Completely digital audio systems ?

[Defcon]

Have to disagree with digital is best, example, CD cuts. You can have aad add and ddd. First letter is the recording (analog or digital) second is the mix, 3rd is transfer (will always be digital on a cd) take the same CD aad vs ddd, and no it's not magical night and day difference, but the aad will sound more 'true' or 'natural'

All recording is technically analog since you take a mic input (analog) and then store it as digital or analog. And do you have any source for the 'aad will sound more true/natural? IMO its the opposite, a digital recording is faithful. Some people like to say tube amps sound natural/warm what they are hearing is colored signature of tubes.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The disadvantages of active speakers, which you pointed out, outweigh the pros, all things considered. Paradigm etc do make active speakers for the consumer market and I'm sure they dont sell as well, and of course they are common in the pro world.

The audio world is full of dogma and snake oil the more higher up you go, which is why people buy full range towers and vinyl and 2ch systems with horrendously expensive monoblocks/tube amps, fancy cables and low efficiency speakers vs digital audio, dedicated subs, high sensitivity and proper system design.

The high end caters to this audiophile market who care more for looks/status vs actual sound quality. I'm talking about how you can get the highest possible fidelity and sound quality/efficiency.

Again, a million theories and dreams aside, at the end of the day, it’s about how your system sounds that matters.

Just compare active speakers vs passive and see for yourself.

There’s no need to wonder.

 

[Joe B]

Exactly. A digital signal is IMPOSSIBLE to corrupt.

That's not true. That's why engineered digital transmission systems use digital repeaters at intervals in the transmission lines. Digital signals do corrupt. The repeaters function is to recreate it accurately so it gets sent along in the original form. You make it sound like digital has no flaws or potential problems....not the case. Digital signals corrupt just like analogue signals. It's just that it's easier to correct in the digital domain whereas it's nearly impossible to correct analogue signals in the analogue domain.

 

[Defcon]

That's not true. That's why engineered digital transmission systems use digital repeaters at intervals in the transmission lines. Digital signals do corrupt. The repeaters function is to recreate it accurately so it gets sent along in the original form. You make it sound like digital has no flaws or potential problems....not the case. Digital signals corrupt just like analogue signals. It's just that it's easier to correct in the digital domain whereas it's nearly impossible to correct analogue signals in the analogue domain.

What I mean is any corruption can be detected and corrected which is impossible in the analog domain, like you said, since you can't even detect it in the first place.

 

[KenM10759]

I wouldn't say "IMPOSSIBLE" to corrupt a digital signal. It's zeroes and ones, and it's possible to drop one or a pair here & there.

I would love to know how it's possible to switch from a digital signal over to an amplified analog signal right at the speaker terminals. NAD Electronics claims their Masters M32 integrated amp does it. I've heard it and the M32 is really good, I just don't know how this is possible. A quote from their website describing the M32 features and benefits:

"With 2 x 150W power on tap, the M32 can make almost any speaker sing. The M32 has virtually no distortion, and a damping factor that is off the chart. This is all due to the innovative DirectDigital™ Feedback Amplifier built under license from Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR),which uses a form of digital error correction that is incredibly fast and accurate. This is a true digital amp (not just Class D) that is computer controlled and amplifies entirely in the digital domain, converting to analogue at the speaker terminals. This gives it the shortest signal path in NAD’s history."

 

[davidscott]

not completely true or accurate but I do agree the laws of diminishing returns does set in at some point



again, not necessarily true but I get your point

Some 2 channel inexpensive systems with tower speakers can sound very good for audio. Stereo was designed for 2 channels.
Dave

 

[lovinthehd]

Some 2 channel inexpensive systems with tower speakers can sound very good for audio. Stereo was designed for 2 channels.
Dave

Didn't research show 3 was actually better? Easier to market two, tho....(let alone 3 channels on vinyl ).

 

[snakeeyes]

The Doors on quadraphonic 4.0 is cool.

The Doors: The Singles set, has a Blu-ray Audio disc with the 4.0 quadraphonic 4.0 mix

 

[highfigh]

This makes no sense so I want to understand what you are trying to say.

A digital source is best - for audio and video - can we agree on this? At some point this needs to go thru a DAC to get an analog waveform. This can happen inside your player, AVR, or the speaker.

An active speaker has many advantages - they are well documented in many places.

So the best combination is digital signal fed to speakers which then can convert it, apply crossover etc. Its not more stuff, its doing it at the point where it makes the most sense.

As others have posted in disagreement, Digital IS NOT always best. Also, there's really not much benefit to sending the signal in digital domain to the speakers because that leaves no wiggle room for amplification. Sure they MAY make different power levels optional, but it's a good bet they won't make enough of what people really need and they won't be available when someone wants to upgrade or replace theirs.

There are many advantages to active speakers but the DAC doesn't need to be internal.

This was a cool system, but it was definitely ahead of its time-

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-03-13-9201230690-story.html

 

[Mikado463]

Some 2 channel inexpensive systems with tower speakers can sound very good for audio. Stereo was designed for 2 channels.
Dave

some can yes, but can they be bettered, of course they can .............

for me stereo has always been 2 channels or 2.1 ..........

 

[Mikado463]

As others have posted in disagreement, Digital IS NOT always best.

very true .........

 

[Steve81]

My 2 cents on active speakers:

1. Needs a cable standard that combines both a digital signal with power for the speaker's internal amplifiers.
2. Needs an easily removed amplifier/electronics module for ease of servicing.

 

[GranteedEV]

The premise of this thread is inherently broken. Loudspeakers are analog devices. It's impossible for a speaker to be fully digital. Even "switching" amplifiers are analog devices in reality, as Bruno Putzeys explains in his excellent AES 2006 conference paper, "All amplifiers are analogue, but some amplifiers are more analogue than others"

Human ears are also analog devices.

The only way to have a fully digital path would be to directly interface audio with the human brain. Which, might be interesting in the field of prosthetic hearing devices, but not so much for sitting down and watching Netflix.

 

[sterling shoote]

This is such an interesting thread. I remember when CDs came out, seemed that everyone wanted DDD. I also remember when digital recording began, there was not a consensus for what equipment was best for editing, A B roll, dedicated digital editor, or computer. Later, questions about what equipment should contain the DAC arose. Now, it's a race for higher bits and bites. For me, 30 plus years of experimentation with how I listen to music suggests my greatest pleasure has and is coming from multi-channel SACD, more breadth and depth than stereo. At any rate, these digital vs analog debates, while fun for the enthusiast, are, I think, largely ignored by the drivers of audio/video progress, the general consumers for home entertainment.

 

[Drunkpenguin]

At any rate, these digital vs analog debates, while fun for the enthusiast, are, I think, largely ignored by the drivers of audio/video progress, the general consumers for home entertainment.

Are you suggesting that Taylor Swift fans are not into vinyl?

 

[sterling shoote]

Are you suggesting that Taylor Swift fans are not into vinyl?

This is just a guess, but, I think she's enjoyed on all media out there, from mp3 to vinyl and everything in-between. I do not have any Taylor Swift recordings; yet, I like her style. Now, I have been revisiting vinyl for about the last 3 years. The only thing I've concluded is: digitizing it, I can eliminate distracting pops, as well as be able to listen to the recording with much greater convenience from my iTunes Library, at home or on the go.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

The best solution would be to place your integrated amps directly behind your speakers, and only run 8 inches of speaker wire.

 

[davidscott]

The best solution would be to place your integrated amps directly behind your speakers, and only run 8 inches of speaker wire.

Ideal for the power to speakers but then you probably have to run longer interconnects to the source components.

 

[Mikado463]

Ideal for the power to speakers but then you probably have to run longer interconnects to the source components.

I think KW was joking, regardless longer IC's are better handled 'balanced' (XLR)

 

[highfigh]

Ideal for the power to speakers but then you probably have to run longer interconnects to the source components.

And that's exactly how large venue audio systems are set up- the amplifiers are as close to the speakers as possible and the feed to the amplifiers may travel hundreds of feet. However, they have now migrated to fiber optic but before that, balanced low impedance lines were always used. There's more signal lost between the power amps and speakers than anywhere else.