Why do passive speakers still exist?

[gnarly]

Easy. Take a 3-way with 4th order (analog/IIR/minphaseFIR) slopes ~300Hz/3000Hz.

I really just don't see it as easy.
Take the 300Hz & 3000Hz crossover points.

300Hz requires a c2c between low and mid of 11.3" at xover freq....but for ripple free summation, i try to stay with 1/4wl thru the critical summation range, which depending on how wide you define that, gives the c2c needed.
In the case of an LR4 @ 300Hz, and using summation to -20dB which occurs at 520Hz, I use that wl for c2c which becomes 6.5".

3000Hz requires 1-1/8th" c2c at xover. Seldom ever realistic i think....and forget about c2c at -20dB with LR4 (5200Hz)

I've read the Grimm paper a number of times. Honestly, i think it's much of a marketing piece for the strategy used on that speaker, as it is a technical design piece.
It's all a good step in the right direction, not trying to say it isn't. But the 'trainwreck" is overly contrived imo, and the FIR overlay is being used for reduced cost/complexity

 

[gnarly]

And to add to the topic, there is also a phenomenon that dr Griesinger describes as 'attention grabbing'/'nearness'/'proxymity' that is dependant on having a linear(ish)-phase at the higher frequencies also. Not much studies, but I think Tapio Lokki (also from Aalto) could have done some research in the field.

Problem is, all the previous studies could be faulty concerning detecting recorded 'proxymity' (and phase errors) due to various issues in the capture and reproduction phase.

Thanks for that...always interested in this kind of stuff.

 

[Ghost2231]

Been looking at active recently. From what I’ve seen In comparison they tend to be far pricier while still needing receiver or preamp for ht, somewhat ugly, and the power cord for each are all big downsides.
For 2 channel I can see the appeal for some. I wouldn’t say no to a couple 8351’s

 

[dannut]

I really just don't see it as easy.
Take the 300Hz & 3000Hz crossover points.

300Hz requires a c2c between low and mid of 11.3" at xover freq....but for ripple free summation, i try to stay with 1/4wl thru the critical summation range, which depending on how wide you define that, gives the c2c needed.
In the case of an LR4 @ 300Hz, and using summation to -20dB which occurs at 520Hz, I use that wl for c2c which becomes 6.5".

3000Hz requires 1-1/8th" c2c at xover. Seldom ever realistic i think....and forget about c2c at -20dB with LR4 (5200Hz)

I've read the Grimm paper a number of times. Honestly, i think it's much of a marketing piece for the strategy used on that speaker, as it is a technical design piece.
It's all a good step in the right direction, not trying to say it isn't. But the 'trainwreck" is overly contrived imo, and the FIR overlay is being used for reduced cost/complexity

Now I see we are talking about different things. You are talking about radiation frequency response issues - and the rule-of-thumb to not compromise radiated power for some narrow interference/lobing effects.

I am talking about analytically reversing the error of delaying the amplitude envelope of the different radiated frequency components of the signal. Grup delay. Psychoacoustics dictates, that a radiated frequency spectrum needs to be smooth - so no overcorrection of the on-some-random-axis frequency response. So better design speakers with 'clean' wavefront to begin with.

OTOH we only care of the phase response of the direct-axis response and the phase errors introduced by text-book crossovers are quite stable spatially. Even then, errors due to spatial separation are manifested on some offaxis angle (vertical mostly). And a little thought experiment could lead to a conclusion, that magnitude errors could be (are) audible due to the different reverberant field frequency response (ie a power response hole with a 4th order L/R crossover), but phase response of those delayed reflections are inconsequential when combining with the on-axis response. Only the direct field (actually the whole listening-window) matters wrt phase response - there is no issue with highly audible pre-echo, unless one goes to extreme and tries to reverse the room-response at a single spatial location.

Hope it clears up the misunderstanding.

 

[Thomas savage]

Plenty of speaker companies have no expertise in audio electronics, plus making a product that excludes a customers current audio architecture seems like commercial suicide.

Do you need more reasons?

 

[dannut]

and the FIR overlay is being used for reduced cost/complexity

Not only. Crucially for delay-sensitive applications a lin-phase crossover could mean trouble. So a min-phase (IIR/FIR/analog) crossover is combined with an analytic FIR phase compensation, that can be toggled on-off. No meaningful drawbacks, but corrected 'transient attack' for the icing-on-the-cake effect that is needed for SOTA. win-win.

 

[gnarly]

Not only. Crucially for delay-sensitive applications a lin-phase crossover could mean trouble. So a min-phase (IIR/FIR/analog) crossover is combined with an analytic FIR phase compensation, that can be toggled on-off. No meaningful drawbacks, but corrected 'transient attack' for the icing-on-the-cake effect that is needed for SOTA. win-win.

I fully agree with taking out group delay via FIR.....on simple designs that allow it, having necessary c2c spacings.

Having compared overlaying global FIR on top of both 2 & 3 way passives and actives, vs converting them to multi-ways using linear-phase crossovers......
... my conclusion is that global phase correction is a step in the right direction, but is topped by using steep complementary xovers to begin with no need for further correction.
So I do see global as only being about reducing cost/complexity.

Maybe I'm just hearing the benefits of mult-amping...dunno, can't really separate that from the phase linearization comparison part.
I can say however, that polar measurements have been better with non-global.

 

[Esprit]

View attachment 332327
Their reply

What do you have to do with Italy?

 

[Svet Angelov]

Try finding an active tower speaker that doesn't cost as much as a low-mileage BMW e60

Also there's the "running more than one power cord in the room" factor which for me destroys any chances of having actives in the living room.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Try finding an active tower speaker that doesn't cost as much as a low-mileage BMW e60

Also there's the "running more than one power cord in the room" factor which for me destroys any chances of having actives in the living room.

You are kidding, are you not?
One extra power cord, against not having speaker cables, not having poweramps, and possibly a preamp or a DAC!

 

[Svet Angelov]

You are kidding, are you not?
One extra power cord, against not having speaker cables, not having poweramps, and possibly a preamp or a DAC!

Nope,not kidding!

It was hard enough hiding all of the cabling in the living room. It would've been 5x harder to do with actives.

All that said, I'm a huge proponent of active speakers, with my 2 other systems being comprised of active monitors.

 

[srrxr71]

Try finding an active tower speaker that doesn't cost as much as a low-mileage BMW e60

Also there's the "running more than one power cord in the room" factor which for me destroys any chances of having actives in the living room.

KEF LS60 is $4999 on Amazon still. I like e46 personally though.

 

[srrxr71]

Nope,not kidding!

It was hard enough hiding all of the cabling in the living room. It would've been 5x harder to do with actives.

All that said, I'm a huge proponent of active speakers, with my 2 other systems being comprised of active monitors.

Try this: https://a.co/d/is1OZll

 

[Svet Angelov]

Try this: https://a.co/d/is1OZll

It's more about the locations of the outlets for me. I already use something similar for all the wiring behind the audio rack.

Honestly I'd take any BMW I can get.. besides the unreliable ugliness that is the E66

 

[Chromatischism]

Try this: https://a.co/d/is1OZll

So let's make all the cables 100% girthier.

 

[srrxr71]

So let's make all the cables 100% girthier.

It’s just one. It’s looks okay honestly.

 

[srrxr71]

It's more about the locations of the outlets for me. I already use something similar for all the wiring behind the audio rack.

Honestly I'd take any BMW I can get.. besides the unreliable ugliness that is the E66

I just use extensions as needed. Ideally I’d get a second furman for my right monitor.

BMW basically died with the F generation. IMHO. They became “German Buicks”

 

[Newman]

Also there's the "running more than one power cord in the room" factor which for me destroys any chances of having actives in the living room.

$100-200 for additional power points. Tail wags dog.

Oh wait, are you a tenant? Even landlords normally agree to this, as a safety and modernisation measure.

 

[srrxr71]

These can be helpful: https://a.co/d/6K1D9DF

 

[benanders]

I understand the actives’ extra power cable-argument if (1) tenancy’s in concrete walls building with highly limited outlet count and placement (definitely a thing some cities), and (2) for HT where height speakers need to have exposed wire runs and the penchant is for thin-as-possible cables.

This coming from a user of passives with (technically) over 30’ of speaker cable per channel… so there could just be exceptional conceptual tolerance of wires on my part.