• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Passive speakers, separate boxes...help me understand the appeal

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
"audibly better" is a b**** to define.

A manufacturer can test for the response/design/characteristics most people prefer, as it was the case in the study that is constantly cited here, and that makes perfect sense from a business point of view. I guess that study could be replicated today comparing, for example, active vs the passive most people prefer. But there are so many confounding factors as andreasmaaan said... On the other hand, maybe embracing those confounding factors would be the way to go since "what most people prefer" is used as "audibly better" proxy.

Still, "audibly better" remains really fuzzy imho. I own several pairs of different speakers, which I also have measured in my own environment and am not able to characterize a pair as generally "audibly better". It definitely depends on what I want to listen to, how I want to listen...

If one wants to measure any characteristic vs "audiblybetterness", one really needs a hard, quantifiable definition of what it is.
 

direstraitsfan98

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
826
Likes
1,225
I can’t help but question my decision to go with passive speakers (with separate amplification) when I read up on speakers like the Dutch and Dutch 8c. It seems like the “right” choice if they’re really as good as people say. Imagine that: not having to worry about amps, or even dacs? I get a feeling of its too good to be true. I wish I could hear a pair so I could find out what DSP’d bass on a pair of smaller woofers sounds like compared to my 15” woofers on my JBL 4367.

All of my research seems to indicate that a smaller driver is going to have audible distortion trying to play frequencies under what it can handle. And that smaller drivers cannot physically handle low frequencies at high spl. Something about volume enclosure, too.

Based on my experience with standmount monitors, and large speakers with 15” woofers, the latter has always excelled in the bass department, for me, in my room. It makes sense: a larger driver in a larger enclosure of more volume is going to sound better.

Until I’ve heard a DSP controlled speaker myself I probably should just keep my thoughts to myself. I don’t know. I only know what I’ve heard so far and what I’ve heard so far has been that: larger cabinet with a larger driver sounds better. Would anyone be able to comment how exactly a speaker like the Dutch and Dutch 8c handles bass at higher SPL over prolonged periods? I listen to a lot of EDM and classical music with very powerful swings in bass and my ears are sensitive to driver distortion.

Also, any idea where I could audition a pair of Dutch and Dutch 8c? Preferably in a place I could AB test them against a traditional passive loudspeaker... I live in south western Ontario.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,499
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
I can’t help but question my decision to go with passive speakers (with separate amplification) when I read up on speakers like the Dutch and Dutch 8c. It seems like the “right” choice if they’re really as good as people say. Imagine that: not having to worry about amps, or even dacs? I get a feeling of its too good to be true. I wish I could hear a pair so I could find out what DSP’d bass on a pair of smaller woofers sounds like compared to my 15” woofers on my JBL 4367.

All of my research seems to indicate that a smaller driver is going to have audible distortion trying to play frequencies under what it can handle. And that smaller drivers cannot physically handle low frequencies at high spl. Something about volume enclosure, too.

Based on my experience with standmount monitors, and large speakers with 15” woofers, the latter has always excelled in the bass department, for me, in my room. It makes sense: a larger driver in a larger enclosure of more volume is going to sound better.

Until I’ve heard a DSP controlled speaker myself I probably should just keep my thoughts to myself. I don’t know. I only know what I’ve heard so far and what I’ve heard so far has been that: larger cabinet with a larger driver sounds better. Would anyone be able to comment how exactly a speaker like the Dutch and Dutch 8c handles bass at higher SPL over prolonged periods? I listen to a lot of EDM and classical music with very powerful swings in bass and my ears are sensitive to driver distortion.

Also, any idea where I could audition a pair of Dutch and Dutch 8c? Preferably in a place I could AB test them against a traditional passive loudspeaker... I live in south western Ontario.
Look up the review from @mitchco on whatever computer audiophile is called these days.
 

mitchco

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
640
Likes
2,397
I can’t help but question my decision to go with passive speakers (with separate amplification) when I read up on speakers like the Dutch and Dutch 8c. It seems like the “right” choice if they’re really as good as people say. Imagine that: not having to worry about amps, or even dacs? I get a feeling of its too good to be true. I wish I could hear a pair so I could find out what DSP’d bass on a pair of smaller woofers sounds like compared to my 15” woofers on my JBL 4367.

All of my research seems to indicate that a smaller driver is going to have audible distortion trying to play frequencies under what it can handle. And that smaller drivers cannot physically handle low frequencies at high spl. Something about volume enclosure, too.

Based on my experience with standmount monitors, and large speakers with 15” woofers, the latter has always excelled in the bass department, for me, in my room. It makes sense: a larger driver in a larger enclosure of more volume is going to sound better.

Until I’ve heard a DSP controlled speaker myself I probably should just keep my thoughts to myself. I don’t know. I only know what I’ve heard so far and what I’ve heard so far has been that: larger cabinet with a larger driver sounds better. Would anyone be able to comment how exactly a speaker like the Dutch and Dutch 8c handles bass at higher SPL over prolonged periods? I listen to a lot of EDM and classical music with very powerful swings in bass and my ears are sensitive to driver distortion.

Also, any idea where I could audition a pair of Dutch and Dutch 8c? Preferably in a place I could AB test them against a traditional passive loudspeaker... I live in south western Ontario.

As @Soniclife mentioned, I wrote a review on the Dutch and Dutch 8c's at: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/dutch-dutch-8c-loudspeaker-review-r739/ If you scroll down you can see/hear the D&D subs pound away...

I am also a fan of JBL speakers and 15" bass drivers as I own a pair of JBL 4722's with subs: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/ca-a...fers-with-stereo-mains-using-audiolense-r712/

Your 4367's have better speaker components than my 4722's. My 3 way digital XO active stereo system further requires a multi-channel DAC and 6 channels of amplification.

Whether it is personal bias or preference, I prefer my (DSP'd) JBL system over the D&D 8c's. Don't get me wrong, the 8c's are great and sound really good, but at this level of performance, the (audible) differences are small and really boil down to one's preferences. Meaning if your preference is for an "all in one" solution, then the 8c's are hard to beat. But if that is not your requirement or preference, then you are likely to find the 8c's are more of a lateral move than the 4367's.

I ended up adding subs and then bigger ones with my JBL's: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...audio-subwoofer-thread-1223.html#post57390652
If you listen to EDM and full range classical, I would think that adding subs with your 4367's would be a much more enjoyable and audible upgrade than switching to the 8c's... Of course, just my opinion.
 

b1daly

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
210
Likes
358
I’m a recording engineer so I have spent many hours listening to active nearfield monitors. For work I have definite preferences. We’ve been working for 15 years to improve the monitoring in our studio, and it’s pretty good now.

But the only set of studio monitors that I would ever consider listening to for enjoyment were a set of passive Quested nearfields (the H108). To my ear these sound much sweeter than their active biamped cousins. I have no idea why, just an observation.

Right now I have a pair of KRK VXT 108, which are mid-level monitors. They are kind of a “get the job done” monitor. The cabinet is massive, weirdly shaped, and made of some kind of synthetic material. It is very inert, and I perceive little sense of any “box” sound.

These are highly engineered speakers, neutrally voiced, and relatively transparent. I can work on them, but I can’t stand to listen to them for enjoyment.

For pleasure listening I prefer vintage designs, with passive crossovers. (By default). I have several pairs of ADS that I listen to regularly.

What I find with these vintage designs is that they are far more “colored”, often the resonance of the cabinet is clearly part of the sound. Also I often don’t think they are voiced as well as they could be, so I’m thinking about ways I could tweak this with active crossovers or modifications.

The biggest issue I have with these older speakers is they often have irritating resonances in their frequency response. I’ve been experimenting with digital EQ (running on a laptop) and tuning them by ear. The improvements are huge.

To my ear, speakers have become “over engineered”. The frequency response is much smoother and controlled, but they don’t “sound good” to me. But I have far more experience with older speakers. (Speakers that are my age, heh heh, I think my nostalgia influences my preferences pretty heavily.)

As an example, I have a pair of B&W DM12 bookshelves. These are really nice to listen to, but they have a “tubby” low end. So knocking down the low mids cleans them up nicely.

I’ve compared to the entry level B&W bookshelves of today, and I’m appalled. (601, 602). They are simply unlistenable, I would not listen even if given them for free. It’s bizarre.

My provisional theory as too what is going on is that the new speakers are engineered to meet certain specifications, which is actually possible with new technology. In the “old days” I suspect much more of the design was done “by ear.” This led more naturally to speakers that made the necessary compromises in a more euphonious manner.

Another example that blew my mind were the KEF Q150s. These got a lot of positive reviews, topping lists of budget bookshelves. When they went on sale recently, I bought a pair just to hear what they sounded like. They sound awful. They do have a reasonablely controlled sound. But the highs are harsh, the low end had a “one note” quality from the port. The sound was sort of balance and “nice” but neither hear nor there.

In any case, the notion of “accuracy” in a speaker designed for fun listening is dubious. IMO accuracy only makes sense for recordings of acoustic instruments, that are relatively simple. (Not multi mic).

If you like any kind of classic rock, pop, world, RnB, from about the 60s to 2000, anything that is recorded with multitrack devices, that uses processing to create effects and change the sound, the only thing that would give you a starting point for an accurate reproduction would be a pair of the same monitors that the recording was mixed on. For those years, that meant primarily wooden boxes with drivers, and a mix of active and passive crossovers.

I was at the Best Buy a while back, and they had a set of Martin Logan electrostatic speaker’s with built in subs, driven by some pretty nice MacIntosh gear. An classic Elton John track came on and it sounded ridiculous. The instruments were kind of floating in the air in positions that made no sense, and the mix was basically incoherent. I don’t know much about those speakers, but they are very pricey.

The quest goes on!
 

phoenixdogfan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,294
Likes
5,070
Location
Nashville
Well said Dennis, right on the nose. Nor is there "an abundant number of quality choices available" in the used market for those of use that don't have unlimited funds and try to purchase everything as reasonably as possible. My current system uses DRC for all 9 channels so all that's left is everything in one box with digital crossovers. Right now I think it might be quite difficult for me to hang 4 D&D's from my ceiling, not to mention a spare $20K ;)
Well said Dennis, right on the nose. Nor is there "an abundant number of quality choices available" in the used market for those of use that don't have unlimited funds and try to purchase everything as reasonably as possible. My current system uses DRC for all 9 channels so all that's left is everything in one box with digital crossovers. Right now I think it might be quite difficult for me to hang 4 D&D's from my ceiling, not to mention a spare $20K ;)
It is definitely a problem of numbers. How many directivity controlled active full range phase coherent speaker designs are out there right now. Only two come redily to mind for me, and both are over $15k with nothing on the used market.

When there are a number of $5k-7k designs that do 90-95% of what the D&D and the Kiis can do (and there's there's no reason why we won't) we'll see and explosion of this market.

To me it's kind of like the market for a binaural audio processor for headphones where the gold standard will be the Smyth Realizer A16 ,assuming it is ever delivered to market. That's another paradigm shifting product with a stratospheric price. But, if it's successful, there's no reason why other developers won't follow on with similar systems possibly software based--the same way room and speaker correction boxes like TACT were followed on by software like Dirac Live and aCCOURATE. When that happens the price will drop dramatically, and the innovation will achieve full market penetration.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
A one-minute video for advocates of passive speakers ;)

 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,271
Likes
9,776
Location
NYC
A one-minute video for advocates of passive speakers ;)
OK but only informative for those who have been asleep for the past several decades.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
OK but only informative for those who have been asleep for the past several decades.
Which seems to include the majority of the audiophile community and hifi magazines.

But a tru high-end active speaker will have all the electronics placed outside the speaker. Putting the electronics inside the speaker that generates heat isn't the best approach both due to thermal distortion and lack of flexibility in several areas (service, upgrade, etc).
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Which seems to include the majority of the audiophile community and hifi magazines.

But a tru high-end active speaker will have all the electronics placed outside the speaker. Putting the electronics inside the speaker that generates heat isn't the best approach both due to thermal distortion and lack of flexibility in several areas (service, upgrade, etc).

The problem in a discussion on passive vs active is the definition of «best». Passive means inflexibility, you need more space, more know-how to match components etc. That can hardly be called SOTA, can it?

You must have a pretty big power-hungry speaker these days to put the electronics outside to avoid heat. Some actives have an electronics box that can be released from the speaker, to facilitate repairs or to put the box in a designated room.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
The problem in a discussion on passive vs active is the definition of «best». Passive means inflexibility, you need more space, more know-how to match components etc. That can hardly be called SOTA, can it?
And neither are most active monitors as almost none of them uses top quality crossover and amps. And small cabinets with heating devices inside increases thermal distortion.
You must have a pretty big power-hungry speaker these days to put the electronics outside to avoid heat. Some actives have an electronics box that can be released from the speaker, to facilitate repairs or to put the box in a designated room.
That makes no sense. Having the electronics inside is worse for smaller speakers.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
And neither are most active monitors as almost none of them uses top quality crossover and amps. And small cabinets with heating devices inside increases thermal distortion.

That makes no sense. Having the electronics inside is worse for smaller speakers.

You remind me here of professor Butts and Rube Goldberg machines. Even if you make things bigger, heavier and more elaborate, doesn’t make it SOTA. Apple use SOTA speakers in their products, of course. You need to specify a need and application to talk about SOTA.

Serious speaker manufacturers like ME Geithain and Genelec have speakers where the amp box can be connected to the speaker or in a designated room. The distortion byproducts in sound reproduction don’t increase when speaker and amp box are connected, do they? It is only the replacement of the amp box with a more elaborate design that can reduce distortion. More elaborate means higher cost and/or size. @amirm has shown numerous times that size and price are not robust predictors of sound quality. Advocates of size (incl. weight), high price and elaborate design have difficult times because the evidence suggests small is beautiful in electronics.

Some like Rube Goldberg machines and think professor Butts is a design guru. I think simplicity and efficiency are central parts of SOTA designs.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
You remind me here of professor Butts and Rube Goldberg machines. Even if you make things bigger, heavier and more elaborate, doesn’t make it SOTA. Apple use SOTA speakers in their products, of course. You need to specify a need and application to talk about SOTA.

Serious speaker manufacturers like ME Geithain and Genelec have speakers where the amp box can be connected to the speaker or in a designated room. The distortion byproducts in sound reproduction don’t increase when speaker and amp box are connected, do they? It is only the replacement of the amp box with a more elaborate design that can reduce distortion. More elaborate means higher cost and/or size. @amirm has shown numerous times that size and price are not robust predictors of sound quality. Advocates of size (incl. weight), high price and elaborate design have difficult times because the evidence suggests small is beautiful in electronics.

Some like Rube Goldberg machines and think professor Butts is a design guru. I think simplicity and efficiency are central parts of SOTA designs.
You don't seem to be following the train of discussion or bringing in other topics.
Who has said anything about big and expensive? It has nothing to do with what I said.

Personally I haven't one decent speaker from Genelec yet and I've heard a good number. But part of the problem is how they tune their speakers and demo them. A complete flat response simply doesn't sound right or good for hifi listening.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
Is that controversial?
Actually, it's been well known since studies by Bruele&Kjær, which was in the 70's. Harman Int. and others have confirmed this.
Obviously it depend somewhat on the recording and mix but for most of the part a neutral frequency response for listening should gradually fall from the bass to the treble. Brule & Kjær came to 3 dB. People seem to prefer more though.

Bruel & Kjær 1974 stor.jpg
Harman Int. (Custom).jpg
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Is that controversial?
Actually, it's been well known since studies by Bruele&Kjær, which was in the 70's. Harman Int. and others have confirmed this.
Obviously it depend somewhat on the recording and mix but for most of the part a neutral frequency response for listening should gradually fall from the bass to the treble. Brule & Kjær came to 3 dB. People seem to prefer more though.

View attachment 24443
View attachment 24444

These studies refer to the steady-state in-room response, not the response of the loudspeaker directly. I’m not aware of any research suggesting that the direct response should not be flat (with some caveats, eg the apparent preference of younger and less experienced listeners for boosted bass response).

I took your statement to suggest you believe the direct sound at the listening position should not be flat for hifi listening.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
You don't seem to be following the train of discussion or bringing in other topics.
Who has said anything about big and expensive? It has nothing to do with what I said.

Personally I haven't one decent speaker from Genelec yet and I've heard a good number. But part of the problem is how they tune their speakers and demo them. A complete flat response simply doesn't sound right or good for hifi listening.

Wow. Flat and smooth is wrong? I didn’t expect to read that on these pages.

On SOTA: A state of the art speaker can be small, light and cheap. Think of speakers in Apple products: SOTA for a specific application.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
These studies refer to the steady-state in-room response, not the response of the loudspeaker directly. I’m not aware of any research suggesting that the direct response should not be flat (with some caveats, eg the apparent preference of younger and less experienced listeners for boosted bass response).

I took your statement to suggest you believe the direct sound at the listening position should not be flat for hifi listening.
Obviously I was referring to to the in room response. And a speaker from Genelec is tuned here with a complete flat response , no gradual tilt at all. Such a graph sounds to bright and with too little bass for most people. The result is that Genelec speakers on hifi shows turn out quite bad according to the people I have been with and my experience is the same.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
Wow. Flat and smooth is wrong? I didn’t expect to read that on these pages.

On SOTA: A state of the art speaker can be small, light and cheap. Think of speakers in Apple products: SOTA for a specific application.
Smooth and flat are two different things. Don't mix these.
I'm referring to a response in the listening room that is flat without any gradual fall. Like previously mentioned, it's been known since the 70's that such a graph that doesn't sound neutral. Part of the reason for that has to do with near mics picking up more high frequency than low frequency. You should read the paper.

A small speaker will have fairly high amounts of distortion. That's not SOTA IMO.
 
Top Bottom