Active is better sounding than passive

[Tangband]

Here is an interesting reading about making a Yamaha ns1000M active , with much better sound quality than the original, passive speaker.

[Review] Active Yamaha NS1000M by Chevron Audio

How to transform the Yamaha NS1000M into active loudspeakers, article on TNT-Audio by Mark Wheeler, www.tnt-audio.com

www.tnt-audio.com

 

[Tangband]

Interesting article about the difference between active and passive loudspeakers .

active loudspeakers [english]

www.tnt-audio.com

active loudspeakers [english]

www.tnt-audio.com

 

[dualazmak]

So far, from the start of this thread on last Sunday August 14, I have been a read-only member here in this thread, and I have been carefully reading and enjoying various discussions still going on.

Now, I assume it would be suitable timing for me to briefly participate as follows...

Here is an interesting reading about making a Yamaha ns1000M active , with much better sound quality than the original, passive speaker.

Yes! I did almost the same with my Yamaha NS-1000 (not NS-1000M), and reached the same results of "much better sound quality than the original, passive speaker"; now in my project, using full DSP(XO/EQ/Delay) control by "EKIO" in upstream Windows PC feeding XO-ed multichannel digital signals into multi-channel DAC OKTO DAC8PRO by USB ASIO drivers (only one USB 2.0 cable).

We need to very carefully and intensively consider and implement, however, various critical issues and features towards the goal of fully active DSP based multichannel multi-amplifier audio system...

I actually went through long (for almost 3-year) and intensive step-by-step "mountain climbing" to the summit of my multichannel multi-driver multi-way (10-Ch 5-Way) multi-amplifier fully active stereo project started from the foot village of fully passive system, using exactly all the way the same unchanged SP drivers;
- L&R sub-woofers: big and heavy Yamaha YST-SW-1000,
- woofers, Be-midrange domes, Be-tweeters: of Yamaha NS-1000 in its rigid and heavy sealed cabinet,
- metal-horn-super-tweeters (Fostex T925A)

You can find my latest fully active system setup here on my project thread.
You would also please find the Hyperlink Index for my long and intensive project thread here and here.

I really think that the ultimate system is a set of discrete component with DSP based EQ and crossovers.
Speakers with no passive crossovers just binding posts for each driver
Amplifiers
DACs
DSP
Audio source
That way if anything fails you just drop in a replacement and each part can be optimised for it's function.

I fully agree with @Razorhelm; I exactly did it throughout my long and intensive project.

With a dsp crossover in an active DIY dsp setup - you can make the sound as colored or enjoyable to the ear as you want . One can also use class D for bass and midrange and a valve or class A amplifier for the tweeter, if you want.

Exactly!! I actually had long and intensive amplifier exploration journey in my project, and you can find the summary of my amplifier exploration here on my project thread.
I wrote there;
(Almost) all of the home-use Hi-Fi amplifiers, I mean integrated amps and power amps, are designed for full range operation, i.e. to cover ca. 20 Hz - 30 kHz. This means that we should be very much careful in evaluating and selecting each amplifier to directly and dedicatedly drive each of the SP drivers, in my case woofers (WO), Be-squawkers (Be-SQ), Be-tweeters (Be-TW) and horn super tweeters (ST). These BE-SQ, Be-TW and ST are highly efficient in response to amp's power input.
and;
Furthermore, throughout my amplifier exploration, I well experienced and learnt that we should never exclude high quality Hi-Fi "integrated amplifiers" to be possibly implemented in this type of multichannel multi-amplifier project. In my case, one of the important "must" conditions (specifications) is that the amplifier should be capable of XLR balanced input from OKTO DAC8PRO.

Even Greg Timbers uses "reasonable and budget" Pioneer Elite A-20 for compression drivers (super tweeters) in his extraordinary expensive multichannel stereo system with JBL Everest DD67000 which he himself designed and developed, as I shared here.


Let me emphasize here again that the precision (0.1 msec precision) time alignment between all the SP drivers, including sub-woofers and super-tweeters, is really amazing pros/merit of fully DSP (XO/EQ/delay) controlled fully active system, as I wrote;
- Perfect (0.1 msec precision) time alignment of all the SP drivers greatly contributes to amazing disappearance of SPs, tightness and cleanliness of the sound, and superior 3D sound stage: #520
As I summarized there, I could establish my own fully validated simple reliable reproducible precision measurement/adjustment methods for time alignment in my project.
In case if you would be seriously interested, I will be happy to share with you all the test tone (tone burst wavelet) signals which I prepared for these unique precision time alignment measurement/adjustment.

We can, and we should, intensively measure and control Fq responses in various digital and analog stages in our multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier active system and in actual room air sound at our listening position using measurement microphone, as I summarized in my post here.

Prior to make our first climbing step towards multichannel multi-amplifier active system, I do believe that we should establish our concrete and best "single amp passive reference audio system" to which we can roll back anytime during our climbing project towards the summit of fully active system.

Just for example, in my multichannel project the single amp passive setup of;
JRiver (all in DSDx2) --> ASIO USB driver --> OPPO SONICA DAC (or OKTO DAC8PRO as two channel DAC) --> ACCUPHASE E-460 --> LCR passive network in outer box --> all the SP drivers
has been my "reference sound system" all the way through my project thread.
I still keep, therefore, the above reference sound setup to which I can roll back my entire system very easily even at present, within 10 minutes, by using the outer LCR network box (#250) and the SP cabling/switching board ( #004, #137, #250).

We need to go up step-by-step, I believe. You should not change multiple parameters at once; if you would change multiple parameters at once, then you would easily get into confusion since sometimes pros and cons would cancel-out with each other to give the pseud result of no improvement at all.

As Keith of Purité Audio kindly wrote here, "You must hear equipment in your own room in your own system, compare unsighted (close your eyes) if there isn’t an immediately apparent difference/improvement. To go further, if there isn’t a significant improvement then don’t change anything, the largest gains are speakers and room."

I summarized and shared my DIY multichannel project policy in my post here including the above points as well as in my post #30, post #332 and post #341 on my project thread.

 

[Tangband]

So far, from the start of this thread on last Sunday August 14, I have been a read-only member here in this thread, and I have been carefully reading and enjoying various discussions still going on.

Now, I assume it would be suitable timing for me to briefly participate as follows...


Yes! I did almost the same with my Yamaha NS-1000 (not NS-1000M), and reached the same results of "much better sound quality than the original, passive speaker"; now in my project, using full DSP(XO/EQ/Delay) control by "EKIO" in upstream Windows PC feeding XO-ed multichannel digital signals into multi-channel DAC OKTO DAC8PRO by USB ASIO drivers (only one USB 2.0 cable).

We need to very carefully and intensively consider and implement, however, various critical issues and features towards the goal of fully active DSP based multichannel multi-amplifier audio system...

I actually went through long (for almost 3-year) and intensive step-by-step "mountain climbing" to the summit of my multichannel multi-driver multi-way (10-Ch 5-Way) multi-amplifier fully active stereo project started from the foot village of fully passive system, using exactly all the way the same non-changed SP drivers;
- L&R sub-woofers: big and heavy Yamaha YST-SW-1000],
- woofers, Be-midrange domes, Be-tweeters: of Yamaha NS-1000 in its rigid and heavy sealed cabinet,
- metal-horn-super-tweeters (Fostex T925A)

You can find my latest fully active system setup here on my project thread.
You would also please find the Hyperlink Index for my long and intensive project thread here and here.


I fully agree with @Razorhelm; I exactly did it throughout my long and intensive project.


Exactly!! I actually had long and intensive amplifier exploration journey in my project, and you can find the summary of my amplifier exploration here on my project thread.
I wrote there;
(Almost) all of the home-use Hi-Fi amplifiers, I mean integrated amps and power amps, are designed for full range operation, i.e. to cover ca. 20 Hz - 30 kHz. This means that we should be very much careful in evaluating and selecting each amplifier to directly and dedicatedly drive each of the SP drivers, in my case woofers (WO), Be-squawkers (Be-SQ), Be-tweeters (Be-TW) and horn super tweeters (ST). These BE-SQ, Be-TW and ST are highly efficient in response to amp's power input.
and;
Furthermore, throughout my amplifier exploration, I well experienced and learnt that we should never exclude high quality Hi-Fi "integrated amplifiers" to be possibly implemented in this type of multichannel multi-amplifier project. In my case, one of the important "must" conditions (specifications) is that the amplifier should be capable of XLR balanced input from OKTO DAC8PRO.

Even Greg Timbers uses "reasonable and budget" Pioneer Elite A-20 for compression drivers (super tweeters) in his extraordinary expensive multichannel stereo system with JBL Everest DD67000 which he himself designed and developed, as I shared here.


Let me emphasize here again that the precision (0.1 msec precision) time alignment between all the SP drivers, including sub-woofers and super-tweeters, is really amazing pros/merit of fully DSP (XO/EQ/delay) controlled ully active system, as I wrote;
- Perfect (0.1 msec precision) time alignment of all the SP drivers greatly contributes to amazing disappearance of SPs, tightness and cleanliness of the sound, and superior 3D sound stage: #520
As I summarized there, I could establish my own fully validated simple reliable reproducible precision measurement/adjustment methods for time alignment in my project.
In case if you would be seriously interested, I will be happy to share with you all the test tone (tone burst wavelet) signals which I prepared for these unique precision time alignment measurement/adjustment.

We can, and we should, intensively measure and control Fq responses in various digital and analog stages in our multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier active system and in actual room air sound at our listening position using measurement microphone, as I summarized in my post here.

Prior to make our first climbing step towards multichannel multi-amplifier active system, I do believe that we should establish our concrete and best "single amp passive reference audio system" to which we can roll back anytime during our climbing project towards the summit of fully active system.

Just for example, in my multichannel project the single amp passive setup of;
JRiver (all in DSDx2) --> ASIO USB driver --> OPPO SONICA DAC (or OKTO DAC8PRO as two channel DAC) --> ACCUPHASE E-460 --> LCR passive network in outer box --> all the SP drivers
has been my "reference sound system" all the way through my project thread.
I still keep, therefore, the above reference sound setup to which I can roll back my entire system very easily even at present, within 10 minutes, by using the outer LCR network box (#250) and the SP cabling/switching board ( #004, #137, #250).

We need to go up step-by-step, I believe. You should not change multiple parameters at once; if you would change multiple parameters at once, then you would easily get into confusion since sometimes pros and cons would cancel-out with each other to give the pseud result of no improvement at all.

As Keith of Purité Audio kindly wrote here, "You must hear equipment in your own room in your own system, compare unsighted (close your eyes) if there isn’t an immediately apparent difference/improvement. To go further, if there isn’t a significant improvement then don’t change anything, the largest gains are speakers and room."

I summarized and shared my DIY multichannel project policy in my post here including the above points as well as in my post #30, post #332 and post #341 on my project thread.

Nice to read about this .
Yes , optimisation of an active system can take years to be perfect, especially If everything is done from the beginning.
One way to do it is to have a reference in form of a really good speaker to compare with . And ofcourse measurement gear.

 

[Matthias McCready]

But the big problem with digital is that there is no standardisation in protocols and many protocols are closed propriate to a brand or need an expensive licence. There are to many and they keep chaning. The same with the needed soft and hardware parts, they are changing to fast to keep a product working right for a reasonable time and repair parts (for the hardware) like the semiconductors are or unobtaineble or very hard and expensive to get. Software is also getting obsolete very fast and need constant upgrading.

I would completely disagree with this.

Professional audio almost exclusively uses Digital Protocols now, the vast majority of live shows run digital, and more and more large studios are recording utilizing digital I/O systems.

There are many standards: AES, AVB, Dante, and Madi to name a few of the most common ones.

AES has zero cost of entry: You buy equipment that has I/O and plug it in, and done, granted you only get 2-channels per cable, but it is digital, and I believe it has been around since the 1980's and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon.

For Dante you spend $40 for software, and your computer becomes a 64/64 Dante interface over ethernet, done.

Most of the other protocols are expensive, but if your hardware has them, they simply work, done. So beyond the cost of entry there is minimal fuss.

RME manufacturers devices that work with all of the major protocols, their equipment is rock solid and I use it in critical applications, I have never had one of their devices fail.

An other problem is the complexity of a digital system, to many boxes and cables are needed for the average music lover. They just want a source, an integrated amp and a set of speakers, with the less cables needed, the better. And they want it to work for decades. Passive can do that, active not yet (or at lest did not proof itself on this).

My current mixing setup is digital, the wiring for the whole setup is:

1) A usb cable into an AES adapter, which then goes into one speaker.
2) An AES cable which goes out of that speaker and into the other speaker.

Done. No fuss with CD Transport, Dac, Preamp. No separate Amp. Quite literally including power cables this is a 4-5 cable setup. I have never had any other 2.2 setup that is this few cables.

When I want music, I plug in the usb cable, I can even do it with the speakers powered on, with no pop since it is over AES.

----

I would also point out that I have noticed computers and technology are getting more reliable. When cars first had computers in them, they were quite glitchy and had lots of problems, slow touch screens that didn't work half of the time. With each newer generation of vehicles the computers are more integrated and seem to have fewer problems. Yes, computer hardware is still getting smaller and getting better every year, but we are hitting a place of processing power, that it is more than enough to do simple tasks.

Think of a Mac Mini, relatively it is a standard size and has been, yet it is MUCH more powerful than when it was first released. At some point I would guess that connections and sizes will standardize even more, even though what is under the hood is getting better and better; indeed there is already quite a bit of standardization.

To be fair to the advancement and standardization of digital connections and computers it took a long time to standardize what type of cabling to use for electricity and analog audio as well.

 

[gnarly]

1 Genelecs.
2 A flat on axis response, even, wide dispersion, active subwoofers, room correction.

Thanks for answering my questions.

It sounds like you haven't had comparisons of the same speaker setup up passive vs active.
That your comparisons may be different speakers, after they have been tuned in the room with an external EQ or room correction.
Correct so far?

Among the items in 2,
i think 'even, wide dispersion, active subwoofers, and room correction' don't provide any experience at hearing differences in passive vs active. Or making judgements.
Those are either acoustic properties (dispersion), bass augmentation, or room properties/room correction decisions.

On-axis tuning could allow hearing active vs passive...IF you were comparing your Genelecs with passive xovers substituted into them.
Or if you substituted actives in any other passive speaker you may have.

Thinking that EQ can be used both with passive and active speakers, to make them sound the same, is a mistake ime.

I've tried to explain in several posts that there is a fundamental difference in global EQ that spans an entire speaker, and individual driver EQs that are made prior to crossovers.

In theory, a super complex passive might achieve the same individual driver EQs as active....but in reality, the idea of such is a joke.
It's a joke for just trying to match the magnitude of frequency response, and it becomes an absurd joke if time and phase alignment are also including in the matching attempt.

In my mind, the only fair way to compare active vs passive, to reduce variables down to just that, is rather obviously compare the same speaker setup both ways.

here's an example of one i did when i first started exploring this comparison about 5 years ago.
It's a JTR speaker, the 3TX, which uses a coaxial compression driver, and two 10" cones.
So it has a 3-way passive xover. It's designed for use with a sub, and to be high passed at 80-100Hz.

Here is the response of the JTR's passive setup. Measurement taken outdoors with no smoothing.
Not bad at all, especially for no smoothing.

Here is the passive replaced with 3-way active. again outdoors, no smoothing.....same conditions as passive.
This active implementation did not use individual driver EQs before the xovers. It did use xovers that approximate linear phase LR 24 dB/oct, and it used EQs applie globally to the entire speaker.
Note the phase curve difference is perhaps the major change.

Ok, here is an active setup where individual drivers were EQ'ed prior to the addition of linear phase xovers, using a FIR processor. Again, no smoothing, same measurement conditions.
This kind of precision is only available in an active, with individual driver EQs preceding xover implementation........imo/ime.

 

[DanielT]

active make the detail gone

Are you trolling or are you serious now?

 

[Thomas_A]

Thanks for answering my questions.

It sounds like you haven't had comparisons of the same speaker setup up passive vs active.
That your comparisons may be different speakers, after they have been tuned in the room with an external EQ or room correction.
Correct so far?

Among the items in 2,
i think 'even, wide dispersion, active subwoofers, and room correction' don't provide any experience at hearing differences in passive vs active. Or making judgements.
Those are either acoustic properties (dispersion), bass augmentation, or room properties/room correction decisions.

On-axis tuning could allow hearing active vs passive...IF you were comparing your Genelecs with passive xovers substituted into them.
Or if you substituted actives in any other passive speaker you may have.

Thinking that EQ can be used both with passive and active speakers, to make them sound the same, is a mistake ime.

I've tried to explain in several posts that there is a fundamental difference in global EQ that spans an entire speaker, and individual driver EQs that are made prior to crossovers.

In theory, a super complex passive might achieve the same individual driver EQs as active....but in reality, the idea of such is a joke.
It's a joke for just trying to match the magnitude of frequency response, and it becomes an absurd joke if time and phase alignment are also including in the matching attempt.

In my mind, the only fair way to compare active vs passive, to reduce variables down to just that, is rather obviously compare the same speaker setup both ways.

here's an example of one i did when i first started exploring this comparison about 5 years ago.
It's a JTR speaker, the 3TX, which uses a coaxial compression driver, and two 10" cones.
So it has a 3-way passive xover. It's designed for use with a sub, and to be high passed at 80-100Hz.

Here is the response of the JTR's passive setup. Measurement taken outdoors with no smoothing.
Not bad at all, especially for no smoothing.
View attachment 224902





Here is the passive replaced with 3-way active. again outdoors, no smoothing.....same conditions as passive.
This active implementation did not use individual driver EQs before the xovers. It did use xovers that approximate linear phase LR 24 dB/oct, and it used EQs applie globally to the entire speaker.
Note the phase curve difference is perhaps the major change.
View attachment 224903






Ok, here is an active setup where individual drivers were EQ'ed prior to the addition of linear phase xovers, using a FIR processor. Again, no smoothing, same measurement conditions.
This kind of precision is only available in an active, with individual driver EQs preceding xover implementation........imo/ime.

View attachment 224904

Again,

The key question is whether a good passive such as the DXT-MON will be differenent to an active dito or the LS50 meta active vs. passive after EQ to make them identical on-axis in a proper blind test.

 

[RammisFrammis]

Active crossovers are unquestionably the best way to go whether they are as DSP in a powered speaker or as in my own case external active electronic crossovers driving the speaker drivers directly. Just the ability to perform easy adjustments to frequency response justifies them over the much more rigid passive variety built into a speaker. Also, there's the flexibility of amplifier choice for the individual drivers which can make a difference.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Thanks for answering my questions.

It sounds like you haven't had comparisons of the same speaker setup up passive vs active.
That your comparisons may be different speakers, after they have been tuned in the room with an external EQ or room correction.
Correct so far?

Among the items in 2,
i think 'even, wide dispersion, active subwoofers, and room correction' don't provide any experience at hearing differences in passive vs active. Or making judgements.
Those are either acoustic properties (dispersion), bass augmentation, or room properties/room correction decisions.

On-axis tuning could allow hearing active vs passive...IF you were comparing your Genelecs with passive xovers substituted into them.
Or if you substituted actives in any other passive speaker you may have.

Thinking that EQ can be used both with passive and active speakers, to make them sound the same, is a mistake ime.

I've tried to explain in several posts that there is a fundamental difference in global EQ that spans an entire speaker, and individual driver EQs that are made prior to crossovers.

In theory, a super complex passive might achieve the same individual driver EQs as active....but in reality, the idea of such is a joke.
It's a joke for just trying to match the magnitude of frequency response, and it becomes an absurd joke if time and phase alignment are also including in the matching attempt.

In my mind, the only fair way to compare active vs passive, to reduce variables down to just that, is rather obviously compare the same speaker setup both ways.

here's an example of one i did when i first started exploring this comparison about 5 years ago.
It's a JTR speaker, the 3TX, which uses a coaxial compression driver, and two 10" cones.
So it has a 3-way passive xover. It's designed for use with a sub, and to be high passed at 80-100Hz.

Here is the response of the JTR's passive setup. Measurement taken outdoors with no smoothing.
Not bad at all, especially for no smoothing.
View attachment 224902





Here is the passive replaced with 3-way active. again outdoors, no smoothing.....same conditions as passive.
This active implementation did not use individual driver EQs before the xovers. It did use xovers that approximate linear phase LR 24 dB/oct, and it used EQs applie globally to the entire speaker.
Note the phase curve difference is perhaps the major change.
View attachment 224903






Ok, here is an active setup where individual drivers were EQ'ed prior to the addition of linear phase xovers, using a FIR processor. Again, no smoothing, same measurement conditions.
This kind of precision is only available in an active, with individual driver EQs preceding xover implementation........imo/ime.

View attachment 224904

Thank you! I have been watching this thread as I am at the start of re-cabineting and eventually converting my speakers to active and wanted to get a sense of HOW much better active would be. Your post is enormously helpful for that!

 

[nc535]

Again,

The key question is whether a good passive such as the DXT-MON will be differenent to an active dito or the LS50 meta active vs. passive after EQ to make them identical on-axis in a proper blind test.

that is a good key question. Does equalization on axis overcome passive's disadvantages? Wait a minute, doesn't that make it active?

Try implementing a passive equalizer and then try to match Kii-3's +/- .5 db spec on any passive speaker of your choice. I'm not saying it can't be or that you can't do it; just that it would be silly to try when active is so easy. And then if you manage to do so on axis of a multi-way, see how well it does around crossover off axis.

 

[RammisFrammis]

Thank you! I have been watching this thread as I am at the start of re-cabineting and eventually converting my speakers to active and wanted to get a sense of HOW much better active would be. Your post is enormously helpful for that!

From my standpoint an active crossover doesn't sound much different than a passive one per se. The substantial difference is the ability with an active crossover to make easy and targeted tweaks in frequency response, LF/HF levels, and the ability to tailor the partnering amplifier's power to the drivers needs such as higher power for the woofer and lower power for the tweeter. I don't know how loud you listen but at high listening levels clipping on the woofer won't make any impact on the tweeter at all and the tweeter is protected from damage from clipping of the woofer. Active is a much more flexible system and I think it is worth it just because of that.

 

[Thomas_A]

that is a good key question. Does equalization on axis overcome passive's disadvantages? Wait a minute, doesn't that make it active?

Try implementing a passive equalizer and then try to match Kii-3's +/- .5 db spec on any passive speaker of your choice. I'm not saying it can't be or that you can't do it; just that it would be silly to try when active is so easy. And then if you manage to do so on axis of a multi-way, see how well it does around crossover off axis.

Nope, EQ does not make a speaker active. Active means each driver has its own amplifier using a line-level crossover. Amplifiers can also be integrated in driver output and use feedback to the amp to correct for nonlinearities of the driver.

 

[IPunchCholla]

From my standpoint an active crossover doesn't sound much different than a passive one per se. The substantial difference is the ability with an active crossover to make easy and targeted tweaks in frequency response, LF/HF levels, and the ability to tailor the partnering amplifier's power to the drivers needs such as higher power for the woofer and lower power for the tweeter. I don't know how loud you listen but at high listening levels clipping on the woofer won't make any impact on the tweeter at all and the tweeter is protected from damage from clipping of the woofer. Active is a much more flexible system and I think it is worth it just because of that.

Good info. I just really appreciate the graphs as it tells me I most likely WON’T be able to hear a difference without A/Bing them side by side, which of course I won’t be able to do.

I built custom passive crossovers that made up to 6dB changes in the frequency response, and couldn’t tell by ear they made any difference. I did get about 7db more headroom in my DSP (ARC by IK Mulimedia) and that it certainly noticeable.

But I’m not doing this for improved sound quality (though that would be nice) but to learn about various aspects of sound reproduction while teaching myself CAM simultaneously.

 

[Waxx]

Professional audio almost exclusively uses Digital Protocols now, the vast majority of live shows run digital, and more and more large studios are recording utilizing digital I/O systems.

There are many standards: AES, AVB, Dante, and Madi to name a few of the most common ones.

AES has zero cost of entry: You buy equipment that has I/O and plug it in, and done, granted you only get 2-channels per cable, but it is digital, and I believe it has been around since the 1980's and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon.

For Dante you spend $40 for software, and your computer becomes a 64/64 Dante interface over ethernet, done.

Most of the other protocols are expensive, but if your hardware has them, they simply work, done. So beyond the cost of entry there is minimal fuss.

RME manufacturers devices that work with all of the major protocols, their equipment is rock solid and I use it in critical applications, I have never had one of their devices fail.

My current mixing setup is digital, the wiring for the whole setup is:

1) A usb cable into an AES adapter, which then goes into one speaker.
2) An AES cable which goes out of that speaker and into the other speaker.

Done. No fuss with CD Transport, Dac, Preamp. No separate Amp. Quite literally including power cables this is a 4-5 cable setup. I have never had any other 2.2 setup that is this few cables.

When I want music, I plug in the usb cable, I can even do it with the speakers powered on, with no pop since it is over AES.

----

I would also point out that I have noticed computers and technology are getting more reliable. When cars first had computers in them, they were quite glitchy and had lots of problems, slow touch screens that didn't work half of the time. With each newer generation of vehicles the computers are more integrated and seem to have fewer problems. Yes, computer hardware is still getting smaller and getting better every year, but we are hitting a place of processing power, that it is more than enough to do simple tasks.

Think of a Mac Mini, relatively it is a standard size and has been, yet it is MUCH more powerful than when it was first released. At some point I would guess that connections and sizes will standardize even more, even though what is under the hood is getting better and better; indeed there is already quite a bit of standardization.

To be fair to the advancement and standardization of digital connections and computers it took a long time to standardize what type of cabling to use for electricity and analog audio as well.

1. Those protocols are pro audio protocols not used in consumer gear. Most tech noobs (most of the people) don't know those. They could serve the consumer masses also as they are good, but nobody implements them and use propriate systems or old complicated connectors (optical SPDIF, coaial spdif, USB) that are not flexible. The newer "consumer protocol is BT, but as we know, it's not high quality audio that goes trough (at least until now). Dante could be a good industry standard for everybody in any system i think.

2. Your system has active electronics in the cabinets, what makes them very fast obsolete (they break down fast due to vibrations, and get out of date with the ever changing technology), get that out of the speakers and put it in a integrated amp like device that you can connect over wifi or a BT like system (but high quality) to your source, and you got what the majority wants. You can still do it multiway active with in the "integrated amp" a dsp and multichannel amp modules connecting with a speakon connector or so, but just put it out of the cabinet so they are less prone to vibrations, and can be repaired or replaced easy without having to compromise your speaker.

It could be simple and standardised like it used to be in the analog days. And that is what the general tech-noob public want. Now high quality systems are often way to complicated or way to fast outdated (or both) so they keep recycling the old or go for simpler but lower quality systems like boomboxes and smart speakers. That is also why systems like Sonos are so popular, it's not high quality, but it's set and forget and they last at least a decade, and the speakers probally a few decades.

I would basicly break it down in 3 pieces: a cheap digital media player, that is cheap to replace and preferably can be updated with software to new protocols and systems. It has all the actual protocols or streaming devices onboard and gives digital signal out. This could be a computer or a tablet, but most want a dedicated device that is foolproof.

The "integrated amp system where you have the digital receiver, dsp, dac and different amp modules. They receive the audio over a standardised system (dante or something else, but open source and standard) and put amplified analog audio out to the speakers with a multichannel cable (so one "cable" to each cabinet) like Speakon. It would be handy to have something like the DBX Autoeq function to adapt the dsp to your room, and the measurement mic should be included (not an option) with a very easy step to step system to measure and tune.

Passive speakers with no crossover, that need to be connected to the external amp system with the multichannel cable, where each driver has it's own amp.

This is a system that my technoob 70 years old mom can understand. If i have to explain how you work she's not listening anymore after one sentence. Your system may work very well for you and most here, but almost everybody here has at least a bit technical knowledge, 95% of the general public has it not.

 

[gnarly]

Again,

The key question is whether a good passive such as the DXT-MON will be differenent to an active dito or the LS50 meta active vs. passive after EQ to make them identical on-axis in a proper blind test.

No, that is absolutely not the key question. What you propose isolates nothing...and has no real bearing on the discussion of active vs passive AT ALL ..imnsho.

You have a belief structure that on-axis and smooth dispersion, is all that's needed to keep from hearing any differences in "proper blind tests".
All i can say is Good Luck holding on to that belief !

 

[Tangband]

1. Those protocols are pro audio protocols not used in consumer gear. Most tech noobs (most of the people) don't know those. They could serve the consumer masses also as they are good, but nobody implements them and use propriate systems or old complicated connectors (optical SPDIF, coaial spdif, USB) that are not flexible. The newer "consumer protocol is BT, but as we know, it's not high quality audio that goes trough (at least until now). Dante could be a good industry standard for everybody in any system i think.

2. Your system has active electronics in the cabinets, what makes them very fast obsolete (they break down fast due to vibrations, and get out of date with the ever changing technology), get that out of the speakers and put it in a integrated amp like device that you can connect over wifi or a BT like system (but high quality) to your source, and you got what the majority wants. You can still do it multiway active with in the "integrated amp" a dsp and multichannel amp modules connecting with a speakon connector or so, but just put it out of the cabinet so they are less prone to vibrations, and can be repaired or replaced easy without having to compromise your speaker.

It could be simple and standardised like it used to be in the analog days. And that is what the general tech-noob public want. Now high quality systems are often way to complicated or way to fast outdated (or both) so they keep recycling the old or go for simpler but lower quality systems like boomboxes and smart speakers. That is also why systems like Sonos are so popular, it's not high quality, but it's set and forget and they last at least a decade, and the speakers probally a few decades.

I would basicly break it down in 3 pieces: a cheap digital media player, that is cheap to replace and preferably can be updated with software to new protocols and systems. It has all the actual protocols or streaming devices onboard and gives digital signal out. This could be a computer or a tablet, but most want a dedicated device that is foolproof.

The "integrated amp system where you have the digital receiver, dsp, dac and different amp modules. They receive the audio over a standardised system (dante or something else, but open source and standard) and put amplified analog audio out to the speakers with a multichannel cable (so one "cable" to each cabinet) like Speakon. It would be handy to have something like the DBX Autoeq function to adapt the dsp to your room, and the measurement mic should be included (not an option) with a very easy step to step system to measure and tune.

Passive speakers with no crossover, that need to be connected to the external amp system with the multichannel cable, where each driver has it's own amp.

This is a system that my technoob 70 years old mom can understand. If i have to explain how you work she's not listening anymore after one sentence. Your system may work very well for you and most here, but almost everybody here has at least a bit technical knowledge, 95% of the general public has it not.

One note regarding point 2 - in the lower end of hifi, like Sonos and such , the integration of electronics inside the speaker has been done and tested for years . It seems that theres no quality problem longtherm if doing this , the vibrations from inside the speakers dont matter .

I asked this question in an earlier thread, and it seems the only case where one should be careful with inbuilt electronics is with plateamps in some big subwoofers regarding long therm reability .
Even then there are examples where the electronics dont break after 10 years .
Anyway- using backboxes for the subwoofer plateamps solves the problem completely.

 

[Thomas_A]

No, that is absolutely not the key question. What you propose isolates nothing...and has no real bearing on the discussion of active vs passive AT ALL ..imnsho.

You have a belief structure that on-axis and smooth dispersion, is all that's needed to keep from hearing any differences in "proper blind tests".
All i can say is Good Luck holding on to that belief !

You are then ditching Tooles work?

 

[DanielT]

I

1. Those protocols are pro audio protocols not used in consumer gear....

How long have people in the pro world used balanced? I assume that it is needed with all PA devices and above all the length of all cables, lots of cables.

BUT now with all the gadgets you pop into your home HiFi plus, what do I know about the "balanced hype" ? If it is even needed (you should be able to use your ears to determine that). Balanced within home HiFi BUT then problems, or challenges, questions can arise when:

Mixing unbalanced and balanced, isn't that asking for trouble?

Or? Considering this thread: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/balanced-line-output-from-minidsp-2x4hd-help.24439/ To the overall, general questions: When, how and why mix balanced with unbalanced? In general, what should you think about when are you going ( if are you...

audiosciencereview.com

Balanced Line Output from MiniDSP 2x4HD (help!)

Having a problem with my first balanced set-up and could use some advice from the more experienced folks. I have a Loxjie P20 headphone amp, which features balanced XLR 3-pin inputs and balanced 4-pin output. I'd like to feed the balanced inputs by fabbing a custom cable and driving with a...

audiosciencereview.com

Are you supposed to have PA audio engineering skills to get good sound in your home HiFi?

 

[DanielT]

You are then ditching Tooles work?

Tip:

Dr. Floyd Toole research nowadays?

Open question. New findings, research that complements or rejects, disprove Dr. Floyd Toole theories, or some of them. Distortion and speakers for example. From what I have seen, Dr. Floyd Toole did not talk much about that, or am I wrong? But distortion and speakers affect the sound, audibly...

audiosciencereview.com