Passive speakers, separate boxes...help me understand the appeal

[svart-hvitt]

I don't really have a strong opinion on active vs passive. I have built both and experimented and measured both and my current system (all home made) is tri-amped with an active op-amp crossover and then fine tuned and phase aligned with FIR convolution so I get what this issues are. My strong opinion is that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and to use the word "science" and some old articles written by opinionated engineers to declare one solution "more scientific" and another "obsolete" is the opposite of what science is about.

My opinion on crossovers, which I am sure will evolve over time, is that they are all "bad" and all introduce all sorts of issues. The higher order the more issues created. The "art" in building "SOTA" speakers is not crossovers or DSP but rather falls into the "mechanical realm". It is really hard to design and build linear drivers with well behaved roll offs that integrate well with each other. The enclosures are also very important in both geometry and damping and mechanical stiffness. The more done on the mechanical side of the speaker the less works that has to be done with crossovers and DSP. DSP for EQ, room integration, and phase alignment is a great tool but it will never be able to do anything more than "fine tune" the speakers, it can never overcome mechanical limitations.

When you write of all the engineers I mentioned - Allison, Ashley-Kaminsky, Martikainen, Toole, Watkinson - as «opionionated», you do ASR as a place to debate science a disservice.

Even if you build your own speakers and crossovers, it doesn’t make you a scientist; it makes you a builder. And a hobbyist builder should have some substantial arguments to write off real audio scientists.

Come on. Try again. Your own experiences don’t count; nobody wants to hear about what you hear, only about your arguments.

 

[RayDunzl]

"Passive speakers, separate boxes...help me understand the appeal"

I have little actives (at least, powered), and I have passives (in the same room).

Both need some similar signal DSP to clean up the bass to my taste. I suppose my actives are no better than a passive since there's no adjustable DSP in the speaker, ignoring a couple of dB of trim settings.

Both respond equally well to the adjustment.

As for the purely passive speakers, the appeal to me is:

Crossover at 180Hz. I don't find audible problems with it.
I already have what I need, no shopping required.
It's all paid for.
No need to find a buyer for what I would get rid of.
They work beyond well enough to keep me happy.
The boxes make a nice compact if heavy shrine.
I can add to or change out the DSP or other parts if desired.
Trained listeners hate them, and the less trained hate them too (maybe just so the trained guys won't laugh at them in the listening test).
I don't mind being an outlier.
They sound better than anything else I've heard. Can't imagine better for my purposes in this room. Of course, I'll be going to my first Audio Show in February, so that could change (unlikely).
Did I say it's all paid for? And already installed? And sufficient for my purposes?

 

[svart-hvitt]

I hate to jump into another of these threads since the OP's opinion of me is already in the mud... But then maybe it doesn't matter, can't go lower!

The usual benefits cited for passive crossovers (I have not read this thread but assume their disadvantages have been stated ad nauseum) -- note these are not all present in all crossovers, are not all purely technical rationales, and are debatable in their efficacy and relevance (I don't agree with them all FWIW):

1. Improving the load impedance seen by the amplifier by reducing (mainly) out-of-band impedance excursions the amp might otherwise have to deal with;
2. Providing isolation from the amplifier in the event of amp failure;
3. Reducing active component count to a single amplifier rather than two or more (perhaps higher reliability, perhaps not, see other thread);
4. Ease of use for the end user (nothing to tweak, plug-and-play -- this is also true of many active designs now, and even many years ago pro systems shipped with crossover frequencies and slopes making it simple for a user to set up the external crossover);
5. Simpler upgradability and repair of independent boxes (this is as much marketing as engineering for consumer audio speakers IMO).

Probably more but that's what I thought about off the top of my head.

When I think about revolutionary advances in loudspeakers I tend to think of things other than active designs that add DSP and swap out analog components for digital (which strike me as more evolutionary but there is always a continuum). Things like new audio projection schemes that obviate the need for physical cones and sheets that vibrate by using pulsed air sources and interferometric schemes to put the audio where you want it without affecting the rest of the room.

«In the mud»? I hold you in high esteem. Let there be no doubt about that

But even Toole argued that a passive speaker like yours are of the kind that can be improved upon by active design:

«Those professional loudspeakers with dedicated electronics have a huge advantage over passive loudspeakers. Consumers in general, especially high-end audiophiles, have not caught up with the advantages that technology has to offer. Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound».
Source: Chapter 12.5 in Toole (2016)

 

[Willem]

I think you are bordering on the rude, unfortunately, so please watch your tone. I would agree that active speakers may well be the future, but I am not necessarily convinced that this is the most important variable in speaker design. No speaker is perfect, far from it, and getting it right is always a compromise. My own personal favourite compromises are the Quad electrostats and the Harbeth line of moving coil speakers. Both stand out because they use advanced membrane technology compared to the traditional speaker. That may well be much more important than active vs passive crossover design.
Arguments about clutter or dsp room eq are secundary. An amplifier like the new Sonos AMP is utterly clutter free as it can sit completely out of sight. All it neeeds is cables to the speakers. Mind you, the speakers will not need mains cables, so that is a bit less clutter. Room eq can be applied in many ways, and in various parts of the signal chain.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think you are bordering on the rude, unfortunately, so please watch your tone. I would agree that active speakers may well be the future, but I am not necessarily convinced that this is the most important variable in speaker design. No speaker is perfect, far from it, and getting it right is always a compromise. My own personal favourite compromises are the Quad electrostats and the Harbeth line of moving coil speakers. Both stand out because they use advanced membrane technology compared to the traditional speaker. That may well be much more important than active vs passive crossover design.
Arguments about clutter or dsp room eq are secundary. An amplifier like the new Sonos AMP is utterly clutter free as it can sit completely out of sight. All it neeeds is cables to the speakers. Mind you, the speakers will not need mains cables, so that is a bit less clutter. Room eq can be applied in many ways, and in various parts of the signal chain.

I find it fascinating how vinylists are written off as backwards in another thread, while a much more cautious attitude is needed when bringing up active vs passive.

It seems like the vinyl debate follows the rational science based line, which is as it should be given this is ASR. But when we bring in active-passive, it’s as if personal experiences should be taken into account. Isn’t there an inconsistency?

It’s as if the active vs passive thread brings up emotions instead of science arguments.

Psychology gives us a readily available answer: I think I can predict a person’s view on a matter if I know what he owns

We should have had more references to science here instead of opinions.

 

[RayDunzl]

I think you are bordering on the rude

In Japan, I met a girl who seemed to speak somewhat rudely.

She left her "English" book on the table when she went to the powder room.

I took a look at it, and the samples read as rudely as she sounded, so we laughed about it and forgave her.

 

[levimax]

When you write of all the engineers I mentioned - Allison, Ashley-Kaminsky, Martikainen, Toole, Watkinson - as «opionionated», you do ASR as a place to debate science a disservice.

Even if you build your own speakers and crossovers, it doesn’t make you a scientist; it makes you a builder. And a hobbyist builder should have some substantial arguments to write off real audio scientists.

Come on. Try again. Your own experiences don’t count; nobody wants to hear about what you hear, only about your arguments.

I never mentioned what I heard, only that as a hobbyist I have done some study and understand some of the issues involved. The engineers you quote are certainly well qualified and as engineers have applied know science and come up with an elegant crossover solution. To me it seems they cross into "opinion" when they state "any speaker can benefit"..... I am sure many speakers can but they have not tried their system on every speaker combination (like full range speakers for instance) on the market so they are stating an opinion not a fact. Engineers are people and they like their work.

There are plenty of articles around that go into the advantages of passive crossovers written by engineers. Again they like their work and like their solutions. The advantages usually quoted are if you have the mechanical parts right you can use passive low order crossovers which have less phase shift, less complication, better transient response and reduced ringing.

From what I have learned so far I would say that an active solution is cheaper and easier to implement with the trade off being phase shift, transient response, and electronics complication. Passive systems are much more difficult and expensive to implement and need precision drivers but offer simplicity, reduced phase shift and ringing, and better transient response. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The one thing I don't understand and react to is why you feel there has to be a black and white answer to technology issues. Science raises more questions than it answers. All technological solutions have advantages and disadvantages. I find not keeping an open mind and having to pick the "right" solution to be very limiting.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I never mentioned what I heard, only that as a hobbyist I have done some study and understand some of the issues involved. The engineers you quote are certainly well qualified and as engineers have applied know science and come up with an elegant crossover solution. To me it seems they cross into "opinion" when they state "any speaker can benefit"..... I am sure many speakers can but they have not tried their system on every speaker combination (like full range speakers for instance) on the market so they are stating an opinion not a fact. Engineers are people and they like their work.

There are plenty of articles around that go into the advantages of passive crossovers written by engineers. Again they like their work and like their solutions. The advantages usually quoted are if you have the mechanical parts right you can use passive low order crossovers which have less phase shift, less complication, better transient response and reduced ringing.

From what I have learned so far I would say that an active solution is cheaper and easier to implement with the trade off being phase shift, transient response, and electronics complication. Passive systems are much more difficult and expensive to implement and need precision drivers but offer simplicity, reduced phase shift and ringing, and better transient response. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The one thing I don't understand and react to is why you feel there has to be a black and white answer to technology issues. Science raises more questions than it answers. All technological solutions have advantages and disadvantages. I find not keeping an open mind and having to pick the "right" solution to be very limiting.

So it seems like your position then is, «science is undecided on the active-passive issue»?

 

[Ron Texas]

Somewhere I read that 95% of SQ is baked in by the choice of microphones and their placement. Perhaps that is an exaggeration. However, the proponents of active speakers are, IMO, exaggerating their superiority over passive speakers. KR in his Stereophile review said his 802D3's were just as good as the Kii 3 when he used Dirac Live with the B&W's. I suspect many speakers could do that. He also noted that Direc Live made no improvement in the Kii 3's. There are other ways of fixing room problems both with treatments or other less automated approaches to room eq.

I am willing to say the Kii 3 and D&D 8c are breakthrough products and take active speakers up a level. Perhaps, in a few years there will be similar products from larger manufacturers who have a product line that goes beyond a single highly integrated item with the risk of turning into some broken thing for which there are no parts. My main objection is the proponents of these 2 systems are proclaiming the obsolescence of passive speakers prematurely.

For now, proponents of active speakers do have other sources, particularly in the pro-audio world.

 

[PierreV]

I fail to see much "science" in the issue to be honest.

Engineering, engineers opinions, yes. But science? In any other scientific field where there is some kind of binary choice you will find hundreds of pros and cons papers exploring the matter in depth. Here, barely a few papers and quotes, by mostly non independent people.

Note: I am not implying that those did not follow a scientific objective approach or that people have hidden motives or conflict of interests but, come on...

As far as speaker's preferences (all passive designs I think) are concerned, I have seen the same single (small n) study being quoted for years. Very unfortunate that it stands mostly alone, not the authors' fault, but still quite limited.

In any other field, it would end up as "this limited study seems to indicate that listeners may prefer..."

 

[levimax]

So it seems like your position then is, «science is undecided on the active-passive issue»?

My position is that "decided" seldom if ever belongs in the same sentence with one technological solution. We may be getting bogged down on words here as to me "science" is the study of how and why things in nature behave and act as they do. This can help lead to a technological solution but seldom if ever "decides" anything.

 

[JJB70]

I don't think you can compare passive speakers with turn tables. In the case of vinyl records the qualitative difference between digital and vinyl is clear and unarguable unless you are a vinyl cultist (note, this is not the same as denying that people can quite legitimately prefer the euphonic distortion associated with vinyl or all the ritual that goes with playing records). In the case of speakers a well designed passive design can perform exceptionally well and not all speakers need cross overs. I do back to my comment about implementation. It'd take an extraordinarily bad implementation for a digital source to perform worse than vinyl (although re-mastering engineers can do that easily......), in the case of speakers it is nothing like as clear cut and there is no shortage of superb performing passive speakers. I'm actually a fan of active digital speakers, but I've heard enough speakers to believe that there is an awful lot more to determining whether a speaker performs well than if it is passive or active.

 

[Blumlein 88]

«In the mud»? I hold you in high esteem. Let there be no doubt about that

But even Toole argued that a passive speaker like yours are of the kind that can be improved upon by active design:

«Those professional loudspeakers with dedicated electronics have a huge advantage over passive loudspeakers. Consumers in general, especially high-end audiophiles, have not caught up with the advantages that technology has to offer. Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound».
Source: Chapter 12.5 in Toole (2016)

Should I ask you to name what speaker Toole uses in his own home?

 

[Ron Texas]

Should I ask you to name what speaker Toole uses in his own home?

Was it the Salon 2?

 

[DonH56]

Should I ask you to name what speaker Toole uses in his own home?

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know! (But said I wouldn't post any more mud, so nevermind. He did try to talk me out of getting more of them and going with higher wall-mounted speakers for surrounds and rears instead, but I was stubborn.)

 

[Erik]

Should I ask you to name what speaker Toole uses in his own home?

"I chose this route for mainly visual reasons - in my unusual installation the inverted Salon2s (stands removed) stylishly integrate with the cabinetry and art. M2s are impeccable sonically, but are "professional" in appearance. It is nice to have a choice." - fetoole
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM&lc=UggmY7vLsXqgI3gCoAEC.8MMWSNpGESB8P8LNDSFPey

 

[Purité Audio]

Somewhere I read that 95% of SQ is baked in by the choice of microphones and their placement. Perhaps that is an exaggeration. However, the proponents of active speakers are, IMO, exaggerating their superiority over passive speakers. KR in his Stereophile review said his 802D3's were just as good as the Kii 3 when he used Dirac Live with the B&W's. I suspect many speakers could do that. He also noted that Direc Live made no improvement in the Kii 3's. There are other ways of fixing room problems both with treatments or other less automated approaches to room eq.

I am willing to say the Kii 3 and D&D 8c are breakthrough products and take active speakers up a level. Perhaps, in a few years there will be similar products from larger manufacturers who have a product line that goes beyond a single highly integrated item with the risk of turning into some broken thing for which there are no parts. My main objection is the proponents of these 2 systems are proclaiming the obsolescence of passive speakers prematurely.

For now, proponents of active speakers do have other sources, particularly in the pro-audio world.

No, the traditional manufacturers won’t ( can’t) make a speaker such as the Kii/D&D, they have too much invested in their current ranges.
It always takes young energetic companies with nothing to lose to bring real innovation.
Keith

 

[Ron Texas]

No, the traditional manufacturers won’t ( can’t) make a speaker such as the Kii/D&D, they have too much invested in their current ranges.
It always takes young energetic companies with nothing to lose to bring real innovation.
Keith

That is conjecture especially because several traditional speaker manufacturers already have active speakers designed for the pro market, but are finding their way into home settings. How about JBL, ATC, Genelec, Dynaudio, Focal and others. I am also surprised that someone in business would use the expression, "nothing to lose". There is also the outstanding KEF LS50W in a much lower price range. Martin Logan is making their subs more appliance like with built in room EQ.

 

[Purité Audio]

There are lots of pro audio loudspeaker manufacturers, ATC make essentiallythe same design as they started with, all of the others I can think of have a range, smallest, small medium etc, some are beginning to offer innovation, but there aren’t many ‘domestic’ manufacturers offering other than passive designs, which have to be re-imaginedevery few months by the marketing department.
As Serge said the other day they are in a race to be the last buggy whip manufacturer.
Keith

 

[Ron Texas]

There are lots of pro audio loudspeaker manufacturers, ATC make essentiallythe same design as they started with, all of the others I can think of have a range, smallest, small medium etc, some are beginning to offer innovation, but there aren’t many ‘domestic’ manufacturers offering other than passive designs, which have to be re-imaginedevery few months by the marketing department.
As Serge said the other day they are in a race to be the last buggy whip manufacturer.
Keith

I think you are drinking too much of your own Koolaid.