Steve Guttenberg on active speakers

[GrimSurfer]

Well, @Old Listener... are you saying that the vast majority of active speakers sold don't rely on Class D amplification? If that's what you're saying, then how about you do your home work.

But if you're reaching back to your gramophone days when you recall seeing Class A driven Western Electric horns, then you've lost the entire context of this discussion.

Next issue. Experience with active speakers. Yes, I've owned a set. I also have friends who own them. Ive auditioned a few. They're practically impossible to avoid in today's marketplace. So what's your point again?

DSP isn't universal but it's pretty common.

Active speakers have become more popular at the consumer level. There are many reasons for this, including price, form factor, ease of integration. I agree that they've been around much longer in the recording industry, albeit at a price point, configuration, and quality level that consumers weren't seeking.

 

[GrimSurfer]

In my experience active speakers offer more SQ for the money, and this is regardless of the size. And if you want the best SQ possible at all an active speaker must be better than a passive one, because there is no crossover between amplifier and speaker chassis.

No, most studios use also very big active speakers for in wall mounting. And I mean really big! The biggest Genelec AFAIK weighs something like 180 kg.

I suspect you're right... there's huge value to be had in the active speaker market. Similarly, Class D amps perform very well on dollar/watt terms. No question.

Agree on the flush wall mounting. Some good acoustic reasons for this!

 

[andreasmaaan]

The discussion wasn't on technical superiority but performance.

Perhaps I’m a bit dim Could you explain the difference?

Or simply rephrase my question, replacing “technically better” with “capable of better performance”.

The inclusion of an amp with DSP inside the enclosure isn't relevant because one can find superb component amps with audio correction.

Yes, there are many things you can achieve with external DSP correction of a passive speaker. But there are also a number of things that simply can’t be done:

1. Avoiding caps, coils and/or resistors in the signal path, all of which degrade performance by adding distortion (not necessarily to the extent it’s audible of course) and reducing efficiency.
2. Placing the acoustic centres of the drivers in such a location that optimises for acoustic interaction with the baffle and/or horn, without significant compromise. With passives, you are shackled by the necessity of keeping the acoustic centres of the drivers on roughly the same Z-axis.
3. Implementing both phase linearity (constant group delay) and crossover filter slopes greater than 6dB/octave that do not exhibit ringing on the design axis (this is impossible with a passive speaker, even one that has had its phase linearised by an all-pass filter at the source).

That’s not an exhaustive list but it’s a few of the more significant limitations IMHO.

 

[LTig]

Well, @Old Listener... are you saying that the vast majority of active speakers sold don't rely on Class D amplification? If that's what you're saying, then how about you do your home work.

You shouldn't be so sure. Many of the very best studio monitors still use AB amps, e.g. all current models by Neumann (maybe except the KH80DSP) and Geithain.

[..]Active speakers have become more popular at the consumer level. There are many reasons for this, including price, form factor, ease of integration. I agree that they've been around much longer in the recording industry, albeit at a price point, configuration, and quality level that consumers weren't seeking.

Not true as well. Active studio monitors are available in all sizes from the very small to the very big, and also in very different price regions, beginning at some € 220 for a pair of decent JBL 305, which fits even a very low consumer budget. The consumers just did not know that they exist, and without the trend to streaming music from a smart phone active speakers would still live in the pro domain only.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Perhaps I’m a bit dim Could you explain the difference?

Or simply rephrase my question, replacing “technically better” with “capable of better performance”.

Technical superiority is an expression of sophistication. There are a number of ways in which this concept can be misused.

Consider an active speaker consisting of a driver, a cabinet, and an amp. When the sub components are disassembled and laid out, most people would conclude that they were looking at a high tech product.

The same people might look at a passive speaker differently, even though truly groundbreaking technologies were used in its cone material, motor, cabinet design etc. Why? Because the underlying technology to achieve even dispersion and linear response across a wide frequency band isn't apparent.

So what looks technically superior may not be technically superior. Just more complex to the casual observer.

Now let's look at technical superiority vs performance using a concrete example. The F-16 is quite a technically superior aircraft compared to the A-10. The F-16 employs far more sophisticated materials and sensors. It's avionics are quite advanced, it's cost of maintenance and sustainment is lower... compared to the A-10. But when the requirement turns to ground attack and close air support, the A-10 performs in a superior manner.

So technology and performance are not the same thing. One can be difficult to truly assess, being more than the simple sum of its parts. The other is how suitable something is relative to requirement.

 

[GrimSurfer]

You shouldn't be so sure. Many of the very best studio monitors still use AB amps, e.g. all current models by Neumann (maybe except the KH80DSP) and Geithain.

I started this discussion by responding to a statement that active speakers were superior to passive ones. Not that Neumann, Geithain, JBL, Genelec don't make active speakers that rival, or better, a great many passive ones.

Different discussion... and not one that I'd argue.

Not true as well. Active studio monitors are available in all sizes from the very small to the very big, and also in very different price regions, beginning at some € 220 for a pair of decent JBL 305, which fits even a very low consumer budget. The consumers just did not know that they exist, and without the trend to streaming music from a smart phone active speakers would still live in the pro domain only.

Check what I wrote. I said active "speakers", which includes so much shite that it confuses Alexa when you ask just how deep the manure goes.

And yes, "active speakers" are extremely popular at the consumer level. Now let's be honest, how many people/audiophiles know the difference between "active speakers" and "active studio monitors"? Not many, I suspect. (Note: The people on this forum are better informed and do know the difference, even though they sometimes conflate the two terms

 

[andreasmaaan]

Technical superiority is an expression of sophistication. There are a number of ways in which this concept can be misused.

Consider an active speaker consisting of a driver, a cabinet, and an amp. When the sub components are disassembled and laid out, most people would conclude that they were looking at a high tech product.

The same people might look at a passive speaker differently, even though truly groundbreaking technologies were used in its cone material, motor, cabinet design etc. Why? Because the underlying technology to achieve even dispersion and linear response across a wide frequency band isn't apparent.

So what looks technically superior may not be technically superior. Just more complex to the casual observer.

Now let's look at technical superiority vs performance using a concrete example. The F-16 is quite a technically superior aircraft compared to the A-10. The F-16 employs far more sophisticated materials and sensors. It's avionics are quite advanced, it's cost of maintenance and sustainment is lower... compared to the A-10. But when the requirement turns to ground attack and close air support, the A-10 performs in a superior manner.

So technology and performance are not the same thing. One can be difficult to truly assess, being more than the simple sum of its parts. The other is how suitable something is relative to requirement.

Ok, different uses of terminology. I did not intend “technically better” to mean “technologically more sophisticated”, which is I think how you read my post.

Anyway, it was the other part of my previous post (the numbered points) that I think was more pertinent to the current discussion. Any thoughts on those?

 

[LTig]

[..]
Check what I wrote. I said active "speakers", which includes so much shite that it confuses Alexa when you ask just how deep the manure goes.

I think we are comparing appels with oranges. Your definition of an active speaker seems to be a selfpowered speaker. My definition is a speaker with line level crossover and separate poweramps for each chassis. It's a subset of a selfpowered speaker.

A selfpowered speaker with just one power amp and a traditional crossover is just a passive speaker with builtin amp, and of course it has no advantage over a passive speaker. Many PC speakers fall into this category, and unfortunately also a bunch of new "active" hifi speakers, especially those models which come as master/slave, the slave often being a simple passive speaker.

And yes, "active speakers" are extremely popular at the consumer level. Now let's be honest, how many people/audiophiles know the difference between "active speakers" and "active studio monitors"? Not many, I suspect. (Note: The people on this forum are better informed and do know the difference, even though they sometimes conflate the two terms

Every active studio monitor is an active speaker, but not the other way.

 

[Ron Texas]

Having heard the LS50, I have no idea where the hype for it comes from. Rolled off in the highs, muddy bass, wide imaging but poor soundstage. I think it's a below average speaker especially when you consider its high pricing. I don't know why stereophile raves about it. Imo it's a $200 bookshelf, push it to $400 purely due to its great looks. The Emotiva airmotiv 5 and the Adam Audio monitors stomp all over it (imo).

Slamming the LS50 is a perennial sport around here. It's rude because so many people have them. No doubt, whatever you are listening to is an overpriced lousy sounding piece of junk.

 

[pozz]

Not much to add other than Harbeth produces a powered version of the 30.1 for studios:
https://www.harbeth.co.uk/studio-monitor/22/Harbeth-Monitor-30.1-Powered-loudspeaker

Always had a hankering to hear and work with it.

 

[pozz]

Having heard the LS50, I have no idea where the hype for it comes from. Rolled off in the highs, muddy bass, wide imaging but poor soundstage. I think it's a below average speaker especially when you consider its high pricing. I don't know why stereophile raves about it. Imo it's a $200 bookshelf, push it to $400 purely due to its great looks. The Emotiva airmotiv 5 and the Adam Audio monitors stomp all over it (imo).

The highs are not rolled off. They will seem dull compared to the Adams and Emotiva, or any monitor that uses an AMT, only because the sound of those monitors is generally hyped (boosted in bottom of the low end and highs, which ends up scooping the midrange). The designs by Eve and HEDD are more even, but not flat.

LS50s are counted good enough to be used as monitors in some studios. It is a good, popular speaker.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Ok, different uses of terminology. I did not intend “technically better” to mean “technologically more sophisticated”, which is I think how you read my post.

Anyway, it was the other part of my previous post (the numbered points) that I think was more pertinent to the current discussion. Any thoughts on those?

I don't disagree with any of your numbered points. That's why I "liked" it.

But the comparison isn't quite equal because you're omitting the amp and, possibly, audio correction, attached to the passive speakers. This is relevant to the conversation because it is part of what a listener gets to hear when comparing approaches to home audio.

Now there are plenty of mini/micro amps on the market, but most components are still standard size or slightly smaller. There are some that are much larger too.

Since space is less of an issue here, designers are less constrained with regard to the power supplies, power caps, heat sinks, circuit layouts etc. Greater freedom, if exploited, can result in an equal or better amplification that something squeezed into a monitor (I realize not all are configured this way).

When we look at a system this way, then we're left with discussing the merits of Class D vs. Class A/AB/H and the effectiveness of equalization, The issue of cable lengths (power or speaker) isn't really worth discussing as both of us know that takes us down into the crazy world of inductance, resistance and capacitance (most of which doesn't equate to audibly better sound).

 

[garbulky]

Slamming the LS50 is a perennial sport around here. It's rude because so many people have them. No doubt, whatever you are listening to is an overpriced lousy sounding piece of junk.

Huh? You realize I have USED the KEF LS50's right?

 

[GrimSurfer]

I think we are comparing appels with oranges. Your definition of an active speaker seems to be a selfpowered speaker. My definition is a speaker with line level crossover and separate poweramps for each chassis. It's a subset of a selfpowered speaker.

A selfpowered speaker with just one power amp and a traditional crossover is just a passive speaker with builtin amp, and of course it has no advantage over a passive speaker. Many PC speakers fall into this category, and unfortunately also a bunch of new "active" hifi speakers, especially those models which come as master/slave, the slave often being a simple passive speaker.

Every active studio monitor is an active speaker, but not the other way.

I agree. There is a definitional aspect to what we're discussing.

It starts to become more murky when we add bi-amping to the discussion, as one could put this within your definition of an active speaker (which many would say it is not).

 

[andreasmaaan]

But the comparison isn't quite equal because you're omitting the amp and, possibly, audio correction, attached to the passive speakers.

Actually, please have another look at my post. I was specifically comparing active speakers to DSP-corrected passive speakers. The three points I noted are all aspects which simply can’t be corrected for at the source, ie they are absolute limitations of passives in comparison to actives, regardless of any corrections applied.

If we take pre-crossover correction out of the equation, I could have listed mountains more advantages of actives over passives, but I omitted all of the advantages of active speakers that can also be obtained by DSP-correction of passive speakers, and focused only on some of those that just can’t.

Now there are plenty of mini/micro amps on the market, but most components are still standard size or slightly smaller. Since space is less of an issue here, designers are less constrained with regard to the power supplies, power caps, heat sinks, circuit layouts etc. Greater freedom, if exploited, can result in an equal or better amplification that something squeezed into a monitor (I realize not all are configured this way).

I agree, with the caveat that this is not an inherent limitation of active speakers, just a practical outcome that arises from the fact that most contain the electronics in the enclosure, which you’ve noted in any case

When we look at a system this way, then we're left with discussing the merits of Class D vs. Class A/AB/H and the effectiveness of equalization, The issue of cable lengths (power or speaker) isn't really worth discussing as both of us know that takes us down into the crazy world of inductance, resistance and capacitance (most of which doesn't equate to audibly better sound).

I agree, but again, there’s no inherent reason for active speakers to use different amps than passives. It’s just another in-practice tendency that has nothing to do with the inherent performance limitations or advantages of either type of speaker.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I agree. There is a definitional aspect to what we're discussing.

It starts to become more murky when we add bi-amping to the discussion, as one could put this within your definition of an active speaker (which many would say it is not).

I would definitely say it is not. If the crossover is between the amp(s) and the speaker, it is passive.

 

[Ron Texas]

Huh? You realize I have USED the KEF LS50's right?

If you don't like them, It's OK to say just that. However, the sort of diatribe you unleashed has the appearance of trolling, and it was rude. I'm listening to them right now and can't understand your comments. I hope you enjoy whatever you have now.

 

[amirm]

Even ASR deals 99 percent with separates, predominantly DACs. In that respect, ASR and the press are the same.

I don't test speakers, many of them do. And I rely on people sending me gear which is very difficult with speakers whereas they get gear from manufacturers who pay for shipping. So we are not in the same boat.

 

[garbulky]

If you don't like them, It's OK to say just that. However, the sort of diatribe you unleashed has the appearance of trolling, and it was rude. I'm listening to them right now and can't understand your comments. I hope you enjoy whatever you have now.

I have little idea what people own on this forum. Please be assured that my negative opinions aren't meant to be personal judgments on somebody's system or choices. You do you. Don't mind me, I'm not trying to judge your decisions or hearing or whatever. I think everybody should buy exactly the kind of system they want and like, no matter what.
I tend to be pretty opinionated about gear and sound, and that's what you're seeing, not an attempt to troll.

 

[garbulky]

The highs are not rolled off. They will seem dull compared to the Adams and Emotiva, or any monitor that uses an AMT, only because the sound of those monitors is generally hyped (boosted in bottom of the low end and highs, which ends up scooping the midrange). The designs by Eve and HEDD are more even, but not flat.

LS50s are counted good enough to be used as monitors in some studios. It is a good, popular speaker.

I haven't heard Eve and HEDD. I shall look in to them.
Edit: Wow, interesting look

Note the following notes are subjective impressions.

(For me), I thought the roll off was noticeable and it wasn't because of a difference in dome vs tweeters. My regular speakers use dome tweeters. It was the thing that stood out for me. On the LS50, I remember mentally pointing out the ceiling - "there that's the highest it goes".
I've had that happen too when listening to tube amps. I could literally say - there's the treble ceiling of the amp. Almost like a lack of air in the recording space. A cymbal is struck but it comes off muted, lacking that air and reverberation around it. That type of thing.

What I was looking forward to hearing with the LS50 was the time coherence and its coaxial tweeter. I've heard Thiel's CS5i and a 1.6 which I believe also had a coaxial tweeter of sorts but it had multiple drivers in it while this KEF was a single driver box. Unfortunately it didn't win me over though I was impressed at how loud those small drivers were able to go.


I agree that folded ribbon tweeters have a different kind of sound characteristic to dome tweeters. One thing I note with folded ribbons is that there is a certain restriction in the vertical height of the soundstage and just the slightest lack of, um, bite or snap if you would in the treble. My friend calls it a homogenization of the sound and is very sensitive to it, while I am less so. On the other hand folded ribbons tend to be remarkably detailed in my listening.