Would you consider an all-in-one active speaker system if the engineering is done right?

[Puddingbuks]

I have the KEF LS60 Wireless speakers in my man-cave. My chief complaint is that they lack room correction (not even basic PEQ), and their is insufficient tuning capability for subwoofer integration. I ended up adding a WiiM and Raspberry Pi to my system so that I could do room correction, but since then the WiiM software has been updated with PEQ functionality and now I probably don't need the Raspberry Pi.

You still cannot get the sub perfect in sync.

 

[kemmler3D]

You can just look at the threads on various KEF actives to get your answers, but:

1. What measurements would you consider essential before taking a product like this seriously?

The usual spinorama and distortion ones.

1. Would you prefer fully active speakers with integrated electronics, or separate streamer/DAC/amplifier components?

Personally the latter - but there's no agreement on that in this community.

1. How important is user-replaceable electronics or modularity?

That would actually be really cool, non repairability is considered the main drawback to active speakers.

1. Would good spinorama/directivity data, low distortion and sufficient SPL outweigh concerns about an all-in-one architecture?

For me it does. For others it doesn't.

1. What design mistakes in current active/all-in-one speakers would you most want to see avoided?

Lack of PEQ / room correction.

I think the only new thing you're talking about here is modular/ repairable electronics in an active speaker. Solve that and you've got an interesting value proposition. If not, you're competing directly with KEF, D&D, Kii, etc. Good luck!

 

[terryforsythe]

You still cannot get the sub perfect in sync.

To be candid, given the size of my room, the LS60s don't even need a subwoofer. But, I inherited one and figured I would give it a try. I used the subwoofer out from one of my KEFs and ended up crossing over at 40Hz. It's not too bad. I probably could get a bit better integration using CamillaDSP and FIR filters. I may try that the next time I feel like messing around with it.

 

[GS430man]

I’m working on a concept for an all-in-one home audio system that integrates the streamer, DAC, amplifier, DSP and speakers into one enclosure.

The goal is not simply convenience. I’m interested in whether a highly integrated design can still achieve genuinely good measurable performance while reducing the complexity of a traditional Hi-Fi setup.

The current direction includes:

• active DSP crossover and room-related tuning
• integrated DAC and amplification
• network streaming and local playback
• Ethernet / Wi-Fi / Bluetooth / AirPlay
• a built-in display for playback and system control
• three possible speaker configurations, from nearfield desktop use to a larger bass-extended system

My main concern is the engineering trade-off.

Integration makes the signal path shorter and gives the manufacturer much more control over amplification, crossover, driver protection and DSP. On the other hand, it reduces modularity and makes upgrades or repairs more difficult.

For ASR members, I’d be interested in knowing:

1. What measurements would you consider essential before taking a product like this seriously?
2. Would you prefer fully active speakers with integrated electronics, or separate streamer/DAC/amplifier components?
3. How important is user-replaceable electronics or modularity?
4. Would good spinorama/directivity data, low distortion and sufficient SPL outweigh concerns about an all-in-one architecture?
5. What design mistakes in current active/all-in-one speakers would you most want to see avoided?

I’m still at the design stage, so critical feedback is more useful to me than encouragement.

I’d especially appreciate input from people who have experience with active speaker design, DSP, amplifier integration or loudspeaker measurements.

What is the difference between your proposal and a modern sound bar?

 

[Curvature]

Lack of PEQ / room correction.

I think the only new thing you're talking about here is modular/ repairable electronics in an active speaker. Solve that and you've got an interesting value proposition. If not, you're competing directly with KEF, D&D, Kii, etc. Good luck!

I would add that great noncardioid all-in-ones by JBL and Sonos will be hard to compete against.

A new cardioid contender would be excellent.

 

[GXAlan]

I’m working on a concept for an all-in-one home audio system that integrates the streamer, DAC, amplifier, DSP and speakers into one enclosure.

https://www.sonos.com/en-us/shop/arc-ultra

Streamer, HDMI eARC, amplifier, DSP, speakers...

I’m interested in whether a highly integrated design can still achieve genuinely good measurable performance while reducing the complexity of a traditional Hi-Fi setup.

Sonos Roam Portable Speaker: Spinorama and measurements (more proof mainstream speakers can be real good)

Measured the Sonos Roam today, the company's new, smaller bluetooth speaker. Here's the spin at 80% volume (measured at ~ 0.6m). So this is around 76dB@1m. Please read the disclaimer at the end of the post And here an estimate of it at 60% volume (i spliced a nearfield woofer measurement...

www.audiosciencereview.com

and

and

Klipsch The Nines - Review & Measurements by Erin

Is that really a Klipsch speaker ? o_O Edit: Text data is up: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/klipsch_the_nines/

www.audiosciencereview.com

So the short answer is, yes. This is definitely do-able.

For ASR members, I’d be interested in knowing:

1. What measurements would you consider essential before taking a product like this seriously?
2. Would you prefer fully active speakers with integrated electronics, or separate streamer/DAC/amplifier components?
3. How important is user-replaceable electronics or modularity?
4. Would good spinorama/directivity data, low distortion and sufficient SPL outweigh concerns about an all-in-one architecture?
5. What design mistakes in current active/all-in-one speakers would you most want to see avoided?

1) On-axis measurements are essential at 75, 85 and 95 dB. Part of the reason is that you're competing against known entities (passive speakers) or known established soundbars w/economies of scale. Of note, if you are a company and you work with ASR, you can get spinorama measurements under confidential agreements where Amir will NOT publish the data first (while you're in R&D).

2) Fully active speakers with integrated electronics make the most sense. Once you get separate streamer/dac/amp, you're competing with too many companies.

3) This is where price matters. Repairability makes sense -- if you can use standardized ICEamp, HypeX modules, etc that gives people some confidence. But some of the ways that Bose and Sonos punch above their weight is being able to do a lot of custom technology.

If you're charging premium prices, I need premium support. If you're charging value prices, I'm more forgiving.

4) Also depends on price.

5) If you have multiple speakers (not a sound bar, but two speakers), consider doing with Klipsch does with one active and one passive speaker (maybe 5-pin XLR to handle bi-amp?) or Meyer Sound with the ability to daisy chain the power for easy power-on, even if the audio has to be run separately. One of the problems with something like the JBL 708p is managing the power-on of all of the speakers.

You also have to make it look attractive.

 

[whoselife]

2. Maybe for a passable casual listening box. But if the customer wants high-quality audio, can you convince her that she will never wish she could substitute someone else's product for one or more of components?

Good point.
I suppose the keypoint would be
1. basically, exceeding the expected performance thresholds;
2. compact as well as aesthetically pleasing means a lot to her;
3. offers better cost‑performance than buying each component separately, and no complicated wiring;
4. price, price, price ,lol.

 

[whoselife]

My biggest concern with all in one systems has always been losing the use of the entire system if any part of the system fails and needs to be taken for repair. Assuming someone locally could repair it.

What do u prefer, if it fails, replace the whole package from distributors or send u the decoupled component for self replacement?

 

[Kevin1956]

What do u prefer, if it fails, replace the whole package from distributors or send u the decoupled component for self replacement?

If self replacement was as easy as disconnecting an individual component in a “typical” system of individual components, then I would prefer that.

 

[Philbo King]

I’m working on a concept for an all-in-one home audio system that integrates the streamer, DAC, amplifier, DSP and speakers into one enclosure.

The goal is not simply convenience. I’m interested in whether a highly integrated design can still achieve genuinely good measurable performance while reducing the complexity of a traditional Hi-Fi setup.

The current direction includes:

• active DSP crossover and room-related tuning
• integrated DAC and amplification
• network streaming and local playback
• Ethernet / Wi-Fi / Bluetooth / AirPlay
• a built-in display for playback and system control
• three possible speaker configurations, from nearfield desktop use to a larger bass-extended system

My main concern is the engineering trade-off.

Integration makes the signal path shorter and gives the manufacturer much more control over amplification, crossover, driver protection and DSP. On the other hand, it reduces modularity and makes upgrades or repairs more difficult.

For ASR members, I’d be interested in knowing:

1. What measurements would you consider essential before taking a product like this seriously?
2. Would you prefer fully active speakers with integrated electronics, or separate streamer/DAC/amplifier components?
3. How important is user-replaceable electronics or modularity?
4. Would good spinorama/directivity data, low distortion and sufficient SPL outweigh concerns about an all-in-one architecture?
5. What design mistakes in current active/all-in-one speakers would you most want to see avoided?

I’m still at the design stage, so critical feedback is more useful to me than encouragement.

I’d especially appreciate input from people who have experience with active speaker design, DSP, amplifier integration or loudspeaker measurements.

From an engineering standpoint, single point failures would cause the entire unit to be trashed.

I would recommend segregating funtions to replaceable PCBs where it makes sense to do so. This modularity would make repairs possible and relatively inexpensive, compared to a single large all-in-one PCB.

Edit: I see several other people beat me to it.

 

[Puddingbuks]

To be candid, given the size of my room, the LS60s don't even need a subwoofer.

I had the LS60s for over two years. With a sub. So I experienced possibilities and limitations with sub integration.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

What is the difference between your proposal and a modern sound bar?

Real stereo from two separate loudspeakers (with stereo pairing) instead pseudo-stereo from a single sound bar - if I understood correctly the intent of the OP.

 

[kemmler3D]

If self replacement was as easy as disconnecting an individual component in a “typical” system of individual components, then I would prefer that.

Yeah, like two thumb screws and three wires max per component. Better if it's one DIN-type plug or something. Or USB-C, whatever works.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I’m working on a concept for an all-in-one home audio system that integrates the streamer, DAC, amplifier, DSP and speakers into one enclosure.

It is not clear - do you mean one/single such complete system which is mono (with possibility for a real stereo pairing with another one), or two/stereo pair complete systems ?

For ASR members, I’d be interested in knowing:

1. What measurements would you consider essential before taking a product like this seriously?
2. Would you prefer fully active speakers with integrated electronics, or separate streamer/DAC/amplifier components?
3. How important is user-replaceable electronics or modularity?
4. Would good spinorama/directivity data, low distortion and sufficient SPL outweigh concerns about an all-in-one architecture?
5. What design mistakes in current active/all-in-one speakers would you most want to see avoided?

1. The usual staff - good SPINORAMA with flat/smooth frequency response, low distortion, absence of resonances, ...
2. Separate streamer. Or modular streamer, where user may plug it in later.
No built-in display! Phone app is much more convenient.
3. Very important. Electronics module should be easy to replace by the users. There should be only two modules: power supply module and module with all other electronics. Power supply module must have some indication (LEDs) to show that output voltages are working properly, so it will be easy for user to determine what is not working - power supply, or all other electronics.
4. Yes
5. Good advice:

5) If you have multiple speakers (not a sound bar, but two speakers), consider doing with Klipsch does with one active and one passive speaker (maybe 5-pin XLR to handle bi-amp?) or Meyer Sound with the ability to daisy chain the power for easy power-on, even if the audio has to be run separately. One of the problems with something like the JBL 708p is managing the power-on of all of the speakers.

 

[Chrispy]

Where does the turntable go? The optical disc player?

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

If not the first, then exactly what is he creating?

But his ideas are already implemented. To begin a startup to create what already exists is what we call dumb.

As other members pointed out, there are several brands with similar products, some of them have been several years on the market now. I don't know who was the first, but to call other brands dumb because they were second, third or fourth is, well, dum... not smart.

He clearly thinks such a product would be a new and innovative invention. It's not.

I can't see that assertion in the OP post.

 

[amarsicola]

My ideal all-in-one is a mix of the quality of Wiim software (main fearures being room correction and qobuz connect) + a budget friendly studio monitor like the ones of Kali audio, but also available in a floorstanding format, capable to achieve an Olive's score of at least 6+. In fact, i do not understand why Wiim does not partner with someone like Kali or Adam to offer a proper smart speaker in the surrounding of 250€ each

 

[terryforsythe]

I had the LS60s for over two years. With a sub. So I experienced possibilities and limitations with sub integration.

I already have a Raspberry Pi connected to it, running CamillaDSP for room correction with IIR filters. At the moment I have a 2-channel DDC connected to the Pi for output, but I have a MCHstreamer I could use for 4-channel output. Next time I feel like messing with that system I may swap that in and generate FIR filters both for the sub and the speakers. I'm only using the speakers for audio, so adding time delay isn't an issue.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

Probably because the idea of separate components was a big deal in the '50s and '60s when I first got interested in audio I have a predisposition in that direction. I also remember my parents' late 1940s console radio/record player with 2 12" electromagnetic speakers and a, gasp, record changer. It sounded pretty darned good and lasted about 20 years with occasional tube replacements. I would love an integrated system if it were good. One of the basic laws of engineering, engineering in the broadest sense of designing and building something, is that there is almost never just one best way to solve a problem. BTW, I've heard powered speakers that sound great. A bigger box with more parts sounds very possible.

 

[Chrispy]

Where does the turntable go? The optical disc player?

Just being a bit old. While an all-streaming system is more viable now than ever, just don't have need for one....but at first thought you meant more like a giant boom box rather than active/powered speakers with additional electronics. If I were a lot younger it might be more appealing....