|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.114.101.42
Hi,
Recently, we published two videos on YouTube.com about the Dutch & Dutch 8c active loudspeaker (see link below for the first part). They've done things in this speaker that, technically, would be difficult if not impossible with a passive design. So it goes far beyond simply putting amps in a speaker and creating a line-level crossover using DSP.
Audiophiles have -- pretty much forever -- resisted active speakers for various reasons. But are some people now ready for them? Are audiophiles finally warming up to the idea? At least some audiophiles?
I'll be interested to read your opinions.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Follow Ups:
Can be challenging/costly to maintain. I run an NHT Xd system in my office -- fabulous sound, I can hardly imagine better for there. But when something goes wrong, diagnosis and especially repair can be expensive what with shipping back and forth between me (in Canada) and them. NHT has neen great to deal with, mind you, and as I say, extraordinary sound in my application.
Jeremy
I don't like the all-in-one-cabinet approach. I suppose for a busy professional studio it makes sense, as they can write off the depreciation of the speakers.
I would prefer a modular approach with outboard digital XO and amps.
Active speakers to me means using solid state amplification so perhaps the amount of tube amp users/lovers out there contributes to active speakers from becoming the norm? I just can't see anyone wanting their tubes mounted on/in a vibrating box or panel.
marc g. - audiophile by day, music lover by night
Old acoustat X, Beveridge, electrostatics used direct drive tube amps coupled to the panels.
Old acoustat X, Beveridge, electrostatics used direct drive tube amps coupled to the panels.
In the case of Acoustat, they did that until the realized it was limiting the performance of the speakers. I moved from the X to Monitor 4 and got substantially better performance when the MK-121 interface came out allowing me to use a different amp - a Threshold Stasis 3.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall when they debated that one. Do we cater to the mix and match crowd or not and stick with direct drive to avoid mismatches in the field.
Van Alstine once modified one of his DAC's to an IEC Jack so the reviewer could use his favorite power cable.
Sorry for the delayed answer,I don't get around here much anymore.
.
Electrostatic I take it? Direct drive to the panels? I'm loving it!
How much?
A bit of a bargain at 19000 Euro? I'm hoping to hear them later in the year.
But it would require some DIY effort. If you have two-way loudspeakers with separate binding posts for HF and LF, and some soldering skills, you could bypass the passive crossover and connect the drivers directly to the binding posts. Then you could implement the crossover with a DEQX, miniDSP, etc. and use tube amplifiers. It wouldn't be cheap, or easy, but it would be interesting.
As you can see below, they are not.
But the younger (under 30) ones might be.
Way too much legacy "I like to mix and match" going on here.
You might be right!
Doug
SoundStage!
that I have actually been "fully warmed" with the concept for decades - if the fundamental concept means "lack of passive crossovers".
I've been enjoying full range electrostats since 1977. And have carefully chosen amplifiers well suited to their reactive load. Some more powerful than others.
Legacy Issues, need to sell 2 things first
Doug,The 8c is just a recent entry in a long history of active speakers. These have been ubiquitous in the pro-sound world for many years. Audiophiles, being audiophiles, have had their heads in the sand on this and many other products that would find excellent use in domestic environments.
BTW, to address some of the complaints in other posts, there is no requirement at all for an amplifier and/or crossover/EQ to be physically located in the speaker itself. In fact, disparate amplifier combinations are certainly possible with an active speaker.
The primary speakers in my listening room have changed through the years, but over the last forty years they've all utilized some sort of line-level crossover with bandwidth splitting and multiple amplifiers.
It's up to you and your colleagues in the audio media to get your heads out of your.....and start exploring more products with concepts like this.
Dave.
Edits: 06/03/20
It's still going to come down to taste and what you are going for.I have heard active speakers from ATC, PMC, Genelec, Dynaudio and Wharfedale off the top of my head and I haven't cared for any of these. I get it - they sound different. I have generally preferred the passive versions from them and passive versions from non "studio monitors".
Over on the Steve Hoffman audio forum and as a Facebook friend he has often posted pics of himself in the recording studio using these big professional studio monitors ATC etc. He has mastered many of the big artists so it's not some guy on Gearslutz who made a recording of some unknown in a garage band. Steve masters the Eagles, Pink Floyd, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ella Fitzgerald, The Eagles, etc.
He uses my Audio Note E speaker in his home - a passive non made for recording studio speaker. Although he now uses a set for mastering as well. He also runs their 211 Jinro SET amp.
The Point is simply that some gear targets different things and even different seating positions and room sizes and even eras and types of music. When I listen to ATC and Genelec and PMC - Active or passive - I am usually well aware of the sound of each driver and "parts" of the recordings. I am impressed but I am also aware I am constantly "working" in audiophile mode listening "for" sound instead of "to" music. An RE needs the former but I also understand why a guy like Steve would go home and put on the system that allows more of the listening "to music" system.
Now I happen to really like ATC - I bought an 845 SET amp (Line Magnetic 219IA) based on driving the SCM 100. The difference here is that the passive version with the SET "relaxes" the experience and makes it simply enjoyable. A sit back in the chair and listen to music experience VS the audiophile-nervosa of sitting at the edge of the seat trying to hear the wondrous "imaging."When I auditioned PMC it was similar - the cymbal crash the transient "cool effect - neat but I was listening to the sound not the music. I can understand the "under the microscope" desirability of these sorts of speakers in a recording studio but on long sessions and just trying to enjoy the artist their speakers just isn't really in the cards. The old school words would be "overly analytical"
But as they say one man's overly analytical is another man's "absolute sound" so in the end you pays your money and you choose to live with it.
So I get the appeal of the active professional monitor - I get speakers that have that big bass slam and punch etc. I also get why the Quad ESL and LS-3/5a are revered - I get why Magnepan is loved - I also get why these revered speakers are absolutely hated.
I try to audition as many design types as I can regardless of the design and even designs I have previously disliked.
I suppose there is what is "better" and then there is what a person will find more "enjoyable".
Singer A is a technically better singer than singer B. However, you simply like singer B better. Happens all the time.
Edits: 06/05/20 06/05/20
BTW, to address some of the complaints in other posts, there is no requirement at all for an amplifier and/or crossover/EQ to be physically located in the speaker itself. In fact, disparate amplifier combinations are certainly possible with an active speaker.
While true, it's besides the point because the vast majority of active speakers on the market do locate the electronics within the loudspeaker. The exceptions tend to be very expensive e.g. Bryston.
It makes a certain amount of sense to incorporate the amp/electronics into the speaker proper.
However, my point being there is no conceptual or performance related 'requirement' to do that.
In fact, you could make a case it's an advantage to locate electronics outside of the speaker system. Early years sub-woofer amplifiers failing owing to vibration exposure are a nice example of that issue.
Dave.
'Are Audiophiles Warming Up to Active Speakers?'
allow me to settle this ...
no
be well,
To err is human, to learn, divine
Well, that settles that. :)
Dave.
...because the vast majority of active speakers on the market do locate the electronics within the loudspeaker.
confusing the issue with facts!
The aforementioned Dutch and Dutch model has the amps "on board".
As does Kii.
As does ATC.
As does Genelec.
As does Dynaudio.
As does PMC.
As does Neumann.
As does Focal
As do most of the JBL models.
I was very impressed hearing *active* Magneplanar T-IIIs tri-amplified using Audio Research electronics back in '74. They no longer support that approach.
I guess you don't know me well. I've been reviewing formally for 25 years and promoting active technologies for about 20 of those 25.
My point with this is NOT that active is new -- it's if active will get some traction with audiophiles now, which hasn't been the case in the past.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
Noted Doug. Thank you.
Yet, we have audiophiles in this very thread demonstrating ignorance of the concept and implementations. Traction for those folks might take 35-40 years. :)
Dave.
Purchased LV1020s a teenager. Sounded nice, but the quality of amplification was not up to that of the drivers. I lived with them for only a couple of years before wanting to move on.
Also, it seems to me that the best speaker designers are not necessarily the best at electronics and vice versa. I want the best and the brightest in each critical discipline.
I'm an outlier anyway since I prefer planar speakers where embedding amplification really isn't practical. My first stats were the Acoustat X which did have servo charge amps in the base, but alas they did not sound as good as the Threshold Stasis 3/Acoustat MK-121 Interface that followed.
That approach is practical in certain respects but limiting in others. I have no desire to go in that direction.
The limitations have already been presented.
Observations by inmates on this thread...
"1) The more stuff in one box to go wrong, the more risk associated in buying and owning the component -- unless the component is viewed as a consumable (i.e., when something in it breaks, throw it away & buy the latest, greatest, most innovative technology). "
"You either love it or not, and if you mostly like it but there's something you're not quite satisfied with, there's little you can do about it...Also, changing from one DSP-based active speaker to another is like changing your whole system at once. Audiophiles generally prefer to make incremental changes because they are lower risk. "
"If an amplifier or a speaker fails, I can replace the individual item. If the amplifier within an active speaker becomes irreparable, or I blow a driver I have to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
And my observation:
"Also, it seems to me that the best speaker designers are not necessarily the best at electronics and vice versa. I want the best and the brightest in each critical discipline. I'm an outlier anyway since I prefer planar speakers where embedding amplification really isn't practical."
At my age, I can say that.
If you find flexibility, optimal design selection and risk aversion "old thinking", so be it.I"ll leave "trendy" for those who find that important to their listening pleasure. ;)
edit: Having said that, two of my systems are *active* or largely so.
Main system Sound Lab U-!PX electrostats have no crossover. One driver, one amp.
HT system Acoustat electrostats are actively high passed at 80 hz and use powered subs below that. Center is full range. MC1s on order for surrounds will, however, violate that having a two way passive crossover.
Edits: 06/04/20
Whether it's an active speaker, integrated amplifier, built-in DAC, etc. aside from the upgradability of specific components is a failure. If an amplifier or a speaker fails, I can replace the individual item. If the amplifier within an active speaker becomes irreparable, or I blow a driver I have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
enjoy!
mrod.
Nostalgia is history removed of the burdensome weight of reality
The amps and active crossover can be separate. Bryston does it now.
I know I've posted about these several times before, but I'm a real fan of both, so here they are again.
Back in the early 70's, the Braun LV-1020 internally tri-amped speakers were among the very best. They're still in my top 5, and, despite being marketed to the hifi world, have been used to master hundreds of recordings at Sterling Sound.
Mastering engineer Bob Power uses Genelec S30's, another internally tri-amped design. They are big and heavy - quite a load for a console meter bridge. Despite their size, they work well as nearfields. Actually, they *only* work as nearfields. They don't play even modestly loud. But under the right conditions they sound like Quad ESLs with a bottom end extended down to the high 20's. They don't resemble the current Genelecs at all. That's a good thing.
WW
"They were running on fumes, dazed and confused, in a high-powered automobile."
Being an audiophile is more than enjoying music on a good system. It's a hobby that involves trying new things, experimenting, tweaking, optimizing. Active speakers with digital inputs and DSP take away much of the hobby.
If you buy something like the Dutch & Dutch 8c, you're buying into all the design decisions made by the manufacturer. You either love it or not, and if you mostly like it but there's something you're not quite satisfied with, there's little you can do about it. The alternative is to DIY your own active setup with something like a DEQX, where you retain all the flexibility, but that requires engineering skills that most audiophiles don't have.
If you know a lot about room acoustics and have some influence over how your listening room is decorated, you can do a lot of fine tuning of the sound through room acoustics. But that requires knowledge that most audiophiles aren't interested in learning, and to do it in an aesthetically pleasing way (not just hanging panels on walls) takes a lot of DIY effort.
If you're not entirely satisfied with the results, you can still go about swapping speakers, but there's not that many of them on the high end market. And the good ones like the Dutch and Kii have the same (or very similar) design targets, so there isn't nearly enough variety to satisfy the particular tastes of most audiophiles.
Also, changing from one DSP-based active speaker to another is like changing your whole system at once. Audiophiles generally prefer to make incremental changes because they are lower risk. What if I spend $12k on the Dutch or Kii and end up not liking it after longer term listening? Then I'm stuck either making a sideways move to another active speaker, or starting over and building a whole new system around passive speakers.
in practice... well...
1) The more stuff in one box to go wrong, the more risk associated in buying and owning the component -- unless the component is viewed as a consumable (i.e., when something in it breaks, throw it away & buy the latest, greatest, most innovative technology).
2) the consumer buys the sound the manufacturer prefers. That's fine if it's in line with the consumer's preference, but doesn't leave much option if it doesn't.
2a) Sometimes I feel like we're on a collision course with a DSP future in which all components sound exactly the same.
Just my opinions, of course, not immutable fact! :-|
all the best,
mrh
All the parts don't have to go in one box as most active systems do now. And DSP will not lend to all things sounding the same. DSP is variable and besides when will all audiophiles(or manufacturers) agree on the reproduction of sound. And since they won't, we'll have sonic differences in reproduction far into the future.
Even if the reproduction were perfect some audiophiles wouldn't like it.
Of course, that would the the result if they all performed perfectly (or, at least, if their imperfections were below human audibility). :-)
Edits: 06/03/20
That's why there's so much variety in the market
Edits: 06/03/20
My phrase was "performed perfectly" which is not the same as what individuals may regard as "perfect sound."
There's no objective definition for how a perfect loudspeaker should behave. We have some research (e.g. Harman) suggesting what is likely to be preferred by the most listeners. Preferences are also recording dependent, and different recordings are produced on different loudspeakers.
Just to pick on one example, wide dispersion vs. narrow dispersion. If one is perfect, then the other is not. What's the basis for picking one over the other? Isn't it room dependent?
Perfection in reproduction can only be defined as being indistinguishable from the original. Since loudspeaker performance is inevitably dependent on room acoustics, one cannot judge them independently. Thus, there are likely to be (and should be) different loudspeakers designed for different rooms (or vice versa).
How one gets to judge this is problematic, of course. Can we ever expect to have a purpose-built system/room closely adjacent to an acoustic performance space in order to make a blind comparison? What about a performance space like Brooklyn Sawdust? Can it be configured so that blinded listeners can compare live vs. reproduced sound?
The point of my original post was that having all systems sound the same is not necessarily a bad thing.
..even if you had pair of loudspeakers that sounded exactly like the live sound in the next room and thus be perfect then unfortunately that may not give you anything like perfect sound at home. That is because virtually all commercial records are tweaked to sound their best on what the producer and mastering engineer anticipate an average range of domestic speakers will sound like. Further they can only judge this via their own, imperfect, pairs of speakers.
They have been doing this for decades and this, in turn, has led consumers to expect records to sound in a certain way which may well not have much to do with live sound. Especially if the consumers have never experienced true live sound but only that heard via electronics and loudspeakers ( i.e. nowadays the majority).
So you may well be right: " having all systems sound the same is not necessarily a bad thing.".
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
..even if you had pair of loudspeakers that sounded exactly like the live sound in the next room and thus be perfect then unfortunately that may not give you anything like perfect sound at home. That is because virtually all commercial records are tweaked to sound their best on what the producer and mastering engineer anticipate an average range of domestic speakers will sound like. Further they can only judge this via their own, imperfect, pairs of speakers.
They have been doing this for decades and this, in turn, has led consumers to expect records to sound in a certain way which may well not have much to do with live sound. Especially if the consumers have never experienced true live sound but only that heard via electronics and loudspeakers ( i.e. nowadays the majority).
Keep in mind that live sound levels are significantly higher than what most people listen at. If you master recordings to sound correct at concert levels, most everybody is going to complain about the lack of bass and treble and generally anemic sound at normal playback levels.
.....even if you had pair of loudspeakers that sounded exactly like the live sound in the next room and thus be perfect then unfortunately that may not give you anything like perfect sound at home.The presumption is that you can then use a comparable configuration of equipment and acoustics at home.
That is because virtually all commercial records are tweaked to sound their best on what the producer and mastering engineer anticipate an average range of domestic speakers will sound like. Further they can only judge this via their own, imperfect, pairs of speakers.This is Floyd Toole's Circle of Confusion which can only be resolved if the producers adopt comparably accurate equipment. OTOH, if the home playback is honest, you get what the producers wanted anyway.They have been doing this for decades and this, in turn, has led consumers to expect records to sound in a certain way which may well not have much to do with live sound. Especially if the consumers have never experienced true live sound but only that heard via electronics and loudspeakers ( i.e. nowadays the majority).That is not the concern of those of us interested in high quality reproduction because we will always be a niche. The rest don't really care.
Edits: 06/03/20 06/03/20
This is Floyd Toole's Circle of Confusion which can only be resolved if the producers adopt comparably accurate equipment. OTOH, if the home playback is honest, you get what the producers wanted anyway.
You don't know that. Unless you've heard the record in the mastering engineer's room, you're just guessing about how they intended it to sound. Even if you did, you might not be hearing how they intended it to sound on a home playback system. For example, some engineers like artificially bright speakers that emphasize details because it makes their job easier, but they're not aiming for the same sound at home. They're making guesses about how it will sound in various playback systems. Likewise, we're making guesses about how they wanted it to sound.
That is not the concern of those of us interested in high quality reproduction because we will always be a niche. The rest don't really care.
Sure it's a concern, because most records aren't produced for audiophiles. For example, if the engineers are trying to make things sound better on earbuds and car radios in a noisy environment, they will use a lot of compression.
OTOH, that doesn't change the fact that accurate home reproduction gets you closer to whatever it is. Tone controls, as ever, are optional.
There are active speakers and active speakers which include DSP.I have used ATC actives for over a quarter century and would not wish to change them. However that is only the case because the speaker is fundamentally superbly engineered in the first place. The passive version is also a great speaker although most who have heard the two back to back will confirm the sonic advantages of the active version. It also provides some economic and space saving gains. The excellent passive version nevertheless suggests that powering a speaker actively should in not be thought of as a Band Aid that can be applied to an inferior speaker in order to somehow remedy its faults. The speaker needs to be fundamentally good to begin with as does the quality of the installed amplification.
As for active speakers with DSP such as the Dutch and Dutch although one can end up with a speaker with greater linearity and extension than the "raw" speaker is capable of I am not keen on the fact that I would also end up listening to whatever chip DAC the speaker manufacturer has installed. A top end DAC from e.g. dCS, TotalDAC or MSB becomes irrelevant with such speakers as the listener only hears the DAC in the speaker. Is the DAC in the Dutch and Dutch speaker on a par with a dCS Vivaldi? I expect that I know the answer. Furthermore DAC design is a rapidly moving target compared to other audio engineering disciplines so without upgrade programmes such speakers will rapidly date. Therefore for many listeners any gain in one area may be offset by loss in another.
As for younger newcomers to this hobby who may have entered it via a PC based system using powered desktop speakers and/or a combined DAC and headphone amp then moving to active or active/DSP speakers may well be be a natural progression for them. So as time goes by I anticipate that passive speakers will lose market share to actives as the latter may increasingly become the standard option as the young listeners of today become the majority with the spending power.
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
Edits: 06/03/20
Eliminating passive crossover parts makes it much easier for an amp to drive a speaker. And there's no reason(and I wonder why it hasn't been done) an active crossover specific to a speaker(necessary for maximum speaker performance, generic electronic crossovers cannot do this) can't be designed that allows a buyer to choose his own amps.
I've worked with ATC speakers and they are superb but under appreciated. And I know the last speakers Gordon Holt purchased were ATC 50s. He told me they were among the few speakers that allowed good recordings to seem almost real.
But they've been around for years and I don't believe audiophiles will warm up to them. Perhaps the option allowing choice of amplification I mentioned above might open up acceptance more at the high cost end. If it then became the ultimate set up it might trickle down to lower cost levels.
Usable with separate amplifiers of your choice. And OF COURSE Bryston would love to sell you those amplifiers!
The problem with outboard crossovers and multi-amping, is that you wind up with a big hot herkin' heap of amplifiers. This not only gets REAL expensive, but takes up a lot of space and has limited WAF. It has been the standard for pro PA sound for decades, but has gained little domestic acceptance.
Nor will it appeal to newer audiophiles, who want great sound but also everything compact and convenient and portable. The newer self-amplified speakers with DSP offer exactly that, and I believe this is the "lifestyle" market they aim for.
All those amps is why I suggested some uber costly speaker systems use a custom crossover with amp choices to begin. Then have it get into lower strata if audiophiles learn to appreciate the real advantages of active systems.
" Perhaps the option allowing choice of amplification I mentioned above might open up acceptance more at the high cost end."
I agree that the inability to choose amplification is indeed a barrier to owning actives for listeners from the audiophile tradition of a separate component for every activity in a system.
A major proportion of the technology you spend your money on in a typical free standing amplifier is its ability to drive the majority of speakers it may be used with (and which are likely individually unknown to the amplifier designer) and to deliver excellent performance across the entire audible frequency range.
The amplification for active speakers does not have to be engineered to deal with these parameters. The speaker or, more precisely, the drive unit is known to the designer. Furthermore he doesn't have to worry about driving any reactive components in a passive crossover. The amplifier for the bass driver needs only to be good at those frequencies, the fact it may sound poor in the midrange or high frequencies is irrelevant. Similarly the other amplifiers do not need to perform well in the frequency bands that they do not serve.
So an active speaker that is universally usable with any trio of amplifiers creates the potential for a waste of both money and resource. As, unfortunately, do existing designs which depend upon the use of full range amplifiers from the pre-existing catalogue of the manufacture (think Naim six packs for example). Still , on the other hand, he gets to sell a lot of amps :-).
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams
You make some good arguments. Unfortunately most audiophiles want to choose their own amps and that is an obstacle to advancing active systems which I claim are ultimately superior. And given the costs of uber high end where I advocated starting, the extra cost doesn't matter. It only matters as the concept creeps into more economical strata.
...and that is an obstacle to advancing active systems
We don't need a liberal audio *elite* to tell us what we need.
The market clearly speaks for itself. Get over it.
Please don't let me confuse you with logic. I was just discussing technical and commercial factors and you take it personally? I wasn't dictating what any one should do.
the need to *advance active systems*. Why have an agenda? They are and always have been what they are.
Buyers are not fools. They choose what works best for them.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: