I feel I must further take issue with labelling any amplifier the best on its own. Amplifiers and speakers form a system. Colleagues would argue, correctly I must accept, that amplifiers, speakers, and the room form a system. No amplifier is the best amplifier for every speaker, and no amplifier is the best amplifier for every speaker and room combination. Tube amplifiers, even your Allnic, are often a poor choice for speakers where the delta from maximum to minimum impedance is large, and the minimum impedance is low. That amplifier could impact a significant and negative character on a speaker that a much lower cost SS amp would not.
Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused
17 of 23 speakers in my studio and home theater systems are internally powered. My studio system is all Genelec and sounds very accurate. I know the best new concert and studio speakers are internally powered there are great technical reasons to design a speaker and an amp synergistically, this concept is much more important to sound quality than the vibration systems we often buy. How can an audiophile justify a vibration system of any sort with this in mind.
- ...
- 1204 posts total
brianlucey
|
brianlucey |
You don’t seem to understand, in detail, what that Trinnov does. Even in L&R Mode, it is applying corrections at the speaker level. https://www.trinnov.com/en/blog/posts/trinnov-optimizer-features-according-to-l-r-excursion-curve/
May I ask how many fully active speakers you have developed over your career? You appear to be stepping far out of your area of expertise. Even your MMThree are a cost compromise. For the implementation of DSP, D/A, amplification and power supply, in many situations, we would be hard pressed to make it cost more. For these sub components of the design we could add frivolous components that would increase the cost, but they would not improve the sound and hence would not generate a resale premium to our target professional markets. These sub components are not the limiting factor in the SQ of our products. That will still be the driver components and cabinet / acoustics for the long foreseeable future.
|
Colleagues would argue, correctly I must accept, that amplifiers, speakers, and the room form a system. I agree (this is the 20% of a system providing 80% of the benefit IMO). The OP is NOT which is better, passive or active, it is about confusion. As @brianlucey stated one of the benefits of active is cost and convenience, Those are HUGE benefits when you have a budget and limited space. I have about a dozen active speakers in my HT that are all internally biamped with a total of 24 channels of A/B amplification (specs are posted in my profile). I would need a dozen two channel amplifiers or five 5 channel amplifiers to power this system in the same fashion, you are talking $$$$$. Next I would need $$$ of long runs of quality speaker cable and another one or two racks to store the amps. I have already compared the Paradigm Studio (passive) 20, biamped, with the active version. They both sounded great but my preference was the active. So, to make a "system" of the amp, the speaker, and the room in the most CONVENIENT and COST EFFECTIVE fashion I think we are ALL in agreement here, active speakers PLUS a processor using good DSP is a good strategy. So, if you want a convenient, cost effective, great sounding system use active speakers. That isn’t confusing at all, right? |
- 1204 posts total