An interesting read about Active Speakers: Has their time come

[KlausR.]

Microstrip,

This subject is a common source of disagreement. Toole did only establish correlation between some measurements and statistical listener preferences in well defined conditions, that are far from the typical conditions used by high-end audiophiles. His opinions about electronics and audio accessories such as cables and power devices are well known, and I respect them, but I disagree on them. If your criteria on sound quality is the same as used in the references above I can partially understand your endorsement of actives.

Since no details are given in the different papers as to what electronics etc. have been used, you cannot say that conditions were different from the ones typical for audiophiles. However, I strongly suspect them to not use fancy cables and massive power amps with inch-thick faceplates.

Pandora’s Box: as long as differences between electronic components and accessories are determined in non-controlled listening tests only, I for one don’t see any reason at all to believe that such differences actually exist. Coincidently it was also Toole who has shown that the knowledge of the identity of the DUT has an effect on the results:

* Toole, “Hearing is believing vs Believing is hearing : Blind vs sighted listening tests and other interesting things”, AES paper 3894

There are other voices that say that testing should be done blind:

Jon Risch, “A user friendly methodology for subjective listening tests”, AES paper 3178

Further, Toole’s research is not about active vs passive but about how loudspeakers have to behave in order to be subjectively good, and passives can do that equally well. There’s another AES paper that tells how the perfect loudspeaker should look like and what makes a good sounding loudspeaker:

John Atkinson, “Loudspeakers : what measurements can tell us - and what they can’t tell us”, AES paper 4608

It will perhaps come as a surprise that JA is in agreement with Toole: “..but the definitive answers are to be found in Toole’s comprehensive 1986 papers. Nothing that I can conclude from the past eight years’ work … is in serious conflict with his findings.”

When I was shopping for speakers back in 2001, I applied Toole’s results and only considered speakers with good measured response, and there were not many.

However, not all people have the same weighting of the multiple sound quality parameters as the Harman group. What you and others consider weak or non conclusive can be strong for audiophiles.

Both Klippel and Toole (and JA, see above) found that frequency response and power response are the most relevant parameter to subjective impression. Correlation for parameters such as phase response and distortion was weak. Still, it certainly does not harm when going for speakers with low distortion and zero group delay.


Klaus

 

[Groucho]

For me, it's a case of engineering-necessity vs. the 'ideal'. I think I can see how mundane engineering-necessity in the past led to multi-driver speakers, passive crossovers and a single amplifier. If it turns out that passive speakers are also 'the ideal', it seems like a remarkable coincidence and a stroke of very good fortune. It means that someone, all those years ago, stumbled upon the ultimate way of reproducing music for all time, and that it also happened to be the most affordable and practically-realisable at that time.

It would be easy to string some words together saying that those 90 years of experience mean that the passive speaker has been perfected, and that the active upstarts have a long way to go before achieving those hard-won levels of refinement blah blah, but I just don't believe it. There is no mystery: it is simple and obvious what a speaker has to do, and the active speaker gets closer to it with fewer compromises. It isn't a musical instrument we're designing here, merely a device for playing back recordings of real artists.

 

[JackD201]

That would presume that accuracy is the universal goal which it isn't. If I were tracking I would use as flat a monitor as I could get. For pleasure where I have no control of what goes in, and with nobody to answer to but myself, not necessarily.

 

[JackD201]

Everything is a tone control at this point in time anyway. So I'd say anywhere you darned well please or at least in a part in the chain you have the most aptitude and control over. As you guys already know, my own speakers are very flat (so are my electronics). I set them up that way initially but had to 'soften' them a bit to accommodate less than stellar recordings of music I really like. Music comes first and all that jazz right? Well yeah, actually.

When it comes to accuracy for work I'm as hardline as anybody but for pleasure I do enjoy being quite the liberal. I mean why should the engineers have all the fun? Pictures are more accurate than paintings but that doesn't mean a picture of the same subject would be more enjoyable to look at. Some distortions ARE pleasing, no need to tell you that my friend you and I both have a thing for SETs and the fun they bring to the table. Tinkering is part and parcel of the fun of any hobby and I indulge in that. I don't think that merits being called delusional or neurotic.

There's all this talk about the parasitic nature of passive crossovers. While true it isn't all that big of a deal breaker performance wise if you do have the juice to spare. I've used at least four brands of analog active electronic crossovers and three models of widely used professional digital active crossovers. Granted these aren't the uber DSP models and were unmodded, but these all created problems of their own which I attribute to the quality of the analog output stages employed. How about the all in one solutions? No way of telling what mucks up the sound of the greater majority of studio monitors since you just have to deal with the things as they are. You're locked in for better or for worse till ebay do you part. My biggest pet peeve is port noise and in some cases where the monitors are sealed friggin' chuffing from the connector inputs!

Sometimes I find it funny how some guys like to bitch about how other guys go about the same hobby. Most of the time I think it's just arrogant. All in all, I think one has to just take the end result for any given application over the theoretical advantages. There are passives systems that will slaughter actives and vice versa. The real question is do they do this in areas that matter more to the user.

 

[audioguy]

I am starting to believe that ownership of pure active speakers makes people see imaginary states of audiophile anxiety in the owners of passive speakers ...

Note

We should consider that the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has eliminated the category of "neurosis", reflecting a decision by the editors to provide descriptions of behavior as opposed to hidden psychological mechanisms as diagnostic criteria,and, according to The American Heritage Medical Dictionary, it is "no longer used in psychiatric diagnosis". Instead, the disorders once classified as neuroses are now considered anxiety disorders. [/I ] (quoted from Wikipedia)

You have an amazing knack for coming to incorrect conclusions based upon information that is neither stated nor implied.

Go ask 100 people to describe someone who:

--- Uses speaker wire and power cables as thick as garden hoses

----Get's their speakers within 1/16th of an inch of the desired location

----Spends hours and hours and dollars and dollars trying to get some set of audiophile wish list to be present

----Has incredibly unattractive panels and thingies all over the room

----Who has as much (or more) invested in their audio system as a brand new automobile

I could go on. I am one of the above and I can tell you by the looks on individuals faces that they think I am certifiably nuts --- and to them I am.

98 of the 100 people you ask would seriously consider your mental health to be compromised in some way (but would never tell you so).

Call it neurosis, anxiety or whatever you will. But the world think folks highly invested in this hobby are nuts!! And in many ways, we are.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that I now own active speakers and like a lot of what they do. But you get to conclude whatever you wish !

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip,

Since no details are given in the different papers as to what electronics etc. have been used, you cannot say that conditions were different from the ones typical for audiophiles. However, I strongly suspect them to not use fancy cables and massive power amps with inch-thick faceplates.

Pandora’s Box: as long as differences between electronic components and accessories are determined in non-controlled listening tests only, I for one don’t see any reason at all to believe that such differences actually exist. Coincidently it was also Toole who has shown that the knowledge of the identity of the DUT has an effect on the results:

* Toole, “Hearing is believing vs Believing is hearing : Blind vs sighted listening tests and other interesting things”, AES paper 3894

There are other voices that say that testing should be done blind:

Jon Risch, “A user friendly methodology for subjective listening tests”, AES paper 3178

Further, Toole’s research is not about active vs passive but about how loudspeakers have to behave in order to be subjectively good, and passives can do that equally well. There’s another AES paper that tells how the perfect loudspeaker should look like and what makes a good sounding loudspeaker:

John Atkinson, “Loudspeakers : what measurements can tell us - and what they can’t tell us”, AES paper 4608

It will perhaps come as a surprise that JA is in agreement with Toole: “..but the definitive answers are to be found in Toole’s comprehensive 1986 papers. Nothing that I can conclude from the past eight years’ work … is in serious conflict with his findings.”

When I was shopping for speakers back in 2001, I applied Toole’s results and only considered speakers with good measured response, and there were not many.




Both Klippel and Toole (and JA, see above) found that frequency response and power response are the most relevant parameter to subjective impression. Correlation for parameters such as phase response and distortion was weak. Still, it certainly does not harm when going for speakers with low distortion and zero group delay.


Klaus

Klaus,

Details about the hardware used in Harman experiments do not show in the papers, but were later given in talks and forum debates - I remember some included a Proceed amplifier driven directly by a mixer or DAC, without preamplifier. No cable optimization, as you say, but worst no optimization of each speaker placement - all speakers were placed in the same position. Some of most openly referred tests were carried using a single speaker. IMHO, not audiophile usual conditions.

You do not see any reason at all to believe that such differences actually exist - I already know of it. I do not want to persuade you they exist - I am pleased just to show why our divergence of opinion. And I sorry but am not interested in DBT debates or discussing JA supporting Toole in a sentence in an old article.

F. Toole writings transcend speaker measurements and sound quality. He masterly identified problems, and formulated them in a clear way that strongly influenced current speaker design. In no way I can consider them as a compendium to evaluate loudspeakers.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, and where are we going to put that personal "tone control"? the speakers, the amp, etc. Putting the speaker as the tone control IMO is the worse place. To me, if it was possible, I would want the most accurate speaker (and all that entails via imaging, response, group delay, blah blah) and do my tone controls some where else, thus affording the ability of changing my tone control as necessary, and not being "locked in" at the speaker end. Granted, today, the speaker, as a component, IS the tone control in a simple, straight reproducing system.

Tom,

You are admitting that you can "tailor" all you want from sound reproduction in the speaker. But most "tailoring" that can be carried in sources, amplifiers and cables can not be done in the speaker.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nothing in the world wrong with tone control and I don't think anyone here is calling anyone neurotic because they have a tonal preference. I find myself facinated by the psychology of obsession with huge speakers and amps, all the way up to the point of rejectiing superior technology that does not include them, but that's a different conversation.

Tone control? Tone control is great. I bought this cool little device the other day -- a digital, programmable graphic eq in a guitar floor pedal. It allows me four programmable pre-sets -- 7 bands, +/- 18dB range (it's all midrange for guitars), 24 bit converters, 56 bit processors. The thing is dead quiet, imposes no signature when off, and when on it can make a Gibson jumbo sound like a Martin parlor, a Telecaster sound like a Les Paul. 150 bucks. About the size of a pack of smokes.

I gotcher tone control right there.

But if you insist on having no control over your tone "controls" and you want them fixed, built into your components, all excellent actives do not sound alike. Are they more accurate than most consumer gear? Well, that depends on the gear, but even among studio monitors there are those the lean to the warm side and those that are brighter, because engineers have ears and preferences too. But actives will all, if properly designed, deliver, through better driver control and better amp/transducer matching a clarity, precision and 3D imaging that can only be approached in passives at many times the price and pounds (MHO, YMMV). And that all happens in the mids and highs; an active sub or three will not get you there. But tone control? If your Adams are too bright for you in general, sell them and buy some Dynaudios. If the are just too revealing for those old Charlie Parker records, get some control in your tone control. You don't have to give up the ability to reveal everything the best recordings have to offer to soften that old jazz. You just have to put the right tools in the signal chain and learn how to use them.

Tim

 

[andromedaaudio]

Thats all good Tim but our hobby /passion is called hifi , and therefore we strive fundamentally for accurate reproduced sound , otherwise i could design a loudspeaker with independant woofer, mid and tweetercontrol and audiophiles could get the balance they want , dialed in individually to their own flavour with the turn of a button , but ....you couldnt call it hifi then could you ???

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thats all good Tim but our hobby /passion is called hifi , and therefore we strive fundamentally for accurate reproduced sound , otherwise i could design a loudspeaker with independant woofer, mid and tweetercontrol and audiophiles could get the balance they want , dialed in individually to their own flavour with the turn of a button , but ....you couldnt call it hifi then could you ???

You're preaching to the choir, andromeda. No, I couldn't call that hifi. Jack was saying that accuracy isn't always the most pleasant thing to listen to, particularly when the recordings are less than stellar. I was taking the position that, when that is the case, true tone controls are a better alternative than components (or speakers) with a sonic signature that can't be bi-passed.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

You're preaching to the choir, andromeda. No, I couldn't call that hifi. Jack was saying that accuracy isn't always the most pleasant thing to listen to, particularly when the recordings are less than stellar. I was taking the position that, when that is the case, true tone controls are a better alternative than components (or speakers) with a sonic signature that can't be bi-passed.

Tim

That's what a mastering engineer is for!

 

[microstrip]

Unhappily the ambiguous use of the word "tone controls" in this type of threads makes them very confusing. For me a tone control is just something that changes the frequency response xx dB at yyy Hz. When I refer to "tailoring" I am referring to what some people call "the small differences" or characteristics that are more difficult to express in a measurement that correlates with perceived sound quality.

I think I am not wrong when I say that most audiophiles do not accept changing the FR of their systems - in this sense they are purists and respect the work of professionals that carry the sound engineering and mastering duties - but freely accept "tailoring" using the second type of processes.

 

[microstrip]

You have an amazing knack for coming to incorrect conclusions based upon information that is neither stated nor implied.

Go ask 100 people to describe someone who:

--- Uses speaker wire and power cables as thick as garden hoses

----Get's their speakers within 1/16th of an inch of the desired location

----Spends hours and hours and dollars and dollars trying to get some set of audiophile wish list to be present

----Has incredibly unattractive panels and thingies all over the room

----Who has as much (or more) invested in their audio system as a brand new automobile

I could go on. I am one of the above and I can tell you by the looks on individuals faces that they think I am certifiably nuts --- and to them I am.

98 of the 100 people you ask would seriously consider your mental health to be compromised in some way (but would never tell you so).

Call it neurosis, anxiety or whatever you will. But the world think folks highly invested in this hobby are nuts!! And in many ways, we are.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that I now own active speakers and like a lot of what they do. But you get to conclude whatever you wish !

Really sorry to upset you with my jokes, specially because your post makes me happy - none of my close friends considers me nuts and I only answered yes to your last question - although they exist unhappily I can not afford to buy a car costing more than my audio system.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's what a mastering engineer is for!

Yes. When they are allowed to do their job.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

Yes. When they are allowed to do their job.

Tim

+1

 

[JackD201]

You're preaching to the choir, andromeda. No, I couldn't call that hifi. Jack was saying that accuracy isn't always the most pleasant thing to listen to, particularly when the recordings are less than stellar. I was taking the position that, when that is the case, true tone controls are a better alternative than components (or speakers) with a sonic signature that can't be bi-passed.

Tim

Your actives have a sonic signature that can't be bypassed. Even if that character is perfectly neutral which is impossibe.

It is NOT superior technology. It's the same technology used differently. What I'm saying is that not only do preferences differ, purposes differ too. The historical unbundling of systems happened as a reaction to this. The proliferation of different models within common product classes is a reaction to different preferences set within different cost constraints.

The resistance to returning to active loudspeakers (the world's very first loudspeaker was active) is precisely the refusal to give up another degree of freedom. The answer then really would be to simply have more quality active choices.

 

[opus111]

The resistance to returning to active loudspeakers (the world's very first loudspeaker was active) is precisely the refusal to give up another degree of freedom. The answer then really would be to simply have more quality active choices.

Perhaps 'resistance to actives' is not resistance (in the psychological sense) at all. Perhaps its indeed sticking with what's known to sound best. I second the plea to have more choices of actives where the electronics aren't compromised (noisy psus and IMD-ridden opamps).

 

[JackD201]

At least what they've experienced to sound best and not necessarily any conventions. Qualitative assessments don't exist in a vacuum after all.

 

[KlausR.]

... otherwise i could design a loudspeaker with independent woofer, mid and tweeter control and audiophiles could get the balance they want ...

Such speakers exist already, and stand in our living room. Check out p. 32 of the manual

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/klein-hummel/globals.nsf/resources/O500C_BDA_KH1_038_en_021025.pdf/$File/O500C_BDA_KH1_038_en_021025.pdf

And no, I'm not using that EQ.

Klaus

 

[KlausR.]

No cable optimization, as you say, but worst no optimization of each speaker placement - all speakers were placed in the same position. Some of most openly referred tests were carried using a single speaker. IMHO, not audiophile usual conditions.

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

* Bech, "Perception of timbre of reproduced sound in small rooms : influence of room and loudspeaker position", JAES 1994, p.999
* Olive, "The effects of loudspeaker placement on listener preference ratings", JAES 1994, p.651
* Salava , “Imperfections at low frequencies – how much are they audible or annoying?”, AES paper 6144 (2004)

As for the single speaker setup:

Toole, "Subjective Measurements of Loudspeakers: A Comparison of Stereo and Mono Listening", AES paper 2023
"An important practical conclusion for those involved with loudspeaker design and assessment is that monophonic listening comparisons with their inherent advantages of simplicity and speed, are particularly well adapted to performance evaluation. If anything, compared to stereophonic assessments of loudspeakers, such tests appear to be more sensitive to common performance imperfections. At the highest level of loudspeaker development, this is an advantage to be seriously considered."

You do not see any reason at all to believe that such differences actually exist - I already know of it.

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