy any of us could pick a Behringer DCX2496 Ultradrive pro and implement a perfect speaker at home in about thirty minutes - it allows you to filter and subtract. I have done it sometime ago, when carrying experiments for matching a home made subwoofer with Soundlabs.

IMHO, it is the type of paper you write when you are so obsessed with signal integrity that you forget the real objectives of sound reproduction.

But passive crossovers are constrained in ways that active systems aren't. It seems an unlikely coincidence that these constraints just happen to overlay exactly the useless areas in the overall 'space' that is crossover design. It may be that these constraints focus the passive speaker designer's mind in ways that the active speaker designer feels he doesn't have to, but that doesn't negate the argument that the active speaker must have the capacity to be better than passive - it can exactly duplicate the passive at a minimum, plus it can do more.