$30K Budget - On the quest for my "end game" speaker

[MKR]

Did not mean to be too crass earlier, or maybe I did, but why can't you name the brand of the speakers or the designer? It just feels like you are trying to toy with the audience here.

I committed to the designer to not disclose until after I have had some time with the speakers. I realize now I did not mention that in my previous post, my oversight, sorry about that.

 

[AudioJester]

You just can’t help it, can you? Last sentence not necessary. There is no toying. I have just been quiet for a bit and wanted to let folks know there were things happening in background. I have committed to the designer to not disclose until after I have had some time with the speakers. I am a person of my word, hopefully that doesn’t also bother you.

But why not just say that in your first post about the update? Everyone would respect that.

 

[MKR]

But why not just say that in your first post about the update? Everyone would respect that.

That was my oversight, I thought I had done so (just looked at my post). Indeed I can see now the reason for the comment from @clevergirl

 

[Deleted member 57150]

That was my oversight, I thought I had done so (just looked at my post). Indeed I can see now the reason for the comment from @clevergirl

Appreciate you saying that. As someone who has a fair bit of experience with cardioid actives I am verrrry keen on seeing how you get on with them!

 

[MKR]

Something I never thought about until seriously considering actives … my preference is to use the digital input on the speaker, to avoid an extra AD conversion (if you would drive with analog preamp). So for those that have for example D&D 8C, Kii, etc, what is your setup and especially how are you handling digital volume control?

Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 57150]

Something I never thought about until seriously considering actives … my preference is to use the digital input on the speaker, to avoid an extra AD conversion (if you would drive with analog preamp). So for those that have for example D&D 8C, Kii, etc, what is your setup and especially how are you handling digital volume control?

Thanks!

I've used almost every brand of actives, in my home, digital and analogue. I am not a fan of the digital route. Ran the 8cs extensively.

For home use the interface is a PITA. Yes you can use it from every connected device, but then you need to have a dedicated internet router. If that is not working, or your wifi is gone, guess what doesnt work? The volume on your speakers. Then sometimes there is a delay, or your fingers slip and youve just redlined the amps for no reason. Kii, at the very least, does have a volume module. Even that has its drawbacks of needing to be hardwired with a knob. I am now back to the external DAC route. Can still find great cardioid actives.

Sorry for the longwinded response. Can you tell I really don't like digital yet? There is no protocol. I was hoping by now we could control audio equipment with our minds.

Forgot to mention that I also had PMC digital monitors that I ran through a usb to AES converter but there is no volume control on it. This is/was your best bet when running external volume control, but then why do that? Which brought me back to analogue. Ultimately it depends on your source. What will you be connecting these from?

Current set up is RME ADI to powered Geithain + subs...I never auditioned them in my home. I just did a fuck ton of research. They are the best thing I have heard to date.

Oops forgot to mention one thing about the D&D that was a big drawback for me. They are furniture cabinets. The oak looks better than pretty much anything. It's sleek and not MDF, however mine constantly creaked and cracked. One had to be swapped because of separation along the main joint. D&D in the manual states this and suggests humidity controlled environments. Wont have this with MDF or the Kii or Genelec for sure.

 

[benanders]

This is certainly one of the most thoughtful and well articulated posts I’ve read in some time. I’m a bit lost in what you’re trying to say though. Are you saying current measurements only tell a part of the story? And are therefore not scientific? I suppose it then comes to a debate on semantics, which seems to me, a waste of time. We are talking about audio equipment and not who wins a debate club argument in high school.

Are you suggesting that to determine whether something is scientific is merely to argue semantics, @DMill ? If so, it wouldn’t be opinion for me to tell you such a stance is in error.
Measurements as collected by and shown on ASR are data. How data are collected and used can constitute science, or not. Often on ASR, things skew to the “not science” camp.

I cannot answer for @benanders but I believe I agree and understand.

View attachment 286830

The hypothesis that ASR essential has set, though not explicitly stated, is that audibly transparent electronics sound the best. Or audibly transparent do not sound different. Along those same lines, it’s speakers that have high preference scores sound the best. Or better stated, high speaker preference scores sound the best to the greatest proportion of potential customers.

Thanks, @GXAlan . Yes. A common misconception is that “science proves…”. Science does not prove. Ever. By design it simply can’t. Science operates by testing hypotheses and either demonstrating disproof for, or showing a lack of support to refute, a given hypothesis. A scientific test will have at least two competing hypotheses. Anyone who doesn’t understand the basics of hypothesis testing cannot understand science, but never fear - the internet is a big place and can be your friend, even if ASR omits standardized tutorials on the matter and doesn’t clearly state much of what’s needed for a process to be scientific, in many of (any of? ) the reviews.

An important weakness is how it’s not been rigorously tested, whether “transparent electronics” or speaker “preference scores” hold up at large, as those studies have been quite limited in scope. This is probably why some engineers roll their eyes over spins, or at least over non-engineer “common folk” eyeballing such graphics trusting they can predict more complex parameters of speakers based on the information at hand.
Scientific methodology employed in engineering can be straightforward; in behavioral studies on humans it’s… a different kind of complicated. So before anyone grabs pitchforks and torches with eyes on my user account, please realize that claiming studies are limited or weak is not the same as claiming they’re worthless, especially if they constitute the best available distillation(s) of a given topic for the time being. But it’s important that inferences made from those studies’ extrapolations are hedged on the obvious relevant constraints; this is something I think is oft-lacking on ASR - the grain of salt disclaimer.

The measurements are essential but Amir is the only person doing the green and yellow boxes by adding the subjective and comparing to the objective. XPL90 and TuneTot are two speakers where it sounded better to Amir that the measurements predicted. We also get speakers like the KEF R3 which Amir didn’t love despite great measurements. It doesn’t change the hypothesis that high preference scores correlated to high proportion of preference and in fact, the outliers being so rare only strengthen the data supporting the hypothesis but the loop back to figuring out why those speakers are outliers isn’t part of ASR.

Yes again. Science is generally collaborative; rarely if ever a one man show. Lack of teamwork introduces more chance for error and eliminates peer input as part of the process. Also, sample sizes consistently of n = 1 can be problematic if (e.g.) settings, tolerances or QC on kit are off (e.g. ASR’s Wavelet “review” ), and are inherently flawed if trying to extrapolate a broad generality from, say, one model. Sample size of 1 for listening impressions is scientifically inapplicable: if not part of a larger data set, it gets you uncontrolled bias, etc.

Now, if a speaker doesn’t measure well but gets a high preference score, then it does refute a hypothesis of poor measurements = poor sound. The converse (Ha: good measurements = good sound) will also be rejected if a speaker measures well but gets a low preference score. Outliers can be paradigm-killers, depending on the hypotheses being tested. What that’s (likely) telling us is that some aspect of speaker performance that we aren’t / cannot presently assess, perhaps complex interaction effect(s) of > 1 property, is / are responsible for a significant portion of the variance in preference scores.
This is why a study needs to be statistically robust: without testing the correct parameters on a large enough portion of the target “population,” it remains problematic if not impossible to meaningfully demonstrate anything more than correlation. That in turn beckons the phrase “correlation does not imply causation,” and then you’re back at the top of the scientific process flow chart. Try again.

Along the same lines, for electronics, the blind testing of straightwire with gain versus the 22 dB SINAD tube amp, largely tells us that electronics likely sound more alike than different. What is not well addressed are things like crosstalk, response into speaker loads, etc.

Agreed. Sadly there’s no uniform property of the universe that cedes every electrical and / or mechanical aspect of human-engineered products to be tested with equal rigor and precision at the same point in time. What an inconvenience!

The elephant in this room is how little commercial hifi design vs. full-fledged behavioral (consumer preference) studies have been integrated; those fields are somewhat non-overlapping and I’m guessing funding for such collaborations from NIH, NSF and surely smaller sources must be in short supply.

To loop this gyre back into the thread, when those trial speakers arrive @MKR , listen to them without subwoofers first. Doing the opposite will not be an optimal approach, scientifically-speaking.
Alright fellas - I’m off - late for debate class again…

Edit: corrected opposite Ha: terms I’d inadvertently reversed. People without dyslexia are people who have dyslexic moments.

 

[MKR]

Are you suggesting that to determine whether something is scientific is merely to argue semantics, @DMill ? If so, it wouldn’t be opinion for me to tell you such a stance is in error.
Measurements as collected by and shown on ASR are data. How data are collected and used can constitute science, or not. Often on ASR, things skew to the “not science” camp.



Thanks, @GXAlan . Yes. A common misconception is that “science proves…”. Science does not prove. Ever. By design it simply can’t. Science operates by testing hypotheses and either demonstrating disproof for, or showing a lack of support to refute, a given hypothesis. A scientific test will have at least two competing hypotheses. Anyone who doesn’t understand the basics of hypothesis testing cannot understand science, but never fear - the internet is a big place and can be your friend, even if ASR omits standardized tutorials on the matter and doesn’t clearly state much of what’s needed for a process to be scientific, in many of (any of? ) the reviews.

An important weakness is how it’s not been rigorously tested, whether “transparent electronics” or speaker “preference scores” hold up at large, as those studies have been quite limited in scope. This is probably why some engineers roll their eyes over spins, or at least over non-engineer “common folk” eyeballing such graphics trusting they can predict more complex parameters of speakers based on the information at hand.
Scientific methodology employed in engineering can be straightforward; in behavioral studies on humans it’s… a different kind of complicated. So before anyone grabs pitchforks and torches with eyes on my user account, please realize that claiming studies are limited or weak is not the same as claiming they’re worthless, especially if they constitute the best available distillation(s) of a given topic for the time being. But it’s important that inferences made from those studies’ extrapolations are hedged on the obvious relevant constraints; this is something I think is oft-lacking on ASR - the grain of salt disclaimer.



Yes again. Science is generally collaborative; rarely if ever a one man show. Lack of teamwork introduces more chance for error and eliminates peer input as part of the process. Also, sample sizes consistently of n = 1 can be problematic if (e.g.) settings, tolerances or QC on kit are off (e.g. ASR’s Wavelet “review” ), and are inherently flawed if trying to extrapolate a broad generality from, say, one model. Sample size of 1 for listening impressions is scientifically inapplicable: if not part of a larger data set, it gets you uncontrolled bias, etc.

Now, if a speaker doesn’t measure well but gets a high preference score, then it does refute a hypothesis of good measurements = good sound. The converse (Ha: poor measurements = poor sound) would also be true. Outliers can be paradigm-killers, depending on the hypotheses being tested. What that’s (likely) telling us is that some aspect of speaker performance that we aren’t / cannot presently assess, perhaps complex interaction effect(s) of > 1 property, is / are responsible for a significant portion of the variance in preference scores.
This is why a study needs to be statistically robust: without testing the correct parameters on a large enough portion of the target “population,” it remains problematic if not impossible to meaningfully demonstrate anything more than correlation. That in turn beckons the phrase “correlation does not imply causation,” and then you’re back at the top of the scientific process flow chart. Try again.



Agreed. Sadly there’s no uniform property of the universe that cedes every electrical and / or mechanical aspect of human-engineered products to be tested with equal rigor and precision at the same point in time. What an inconvenience!

The elephant in this room is how little commercial hifi design vs. full-fledged behavioral (consumer preference) studies have been integrated; those fields are somewhat non-overlapping and I’m guessing funding for such collaborations from NIH, NSF and surely smaller sources must be in short supply.

To loop this gyre back into the thread, when those trial speakers arrive @MKR , listen to them without subwoofers first. Doing the opposite will not be an optimal approach, scientifically-speaking.
Alright fellas - I’m off - late for debate class again…

That’s easy… I have no subwoofers

 

[GXAlan]

A common misconception is that “science proves…”. Science does not prove. Ever. By design it simply can’t.

I acknowledge from the purist standpoint but disagree from the intent of this type of argument in this thread.

Science cannot prove that if I walk into a wall, I will collide with it. That is because there is a quantum state that will allow you to do this. “Science cannot prove that I won’t walk through the wall the next time I try…”. But in reality, the probability that this will happen is 1 over a number that is greater than the entire age of the universe.

Science has proved that Newtonian physics is wrong but for the most part, you don’t need to consider Relativity on land and Newtonian physics is good enough.

Along those same lines. HUNDREDS of speakers have been tested, but the ones that deviate from the preference score’s prediction are ones that I know off the top of my head. So maybe 3 speakers, and I would add the Bose 901 to make 4.

I love figuring out why we have these outliers, but I am cautious to make sure people know that even though the preference score isn’t right all the time, it’s still one of the best tools that exists.

 

[benanders]

Oh yeah it is. In fact when I first demoed 8351 it was 15 foot triangle. The image is unbelievable. So solid. It blew my mind.

My problem is my hunger for SPL.

This makes me wonder if you’re using SPL as a surrogate for something else actually desired. Some other tactile element from your speakers? The image blows your mind - good, but 111 dB will blow your ears - bad (IMO).

 

[benanders]

I acknowledge from the purist standpoint but disagree from the intent of this type of argument in this thread.

I’d probably hold there’s not a purist vs. non-purist approach in science. I don’t see argument here, really.

Science cannot prove that if I walk into a wall, I will collide with it. That is because there is a quantum state that will allow you to do this. “Science cannot prove that I won’t walk through the wall the next time I try…”. But in reality, the probability that this will happen is 1 over a number that is greater than the entire age of the universe.

Correct, because again that’s not how science works. Your null (= no difference exists) hypothesis would be the expectation to walk unimpeded by a wall, and you could reject that null after one brisk walk into said wall. The outcome supports an alternate (= difference exists) hypothesis in which presence of a wall (1) increases or (2) decreases your ability to walk unimpeded. Although few trials will generally be tolerated by any one person before he/she rejects both the null hypothesis and the (1)st alternate hypothesis, the results’ undeniable inability to prove the (2)nd alternate hypothesis and thus the effect of that wall on walking goes back to at least Ancient Greece.

The relevance of my comments is in how evidential support built through hypothesis testing aims to reflect theory, and for something to be theoretically sound (pun! ), we should comprehend causation, not just correlation. Speaker preference models are correlative, so they’re not theoretical, not yet. So I’d say that’s an important discrepancy, technically. But how important that bit is deemed to be relative to anyone buying speakers, well, that’s fortunately opinion!

Science has proved that Newtonian physics is wrong but for the most part, you don’t need to consider Relativity on land and Newtonian physics is good enough.
Along those same lines. HUNDREDS of speakers have been tested, but the ones that deviate from the preference score’s prediction are ones that I know off the top of my head. So maybe 3 speakers, and I would add the Bose 901 to make 4.
I love figuring out why we have these outliers, but I am cautious to make sure people know that even though the preference score isn’t right all the time, it’s still one of the best tools that exists.

“Proving” that something is wrong = disproof. Again, it’s not semantics to point out this is crucial to how hypothesis-testing works and, over the course of building evidence (or failing to do so), can ultimately support theoretical framework(s).

But in the absence of causation, well, correlation can be cool, too…
Hence my stance that just because an approach is limited in what it can help us infer, it should not = throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Ilkless]

Well, you can rest easy then, it’s not Legacy

Now, that's exciting! Doesn't sound like any of the known suspects from Sigberg, DD, Kii, Geithain, GGNTKT or Mesanovic.

My guess is Ex Machina,

 

[MKR]

I've used almost every brand of actives, in my home, digital and analogue. I am not a fan of the digital route. Ran the 8cs extensively.

For home use the interface is a PITA. Yes you can use it from every connected device, but then you need to have a dedicated internet router. If that is not working, or your wifi is gone, guess what doesnt work? The volume on your speakers. Then sometimes there is a delay, or your fingers slip and youve just redlined the amps for no reason. Kii, at the very least, does have a volume module. Even that has its drawbacks of needing to be hardwired with a knob. I am now back to the external DAC route. Can still find great cardioid actives.

Sorry for the longwinded response. Can you tell I really don't like digital yet? There is no protocol. I was hoping by now we could control audio equipment with our minds.

Forgot to mention that I also had PMC digital monitors that I ran through a usb to AES converter but there is no volume control on it. This is/was your best bet when running external volume control, but then why do that? Which brought me back to analogue. Ultimately it depends on your source. What will you be connecting these from?

Current set up is RME ADI to powered Geithain + subs...I never auditioned them in my home. I just did a fuck ton of research. They are the best thing I have heard to date.

Oops forgot to mention one thing about the D&D that was a big drawback for me. They are furniture cabinets. The oak looks better than pretty much anything. It's sleek and not MDF, however mine constantly creaked and cracked. One had to be swapped because of separation along the main joint. D&D in the manual states this and suggests humidity controlled environments. Wont have this with MDF or the Kii or Genelec for sure.

Thanks for the great feedback! It turns out the demos I will be getting are setup for analog in only, and can’t be changed, so won’t use digital. But, if I eventually go this route, was wondering how the heck to do digital volume control. As you have said, seems to be no easy solution. But, from another thread this was recommended …

SHD Studio

All-digital Roon Ready network player with Dirac Live® room correction, miniDSP audio toolbox for subwoofer integration and multiway speakers, Volumio music player, headphone output, 450MHz Sharc DSP processor

www.minidsp.com

Wouldn’t this work? I think this is effectively the capability you get with the RME?

As to the D&D cabinets, never heard of that being an issue before. Definitely that could be an issue for me, certainly I don’t live in a “humidity controlled environment“. Interesting they chose to use wood. I will have to ask Martijn about this.

Thanks again!

 

[MKR]

Now, that's exciting! Doesn't sound like any of the known suspects from Sigberg, DD, Kii, Geithain, GGNTKT or Mesanovic.

My guess is Ex Machina,

Nope. Didn’t mean to make this into a game show LOL

 

[Purité Audio]

I've used almost every brand of actives, in my home, digital and analogue. I am not a fan of the digital route. Ran the 8cs extensively.

For home use the interface is a PITA. Yes you can use it from every connected device, but then you need to have a dedicated internet router. If that is not working, or your wifi is gone, guess what doesnt work? The volume on your speakers. Then sometimes there is a delay, or your fingers slip and youve just redlined the amps for no reason. Kii, at the very least, does have a volume module. Even that has its drawbacks of needing to be hardwired with a knob. I am now back to the external DAC route. Can still find great cardioid actives.

Sorry for the longwinded response. Can you tell I really don't like digital yet? There is no protocol. I was hoping by now we could control audio equipment with our minds.

Forgot to mention that I also had PMC digital monitors that I ran through a usb to AES converter but there is no volume control on it. This is/was your best bet when running external volume control, but then why do that? Which brought me back to analogue. Ultimately it depends on your source. What will you be connecting these from?

Current set up is RME ADI to powered Geithain + subs...I never auditioned them in my home. I just did a fuck ton of research. They are the best thing I have heard to date.

Oops forgot to mention one thing about the D&D that was a big drawback for me. They are furniture cabinets. The oak looks better than pretty much anything. It's sleek and not MDF, however mine constantly creaked and cracked. One had to be swapped because of separation along the main joint. D&D in the manual states this and suggests humidity controlled environments. Wont have this with MDF or the Kii or Genelec for sure.

Well that isn’t quite right is it, firstly the XLR inputs of the 8Cs can be either digital or analogue, ‘analogue’ just like a traditional speaker one cable going to the left speaker, one to the right, if you choose ‘digital’ in then the cables are daisy chained, volume can be controlled by your RME if you had the ‘pro’ version you could send the 8Cs a digital signal and attenuate it.
The only times the 8Cs wouldn’t work ( if the internet is down) is when streaming from either Roon or Spotify connect directly.
I have had Geithains here the 944ks definitely not the best thing I have heard but not bad.
Keith

 

[BDWoody]

Something I never thought about until seriously considering actives … my preference is to use the digital input on the speaker, to avoid an extra AD conversion (if you would drive with analog preamp). So for those that have for example D&D 8C, Kii, etc, what is your setup and especially how are you handling digital volume control?

Thanks!

I had a *bad experience* when I had 5xJBL 705Ps (2x250w amps in each speaker) set up nearfield with AES connections and got a full signal white noise test signal after hitting the wrong button on my computer.

Hard to describe, but no interest in a repeat.

Direct digital connections give me the heebies...

 

[Purité Audio]

There aren’t that many devices that can output a digital signal and attenuate it, some streamers, Before the 8Cs became ‘roon ready’ I used an RME ‘pro’.
Now I just plug them into the local network and stream Roon to them directly, Roon’s attenuation is linked to the 8Cs ascend app, but once you have set the speakers parameters,
boundary, triangle, EQ filters tone etc you never need to open the app again.
Keith

 

[srrxr71]

This makes me wonder if you’re using SPL as a surrogate for something else actually desired. Some other tactile element from your speakers? The image blows your mind - good, but 111 dB will blow your ears - bad (IMO).

There is only one tactile image and it’s right in front.

 

[napfkuchen]

I had a *bad experience* when I had 5xJBL 705Ps (2x250w amps in each speaker) set up nearfield with AES connections and got a full signal white noise test signal after hitting the wrong button on my computer.

Hard to describe, but no interest in a repeat.

Had the "0 dB experience" once and was able to switch off everything quickly because I had installed several power switches underneath my desk (for computer/audio/docking-station). Even with a fraction of the amplifier power it was a shocking experience for me. Immediately afterwards I set the maximum level restriction in the speakers to -30 dB. This should be a mandatory feature for all active speakers, especially with digital input.

 

[Laserjock]

Has anyone heard or seen measurements of the Amphion Krypton3X ? (~ $12k ea.)