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.

donavabdear

@ricevs , that is an excellent post, I had 0 clue about those solutions, thanks!

This really should be a case by case scenario discussion. Definitely not a black and white topic. Especially with the advent of some very nice active component “systems” now available, and being designed by several different companies - boutique and commercial. 
 

I love the sonic changes produced by different amps in terms of their compatibility with my components upstream. But I’d also really love to try some Buchardt A500 or A700’s, KEF LS 60’s (when I could afford the luxury of additional systems) or anything that might turn up in the near future with interesting offerings and superb design. 
 

Genelec’s are interesting to me, as they tend to cross that threshold into the tonal aspect of home audio of listening. Not just a cold/analytical studio monitor. But I digress. 

@ricevs  Class-D is not PWM. PWM is not "Class D type amplification". The only thing they share in common is switching devices. Purifi is a Class-D amplification product that uses the input signal and feedback to reference the output to a clean analog input. There is no equivalent in a digital PWM implementation.

I believe the first one made was the Tact Millennium back in the late 90s. The PCM digital signal is changed in software to PWM (class D type amplification). Tocatta Technologies (TACT) was headed by inspired people who now work for Purifi. It seems odd that Purifi does not have a digital amp board.....prehaps soon...they will.

Simply hooking amplifiers up to drivers and using a digital crossover only provides some, but not all the benefits of active speakers.

You give a lot of bad if not misleading advice in your article. As a business, there is a level of negligence in doing that. That the new MOFI speaker. Encouraging people to take it apart, simply replace the cross over, and then lower the tweeter is terrible advice. Very few people have the experience or tools to do this. You can make some final tunings to a speaker by ear, but 99% of the work is with tools. Getting the crossover frequency right both for evenness of frequency and disperson, the slopes, any necessary notch filters, etc. is not something you just "do" by throwing in a digital crossover. At a minimum you need a calibrated measurement microphone and knowledge of how to measure a speaker / speaker driver. Then you need to understand what those measurements mean and how to turn that into a solution. You may get lucky or more likely convince yourself it sounds good by ear, with the first music you listen to, but across a wide range of music there will be issues.  I am sure Andrew put a lot of thought into the crossover frequency based on distortion of the tweeter, output at frequency, and dispersion, or more specifically matching dispersion to the woofer and using the woofer as a wave guide. Again, it is negligent to blindly tell people to drop the crossover frequency on a tweeter without knowing the impact, which is likely to be negative.

 

@thespeakerdude A question about your audio philosophy. Speakers should be like microphones they should record and playback flat if there is an audio character to the microphone sometimes that's great and it helps the happiness of the final product just like speakers. There isn's an exact right or wrong I remember in a recording studio I worked at we had an old EV microphone cable that added just the right amount of warmness (lack of high end) to the vocals of some people. To me microphones and speakers should record and playback in the most accurate way possible. Using room correction that changes the speakers is in general wrong, we should change the room, clearly that's the right way to do things but it is difficult, expensive and takes a lot of skill and luck. Fixing surround sound speakers with room correction makes sense because of the timing issues but also in that case the correct solution is again putting the speakers at the right distances physically. Flat rooms are awful and never work because phasing and wobbling sound is part of why we understand what sound is. Speakers should be flat if they're not the room may not work with the speakers in the same way if room correction software flattens the room with the speakers we have the same problem. Reason no #335 why audiophiles are on a slippery slope concerning proper sound reproduction. There seems to be several groups like the AES that want to standardize surround sound playback systems which is a great idea, after that standard is realized we can color our system the way we want but if there is no foundation our feet are firmly planted in mid air. Do you agree?

 

I like the THX philosophy re: minimum standards and testing. If you get a THX certified installer it should be fairly consistent.