Active Designs & Their Favorability

[Old Listener]

10 year old 'speakers are barely run in! Mine are currently 37 years old, although I've only had them for 10, my previous 'speakers were bought new and I kept them for 20 years when I gave them to my brother 5 years ago.
Buying new 'speakers more often than 10-20 years just says to me that they were the wrong ones.

As an aside, my CD player was bought new in around 1990, my preamp used in around 2000. Get it right first time and one doesn't have to keep swapping equipment every 10 years or less.

S

I agree with your point of view. In 50+ years of being interested in good sound, I've owned 5 pairs of speakers in my main system. I still have a PS Audio preamp bought in 1988. It still gets used when I need to copy the contents of an LP to computer files.

I try to understand the mindset of those who change components often. I think their hobby involves spending money to preserve novelty. I just want to get good sound for as little money as possible.

 

[Lorenzo74]

Honestly never heard any Axiom Audio speakers, but the designer had some refreshing comments on the active vs passive debate. And by refreshing, I mean his comments agree with my own personal beliefs

OTOH, I have heard several very accomplished and respected engineers, like Andrew Jones, Laurence Dickie, and @Joachim Gerhard argue in favor of passive designs. Don't remember who it was of those three, but one of them said something like ~"There's a reason all the best speakers in the world are passive. If active were better, that wouldn't be the case". This does go against my personal beliefs, but I do think it's important to challenge my own be.

this is actually not true and I’m wondering if who said that was in faith. I cannot belive andrew jones said that. He said is indeed better (all things being equal) in many interview.
Check this 12:47

Who prefer to have a capacitor (even if high quality) instead of nothing in the signal path?
Of course if they use tubes or coaxial, no discussion. Its just another way of coloration.
my Best
Lorenzo

 

[richard12511]

this is actually not true and I’m wondering if who said that was in faith. I cannot belive andrew jones said that. He said is indeed better (all things being equal) in many interview.
Check this 12:47

Who prefer to have a capacitor (even if high quality) instead of nothing in the signal path?
Of course if they use tubes or coaxial, no discussion. Its just another way of coloration.
my Best
Lorenzo

It seems he's somewhere in between. The Navis aren't fully digital, and in the link I posted(timestamped) you can hear his reasoning for why that is better. Essentially, he doesn't like the fact that you can't upgrade the electronics of fully digital speakers(new DAC, etc.), and you're basically stuck with what you get.

To be clear, I (currently) don't agree with him, but he does know much more than I do, so perhaps I'm being illogical.

 

[Lorenzo74]

It seems he's somewhere in between. The Navis aren't fully digital, and in the link I posted(timestamped) you can hear his reasoning for why that is better. Essentially, he doesn't like the fact that you can't upgrade the electronics of fully digital speakers(new DAC, etc.), and you're basically stuck with what you get.

To be clear, I (currently) don't agree with him, but he does know much more than I do, so perhaps I'm being illogical.

you’re right, Navis is an active analog speaker except when driven by the 16bit/44kHz wireless option. maybe A. J. and his marketing team knows that the target audience (that have the hobby of swap cartridges, upgrading preamp, turntables,... Cables!) is very much concerned in accepting any dsp, digital “equalization” or “signal processing” that instead is available in abundance in their subs...

Navis is a kind of unique audiophile analog active speaker. to me it is the ice breaking product to show to a conservative audience that audio reproduction, the end results, is more important than the game of subjective game. just image a double blind test at audio show... how long snake oil can still be sold...?
Thank’s to the exceptional talent of A. J. I believe Navis speakers are outstanding value for the price, especially the Floor stander. I met him at CES 2019, where he introduced Carina bookshelf. Indeed it’s a pleasure to listen to him and watching his youtube interview.

however my ideal speaker won’t be any analog active..
I’m dreaming to the (maybe..) Kii-one, a vertical array with many purifi 6.5” woofers, one 4” , one Viawave ( with wave guide) or Bliesma tweeters, as many ET amplifiers as DACs and the clever implementation of the cutting edge DSP from B. Putzeys and his team at Purifi...
are we playing in the same league?
my Best
Lorenzo

 

[lc155]

Ehh, even in white?

So, it turns out, Genelec told me via email that the sell the 8030c in grey, white, and black. I had no idea they did any colours other than grey for their professional lines as all I ever see are grey. I've seen black in photos and if I can get a hold of that through dealers then I think I could do it - black looks pretty decent.

The next question is which model to go for. Apparently the 8030c and G Three measure the same, but the latter has different adjustment settings that make it easier for non-treated rooms. Honestly not sure which models of their lineup would be best.

Not prepared to pay up for the coaxial models at this point in time, and I'm not sure the +50% price difference for the 8330A + GLM kit is worth it. Maybe as a future upgrade? Also read that the 8040 isn't updated so is not worth considering compared to the 8030c.

I see you as the resident Genelec shill so I'm hoping you know more about the differences of the models in depth!

 

[q3cpma]

So, it turns out, Genelec told me via email that the sell the 8030c in grey, white, and black. I had no idea they did any colours other than grey for their professional lines as all I ever see are grey. I've seen black in photos and if I can get a hold of that through dealers then I think I could do it - black looks pretty decent.

The next question is which model to go for. Apparently the 8030c and G Three measure the same, but the latter has different adjustment settings that make it easier for non-treated rooms. Honestly not sure which models of their lineup would be best.

Not prepared to pay up for the coaxial models at this point in time, and I'm not sure the +50% price difference for the 8330A + GLM kit is worth it. Maybe as a future upgrade? Also read that the 8040 isn't updated so is not worth considering compared to the 8030c.

I see you as the resident Genelec shill so I'm hoping you know more about the differences of the models in depth!

The G three is +/- 2.5 dB instead of 2.0 and the additional features seem mostly useless to me. Honestly, the 8330A are really worth it if you don't plan on doing room correction by yourself, otherwise, no reason to take it over the 8030C.

Hard to be a Genelec shill when you're as "poor" as me, but I do admire their company values.

 

[lc155]

The G three is +/- 2.5 dB instead of 2.0 and the additional features seem mostly useless to me. Honestly, the 8330A are really worth it if you don't plan on doing room correction by yourself, otherwise, no reason to take it over the 8030C.

Hard to be a Genelec shill when you're as "poor" as me, but I do admire their company values.

Do you own a pair, or do you regret not getting it?

I'm sure the 8330A is really good, but the extra cost is just an ouch. I don't know much about the software side of GLM either.

 

[q3cpma]

Do you own a pair, or do you regret not getting it?

I'm sure the 8330A is really good, but the extra cost is just an ouch. I don't know much about the software side of GLM either.

I don't, but I did experiment with basic room correction using drc-fir and it was incredible. Something as advanced as Dirac or GLM must then be a big improvement. On the software side, GLM should work pretty well as long as you have access to Windows. It's sad that it doesn't have some curves like Harman or B&K as target presets, though.

 

[lc155]

I don't, but I did experiment with basic room correction using drc-fir and it was incredible. Something as advanced as Dirac or GLM must then be a big improvement. On the software side, GLM should work pretty well as long as you have access to Windows. It's sad that it doesn't have some curves like Harman or B&K as target presets, though.

Fair enough. I have heard that the 8330A does use newer class D amps and punches down a little lower than the basic 8030c too, it's just that big jump in cost otherwise it'd be a no brainer.

 

[hege]

Something as advanced as Dirac or GLM must then be a big improvement.

GLM is just a simple parametric EQ, there is nothing "advanced" about it.. sorry for perhaps pointless correction, just caught my eye..

 

[Purité Audio]

Does GLM stick correct to a ( horizontally) flat response, when I tried it ,many years ago there wasn’t much in the way of adjustment in terms of target curve, in consequence it removed peaks but sounded a bit thin in domestic rooms.
Keith

 

[hege]

Does GLM stick correct to a ( horizontally) flat response, when I tried it ,many years ago there wasn’t much in the way of adjustment in terms of target curve, in consequence it removed peaks but sounded a bit thin in domestic rooms.
Keith

Yes it's flat target by default. Any other needs require manually using the simple "Sound Character Profiler" tool which can apply downwards slope in many ways (it's just a simplified frontend to the shelf EQ filters). Of course one can also tune the parametric EQ filters as pleased (negative gain only though). If possible, I'd advice using REW with MMM method and just feeding the REW generated EQ values manually, should get better results. Advanced PC/convolution users like me will just ignore GLM completely and mainly use it to set volume.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I see the reliability question in this thread and people using longevity as a point to passives, but ask yourselves the honest question: how many of you have actually kept a pair of speakers for 10 years? If you're on this forum as an active participant, very likely that you're going to get the upgrade bug or just fancy a change of sound at some point.

IME, those who keep speakers forever tend to just buy what they like the first time then stop there, and go focus on other things.

I have had my current speakers for 25 years. I have newer ones though, too.
I have 3 active meridian M33s in my HT and have had them for over 10 years.
My Devialet Phantoms are 5 years old and I use them less than they deserve entirely because the ease of use in my situation is very much less than my main system.
I have no desire for any new electronics since what I already have I consider audibly transparent and noise-free.
I have considered updating my system to modern active speakers but I am not disappointed by my sound quality and my musical enjoyment is good enough for hours a day of listening.
The only thing I find a pita is any computer based music and the massive number of ways I can use different sets of microphone averages and/or FR targets to do room compensation to try to get it to work well for every listening position in my room.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I try to understand the mindset of those who change components often. I think their hobby involves spending money to preserve novelty. I just want to get good sound for as little money as possible.

IME there are two sorts of people buying hifi.
1. Music lovers who want good quality sound in the home. They tend to put a lot of effort into their choice then stick with it for years.
2. Equipment fanatics, they tend to be forever fiddling with stuff, and "upgrading". Some of those I know spend as much time dicking about with kit and particularly analysing the FR and experimenting with room compensation since, probably, this is the cheapest option to make changes and uses modern computer based nerdship (™ ).
In extremis I knew one guy who pretty well only listened to his hifi whilst trying multiple ways to improve it, both component swapping and adjustments. He had a much better system than mine at the time and he invited me round to bring music to listen to on his latest setup so it was good for me.

There is a broad spectrum between the extremes but that is what I have found.

 

[tuga]

The idea that there's all this benefit to upgrading electronics is mostly an audiophile myth. Aside from power, many amplifiers and nearly all of the DACs reviewed on this site are close enough to audibly transparent that nobody is going to be able to distinguish them in double blind testing. And as far as power goes, if you're buying a competently designed active speaker, you can trust that the manufacturer put as much power in it as it can handle.

On the other hand, it is a lot cheaper to upgrade passive speakers because you can keep all the electronic equipment, and the benefits can be significant depending on which speakers you ended up in the first place.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Can anyone explain the myth (or fact) why with studio monitors you have to sit in the middle of the triangle and the tweeters must be at ear level vs normal hi fi a speaker that it's totally irrelevant.

 

[richard12511]

Can anyone explain the myth (or fact) why with studio monitors you have to sit in the middle of the triangle and the tweeters must be at ear level vs normal hi fi a speaker that it's totally irrelevant.

Sitting in the sweet spot is just as relevant for hifi speakers as it is for studio monitors. In fact, studio monitors are hifi speakers, in every sense of the word.

Also, sitting in the sweet spot isn’t a “must” for either. Doing so just makes it sound better.

 

[sergeauckland]

Can anyone explain the myth (or fact) why with studio monitors you have to sit in the middle of the triangle and the tweeters must be at ear level vs normal hi fi a speaker that it's totally irrelevant.

I don't think there's any difference between studio monitors and home loudspeakers as far as positioning goes. An equilateral triangle with tweeters on-axis with the listener's ears works best in both situations.

Stereo is mixed with that assumption. In a studio, monitors are arranged such that they (more or less - it's not hyper critical) form an equilateral triangle with the listener, and there's an unimpeded path between the tweeters and listener which is on-axis to the 'speakers.

At home, the best stereo results from a similar arrangement. It assumes that the loudspeakers have a flat on-axis anechoic response, sadly many don't and are too bright if listened to on-axis. I suspect the reason for this is WAF, as loudspeakers look neater if they're parallel to a wall (and generally close to the wall) rather than toed-in towards the listener.

S.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Thanks.
For some reason I thought that studio monitors tweeters are designed to be more direct like a beam , and hifi speakers tweeters are designed to do the exact opposite so you won't be locked into the "sweet spot"
And actually Focal's Tweeters in their studio monitors are housed differently than in their Utopia line go that exact reason(sorry for the non professional language, I don't know all the terms and my English is just OK)

 

[lc155]

I don't, but I did experiment with basic room correction using drc-fir and it was incredible. Something as advanced as Dirac or GLM must then be a big improvement. On the software side, GLM should work pretty well as long as you have access to Windows. It's sad that it doesn't have some curves like Harman or B&K as target presets, though.

One thing I forgot to consider, is that with the DSP models, there is an additional latency added to the signal chain. Genelec claims that it's a constant 3-5ms depending on the model (3ms for 8330A, 5ms for the 8351 IIRC) with or without GLM calibration applied.

I don't know how significant this kind of delay would be when it comes to audio cues in say, gaming.

EDIT: Well a quick test showed that it was fairly easy for me to detect a 2ms timing difference on audiocheck, with 10/10. Wonder if that applies to this situation, though.