Active monitors and Hi quality dacs

[earlevel]

Isn’t that because most are older models? Anything new and at least a bit respectable will have DSP and digital inputs. Few exceptions obviously.

You would think so, but... First, of course I meant most DSP speakers that are being used, but it's also true of most speaker models being sold, and well as the numbers (fewer high end speakers are sold that low end).

But, without doing any serious survey of the latest speakers, I can look at a few fresh models of professional grade and see lack of digital inputs. The iLoud Precision models don't appear to have it (USB is for control, as far as I can tell in a quick look). I see Neumann and other DSP speakers with no digital input, but I don't have the time to figure out the timelines, at the moment.

I don't know—is it lack of standards holding things back? You could implement digital audio a number of ways, AES/EBU, AVB, USB, MADI for instance. But only Ethernet and USB are universally available on computers, but not audio equipment. You need one connection to a speaker, then there can be a different connection between speakers. Coincidentally, I just switched over my digital audio system to MADI the past couple of days, but of course it has to be fed from USB of similar. When you think about it, there is no single obvious choice at the moment, especially if you want to handle home and pro audio. I'll have to look deeper when I have to, and see where things are heading.

(I worked on some of the early DSP studio monitors in the mid '10s, USB for control and RS485 to network the speakers together from there, but no digital input.)

 

[computer-audiophile]

Sachen wie Genelec und Neumann sind aber zuverlässig.

How long do you think they last? I used my Neumann KH120a monitors every day for 10 years and I preferred to sell it before it showed any errors. I then switched to the JBL 305p II, which I also really like in terms of sound. I have a 3 year guarantee on them. Since they have Class-D amplifiers, I'm also interested in the question of how well they resolve the signal digitally. I mean it would be 192/24.

Nevertheless, I think that a good DAC makes sense as a source, because the errors add up in the audio chain. I'm currently using a topping E30 II on it.

 

[voodooless]

is it lack of standards holding things back? You could implement digital audio a number of ways, AES/EBU, AVB, USB, MADI for instance.

I guess it’s more the opposite There are to many standards.

 

[bodhi]

For home use you really don't have to daisy chain AES3. I made a split cable like this from Sescom when I had Genelec 8351b. You set the channel at the speaker. Makes for neater cable management.

Sescom Pro Audio Cables, Converters, Adapters and Extenders

Since 1975, Sescom has been the leader in professional audio cables, converters, extenders and more. We serve the television production, rental, live events, stage and sound, sports, educational, and government markets due to our competitive pricing and dedication to quality production.

www.sescom.com

Damn, that hadn't occurred to me at all but of course it works. I wonder why they don't tell that in manuals.

Only I don't see how it makes the cable management neater.

 

[JustJones]

Only I don't see how it makes the cable management neater.

Subjectively neater.
I had 3 cables left and 3 right.
Power
Cat 5e
AES3
None of this back across it ruins the aesthetic

 

[dshreter]

Since all the active monitors have to convert the signal to digital before diving them to seperate amps, isnt Hi quality DACs pointless with them? No matter how high the SNR they can provide, it will only be played at the SNR the internal ADC has. How is the scene with HI res audio here?

I agree with this. Chasing SINAD in DACs is somewhat pointless, they all sound the same. That's true with active monitors that do internal AD/DA, but it's also true with passive speakers fed by high quality amplification too, the DAC is almost never a significant contributor/detractor of sound quality.

In this case an amp like LA90 and passive speakers should be a better fidelity ?

I don't agree with this. The speakers are by far the biggest contributor or detractor of fidelity. The highest quality speaker will have the highest quality overall system performance. If the passive speakers are fed by a SINAD all-star DAC and amp that's fine, it's still going to come down to the speakers.

 

[dogmamann]

I agree with this. Chasing SINAD in DACs is somewhat pointless, they all sound the same. That's true with active monitors that do internal AD/DA, but it's also true with passive speakers fed by high quality amplification too, the DAC is almost never a significant contributor/detractor of sound quality.


I don't agree with this. The speakers are by far the biggest contributor or detractor of fidelity. The highest quality speaker will have the highest quality overall system performance. If the passive speakers are fed by a SINAD all-star DAC and amp that's fine, it's still going to come down to the speakers.

Will it make a difference if the speaker in consideration is something like Reference 1 Meta? For instance ->

1. Topping D90 -> LA90 -> Ref 1 Meta
2. PC -> Neumann KH150.

 

[dshreter]

Will it make a difference if the speaker in consideration is something like Reference 1 Meta? For instance ->

1. Topping D90 -> LA90 -> Ref 1 Meta
2. PC -> Neumann KH150.

I'm not going to be able to dig up the research and proof of my claim, but it wouldn't make a difference. AD and DA stages are conducted with such high performance that they can be considered transparent for music listening.

Between Reference 1 Meta and KH150, the differences in the speakers is >> the differences in electronics. I know it is hard to do an apples to apples comparison when an active speaker is involved, but I mean this with respect to their primary acoustic qualities opposed to the distortion introduced by their electronics.

 

[dogmamann]

I'm not going to be able to dig up the research and proof of my claim, but it wouldn't make a difference. AD and DA stages are conducted with such high performance that they can be considered transparent for music listening.

Between Reference 1 Meta and KH150, the differences in the speakers is >> the differences in electronics. I know it is hard to do an apples to apples comparison when an active speaker is involved, but I mean this with respect to their primary acoustic qualities opposed to the distortion introduced by their electronics.

In a world where KH150 exists, cant we safely say, Reference 1 the best amp is still giving nothing better no matter we try at this point of time? Any justification other than aesthetics for spending 9k on them? KH150 is 3.5K.

 

[Trell]

Will it make a difference if the speaker in consideration is something like Reference 1 Meta? For instance ->

1. Topping D90 -> LA90 -> Ref 1 Meta
2. PC -> Neumann KH150.

The "Ref 1 Meta" is the KEF Reference 1 Meta bookshelf? Instead of a pair of them I rather add EUR 1000 and get a pair of Genelec 8361A. The Genelec are as pretty, though, as the KEF.

 

[dogmamann]

The "Ref 1 Meta" is the KEF Reference 1 Meta bookshelf? Instead of a pair of them I rather add EUR 1000 and get a pair of Genelec 8361A. The Genelec are not so pretty, though, as the KEF.

But isnt KH150 better than both of them? What justifies spending this much money above this point other than looks?

 

[dshreter]

In a world where KH150 exists, cant we safely say, Reference 1 the best amp is still giving nothing better no matter we try at this point of time? Any justification other than aesthetics for spending 9k on them? KH150 is 3.5K.

KEF Reference 1 does things differently than KH150. Vertical directivity is superior on the KEF compared to KH150 due to the coaxial design. They will also sound different - so there is a role for preference as there isn't a singular objectively right way for a speaker to present its sound field in the same way there is a platonic ideal for DAC or amplifier performance.

 

[dogmamann]

KEF Reference 1 does things differently than KH150. Vertical directivity is superior on the KEF compared to KH150 due to the coaxial design. They will also sound different - so there is a role for preference as there isn't a singular objectively right way for a speaker to present its sound field in the same way there is a platonic ideal for DAC or amplifier performance.

Does it have a wider horizontal dispersion than KH150?

 

[Trell]

But isnt KH150 better than both of them? What justifies spending this much money above this point other than looks?

The 8361A has a coxial design and has more output than the KH 150, but the KH 150 is much cheaper. Also depends how far or near you sit to the monitors.

 

[Rosenbloom]

A very interesting discussion. These days I am pondering if I should get the Q Acoustics M20 active speakers. If I buy them, I will use only the digital inputs (usb and optical). M20 does have rca input but I don’t see the point of adding an external dac to M20.
Trigger not yet pulled. Just wish that someone can test and measure M20 to facilitate my decision.

 

[earlevel]

I guess it’s more the opposite There are to many standards.

I guess this must be trotted out...

I don't know, just thoughts about why we're not already "there"...

Dante—too costly for uniform adoption? Advantage that you can run directly from ether net port on computer (sort of). Basically overkill for speakers, with significant licensing baggage.

AVB—cheaper, not widely adopted, needs to come from an interface (it's ethernet+), though that's not a problem for dedicated audio devices

AES50—pretty much Music Tribe (Behringer) so far; Cat5, point to point; maybe the spec needs fleshing out, not sure, need to look into it

MADI—gets audio to/from where you want, but choices of coax or fiber not as cheap and easy as Cat5e; seems not modern enough choice for home and pro going forward, even though it has decent adoption in other areas

It's easy to see why the ADAT interface has stuck around so long, hard to see a good, cheap, simple means of getting digital audio to speakers that would be universally adopted.

 

[dshreter]

I guess this must be trotted out...

View attachment 254684

I don't know, just thoughts about why we're not already "there"...

Dante—too costly for uniform adoption? Advantage that you can run directly from ether net port on computer (sort of). Basically overkill for speakers, with significant licensing baggage.

AVB—cheaper, not widely adopted, needs to come from an interface (it's ethernet+), though that's not a problem for dedicated audio devices

AES50—pretty much Music Tribe (Behringer) so far; Cat5, point to point; maybe the spec needs fleshing out, not sure, need to look into it

MADI—gets audio to/from where you want, but choices of coax or fiber not as cheap and easy as Cat5e; seems not modern enough choice for home and pro going forward, even though it has decent adoption in other areas

It's easy to see why the ADAT interface has stuck around so long, hard to see a good, cheap, simple means of getting digital audio to speakers that would be universally adopted.

I don't know what the performance is, but I would like for something like WiSA to be successful. Stringing wires all around the room or through the walls seems unnecessary based on the technology available today. The requirements are also not that dramatic, and the same way I use the apps built into my smart TV, I sure would like if it my TV could be a surround sound front end to powered wireless speakers with no other box required.

 

[earlevel]

I don't know what the performance is, but I sure would like for something like WiSA to be successful. Stringing wires all around the room or through the walls seems unnecessary based on the technology available today. The requirements are also not that dramatic, and the same way I use the apps built into my smart TV, I sure would like if it my TV could be a surround sound front end to powered wireless speakers with no other box required.

Yes, wireless for home installation seems like a great idea. And I suppose that also shows why it's hard to have one standard for speakers—a wired standard is much better for a recording studio and public installations and events.

The annoying thing about home installations is that good installations are inconvenient, one way or another. You expect speakers to be intrusive in a studio, but you wish they weren't at home. Just sticking with the wiring aspect, we have the choice of passive (analog)—running speaker wires. For active we need each speaker to be plugged into a power outlet—not too bad for stereo (just a little worse for + center, or + sub), but can be pretty burdensome for surround installations that are less than a custom theater room. And signal cable to each. Or digital Cable to each. Or wireless, if available, but there's still the power issue. Again, for stereo that's not bad, but then again neither is running a pair of signal cables to the two.

So, there is no single solution that everyone would embrace. I guess that's why we are where we are.

 

[dshreter]

Yes, wireless for home installation seems like a great idea. And I suppose that also shows why it's hard to have one standard for speakers—a wired standard is much better for a recording studio and public installations and events.

The annoying thing about home installations is that good installations are inconvenient, one way or another. You expect speakers to be intrusive in a studio, but you wish they weren't at home. Just sticking with the wiring aspect, we have the choice of passive (analog)—running speaker wires. For active we need each speaker to be plugged into a power outlet—not too bad for stereo (just a little worse for + center, or + sub), but can be pretty burdensome for surround installations that are less than a custom theater room. And signal cable to each. Or digital Cable to each. Or wireless, if available, but there's still the power issue. Again, for stereo that's not bad, but then again neither is running a pair of signal cables to the two.

So, there is no single solution that everyone would embrace. I guess that's why we are where we are.

You’re totally right. Getting power to the middle of a room can be very tricky, and you can’t really shove a power cable neatly under a rug. On the other hand, it’s a lot easier to plug a subwoofer in the corner of a room if you don’t have to be routing signal.

 

[YSC]

Audibility, I am not worried about it. I am not having any files more than 44khz. I only wanted to know process that level of information just for the folks who believes in Hi res.

I would say it's simpler, yes, for analogue input into DSP monitors the file resolution is only as good as the ADC->DAC process is inside the active monitor (that's why for my latest purchase of KRK RP5 G4 I only use the TV 3.5mm to XLR and not planning to get a dac unless there is some ground loop issue). but think it this way:

sampling the hi-res files at low res by internal ADC will decrease exteremely marginally if not the same quality in terms of SINAD (I think sometime here Amrim showed that all the hi res files gives you are... hypersonic noise, no more signal than 16/44.1), but if the same design, without the DSP correcting the speaker to a flat response as in a in house calibration style, you ended up vastly altering the signal from your input. now that is a huge loss in fidelity