separates
Which Would You Prefer
If you were to choose between an “all in” audio system comprised of loudspeakers, dsp, dac, adc, streaming, and amplifiers with various inputs (digital and analog) would you choose an “embedded” design where all electronics are inside the speaker enclosures so in essence you only have two power lines and multiple line level cables running to the inputs of one speaker (the master) or a “preamp” design with a central “box” for all inputs and a single line level input cable into one speaker I.e. the master? Looking to build one or the other.
- ...
- 10 posts total
Received opinion seems to be that actives with digital sound processing and cardioid sound radiation are the wave of the future--e.g., Kii Three and Dutch & Dutch 8c loudspeakers. Apparently active speakers never took off (until recently) because audiophiles like to tinker about, mixing and matching components. (If that's your thing, go for it!) Speaker engineers, unlike audiophiles, are in no position to discount the advantages of active speakers. Andrew Jones tells us that in actives: Each amplifier is matched to the driver, and only has to operate over a limited frequency range. It’s operating into a simpler impedance, so it’s not going to have high-current demands. Also, the temporal characteristics of music change with frequency. High frequencies require very little average power, but have a lot of peaks. Bass requires much higher average power, but has far fewer peaks. You can match the amplifier to those characteristics as well. As a gesture to the audiophile penchant for tinkering, Jones’s ARB-5s forgo digital signal processing. He nevertheless acknowledges its advantages: DSP is very versatile as a development tool. If I want to make a change to an analog crossover, I have to solder in new components. With DSP, I can push a few buttons, load in a new crossover profile, and a minute later, I can listen to it. In production, there are no tolerance issues with DSP the way there are with the parts in an analog crossover. With DSP, the crossover shape will be identical on every unit. I can provide a lot more equalization with a DSP, with very little degradation. With analog, every time I want to add another filter section, the signal has to go through another op-amp stage. (https://www.soundstagesimplifi.com/index.php/feature-articles/80-active-voices-part-one-elacs-andrew-jones) Moreover, in all active speakers the specific frequencies for each specific driver “crossover” before amplification, yet another enhancement of audio design. Other engineers echo these same points. Listen to Paul McGowan from PS Audio at 03:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inZQKHqayow , or Dynaudio’s Roland Hoffman at 03:20 and 13:06 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XTQO0f7n4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XTQO0f7n4), or Meridian’s Bob Stuart (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDQwQ0n3pU). They all work for companies that sell passive speakers or equipment for them, but they all clearly favor the design opportunities found in actives.Active speakers do have their drawbacks, of course, but from an engineering and sound reproduction standpoint, actives seem to be the way to go. (The vast majority of studio monitors are active.) |
Thanks everyone for the feedback. I personally believe active is the future and even with that there will be upgrade paths in terms of the dsp, dac, etc for those wanting to tinker. Just a different kind of tinkering than in the past perhaps. The basis of the question was to ask if from a consumer perspective is it preferred to have everything (all the electronics) embedded into the loudspeaker enclosures or to have a separate box external to the speakers housing the digital components feeding the amplifiers which are directly connected to each individual driver. Thanks again |
- 10 posts total