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

[Purité Audio]

I have just been fortunate to be able to hear and compare almost everything, if there were better speakers than the Kiis/8Cs I would be representing them.
I realise it might be difficult for you to comprehend but it you hear them in direct comparison to whatever ,you will understand.
Keith

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Was it the Salon 2?

A pair of them.

 

[Ron Texas]

A pair of them.

I would hope he had at least 2 of them.

 

[Ron Texas]

I have just been fortunate to be able to hear and compare almost everything, if there were better speakers than the Kiis/8Cs I would be representing them.
I realise it might be difficult for you to comprehend but it you hear them in direct comparison to whatever ,you will understand.
Keith

There isn't anything I can see, hear, touch, smell or taste that I can't comprehend. I have been around a while and been to many places. Stuff I can't comprehend falls into categories like string theory. Unlike most people, I can even comprehend the views of people who are opposed to my views. So I can comprehend your views, but you don't comprehend mine.

Recorded music is wonderful, but it isn't live music.

 

[Purité Audio]

It is difficult to imagine something better, until you hear it.
Keith

 

[Blumlein 88]

The reviews from everywhere on the 8c Dutch&Dutch aren't just good. Nearly all talk about preparing yourself to hear something beyond what you've heard with any other speaker. This is from places like 6 moons. From some European audiophile sites. And from pro audio outfits who would use them as monitors. This directivity chart posted by Purite' Audio on hifi wigwam is impressive.

Personally were I about to purchase something in this price range I'd probably choose the 8C over the Salon 2 or M2. It would be prudent to hear all three for myself of course.

This area seems in some small way to be opening up to maybe crossing some critical threshold. You've designs like Harmans M2 with some DSP, you've seen something like the Devialet Phantom a couple years back. You've got the Kii's and these 8C's. Are there other somewhat paradigm shifting offerings soon to be available?

I like the advance of the type solutions in the 8C's. I also however usually purchase on the 2nd hand market. So were I to make a purchase to upgrade I'd most likely find some Salons or Studio's on the pre-owned market at substantial savings. Not because passive is the way to go, but it would make sense for me at the current time. Any such sea changes are a bit turbulent. I do hope this time similar designs multiply and spread through out more price ranges and size offerings. Maybe in a decade passives of any substantial cost will be viewed as dinosaurs.

Man would I like to know results of a Harman blind test of M2 vs Kii Three vs 8C vs Salons. Or even given spin-o-rama test results what order Harman would predict for such a comparison.

 

[Ron Texas]

It is difficult to imagine something better, until you hear it.
Keith

Don't tell anyone what they can imagine or comprehend. You really don't have any idea. You might note that I have not said anything bad about the sound of 8c's. What Hi-fi was not so enthusiastic about the Kii 3's. My main objection is to excessive enthusiasm which sounds like puffery and bragging.

I would go listen to 8c's but the nearest one is about 1,000 miles away. It is still a bunch of money for a highly integrated product from a startup.

 

[Ron Texas]

@Blumlein 88 I find myself in the role of the skeptic, but I will have to take your word if the graph looks great. If it is as good as they say, there will be more. This is the exact kind of thing a big company could produce at a much lower price because overhead is spread over many products.

As for something getting multiple rave reviews, it's usually a good sign. However, the Schiit Yggdrasil also had many rave reviews.

 

[Blumlein 88]

@Blumlein 88 I find myself in the role of the skeptic, but I will have to take your word if the graph looks great. If it is as good as they say, there will be more. This is the exact kind of thing a big company could produce at a much lower price because overhead is spread over many products.

As for something getting multiple rave reviews, it's usually a good sign. However, the Schiit Yggdrasil also had many rave reviews.

I understand the skepticism. I've not heard them either. Now the Yggy got the reviews I expected. I could have written the story behind it and sent something out expecting the response it received. All from the usual suspects. The flavor and breadth of reviews for the 8C's is different however. Either that or I'm being swayed by their story. Many more publications (print and web) in more segments of the market seem to have thought them something spectacular and different than any previous speaker other than the Kii Three.

I'm less sure than you it will become more common just because it is good. Sometimes great products from small companies don't catch on and disappear.

 

[Ron Texas]

I'm less sure than you it will become more common just because it is good. Sometimes great products from small companies don't catch on and disappear.

It's an unpredictable world. Beta was technically superior, VHS won out and now both are history. Polaroid and Kodak are history. If the technology is really good it will spread one way or another. I find the argument that the investment in building passive speakers will squelch actives to be unpersuasive. Solid state relegated tubes to the boutiques. Digital relegated analog to a small share. The current vinyl revival is more lifestyle than audiophile. Streaming is ending the ownership of physical media. There is Darwinism in business. The fittest will survive.

It will become more common if it is good and brings high performance to a reasonable price point.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Do you have links to scientific publications (published in peer reviewed journals, of course) proving (or very strongly indicating) that active speakers are audibly superior to passive? (in general or "specifically").

Funny you should ask that because I have listed so many academic articles, or articles written by highly esteemed engineers. So let me try and make a list now:

1952: JAES wasn’t established at this time so Roy F Allison wrote in High Fidelity:

«THE BIAMPLIFIER SYSTEM
That...explains, in a nutshell, the motivation for the development of an audio system employing two amplifiers instead of the customary single unit. The audible difference may be small, but it is there. With continued listening, it becomes more and more apparent. There are sound technical reasons for achieving a noticeable improvement and, in addition, the solution of tough acoustic and matching problems is made easier through the use of a two- amplifier - or, as we shall call it -a biamplifier system».
Source: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-High-Fidelity/50s/High-Fidelity-1952-Nov-Dec.pdf

1962: JAES article on “On the Transient Response of Ideal Crossover Networks” by Robert J. Ashley, a paper leading to his 1971 papers.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=845

1971: JAES article on “Operational Amplifier Implementation of Ideal Electronic Crossover Networks” by Ashley-Henne
“During the study of ideal crossover networks, the value of operational amplifiers became obvious. Now that integrated-circuit operational amplifiers are available at reasonable cost, an electronic crossover network employing them will be demonstrated. There will also be discussion of the optimum filter characteristics and of the power requirements of the amplifiers which follow the networks”.

From the introduction:
“. INTRODUCTION An ideal electronic crossover network was reported by Ashley [1] in 1962. This network, as shown in Fig. 1, used operational amplifiers as summers and inverters, but used inductors and capacitors in the basic frequency division network. The same network could have been synthesized using operational amplifier integrators [2], but at that time the least expensive amplifire cost some $20 and required both plus and minus 300-volt regulated power supplies. Thus a complete active filter crossover network would have cost several hundred dollars. Now integrated circuit operational amplifiers suitable for this kind of active filter cost less than $2 each and operate from 10-15-volt power supplies. This and recent interest [3] in electronic crossover networks prompted us to explore the use of low-price operational amplifiers in electronic crossover networks.”
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2215


1971: JAES article on “Active and Passive Filters as Loudspeaker Crossover Networks” by Ashley-Kaminsky.

“This tutorial paper defines the function of a crossover network and then explores methods of meeting this function. For moderately priced two-way loudspeakers, a passive network at about 800-1600 Hz will continue to dominate the designs of the future. However, the use of active filters (electronic crossover networks) and buffer amplifiers offers the most significant means of loudspeaker improvement in the next decade. As one typical factor, crossover frequencies need to be lowered and crossover slopes increased, and the active filter is the only economical method of doing this”.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2160

1971: AES article on “Electronic Crossover Networks and Their Contribution to Improved Loudspeaker Transient Response” by Smith
“Tone-burst testing of loudspeakers provides a significant indication of a loudspeaker's ability to reproduce transients in program material. A comparison of several studio monitor loudspeaker systems is presented and the improvement in loudspeaker transient response is illustrated when electronic crossover networks and multiple amplifiers are used to replace conventional inductor-capacitor crossover networks (...) The results of this study have demonstrated the improvement in loudspeaker transient response possible with the use of electronic crossover networks and multiple amplifiers”.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2141

1980: AES article on “A Systematic Approach to Monitoring Loudspeaker Design” by Martikainen. This article may be the first written by a science based commercial application. At this time, Genelec was a start-up, making a science-informed bet on tomorrow’s technology.
"Listening tests have shown very good clarity, most obviously due to multi-amplification”.
Source: https://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/About Us/Academic_Papers/3777.pdf

See also JAES article “Electronic Technology”, a broad review article capturing 50 years of audio science, by Leach W. Marshall from 1998:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12174
“The past 50 years have seen the demise of the vacuum tube, the development of the transistor, and the development of the integrated circuit. There has been an explosive development of analog and digital circuits and systems. These developments have had an incredible impact on the field of audio engineering, most of which has been chronicled in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. The papers on electronic technology that have been published in the past 50 years in the Journal are summarized”.

I also wanted to add these popular articles by AES Fellow John Watkinson:
https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Crossovers.pdf
https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/...dspeaker-technology-part-8-crossover-networks

Here are some notable names and producers on active vs passive:

ATC: http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/active-amplification/

GENELEC: https://www.genelec.com/active-crossovers

BRYSTON: http://www.bryston.com/products/active/Active_System.html

LINKWITZ: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

DYNAUDIO: https://www.dynaudio.com/dynaudio-academy/2017/may/the-benefits-of-an-active-crossover

Note that some of the commercial producers have little interest in pushing one technology ahead of the other. ATC sell more passive speakers, but advocate active. Dynaudio’s flagship speakers are passive but they advocate active. Bryston is a traditional box producer, now advocating active.

I will conclude with Toole’s remark:

«Those professional loudspeakers with dedicated electronics have a huge advantage over passive loudspeakers. Consumers in general, especially high-end audiophiles, have not caught up with the advantages that technology has to offer. Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound».
Source: Chapter 12.5 in Toole (2016)

 

[Frank Dernie]

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

How distracting did you find this noise when You auditioned them?
It seems like a good solution to me, having the DSP active crossover inside the amplifier.

 

[svart-hvitt]

How distracting did you find this noise when You auditioned them?
It seems like a good solution to me, having the DSP active crossover inside the amplifier.

The amps were in another room. I didn’t go there to listen. The noise issue was a warning raised by the importer (just pro importer, no luxury amps etc).

 

[stunta]

Availability is the appeal. Chicken and egg problem.

I think this sums it up.

My technical knowledge with music reproduction is layman level, but I do understand the benefits of keeping the signal in the digital domain as far downstream as possible. I've ordered the miniDsp 88A unit and will be configuring the crossovers there so that renders the crossovers in my subs and speakers redundant. In an ideal world, I would prefer the speakers to have no crossovers, have the external crossover box standardized (and also serve as HT pre/pro) such that the speaker manufacturer provides a DSP plugin I can download to the crossover unit and that's it.

Unfortunately, too much money is involved in this business. Hi-fi dealers make a lot of money with customers frequently upgrading different parts of the system and hifi enthusiasts like to upgrade. Cables, power conditioners, sources, pre-amps, amps and speakers - every piece is a money-making component for the dealers. So dealers dont have the incentive to sell one-box solutions unless the margins are stupendously high.

To me its clear that active DSP speakers are the way forward, but I am struggling to find something I can try at my budget that also looks aesthetically pleasing. Pro audio gear generally doesn't look that great as its more function than form. Plus I already have so many amps and there is inertia with unloading them on the s/h market. And finally, if I do end up getting an active DSP speaker, how do I know that it will outperform my current passive speakers in my system, in my room to my ears? I don't have the setup to perform proper blind A/B testing and this also adds to the inertia.

 

[andreasmaaan]

In an ideal world, I would prefer the speakers to have no crossovers, have the external crossover box standardized (and also serve as HT pre/pro) such that the speaker manufacturer provides a DSP plugin I can download to the crossover unit and that's it.

The problem is that the various crossover DSPs are not themselves standardised, so unless the DSP setting is tailored to the specific crossover unit you have, it’s unlikely to function correctly. It would work if manufacturers released settings as specific presets for commonly used crossover units though.

 

[Purité Audio]

I think this sums it up.

My technical knowledge with music reproduction is layman level, but I do understand the benefits of keeping the signal in the digital domain as far downstream as possible. I've ordered the miniDsp 88A unit and will be configuring the crossovers there so that renders the crossovers in my subs and speakers redundant. In an ideal world, I would prefer the speakers to have no crossovers, have the external crossover box standardized (and also serve as HT pre/pro) such that the speaker manufacturer provides a DSP plugin I can download to the crossover unit and that's it.

Unfortunately, too much money is involved in this business. Hi-fi dealers make a lot of money with customers frequently upgrading different parts of the system and hifi enthusiasts like to upgrade. Cables, power conditioners, sources, pre-amps, amps and speakers - every piece is a money-making component for the dealers. So dealers dont have the incentive to sell one-box solutions unless the margins are stupendously high.

To me its clear that active DSP speakers are the way forward, but I am struggling to find something I can try at my budget that also looks aesthetically pleasing. Pro audio gear generally doesn't look that great as its more function than form. Plus I already have so many amps and there is inertia with unloading them on the s/h market. And finally, if I do end up getting an active DSP speaker, how do I know that it will outperform my current passive speakers in my system, in my room to my ears? I don't have the setup to perform proper blind A/B testing and this also adds to the inertia.

I set up the Kiis/8Cs as another separate system, using Roon to instantly switch between them, i acoustically measure the room and adjust the speakers if necessary, then I just leave the client to it.
The improvement is really so obvious , clarity/ bass extension/ control .
That doesn’t mean you will like it of course especially if you have been used to a coloured sound.
Keith

 

[levimax]

Funny you should ask that because I have listed so many academic articles, or articles written by highly esteemed engineers. So let me try and make a list now:

1952: JAES wasn’t established at this time so Roy F Allison wrote in High Fidelity:

«THE BIAMPLIFIER SYSTEM
That...explains, in a nutshell, the motivation for the development of an audio system employing two amplifiers instead of the customary single unit. The audible difference may be small, but it is there. With continued listening, it becomes more and more apparent. There are sound technical reasons for achieving a noticeable improvement and, in addition, the solution of tough acoustic and matching problems is made easier through the use of a two- amplifier - or, as we shall call it -a biamplifier system».
Source: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-High-Fidelity/50s/High-Fidelity-1952-Nov-Dec.pdf

1962: JAES article on “On the Transient Response of Ideal Crossover Networks” by Robert J. Ashley, a paper leading to his 1971 papers.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=845

1971: JAES article on “Operational Amplifier Implementation of Ideal Electronic Crossover Networks” by Ashley-Henne
“During the study of ideal crossover networks, the value of operational amplifiers became obvious. Now that integrated-circuit operational amplifiers are available at reasonable cost, an electronic crossover network employing them will be demonstrated. There will also be discussion of the optimum filter characteristics and of the power requirements of the amplifiers which follow the networks”.

From the introduction:
“. INTRODUCTION An ideal electronic crossover network was reported by Ashley [1] in 1962. This network, as shown in Fig. 1, used operational amplifiers as summers and inverters, but used inductors and capacitors in the basic frequency division network. The same network could have been synthesized using operational amplifier integrators [2], but at that time the least expensive amplifire cost some $20 and required both plus and minus 300-volt regulated power supplies. Thus a complete active filter crossover network would have cost several hundred dollars. Now integrated circuit operational amplifiers suitable for this kind of active filter cost less than $2 each and operate from 10-15-volt power supplies. This and recent interest [3] in electronic crossover networks prompted us to explore the use of low-price operational amplifiers in electronic crossover networks.”
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2215


1971: JAES article on “Active and Passive Filters as Loudspeaker Crossover Networks” by Ashley-Kaminsky.

“This tutorial paper defines the function of a crossover network and then explores methods of meeting this function. For moderately priced two-way loudspeakers, a passive network at about 800-1600 Hz will continue to dominate the designs of the future. However, the use of active filters (electronic crossover networks) and buffer amplifiers offers the most significant means of loudspeaker improvement in the next decade. As one typical factor, crossover frequencies need to be lowered and crossover slopes increased, and the active filter is the only economical method of doing this”.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2160

1971: AES article on “Electronic Crossover Networks and Their Contribution to Improved Loudspeaker Transient Response” by Smith
“Tone-burst testing of loudspeakers provides a significant indication of a loudspeaker's ability to reproduce transients in program material. A comparison of several studio monitor loudspeaker systems is presented and the improvement in loudspeaker transient response is illustrated when electronic crossover networks and multiple amplifiers are used to replace conventional inductor-capacitor crossover networks (...) The results of this study have demonstrated the improvement in loudspeaker transient response possible with the use of electronic crossover networks and multiple amplifiers”.
Source: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2141

1980: AES article on “A Systematic Approach to Monitoring Loudspeaker Design” by Martikainen. This article may be the first written by a science based commercial application. At this time, Genelec was a start-up, making a science-informed bet on tomorrow’s technology.
"Listening tests have shown very good clarity, most obviously due to multi-amplification”.
Source: https://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/About Us/Academic_Papers/3777.pdf

See also JAES article “Electronic Technology”, a broad review article capturing 50 years of audio science, by Leach W. Marshall from 1998:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12174
“The past 50 years have seen the demise of the vacuum tube, the development of the transistor, and the development of the integrated circuit. There has been an explosive development of analog and digital circuits and systems. These developments have had an incredible impact on the field of audio engineering, most of which has been chronicled in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. The papers on electronic technology that have been published in the past 50 years in the Journal are summarized”.

I also wanted to add these popular articles by AES Fellow John Watkinson:
https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Crossovers.pdf
https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/...dspeaker-technology-part-8-crossover-networks

Here are some notable names and producers on active vs passive:

ATC: http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/active-amplification/

GENELEC: https://www.genelec.com/active-crossovers

BRYSTON: http://www.bryston.com/products/active/Active_System.html

LINKWITZ: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

DYNAUDIO: https://www.dynaudio.com/dynaudio-academy/2017/may/the-benefits-of-an-active-crossover

Note that some of the commercial producers have little interest in pushing one technology ahead of the other. ATC sell more passive speakers, but advocate active. Dynaudio’s flagship speakers are passive but they advocate active. Bryston is a traditional box producer, now advocating active.

I will conclude with Toole’s remark:

«Those professional loudspeakers with dedicated electronics have a huge advantage over passive loudspeakers. Consumers in general, especially high-end audiophiles, have not caught up with the advantages that technology has to offer. Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound».
Source: Chapter 12.5 in Toole (2016)

That is a very impressive list of articles. For over 60 year the technical benefits of active crossovers have been know and products have been available to consumers yet they still do not dominate the market. Contrast that to the switch from CRT TV's to flat panel TV's where the switch was made quickly and completely. I think the explanation is "economic utility" attached is a pdf of an article about utility and consumer behavior related to new technology which I think is very applicable.

While active crossovers are better technically the benefit to the consumer has not yet (after 60 years) overcome the barriers. We may now be reaching that point and it may have indeed arrived with some of the new active/ DSP speakers for Alexa, Siri, and Google actually sounding pretty good.... especially for the mass market.

 

[stunta]

The problem is that the various crossover DSPs are not themselves standardised, so unless the DSP setting is tailored to the specific crossover unit you have, it’s unlikely to function correctly. It would work if manufacturers released settings as specific presets for commonly used crossover units though.

Understood, which is why I wish these things were more standardized. Given the crossover functions would be in software, its not hard to imagine an open source SDK. A crude analogy is that the crossover box is like a smartphone and the DSP package delivered by the speaker manufacturer would be like an app.

 

[svart-hvitt]

That is a very impressive list of articles. For over 60 year the technical benefits of active crossovers have been know and products have been available to consumers yet they still do not dominate the market. Contrast that to the switch from CRT TV's to flat panel TV's where the switch was made quickly and completely. I think the explanation is "economic utility" attached is a pdf of an article about utility and consumer behavior related to new technology which I think is very applicable.

While active crossovers are better technically the benefit to the consumer has not yet (after 60 years) overcome the barriers. We may now be reaching that point and it may have indeed arrived with some of the new active/ DSP speakers for Alexa, Siri, and Google actually sounding pretty good.... especially for the mass market.

This is a science place so what wins in the market is irrelevant. There is no nature law ensuring scientifically superior ideas will win over substandard ones.

We have a regrettable tendency these days to believe that what dominates in the market must be the best solution.

Tell me the incentives and I’ll tell you the outcome.

It needs to be added here that it’s difficult to have scientifically ideas win in an area where people are happy with the fidelity of vinyl, 1920s tube technology, think MP3 is just fine (Spotify) etc. We have lousy hearing and are probably not always able to distinguish the superior from the mediocre. That may explain why some people prefer to go high SPL implementing 1950s technology; it sounds superior to them.

 

[sergeauckland]

That is a very impressive list of articles. For over 60 year the technical benefits of active crossovers have been know and products have been available to consumers yet they still do not dominate the market. Contrast that to the switch from CRT TV's to flat panel TV's where the switch was made quickly and completely. I think the explanation is "economic utility" attached is a pdf of an article about utility and consumer behavior related to new technology which I think is very applicable.

While active crossovers are better technically the benefit to the consumer has not yet (after 60 years) overcome the barriers. We may now be reaching that point and it may have indeed arrived with some of the new active/ DSP speakers for Alexa, Siri, and Google actually sounding pretty good.... especially for the mass market.

When you have existing manufacturers, their dealers and the magazines that support them all discouraging (or at least not encouraging) active 'speakers, when you have lifestyle magazines featuring these tiny DSP-based 'smart' (or as I prefer to call them, snooper) loudspeakers, when the mass market has totally gone away from dedicated music reproduction, it's little surprise that active loudspeakers bigger than a pack of cigarettes and costing more than £€$100 aren't that popular.

Small entrepreneurial manufacturers with no legacy track record can be bold and innovative. Established manufacturers won't take the risk, or don't have the expertise in-house, or are just milking their existing market for as long as it holds up.

S