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

[Sal1950]

The thing about the M2 Crown solution is noisy amps. You need a separate room or a designated box.

I have no first hand experience but I find it hard to believe the fans on the Crown amp, which are temp controlled, run very hard driving the efficient M2's unless being used in large studios and playing very loudly. In which case fan noise shouldn't be an issue. LOL

 

[JJB70]

I think that a dark horse is the soundbar. These tend to be dismissed by audio enthusiasts but in recent times I have listened to a few that were actually pretty good with music and offer a simple, clean all in one set up. A friend has a Yamaha one which I found surprisingly good and another friend just bought a Samsung soundbar which sounds genuinely good.

 

[JJB70]

Crown amplifiers seem to offer genuinely well engineered and well made products for very attractive prices. OK their measurements may not be state of the art but they will be audibly transparent to most and you can get heaps of power, well engineered from an established and respected manufacturer. Sounds good to me.

 

[DWPress]

This thread describes my journey pretty accurately. I've got a garage shelf full of old separates, mostly DACs, amps and preamps now but also boxes of raw speaker drivers. My system now consists of a MiniDSP 2x8 (4x10) that acts as preamp, xo and room correction which takes a digital input from a Topping DAC fed from a PC. Sure I've still got a turntable and phono pre but that's mostly because I know a ton of musicians and it's the boutiquey thing to do these days to release new music that way but they always come with a digital download card anyway.

Gone is the rack of "stuff" like EQs, Sonic Holography, CD/DVD transports and all the other things I so passionately spent money on over the years. But now I have measurement microphones, a preamp for those, software that lets me use those tools....

Personally, I could never go back to passive speakers. As has been said many times above and other places: THE SPEAKERS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE CHAIN! After that, room correction probably in the sense of bass traps and diffusers to keep those radiated sound waves under control. Those of us who critically listen to music and our systems are still never satisfied and there are still plenty of things to"tweek" in such a system.

I'm fortunate, I don't care how pretty my boxes are (raw painted MDF as the baffles and drivers are ever changing) my listening room is my working art studio, cables strung in plain sight on the ceiling (6x 12 gauge wire runs + sub RCA) and ugly looking uncovered fiberglass traps/diffusers. As an artist I completely understand the need for our precious audio gear to have aesthetic appeal too especially if its in a home setting but beautiful boxes and design have nothing to do with sound reproduction and science of making it as accurate as possible to the listener.

BTW, books on shelves make awesome diffusers/absorbers and they make you look smart too!

 

[svart-hvitt]

I have no first hand experience but I find it hard to believe the fans on the Crown amp, which are temp controlled, run very hard driving the efficient M2's unless being used in large studios and playing very loudly. In which case fan noise shouldn't be an issue. LOL

When I auditioned the M2 and the 18 inch woofers the importer told me the amps are too noisy to be in a domestic environment. I didn’t check it myself.

 

[bobhol]

I stick around here to try to pick up as much as I can about the current trends in Audio. I am way behind some of the people here. I had a CD player in 85 but I didn't really look at it as being digital. Ten years ago I was digitizing lp's in to a computer with an upgraded sound card. Two years ago I barely understood what DAC/ADC meant. Most of my audio gear is still Analog. But I do have two standalone DAC's that I use and I have successfully used a Chromecast Audio. I feel that I am barely scratching the surface of what is digital audio. And I am losing ground. But that is OK. I enjoy what I hear. And when I die I doubt if there'll be one child born in this world to carry on, in this analog tradition. (My apologies to Laura Nyro)

 

[GoMrPickles]

And when I die I doubt if there'll be one more child left to carry on in this analog tradition.

I see what you did there.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I stick around here to try to pick up as much as I can about the current trends in Audio. I am way behind some of the people here. I had a CD player in 85 but I didn't really look at it as being digital. Ten years ago I was digitizing lp's in to a computer with an upgraded sound card. Two years ago I barely understood what DAC/ADC meant. Most of my audio gear is still Analog. But I do have two standalone DAC's that I use and I have successfully used a Chromecast Audio. I feel that I am barely scratching the surface of what is digital audio. And I am losing ground. But that is OK. I enjoy what I hear. And when I die I doubt if there'll be one more child left to carry on in this analog tradition.

There’s no right or wrong in audio as long as we discuss preferences or «are we happy with the sound?»

It’s the scientific part which is more right-wrong oriented. And with science in hand one can argue convincingly that digital distribution formats and active multi amp-systems are superior to LPs and passive networks.

 

[Sal1950]

I'm fortunate, I don't care how pretty my boxes are (raw painted MDF as the baffles and drivers are ever changing) my listening room is my working art studio, cables strung in plain sight on the ceiling (6x 12 gauge wire runs + sub RCA) and ugly looking uncovered fiberglass traps/diffusers.

BTW, what year was your divorce? JK

 

[Old Listener]

Things don't necessarily have to be all in one box, that's a lifestyle solution. Witness how if having Crown amplification upsets your audiophile sensibilities, you can bring in Mark Levinson (or others). Members here have taken other paths with the systems to amazing results with both M2 and 4367. DRC faced a lot of resistance for a long time but slowly is being accepted, speakers capable of outside crossover solutions are available.

For almost 20 years, I lived with 3-way active speakers with an external crossover and 5 channels of amplification that I supplied. Sound quality was very good but I hated dealing with all those wires. Now I have 3-way active speakers with the amps and crossover inside the speakers. Simple, uncluttered and easy to set up.

The M2s provide a solution with the amps and crossover outside the speakers. The JBL 705P and 708P have amps and crossover inside the speakers. A number of people have commented that the M2 and the 7 series speakers sound quite similar within the limits of the 7 series.

You can do DRC in various places in the audio path. It fits my minimalist goals and my wallet to do it in the JRiver music player software.

 

[restorer-john]

...It fits my minimalist goals and my wallet to do it in the JRiver music player software...

Ultimately, it is what works for you that is important.

We are all different in our requirements and that is what keeps thousands of manufacturers producing myriad varieties of product. We gain infinite choices and much needed competition.

 

[Sal1950]

Now I have 3-way active speakers with the amps and crossover inside the speakers. Simple, uncluttered and easy to set up.

Sure, but as I said, that's a lifestyle (ease of use) solution.
Same can be said for a modern receiver or integrated vs DAC>Tuner>Phonoamp>Preamp>Power Amp
Your choice.

 

[levimax]

The fact that some people on ASR think passive design can be state of the art in 2019, 50 years after science oriented people understood the pros and cons of active and passive, is beyond belief. One must be able to distinguish between what sounds good and what is scientifically a more evolved design.

@Sal1950 recently wrote about turntables:

"Just a reminder that this is ASR, it's mission is to measure and objectively evaluate gear then investigate if it contributes to any advance in the SOTA in music reproduction. Vinyl ran out of relevance in that picture near 50 years ago.
There are plenty of places where "sounds good to me" leads the day".
Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...understand-the-appeal.6430/page-6#post-143810

The same can be said about passive design. Don't resort to how a passive speaker sounds; the point is what is the most science-driven approach in reproduction of audio. Both LPs and passive design can give amusement. But they are not SOTA in audio reproduction.

The argument that turntables/records are hopelessly obsolete is reasonable but not as clear cut as many would like to believe. However to extend this argument to active vs passive crossovers is silly. There is nothing "scientifically more evolved" about active crossovers as compared to passive ones. Both have advantages and disadvantages and both are very old ideas that can be used to create "SOTA" speaker systems. There are other ways to build SOTA speakers including full range speakers which eliminate the crossover issue entirely. The definition of science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". In the case of SOTA audio the more you study and observe sound reproduction technology and psycho acoustics the more interesting and nuanced it becomes which is the opposite of using "science" to declare one technology "more evolved" and another "obsolete".

 

[jhaider]

I have no first hand experience but I find it hard to believe the fans on the Crown amp, which are temp controlled, run very hard driving the efficient M2's unless being used in large studios and playing very loudly. In which case fan noise shouldn't be an issue. LOL

The fans are very loud from idle to full throttle. I don't think a Crown DCIn amp should ever be in the same room as a listener.

(I use a DCI4|1250n for 4 subwoofers, and have a DCI8|600n for future plans on hand.)

 

[DWPress]

BTW, what year was your divorce? JK

LOL, 3 years ago! But my studio is a separate building and the quest for the "perfect sound" in here is older than both my marriages.

In the house - control from phone or laptop into old appleTV and AirportX as a front end to networked audio/video into 4 speaker zones and classD signal sensing amps. All small, discrete, aesthetically pleasing speakers (even some old mini7s outside) reinforced with passive/active bass. Nothing measured or scientific about any of it but sometimes it blows me away how good it actually is to about 75dB.

 

[svart-hvitt]

The argument that turntables/records are hopelessly obsolete is reasonable but not as clear cut as many would like to believe. However to extend this argument to active vs passive crossovers is silly. There is nothing "scientifically more evolved" about active crossovers as compared to passive ones. Both have advantages and disadvantages and both are very old ideas that can be used to create "SOTA" speaker systems. There are other ways to build SOTA speakers including full range speakers which eliminate the crossover issue entirely. The definition of science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". In the case of SOTA audio the more you study and observe sound reproduction technology and psycho acoustics the more interesting and nuanced it becomes which is the opposite of using "science" to declare one technology "more evolved" and another "obsolete".

It’s a bit on purpose I provoke by stating that passive networks are not state of the art (because I know that people’s view on a matter is decided by the Investment they already did, not current fact or science!). But I back up my provocation with sources, like here:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...the-art-loudspeakers.6363/page-10#post-143984

Take a look at what AES Fellow John Watkinson wrote:

«As sounds add linearly in the air in front of the drive units, it follows and indeed it is obvious, that one of the fundamental requirements of a crossover is that it should produce a pair of electrical signals that, if added, would reproduce the original audio waveform. A crossover that can do that is called a constant-voltage crossover.
It came as a surprise to me when I discovered, some time ago, that it is fundamentally impossible to obtain such a pair of signals from any passive crossover. In other words, passive crossovers cannot and do not work because they fail to provide the signals necessary for the drive units to linearly add together again. Passive crossovers will always be audible because in the vicinity of the crossover frequency the input waveform cannot be reproduced correctly. Passive crossovers have various other drawbacks including unwanted DC resistance that reduces the damping factor of the woofer and common impedances that reflect woofer distortion currents into the tweeter».

Can an audio reproduction system that by design is coloured, be transparent? No, that’s a contradiction. And that’s why science based engineers started working on and writing about active design well over half a century ago. Did all these engineers get it wrong (Allison, Ashley-Kaminsky, Martikainen, Toole, Watkinson)?

You have strong opinion on this matter. Where is your strong argument?

 

[sergeauckland]

The argument that turntables/records are hopelessly obsolete is reasonable but not as clear cut as many would like to believe. However to extend this argument to active vs passive crossovers is silly. There is nothing "scientifically more evolved" about active crossovers as compared to passive ones. Both have advantages and disadvantages and both are very old ideas that can be used to create "SOTA" speaker systems. There are other ways to build SOTA speakers including full range speakers which eliminate the crossover issue entirely. The definition of science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". In the case of SOTA audio the more you study and observe sound reproduction technology and psycho acoustics the more interesting and nuanced it becomes which is the opposite of using "science" to declare one technology "more evolved" and another "obsolete".

I can't think of any technical advantage to passive crossovers. There may be commercial benefits, to do both with upfront cost and upgrade potential, but as far as performance goes, no advantage whatsoever to a passive crossover.

S.

 

[JJB70]

The thing that tends to be lost in "A is better than B" type tech arguments is that implementation is seldom considered. Regardless of the arguments for (or against) any technical solution it all depends on implementation. Or, alternatively, a very well executed sub-optimal technical solution is probably going to outperform a badly implemented technical solution which is nominally superior.

 

[levimax]

You have strong opinion on this matter. Where is your strong argument?

I don't really have a strong opinion on active vs passive. I have built both and experimented and measured both and my current system (all home made) is tri-amped with an active op-amp crossover and then fine tuned and phase aligned with FIR convolution so I get what this issues are. My strong opinion is that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and to use the word "science" and some old articles written by opinionated engineers to declare one solution "more scientific" and another "obsolete" is the opposite of what science is about.

My opinion on crossovers, which I am sure will evolve over time, is that they are all "bad" and all introduce all sorts of issues. The higher order the more issues created. The "art" in building "SOTA" speakers is not crossovers or DSP but rather falls into the "mechanical realm". It is really hard to design and build linear drivers with well behaved roll offs that integrate well with each other. The enclosures are also very important in both geometry and damping and mechanical stiffness. The more done on the mechanical side of the speaker the less works that has to be done with crossovers and DSP. DSP for EQ, room integration, and phase alignment is a great tool but it will never be able to do anything more than "fine tune" the speakers, it can never overcome mechanical limitations.

 

[DonH56]

I can't think of any technical advantage to passive crossovers. There may be commercial benefits, to do both with upfront cost and upgrade potential, but as far as performance goes, no advantage whatsoever to a passive crossover.

S.

I hate to jump into another of these threads since the OP's opinion of me is already in the mud... But then maybe it doesn't matter, can't go lower!

The usual benefits cited for passive crossovers (I have not read this thread but assume their disadvantages have been stated ad nauseum) -- note these are not all present in all crossovers, are not all purely technical rationales, and are debatable in their efficacy and relevance (I don't agree with them all FWIW):

1. Improving the load impedance seen by the amplifier by reducing (mainly) out-of-band impedance excursions the amp might otherwise have to deal with;
2. Providing isolation from the amplifier in the event of amp failure;
3. Reducing active component count to a single amplifier rather than two or more (perhaps higher reliability, perhaps not, see other thread);
4. Ease of use for the end user (nothing to tweak, plug-and-play -- this is also true of many active designs now, and even many years ago pro systems shipped with crossover frequencies and slopes making it simple for a user to set up the external crossover);
5. Simpler upgradability and repair of independent boxes (this is as much marketing as engineering for consumer audio speakers IMO).

Probably more but that's what I thought about off the top of my head.

When I think about revolutionary advances in loudspeakers I tend to think of things other than active designs that add DSP and swap out analog components for digital (which strike me as more evolutionary but there is always a continuum). Things like new audio projection schemes that obviate the need for physical cones and sheets that vibrate by using pulsed air sources and interferometric schemes to put the audio where you want it without affecting the rest of the room.