Speaking for myself, powered speakers take too many options away. No choice of amps, preamps or other gear. Great for the studio where the install is easy.
Who actually uses digital speakers?
Of course, @atmasphere is about to jump in and say "no such thing as... " so before he jumps into the fray, what I mean is, who uses active speakers with digital inputs?
The biggest brand I know of who invested in this in a big way was Meridian which I believe had not just S/PDIF but a custom digital interface as well. With the advent of plate amps with S/PDIF inputs standard I'm wondering how many audiophiles have made the jump to active speakers using the digital inputs?
What are you using and what is your experience like?
40 responses Add your response
While there are certainly a few out there, I suspect not many "audiophiles" use active speakers. One of the most important and enjoyable aspects of this hobby for people who call themselves audiophiles is the mixing and matching of various components and experimenting with new gear. A thread or two before I read this one (in a different section) there was some fellow who listed all of the DACs he'd owned. I didn't count, but it was somewhere around a dozen over the past few years. Take away those choices and you've just deprived that individual of a substantial portion of the joy they experience. Boys love new toys, and the only thing that happens when they grow up is the toys get more expensive. |
To me that’s the point is taking away all the options. You get an optimal match of amp with the speakers and no power sucking distortion creating physical crossover. I’m wanting my next speaks to be active or at least run them active with no crossover with DSP and good matched external amps. A buddy of mine has Focal Utopia component set in his car (as do I). He went active bypassing the physical crossover with DSP and the improvement was pretty amazing. |
| Post removed |
Well, I'm all sorts of different types of audiophile when it comes to active vs. passive. I like my passive speakers exactly because I can pick my amp. If I make an active speaker I pretty much have to give up my analog soul to a lot of choices made for me by the plate amp maker. An A/D converter, the DSP engine and the amplifier. I also really really want to make an active speaker... so I think I'll get my build on with a center channel. |
Not me. At least at this time in technology development it does not seem like a compelling configuration. Yes, Meridian was at the forefront of developing and selling this… but they have been slowly disappearing from main stream. I still have a High end Meridian surround processor and HDMI processor… but my discussions with my dealer is they are just fading away.
|
Don’t forget that all active systems that use DSP are not the same or equal. Our Apollo system can be configured several way and the owner can use any amps or front end they want. Our customers use low power SET amps to mid power SS and anything in between. Some use digital front ends and others analog front ends. Tube preamp or SS preamp or no preamp, it’s your choice. Many people tell me that they are happy we are developing systems like ours and that this IS the future. Mike
|
@ghdprentice Yeah, I expect the same for Theta Digital honestly. I don't know all the details, but it feels as if the HDMI licensing issues combined with the R&D needed to keep up with the latest standards and enhanced features made the switch far too difficult. |
New Kef LS60 has an eARC connection. They can be used wireless, network cable, digital or analog. Dutch and Dutch 8c only needs a network cable. Genelec the Ones digital AES3 standard connectivity, use proprietary DSP and can now control an immersive system. The future is wide open though old guys wanting to play with amps, dacs and what not will still be around. |
Hey @djones51 That’s the kind of interesting feedback I was looking forward to. :-) In particular I was wondering how the ecosystem would play out. Meridian’s use of (I think) Ethernet cable enabling fully digital, active home theater systems had a tremendous amount of promise, but probably because it was entirely proprietary never really had a chance. The idea of speaker-only stereos is also potentially very appealing to the High end and to the main stream. My neighbors LOVE their in-ceiling speakers. I personally would love to get more of my living room back. :-) So the idea of high end speakers with no home server at all, no roon, no PC, no streamer sounds great. Honestly I find myself split among too many ways to explore my audiophile hobby, but for me that also means building. I like to play with coils and caps and have had a lot of fun with them but the next toys I sink myself into will be all active.
|
What are your thoughts about 'semi-active' speakers that have powered subwoofers within the same enclosure? I've read a glowing review for SoundSpaceSystems Pirol speaker which includes 500 watt powered subwooofers and describes, at least to me, speaker nirvana. Just curious if there are different thoughts when it comes to semi-active speakers. Also I understand that Sound Space Systems will be with Vitus Audio's booth at the Munich High End this week. |
@leadcrew I think these are really interesting _especially_ if you can do DSP on the bass sections alone. The best of all worlds, IMHO. The approach Vandersteen takes, to use a high pass filter before the main amps and compensate in the sub is outstanding. |
DSP makes all kinds of sense in a car, as that is about as sub-optimal an environment that one will ever run into. In my experience, DSP for extreme high end home audio attempts, should look similar to a low slope crossover with some minor phase/level corrections, and then analog (LCR) zobles for the drivers. Where..the use of digital manipulation is LIMITED in scope and range only... in such an environment - with very simple and subtle changes. No sharp changes, no complex changes all stacked on one another. That kind of digitally based signal manipulation looks good on paper and in measuring but sounds like cack. Big time cack. Where the very subtle and intimate changes in the music, that we all seek to hear as naturally as possible are disturbed in the extreme. This would take time to explain the why of that, but it is a very real phenomena, and simply said --- don't go there. For a car, sure, as that is horrific environment and DSP can work there. But DSP is not a panacea, not by a long shot. DSP can and does make a mess out of poorly constructed concert halls. It can make things listenable but it normally comes at a high price. DSP should be on the rack of the soundman for a traveling rock show or whatnot, and used sparingly, like the overall analog EQ in the racks. There, it can often be a show saver and a life saver. but a light hand is required, never a heavy hand. In the same way that 'less eq' equals 'more sound quality for a performance venue.. 'less DSP' equals 'more sound quality'. |
There’s the power-DAC with the digital input going all the way to the analogue conversion at the amp’s output stage, but other than that an active speaker with digital input just refers to the use of a DSP unit which can then receive a digital or analogue signal from the DAC. With an analogue input to the DSP from the DAC an A/D to D/A conversion is needed, but from all I’ve heard this extra conversion stage is of no consequence to the sound. To all of you who believe to the contrary here I might as well suspect it’s simply something it says "on paper." Active per definition means filtration prior to amplification on signal level (as opposed to passive ditto on the output side of the amp); not necessarily that it’s a bundled package. So, as a separate component solution and per the above my own active-via-DSP setup fits the description. My DSP unit is a Xilica XP-3060. It has no digital input, so an A/D to D/A conversion is taking place before sending the analogue output signal to three amps, one covering ~600Hz on up (Belles SA30), another ~85 to 600Hz (Lab.Gruppen FP6400) and the last one from ~85Hz on down (Crown Audio K2). Main speakers are Electro-Voice TS9040D LX pro cinema speakers, and the two subs are 15"-loaded tapped horns (20 cf. volume per cab, tuned @23Hz). Filter slopes are L-R 36dB/octave throughout, and a 36dB/octave BW high-pass on the subs @20Hz. To me going active this way has been revelatory. I can’t relate to the negative and not least reductive remarks by poster @teo_audio above on the use of DSP in a home setting, but there are many ways to configure such a system, so if you want to make general assertions here be specific with regard to the contexts in which you’ve made your observations, or else it has no bearing to me. As implemented in my setup I find the results to be highly satisfactory. Btw, to those who don’t believe pro cinema speakers can set a sonically high bar in a home setting, well.. have a go at it before any judgement is made (the DH1A compression driver used in my EV speakers is one of the best I’ve heard - a sledgehammer in velvet gloves). Active (via DSP) to my ears generally sounds more resolved, more transiently clean and overall less inhibited vs. a passively configured ditto (my experience, in addition to the one I've drawn from my own setup, is based in particular on passive speakers that have been converted to active config.); more immediate, yet smoother and easier on the ear. The best systems I’ve heard have been actively configured, pretty much like my own setup. Just my $0.02. |
|
| Post removed |
+1 Certainly a passive cross-over, not least the more complex ones, is a sonic bottleneck many if not most don’t realize the severity of. |
You know you can, right - choose whatever amps you like with actively configured speakers? There are great digital cross-overs/DSP’s out there with both IIR or FIR filters, pro options not least like Xilica that doesn’t cost a fortune. And no, it doesn’t have to be FIR filters to sound great, nor is a digital input of vital importance (to avoid A/D to D/A conversion), not do they have to cost gazillion. Then choose your amps for each speaker section, wire it all up with the DAC and you’re good to go. That is: if you’re comfortable "tailoring" your own passive filters (and even if you weren’t), setting up your digital ditto will most likely feel like a breeze by comparison, even if it takes some getting-to-know the platform, navigating in it and being familiarized with all the filter setting options. You can then sit in your listening position with your laptop/tablet and make the filter corrections on the fly. |
I’m way past wanting to have multiple stacks of amps in my home so when I think of an active speaker, I think of an all in one unit that has built in everything. The OP was not about active crossovers by the way, but active, digital speakers. Meaning, the amp is built into the speaker and it has a digital input. Yeah, I know what I could do with digital crossovers, I’m just not about to run a stereo amp, or more, per speaker here. I’m currently planning a fully active 3-way center channel using a plate amplifier. The only thing that stops me from building it is the kitchen remodeling that I have to do first. 😁
Best,
Erik |
Eric, Active speaker systems with all discreet components certainly add a layer of complexity but also have tons of flexibility. We actually use different crossover points to dial in a system along with more conventional amplitude adjustments and time domain adjustments. These types of adjustments were impractical to do with passive and fixed systems. Mike |
Hey Mike / @arion If you meant me, I’m not Eric. Yeah, I have a pretty good idea of the magic you have to do in order to get your speakers dialed in. As a fan of active crossovers, DSP and AMTs and line sources I think you are in a very fun place to be.
Best,
Erik |
Hey @arion Since you like to jump in here and talk about your tech, I'm a little curious about something. Your towers are relatively narrow baffles, especially when compared to the famous Infinity Reference. Now, I don't want to set this up as an Arion vs. 30 year old technology, with questionable crossovers, but the IRS was (I believe) a dipole with a very wide baffle. I'm curious if you've experimented with wide baffles and what you found as a result. Among my interests is also wide baffle design speakers so that's why I'm asking. |
Hi Erik, Sorry for misspelling your name, my bad. I try not to talk about my products specifically but use them as an example of what is possible. I think many people here are not always clear on the terminology related to DSP, ASP, active systems and room correction. It’s not our technology but it’s how we use it. Baffle design is an interesting topic. As I’m sure you know the baffle design affects many things. Specifically to our dipole Apollo speakers we are mostly concerned with baffle width, baffle step and diffraction. The ideal width for our 120Hz line array is about 39”. In theory a flat 39” baffle will support our line array down to about 120Hz without baffle step or cancellation. That creates other problems along with being too wide for most home system. So we folded the baffle into an asymmetrical “U” shape. The inside of the back side is shaped to minimize cavity resonances. There a bit more to it but that’s the basics. Mike |
Self-imposed limitations there’s little I can do about. It’s kind of a classical dilemma, right; one laments not being able to choose the amps of choice with active speakers (only so many plate amp options are available), but when told you actually can have your cake and eat it too (i.e.: free choice of amps for active config. as a discreet component solution, and a potentially all-out approach with regard to components at least) the answer is no: one wants it all built-in because the amps take up place on the rack. So my counter question to you would be: what do really want; a nice and bundled, plug-and-play speaker package, or do you want to explore where active qua active (as separates) config. can really take you? There are different ways to go about harnessing the advantages of active, but as a DIY solution of separates I find being freed of physical and hardware limitations of vital importance. I mean, how often do you see bundled, active speakers much larger than slim, moderately sized floor-standers? ATC SCM300ASL is one of the very few exceptions..
No, but I was replying to an aspect of what you brought up, even if it meant going a little off-topic, which is: what’s meant with a "digital speaker" or an active ditto that has a digital input anyway? Usually that it has a built-in DAC(/streamer) with its digital input, apart from DSP and amps, and that all that’s needed from hereon is a source. I was simply referring to and suggesting to use a discreet component, active configuration solution (with a digital input via the DAC), and that in essence it’s the same inquired about by the OP. Why? Because most are so fixated on active as a bundled solution only that you have to wonder what’s really the goal here.
There it is again ;)
Ah, yes - all the other stuff that has to be attended to as well, and I’m not being sarcastic here. Hope you’ll get around to realizing active, one way or the other. |
For this thread my real question was whether a digital input speaker system had an ecosystem or broad adoption. I think you misunderstood my curiosity about the industry as being a request for help changing my system. I have the former and no real reason to do the latter. I can build whatever I want to build, Goddess willing and the river don’t rise, with time and effort. I was more curious about whether the Meridian (or possibly earlier) innovation of a purely digital input speaker had gone anywhere. I have to say, the idea of simplifying a stereo to 2 high end speakers and an Ethernet cable seems pretty appealing. Whether I would go that route or not is a different question than where we are today as an industry. |
| Post removed |
Hi Mike / @arion , I’m familiar enough with dipoles to understand the convenience of the U shape. I’m just dreadfully curious if you ever had flat prototypes and if so if you felt they were worth the excess floor space. I’m asking in large part due to the very positive experience I’ve had listening to the SF Stradivari Homage and some gomments Troels Gravesen has made about how they seem to ignore the room they are in and impose the acoustics of the recordings.
Best,
Erik |
Hi Erik, Our baffle design accomplishes what we want and with DSP/Room correction wider isn’t worth the extra floor space. A line array without DSP/Room correction, like the Infinity, is designed differently than our Apollos and can benefit from a wide baffle. There are pros and cons. Once again, the room becomes part of the equation. |
Hi Erik, Just to be clear "wider isn’t worth the extra floor space" in my context is "with (our Apollos and) DSP/Room correction wider isn’t worth the extra floor space". If you are building a line array without digital room correction (or passive) and have a decent size room I would encourage you to try a wide baffle. Flat baffles are by far the easiest to build. To the OP: Like the all-inclusive active systems, our system has digital inputs as well. We sometimes use our transport or server directly in. Not having a DAC and preamp between the digital source and processor sounds a little different, both good just different. In our system the quality of the digital source becomes more apparent when connected directly. My preamp is tube based, BTW. My experience is that the quality of the components and a correct interface make a much bigger difference and is more important than worrying about another conversion. wolf_garcia I appreciate your sentiment. I hear that concern from time to time from people interested in our speakers. I agree with the concern. Fixed systems, whether digital active or passive are tonally "tuned" by the speaker designer. The better automatic DSP/Room correction systems deal mostly with addressing room issues. They don't alter tonality unless manual adjustments are done. It is easy to negatively affect the SQ with excessive manual adjustments. I encourage people to try different settings so they learn. It's easy to go back to the default so no harm done. Mike |
@erik_squires You put me in a bind- I can't avoid making you wrong; if I don't jump in, then I made you wrong, If I do jump in, I have to say there's no such thing as a digital speaker... Seriously though IMO powered speakers are not the best choice unless you're pressed for space. The first powered speaker I heard was the old Acoustat. The speaker was pretty good but the hybrid amp it used was kind of terrible. It taught me an important lesson: If you want to improve either the amp or speaker, you have to change out both if your speaker is self-powered. This hasn't changed in the class D era. There is as much variance in the sound of class D amps now as you hear with the spectrum of all tube amps. Some are musical and others are not. If you want to improve the amp in your speaker, you're likely going to have to replace the speaker. IMO/IME better if you can work out a decent speaker and then if the amp doesn't suit, get a different amp. And so the same applies if there is a digital only input. How good is the DAC in there? Its only been recently that DACs have gotten good enough and small enough that doing something like that might make sense. But what if you want a better DAC or amp or speaker.... |
Hey @atmasphere
I am with you in terms of absolute audiophile-ness. Separate dac/amp/speakers offer absolute control over every aspect of the reproduction. Powered speakers however reduce clutter, improve efficiency and even let us do things with cabinets we couldn't do otherwise, not to mention perhaps let us better tune for room placement. The digital powered speaker is in a way the ultimate integrated however. Just put a coax or Ethernet cable in and out comes music. That has to be appealing to many. Still, my real question for this thread was more about whether or not the digital input speaker has evolved very much since I first became aware of Meridian. |