Active, Powered; is there a difference or distinction?

[semente]

Also the idea of locating both the DACs and the amp within the speaker enclosure and thereby keeping everything digital right up to the drivers must have appeal as it irradiates all the nasties associated with losses due to cabling and interference from other electronic sources, etc.

 

Quite on the contrary.

If I were the designer I'd rather have the DACs and amplification close but outside of the boxes.

This would avoid RMI, RFI and resonance interference both between electronic stages and between these and the drivers.

I'd also rather have independent ground and (L)PSU for each stage.

 

DSP (crossovers), Class D amplification and SMPSUs were a blessing for pro active monitor manufacturers: cheap, small size, drop-in modules...

But does their performance match that of traditional designs?

 

R

[electricity]

Quite on the contrary.

If I were the designer I'd rather have the DACs and amplification close but outside of the boxes.

This would avoid RMI, RFI and resonance interference both between electronic stages and between these and the drivers.

I'd also rather have independent ground and (L)PSU for each stage.

 

DSP (crossovers), Class D amplification and SMPSUs were a blessing for pro active monitor manufacturers: cheap, small size, drop-in modules...

But does their performance match that of traditional designs?

 

R

 

A well designed DSP-controlled loudspeaker does not match the performance of traditional designs, it effortlessly surpasses it.

[Audio_ELF]

A well designed DSP-controlled loudspeaker does not match the performance of traditional designs, it effortlessly surpasses it.

Sorry but this is purely an opinion whether it comes from Genelec or PMC, or from a random forum member. This thread started off (IMO) objectively discussing the differences between the two designs but the last few posts have turned into a "my speaker is better than your speaker" pointless argument (again IMO and admittedly I may have contributed in my critique of the Adam "document").

[electricity]

Sorry but this is purely an opinion whether it comes from Genelec or PMC, or from a random forum member. This thread started off (IMO) objectively discussing the differences between the two designs but the last few posts have turned into a "my speaker is better than your speaker" pointless argument (again IMO and admittedly I may have contributed in my critique of the Adam "document").

 

It did start off as you described and I think I answered appropriately. Then, the thread started drifting towards another topic (a trademark feature of the threads here), so I gave my opinion. I' m sorry if you feel that somehow my post ruined this thread.

[Ajax]

I don't think that professional and domestic users have the same objectives and needs. R

 

Hi Semente.

 

It has taken me a few days to get my head around your recent posts. I have to say that I dislike members bagging each other but I really struggle with what you have written ... quite simply its a nonsense.

 

Think about the objectives of an audiophile and that of a professional engineer/mastering - are they not compatible in as much as we both want a playback system that reproduces accurately what was heard in the studio or at the concert.

 

I want a system that is neutral, that gets out of the way and lets the music be heard without adding artefacts or tones that were not there in the original recording.

 

Of course our objectives are the same.

[Audio_ELF]

Think about the objectives of an audiophile and that of a professional engineer/mastering - are they not compatible in as much as we both want a playback system that reproduces accurately what was heard in the studio or at the concert.

 

I want a system that is neutral, that gets out of the way and lets the music be heard without adding artefacts or tones that were not there in the original recording.

 

Of course our objectives are the same.

I disagree with you and agree more with Semente here... (All in my opinion of course)

 

A professional engineer needs a system which is accurate, analytical and typically lets them listen at a few feet away in a room which is custom designed for listening / analysising recordings (as well as not caring what it looks like).

 

A domestic listener wants something which is enjoyable to listen to - that doesn't mean not accurate but accuracy is second to enjoyment), lets them get into the details of the music but no need to analyse it, and is typically listened to at a much greater distance in a room which is multi-purpose living space (and so the speakers must often be aesthetically pleasing).

 

The two are not diametrically different, but do vary.

[Ajax]

I disagree with you and agree more with Semente here... (All in my opinion of course)

 

A professional engineer needs a system which is accurate, analytical and typically lets them listen at a few feet away in a room which is custom designed for listening / analysising recordings (as well as not caring what it looks like).

 

A domestic listener wants something which is enjoyable to listen to - that doesn't mean not accurate but accuracy is second to enjoyment), lets them get into the details of the music but no need to analyse it, and is typically listened to at a much greater distance in a room which is multi-purpose living space (and so the speakers must often be aesthetically pleasing).

 

The two are not diametrically different, but do vary.

 

 

Hi Eloise,

 

As you well know I'm not a technical expert and consider myself more of a music lover than an audiophile, although I do love keeping abreast of new developments in equipment here at CA and visiting audio shops.

 

I disagree with you and Semente and adhere to Barry Diamond's philosophy that we simply want the equipment to get out of the way so we can listen to the music. This applies whether we be at home or in the studio ..... it is always all about the music.

 

My Benchmark DAC HDR into Adam A7 speakers in my home office (7' x 15') allows me to do that. I have had that system for just over 6 years and really love the sound - particularly well recorded music from sources such as Peter Gabriel's Society of Sound - my system does create the impression that the musicians are in the room with you. Brilliant stuff.

 

There was a period here at CA that Benchmark DACs were being trashed for sounding "digital" and "harsh" and I note that Chris took them off his CASH list and there has also been some negativity about having amplifiers subject to vibrations inside active speakers, however, this does not concur with my personal experience. I know I sound like a fan boy of these manufacturers but I felt no need to upgrade my system for a very long time until I heard the Devialet 200 at a hifi show and was wowed by the way it handled red book.

 

That's why I purchased the Devialet 200 (for my living room) as the majority of my music is Redbook and I didn't want to buy yet another copy to get 24/96, especially when it was remastered from a lower resolution analogue tape in the first place. Also, as you point out, the ADAM A7 actives are too small for such large space, however, I could have easily added a sub but wanted to keep them for my office where I listen to most of my music.

 

With regard aesthetics there are plenty of great looking active speakers suitable for home use and although engineers use actives for near field monitoring I really think room size and aesthetics are a non issue because there are plenty of examples of attractive actives with plenty of bottom end, however, Genelc is not one of them! Check out the range from ATC, Focal, Dynaudio Focus, Adam Classic etc. Also if decor is an issue then why are large mono amplifiers acceptable?

 

I really do believe the future is active speakers with built in power DAC(s), CPU, Digital AMPs, DSP and wireless capability. With regard to the upgrade chain just make the rear panel in module form so you can easily interchange the DAcs and amps if you want to upgrade and also connect them to the internet wirelessly so you can stream Tidal directly and also update the software. e.g. you could run Miska's HQ player on the CPU prior to the DAC. Issue two be resolved would be isolating vibrations, but I'm sure with the right materials and a an independent suspension system it could be managed.

 

Finally, we are living in smaller and smaller spaces and it just makes sense to me to have "all in ones" although that was the biggest "no no" when I started out in the late 70s.

 

Just my thoughts on where this is all heading and I may well be the one talking nonsense.

[Audio_ELF]

Ajax ... please don't think I'm arguing with you as I don't disagree completely - just some observations ...

I disagree with you and Semente and adhere to Barry Diamond's philosophy that we simply want the equipment to get out of the way so we can listen to the music. This applies whether we be at home or in the studio ..... it is always all about the music.

Interesting that you "quote" Barry as his monitoring system (for mastering) is (afaik) quite "HiFi" based in that he utilises Mangepan speakers (again iirc) and goes for high end cabling. He's also very anti (once again iirc) DSP. So you may agree with him that "we simply want the equipment to get out of the way so we can listen to the music" you go about it in a different way.

 

My Benchmark DAC HDR into Adam A7 speakers in my home office (7' x 15') allows me to do that. I have had that system for just over 6 years and really love the sound

So that would be a small room system listened "at the desk"?

 

There was a period here at CA that Benchmark DACs were being trashed for sounding "digital" and "harsh" and I note that Chris took them off his CASH list and there has also been some negativity about having amplifiers subject to vibrations inside active speakers, however, this does not concur with my personal experience. I know I sound like a fan boy of these manufacturers but I felt no need to upgrade my system for a very long time until I heard the Devialet 200 at a hifi show and was wowed by the way it handled red book.

With respect ... you can't say that the Adam speakers (for example) don't suffer because of vibrations affecting the electronics because its impossible to get the same speakers with same electronics NOT in the speaker. I still contend that electronics in the speakers are (as much, possibly more) for convenience and cost as anything. You're only a "fan boy" if you think the companies you choose are never wrong and their way is the only way to do things - and I don't think you feel that as you have two quite different systems (IMO). Benchmark were a bit a victim of their own success and internet hype - thats not to say they aren't good DACs, but they were one of the first over-hyped DACs which suited some people but then there was a backlash from those people the "sound" didn't suit.

 

That's why I purchased the Devialet 200 (for my living room) as the majority of my music is Redbook and I didn't want to buy yet another copy to get 24/96, especially when it was remastered from a lower resolution analogue tape in the first place. Also, as you point out, the ADAM A7 actives are too small for such large space, however, I could have easily added a sub but wanted to keep them for my office where I listen to most of my music.

Out of interest; did you compare your Devialet and speakers with any larger "pro-audio" speakers? It sounds like you are agreeing that studio monitors are good for a desktop situation but a more "HiFi" solution is better for the living room?

 

With regard aesthetics there are plenty of great looking active speakers suitable for home use and although engineers use actives for near field monitoring I really think room size and aesthetics are a non issue because there are plenty of examples of attractive actives with plenty of bottom end, however, Genelc is not one of them! Check out the range from ATC, Focal, Dynaudio Focus, Adam Classic etc. Also if decor is an issue then why are large mono amplifiers acceptable?

Interestingly at least 3 of those companies (plus PMC) feel the need to make both "pro" and "domestic" versions of their speakers - presumably because they feel the aesthetics ARE an issue. I don't know your domestic situation; but many people have to accommodate a wife (or husband) who doesn't like speakers so compromises have to be made. Aesthetics and appearance and how things can be hidden is down to the individual.

 

I really do believe the future is active speakers with built in power DAC(s), CPU, Digital AMPs, DSP and wireless capability. With regard to the upgrade chain just make the rear panel in module form so you can easily interchange the DAcs and amps if you want to upgrade and also connect them to the internet wirelessly so you can stream Tidal directly and also update the software. e.g. you could run Miska's HQ player on the CPU prior to the DAC. Issue two be resolved would be isolating vibrations, but I'm sure with the right materials and a an independent suspension system it could be managed.

I have nothing against DSP and digital amps. Personally I see wireless as pointless in most situations - you still need to run wires for power. The upgrade possibilities are interesting ... but then it would be even better (IMO) to have a separate electronics box and allow for flexible cabling, etc.

 

Finally, we are living in smaller and smaller spaces and it just makes sense to me to have "all in ones" although that was the biggest "no no" when I started out in the late 70s.

There are some very interesting all in ones thats for sure.

 

Just my thoughts on where this is all heading and I may well be the one talking nonsense.

I don't think you're talking nonsense ... and I don't think we are that far apart on our thinking. I'm just not sure there is a one solution fits all ... and there are good speakers and setups on both sides of the Active / Passive divide - I may even agree that active is ideal (for example the Naim speakers are improved by converting them to active operation gives support to this argument), but there are compromises with active just as much as there are with passive setups.

 

Eloise

 

PS. Ajax... I do appreciate your post as (generally) I find you are putting forward your opinion and experience without being dogmatic over this being a "one true way".

[Ajax]

Hi Eloise,

 

I certainly don't consider we are having an argument more a statement of opinions and clarification of what those are based on.

 

My premise is that if you are using a digital source then why not keep everything digital for as long as possible and do the conversion to analogue after the crossover while also taking advantage of the new incredibly efficient and compact digital amps (such as the Hypex NC400) that can be matched to the needs of individual drivers. Surely it would eliminate a lot of the losses and problems associated with cables and passive crossovers and it just makes sense to me.

 

The stuff Digipete writes also makes sense to me, however, I have not heard the Genelec speakers and a lot of what I am saying about keeping it digital to the driver is based on supposition, and what I have read, not what I have experienced.

 

With regard to your comments:

 

I was not aware of Barry's system..... the Maggies always get great reviews and are really popular. I heard them at a hifi show but was unimpressed, maybe not set up properly? I have always appreciated Barry's generosity with his time and his willingness to educate. I noticed he is not posting as much anymore, do you know why?

 

You are correct that I listen to my ADAM A7s as desk top speakers.

 

As you alluded to the DAC 1 HDR was seen as state of the art at the time of its release and it was raved about in the audio press. Absolute Sound's reviewer stated:

 

"...it seems to me that this small, inconspicuous, and not very expensive device does its job so well that one should turn one’s attention elsewhere in the audio chain to look for further improvements. The Benchmark DAC1 Pre is not only an excellent device for the money; it is excellent compared to anything that I have encountered at any price. To my mind, it is the beginning of a new era in audio, in which the regeneration of the recorded signal has become a solved problem."

 

That was in 2008 and Benchmark have since updated their range making the leap from adaptive (DAC1) to asynchronous technology in their relatively new DAC 2 range. We know software and filters have also greatly improved so I think they were a little premature with their predictions!

 

I didn't consider active speakers when I heard the Devialet 200 system. I was at a hifi show in Melbourne in late 2014 and was really stunned by how well it played redbook and also its simplistic styling. That's why I bought it. There were all these ginormous monolithic systems costing $50k + and the Devialet (I bought the demo) including ATOHM G1 speakers was only US$8k. A lot of money I know but not relative to what was on offer. I also really liked the idea of software upgrades keeping the system somewhat future proof or at least an extended product life. Interestingly they have now produced the Phantom active speakers and have spent an absolute fortune promoting it.... that just came to me and was not preordained in my thinking.

 

I think one reason I'm attracted to the idea of active speakers is that I'm into keeping things simple and minimalistic (I get confused easily) and to that end I have been advising my nephew on his hifi for his very small new terrace home. We settled on the Nuprime IDA-8 power DAC and KEF LS 50 speakers. I am listening to the KEFs as I write (breaking them in) playing through the Benchmark HDR / Halo A21 power amp, with an Auralic Mini as the source, as we are waiting for the IDA-8, which has been held up in customs for some reason. They are a terrific speaker, however, I haven't heard the IDA-8 yet but from all reports it should work well with the KEFs and provide a relatively inexpensive high end system.

 

http://www.nuprimeaudio.com/index.php/products/amplifiers-and-preamps/integrated-amps/ida-8.html

 

This is already a minimalistic set up, however, because it is being used in a relatively small room it started me thinking why I had not entertained active speakers.

At the end of the day I really don't have enough knowledge to have a definitive opinion and I just enough to know there is a lot I don't know. You mention the limitations of active speakers, can you enlighten me further?

 

As always really appreciate your time for replying to my post.

 

All the best,

 

 

Ajax

[semente]

The Kef LS50 isn't an accurate speaker, but the "revealingness" that results from the "shelved" highs/bump in the "presence" region would make it a nice choice for the studio (and audiophile who favour "detail"), were it not for it's truncated low frequency extension:

 

 

The waterfall is very clean which attests for it's lack of driver-generated coloration:

 

 

R

[One and a half]

The Kef LS50 isn't an accurate speaker, but the "revealingness" that results from the "shelved" highs/bump in the "presence" region would make it a nice choice for the studio (and audiophile who favour "detail"), were it not for it's truncated low frequency extension.....

R

 

Hmm. Accuracy, for a speaker that's a very tall order. Good timing on an article at Stereophile on this very topic. Here's a quote from Andrew Johns (ELAC)

 

"Accuracy in terms of closest approach to the original performance is not practical nor even possible. There is no way to capture an original performance for replay over two channels that can represent the "truth" of that performance. All we can get is a facsimile that is the producer's attempt to capture what he wants to convey to you. As for a studio recording, it is a total construct and has no "original." Therefore, as a speaker designer, my goal is to try and keep the speaker neutral so it is agnostic to the type of music and, to a degree, the replay level. The difficulty is knowing from a design point of view what a neutral speaker is."

[semente]

Hmm. Accuracy, for a speaker that's a very tall order. Good timing on an article at Stereophile on this very topic. Here's a quote from Andrew Johns (ELAC)

 

"Accuracy in terms of closest approach to the original performance is not practical nor even possible. There is no way to capture an original performance for replay over two channels that can represent the "truth" of that performance. All we can get is a facsimile that is the producer's attempt to capture what he wants to convey to you. As for a studio recording, it is a total construct and has no "original." Therefore, as a speaker designer, my goal is to try and keep the speaker neutral so it is agnostic to the type of music and, to a degree, the replay level. The difficulty is knowing from a design point of view what a neutral speaker is."

 

In my view, there can only be accuracy in the reproduction of the recorded signal, which also commonly referred to as high-fidelity or "garbage-in, garbage-out".

Jones said the said the same in his own words.

 

In that perspective the LS50s are not accurate, but some studio monitors aren't accurate either:

 

Yamaha NS10

 

R

[semente]

P.S.: I can see two reasons for using a monitor that has exaggerated upper mids and highs: it's more revealing of "problems"/effects during editing and mixing and will probably have you toning down (EQ'ing) the highs to make the sound a bit more bearable.

 

These are exact same reasons why I don't think that either an up-tilting (from lows to highs) response or hot-shelved tweeter are suitable for music reproduction, since you'll get the "extra-resolution" effect and the sound will come out "bright" and lacking in "warmth"/"fulness".

 

Unfortunately "bright" has become the norm in rock/pop recordings, in low-fi reproduction (mobiles, boom-boxes, TVs, PAs) and even in high-fidelity speakers...

[barefoot]

Active vs Powered:

 

I can confidently say the loudspeaker industry consensus is "Active" means having power amplifiers driven by a line level crossover. The crossovers themselves are not necessarily active, but in practice they are almost universally active. Active speakers with passive line level crossovers do exist, but they are exceedingly rare. Active speakers with amplifiers housed in separate enclosures also exist. However, they are less common and tend to be large midfield and main (in wall) monitors. The vast majority of active speakers sold around the world are all-in-one units with active electronic crossovers.

 

"Powered" means a passive crossover driven by one or more amplifiers attached to the speaker cabinet. In other words, it a passive speaker with one or more amps piggybacked onto it. Having multiple amps in the case of a Powered speaker means the passive crossover is bi-amped, tri-amped, etc. Most powered speakers have only a single amplifier on board. And powered speakers in general are much less common than Active.

 

Active vs Passive in recording studios

 

We'll ignore the legacy Yamaha NS-10m since it's been discontinued for some years now. New active studio monitors outsell passive monitors by more than 30 to 1. So, active monitors are by far the norm in studios today.

 

Voicing of studio monitors vs Hi-Fi speakers

 

I can also confidently say there are no consistent or typical voicing characteristics that distinguish studio monitors from Hi-Fi speakers. Models of both families are, frankly, all over the place with regard to every measure of speaker performance. The only fairly consistent differences I can see have more to do with "logistics" rather than sonics. For example, studio monitors tend to spend less on aesthetics. Monitors also tend to have balanced inputs, level controls and protection limiters (since the often deal with raw uncompressed tracks). In my experience, the pro audio retailers demand a smaller retail markup than Hi-Fi retailers. Pro audio is less lucrative for both manufacturers and retailers in the short term, assuming you have a popular product. However, it's also far less fickle than Hi-Fi. So, once you establish a good reputation in pro audio (not easy), it is easier to maintain a profitable and sustainable business in the long term. But with regard to actual sound quality, accuracy, "forgiveness" and the like, I really don't think there is any blanket distinction that can be made.

[semente]

Hi Thomas,

 

Thanks for the input.

Could you post the frequency response (both on- and off-axis) for the speaker you used as avatar?

I have been visiting your website and found this piece of writing quite interesting, but I'd like to know what degree of "real" (as opposed to theoretical "flatness") your speakers are capable of:

 

 

Interestingly your portrayal of a hi-fi response nearly matches what I would expect from a speaker that's been adequately voiced for music playback (I'd keep the "presence" dip and lower the high frequencies level to 1kHz amplitude level)...

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[semente]

I've found, sorry.

It was a few pages down in the same document.

 

 

R

[barefoot]

Interestingly your portrayal of a hi-fi response nearly matches what I would expect from a speaker that's been adequately voiced for music playback (I'd keep the "presence" dip and lower the high frequencies level to 1kHz amplitude level)...

Hi Ricardo,

 

There's more to the voicing characteristic than these on-axis responses would suggest. Since we don't live and listen in anechoic chambers, the total power radiated into the room at each frequency, and then reflected back to the listener, plays an important role in the perceived spectral balance of a speaker. This is even more of a consideration in home listening environments, because they tend to be more lively than recording studio control rooms. Precisely manipulating these variables is part of art and science of well designed speaker.

 

Cheers,

Thomas

[semente]

Hi Thomas,

 

I agree. I also find that the BBC school of attenuating the off-axis response in the "presence" region, as opposed to an even "power response" in the lows and mids as defended by Toole, is more adequate for the domestic environment:

 

BBC

 

Toole

 

Best,

Ricardo