Are separates on borrowed time?

[paradiziac]

So really, it's a case of each to their own, no?

:clap:

Are we there yet?

 

[CnoEvil]

I'll shoot you by agreeing with you here, CnoE. Class A/B is dead but hasn't stopped moving yet! Having heard what class D can sound like now that the technology has advanced in the last couple of years, I'll put my money on class D becoming the mainstream wih class A for those without central heating much as is now - both delivering far less distortion. There's been some talk of EU legistration effecting the technology we can buy in the near future but I heard people in Sony Centres telling folk that plasma TVs were going to be outlawed some years back.

I have to admit to being a little dismissive of active speakers but reading (some of) the posts in this thread has me wondering how much can be gained by removing the passive X'over. Food for thought.

I think it's better to put all preconceptions/prejudices to one side, and actually go and listen to as big a variety of brands/technology as possible, at various prices. It's all too easy to get caught up in academic/ theoretical and polemic arguments without having much experience of what can be achieved with various approaches.

The more I go and listen to what's available, the more I realize what a minefield is out there.

With regard to Actives, one of the problems is the lack of choice, availability and aesthetics....which is down to the fact that it is only a niche within a niche, that actually buys them.

There is no doubt there are advantages in removing the inefficiencies of a Passive Crossover, with its large Capacitors and Resistors etc, which can suck up as much as 20% of an amps power.

In theory a dedicated amp, tailored to each drive unit sounds great, but don't expect it to be done that cheaply....in the case of a three way design, you need three amps instead of one.

The other problem I have, is someone else has decided how the amp/speaker should sound, which usually conforms to the "house sound" of that manufacturer....so if you don't particularly like that sound, you don't have the option of combining it with another brand to compensate. I also like having the flexibility of being able to make a change to either amp or speaker, without having to change both.

If going Active was the ultimate solution, they would all sound the same, as they would all be true to the original recording (yes, I am being deliberately facetious).

 

[fr0g]

The other problem I have, is someone else has decided how the amp/speaker should sound, which usually conforms to the "house sound" of that manufacturer....so if you don't particularly like that sound, you don't have the option of combining it with another brand to compensate. I also like having the flexibility of being able to make a change to either amp or speaker, without having to change both.

If we are talking about "Hi-Fidelity" then the speaker should represent exactly what is on the recording as near as possible surely?

It may suit some to have a little bass-emphasis or smoothed treble response, but surely there should be no "house sound" as such?

Personally I'd rather a speaker/system give me warts and all and I am perfectly happy to EQ it later if I disagree with the person who did the mastering...

The idea of fixing a speakers shortcomings with amplifiers or DACs that have shortcomings that counter them is to me...laughable.

Give me an engineer who knows what he's doing, producing a speaker and amplifier combination that delivers as close to what's on the recording as possible over one who decides to colour the sound to mimic valves or vinyl any day.

 

[the record spot]

So really, it's a case of each to their own, no?

:clap:

Are we there yet?

I was there years ago, what took you so long. [/sarcasm] oke:

 

[paradiziac]

The other problem I have, is someone else has decided how the amp/speaker should sound, which usually conforms to the "house sound" of that manufacturer....so if you don't particularly like that sound, you don't have the option of combining it with another brand to compensate. I also like having the flexibility of being able to make a change to either amp or speaker, without having to change both.

If we are talking about "Hi-Fidelity" then the speaker should represent exactly what is on the recording as near as possible surely?

It may suit some to have a little bass-emphasis or smoothed treble response, but surely there should be no "house sound" as such?

Personally I'd rather a speaker/system give me warts and all and I am perfectly happy to EQ it later if I disagree with the person who did the mastering...

The idea of fixing a speakers shortcomings with amplifiers or DACs that have shortcomings that counter them is to me...laughable.

Give me an engineer who knows what he's doing, producing a speaker and amplifier combination that delivers as close to what's on the recording as possible over one who decides to colour the sound to mimic valves or vinyl any day.

Here we go again...

Fr0g, I just hope your room is treated and measures flat...though it's self-defeating because the sound engineers have already EQ-ed the stuff for people's imperfect listening environments...

IMO, "house sound" is not about colourations, just different interepretations of perfection

 

[paradiziac]

So really, it's a case of each to their own, no?

:clap:

Are we there yet?

I was there years ago, what took you so long. [/sarcasm] oke:

Dunno why you still bother posting then!!

I was referring more to the posters who are trying to convince everyone that their version of perfection is the most perfect!

 

[CnoEvil]

The other problem I have, is someone else has decided how the amp/speaker should sound, which usually conforms to the "house sound" of that manufacturer....so if you don't particularly like that sound, you don't have the option of combining it with another brand to compensate. I also like having the flexibility of being able to make a change to either amp or speaker, without having to change both.

If we are talking about "Hi-Fidelity" then the speaker should represent exactly what is on the recording as near as possible surely?

It may suit some to have a little bass-emphasis or smoothed treble response, but surely there should be no "house sound" as such?

Here we go again...

Fr0g, I just hope your room is treated and measures flat...though it's self-defeating because the sound engineers have already EQ-ed the stuff for people's imperfect listening environments...

IMO, "house sound" is not about colourations, just different interepretations of perfection

Agreed.

Since no two companies' speakers/amps/source sound the same, would anyone like to tell me who is right?

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not too sure about no two amps/sources sounding the same.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm not too sure about no two amps/sources sounding the same.

Sounds like the basis of a good argument to me! >)

Over 37 years, I've heard a lot of kit, and as yet, I haven't heard 2 brands that sound identical....and most of the time, different models of the same brand, while having a house sound, usually improve (ie.sound different) as the price goes up.

There are too may variables that effect the sound, so the odds of different manufacturers producing an identical product is theoretically possible, but so is winning the lottery 4 weeks in a row.

 

[fr0g]

The other problem I have, is someone else has decided how the amp/speaker should sound, which usually conforms to the "house sound" of that manufacturer....so if you don't particularly like that sound, you don't have the option of combining it with another brand to compensate. I also like having the flexibility of being able to make a change to either amp or speaker, without having to change both.

If we are talking about "Hi-Fidelity" then the speaker should represent exactly what is on the recording as near as possible surely?

It may suit some to have a little bass-emphasis or smoothed treble response, but surely there should be no "house sound" as such?

Personally I'd rather a speaker/system give me warts and all and I am perfectly happy to EQ it later if I disagree with the person who did the mastering...

The idea of fixing a speakers shortcomings with amplifiers or DACs that have shortcomings that counter them is to me...laughable.

Give me an engineer who knows what he's doing, producing a speaker and amplifier combination that delivers as close to what's on the recording as possible over one who decides to colour the sound to mimic valves or vinyl any day.

Here we go again...

Fr0g, I just hope your room is treated and measures flat...though it's self-defeating because the sound engineers have already EQ-ed the stuff for people's imperfect listening environments...

IMO, "house sound" is not about colourations, just different interepretations of perfection

Of course not, but then that's up to me. I don't want an amplier to do anything other than amplify, a DAC to convert digital to analogue and speakers to convey what gets sent to them as faithfully as possible. If my room adds colour (as all do) then that's up to me to sort out if I desire, not the manufacturers of amps, CD players or speakers.

As for EQ'ing for imperfect environments.. There are no 2 environments that are the same, so I'm not quite sure how that's possible?

 

[Craig M.]

I think it's better to put all preconceptions/prejudices to one side, and actually go and listen to as big a variety of brands/technology as possible, at various prices. It's all too easy to get caught up in academic/ theoretical and polemic arguments without having much experience of what can be achieved with various approaches.

i've heard loads of kit, valves, class a, big speakers, tiny contemporary speakers, etc. in my personal opinion, a top drawer active makes them all sound broken. the active owners on here, myself included, maybe seem a bit militant about them - which could be a consequence of people who have no idea how good they can be, or the reasons why, dismissing them.

my opals are better than anything i've ever heard, and i'm not going to back away from saying that because some don't like it (not aimed at anyone in particular).

i think while i'm on a roll, i'll also say the idea of accuracy is not 'pie in the sky'. a system can only ever try for accuracy to one thing - the recording, and the system with the least distortion of any kind is the most accurate. i'm in my bunker now, so fire at will.

 

[CnoEvil]

i've heard loads of kit, valves, class a, big speakers, tiny contemporary speakers, etc. in my personal opinion, a top drawer active makes them all sound broken. the active owners on here, myself included, maybe seem a bit militant about them - which could be a consequence of people who have no idea how good they can be, or the reasons why, dismissing them.

my opals are better than anything i've ever heard, and i'm not going to back away from saying that because some don't like it (not aimed at anyone in particular).

i think while i'm on a roll, i'll also say the idea of accuracy is not 'pie in the sky'. a system can only ever try for accuracy to one thing - the recording, and the system with the least distortion of any kind is the most accurate. i'm in my bunker now, so fire at will.

I'm genuinely pleased you're so content....but I suppose, if everything you've heard that isn't Active "sounded broken", it greatly depends on what it was, where you heard it (shows are notoriously difficult to get the sound right) and what price bracket you were listening to.

I don't really get this fixation with accuracy, as we are all too far removed from the original process/equipment to fully comprehend what that was.....if you changed your Opals for another pair of excellent Actives from a different manufacturer, they would give yet another version of accurate....ergo you are also choosing according to your preference.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

my opals are better than anything i've ever heard, and i'm not going to back away from saying that because some don't like it (not aimed at anyone in particular).

hi Craig.

a few dozens replies ago in this thread you were quoting distortion levels for your speakers. I remember the numbers looked quite impressive for a speaker. I decided to take a closer look onto the case and what I found out the numbers were for 3rd harmonic. for some reasons manufacturer forgot to quote 2nd order harmonics. I wonder why would that be...

one more thing. don't take my post as an attempt to sting you. I genuinely would like to know the values for 2nd harmonic for comparison purposes between actives and passives distortion levels.

 

[Craig M.]

i've heard, probably, 100k systems as well as a lot in the 10 to 20k area. some of the more esoteric if you like, was at scalford where the owners were generally (but not all) very happy with how their systems sounded - probably due to most rooms being vaguely 'livingroom' sized. the best sounding systems there were all active apart from the huge quad panels, but not all the actives sounded great - i wasn't impressed by the adams i heard there.

regarding accuracy, i think you've missed my point. i have no idea if my opals are the most accurate or not - couldn't care less, but there is only one 'most accurate', the one with the least distortion. it wouldn't come down to versions of accuracy, only more accurate or less. i will say though that once you are used to something with very low distortion, listening to something not upto the same standard can be a strange experience. whenever i hear a passive system now, i struggle to seperate the sound of the music from the sound of the system layered all over it.

as an aside, some of the posters on here aren't the only ones who think there can be a 'characteristic' of actives. the guy who wrote this seems to think so too. http://gadgets.itwriting.com/?p=1100 i wonder what kind of seperates system you would get for the same money...

 

[Craig M.]

if i remember correctly, odd order harmonics are the ones that sound the worst. given how bullish event have been about their distortion levels (the owner issued a challenge to all other monitor makers, iirc), i'd be very suprised if they'd be found wanting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=124xJatbz-s

the other thing about measurements, is for them to mean anything they'd have to be made at the same place with the same equipment. ashley posted a bit about this on hdd, but i really can't be arsed to go and dig it out.

 

[CnoEvil]

i've heard, probably, 100k systems as well as a lot in the 10 to 20k area. some of the more esoteric if you like, was at scalford where the owners were generally (but not all) very happy with how their systems sounded - probably due to most rooms being vaguely 'livingroom' sized. the best sounding systems there were all active apart from the huge quad panels, but not all the actives sounded great - i wasn't impressed by the adams i heard there.

regarding accuracy, i think you've missed my point. i have no idea if my opals are the most accurate or not - couldn't care less, but there is only one 'most accurate', the one with the least distortion. it wouldn't come down to versions of accuracy, only more accurate or less. i will say though that once you are used to something with very low distortion, listening to something not upto the same standard can be a strange experience. whenever i hear a passive system now, i struggle to seperate the sound of the music from the sound of the system layered all over it.

as an aside, some of the posters on here aren't the only ones who think there can be a 'characteristic' of actives. the guy who wrote this seems to think so too. http://gadgets.itwriting.com/?p=1100 i wonder what kind of seperates system you would get for the same money...

I think you argue your case well, and you have also heard a fair amount of kit with which to make a comparison.....but we will never really agree on what's "better", as we come at it from opposite poles. For you it's about "neutrality and accuracy" proved out by all sorts of measurements and figures (eg. distortion etc); for me (like MP and others), it's about being natural and close to what it's trying to sound like.

Anyway, since this has already been played out so many times in this thread, and as I've nothing more constructive to add, I'm gracefully bowing out.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not too sure about no two amps/sources sounding the same.

Sounds like the basis of a good argument to me! >) Over 37 years, I've heard a lot of kit, and as yet, I haven't heard 2 brands that sound identical....and most of the time, different models of the same brand, while having a house sound, usually improve (ie.sound different) as the price goes up. There are too may variables that effect the sound, so the odds of different manufacturers producing an identical product is theoretically possible, but so is winning the lottery 4 weeks in a row.

Cno, there's no such thing as a "house sound" when talking about amps, DACs or CD players, IMO. In the case of DACs, any differences between them are at best, extremely subtle, CD players the same, numerous blind tests have demonstrated this.

Yes, there are differences between amps, but these differences are a result of the the power of an amp in relation to the demands of the speakers, IMO, there's no magic to it, if a given amp can drive a speaker sufficiently then the sound coming from that speaker won't be any different from how it would sound being driven by an amp from another manufacturer, once it also had sufficient power and volumes were matched, IMO.

When people talk of "synergy" they're simply describing subtle differences in sound due to the varying levels of power different amps give to a set of speakers, IMO. With high powered actives, you're hearing the speaker as it should be heard, as it was designed to be heard, and at it's best. Amplifiers are not designed to "have a sound", they're a tool for a job and often the wrong tool, IMO..

 

[chebby]

(the owner issued a challenge to all other monitor makers, iirc), i'd be very suprised if they'd be found wanting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=124xJatbz-s .

But he's just saying what any professional monitor manufacturer will claim. (Except they might spend a bit more to make it seem less like the kind of advert you'd find on telly at 5am, in-between something to hoover your pets with, and a toilet cleaner that is so 'green' you can safely froth coffee with it!)

 

[CnoEvil]

Cno, there's no such thing as a "house sound" when talking about amps, DACs or CD players, IMO. In the case of DACs, any differences between them are at best, extremely subtle, CD players the same, numerous blind tests have demonstrated this.

Yes, there are differences between amps, but these differences are a result of the the power of an amp in relation to the demands of the speakers, IMO, there's no magic to it, if a given amp can drive a speaker sufficiently then the sound coming from that speaker won't be any different from how it would sound being driven by an amp from another manufacturer, once it also had sufficient power and volumes were matched, IMO.

When people talk of "synergy" they're simply describing subtle differences in sound due to the varying levels of power different amps give to a set of speakers, IMO. With high powered actives, you're hearing the speaker as it should be heard, as it was designed to be heard, and at it's best. Amplifiers are not designed to "have a sound", they're a tool for a job and often the wrong tool, IMO..

Looks like I'm bowing in quicker than I intended, though to be fair, it's a different subject.

Max, I couldn't agree less!

...and I'm not getting sucked into one of your "Max Specials"..... :wall:

 

[Craig M.]

(the owner issued a challenge to all other monitor makers, iirc), i'd be very suprised if they'd be found wanting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=124xJatbz-s .

But he's just saying what any professional monitor manufacturer will claim. (Except they might spend a bit more to make it seem less like the kind of advert you'd find on telly at 5am, in-between something to hoover your pets with, and a toilet cleaner that is so 'green' you can safely froth coffee with it!)

haha! he is australian though. there is another vid, which i don't have time to find atm, where he directly challenges other manufacturers, it would be quite a feather in their cap if they could prove him wrong...

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886

ok, I know this was posted a few pages ago but it really needs to be taken into spotlight.

I can accept that someone was measuring distortion level at crossover and got 1% distortion. this is possible, otherwise this would not be the result. but it's also worth noting that the passive xover in question was the worst case scenario possible for a passive xover. poorest quality coils were used. nothing was mentioned about caps but I'd guess they were comparable to coils. I wonder what the result would have been if they used quality components. but what am I asking for? you wouldn't be expecting fair or scientific comparison there. we're talking about marketing material.

I would also like to ask you Steve, where did you get this 10% figure from? it's definitely nothing I ever came across. why don't you show some empirical evidence. you are into scientific stuff and all, aren't you?

anyway, just to support my point here's a graph of distortion levels of a properly designed 2-way speakers. xover used was quite complicated 3rd and 2nd order but what's most important quality parts from Jantzen were used throughout (the cost of xover itself was so high that you'd be able to buy new mid-priced passive or active speakers. that's the biggest drawback of passive xover IMO. if you want to know more go here.):

so, as you can clearly see distortion around xover point (about 2,7kHz) is very low - below 0,5%. overall, distortion rises to above 1% between quoted 200 - 20kHz but it's due to drivers themselves. nothing to do with xover. 1% distortion for a moving coil driver is nothing uncommon.

if the graph was extending beyond 200 Hz I'd be expecting further rise in distortion from the woofer. normal thing; small woofers don't like bass. I think, but I'm not sure yet, that if you used active woofer section you might lower distortion somewhat, but definitely not massively. I'm only guessing now, a reduction from about 6% - 7% to 3% - 4%?

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886

ok, I know this was posted a few pages ago but it really needs to be taken into spotlight.

I can accept that someone was measuring distortion level at crossover and got 1% distortion. this is possible, otherwise this would not be the result. but it's also worth noting that the passive xover in question was the worst case scenario possible for a passive xover. poorest quality coils were used. nothing was mentioned about caps but I'd guess they were comparable to coils. I wonder what the result would have been if they used quality components. but what am I asking for? you wouldn't be expecting fair or scientific comparison there. we're talking about marketing material.

I would also like to ask you Steve, where did you get this 10% figure from? it's definitely nothing I ever came across. why don't you show some empirical evidence. you are into scientific stuff and all, aren't you?

anyway, just to support my point here's a graph of distortion levels of a properly designed 2-way speakers. xover used was quite complicated 3rd and 2nd order but what's most important quality parts from Jantzen were used throughout (the cost of xover itself was so high that you'd be able to buy new mid-priced passive or active speakers. that's the biggest drawback of passive xover IMO. if you want to know more go here.):

so, as you can clearly see distortion around xover point (about 2,7kHz) is very low - below 0,5%. overall, distortion rises to above 1% between quoted 200 - 20kHz but it's due to drivers themselves. nothing to do with xover. 1% distortion for a moving coil driver is nothing uncommon.

if the graph was extending beyond 200 Hz I'd be expecting further rise in distortion from the woofer. normal thing; small woofers don't like bass. I think, but I'm not sure yet, that if you used active woofer section you might lower distortion somewhat, but definitely not massively. I'm only guessing now, a reduction from about 6% - 7% to 3% - 4%?

Unpublished - duplicate post

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886

ok, I know this was posted a few pages ago but it really needs to be taken into spotlight.

I can accept that someone was measuring distortion level at crossover and got 1% distortion. this is possible, otherwise this would not be the result. but it's also worth noting that the passive xover in question was the worst case scenario possible for a passive xover. poorest quality coils were used. nothing was mentioned about caps but I'd guess they were comparable to coils. I wonder what the result would have been if they used quality components. but what am I asking for? you wouldn't be expecting fair or scientific comparison there. we're talking about marketing material.

I would also like to ask you Steve, where did you get this 10% figure from? it's definitely nothing I ever came across. why don't you show some empirical evidence. you are into scientific stuff and all, aren't you?

anyway, just to support my point here's a graph of distortion levels of a properly designed 2-way speakers. xover used was quite complicated 3rd and 2nd order but what's most important quality parts from Jantzen were used throughout (the cost of xover itself was so high that you'd be able to buy new mid-priced passive or active speakers. that's the biggest drawback of passive xover IMO. if you want to know more go here.):

so, as you can clearly see distortion around xover point (about 2,7kHz) is very low - below 0,5%. overall, distortion rises to above 1% between quoted 200 - 20kHz but it's due to drivers themselves. nothing to do with xover. 1% distortion for a moving coil driver is nothing uncommon.

if the graph was extending beyond 200 Hz I'd be expecting further rise in distortion from the woofer. normal thing; small woofers don't like bass. I think, but I'm not sure yet, that if you used active woofer section you might lower distortion somewhat, but definitely not massively. I'm only guessing now, a reduction from about 6% - 7% to 3% - 4%?

 

[shooter]

For you it's about "neutrality and accuracy" proved out by all sorts of measurements and figures (eg. distortion etc); for me (like MP and others), it's about being natural and close to what it's trying to sound like.

Where do i fit in to this? The last system i put together without hearing it , i'm now doing it again and i do find enjoyment in not knowing what the outcome will be.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886

ok, I know this was posted a few pages ago but it really needs to be taken into spotlight.

I can accept that someone was measuring distortion level at crossover and got 1% distortion. this is possible, otherwise this would not be the result. but it's also worth noting that the passive xover in question was the worst case scenario possible for a passive xover. poorest quality coils were used. nothing was mentioned about caps but I'd guess they were comparable to coils. I wonder what the result would have been if they used quality components. but what am I asking for? you wouldn't be expecting fair or scientific comparison there. we're talking about marketing material.

I would also like to ask you Steve, where did you get this 10% figure from? it's definitely nothing I ever came across. why don't you show some empirical evidence. you are into scientific stuff and all, aren't you?

anyway, just to support my point here's a graph of distortion levels of a properly designed 2-way speakers. xover used was quite complicated 3rd and 2nd order but what's most important quality parts from Jantzen were used throughout (the cost of xover itself was so high that you'd be able to buy new mid-priced passive or active speakers. that's the biggest drawback of passive xover IMO. if you want to know more go here.):

so, as you can clearly see distortion around xover point (about 2,7kHz) is very low - below 0,5%. overall, distortion rises to above 1% between quoted 200 - 20kHz but it's due to drivers themselves. nothing to do with xover. 1% distortion for a moving coil driver is nothing uncommon.

if the graph was extending beyond 200 Hz I'd be expecting further rise in distortion from the woofer. normal thing; small woofers don't like bass. I think, but I'm not sure yet, that if you used active woofer section you might lower distortion somewhat, but definitely not massively. I'm only guessing now, a reduction from about 6% - 7% to 3% - 4%?