Active Loudspeakers - next generation........

[lovinthehd]

I think JBL has the better look for what it actually does. The M2s are sweet. The 590's take a little getting used to but I'd rather have them over yet one more fancy veneered or damned piano black, lipstick tube shaped speaker. I love my S312's for all their chunky glory.

Time to send the "W," in WAF, off to stay with her mother for a spell until she comes to terms with what 50/50 partnerships actually means.

Curious, seems you did finally get a chance to use the 590s? Or just thinking of the aesthetics? I do like mine but I'm fairly easy to please....I like all sorts of speakers.

 

[MrBoat]

Curious, seems you did finally get a chance to use the 590s? Or just thinking of the aesthetics? I do like mine but I'm fairly easy to please....I like all sorts of speakers.

Friend of mine bought the 530's. Liked them so much he went and got the 590's too. I think they look and sound incredible.

I like many kinds of speakers too. I do get tired of predictable fashion trends though.

 

[lovinthehd]

Friend of mine bought the 530's. Liked them so much he went and got the 590's too. I think they look and sound incredible.

I like many kinds of speakers too. I do get tired of predictable fashion trends though.

How about as compared to the fusion 12s?

 

[MrBoat]

How about as compared to the fusion 12s?

Hard to say. The SEOS waveguide is a pretty incredible horn. Either one exceeds any challenges mine or his room could ever offer. Both are above my ability to be critical.

It's somewhat surprising though, that I do not own a pair of the 530's or the 590's. I try not to think about it.

ETA: As I sit here and listen to the Fusion 12's, it's a case of, I would 'not' set out to upgrade to the 590's having these, and vice-versa. These Fusion 12's are so ridiculously clear, no matter where you are in the room.

 

[Winkleswizard]

Hi folks,

Just wondering if the M2s being discussed are the $20K system that I found online? If so, while an interesting diversion, most of the millenials I know are still paying off student loans. If not, be please point me elsewhere.

While I think active speakers have some important advantages, not sure if the masses are ready for much beyond a JBL Flip or a Sonos. In my extended family and friends, I find more of these than anything else. More likely we will see intelligent sound bars en masse before we see much that appeals to the more devoted audio enthusiast.

While one can see potential in an M2, the real question is what is the market for something in the middle? I’m not ready to give up my choice of electronics and speakers unless the alternative sounds incrementally better for a comparable investment. I am pretty sure the huge market of people listening to overly compressed music on bluetooth speakers is not buying in, but guessing that is not the majority of audioholics.

So my question is what would an active system have to do better than what you have today for you to buy it (assuming it would cost about same as your current system)?

Ww

 

[slipperybidness]

Hi folks,

Just wondering if the M2s being discussed are the $20K system that I found online? If so, while an interesting diversion, most of the millenials I know are still paying off student loans. If not, be please point me elsewhere.

While I think active speakers have some important advantages, not sure if the masses are ready for much beyond a JBL Flip or a Sonos. In my extended family and friends, I find more of these than anything else. More likely we will see intelligent sound bars en masse before we see much that appeals to the more devoted audio enthusiast.

While one can see potential in an M2, the real question is what is the market for something in the middle? I’m not ready to give up my choice of electronics and speakers unless the alternative sounds incrementally better for a comparable investment. I am pretty sure the huge market of people listening to overly compressed music on bluetooth speakers is not buying in, but guessing that is not the majority of audioholics.

So my question is what would an active system have to do better than what you have today for you to buy it (assuming it would cost about same as your current system)?

Ww

We should mention here, there is a distinction between "active filters & amplification" vs. "powered speakers".

These are often used interchangeably, which is an error.

 

[Winkleswizard]

We should mention here, there is a distinction between "active filters & amplification" vs. "powered speakers".

These are often used interchangeably, which is an error.

Fair point, but would further refine by active filtering vs passive filtering. In any case, my point was more about what benefits are attained for certain market segments...

Summarizing what I think is the OP’s original question: Does Sander’s new active speaker represent the future of speakers for a younger generation? Without hearing it, I was just asking whether it, the M3 or some other active speaker is a game changer? If so, was looking for the group to describe how it was better than their current system and in what ways.

If the price was made more mainstream, what does it do that I cannot do just as well with a quality AVR and well-designed full range towers? If a true listening benefit is achieved, am really, really interested in learning more about it.

Ww

 

[KEW]

If the price was made more mainstream, what does it do that I cannot do just as well with a quality AVR and well-designed full range towers? If a true listening benefit is achieved, am really, really interested in learning more about it.

Ww

I think we have some tunnel-vision looking for what we want as the driving forces of the marketplace. There will always be a drive towards excellent sound; however, we have seen "lifestyle" products driving changes in the market far more than sound quality!
I believe the Klipsch R-28PF foreshadows what is to come. By having the 4 amps at the speakers, the signal can be transmitted by BT or wi-fi (he Klipsch is BT, but wi-fi is the future for home audio). So a key benefit (that many of us don't worry about) is there is only one power cord to one speaker and a two signal cable running between the speakers. The AVR is eliminated and there is a remote for the speakers to control basics such as volume. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to imagine a wi-fi sending 9.2 distinct channels to different active speakers. Whether EQ is at the speaker level or involves a computer I couldn't guess. I'm of a mind that using a computer to adjust, but having hardware to maintain the EQ in each speaker would be the ideal as you could have serious "free" processing power for tuning the EQ, but the performance of the speakers would not require your computer's availability on an on-going basis.
OTOH, the computer may be part of what it takes since the AVR could be eliminated and I would think a computer with pre-pro software would be more economical than a dedicated hardware pre-pro (talk about economies of scale)!
After all, we are talking about the potential death of the DVD player as streaming tech gets better and better. If all processing could be done with high quality prior to the wi-fi broadcast of the signal (and it can), why not!
In-wall or on-wall speakers and WAF is passe'.

Related - 5 channel wireless speaker system:

 

[Winkleswizard]

I think we have some tunnel-vision looking for what we want as the driving forces of the marketplace. There will always be a drive towards excellent sound; however, we have seen "lifestyle" products driving changes in the market far more than sound quality!
I believe the Klipsch R-280PF foreshadows what is to come. By having the 4 amps at the speakers, the signal can be transmitted by BT or wi-fi (he Klipsch is BT, but wi-fi is the future for home audio). So a key benefit (that many of us don't worry about) is there is only one power cord to one speaker and a two signal cable running between the speakers. The AVR is eliminated and there is a remote for the speakers to control basics such as volume. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to imagine a wi-fi sending 9.2 distinct channels to different active speakers. Whether EQ is at the speaker level or involves a computer I couldn't guess. I'm of a mind that using a computer to adjust, but having hardware to maintain the EQ in each speaker would be the ideal as you could have serious "free" processing power for tuning the EQ, but the performance of the speakers would not require your computer's availability on an on-going basis.
OTOH, the computer may be part of what it takes since the AVR could be eliminated and I would think a computer with pre-pro software would be more economical than a dedicated hardware pre-pro (talk about economies of scale)!
After all, we are talking about the potential death of the DVD player as streaming tech gets better and better. If all processing could be done with high quality prior to the wi-fi broadcast of the signal (and it can), why not!
In-wall or on-wall speakers and WAF is passe'.

Related - 5 channel wireless speaker system:

Thanks for sharing! These are some interesting technologies in terms of potential ease of use and convenience that we can expect to see more of in the future.

Was wondering whether you have a personal experience that you can share from a acoustic experience perspective? Am talking about something you heard that made you realize this is better than anything I have heard before? I do not have many, but will share my most valued one.

My big moment was when I heard CD music for the first time. After years of putting up with hum, hiss, pops and other vinyl artifacts, I got to hear music without all that noise. That was a breakthrough. I cannot say I have had any others that were near as significant. Surround sound has come close occassionally, but unfortunately not for music.

I have had audio as a hobby for decades and am still learning. While digital audio was significant for me, am looking for others. More speakers and/or more processing has rarely lived up to some experiences I have had at home with only 2 or 4 speakers. Recently, the cinema has been another great experience and am trying to reproduce it. I have had a number of AVRs and experienced only small improvements. Am convinced speakers make the difference, but still working on getting them right!

Thanks for the suggestions. I think I need to give a listen to some Klipsch and comparable speaker designs to see if they do the trick...

Ww

 

[Defcon]

The ideal speaker would have -

- built in amplification
- built in measurement mic
- continuous active dsp
- ability to talk to other audio components and tweak dsp

Imagine multiple speakers like this along with central processing done on a pc etc which talks to each of the speakers. Each device 'knows' precisely where the others are positioned in the room (by using wifi location) and how the room is affecting the sound, and all this is equalized in real time to smooth out any effects.

All this is perfectly doable using todays tech but would be a major revolution in audio and come close to perfect audio.

 

[KEW]

Thanks for the suggestions. I think I need to give a listen to some Klipsch and comparable speaker designs to see if they do the trick...

Ww

The Klipsch was mentioned because this speaker was designed to be used for home audio (not pro audio) while having an amp for each driver category (4 amps for tweeter and midwoofer for R and L) with the convenience of a remote. I really like the idea of a volume control on the remote for the subwoofer as I feel that is the aspect of recordings I most often would like to adjust!
I meant to link this product so you could read about the features:

http://www.klipsch.com/products/r-28pf-powered-floorstanding-speakers

 

[PENG]

I don't mind an "ACTIVE" system as long as the amp is EXTERNAL - you know like how a lot of audiophiles swear by having external amps and absolutely abhor AVRs or internal amps in electronics?

Do you know of any good ones (measurements) that are "EXTERNAL"? The funny thing is, such system is "active" but the speaker would be totally and purely "passive".

 

[TheWarrior]

Hi folks,

Just wondering if the M2s being discussed are the $20K system that I found online? If so, while an interesting diversion, most of the millenials I know are still paying off student loans. If not, be please point me elsewhere.

While I think active speakers have some important advantages, not sure if the masses are ready for much beyond a JBL Flip or a Sonos. In my extended family and friends, I find more of these than anything else. More likely we will see intelligent sound bars en masse before we see much that appeals to the more devoted audio enthusiast.

While one can see potential in an M2, the real question is what is the market for something in the middle? I’m not ready to give up my choice of electronics and speakers unless the alternative sounds incrementally better for a comparable investment. I am pretty sure the huge market of people listening to overly compressed music on bluetooth speakers is not buying in, but guessing that is not the majority of audioholics.

So my question is what would an active system have to do better than what you have today for you to buy it (assuming it would cost about same as your current system)?

Ww

Yes the M2 is the top of the line, that's why it's technology trickled down to the far less expensive 3 and 7 series.

Why am I not just buying a set of 7 series and calling it a day? Because I'm insane. And because I am a carpenter who would also like to build furniture that 'sounds good', too. The first logical step is to complete passive designs, and then learn to adapt active crossovers.

I have an EE friend who works for Microchip that considers loudspeaker design a 'dark art'. Thanks to what I learned at Harman, I feel very differently and aim to demonstrate that to him - I am just slower than molasses.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Do you know of any good ones (measurements) that are "EXTERNAL"? The funny thing is, such system is "active" but the speaker would be totally and purely "passive".

One Active Speaker System I owned for a few years was the Linkwitz Orion 3.2.1. The Audio Critic absolutely raved about it and convinced me of buying it.

The Crossover was external. The 8Ch amp (ATI AT6012) was external.

You mean most so-called "active" speakers are really just passive speakers with amplifiers built into them?

 

[TheWarrior]

One Active Speaker System I owned for a few years was the Linkwitz Orion 3.2.1. The Audio Critic absolutely raved about it and convinced me of buying it.

The Crossover was external. The 8Ch amp (ATI AT6012) was external.

You mean most so-called "active" speakers are really just passive speakers with amplifiers built into them?

'Active' really means, active crossover, which is to be placed before amplification in the signal chain. Whether that means an amp in the speaker or an amp in your component rack, does not matter!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

'Active' really means, active crossover, which is to be placed before amplification in the signal chain.

I agree.

I was wondering, in a lot of these so-called "active speakers", do the crossovers come AFTER the built-in amps; thus, making them truly PASSIVE speakers with built-in amps.

 

[Winkleswizard]

Yes the M2 is the top of the line, that's why it's technology trickled down to the far less expensive 3 and 7 series.

Why am I not just buying a set of 7 series and calling it a day? Because I'm insane. And because I am a carpenter who would also like to build furniture that 'sounds good', too. The first logical step is to complete passive designs, and then learn to adapt active crossovers.

I have an EE friend who works for Microchip that considers loudspeaker design a 'dark art'. Thanks to what I learned at Harman, I feel very differently and aim to demonstrate that to him - I am just slower than molasses.

I share a lot of your sentiments, but my EE friend had formerly worked for Jensen. He taught me a lot about speaker design and he had friends that had reverse engineered a high end amplifier. I wanted to build it, but they claimed it was tweaked for performance and insisted they build it. This is when it seemed like dark arts to me and I backed out.

Whether an M2 or something less, was wondering how it sounded better. Have become a tech laggard in my audio investments and just trying to find the solid opportunities to leverage. This thread started on active design potential, but appeared to me that other factors might be worth considering. I already have active crossovers, and room eq., so know what they bring. I was wondering how much waveguides contribute to the sound and whether it might be worthwhile to experiment with the SEOS one?

Ww

 

[Winkleswizard]

One Active Speaker System I owned for a few years was the Linkwitz Orion 3.2.1. The Audio Critic absolutely raved about it and convinced me of buying it.

The Crossover was external. The 8Ch amp (ATI AT6012) was external.

You mean most so-called "active" speakers are really just passive speakers with amplifiers built into them?

If I had the cash, might have bought those Orions from you too! I have had some positive experiences with omnipolar speakers (my center is an OMD-5) and Linkwitz’s design claim to fix problems with the sound of more traditional speakers. Since they are relatively inexpensive, considered the LX mini, but they need a subwoofer. We will have to downsize soon and my wife would rather have large towers than a subwoofer and satellites.

As it seems pertinent to this thread, may I ask what was your experience with your Orion’s?

Ww

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If I had the cash, might have bought those Orions from you too! I have had some positive experiences with omnipolar speakers (my center is an OMD-5) and Linkwitz’s designs claim to fix problems with the sound of more traditional speakers. Since they are relatively inexpensive, considered the LX mini, but they need a subwoofer. We will have to downsize soon and my wife would rather have large towers than a subwoofer and satellites.

As it seems pertinent to this thread, may I ask what was your experience with your Orion’s?

Ww

I sold my Orion for $5K to a physician who owned the GoldenEar Triton One speakers and Denon X7200 AVR. He wanted "music" speakers since he already had "movie" speakers.

I think the Orion are very good sounding speakers.

There are a lot of very good sounding speakers available.

I've had a few people come over the house to audition the Orion vs other speakers I've owned -Salon2, 802D2, Phil3, RBH SX-T2/R, etc.

Overall, everyone liked the Orion a lot.

But nobody thought the Orion sounded better than the other speakers.

2 guys went to my house to audition the Orion. But when they got there, they also listened to the RBH SX-T2/R, which were right next to the Orion. They both preferred the SX-T2/R over the Orion - they thought the SX-T2 were more dynamic with better bass.

So just because speakers are "Active" or even actively quad-amp doesn't mean they sound any better than passive speakers.

That's why I don't buy into this active speaker solution.

Great sounding speakers don't need to be active.

 

[ichigo]

Found it ...........

https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1105nht/index.html

Yep and one major reason why actives don't sell as much as passives is simple--electrical mains hum. You can change receivers/amps to get rid of mains hum if they are poorly designed/filtered with your passive system. With active speakers you are basically screwed. And the Stereophile review showed, dropping $$$$ on actives like that NHT XD often means if you turn it on and you hear loud buzzing/humming coming out of your speakers, you are pretty much SOL because the amps are built-in.