Linkwitz Orion Honeymoon

[TLS Guy]

Mainstream is a lot lower than that though, so we'll see

Here's my next question regarding distortions from crossover, how much on average is it and where do you have it measured? Do you measure it at the speaker with test signals, or the crossover network itself?

I haven't seen a lot of IMD tests on speakers, and very few THD honestly. Any links to tests done on them would be helpful.

That's because it would shock you.

Small iron cored chokes really squash the sine wave fast as you put the power on and you can get into double digit distortion quickly.

You can build low distortion passive crossovers, however you have to use air cored chokes with 14 G copper wire, so it gets expensive fast. You need quality poly caps and not cheap electrolytic caps. These types of components are usually only found in very costly speakers.

There is a big problem as crossover frequency drops, especially below 350 Hz. The air cored inductors get so big that even when using 14 G wire, the resistance gets so high it degrades woofer performance and changes T/S parameters. So you end up with unsatisfactory iron cored chokes. The huge values of the components used really cause reactance problems that are unacceptable in my view. So this really should mandate and active solution in the below 400 to 350 Hz range.

Drivers tend to show quite large variations in distortion with frequency. THD of up to 20 % in not unusual when drivers are pushed at parts of their frequency range.

 

[JerryLove]

Good question, I know the general markup of subs but let's be honest: there hasn't been a lot of active speakers to gauge. Especially ones that are tested in THD and other necessary perimeters for true comparisons.

In non-sub non-pro land that is true. In pro-studio monitors it's common. In computer speakers it is common. In subwoofers it is common.

Electrical phase since they are inductive loads is what I was getting at. You have power loss with electrical phase, which is why your statement confused me. Phase shift I would have known what you were talking about.

My apologies for being unclear and imprecise.

I see, but the goal of crossover design is to prevent such a situation. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Not necessarily.

Easy in the digital domain.

I said something jerkish now?

Actually, I was saying stop taking your misplaced anger from another member out on me. I'm not good picking up tones on the net.

To me the "why you cannot get this" aside felt snide and, therefore, jerkish. I don't know that you meant it that way, and can only assert that I did not intend any comment I had previously made to be jerkish either. The dangers of the medium I suppose.

If I have transposed annoyance at someone to someone else it was not my intent. I do think my factual statements and position remain valid.

Yes, but they aren't going to inherently be apples to apples anyway. You have variance in driver construction among other things, arguably which will have a larger impact than going active is what I'm also getting at.

The largest variance will be the weakest link. If I am driving a pair of B&W 800D speakers off a cheap passive crossover than the crossover is the best spot for improvement. If I am driving a pair of sony bookshelves converted to active off a DCX, then the drivers and enclosure will be the best spot for improvement.

You also fail to take into account that with actives you're most likely going to be dealing with two amplifiers unless you're able to route from one to another ala PC speakers because you must include a PSU in each one.

In an active-speaker configuration I would not need more power supplies. A single supply can run several discreet amps, which can be in a single enclosure.

In an external-unit setup: I will need more amp channels. That can be in more physical units or not.

Lastly: one size fits all. Are manufactures going to offer a 20W model for someone like me that doesn't need excessive power? If they do it will drive up cost as you're back to lack of standardization issues.

What, other than the connectors and signal, is standard in audio?

Technically using LFE with a receiver can act as a active Xover >_>'

Absolutely.

That's assuming sound quality is compromised. A bookshelf with a fourth order could probably get away with a lot in comparison. Of course, we're looking at higher insertion loss (power) which isn't the best, but manageable.

The quantity of gain is a complex variable which has many factors involved.

You were talking about people you'd ask to build a speaker before. Please read the context of what you're quoting again.

We can discuss either: but we cannot flop back and forth in regards to a single post. If we are discussing DIY, then vendor markup of finished speakers is not relevant.

I'm stating that plate amps have tremendous markup considering the lack of parts. These amps though would most likely cause issues if deployed in a full range speaker - they really aren't meant for it. Especially if deploying switching supplies which is extremely cheap overall. It only gets worse when you add multiple transformers. Then it's the question of does one size fits all: am I paying for more than I need for me?

OK. So if I understand you correctly your position is: "Active crossovers have the disadvantage in the DIY market of high plate-amp costs"?

I think this is another example where you and I have not been consistently on the same page (DIY-vs-Commercial).

If you'd keep the context it wouldn't be so odd.

I've been posting from my phone: It has not been conducive to complex posts like this one.

Now you're just trying to take the piss for the hell of it. Let me ask you this since you decided to be like that: if you paid an extra $500+ for a TV with an integrated Blu-Ray player, are you going to be irritated if the TV breaks and integrated BR has to be thrown out with it - even though it's perfectly fine?

I'd be pissed it had to be thrown out at all. If the Blue-Ray in my PS3 goes (with the rest of the unit functional), I'll feel the same.

I'm saying that the amplifier is a significant cost that shouldn't be carried with the speaker. Besides, how does the company decide how much power is necessary at what distance?

Wasn't that decision made when they designed the maximum power the speaker could take?

20W is fine for me on a passive speaker. A guy trying to fill up his whole living room with high vault ceilings wouldn't be happy. Are companies going to cater to order? If so, wouldn't that raise production cost for lack of standardization?

The largest amp I know of would only be +6db from 20W.

I cannot imagine that your Primus 162's are going to function with a 2kw amp; and I cannot imagine that your B&W 800s would ship with a 20W amp. (I assume we are discussing commercial active speakers here. Obviously DIY you'd do your own matching)

No, I said there was no advantage for ME besides power consumption if you go buy how it related to ME. Even though you're talking time domain phase it still really doesn't impact my situation since a pair of bookshelves isn't going to benefit that much. If we're arguing phase shift it can be corrected in a 4th order iirc.

The discussion of the sonic advantages, and DIY flexibility of active crossovers is something I believe TLS is already covering better than I could.

 

[GranteedEV]

There is a big problem as crossover frequency drops, especially below 350 Hz. The air cored inductors get so big that even when using 14 G wire, the resistance gets so high it degrades woofer performance and changes T/S parameters. So you end up with unsatisfactory iron cored chokes. The huge values of the components used really cause reactance problems that are unacceptable in my view. So this really should mandate and active solution in the below 400 to 350 Hz range.

thanks.

Just thanks.

Now I want to rip apart my towers and install an active crossover on the bass section.

Too bad they're such a funky cabinet design that I couldn't hope to put it back together.

 

[Kitsum]

The bass section in my 4way Infinity IRS Sigmas is a mess: Huge transformers and electrolytics and 50W resistors, to get the x/o point at 150Hz to the mid-bass driver. While they sound great, they clip all of my amps (except my QSCRMX4050) into protection mode way before my ears give up. Strange thing is, I tried the woofer alone in open air without x/o, and it still trips my amps into protect, before any audible distortion. No such problems with my other speakers.

 

[Shike]

That's because it would shock you.

Not really, I've seen very good measuring and very bad measuring on THD. I have yet to see some IMD measurements for speakers though.

You can build low distortion passive crossovers, however you have to use air cored chokes with 14 G copper wire, so it gets expensive fast. You need quality poly caps and not cheap electrolytic caps. These types of components are usually only found in very costly speakers.

My classic two has air core chokes and polypropolene, I hardly consider them "very costly" . . .

There is a big problem as crossover frequency drops, especially below 350 Hz. The air cored inductors get so big that even when using 14 G wire, the resistance gets so high it degrades woofer performance and changes T/S parameters. So you end up with unsatisfactory iron cored chokes. The huge values of the components used really cause reactance problems that are unacceptable in my view. So this really should mandate and active solution in the below 400 to 350 Hz range.

I don't know, I've seen bookshelves get away with it going by some a few chunk of measurements. As I said, the only distortion I'm not sure of at this point is IMD as I haven't seen any speaker measurements of it.

Drivers tend to show quite large variations in distortion with frequency. THD of up to 20 % in not unusual when drivers are pushed at parts of their frequency range.

Usually at the bass, but that's often due to driver excursion limits too. Have you seen soundstage's measurements? They give some food for thought.

In non-sub non-pro land that is true. In pro-studio monitors it's common. In computer speakers it is common. In subwoofers it is common.

Okay, then can you source one with low THD with some pricing? Let's avoid computer speakers and subs, since they often use lower quality power supplies.

In an active-speaker configuration I would not need more power supplies. A single supply can run several discreet amps, which can be in a single enclosure.

In an external-unit setup: I will need more amp channels. That can be in more physical units or not.

I'm not sure you follow: each driver gets its own amp yes. I'm saying you need at least one amp per enclosure unless you're piggybacking from one to another (I imagine many wouldn't do this for speakers beyond near-field).

What, other than the connectors and signal, is standard in audio?

I'm speaking from mass production and quantity ordering standpoints. When you have multiple lines you sacrifice buying power and increase cost overall. By going one size all they can maximize buying power, but can cause issues for those that don't need larger power specifications. You then have to consider divergence in labor and manufacturing for different supplies. It seems redundant and unnecessary when you could use a couple regular amps with an active xover anyway.

OK. So if I understand you correctly your position is: "Active crossovers have the disadvantage in the DIY market of high plate-amp costs"?

I think this is another example where you and I have not been consistently on the same page (DIY-vs-Commercial).

Okay, let me put it this way. If one goes and buys a plate amp for a DIY sub it's already overpriced considering the power supply topology they use in most cases anyway. Going by the markup on manufacturing of most brands it only gets substantially worse as you get less power and still pay more. The amps are pretty much cheap and wouldn't work well in most full range speaker designs from what I've seen. As such I think worrying about integrated amps into speakers brings a valid concern of increased cost at questionable performance, and if it is done right is it really one size fits all? If they don't do one size fits all, the cost gets carried over to the consumer for the additional markup of having to carry multiple variations.

 

[GranteedEV]

Okay, then can you source one with low THD with some pricing? Let's avoid computer speakers and subs, since they often use lower quality power supplies.

What do you mean by sourcing one? Sorry, I just don't understand.

i will say that any of

Event 2020bas
Genelec 6010a
Tannoy Reveal 601a
Focal CMS 40
M-Audio Studiophile BX8a
Yamaha HS80M
Mackie HR624 mk2

are not ridiculously overpriced...I`d be surprised to find poor amp sections on these things.

Okay, let me put it this way. If one goes and buys a plate amp for a DIY sub it's already overpriced considering the power supply topology they use in most cases anyway. Going by the markup on manufacturing of most brands it only gets substantially worse as you get less power and still pay more. The amps are pretty much cheap and wouldn't work well in most full range speaker designs from what I've seen. As such I think worrying about integrated amps into speakers brings a valid concern of increased cost at questionable performance, and if it is done right is it really one size fits all? If they don't do one size fits all, the cost gets carried over to the consumer for the additional markup of having to carry multiple variations.

The plate amps you refer to are

1) for DIYers, so they're not sold in bulk thus there is going to be markup
2) for subwoofers, so they can get away with design topologies that wouldn't work in a full range system.

Take a plate amp like this:

https://www.hypexshop.com/DetailServlet?detailID=2961

You really think this wouldn't blow your current setup away? 2 x 50+ watts into 8 ohm(100+wpc), or 2 x 100w into 4 ohm(200wpc). A pair of those would cost around € 600.00, which is expensive - but the one I linked also has internal DSP crossover settings. Now realize that if they were selling OEM/wholesale to a manufacturer, the manufacturer would pay a lot less than that.

It's not unreasonable for Active Hi-fi speakers to be available for reasonable prices

What it is however, is unlikely because some of the best companies, Revel for example, are strongly associated with amplifier and receiver companies (Lexicon, H/K).

 

[davidtwotrees]

Funny that no has noticed that the OP is running active speakers.
Or that anyone has even wondered what his opinion of the Orions was. Just sayin.

 

[TLS Guy]

Funny that no has noticed that the OP is running active speakers.
Or that anyone has even wondered what his opinion of the Orions was. Just sayin.

Yes, we got a bit off track. I know you run active speakers. I was just responding to the notion, that an open back speakers is an easy design!

How do you like your speakers now you have lived with them for a while?

 

[davidtwotrees]

You told me not to sell my Cantons, Dr. Mark, and you were right! They were just a lot more speaker than the Quads. With that said, I added a small Aperion sub to the mix and that made a big difference. As for the active part, that is nice, too. How it affects the sound I cannot say for sure. The speakers sound good to me and have a nice mid range that fills my small listening area with sound. The fit and finish is superb. My only drawback would be logistics- they need to be plugged into an outlet.
As for the Orions, I'm a little ashamed to say I wasn't blown away by the sound quality. I'm not a speaker expert, but I do know when I hear a speaker that makes me sit up and listen. They were solid, and sounded good, but it wasn't the wow experience that an audioholic is always looking to find. In an aside, since it was my honeymoon, and I did sell my Canton's because my wife to be thought they were ugly and silver......and she thinks my cherry Quads look beautiful......she thought the Orions looked terrible! I thoguht they looked ok, but if you have a significant other who will be impacted, that could play into it.

 

[Shike]

What do you mean by sourcing one? Sorry, I just don't understand.

i will say that any of

Event 2020bas
Genelec 6010a
Tannoy Reveal 601a
Focal CMS 40
M-Audio Studiophile BX8a
Yamaha HS80M
Mackie HR624 mk2

are not ridiculously overpriced...I`d be surprised to find poor amp sections on these things.

In THD I was referring to the transducers. Take the Focal for example, their polyglass woofers are notorious for high levels of THD (excess of 20% on their 6", smaller than that is going to be even worse).

Also, I would NOT be surprised to find poor amp sections.

For a high level low THD system I imagine something like the NHT M60 would be necessary, which is $800 just for the speakers. Then you need to biamp them and either pair them with a xD system or a digital xover system. It turns cost prohibitive very fast.

The plate amps you refer to are

1) for DIYers, so they're not sold in bulk thus there is going to be markup

Yes, but the markup is high even considering that.

2) for subwoofers, so they can get away with design topologies that wouldn't work in a full range system.

Exactly, which means a topology that IS suitable will be more expensive.

Take a plate amp like this:

https://www.hypexshop.com/DetailServlet?detailID=2961

You really think this wouldn't blow your current setup away? 2 x 50+ watts into 8 ohm(100+wpc), or 2 x 100w into 4 ohm(200wpc).

Yes, and how well is that regulated? I'm not seeing any transformers, so is it switching? What about supply voltage ripple?

Surely you can understand the concerns present no?

I'm also not seeing a lot of measurements regarding it. It's also considerably expensive considering. A Emotiva UPA-5 + digital xover would be a much better solution still, and cheaper.

Also worth noting, you're wrong on the specifications. It requires two plates per speaker for a 2-way active filtered system. So you're looking at 4 plats for stereo. And that's what it takes to get the 200wpc @ 4ohms RMS rating.

So you're really looking at € 1200, that's a far cry from an affordable solution.

A pair of those would cost around € 600.00, which is expensive - but the one I linked also has internal DSP crossover settings. Now realize that if they were selling OEM/wholesale to a manufacturer, the manufacturer would pay a lot less than that.

Yes, but would WE pay less for it? Furthermore, I'm not seeing baseline measurements off of it anywhere. IMD, THD+N, etc? Regulation, ripple, etc?

What discount would the manufacture get is also a large question. Most likely the cost will get passed along anyway.

It's not unreasonable for Active Hi-fi speakers to be available for reasonable prices

I beg to differ, but that depends on what you consider "reasonable".

What it is however, is unlikely because some of the best companies, Revel for example, are strongly associated with amplifier and receiver companies (Lexicon, H/K).

This is a part of the issue, even if they did the markup would most likely be high. I see the prices as high enough for the speaker as is, making it more integrated will probably make it worse for the consumer. That's just my two cents though.



In other news, what's the THD on the orions? Did linkwitz have to use a frequency compensation circuit, and how did it effect it?

 

[TLS Guy]

You told me not to sell my Cantons, Dr. Mark, and you were right! They were just a lot more speaker than the Quads. With that said, I added a small Aperion sub to the mix and that made a big difference. As for the active part, that is nice, too. How it affects the sound I cannot say for sure. The speakers sound good to me and have a nice mid range that fills my small listening area with sound. The fit and finish is superb. My only drawback would be logistics- they need to be plugged into an outlet.
As for the Orions, I'm a little ashamed to say I wasn't blown away by the sound quality. I'm not a speaker expert, but I do know when I hear a speaker that makes me sit up and listen. They were solid, and sounded good, but it wasn't the wow experience that an audioholic is always looking to find. In an aside, since it was my honeymoon, and I did sell my Canton's because my wife to be thought they were ugly and silver......and she thinks my cherry Quads look beautiful......she thought the Orions looked terrible! I thoguht they looked ok, but if you have a significant other who will be impacted, that could play into it.

I suspect they may have lacked authority in the bottom end. However you have to be careful, everybody is so used to resonant reproduction which is not accurate. On first acquaintance people used to ported enclosures are often taken aback by the Quad ESLs, very low Q sealed designs and well designed TLs.

When all is said and done though, I know those drivers and I can't imagine they have a robust output at the lower end given all the Eq required. So I suspect they have the same problem in this regard as a Quad TL. So if you want a dipole without a box, I would say buy a Quad ESL or a Magnaplanar. Although I think the electrostats have the SQ edge, planar magnetic speakers have a reliability advantage. I don't think planars and cone hybrid speakers make for a happy marriage.

If you want bass authority with out having to EQ a sealed enclosure and provide huge powers then it drives you back to the TL every time. If you want the last octave though you have to provide the real estate.

 

[JerryLove]

I don't know, I've seen bookshelves get away with it going by some a few chunk of measurements.

You have a retail bookshelf with a crossover point lower than 350Hz? Which one?

Okay, then can you source one with low THD with some pricing? Let's avoid computer speakers and subs, since they often use lower quality power supplies.

Source you one what? You said there haven't been a lot of active speakers. I stated that there have been.

I'm not sure you follow: each driver gets its own amp yes. I'm saying you need at least one amp per enclosure unless you're piggybacking from one to another (I imagine many wouldn't do this for speakers beyond near-field).

Yes, you need two devices for two speakers.

I'm speaking from mass production and quantity ordering standpoints. When you have multiple lines you sacrifice buying power and increase cost overall. By going one size all they can maximize buying power, but can cause issues for those that don't need larger power specifications.

We are discussing zero new lines. Shall I assume you are still discussing manufactured speakers and not DIY?

You then have to consider divergence in labor and manufacturing for different supplies. It seems redundant and unnecessary when you could use a couple regular amps with an active xover anyway.

So it takes zero people with zero labor at zero cost to build "regular amps"?

Okay, let me put it this way. If one goes and buys a plate amp for a DIY sub it's already overpriced considering the power supply topology they use in most cases anyway.

ALL plate amps are overpriced because MOST are overpriced? ALL use the wrong topology because MOST use the wrong topology?

I assume you just switched back to DIY?

Seriously: pick a position.

 

[GranteedEV]

Shike: Most of the things you said are assumptions and conjectures, and I don't really want to derail this thread further as OP seems displeased.

I will address one thing however:

And that's what it takes to get the 200wpc @ 4ohms RMS rating.

So you're really looking at € 1200, that's a far cry from an affordable solution.

No, you're looking at
-one hypex plate amp per speaker.
-one of these has two ucd100OEM modules, each rated at 100 watts into 4 ohms

So two would be 600, not 1200, unless you're quad-amping. The hypex module does allow you to connect it to a regular plate amp to make a 3-way, but that's not as expensive.

 

[Shike]

You have a retail bookshelf with a crossover point lower than 350Hz? Which one?

Sorry, I meant I've seen them get away with low bass performance without adding such a low xover network going by a large chunk of measurements. I didn't pay attention to his xover requirement.

Source you one what? You said there haven't been a lot of active speakers. I stated that there have been.

I said one with low transducer THD - that isn't as common as you seem to think.

Yes, you need two devices for two speakers.

Which means for proper regulation you're going to need a beefy PSU in each, which raises the costs. It's like buying monoblocks rather than a regular stereo amp, it gets more expensive.

We are discussing zero new lines. Shall I assume you are still discussing manufactured speakers and not DIY?

That made no sense to what I said, and yes I'm talking commercial still.

So it takes zero people with zero labor at zero cost to build "regular amps"?

No, but it makes more sense for dedicated amp makers as they order just as much in bulk to offer their complete set of offerings. The plate amps in the speakers are going to be limited in ordering based on how many speakers they plan on producing. You're not considering scale of production.

ALL plate amps are overpriced because MOST are overpriced? ALL use the wrong topology because MOST use the wrong topology?

All plate amps are currently using a bad topology if they're using a switching supply. I have yet to see one with a decent regulated power section, but you're entirely free to source an example of one that doesn't.

In case you still don't get what I'm talking about, go price torroid transformers that would actually put the amount of power you think it needs to at the load the speaker will present (including how it's being split by the digital xover) and multiply it by two considering what you think is necessary for power per amp. Also find the necessary capacitors and ICs to regulate it. You can go by bulk pricing if you want. Now add that to something like the Hypex plate GranteedEV is on about and try to convince me it's a cost effective solution.

I assume you just switched back to DIY?

No, I didn't. I said DIY costs are bad enough, it gets worse in commercial offerings.

Seriously: pick a position.

Already have, you just have trouble following.

Shike: Most of the things you said are assumptions and conjectures

As if your statements aren't? Where's the transducer THD measurements on those speakers? Where's the amplifier measurements?

Right - nowhere. You're assuming they will perform well, not knowing whether they actually do or don't.

Besides this:

What it is however, is unlikely because some of the best companies, Revel for example, are strongly associated with amplifier and receiver companies (Lexicon, H/K).

Is pretty large conjecture itself now isn't it?

No, you're looking at
-one hypex plate amp per speaker.
-one of these has two ucd100OEM modules, each rated at 100 watts into 4 ohms

So two would be 600, not 1200, unless you're quad-amping. The hypex module does allow you to connect it to a regular plate amp to make a 3-way, but that's not as expensive.

Great: but it's still more expensive then just buying a good quality five channel amp and adding the digital xover anyway. I also have zero indicators of performance and whether theres any decent level of regulation. So where's the benefit?


Either way this debate isn't going anywhere. It's pretty pointless to even continue.

 

[JerryLove]

I said one with low transducer THD - that isn't as common as you seem to think.

What are we comparing it to for reference?

Which means for proper regulation you're going to need a beefy PSU in each, which raises the costs. It's like buying monoblocks rather than a regular stereo amp, it gets more expensive.

On the other hand we loose the amp enclosure, and all of the overhead of a second product from a second company.

But you are moving the goalposts again. Your complaint had been markup.

No, but it makes more sense for dedicated amp makers as they order just as much in bulk to offer their complete set of offerings. The plate amps in the speakers are going to be limited in ordering based on how many speakers they plan on producing. You're not considering scale of production.

Who is a dedicated amp maker? I cannot think of any companies that fit that bill.

All plate amps are currently using a bad topology if they're using a switching supply. I have yet to see one with a decent regulated power section, but you're entirely free to source an example of one that doesn't.

$99 0.05%THD bi-amplifier: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-774

Class AB $135: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-797

This one was torroidal: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=973205

In case you still don't get what I'm talking about, go price torroid transformers that would actually put the amount of power you think it needs to at the load the speaker will present (including how it's being split by the digital xover) and multiply it by two considering what you think is necessary for power per amp. Also find the necessary capacitors and ICs to regulate it. You can go by bulk pricing if you want. Now add that to something like the Hypex plate GranteedEV is on about and try to convince me it's a cost effective solution.

Why should I build your speaker for you: especially given that you have offered no reference speaker to compare it to?

No, I didn't. I said DIY costs are bad enough, it gets worse in commercial offerings.

You repeatedly asserted that markups on actives (Say Behringer 2030A) are worse than markups on passives (2030P). You've offered nothing to support that.

 

[Shike]

What are we comparing it to for reference?

Alright, for the sake of debate a Paradigm Studio 20 with a Dayton APA150. The highest level of THD for the Studio 20's on the V3 is 1.7% (assuming no clipping).

On the other hand we loose the amp enclosure, and all of the overhead of a second product from a second company.

Not necessarily. You're assuming the speaker company will build the amps directly. If they do, it will cost them more to manufacture than the second company based on scale of production. The other option is that lease it, which may be beneficial if they fairly price it.

This still doesn't entirely cover concerns of the one size fits all approach though.

Either way you're still going to pay for the amp, and if the speaker goes bad (or potentially the amp) you have an issue where both may be thrown out.

But you are moving the goalposts again. Your complaint had been markup.

Wrong, I've had multiple complaints. You're just picking one out of the various amounts I've had. They have been:

Potential amp quality issues.
Increase in cost in comparison to similar quality stand alone amps.
Longevity.
Unnecessary for various speakers.
Users will probably already have sufficient amplification.
Potential for "one-size-fits-all" pricing - I don't want to purchase more than I need/want.

Who is a dedicated amp maker? I cannot think of any companies that fit that bill.

Emotiva used to fit the bill, but they've expanded quite a bit since there's money to be made. Adcom for the most part still sticks to amplifiers and the occasional Preamp. I believe they also made a few DACs but tend to shy away from them now.

Parasound is another predominant amp, but they also do pre-pros and DACs.

The point I'm making is that a manufactures predominant line will be what they themselves are able to manufacture cheapest compared to other companies of similar capacity. It's an economics principle.

$99 0.05%THD bi-amplifier: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-774

That's . . . well, not actually that bad. I'm surprised actually, since it basically fits where most chipamps do in terms of price. The Dayton APA150 still offers a bit more power at roughly the same price though. If your digital xover supports level control combined with it they would be roughly even.

Class AB $135: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-797

This though, not so much. It's not a bi-amp amplifier as far as I can tell. This means you're looking at four units for the full capability. The Emotiva UPA-5 would seem like it scales better in cost for comparison. You would use two channels of the amp per speakers and leave one hanging.

Heck, even 2x Crown XLS 202 would probably be better deal.

This one was torroidal: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=973205

Link doesn't work in their thread?

Why should I build your speaker for you: especially given that you have offered no reference speaker to compare it to?

You just asked for one this post: don't expect me to be a mind reader either.

You repeatedly asserted that markups on actives (Say Behringer 2030A) are worse than markups on passives (2030P). You've offered nothing to support that.

Without seeing the PSU on the system I'm not going to comment on those specific speakers. I've already commented on the amplifiers you've presented though.

If (and it's a big if) speaker companies would follow similar pricing models for studio equipment or PE level cost without trying to mark-up then the cost isn't as bad. I imagine you'll see some companies be reasonable and some companies milk them for all it's worth though.

I admit, I was wrong on a group of instances it seems. There are examples where plate amps MAY outdo standalone systems. This isn't entirely true for all instances though and doesn't quell all concerns.

This does not solve:

longevity
one size fits all
Higher power designs (need more larger capacity transformers raises cost)
Systems beyond 2ch (explained below)

If you're looking at a 6ch system a stand alone amp will probably be better. "What!?". Yes, I'm serious.

Dayton MA1240. This could support six speakers with active xover biamping. The comparable plate amp you listed is $100 per. You're looking at $600 for a plate amp system + cost of active xover. With this you're looking at $450 + cost of xover.

This is probably highlighting my concern of needing multiple transformers since you're looking at one per speaker. My using less larger capacity transformers one is able to save more. It seems that in the lower power segment with less channels plate amps have finally matched or surpassed stand alone systems. When adding more speakers or increasing power ratings it seems to still favor the stand alone system.

As such, whether it's mark-up or actual cost, there are still solid instances where a stand alone amp would be beneficial. Combine them with something like the Behringer SUPER-X PRO CX2310 per 2 speakers and it's a solid contender.


So what's the conclusion? I guess active can work well in low powered stereo settings, and non-active works better in HT or certain higher power applications?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

As for the Orions, I'm a little ashamed to say I wasn't blown away by the sound quality. I'm not a speaker expert, but I do know when I hear a speaker that makes me sit up and listen. They were solid, and sounded good, but it wasn't the wow experience that an audioholic is always looking to find.

I think that is because you are so used to great sounding speakers already. So unless the Orions (or other speakers) sounded better than what you've already experienced, you will not get the "WOW" factor.

 

[JerryLove]

Alright, for the sake of debate a Paradigm Studio 20 with a Dayton APA150. The highest level of THD for the Studio 20's on the V3 is 1.7% (assuming no clipping).

OK. I already linked a dual amp plate amp below that level of distortion and for about half the price of the APA150 (so two are about the same cost).

Not necessarily. You're assuming the speaker company will build the amps directly.

*yawn* So you are right if we assume everything goes the way you assume it goes.

OEMs build everything. Move on to a real point.

This still doesn't entirely cover concerns of the one size fits all approach though.

What are you talking about? You match the amp to the speaker. Want a different size? Get a different speaker.

Either way you're still going to pay for the amp, and if the speaker goes bad (or potentially the amp) you have an issue where both may be thrown out.

And if the one-size-fits-all passive crossover goes bad?

I'm seriously tired of this. You just keep cherry-picking assumptions.

If we are discussing DIY, these complaints are irrellevent.

If we are discussing commercial they are a mix of arbitrary (including the crossover in the speaker is OK even though it might break; but including the amp is not, it might break... never mind that it would be far simpler, given a list of parameters, for someone to upload them into a generic active crossover and generic plate amp than it would ever be to rebuild a pass crossover from parts if the original is not available any linger), based on cherry-picked assumptions (someone else will build the amp, ignoring that someone else already builds the cones and crossover parts and for that matter mills the wood), and just plain invented (the companies will suddenly start charging a markup far higher than they are charging now for no particular reason).

 

[Shike]

OK. I already linked a dual amp plate amp below that level of distortion and for about half the price of the APA150 (so two are about the same cost).

Bzz. Transducer distortion is not amplifier distortion. Until you can grasp this point you're not comparing apples to apples.

Do you understand that transducers themselves suffer from distortion not from amps?

Here's a hint for you, the only active system I know of that can even come close to performance of such a combination is an NHT xD based system.


I also acknowledged that plate amp particularly being roughly the same price, and applauded it for it. Surely you read my post . . . ?

*yawn* So you are right if we assume everything goes the way you assume it goes.

Same to you. Mr. Pot why do you call me black?

OEMs build everything. Move on to a real point.

That's an assumption too.

What are you talking about? You match the amp to the speaker. Want a different size? Get a different speaker.

Are you sure you're reading and comprehending what I'm saying? Let's say I want a speaker that measures well (not amplifier, the SPEAKER). Let's say they only offer it with a 150W amp which I'd never need.

That speaker is now cost prohibitive and overkill for my needs. If they offer lower power ratings this means they have to have stock on hand which will cost them more (operating costs eventually get shifted to consumers). If they don't want to carry stock on hand they can't take advantage of bulk pricing by placing larger orders.

And if the one-size-fits-all passive crossover goes bad?

This makes no sense and you know it. If you don't then you're really not worth talking to anymore. Not everyone will need a 150w amp, and not everyone can get by with a 20w amp. The crossover is meant to be optimized for the speaker build, an amplifier can't unless you're going to allow multitudes of options for users at purchase (which DOES increase cost from a business operating standpoint).

I'm seriously tired of this. You just keep cherry-picking assumptions.

As do you, so why are you calling the kettle black?

If we are discussing DIY, these complaints are irrellevent.

The only one discussing DIY is you, and I don't know why you keep coming back to this?

If we are discussing commercial they are a mix of arbitrary (including the crossover in the speaker is OK even though it might break;

What are the odds a passive component fails? What are the odds that an active component fails? What are the odds an active component (transistor) gets discontinued? Passive?

When you're able to answer this you'll understand why that's a really bad comparison.

but including the amp is not, it might break...

Active components have higher chances of breaking AND being discontinued.

never mind that it would be far simpler, given a list of parameters, for someone to upload them into a generic active crossover and generic plate amp than it would ever be to rebuild a pass crossover from parts if the original is not available any linger)

I didn't realize standardized choke, resistor, and capacitor values magically disappear.

based on cherry-picked assumptions (someone else will build the amp, ignoring that someone else already builds the cones and crossover parts and for that matter mills the wood)

That's not entirely true either. Even if someone else manufactures it it has to be built to the companies parameters, which once again effects scale of buying power. This increases cost. There are also companies that make their own parts, cabinets, etc.

This is why a transducer(!) that produces low distortion is going to be more expensive rather than sourcing whatever they think they can throw together.

and just plain invented (the companies will suddenly start charging a markup far higher than they are charging now for no particular reason).

NHT xD would be a good example of poor scaling cost, but whatever. You've made up your mind already.


Funny how you've ignored half the points I made though.

 

[Matt34]

Nice hijack, you two need to get a room.