Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 31709 times.

brj

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #100 on: 22 Jun 2016, 07:45 am »
Quote from: JDUBS
brj, oh yeah, no, totally get that.  My comment was really just a general one re: dsp across the whole frequency spectrum.  The dsp-effected dsd that the hqplayer guy(s) tout is definitely pretty impressive if possible.  I don't think the jriver guys think it is

Color me impressed, at least, because it's definitely working in my system and sounds great.  Of course, the interface for HQPlayer is... umm... challenged, but putting Roon in front of it gives you best-in-class music management.  That still leaves climbing the HQPlayer learning curve to determine the initial settings, but I was willing to do that, as the sound quality justified it - at least to me.


Quote from: JDUBS
Instead of using a line-level crossover at all why not just audiolense / acourate with a multi-channel dac?

Two parts to that...

The convolution engine in HQPlayer effectively lets me apply any digital filter I care to generate, addressing both frequency and time domain corrections if desired.  So on the non-crossover related DSP side of things, I can already do anything that Audiolense can do, and possibly more.  (Can Audiolense handle high-res PCM or DSD?)  I just have to generate the filter, which I can do easily with Room EQ Wizard.  I entered the driver EQ settings specified by the designer of my speakers into the filter generation section of RoomEQWizard and saved an impulse response filter to a WAV file at 32-bit/192 kHz.  (I could have implemented room correction, an overall frequency response "house curve", etc., but I as I mentioned, I likely won't play with that until I've exhausted my room treatment options.  I may look at an all-pass filter, however, to see if I can detect the phase correction.)  HQPlayer then convolves that high-res impulse response with any resolution PCM or DSD audio source stream and upsamples the output to DSD128, which is the native rate of my DAC.  If I was willing to pay for it, I could likely use Audiolense or Dirac to generate the impulse response filters as well, but I'm not aware that they can do it any better (or at higher resolution) than the free Room EQ Wizard.

As for using a multi-channel DAC to implement the crossover in the digital domain... that severely restricts my options.  There are orders of magnitude more 2-channel DACs and pre-amps than multi-channel (DSP capable) DACs and pre-amps (especially fully differential multi-channel components).  It seems as if DAC designs advance (or at least change) faster than any other audio component, and by staying with 2-channel components until I get through the pre-amp to the analog line-level crossover, I have infinitely more options and can upgrade at will without impacting the rest of my system.  Plus, as an example, I can't imagine a multi-channel volume control that would equal the quality of my Bent TAP-X, or at least not for anywhere near the same price.  Effectively, my active speaker system end-to-end chain is composed of fully traditional 2-channel components, except that I paid for an (external) analog line-level crossover and a few extra cables instead of an (internal) analog speaker-level crossover.

Eventually, when I'm firmly convinced that I will no longer tweak my crossover settings, I'll likely have an analog line-level crossover built that implements precisely those crossover filters that are finalized following experimentation using the Pass XVR-1.  The Pass is very good, for example bypassing any filter poles not used for a given channel so they are removed from the circuit, but with a hardwired line-level crossover I could use Mills resistors to set the tweeter level relative to the woofer rather than the XVR-1's CEC potentiometer.  Heck, the values in a line-level crossover are so small compared to a speaker level crossover that I could likely at least look at using audiophool level components.


By the way, I bet I would have paid at least as much to build the internal passive speaker-level crossover networks as I did to buy my used Pass XVR-1.  And while I had to buy 2 stereo Pass XA30.5 amps for 4 amplification channels total, their used price is almost exactly half that of the used pair of Pass XA60.5 amps that I would have had to step up to (at least) had I gone with the passive version of my speakers.  Yes, it's not fair to ignore the extra cabling required in the active configuration, but the point is that my active system is in roughly the same price ballpark as the passive system would have been.  (The real price was the time I spent learning all of this, but that's part of the hobby for me.)  For a manufacturer, who can eliminate the speaker cables and use a single power supply and power cord to feed all amplification channels built into an active speaker, I have no doubt that you could actually come out firmly ahead on price and performance both, relative to the passive version coupled to a price-appropriate amp and speaker cable.

Of course, convincing the average audiophile that the performance achieved by their individual bespoke component selections and semi-random cable selections might be exceeded by a manufacturer's true end-to-end systems oriented design approach... well, that may be the hardest challenge of all.  (It makes perfect sense to me... put the speaker designer, amp designer and cable designer under the same roof and in the same design meetings and avoid sending the poor audiophile out to randomly stumble around in search of "synergistic" component/cable combinations.)  Andrew and ELAC seem to be threading that needle well by providing all of the options and letting the customer decide.

Wow... that turned into a novel.  Hope the information is useful to someone...

klaus@odyssey

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 1186
    • http://www.odysseyaudio.com
Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #101 on: 22 Jun 2016, 08:50 am »
Wow...very interesting discussion, and man oh man, some of you just nail it perfectly.....anyway, my 2 cents as this is actually on my mind for a while:

1. active systems are great if indeed you can manufacture super cheap for a sub 1 K  price, which, obviously puts compromises into play for parts quality...

2.  The same friend who designed our Kismet speakers also has an active 3 way pair that is ridiculous,  BUT also very expensive...yes, after hearing the pair I am converted.

3.  However, the main reason for me, and I assume for Daed., Salk, Vapor, etc. is that in the US market, unlike say Germany, high quality, high price active speakers are hard to sell....in order to get them done nicely, you have to invest quite a bit, and in that price range (albeit a bit of a range here) we simply want our choices with different amps or cables,  etc.....


However, a $ 750. system for a hobby room or bedroom system ???  Can't argue with that...

Late,

Klaus

Rocket_Ronny

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1399
  • Your Room Is Everything - Use It Well.
    • ScriptureSongs.com
Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #102 on: 22 Jun 2016, 11:19 am »
I recently bought a Behringer DQX-2496 digital crossover and I am impressed. Does add complexity but opens up a lot of options.

Rocket Ronny

richidoo

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #103 on: 22 Jun 2016, 01:44 pm »
Wow... that turned into a novel.  Hope the information is useful to someone...

Very interesting, brj, thanks!


brj

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #105 on: 22 Jun 2016, 04:24 pm »
There's a lot to be said for active 2-ways plus multiple subwoofers (i.e. "swarm") that can more easily even out bass room modes.  If you reduce your active speaker to a 2-way, things get much easier and more interesting.  The JBL Pro LSR308 may not match Josh's M2s, but at $450 per pair and with glowing reviews, they may be some of ELAC's competition.

JDUBS

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #106 on: 23 Jun 2016, 12:06 am »
Color me impressed, at least, because it's definitely working in my system and sounds great.  Of course, the interface for HQPlayer is... umm... challenged, but putting Roon in front of it gives you best-in-class music management.  That still leaves climbing the HQPlayer learning curve to determine the initial settings, but I was willing to do that, as the sound quality justified it - at least to me.

Totally fair, the jriver guys dismissed the ability to do it citing specific technical limitations of working with a dsd stream directly.  I honestly don't know who's right or not.  Obviously HQPlayer has it working, so.....


Two parts to that...

The convolution engine in HQPlayer effectively lets me apply any digital filter I care to generate, addressing both frequency and time domain corrections if desired.  So on the non-crossover related DSP side of things, I can already do anything that Audiolense can do, and possibly more.  (Can Audiolense handle high-res PCM or DSD?)
 

Audiolense can generate filters at any sample rate you PCM sample rate that you specify.  The beauty in it lies in its simplicity in creating filters applicable to multiple driver systems (so incorporating digital crossovers, not JUST dsp correction).  Seriously, when it comes to dealing with phase and my Unity system, it saved me a LOT of time!   

I just have to generate the filter, which I can do easily with Room EQ Wizard.  I entered the driver EQ settings specified by the designer of my speakers into the filter generation section of RoomEQWizard and saved an impulse response filter to a WAV file at 32-bit/192 kHz.  (I could have implemented room correction, an overall frequency response "house curve", etc., but I as I mentioned, I likely won't play with that until I've exhausted my room treatment options.  I may look at an all-pass filter, however, to see if I can detect the phase correction.)  HQPlayer then convolves that high-res impulse response with any resolution PCM or DSD audio source stream and upsamples the output to DSD128, which is the native rate of my DAC.  If I was willing to pay for it, I could likely use Audiolense or Dirac to generate the impulse response filters as well, but I'm not aware that they can do it any better (or at higher resolution) than the free Room EQ Wizard.

REW is no doubt great, but Audiolense and Acourate are the way to go if you're trying to do DSP correction PLUS digital crossover design

As for using a multi-channel DAC to implement the crossover in the digital domain... that severely restricts my options.  There are orders of magnitude more 2-channel DACs and pre-amps than multi-channel (DSP capable) DACs and pre-amps (especially fully differential multi-channel components).  It seems as if DAC designs advance (or at least change) faster than any other audio component, and by staying with 2-channel components until I get through the pre-amp to the analog line-level crossover, I have infinitely more options and can upgrade at will without impacting the rest of my system.  Plus, as an example, I can't imagine a multi-channel volume control that would equal the quality of my Bent TAP-X, or at least not for anywhere near the same price.  Effectively, my active speaker system end-to-end chain is composed of fully traditional 2-channel components, except that I paid for an (external) analog line-level crossover and a few extra cables instead of an (internal) analog speaker-level crossover.

JRiver has a pretty great 64-bit digital volume control which is exceptionally transparent and works across however many channels you have.  I'm guessing HQPlayer has something similar (that also works with DSD?).

Eventually, when I'm firmly convinced that I will no longer tweak my crossover settings, I'll likely have an analog line-level crossover built that implements precisely those crossover filters that are finalized following experimentation using the Pass XVR-1.  The Pass is very good, for example bypassing any filter poles not used for a given channel so they are removed from the circuit, but with a hardwired line-level crossover I could use Mills resistors to set the tweeter level relative to the woofer rather than the XVR-1's CEC potentiometer.  Heck, the values in a line-level crossover are so small compared to a speaker level crossover that I could likely at least look at using audiophool level components.

By the way, I bet I would have paid at least as much to build the internal passive speaker-level crossover networks as I did to buy my used Pass XVR-1.  And while I had to buy 2 stereo Pass XA30.5 amps for 4 amplification channels total, their used price is almost exactly half that of the used pair of Pass XA60.5 amps that I would have had to step up to (at least) had I gone with the passive version of my speakers.  Yes, it's not fair to ignore the extra cabling required in the active configuration, but the point is that my active system is in roughly the same price ballpark as the passive system would have been.  (The real price was the time I spent learning all of this, but that's part of the hobby for me.)  For a manufacturer, who can eliminate the speaker cables and use a single power supply and power cord to feed all amplification channels built into an active speaker, I have no doubt that you could actually come out firmly ahead on price and performance both, relative to the passive version coupled to a price-appropriate amp and speaker cable.

Of course, convincing the average audiophile that the performance achieved by their individual bespoke component selections and semi-random cable selections might be exceeded by a manufacturer's true end-to-end systems oriented design approach... well, that may be the hardest challenge of all.  (It makes perfect sense to me... put the speaker designer, amp designer and cable designer under the same roof and in the same design meetings and avoid sending the poor audiophile out to randomly stumble around in search of "synergistic" component/cable combinations.)  Andrew and ELAC seem to be threading that needle well by providing all of the options and letting the customer decide.

Wow... that turned into a novel.  Hope the information is useful to someone...


Useful to ME, that's for sure!  Great dialog, here.   :thumb:

-Jim

brj

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #107 on: 23 Jun 2016, 06:30 am »
Quote from: JDUBS
Audiolense can generate filters at any sample rate you PCM sample rate that you specify.

From the quick searching I did, it looks like it has the same max 192 kHz sample rate as REQ, though that was based on forum results.  Online specs and documentation seemed scarce.  Regardless, 192 kHz would seem to be plenty, at least for me, and certainly until I start to build a library of high res source material.
 

Quote from: JDUBS
The beauty in it lies in its simplicity in creating filters applicable to multiple driver systems (so incorporating digital crossovers, not JUST dsp correction).  Seriously, when it comes to dealing with phase and my Unity system, it saved me a LOT of time!   

REW is no doubt great, but Audiolense and Acourate are the way to go if you're trying to do DSP correction PLUS digital crossover design

I believe you.  I haven't compared them for crossover filter design, and don't even know what REQ can do in that regard.  My digital filter design requirements were about as minimal as you get and based solely on known EQ settings.  I only needed a tool able to implement the driver EQ corrections and save the resulting impulse response filter in a WAV file at as high a bit depth and rate as I could find.  (I'm not opposed to experimenting with some additional DSP adjustments, but it will definitely be secondary to room treatments and a focus on the use of controlled directivity speakers.)

For what it's worth, I did look at both Audiolense and Acourate when first exploring such tools, but since they don't run on a Mac, I didn't dig very deeply.


Quote from: JDUBS
JRiver has a pretty great 64-bit digital volume control which is exceptionally transparent and works across however many channels you have.  I'm guessing HQPlayer has something similar (that also works with DSD?).

I know HQP does have a software volume control that operates on both PCM and DSD output, but I never dug into the details since I have my autoformer based analog volume control.  If I recall correctly, HQP can handle up to 32 simultaneous channels.  So... 7 speaker surround sound using 4-way active speakers and 4 subwoofers! :)


Quote from: JDUBS
Useful to ME, that's for sure!  Great dialog, here.   :thumb:

:thumb:

Having said that, I think we're veering away from the focus of the thread.  Suffice it to say that one can implement an effective active speaker system using either digital or analog line-level crossover.

JoshK

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #108 on: 20 Jan 2017, 12:07 am »
Bringing this thread back from the dead to mention that JBL announced that they are releasing a powered version of their LSR 705/708 with a P ending instead of I.  It has the DSP internally and uses class D amps, so no worries about noisy pro amps.   I just consolidated two big systems into one big system*, but I am moderately tempted to grab a pair of the 705Ps for my bedroom. 

* running LR M2s (working out a deal right now for 3rd M2 for center behind my AT screen).  708i for sides, 4x 705i for atmos.  I'm running all DCIn amps and in my enclosed free standing rack they aren't very audible at all, ymmv.

Russell Dawkins

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #109 on: 20 Jan 2017, 04:26 am »
Bringing this thread back from the dead to mention that JBL announced that they are releasing a powered version of their LSR 705/708 with a P ending instead of I.  It has the DSP internally and uses class D amps, so no worries about noisy pro amps.   I just consolidated two big systems into one big system*, but I am moderately tempted to grab a pair of the 705Ps for my bedroom. 

* running LR M2s (working out a deal right now for 3rd M2 for center behind my AT screen).  708i for sides, 4x 705i for atmos.  I'm running all DCIn amps and in my enclosed free standing rack they aren't very audible at all, ymmv.

Those would be surprising little speakers, from all reports. Do you have any idea of MSRP?
That's a killer system you are running at the moment. Have you posted your impressions of the M2? I missed it if you did.

Ultralight

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 381
Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #110 on: 20 Jan 2017, 05:14 am »
Is there anyone who manufactures "audiophile quality" active speakers? I mean someone like a Daedalus or Salk or Vapor Audio or GR Research that typically uses high quality parts and takes aesthetics seriously. As an audiophile, I don't want a cheap $30 plate amp attached to my speakers like most other active monitors.  I'd also like to see integrated speaker stands to hide the power cords and ICs for monitors, and full range floor standers to eliminate the need for separate subwoofers (i.e., wife friendly). All of this should be available at a price significantly lower than my current speaker/amp combo without losing fidelity. IMO, if the cost is comparable or higher than what I already have, there's little incentive to consider active speakers.

I would probably be laughed of audiocircle but Devialet Phantom Gold at $6K for the pair exceeds their cost substantially in my estimation. The White and Silver version are good value but not quite at the level of the Gold.

The KEF LS50 Wireless is another set that comes to mind though I've not heard that pair yet.

JoshK

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #111 on: 20 Jan 2017, 02:44 pm »
Those would be surprising little speakers, from all reports. Do you have any idea of MSRP?
That's a killer system you are running at the moment. Have you posted your impressions of the M2? I missed it if you did.

They are on pre-order at Sweetwater for $2k/ea for the 708P, I think the MSRP was listed as 2.5K/ea.   Taken from elsewhere:

Taken from the product sheets:
705P:
PRICING
U.S. LIST:
$1,249.00

708P:
PRICING
U.S. LIST:
$2,499.00

I saw the distributor pricing and they have a bit of wiggle room, hence sweetwater's price is probably the likely street price.  Not too bad when you get SOTA DSP, constant directivity and even power response with the amps built in.  They can even take direct digital in if you have a digital source that can control the volume digitally.  But then I quit believing that successive ADC/DAC processing is still audible, so I think this is more just convenience.

Regarding my observations on the M2s, I'll post that elsewhere to not threadjack.... 

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.

srb

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #113 on: 20 Jan 2017, 03:15 pm »
Have you seen these?  http://www.audiophilia.com/reviews/2016/5/30/audioengine-hd6-premium-powered-speakers?rq=audioengine

The Audioengine HD6 are powered speakers but not active speakers, i.e. there is a single amplifier per channel with a passive crossover between woofer and tweeter.

Stever

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #114 on: 20 Jan 2017, 03:27 pm »
Ah, right you are. 

srlaudio

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 170
    • SRL Acoustics
Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #115 on: 24 Jan 2017, 03:34 am »
I have read with great interest this thread.  I am using HQ player with Roon library management, and it is like having your cake and eating it too...  I am interested in generating FIR crossovers for the Radian 15" coaxial drivers with the new Beryllium diaphragms.  I am a dealer for them and like their classic design.  Another line I have had for over 30 years is RCF, who have their own powered monitor speakers.  I have had great luck with a couple of home studios implementing these, and think they deserve greater success in the market.  Please check out the websites and let me know what you think!

richidoo

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #116 on: 26 Jan 2017, 04:14 pm »
My Sweetwater guy emailed me about 708P today:

"I also wanted to bring to your attention a new product from the NAMM show that I thought you might also have an interest in:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LSR708P

They are the powered version and are packed with DSP.  I have not heard the powered version yet but if they sound anything like the passive version then they will be a cut above the competition at this price point!  Our team who went out to NAMM came back with glowing reviews, touting this as one of the best studio monitors at any price point so I wanted to throw a link your way!"

Interview JBL at NAMM
https://youtu.be/vTEetHSxdys

rockadanny

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #117 on: 26 Jan 2017, 04:19 pm »
side comment: JoshK - Your avatar is freakin' me out, man.

Russell Dawkins

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #118 on: 26 Jan 2017, 06:03 pm »
My guess is the 705P and 708P will be game changers as much as the LSR 305 was at its much lower price point.

mcgsxr

Re: Andrew Jones discusses pros and cons of active speakers
« Reply #119 on: 26 Jan 2017, 06:26 pm »
side comment: JoshK - Your avatar is freakin' me out, man.

+1.  Supergirl was much more alluring!