Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[JackD201]

Tim,

See, there's the problem. You're taking yourself out of the equation. You could give your system to a hundred different people and it would play back the music on your drive at least as many ways. That makes you an active contributor to the final result.

 

[microstrip]

(...)

Really, it has more to do with ego than audio.

Tim

Since it is mainly a question of ego's, why should not audiophiles just pick a capital L and start playing with Lego's? It should be less controversial than assembling active systems!

 

[Robh3606]

I don't believe that one can't get extremely good sound from a fully manual active system. It just isn't easy for people that haven't practiced the craft.

Hello Jack

Have you ever tried?? You will never get there if you don't give it a go. Don't forget you don't have to do it blind. All you need is a good passive speaker as a reference. That's what I did and it makes all the difference. There is no second guessing if you have it right when your active set-up get's it butt kicked in comparison.


It's like anything else when you first start it's intimidating but after a couple of years a lot of it becomes second nature and you find yourself doing things that you wouldn't have considered as you get further down the learning curve. Just getting the gain structure right or the grounding can be a challenge. Same with setting the driver levels and laying out your baffles and building your cabinets. There are many ways things can go wrong but they can also go right. Just takes some time.

Rob

 

[Ethan Winer]

Man, do I NOT get this synergy thang! ... when audiophiles do it (chase synergy, ie that delicate task of finding the appropriate amp, or cable, or binding post that match the speakers) it is not only a noble pursuit, but one done very successfully by hobby audiophiles, yet when we then examine active speakers the very same thing is now suddenly fraught with insurmountable problems and seemingly doomed to failure? ... Oh the hypocrisy of it all.

I snipped most of your post for brevity, but that was all stated extremely well. Synergy as touted by audiophiles is mostly non-existent, and if each device in the chain behaves properly it's not needed anyway. The only "synergy" I can imagine is hoping that the faults in one component will cancel similar but opposing faults in another. Is this really how some audiophiles choose their gear?

--Ethan

 

[Bill Hart]

I snipped most of your post for brevity, but that was all stated extremely well. Synergy as touted by audiophiles is mostly non-existent, and if each device in the chain behaves properly it's not needed anyway. The only "synergy" I can imagine is hoping that the faults in one component will cancel similar but opposing faults in another. Is this really how some audiophiles choose their gear?

--Ethan

I have not read every post in this now huge thread, so I am sorry if anything I say here is out of context:
Ethan: if you accept the fact that most components, whether source, electronic or speakers, are not perfect, and have some sonic signature of their own (I do accept this premise, you may not), then the task to building a system is to match the parts in a way that brings about the best result. That result may differ, too, depending on the listener/user's priorities and objectives.
The theoretical advantage of an active speaker system is that it should take certain variables out of the equation- amp/speaker matching, crossover issues, etc. I can't say I've heard the latest crop of active speakers, I have heard the Meridian and some ATC's and have a few pairs of small mini monitors.
Perhaps the biggest drawback of an active speaker is that it doesn't permit the user to make changes- some of which may be unnecessary, but we go back to that insatiable need to keep improving the sound, and the baby and the bathwater are one where an active speaker is concerned.
So far as I am personally concerned, I'd much rather listen to my Avantgarde horns over the Lamm ML2 than just about anything else, and yes, I have used other amplifiers with the speaker, they just seem to sound 'right' to my ears with the Lamms, which are terrific sounding amps in their own right (but obviously have power limitations that confine their use to more efficient speakers).

 

[NorthStar]

Since it is mainly a question of ego's, why should not audiophiles just pick a capital L and start playing with Lego's? It should be less controversial than assembling active systems!

-----Wow, talk about some creative imagination! :b

 

[JackD201]

Hello Jack

Have you ever tried?? You will never get there if you don't give it a go. Don't forget you don't have to do it blind. All you need is a good passive speaker as a reference. That's what I did and it makes all the difference. There is no second guessing if you have it right when your active set-up get's it butt kicked in comparison.


It's like anything else when you first start it's intimidating but after a couple of years a lot of it becomes second nature and you find yourself doing things that you wouldn't have considered as you get further down the learning curve. Just getting the gain structure right or the grounding can be a challenge. Same with setting the driver levels and laying out your baffles and building your cabinets. There are many ways things can go wrong but they can also go right. Just takes some time.

Rob

Hi Bob,

Yes I have. I had six years of sound reinforcement under my belt. I was fortunate to have been under the tutelage of one of the best commercial sound men in the country at the time. At the tail end I was using mostly JBL drivers and had a chance to use some rarer Alnicos. I was out of it before digital XOs were in vogue but I did get a chance to tune two dance clubs using EAW speakers and Crest amplifiers using Bheringer active XOs as late as 2004. So, I'm not being a google genius here. I actually do have experience in this end of the industry. It's all in my intro page. I also have the experience of setting these systems up not just in clubs but also anywhere from house parties to formal occassions like the traditional debuts where by tradition, debutantes and their entourage performed anything from Viennese Waltes to Classics to all sorts of ballroom dances. In short we played everything from Classical Music to Dance Music for the guests of the discerning society elite. That's how I know how easy it is to screw things up as well as the limitations of the professional gear vis-a-vis my personal preferences both in sonics and musical material but I also know the potential. This divide can be a great one when everything else including space constraints and aesthetics come into play.

I also don't think that it is an ego thing. To me this sounds like consumerist crap. If someone can do it better for cheaper, fantastic. If someone wants to stop at a point where he can no longer tell the difference, that's fantastic too. If the person says what he has will match or better anything and everyone else in the world, that to me is as arrogant as the guy who thinks he has the best system in the world just because he spent more. Both should seriously get out more and do less back patting. To me it is a matter of interest and the length one would take to pursue it. While I have been on record as saying that horns and actives definitely have the edge on jump, that is not to say that I think they are better at everything else. If that "else" doesn't belong in the set of things that float your boat and one fins these more important then it follows that a different route may be taken. What I haven't tried is building cabinetry myself. I'd probably end up cutting my hand off in the process. A reason I have extremely high respect for folks that can.

 

[JackD201]

I snipped most of your post for brevity, but that was all stated extremely well. Synergy as touted by audiophiles is mostly non-existent, and if each device in the chain behaves properly it's not needed anyway. The only "synergy" I can imagine is hoping that the faults in one component will cancel similar but opposing faults in another. Is this really how some audiophiles choose their gear?

--Ethan

Once I asked you if you tuned rooms to be flat or not. You answered it was up to the client's preference. Yet you make choosing equipment based on preference sound (with the accompanying audiophile swipe) sound like it's the dumbest thing in the world and worse make it appear that professionals don't do this either. Gimme a break.

 

[Gregadd]

Greg,

All Soundlabs have a very elaborate crossover - my A1 PX have the same crossover as the Majestic, and I have carried several upgrades in them myself. They are single panel, and use a mixer to sum the bass, medium and treble. And they sound excellent, but have an horrible frequency response - something that will make some of our WBF friendly readers very unhappy.

You make a good point I am sure we are talking about different things.

 

[terryj]

Jack has made some good points, well at least some points that I'd also make (that means they're good yeah?)

Maybe it's just me, but I like to think I have grown up a bit over my time on forums. What I mean is, well I run a fully active system, and yes (to me at least) it is the bees knees. Could be lotsa reasons for that, pride of ownership, I built it, that sort of stuff.

Years ago I woulda fully rigid in my stance, active is superior and carried on (like I use to, an idiot...I have matured a little) much like most arguments on the forum, my way is the best way and everyone else is a fool.

I no longer do that, happy to argue it at arms length as it were, far more interested in why and how we think what we do to be frank, the human angle is the most fascinating thing about audio to me, but part of the reason I no longer like to push active if we can say that comes back to those very important points jack has been making.

The skill level of the person doing the active system is ultimately the limiting factor, just as it is with the passive system. This naturally tends back to the conversions to active or the fully fledged builds from the ground up. Not for one second do I think the engineers building an active system don't have the nous or capability to do it. So I leave that side out of it. That thought is astounding in it's arrogance. "I am an audiophile-going only on the overhyped hyperbole of the ragazines-so I can build a system complete in all it's various complementarities, but those dumb engineers cannot pull off the feat I am capable. Mighty am I not?"

As the available fully active systems are either non existent or cost an almighty bundle (let's use cabasse, an outlier, to prove our point) it then out of necessity usually does come back to the earlier categories I mentioned, the conversions or the ground up builds.

Go over to diyaudio or their ilk, to the people with the desire and willingness the points jack mention do not count, that comprises the hobby for them, and interestingly those with the experience of going active do not have any where near this notion of the superiority oif passive. The limitations of passive are well known.

But, we are on an audiophile forum here, so jacks factors are exceedingly important. For the most part, and of course with the budget available to many of the members here!, it is a far safer bet to stay with well engineered passives and get your fiddle factor with amps and cables etc. That is what I would recommend as a first stance based on the assumption that most here have not the slightest interest in learning the (new) tricks required to maximise that new path.

I say new tricks, because ultimately it is the same basic procedure, get the best sound you can with the tools at your disposal. To many here the thought of investing in measuring gear of any description, then learning how to use and then interpret what they tell you can be a mountain too much. I get that. It is simply the flip side to the only available alternative, the one that causes MY eyes to glaze over...'blindly' mixing and matching this component with that and stumbling forward.

Pick your poison, either way it is not a walk in the park, both have steep learning curves and each method demands full attention if the best is your goal.

Do I feel active can give a superior result? Yes I do, and in my experience it has proven to be true for me.

Can you convert a good passive to active and get a worse result? You can bet your bottom dollar on that, which is why I am more circumspect in my stance than I was years ago, I have grown up.

These things are nothing more than tools, and all tools have to be used properly.

So here is the bottom line. You can't really use your position to argue emotionally against the other. 'I don't want to go active because I don't feel capable' is a perfectly good argument for going passive. However it is not a good argument for the superiority of passive. Equally, 'I go active because I feel capable' is a great argument for why you went active, but it aint a great one for the superiority of active.

I bet I can find actives that are better than most passives, and I bet I can find passives that are better than most actives.

Each of the above are fully dependant on the points raised by jack.

 

[Robh3606]

Can you convert a good passive to active and get a worse result? You can bet your bottom dollar on that, which is why I am more circumspect in my stance than I was years ago, I have grown up.

Hello Terry

That's not a trivial exercise by any means. Just adding a bi-amp option to a passive system and maintaining the proper voltage drives in the networks and designing the active section to give you same voltage drive takes quite a bit of work. You had beter be comitted to the project or you will never finish it.

I bet I can find actives that are better than most passives, and I bet I can find passives that are better than most actives.

Exactly and why I think that at some point you should give each a try.


Hello Jack

You raise some good points. It's not for everyone but it's so damn much fun to give it a shot. I started doing active and then doing passive after I had a beter understanding and the tools to do it. You can get great results with each approach.

Rob

 

[JackD201]

Hi Terry and Rob,

I so, so, so much agree with both of you. In our local forum I always tell our members there that our equipment are, you read my mind Terry, just tools and nothing more. It's what you make of what you've got that matters. Currently, I'm tri-amped into passive and as Rob said it took quite a bit of work to line up the voltage drives. Why did I choose to do this when I could have ordered a cross over less version of my loudspeaker? To me the limitation is the rather small pool of active cross overs and equalizers. I was not too thrilled with the Bheringer and have not played enough with anything else to have given me the confidence to pick them. No real problems with the knowledge part, the designer would have held my hand through it until I got back to speed telephone bill be damned. His personal version of my loudspeaker is fully active after all. Would I enjoy it? Hell yeah! I love this stuff! Here's the rub, there's the matter of cabling, rack space, floor space for the amps. The passive networks in my speakers include impedance matching and driver correction. To do the latter myself, I would need something close to an anechoic environment or at least bring 400lb loudspeakers outdoors. Hard to do in a dense metropolis.

Some of my best audio buddies are avid DIYers and I've learned so much from them. Even if what I've learned from them is only a fraction of what they know, it's been enriching none-the-less. We never talk about what's better, we talk about goals and listen to how close we've managed to get to them. Egos? Zip. Nada. Tools are tools nothing more. Goals are different too and evaluations of particular systems must be along the lines of the goals for that particular user and the system built around them. Then we eat and drink!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So now we're assuming that you can only get an active system through DIY? Well I guess at least that's Audiophile enough -- lots of wire and boxes and fiddling to be done. But it's not necessary. If you want largish floor-standing speakers, actives are available from AVi...



Adam...



Linkwitz...



...and more. There's not a lot out there of the full-range, floor-standing variety, unfortunately. Smaller? Goodness there's an active thread here right now talking about passive "monitors" at $24k a pair. At that kind of money you can have ungodly good pro "monitors." Add the cost of the substantial amplifiers it would take to drive those passives and you could have some of the best active monitors made, plus a couple of subs to take you to a full-range system.

Active is not only not a DIY-only endeavor, it may very well be the easiest way to get great sound. Not the only way, but the easiest way. MHO. YMMV.

Tim

 

[terryj]

Here's the rub, there's the matter of cabling, rack space, floor space for the amps. The passive networks in my speakers include impedance matching and driver correction. To do the latter myself, I would need something close to an anechoic environment or at least bring 400lb loudspeakers outdoors. Hard to do in a dense metropolis.

Well there ya go, another valid point (they all add up even if only subconsciously). I imagine real estate is often a non included part of the cost jack! Still I spose a rack of amps takes up no more floor space than a single amp, but I get the point.

Some of my best audio buddies are avid DIYers and I've learned so much from them. Even if what I've learned from them is only a fraction of what they know, it's been enriching none-the-less. We never talk about what's better

That is a whole subject that is rarely addressed belying it's fundamental importance I feel. Especially on a forum like this (?)

Let's leave aside the obvious poor performing systems, or the lesser tier (god, how smug does that sound? Struggling for the words here) where terms like good, poor, better worse etc do have meaning. I reckon we get to a point with systems when 'better, best, worst' etc etc no longer have any meaning or validity....there is only different.

I mean we can hear stellar examples of horns vs stellar examples of dipole on and on. They each are 'truly magnificent' in their field, yet each are completely different from each other. Better or worse do not enter the lexicon now.

Of course it is immensely satisfying and pleasing when someone says 'wow, the best I have heard' when they listen to your system, no denying that. But for me, that is not the comment I find most pleasing as nice as it is, for me what makes me most 'proud' is when I get 'boy, that is not like any other system I have heard'. That is when I give myself the high five.

Cause I firmly believe not only in that principle of once past a certain level better or worse do not apply, only 'different' I am also arrogant enough to feel I am at that level. Boy setting myself up for a whole bag of derision there! Anyways, just wanted to touch on that point as (again) raised by jack.

What are you jack, my long lost brother???

Then we eat and drink!

We do basically the same thing here too, but with a local flavour.

"Then we drink, so why bother eating?"

But yeah, essentially the same thing!




Tim, just caught your post before 'send'. It might have been me that sent it onto the diy or convert tangent, just to stress that only came about as being applicable on this forum due to the relatively scarce availability of ready made active systems 'for the complete audiophile'.

I might just add that due to that scarcity, and the given that we all have our own tastes, it could be a factor in 'I have heard active systems (not acknowledging how few there are) and didn't like (that very small selection available) them, so (extrapolating wildly) I know active is a second rate option (ignoring the plethora of passive they also don't like)"

But yeah, I take your point.

Silly me, for a while I have been pointing out how few active systems for the audiophile market there are (adam (from tim above) for example is primarily a pro outfit) and only just remembered a local outfit who exclusively (?) make active systems for the audiophile. They have a very loyal and enthusiastic following over here within the audiophile community.

http://www.sgraudio.com.au/

Dunno why they persist with the renderings, from what I have seen from photos the finish is excellent, far better than computer generated pics.

 

[JackD201]

Tim,

Who said you can only get good active via DIY? In the last few pages alone Meridian, Gradient, Cabasse, Linkwitz, Ocean Way have been mentioned. I should point out that all of these including those you mentioned have different degrees of user/owner leeway. Meridians are a closed system. Gradient comes with it's own amps but has outputs and gain controls so you can choose your own amps. I believe Cabasse is a closed system too. Ocean way and Linkwitz require you supply your own amps. Both have slopes that are fixed. Ocean Way likewise has fixed slopes and only provides gain but has a multi-band modified White EQ. I've heard Adam Tensors, they are very good. Amps are included. You may buy a fully assembled Orion but it won't be from Linkwitz. The Orion is leaves Linkwitz as a kit. Do It Yourself or pay someone to do it for you.

The question here is not if you will get good sound. It's there. The question is if that sound is one that is aligned with your preference. In a fully active system, you get the best shot at achieving that provided your goals are clear and you're willing to learn and work at getting there. I do not cotton to closed systems for the simple reason that I have yet to come across one that is aligned with what I want. The lack of controllable parameters is no help either. That's all there is too it. Theoretical advantages are nothing to me. To me they are crutches to justify buying decisions. What matters is performance within the context of the intended real world application.

The battle cry of the mini pro monitor folks has never been purely about performance. Never. It's always been about price vs. performance. Is that a bad thing? No it isn't it, far from it. Leave the price part out of it however and the comparative lack of flexibility and consequent utility comes into stark relief.

 

[JackD201]

Terry,

"The we drink so why bother eating?" I LOVE IT!!!!!!!! Hahahahahahaha!

 

[NorthStar]

---Luv everything that I'm reading here ... :b

 

[rbbert]

... To me the limitation is the rather small pool of active cross overs and equalizers...

Although perhaps limited in number, Bryston and Pass Labs both make excellent analog electronic crossovers.

The Linkwitz Orion is a great mix of DIY and manufacturerer engineered, IMO.

 

[microstrip]

Tim,

Jack already said almost what I wanted to say, I will only address the Linkwitz Orion 4. They should represent excellent value for money - they are sold directly from the factory, bypassing all normal margins in high-end. But direct sales from factory is not a normal approach for most people. They are happily a customizable product - if you read the Linkwitz pages you will find that the users can choose the amplifiers, some references being made to Jeff Rowland and tube amplifiers. If I was in the market for value for money products I would surely think very seriously about this product - most of the objectives of these dipole speakers are coincident with my views on sound reproduction. From his site:

My observations and promise:

It is possible to reproduce a stereo recording in an ordinary living room such that listeners have the illusion that the two loudspeakers have disappeared. When they close their eyes, they can easily imagine to be present at the recording space, as they listen to the phantom audio scene in front of them.

 

[Robh3606]

Although perhaps limited in number, Bryston and Pass Labs both make excellent analog electronic crossovers.

Hello rbbert

Yes but they are limited to what they can do beyond the basic crossover point. For example if you wanted to do a system with a compression driver and a CD type horn or waveguide there is additional response tailoring that they cannot do. The fix is you leave the passive compensation network in place or you go to a digital system. If staying analog is not a prime consideration digital is the way to do. You can do damn near anything you want and have almost infinite possibilities depending on the number of available parametric EQ's you have per channel and per driver.

Rob