I'm wondering: Amir wrote that Sean Olive says: The top 3 important parameters for any speaker are frequency response, frequency response.
What is the relationship of frequency response to dynamics?
I would say an extended bass response. When I listen to one of those typical high dynamic demo songs like
Tricycle by
Flim and the BBs it makes a big difference whether I listen to the Genelec 8020 on my desktop (fed by RME ADI2-PRO fs) or to the K&H O300D/Genelec 7060B 2.1 configuration in the living room (fed by Classé Sigma SSP Mk2). Although the desktop speakers are very energetic they cannot compete with the dynamics of the big system.
It certainly seems to a lot of us that one speaker can have flat frequency response, but not sound as dynamic and palpable as another speaker - horn speakers usually getting the nod for dynamics. If you have two different speaker designs, e.g horn system and an electrostatic speaker, and both had the same frequency response, would that even them out so each would sound as dynamically realistic as the other?
I don't think so. Panel speakers somehow have worse dynamics. I had MG 1.6 for quite some time and when I listened the first time to a big horn system (Avantgarde Acoustic Trio) I was fascinated by the dynamics. When I replaced the Maggies by the O300D it was almost the same experience. Then I added the subwoofer, and when I listened to similar horn systems at
Highend 2019 in Munich I did not have this experience of better dynamics at all, it was just as I was used to. So I'd say that horn speakers have no better dynamics than very good (active) cone speakers.
I have a good remembrance of the sound of the Audioplan Kontrapunkt, a very small passive two way speaker. These are very good speakers but playing them a little louder immediately led to heavy compression and a grainy sound. The Genelecs are very different in this regard and can play quite loud without showing signs of compression. I think the reason is that they are full active, and the LF chassis is not fed deep bass frequencies it cannot handle, leaving more power for the frequency range it can handle. Both amplifiers have just 20 W, and the Kontrapunkt was fed by an Accuphase integrated amp.
I think that dynamics is one of the lesser known advantages of active vs. passive speakers (at least the good ones). Their amplification is perfectly matched to the drivers and there are no passive components between amp output and driver. This means they can play louder as similar sized (see below) passive systems. A passive speaker would need a much more powerful amplifier to compete with an active speaker, more than the power of all amps in the active speaker summed up (even if we forget about the loss in the passive crossover).
Think about an LF full power sine wave and an HF full power sine wave (full power means the maximum the driver can handle) playing at the same time. In a passive system the HF sine wave rides on the LF sine wave so the amp must be able to provide a maximum voltage of both sine waves added. In the active speaker both amplifiers must provide just the maximum voltage of each separat sine wave.
Here is an example: lets say the max voltage for both sine waves is 8 V and all drivers have 8 Ohm impedance.
- Each amp in the active speaker must be able to provide 8V max which results in a max current of 8 V / 8 Ohm = 1 A, which is a power of 8 V * 1 A = 8 W per amp and 16 W for both.
- The amp for the passive speaker must be able to provide 2 * 8V = 16 V which results in a max current of 16 V / 8 Ohm = 2 A, which is a power of 16 V * 2 A = 32 W
Therefore the passive amp must be specified for 32 W at 8 Ohm load. Don't get me wrong - it will not deliver 32 W to the load because of the crossover which splits the load over the frequency range.
I think this is one of the reasons why the Genelecs can play louder than the combined amp power of 40 W suggests.