Steve Guttenberg on active speakers

[andreasmaaan]

I understand brute force engineeering. It's an approach but not the best one.

I still think you're missing the point by characterising engineering in terms of "approach".

The correct way to judge engineering is by outcomes (which may include not only performance, but also efficiency, reliability, cost, etc etc).

It's that simple.

I'm saying that if the wings are the problem, fix those.

If a cone or cabinet is the problem, then fix those. Don't reprogram the DSP to boost power levels to try to make the driver or cabinet do something it isn't configured to do. That's brute force engineering.

"Fix" the cones and cabinets, then use DSP to get an extra X% performance from the improved components. Why so hard?

 

[GrimSurfer]

The correct way to judge engineering is by outcomes (which may include not only performance, but also efficiency, reliability, cost, etc etc).

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. A more sophisticated way is to judge engineering by its ability to solve specific problems leading to increase performance of the whole system.

Otherwise, you make an aircraft faster by adding power until the wings fall off, instead of looking at the system and determining/fixing those things that are the most significant impediments to speed.

"Fix" the cones and cabinets, then use DSP to get an extra X% performance from the improved components.

Correct.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Correct.

Glad we agree

 

[GrimSurfer]

Now if we can only get the audio world to design good shit (instead of jumping on a bandwagon and calling it a day).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The correct way to judge engineering is by outcomes (which may include not only performance, but also efficiency, reliability, cost, etc etc).

Exactly. That is why I am annoyed by high-end audio manufacturers who advertise what technology and materials that go into their products but fail to document what sound comes out.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Exactly. That is why I am annoyed by high-end audio manufacturers who advertise what technology and materials that go into their products but fail to document what sound comes out.

Amen to that.

 

[Sal1950]

As I see it, the ultimate "active system" will use external DSP modules with highly intelligent software that will auto-tune a particular speaker configuration to the actual room it's used in. I say external for ease of updating the DSP hardware-software. Something more along the lines of JBL's M2 music system.
10-20 years from now a SOTA preamp might include a much advanced dirac, or whatever, capable of auto-tuning a system to in-room performance unrealized now. This is an area where HT has mostly lead the market, with current stereo gear such as the latest from Anthem just getting a foothold.
The futures so bright, I gotta wear shades.

 

[Sal1950]

Exactly. That is why I am annoyed by high-end audio manufacturers who advertise what technology and materials that go into their products but fail to document what sound comes out.

Yep, "document" as in offering something with verifiable evidence.

 

[Purité Audio]

Apple ‘homepod’ does that now.
Keith

 

[Snarfie]

As I see it, the ultimate active "system will" use external DSP modules with highly intelligent software that will auto-tune a particular speaker configuration to the actual room it's used in.

I totaly agree. I use also roomcorrection software. An i'm tune it such to my (personal) liking. I visited many years ago the acousticly excelent concert hall of Amsterdan an well known high quality acoustic hall. Some work of Mhaler was playd by bernard Haitink. After the concertbi was invited to listen to the same music but than recorded from the same amsterdam concert hall the stores name is now concerto in amsterdam. Atleast the speakers i can remember big big Martin logans powerd by some high end amplifiers monoblocks not shure krell, Mark Levinson or Burmester. I remember well it did not come close to the live experience. Did me think how much money do you have to spend to get something close to your liking after 50 years i found the answer with roomcorrection software.

 

[nm4711]

The problem for most audiophiles is probably that they can't choose there amps, etc. or use their existing ones when buying an active speaker, as mentioned several times before in this thread.

But most of them probably miss and/or don't understand the most important advantage of an active speaker: The active crossover (where IMHO the name comes from) and the position of the amps in the signal chain.
It would be possible to sell active (, but not powered) loudspeakers with an external analog active crossover or a DSP, so you can choose your Amp(s) and DAC(s) youreself. But then you have defenetly too much cables that can be connected the wrong way by the buyer.

For me as a DIYer however it is easier to build an active loudspeaker with external Amp, DAC and DSP, so I don't have to squeeze the electronics into the speaker.
Personally I would never switch back to passive, because for me it makes much more sense to put an active crossover in front of the amps and amp each driver seperately.
That does not mean that I think any active loudspeaker is superior to any passive. But if you want to develop the best possible speaker, you sure have to go with an active crossover and EQ.

 

[sergeauckland]

The problem for most audiophiles is probably that they can't choose there amps, etc. or use their existing ones when buying an active speaker, as mentioned several times before in this thread.

But most of them probably miss and/or don't understand the most important advantage of an active speaker: The active crossover (where IMHO the name comes from) and the position of the amps in the signal chain.
It would be possible to sell active (, but not powered) loudspeakers with an external analog active crossover or a DSP, so you can choose your Amp(s) and DAC(s) youreself. But then you have defenetly too much cables that can be connected the wrong way by the buyer.

For me as a DIYer however it is easier to build an active loudspeaker with external Amp, DAC and DSP, so I don't have to squeeze the electronics into the speaker.
Personally I would never switch back to passive, because for me it makes much more sense to put an active crossover in front of the amps and amp each driver seperately.
That does not mean that I think any active loudspeaker is superior to any passive. But if you want to develop the best possible speaker, you sure have to go with an active crossover and EQ.

I had a manufacturer's active speaker system (Meridian DSP5000 and DSP1500 subs) for about 20 years, then had the fancy to make my own, so bought some B&W 801s, as they had decent drivers, removed the internal passive crossovers and used Behringer crossovers and amps. That was six years ago and I have no desire to change. I have the benefit of great sounding 'speakers AND 6 more boxes!

S

 

[Sal1950]

I have the benefit of great sounding 'speakers AND 6 more boxes!
S

The ultimate counter to fully active one box speakers that the HiFi marketing media will come to wholly embrace in the near future. (Says Sal's crystal ball. LOL)

 

[JJB70]

I think the general consumer market voted a while ago. Go into the "hifi" section of most electrical stores or department stores now and it's pretty much BT speakers. And some of them are pretty good. Yes, a lot of them are trash, but that was just as true of the sort of midi systems etc that used to be the stock and trade of the mainstream market.

 

[SIY]

I think the general consumer market voted a while ago. Go into the "hifi" section of most electrical stores or department stores now and it's pretty much BT speakers. And some of them are pretty good. Yes, a lot of them are trash, but that was just as true of the sort of midi systems etc that used to be the stock and trade of the mainstream market.

Wait, you're saying that BT speakers are also subject to Sturgeon's Law? Where is my fainting couch????

 

[pozz]

@pierre The highs on the Adam are certainly not rolled off like they are on many speakers with dome tweeters. Flat as a board, as they say. The lows start to roll off at 500 hz. My take is these small studio monitors are meant for near field listening with nearby reflective surfaces such as a mixing console. They do the job, but that isn't the average living room.

I don't think they deliberately began designing waveguides into the monitors to account for desk/console bounce until recently. The S-series restrict the vertical radiation of the AMT so it becomes more directional, shooting past the desk somewhat.

The relative levels of the highs on the old A-series and S-series where the AMTs took over dwarfed the midrange performance. The clarity was excellent, but getting an accurate mix always included turning them down a bit (maybe 2dB at most). Translation to home systems made the latter dull and the Adams sharp. I find the same thing with the S2V now.

The story goes that AMT distortion is responsible for that brightness. I don't know if that's the case.

 

[pierre]

I don't think they deliberately began designing waveguides into the monitors to account for desk/console bounce until recently. The S-series restrict the vertical radiation of the AMT so it becomes more directional, shooting past the desk somewhat.

The relative levels of the highs on the old A-series and S-series where the AMTs took over dwarfed the midrange performance. The clarity was excellent, but getting an accurate mix always included turning them down a bit (maybe 2dB at most). Translation to home systems made the latter dull and the Adams sharp. I find the same thing with the S2V now.

The story goes that AMT distortion is responsible for that brightness. I don't know if that's the case.

Distortion is around 1% for bass, 0.1% for midrange and raising again above 2kHz. Is that audible?

For keeping the highs under control I guess it depends a lot on how damped the control room is. For home use I would go -6db at 20k.

I do not have Adams, don’t work with them or for them but they published some data’s which is appreciated. Dynaudio and Focal have all the data’s you can dream of but they refused to published them. I understand why for HiFi but I understand a lot less for pro audio: measurement appears in a few months window anyway and both have great stuff.

 

[napilopez]

If I remember the LS50W have very rudimentary boundary filters, I would have set those to the appropriate setting, you can’t really expect deeper bass from the same driver in an identical volume enclosure, I thought the bass punchier from the active version and they are very versatile and easy for the whole family to enjoy.
Keith

Not saying I disagree with you about the LS50W, but the point about drivers and enclosures surely isn't true? Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

For instance, the active $4,000 Bowers and Wilkins Formation Duo apparently use an identical 6.5" woofer to the $6,000 805 D3. B&W rates the 805 D3, which has a bass port, down to 42 Hz (-3dB). The Duo have a significantly smaller enclosure and are not ported, but are rated to 25 hz. They quite easily reach 20Hz in my room... and that's before turning up the bass in app. Speaking purely from a bass extension standpoint, that's better than Focal's Kanta No 3 did in my same space, despite the latter being a 50"- tall tower with two 8-inch bass drivers, and a much higher price tag. I'm sure the Kanta could play louder while maintaining those bass levels, but still.

I know you're all for active speakers too, just pointing out a case where a known 6.5-inch woofer has been optimized far beyond its closest passive implementation thanks to active crossovers and DSP.

The problem for most audiophiles is probably that they can't choose there amps, etc. or use their existing ones when buying an active speaker, as mentioned several times before in this thread.

But most of them probably miss and/or don't understand the most important advantage of an active speaker: The active crossover (where IMHO the name comes from) and the position of the amps in the signal chain.
It would be possible to sell active (, but not powered) loudspeakers with an external analog active crossover or a DSP, so you can choose your Amp(s) and DAC(s) youreself. But then you have defenetly too much cables that can be connected the wrong way by the buyer.

For me as a DIYer however it is easier to build an active loudspeaker with external Amp, DAC and DSP, so I don't have to squeeze the electronics into the speaker.
Personally I would never switch back to passive, because for me it makes much more sense to put an active crossover in front of the amps and amp each driver seperately.
That does not mean that I think any active loudspeaker is superior to any passive. But if you want to develop the best possible speaker, you sure have to go with an active crossover and EQ.

I think your last sentence two sentences really sum it up. In practice, not all active speakers will be better, but they pretty much all have the _potential_ to be better than the equivalent passive design. Active simply gives you more tools with which to design a good speaker. I definitely think it could be interesting to see external active crossovers and DSP in the future.

In fact, I fully expect that to become more common as active becomes the norm and the hi-fi world tries to figure out how to keep providing the mix-and-match 'fun' of passive speakers. I put fun in quotes because that is one part of this hobby I do not enjoy at all - and I suspect a lot of younger buyers feel similarly.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Not saying I disagree with you about the LS50W, but the point about drivers and enclosures surely isn't true? Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

For instance, the active $4,000 Bowers and Wilkins Formation Duo apparently use an identical 6.5" woofer to the $6,000 805 D3. B&W rates the 805 D3, which has a bass port, down to 42 Hz (-3dB). The Duo have a significantly smaller enclosure and are not ported, but are rated to 25 hz. They quite easily reach 20Hz in my room... and that's before turning up the bass in app. Speaking purely from a bass extension standpoint, that's better than Focal's Kanta No 3 did in my same space, despite the latter being a 50"- tall tower with two 8-inch bass drivers, and a much higher price tag. I'm sure the Kanta could play louder while maintaining those bass levels, but still.

I know you're all for active speakers too, just pointing out a case where a known 6.5-inch woofer has been optimized far beyond its closest passive implementation thanks to active crossovers and DSP.

Firstly, it's hard to compare two different drivers/boxes as you are here, but more to the point, there's a trade-off going on here between many factors - most importantly: bass extension on one hand, and SPL/distortion on the other. The lower you ask a given driver to play in a given box, the more it will distort and the lower it's max. SPL will be.

So it can be done, sure, but not without cost.

 

[napilopez]

Firstly, it's hard to compare two different drivers/boxes as you are here, but more to the point, there's a trade-off going on here between many factors - most importantly: bass extension on one hand, and SPL/distortion on the other. The lower you ask a given driver to play in a given box, the more it will distort and the lower it's max. SPL will be.

So it can be done, sure, but not without cost.

Yes of course - perhaps my language was too flowery and I realize the comparison wasn't totally valid. Still, my point was simply to highlight one example where an active design gave a company that traditionally designs passive speakers more flexibility in balancing the trade-offs you mentioned. You don't see many passive towers comfortably reaching <25hz in-room, let alone passive bookshelf speakers (certainly none of B&Ws). I recognize SPL and distortion are compromised for lower bass with a small driver, but this isn't of much consequence if the compromises aren't particularly noticeable in typical listening. That appears to be the case with the Formation Duo.