Funk Audio 8.2P Floorstanding Loudspeaker Preview

[Ricardojoa]

No the crossovers will be done in the digital domain.

Much greater control of the end result. And a very clean sounding means of reproduction.

Mark

When is it going to be out and expected prize? Where would be the amps installed since it got a curved cabinet.
Thanks

 

[mwmkravchenko]

On the back my friend

We did a lot of homework on this design. We wanted a design statement that is bleeding edge, not cutting edge of the available means and methods of sound reproduction. To that end we designed a suite of options that can take the listener as close as is possible to hearing the full reproduction of their chosen source of music.

The simple answer to the question:


There is enough room on the rear of the cabinet to do a custom plate amplifier.

From a number of different points of view an active speaker is one of the best design and purchase decisions out there.

We can tailor the needs of the drivers in terms of power input.

We can put the money into the amplifier proper, not an expensive amplifier chassis. You would be pretty shocked to see the price tags of the higher end amplifier chassis.

The available DSP that we use is exceptionally powerful. Operates at much higher speeds and deeper bit rates than anything a consumer has at this time.

It allows us to sculpt the frequency response in ways almost impossible to duplicate in the passive design. That is impossible without a large efficiency penalty.

We actually have a slightly higher efficiency as there are not as many passive components in the signal path.

Last but not least. The amplifiers we use are exceptional sounding pieces of equipment. They have a depth and clarity that is rarely equaled. And put head to head with the best in carefully controlled comparisons are the equal of some of the best on the market.

Mark

 

[Ricardojoa]

We did a lot of homework on this design. We wanted a design statement that is bleeding edge, not cutting edge of the available means and methods of sound reproduction. To that end we designed a suite of options that can take the listener as close as is possible to hearing the full reproduction of their chosen source of music.

The simple answer to the question:


There is enough room on the rear of the cabinet to do a custom plate amplifier.

From a number of different points of view an active speaker is one of the best design and purchase decisions out there.

We can tailor the needs of the drivers in terms of power input.

We can put the money into the amplifier proper, not an expensive amplifier chassis. You would be pretty shocked to see the price tags of the higher end amplifier chassis.

The available DSP that we use is exceptionally powerful. Operates at much higher speeds and deeper bit rates than anything a consumer has at this time.

It allows us to sculpt the frequency response in ways almost impossible to duplicate in the passive design. That is impossible without a large efficiency penalty.

We actually have a slightly higher efficiency as there are not as many passive components in the signal path.

Last but not least. The amplifiers we use are exceptional sounding pieces of equipment. They have a depth and clarity that is rarely equaled. And put head to head with the best in carefully controlled comparisons are the equal of some of the best on the market.

Mark

Mark, that sounds really good.
When it is going to be available?

 

[KEW]

Can we assume amplification will be applied after the crossovers for the powered versions?

No the crossovers will be done in the digital domain.

Much greater control of the end result. And a very clean sounding means of reproduction.

Mark

I assume you meant "Yes the crossovers will be done in the digital domain."
I don't think you would choose to convert to the digital domain after amplification!

 

[mwmkravchenko]

I assume you meant "Yes the crossovers will be done in the digital domain."
I don't think you would choose to convert to the digital domain after amplification!

Hard to argue when you make sense.

A yes a no, the answer is :

Yes the crossovers will be done in the digital domain.

I think I failed to mention the bit depth.

64 bits.

We don't fool around a little bit at Funk Audio

Mark

 

[mwmkravchenko]

As for when available, well that's up to master Funk.

Requires the amplifier modules and there being stock of them in North America.

Mark

 

[monkish54]

Kind of reminds me of that game show where members get voted off or something.

LOL You are the coolest ADTG!

I'm a bit confused as to why R doesn't like active crossovers? Aside from the expense, active crossovers are far superior to passive crossovers. Not only does going active allow you to do things you can't when going passive (like using drivers with huge sensitivity mismatches), but active solves a big problem with passive crossovers--XO frequency shift with volume! If it wasn't so expensive, every speaker I build (I haven't built any yet ) would use active crossovers.

 

[cpp]

LOL You are the coolest ADTG!

I'm a bit confused as to why R doesn't like active crossovers? Aside from the expense, active crossovers are far superior to passive crossovers. Not only does going active allow you to do things you can't when going passive (like using drivers with huge sensitivity mismatches), but active solves a big problem with passive crossovers--XO frequency shift with volume! If it wasn't so expensive, every speaker I build (I haven't built any yet ) would use active crossovers.

Heck I just like a speaker that outputs the sound I like regardless of the design or cost.

 

[monkish54]

the sound I like regardless of the design or cost.

Don't get me started on that again. LOL

 

[Steve81]

I'm a bit confused (to be fair I didn't read the whole thread..) as to why R doesn't like active crossovers? Aside from the expense, active crossovers are far superior to passive crossovers.

Reading his comments, it appears his opinion is that active isn't worth the additional expense involved versus a good passive crossover, ie something like a Philharmonic wouldn't necessarily see a huge benefit relative to the additional cost.

Just to play devil's advocate though (I don't mind a little controversy ), it's hard to argue against the reality that the consumer market for home audio tends to agree. Outside of powered subwoofers, there's not exactly many big examples of commercially successful active loudspeakers to point to. The market has chosen passive loudspeakers time and time again for various reasons (aesthetics/logistics jumps to mind in addition to cost).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

LOL You are the coolest ADTG!

I'm a bit confused (to be fair I didn't read the whole thread..) as to why R doesn't like active crossovers? Aside from the expense, active crossovers are far superior to passive crossovers. Not only does going active allow you to do things you can't when going passive (like using drivers with huge sensitivity mismatches), but active solves a big problem with passive crossovers--XO frequency shift with volume! If it wasn't so expensive, every speaker I build (I haven't built any yet ) would use active crossovers.

I thought the Chronicles of Ridikas just doesn't like amps built inside the speakers and wanted more than XO+AMP.

I think he wants outboard (XO + RC/DSP + AMP). I could be wrong.

 

[monkish54]

Reading his comments, it appears his opinion is that active isn't worth the additional expense involved versus a good passive crossover, ie something like a Philharmonic wouldn't necessarily see a huge benefit relative to the additional cost.

Maybe not if we're talking about simple on-axis frequency response (at low volumes), but there would NO DOUBT be a benefit/improvement at higher volume levels when the VC really starts to get hot!

Outside of powered subwoofers, there's not exactly many big examples of commercially successful active loudspeakers to point to.

That's because people like to decide how much amplification goes into their speakers and they want the money to go into passive parts not amps. That said, as long as the designer picks a decent amp and designs an accurate loudspeaker..I don't care at all. Saves me cash!

The market has chosen passive loudspeakers time and time again.

True. To some degree it's silly. Regardless, I am not talking about using built-in amps, but active crossovers.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

There are some superb examples of active speakers.

Meridian

Linn

There are more.

Problem is the mold people within the market choose to be constrained by.

From an engineering standpoint an active purpose designed system is by leaps and bounds better suited to the purpose.

You would need almost equal expertise to the original designer to duplicate something yourself by means of active EQ and Xovers. Amplifier choices are usually not all that well grounded in real world applications either.

I could go on for quite a while on this subject!

Mark

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

BTW, will the active 8.2P be bi-amped or single-amped?

I kind of wish my Orion3.2.1 were only mono-amped, instead of quad-amped. Then I could have used the same AT3005 amp with the 802D2, Salon2, 201/2, TAD2201 and 2 Funk 18.0.

 

[Steve81]

There are some superb examples of active speakers.

Meridian

Linn

There are more.

Sure there are fine examples of good active loudspeakers, but none that have sales volume that's going to rival a company like Klipsch and it's sales of passive loudspeakers. That's my point: for all the advantages of active loudspeakers (and I do not deny there are advantages), the market has repeatedly chosen not go with them. One recent example off the top of my head was the NHT Xd system: today it's just a footnote in audio history...

Problem is the mold people within the market choose to be constrained by.

Perhaps, but that's what designers have to cater to in the end. That the Funk 8.2 is offered in a passive version is a testament to reality, no?

From an engineering standpoint an active purpose designed system is by leaps and bounds better suited to the purpose.

No doubt, but from a practical standpoint, it's a giant PITA. I'd daresay it's less the cost that keeps active down, and more the associated inconveniences. Few are interested in having to plug in each speaker to a power outlet in even a simple 5.1 surround setup (let alone when we get into the realm of stuff like 11.1), and even fewer are interested in having to deal with a multi-channel amplifier for each individual loudspeaker in such a setup.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

No cheezy stuff here my friend.

Bi-amped of course.

Fully active Xover.

Ten DSP bins per channel. And those DSP bins allow for anything my evil little heart desires. EQ, delay, shelving. Anything that we need to push the envelop to it's highest potential.

Mark

 

[Nuance AH]

True. To some degree it's silly. Regardless, I am not talking about using built-in amps, but active crossovers.

Why is it silly? I think passive crossovers are the norm because consumers can't futz with them and screw them up, like they could with an active design. That and the cost difference, of course.

 

[mwmkravchenko]

Steves point is valid.

But if you are starting out, or looking for a serious upgrade going active has large dividends in terms of value.

Think to if you want to go media server. All processing done and feeds come out. Lets you dispense with a reciever or an amp preamp setup.

There is a simple logic to going active.

Mark

 

[monkish54]

Why is it silly? I think passive crossovers are the norm because consumers can't futz with them and screw them up, like they could with an active design. That and the cost difference, of course.

I think shying away from an active speaker is silly.

As for active crossovers...I agree.

 

[Nuance AH]

t

I think shying away from an active speaker is silly.

As for active crossovers...I agree.

Most people either A) Won't have the technical know-how to set up and use an active speaker, or B) Won't want to pay the extra $$$ for it. Many likely have no idea what the benefits are either.

I'd be curious to know how many of the popular manufactures have actually create an active speaker and compared it to their passive models. There have to be some out there that have made the comparison at some point, and if so, why did they choose to stick with the passive designs? Was cost alone the deciding factor, or was it sound quality?