Do active speakers interest you? Also, let's talk directivity

@inorganic Yes, the famous ATC midrange. >300-3k. They used to sell them, but the mid driver is their bag. Guzauki-Swist is using that driver in a $30k system. Not sure if anyone else is able to get them from ATC at all now.

I have a very different approach to midrange. Midbass and low mid coherence is very important. I'm a baritone vocalist and bass guitarist, so I don't like it when the "power zone" is disembodied from the low midrange.

Most musical fundamentals are found between 150 and 600hz. This is what people people call "warmth" in music (trust that I'm willing to die on this hill, warmth = low midrange). That is the range of the fundamental tones of our voices. 

330hz, the typical crossover point for the famous ATC 3" dome mid, this right in the heart of what we consider to be musical frequency. It is the critical midrange.

My design uses a 5.25" midrange crossed nearly 200hz lower. Of course, such a large midrange will beam if it is crossed too high, and like any 5" or larger driver (that I've found) the response starts to lose precision above 1000hz.

For many people, upper midrange, 1k-3k is the critical zone. Certainly, those frequencies are more present - they are what we call "presence" when we are discussing audio. 

Our tweeter is planar, and we cross it much lower than standard, even lower than Dutch & Dutch 8c. It  covers from 1k - 35khz, a phenomenal range for a single driver. What those numbers don't tell you is the phenomenal resolution of both detail and dynamics. 

The system uses two critically dampened cabinets. We will include an adjustable, non-resonant pole, so that the top will sit at the optimum height. In practice, the mid and top would be fairly close together, as the low driver will be about 20 inches off the ground. There will also be the option of using a very hefty stand and fully decoupling the bass driver from the floor.

Modular approaches are not as easy to market. Fortunately, this is not modular. The active electronics are all contained within the bass unit, and although the top *could* be connected to another amp, this is forbidden, as without the active electronics, the drivers would certainly be damaged. Also, who wants to listen to music without low frequencies?

It can be set up in different ways, depending on what is required. With 1800 watts for the whole system, it could serve as a PA system for a small party. The poles will allow for standing-height listening, although that might be wishful thinking at this point.

I used "phenomenal" twice in a row in that last post. Forgive me! I'm excited.

@aubreybob -

I would never claim to eliminate room problems. What most people don't realize is that your room is actually more important than your speakers. No matter what active electronics are used or DSP "correction" you perform, the shape of the chamber, position of speakers, wall and ceiling materials, and so forth, will ALWAYS play a huge factor. 

The good news is that most rooms can be made to sound good. Most, not all. My house was built in 1930. If you can get a pre-WW2 house, go for it. I know, I know, most people aren't allowed to choose their house based on its acoustics, but to get something built like they used to do it would be wildly expensive now. Traditionally, homes were sealed tight, as heating was simply not a great option. Modern walls DO NOT pass the knock test, and guess what, that matters just as much as your speaker cabinets.

Professional studios that are not purpose-built usually get 2ft of the highest density mineral wool applied to every surface. This is sufficient dampening, and it's not that expensive for the materials, but it's a big pain. In my mastering room, I have 200lbs bass traps in the corners and a heavy diffuser at the first reflection point.

Now, again, some people prefer a live room, and that's fair. A critically dampened room is the goal, and most room are dreadfully resonant. People who listen to omni speakers often prefer lively rooms. 

I'm not going to speak on that too much. I don't want to crap on anyone's preferences. There is no question that listening in an anechoic chamber is anxiety-inducing. That's not the goal, and it's a good thing that it's not, because we won't achieve it in our houses unless we invest millions.

Hi, great discussion.
@mehtayoungs I will certainly be interested in your future speakers/system. Currently I run three separate systems in my main listening room. Stonehouse pre WW2 :-) but not without severe problems in the lower region which makes forceful dsp a necessity. Systems are analog active ATC 150, digital active D&D 8c, passive Revel Gem 2 with ATC subs. Source is normally Roon with added convolution filters. This week I started using the new feature in D&D with direct integration of REW filters. Very smooth.
I really agree that the future is active/digital with the pros much exceeding the cons (if any). Here D&D gives their views of latency in the 8c speakers : https://dutchdutch.com/support/
Comments?

@djones51 You say that you use the 8c all digital. Does that mean you use the ehternet or the digital AES input? Have you found a streamer/source that is both Roon ready and has AES output? Which?

@mehtayoungs --

Great thread initiation.

[...] active has nothing to do with whether the amp is installed in the speaker or not. It refers to whether the crossover is before or after the power stage. Having an active crossover at line level and then using each amplifier channel’s full potential for only the frequency bands that the driver should receive opens up so many doorways as a designer that is doesn’t make sense to do it any other way now.

Exactly; many if not most are stuck with believing active necessarily means an all-in-one package, but as you point out the core distinction of active is simply that the filtration is done prior to amplification, and on signal/line level. I’ve been beating this horse for a while now, but to no avail really.

As consumers, we like to select components. That’s the fun part. And frankly, 95% of powered speakers have absolute crap amps. I get the resistance to letting the speaker designer pick your amp.

What is means in the best case scenario is a perfectly-matched and very convenient system. I have considered using an outboard processor, and then allowing the user to select their own amplification, but it’s not a simple amp setup - you need two channels of 150 watts @ 8 ohm and 1 channel of 600 watts @ 2 ohm, with the gains very precisely dialed for the voicing to be correct. I would need to personally attend every time the system was set up :P

When I converted to my present, all-active set-up from the previous one with passive main speakers and actively driven subs (meaning my 3-way passive main speakers were replaced with 2-way mains meant for active config.), I had enough outputs on my existing Xilica digital cross-over (that I had so far only used in conjunction with my pair of subs) to feed a pair of 2-way main speakers instead. This meant, after adding another stereo amp, that I had to apply the cross-over settings by myself (and later with the help of a friend for the fine tuning, who’s himself well versed using Xilica XO’s in his own system), and it was/is a great learning process while being as well so much easier since it’s done on the fly from the listening position via one’s laptop (or tablet).

I can understand the reticence among audiophiles to dive into setting up XO values by themselves - if ever considered, and in the digital domain no less - but once you get into the modular approach and overall technical understanding with all that entails (which, I believe, isn’t too much too ask of the audiophile who’s moderately technically savvy), it’s really freeing and only opens up the possibilities of choices. And I haven’t even gotten into the sonic advancements very potentially in the wait with active config.

Unfortunately, the hifi industry is fickle as anything, driven by nostalgia and consumer trends rather than science. In general, passive systems with perfect separate amps are going to be more accessible than true high-end active systems.

Indeed, the inertia and habits of what already exists weighs heavily. I know, because I’ve been there (i.e.: with passive config.) predominantly as well. From what I can understand quite a few developers/manufacturers are keen on going active, one way or the other, but can’t really find the costumers to embrace and support it; the bundled package robs Hi-Fi Joe or Jane of choices with amps and potentially DAC’s, in addition perhaps of a tactile sense of "what’s in the package?," and the separates solution - while allowing for flexibility and apart from the element of potential complexity - appears to have the physically visible digital XO/DSP rub some among the audiophile inclined the wrong way, or that’s my guess. Not to mention (the thought of) the possible addition of a A/D-D/A conversion process in the digital XO with analogue inputs only.

Pro stuff just isn’t cheap, and a whole generation of producers has been sold a lie that you can create great music without any dedication. That’s a whole other story. I support the democratization of the music industry for sure, but there is a dark side to it as well, which is getting quite off -topic now.

Whereas conversely in the realm of audiophilia pro products can be had relatively cheap, certainly compared to the segment of high-end audio gear against which a range of pro gear - again, cheaper at that - compares favorably to my ears.

I have a very different approach to midrange. Midbass and low mid coherence is very important. I’m a baritone vocalist and bass guitarist, so I don’t like it when the "power zone" is disembodied from the low midrange.

Most musical fundamentals are found between 150 and 600hz. This is what people people call "warmth" in music (trust that I’m willing to die on this hill, warmth = low midrange). That is the range of the fundamental tones of our voices.

330hz, the typical crossover point for the famous ATC 3" dome mid, this right in the heart of what we consider to be musical frequency. It is the critical midrange.

This is interesting, and I’d mirror those findings of yours in my own experience about the importance of the midbass and lower midrange. To leave this area untarnished of a cross-over is not trivial, sonically speaking, even when it may involve other compromises. My own 2-way main speakers comprise 2 x 15" woofers per channel run up to almost 800Hz while being high-passed at ~85Hz, and a horn-loaded 2" exit compression driver (w/3" voice coil) then covers the remaining band upwards. On paper at least a 3-way system could be preferable with such a driver constellation, and it may be in some variations, but I’m enjoying the audible positives as perceived with a 2-way system in this case vs. a 3-way (passive) ditto.

My design uses a 5.25" midrange crossed nearly 200hz lower. Of course, such a large midrange will beam if it is crossed too high, and like any 5" or larger driver (that I’ve found) the response starts to lose precision above 1000hz.

For many people, upper midrange, 1k-3k is the critical zone. Certainly, those frequencies are more present - they are what we call "presence" when we are discussing audio.

Our tweeter is planar, and we cross it much lower than standard, even lower than Dutch & Dutch 8c. It covers from 1k - 35khz, a phenomenal range for a single driver. What those numbers don’t tell you is the phenomenal resolution of both detail and dynamics.

The system uses two critically dampened cabinets. We will include an adjustable, non-resonant pole, so that the top will sit at the optimum height. In practice, the mid and top would be fairly close together, as the low driver will be about 20 inches off the ground. There will also be the option of using a very hefty stand and fully decoupling the bass driver from the floor.

Very interesting. A blatant suggestion: how about, at some point, trying out a high efficiency 12" midrange coupled to a high eff. horn- or waveguide-loaded AMT unit? A similar XO-region could be chosen, even.