AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Digital Active Speaker Thread.....

36K views 480 replies 36 participants last post by  markrubin 
#1 ·
Ask and ye shall receive. Mark has uttered the death knell for the V3 thread which is "stay on topic", so here's a new one.


Lee asked why digital speakers haven't taken over yet. In addition to Frantz' good answer about audiophiles clinging to orthodoxy, I've heard the following -


1. "I can't choose the amps, the cables, the DACs, etc, etc, etc. "

2. "I can't *use* my [tens of $thousands of] current audiophile gear that I have accumulated."

3. "I don't trust digital"

4. "I'd have to convert my albums to digital and back and I don't like that idea, let alone the idea of bypassing the DACs in my $10K CD player

5. Limited selection - Too expensive, too inexpensive, not the right color, not the right form factor, where's the wood finish, I want ribbons, dipole, bipole, ported, sealed...... - kinda like finding the exotic hybrid or electric car that gets you hot and bothered. There's like one of those.

6. Confusing and or not the right sound - "No sir, we don't have DSP speakers in 'Chunky Monkey' or 'Cherry Cheesecake', but we have French Vanilla......"

7. Poor marketing and an intransigent dealer base who finds selling conventional gear more profitable and ongoing. "Sell the problem, then sell 10 solutions down the road". What do I sell the current $6K NHT Xd customer? Nothing. What do my competitors sell after selling a $15K or $20K speakers that doesn't match the show room experience at home? New amps, new preamps, new CD players, new cables, new power cords, new power conditioners...........DSP speakers are also lower profit margin for the dealer and typically requires a lot of trade-ins, so there's little incentive.

8. Stereo focus. Most DSP speakers, especially DEQX ones are totally focused on stereo while even most of the hardcore audiophiles are integrating home theater. I had one customer sell his Xds because he couldn't find a center channel to keep up, but then finally got two new pair and uses one half of one set as his center. Plus it's hard to wire for DSP rears if you don't have 4 or 6 conductor or power/ethernet to the right locations. Meridian does full DSP HT, but it's pricey and it's proprietary (and sounds mighty awesome).

9. Fear factor. I don't think a lot of people feel comfortable being the first on their block to abandon expensive old technology for expensive new technology, same reason why we had trouble selling Tivo and Sonos and Vudu for the first year of each product. People are naturally skeptical of paradigm shifts, but then sales snowball as more and more people report good experiences.
 
See less See more
#127 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrantzM /forum/post/15869357


Keep in mind YOUR thread is NOT about the Xd.. Dang it John! It is a good speaker but it was lacking; the argument it is so good that people reacted negatively is flimsy at best..

It doesn't matter, Xd is gone! Well, almost gone. As is NHT. But what you see as 'lacking' is PRECISELY what I don't want to hear from a speaker - the sound of the speaker! All you had to do was drop these in the same room as a $20K speaker, almost ANY $20K speaker (including/especially Magnepans) and they would tell you exactly what is wrong with the other speaker, how it is coloring the sound, where the resonances were, the peaks, the dips. The Xd is NOT the best DSP speaker that can be built, but it remains better in many to most ways than many if not all passive speakers. I will not retract this, no matter how many times you push me to do so. Point source is just plain more natural than a large baffle of drivers. Buy a set of Xds, keep them in your house and I guarantee they will increasingly draw you to them and away from the Maggies.


Besides, I'm just pointing out that an ADC/DAC is simply not crippling, even though it is not 'ideal'.
Quote:
On the crossover side I agre in part with you . It is not the ability to perform corrections that is the only advantage of Digital crosovers it is the fact that they can perform the needed mathematical function almost perfectly.. I keep on repeating it a crossover is a filter or several filters.. A filter is a device that at the core performs a mathematical functions (or at the very least should perform it). Analog Filters are a crude approximation of these functions.. very, very crude... A digital filter can actually perform the exact needed function with virtually no errors... That in itself should make them sound better in theory in practice there are implementation problems and they account for the widely different results...

Well, you still get ringing with any crossover. Meridian says that it has made what they call 'apodizing' filters, which, if I understand their press material (which remains press material), they are able to emulate a 'perfect' filter with little or no ringing. Or that's what they seem to imply.
 
#128 ·
Some digital speakers -




Legend Acoustics Tikandi w/DEQX




Acoustic Zen Maesto w/DEQX




Wasatch w/DEQX




B&O




SonicWeld PulseRod w/DEQX




Meridian DSP7200s




Arvus w/DEQX




Salk HT3 w/DEQX




JL Audios




NHT Xd w/DEQX




Phase Technology dARTS w/Audyssey
 
#130 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman /forum/post/15869770


Why no pictures of Meridian speakers in your cavalcade of digital active speakers?

Still looking for pictures, but was going from the new, more obscure ones first.
 
#131 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15869811


Still looking for pictures, but was going from the new, more obscure ones first.

Meridian currently makes five digital active speakers: the DSP8000, DSP7200, DSP5500, DSP5200 and DSP3100. All but the DSP8000 also come in horizontal center versions. In addition, they make two digital active subwoofers: the SW5500 and the SW1600. The digital active subwoofers have both a digital and analog inputs. Pictures are available on their website.

http://www.meridian.co.uk/product-mo...udspeaker.aspx
 
#132 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman /forum/post/15869977


Meridian currently makes five digital active speakers: the DSP8000, DSP7200, DSP5500, DSP5200 and DSP3100. All but the DSP8000 also come in horizontal center versions. In addition, they make two digital active subwoofers: the SW5500 and the SW1600. The digital active subwoofers have both a digital and analog inputs. Pictures are available on their website.

http://www.meridian.co.uk/product-mo...udspeaker.aspx

Yes, I know all this, being a Meridian dealer and all (and having just set up a 7200/3100 HT system a week or so ago). When you think digital speakers, the first thing that comes to mind is Meridian. I was looking for more obscure DSP speakers and was working backwards. I guess I don't talk about Meridian as much because it is the 8000 lb elephant in the room.
 
#133 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrantzM /forum/post/15869357


John


Keep in mind YOUR thread is NOT about the Xd.. Dang it John! It is a good speaker but it was lacking; the argument it is so good that people reacted negatively is flimsy at best.. .

Frantz,


Additionally, John keeps attempting to make one of the FAULTS of the Xd crossover into

a virture - the high order, steep slope crossover. The steep crossover made the designer's

job easier by essentially "decoupling" the passbands.


Unfortunately for the end user; the steep crossover comes with a SEVERE price that is

dictated by the mathematics - the steep crossovers have "pre-echo" which is acausal

and smears the sound. John Atkinson actually MEASURED the pre-ring; so don't let

John do his usual fabrication that it was magically cancelled by the other out of passband

driver. It would have been a better speaker with smoother crossover transitions and an

improved radiation pattern if they had "blended" the drivers at the crossovers instead of

the discontinuous cut-off that was implemented.


Mother Nature is "continuous" and any product wishinig to emulate Mother Nature should

be free of artificial discontinuities.


The Xd is good - but it is definitely NOT "great"; as we have discussed many times

here before. For the low price; it's pretty good - although my colleague "smokester"

believes one can do better for the same price.
 
#134 ·
........

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Atkinson /forum/post/0


What can also be seen from fig.11 is that each drive-unit's step is preceded by some low-frequency ringing. But because the tweeter's and woofer's acoustic outputs appear to have opposite polarities, this pre-ringing should to a large extent cancel, at least on the tweeter axis. That this does in fact happen is shown by the XdS's overall step response (fig.12), the tweeter's positive-going step smoothly handing over to the woofer's negative-going step, this in turn correlating with the superb frequency-domain integration between the two drive-units seen in fig.7.

The 'ringing' caused by two drivers not in perfect synch off vertical axis is far more audible, measurable and dramatic, especially with D'Appolito speakers. The Xd is absolutely 'great', as has been said in every review. "Class A" for instance.
 
#136 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15870088


........




The 'ringing' caused by two drivers not in perfect synch off vertical axis is far more audible, measurable and dramatic, especially with D'Appolito speakers. The Xd is absolutely 'great', as has been said in every review. "Class A" for instance.

John,


The "ringing" that John Atkinsons refers to here is NOT due to drivers being "out of sync"


It is the ringing can be a part of high order crossovers. John will probably ignore this

reference as he always does - but for those interested - the "pre-ringing" is described

by Keith Howard in his Stereophile article: "Ringing False":

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/


Specifically look at the graphs of impulse respons [ first column ] for minimal phase

filter and compare to all the others. The minimal phase filter is the only filter in the

group that doesn't "pre-ring". The Xd filters were NOT minimal phase.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference...ng/index1.html


The Xd had an acausal, unphysical "pre-ring" that can not be acoustically cancelled

exactly because the two drivers have different passbands. The "pre-ring" is mitigated

to a degree on the speaker axis, as John Atkinson points out - but who is seated

simultaneously on the axis of both speakers?


The "pre-ring" is audible - and that's what counts.
 
#137 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman /forum/post/15870090


You need to get in touch with Meridian to update their website. You are not listed as an authorized dealer.

They'll get to it. We just signed back up after letting things lapse for a year or two.
 
#138 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius /forum/post/15870182


The "ringing" that John Atkinsons refers to here is NOT due to drivers being "out of sync"

I'm talking about the 'ringing' that would occur in, say, a Wilson X2 in the upper bands off axis. Not exactly the same thing, but the poor vertical dispersion is much more problematic. With DEQX, you can choose any filter you want, from 6dB to 300dB/octave. You simply choose the slope that results in the best sound. Period. NHT and others have found that the steeper crossovers fix more subjective and objective problems than they create.


Ringing is a tiny problem because it is self canceling at tweeter axis. However, steep crossovers lower motor distortion, cone resonance, improves horizontal dispersion, dramatically improves vertical dispersion, increase SPL, etc. Adding one smaller problem substantially improves 4 or 5 other areas of performance. Great tradeoff.
Quote:
The "pre-ring" is mitigated

to a degree on the speaker axis, as John Atkinson points out - but who is seated

simultaneously on the axis of both speakers?

Everybody if you're seated. It's a *horizontal* axis. Therefore, at anywhere approximately 32" off the ground (typical head height when seated), the pre-ringing cancels.
Quote:
The "pre-ring" is audible - and that's what counts.

So is lobing. So is motor disortion. So are cone resonances. So are +/-8dB frequency response errors. It's like saying Halle Berry isn't hot because she has a mole on her butt or something.
 
#139 ·
What are the drivers in the Acoustic Zen Maestro and the Wasatch? (Particularly the mids and the ribbons.)


How do the Maestro's use DEQX in a four way? (Where is the passive located, or is there a non DEQX in the chain somewhere?)
 
#140 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucemck2 /forum/post/15870390


What are the drivers in the Acoustic Zen Maestro and the Wasatch? (Particularly the mids and the ribbons.)

Not sure. I wasn't thrilled with the sound of the treble on the Wasatch speakers. I think they applied too much correction or something, but the mids and bass sounded great.
Quote:
How do the Maestro's use DEQX in a four way? (Where is the passive located, or is there a non DEQX in the chain somewhere?)

I think they are operating it as a 3-way with the bass/midbass running parallel. That's a guess, but it's either that or they're adding another crossover for the bass only, either active or passive.
 
#141 ·
Ringing is not a matter of DRIVER John it is a function of the CROSSOVER.. VERY steep Croosover slopes DO produce ringing... It is measurable... IT WAS MEASURED.. I know you will come with some twist of language to show that it is not.. Steep crossovers are NOT a panacea they create too many problems of their own... If it were so easy to "just choose" the best slope PERIOD then everybody given a DEQX would produce infinitely great speakers.. Wait! Sorry I think that is your point... Sorry...


I will just leave you with the opportunity to derail and/or destroy your own thread by a quasi compulsive tendency to inject ANY discussion with a mention of the absolute superiority of he Xd over anything else...
 
#142 ·
And that is what is so maddening about hyperbolic statements.. At the current price of the Xd ($3000) they are the proverbial steal... You get a pair of speakers, amp and a sub.. Very good simple system.. I might just grab a pair of X-2 for a FL apartment..


Good they are! Perfect they aren't.. Wilson X-2 Territory? Not on this planet!
 
#143 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrantzM /forum/post/15870476


Ringing is not a matter of DRIVER John it is a function of the CROSSOVER.. VERY steep Croosover slopes DO produce ringing... It is measurable... IT WAS MEASURED.. I know you will come with some twist of language to show that it is not.. Steep crossovers are NOT a panacea they create too many problems of their own... If it were so easy to "just choose" the best slope PERIOD then everybody given a DEQX would produce infinitely great speakers.. Wait! Sorry I think that is your point... Sorry...

Frantz, where are you getting this? And please behave more like the Frantz I know. Yes, there is ringing. Pretty much all crossovers ring. What I am saying is a) this largely cancels on horizontal axis (as John Atkinson says) and b) by allowing a little more ringing in the system, you are able to improve 4 or 5 other parameters simultaneously, parameters that are extremely difficult to improve without the steep crossovers.
Quote:
I will just leave you with the opportunity to derail and/or destroy your own thread by a quasi compulsive tendency to inject ANY discussion with a mention of the absolute superiority of he Xd over anything else...

Again, I didn't say that Xd has ''absolute superiority over anything else". I said that it does many things better than virtually any passive speaker I have ever seen measured. This is factual, not hyperbole. That does not make it 'better' subjectively or objectively as it doesn't do *everything* better. However, it points out the flaws in current passive speaker design very nicely. I expect these kinds of asymmetrical arguments from others, but not you.
 
#144 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrantzM /forum/post/15870540


Good they are! Perfect they aren't.. Wilson X-2 Territory? Not on this planet!

Again, I never said they were perfect. Nor have I ever said that anybody would absolutely prefer them over X2s, though i imagine somebody might, including probably me. But they will absolutely do some things better than X2s. Vertical dispersion, for instance. Horizontal dispersion. Measured FR accuracy. X2s will likely play louder with lower motor distortion. That is not hyperbole, it is factual and predictable.


Even if the X2 sounds subjectively better to most people, does it, in fact, make sense to spend 20 times as much for a speaker that is measurable inferior in many ways? In this day and age, I think we would both say it does not. Not when we can see what $3300 in processing and amplification does for $2700 worth of speakers.
 
#145 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15870337


I NHT and others have found that the steeper crossovers fix more subjective and objective problems than they create.

John,


NHT may have concluded that - but that is NOT the conclusion of Keith Howard and

Leo Spiegel, the chief designer for the original Apogee speakers:

http://www.apogeespeakers.com/leo_spiegel_interview.htm


Leo Spiegel states that they tried steep crossovers when designing the Apogee Stage;

and found that the drivers in this two-way unit didn't integrate. He stated that when

steep crossovers were employed, one could hear the two drivers distinctly instead of

the desired effect of having a seemless whole.


Leo Spiegel used a lower order, more gradual crossover to "blend" the output of the

drivers over the crossover range.


Theoretically, one would expect a more seamless transition in such an approach. If

you suddenly switch from a large driver to a smaller driver - which is what a steep

crossover does - for nearly the same frequency; you shift from one size "antenna"

[driver] to another. You have a sudden shift in radiation pattern - the larger driver

has a narrower dispersion since it is closer to the beaming limit, where as the small

driver is more isotropic.


The only problem the steep crossover really solves is the designer's problem of doing

what Leo Spiegel does and blend the driver output in the crossover regime. The steep

crossover decouples the crossover problem and makes the DESIGNER's job easier

by not having to blend together the output of two drivers as does Spiegel.


However, the price of making the designer's life easier is paid by the end user in a

poorer quality listening experience.
 
#147 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius /forum/post/15870761


John,


NHT may have concluded that - but that is NOT the conclusion of Keith Howard and

Leo Spiegel, the chief designer for the original Apogee speakers:

http://www.apogeespeakers.com/leo_spiegel_interview.htm


Leo Spiegel states that they tried steep crossovers when designing the Apogee Stage;

and found that the drivers in this two-way unit didn't integrate. He stated that when

steep crossovers were employed, one could hear the two drivers distinctly instead of

the desired effect of having a seemless whole.


Leo Spiegel used a lower order, more gradual crossover to "blend" the output of the

drivers over the crossover range.


Theoretically, one would expect a more seamless transition in such an approach. If

you suddenly switch from a large driver to a smaller driver - which is what a steep

crossover does - for nearly the same frequency; you shift from one size "antenna"

[driver] to another. You have a sudden shift in radiation pattern - the larger driver

has a narrower dispersion since it is closer to the beaming limit, where as the small

driver is more isotropic.


The only problem the steep crossover really solves is the designer's problem of doing

what Leo Spiegel does and blend the driver output in the crossover regime. The steep

crossover decouples the crossover problem and makes the DESIGNER's job easier

by not having to blend together the output of two drivers as does Spiegel.


However, the price of making the designer's life easier is paid by the end user in a

poorer quality listening experience.

Exactly. Because Apogee doesn't use pistonic drivers. They have distinct coloration that MUST be blended in order to prevent the drivers from being audible as distinct entities. But if you use drivers operating pistonically in the used range, then you can pass from one to another steeply without audible seams. Apogees and other ribbons sound nice in a euphonic way but are increasingly irrelevant. I have not liked the sound of ribbons in conjunction with DEQX ever time I have heard it. But pistonic drivers are an entirely different story.
 
#148 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman /forum/post/15870797


If the speakers which are "measurably inferior"in the few aspects of speakers that are actually measured sound better, yes. Measurements do not tell the entire story.

No, but it does allow you to immediately see what even $100K+ passive speakers do not do well.
 
#149 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15870838


No, but it does allow you to immediately see what even $100K+ passive speakers do not do well.

I don't think I would buy speakers blind based on measurements, and I don't think I would buy one speaker over another if it didn't sound as good even if it measured better. Perhaps you, like DougWinsor who also worships at the alter of measurements, would.
 
#150 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/15869674


Some digital speakers -



Salk HT3 w/DEQX

Since you listed the DEQXed Salk HT3A, this might be a good point to also repost what their designer, Dennis Murphy, had to say about DEQX:

Again, I don't really disagree with you about the superior flexibility possible with DEQX-type machines. But I do know that if you start with high quality drivers that don't have weird peaks that can't be deat with using a simple trap circuit, it's possible to match the sound of the DEQX, or at least come close enough that most listeners could not pass a blind test. Actually, that's wrong--the DEQX can fix room bass peaks (and so can much cheaper devices). Aside from room effects, Jim and I strained to hear a difference between the HT3 and the HT3A. We finally decided that there was a bit more presence in the DEQX in the upper midbass. I switched the bass-mid cross to second order acoustic, and that fixed that (this was a long time ago). We could hear no advantage to whatever phase correction DEQX was implementing, and this has been my experience in other demonstrations. There is a theoretical advantage, but the real world advantage just hasn't been substantiated yet. Still--if the price were much lower, and I thought people would put up with the added complexity, I would recommend that Jim switch out of passive Dennis to Active DEQX.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15520811
 
#151 ·
BTW. here's the new Apogee "Definitive" speaker using DEQX. Not how I would do it, but one thing we know - the original Apogee designers may have tried a 24dB/octave passive crossover, but they never had the opportunity to try DEQX -




Apogee Definitive w/DEQX - $105K (Au, I believe)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top