Most Important Aspect of an Audio System - Page 4

Your explanation is a lot like mine in post #36. After that, I've just been having fun with this slug fest.

Actually, both sides make very valid points and to tell you the truth, that's where it should stop.

What I've seen here is what I've seen on so many other threads of this and similar natures, the exhausted effort of persuasion to get you to think like I do, or at least to convey that I'm right and you're wrong, hypothetically speaking of course.

Room, Speakers, Electronics is the way I voted

Easy question. The speaker + room is vastly more important than the electronics.

I would have agreed with this along time ago. But in this day and age, getting a decent speaker isn't really hard to do.

But again, the choices presented(room/speaker/electronics)leave alot of vagueness is giving an answer. Specific electronics without question are extremely important, and grouped with natural(and improved or tuned)room accoustics are more important without question.

Few examples: I personally will not use stock internal passive xovers on a speaker anymore and highly prefer to use an active variable xovers and EQ's with dedicated amps. Passive xovers kill dynamics, smear and distort the signal, and create and increase driver to driver tolerance differences. Couple this with room characteristics, speaker placement etc and the advantages of specific electronics without question can be the most important aspect. Too add to this I also feel that a properly set up and treated room should also be grouped in with specific electronics as well. So maybe this clarifies my answer a bit more. I honestly would have stated, specific electronics PLUS room setup grouped together as being the most importnat thing. But the speakers? I put last now.

Pretty much ALL speakers are rediculously overpriced, even the cheaper ones that cost hundreds and not thousands of dollars. Best bet on speakers, find one that is of sound basic design, uses decent drivers, has the aesthetic appeal your looking for and make sure your room and specific electronics are up to snuff to enable a good solid in room response at your listening position.

Yes, going with active crossovers has improved the sound of my system compared with the premium Madisound kit crossovers. I'm not certain how or why, but its much better.

How do you implement active crossovers? How does that work? I'm new enough to have to guess it involves bi-amping, but am I wrong?

Correct, it involves an amp channel for each driver. I use miniDSPs which are configured with a computer and placed between the pre-pro and the amps.

Might speaker brand-model A size/design/measurements/placement require different room treatment approach than speaker brand-model B?

I believe so although its pretty universal to need dampeners at first reflection points.

Well you will need a dedicated amp(or amp channel)per driver, so if you have say a tweeter and midrange driver for each speaker then you will need 4 amp channels per pair. You will also need an active xover that is able to split up the channels correctly.

For example, my 2 channel audio system features a pair of Kef XQ20's, the passive internal xover was removed and each driver(uniQ tweeter) was wired directly to the binding posts(the XQ's I have came with 2 sets per monitor). I have one dedicated amp wired to the tweeter and one wired to the midrange driver. For my source I use a Wadia CD player with variable volume control(so I am able to bypass using a preamp), I use the xlr outputs to a pair of RANE EQ's via XLR connections. Then from the RANE EQ's I run XLR connections into a RANE 3 way variable Xover. It splits the signal into 4 monoblock amps and a pair of Rythmik D15se subs(all of which have xlr inputs). Using an Audiocontrol RTA I am able to tune each seperate driver for level, optimal xover points and amplitude at 30 frequency points to the rooms accoustic characteristics.

The entire system cost me about half of what just my Revel Salon's originally cost me(at dealer cost no less), and the sound is superior in every sense of the word. Imaging, dynamics, you name it.

I am about to begin a project where I convert my Salon's to a fully active system as well, and will be modifying the cabinet and installing the rear facing bass port to underneath the cabinet facing downward in which I will make some higher custom feet to allow for ample space between the port and floor.

Regardless, a fully active system is the way to go. Junk the passive xovers, even in the "high end" speakers that cost 4 and 5 figures, they are for the most part cheaply made with very cheap parts. The ones in my Salon's and old B&W 801's were no different. In fact I figure the actual cost in components and MDF for my $12k Salons to be no more than a couple hundred bucks at most, most of that money towards to cost of the in house drivers. The MDF, cheap paint job,"laminated" faux aluminum side panels, xover parts and rear connections totaled no more than 50-60 bucks I calculated at wholesale cost. And some publications made these towers "Speaker of the Year" or commented on them being "pure bargains" at their pricepoint.............my @ss........lol. I sure didn't mind selling them to prospecting customers though. Made for a great paycheck.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. First and foremost you have to purchase a speaker that sounds good to you, but if you also shop in an objective manner (based on measurements), you'll know how that speaker will perform off-axis and will be able to gather a little bit on how it may perform in your room. If the speaker you use has horrible sound power and off-axis measurements, the room will likely affect it more than it would a great speaker. Fixing the faults of a loudspeaker by simply treating the room isn't possible. It may improve the sound in certain aspects, but it's a band aid and not a true fix. The same can be said with trying to fix a room's flaws by buying a speaker with it's own flaws; that's just a bad idea. And while room EQ can be beneficial in many instances, there are many arguments that in can also degrade sound; it can introduce it's own benefits but also trade-offs, mostly above the Schroeder Frequency.


If you really know what you're doing you might be able to squeeze some extra performance out of your speakers if they were already a great design. If they are a poor design to being with, then I have no doubt you'll be able to achieve better sound if you know your stuff. I don't expect a novice to be able to do such, though. In most cases I'd be surprised if an all active crossover could perform better than a great passive one above 200-300Hz or so. I could be wrong, but it would likely just be based on subjective performance rather than objective results.

As for making them more aesthetically pleasing, part of the experience is looks, at least for me, so more power to you. We just need to be careful we're not degrading performance while making things more pleasant visually. There are reasons some speakers are designed to be odd looking.

I have, and I think most others have too.


There are FAR more awful speakers available to the public than good ones. I completely disagree with this.

Can you prove passive crossovers "kill dynamics, smear and distort the signal, and create and increase driver to driver tolerance differences?" I think you're 100% incorrect. In fact, I haven't seen ANY evidence that backs your completely subjective statement. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's only an opinion, and if you don't state it as such then it's just someone pushing false information as facts. So, with that said, you're wrong until you can prove otherwise.


A lot of speakers are way overpriced, but not all of them. A "basic" design will not guarantee good sound, just like using active crossovers won't. Please prove what you're pushing.



Floyd Toole's research shows otherwise. The lateral reflections add to the "apparent source width," which were actually preferred by the majority of his listening panels. It is probably very situation and speaker dependent, though. A speaker with poor off-axis response will probably benefit from them.


Prove it. You have provided no evidence to support your claims. Bring forth the evidence!

^^^

+1... well put brandon...

A. You state there are far more "aweful" speakers.........well, feel free to toss some examples.......and give me specifics as to why they are aweful. As you state.......prove it.......Im all eyes and ears.

B. Anytime you put a cap,block or coil inline you alter and distort the signal. This is common knowledge. And in the process tolerance between these added components in line diminish the signal in a multitude of ways. I mean, if you want to disprove what I state, feel free to back up your side. WHat thing I can state is that there is a noticeable audible difference on my XQ's run fully actively vs. using the stock xovers. The increased clarity and liveliness is significant.

C. I feel pretty much ALL speakers are overpriced. Years ago doing an internship for a major local speaker mfg. and learning about the intricacies of cost management, marketing, the politics between mfg's and advertising and reviews in magazines etc. really can be an eye opener. But hey, feel free to disprove any of these notions, throw me up some examples of speakers that are not overpriced, again Im willing to hear your feelings. Again though, its going to be hard IMO to counter my point. Even "internet direct" speakers are overpriced. Typical rule of thumb though is that a set of speakers is at a MINIMUM sold at 20-40 times the cost it takes to actually mfg. it. Many times this number can far exceed even these numbers and be well north of 100 times the actual cost. In other words, its JEWELRY markup. Speakers are nothing more than some cheap MDF(you might find some using "real wood" laminates, but even the cost for real wood laminate is pretty darn cheap), xover components,finishing materials and a few drivers. I remember during my internship, one production manager telling a group of us it cost them more in ELECTRICITY than in actual materials to make a pair of speakers........chew on that.

D. As you state, ifs very situationally dependant on the listener. Just like I prefer to go and see my favorite recording artist at specific venues only, while avoiding others like the plague.

E. Feel free to bring forth evidence to disprove anything as well.

Take your pick. Look at Stereophile, Ultimate AV Magazine, Home Theater Magazine and the NRC database of measurements. You imply that you're educated in this hobby/industry, so you should know which measurements to look at. If you're looking in the right places you'll easily find a lot of well reviewed speakers that have bad measurements.


Creating a passive crossover does not ruin the sound unless you don't know what you're doing. You tell me to disprove what you state, but you've never proved it yourself. You're talking based on your opinion, which isn't a fact, and hasn't yet been back up with objective proof. Where is the proof?


Which is it? 20-40 times or 100 times? By the way, your figures are insanely wrong. I know a couple speaker manufacturers and crossover designers personally, and their markup is not even close to that high. Most B&M outfits mark up the speaker 40%, and even then the manufactuer doesn't take home 20-100 times the manufacturer costs. That would make a $2000 speaker cost $20 to manufacture, and a $5000 speaker $50. Even if it was 20 times that would be $250 for a $5000 retail speaker; very unlikely. You're way off. Again, please prove these numbers; you've still provided zero proof, only claims.

Take a look at the Philharmonic line of speakers:

http://philharmonicaudio.com/ The cost of drivers alone in comparison to the asking price blows your theory well out the window.


What evidence do I need to bring forth? I asked you to prove what you state, and so you tell me to "Feel free to bring forth evidence to disprove anything as well." How is that proving what you claim? Telling me to disprove your subjective statements is not proof. We're still waiting for objective proof; you're unproven stories and subjective opinions aren't proof.

Yup. So, let's see. Cut the prices. Kewl. Speaker manufacturers lay off people, close factories, don't have the reserves for research and product development, no sinking funds to weather economic down turns (laid off workers), sell direct so we don't have to pay dealers (and put them and their employees out of work). More people out of work, more tax money to support these people, no money available to spend on speakers. What a rat race.

Then there is the flip side. If they are over priced, then no one will buy them. If no one will buy them, the company goes out of business. Problem solved. So, if in your opinion they are over priced, do not buy them. If everyone feels the same, those overpriced speakers will be toast.

Obviously, you've never run a business, had to make payroll, pay license fees, taxes ...

Nicely said...

+1

I should mentioned, active crossovers are great depending on the drivers you're using (sometimes there's no benefit), but only if you really know what you're doing. They are also more expensive and complex for the consumer, especially since each driver needs its own amp, which kind of contradicts his "speakers are overpriced" theory. In my opinion the benefits of active are more apparent in car audio systems rather than home audio, especially since your typical consumer likely doesn't have the skill set to put the active system to full use.

Nuance,

You have made a lot of excellent points! I agree on all of them!

What?? I was perfectly happy skimming over your posts in this thread for the humor, as most of it has been misplaced opinion. Yet this is impossible to pass up. You state this as fact, and it's total bull@&!%.

I challenge anyone who believes this to choose virtually any speaker and use this math. I'll go first.

My Mordaunt Short Carnival 2 desktop speakers cost $250 for the pair. Total cost according to Mr. Fuzzy Logic puts these between $6 and $12 in cost to manufacture. Not hardly.

My Polk LSi9, $550 a pair. The above math wouldn't even purchase the cabinets.

I won't even go into the COGs of my upcoming Philharmonic speakers. Not even the dye to match my custom finish can fit into this accounting model.

I'm not sure how you could recite such a ridiculous 'rule of thumb' and have the audacity to claim it was learned by experience. I suggest you pull your thumbs out from that dark place they're crammed and begin the long road to building back a modicum of credibility.

Speakers are no doubt the most important.

If you want to be absolute and all technical, then just take away the speakers and see what you get. No sound at all.

The room is important. It can also be treated. Speaker placements may also help significantly.

As far as active vs passive XO, I see no difference in the end result.

I think my Salon2, KEF 201/2, & Philharmonic 3 (all passive) sound at least as good as my Orion 3.2.1 (active).

I think perhaps many of us tend to get a little bit overzealous and a little bit too passionate in our descriptions.

I think everything is a lot more grey and a lot less black-and-white.

OK instead of individually quoting all the previos posts from my past statement, Ill group this up accordingly and just make some quick observations.

A. Speaker cost and markup. As I stated average cost markup can range from 20 times to over 100 times on cost markup. You think this is a joke?

Let me give you some examples:

I can go to Home Depot and buy a sheet of 3/4" 4x8' of MDF for about 20-25 bucks. This is RETAIL cost to me an end user. How much do you think Home depot marks up that sheet?

Now take a company like Boston Accoustic(WHere I did my internship many years ago), how much do you think THEY can buy a sheet of MDF for at wholesale cost and in SERIOUS BULK? LOL! Take a good guess..........not too many years back it was well under $6 bucks a sheet. And considering how efficiently they are able to cut and route their sheets....know how many speaker pairs they can rip out of a single sheet? Getting a better idea yet?

Now lets take xover parts and wiring. For an end user like myself at RETAIL COST, I can pick up decent quality caps,blocks, coils binding posts, wiring etc from anywhere from a few nickles and dimes to a few bucks, maybe a bit more. Now when your buying wiring, caps,coils, blocks etc in serious bulk at direct wholesale cost..........what do you think these numbers would really translate to?

Same for drivers..........even the "high end" ones, especially the ones that are built in house by certain mfg's.......you really think drivers cost much to mfg. or buy at wholesale? Do you even know what the most expensive component is of a driver? And can you guess average cost of that specific component for a large mfg?

Like I said, my "Speaker of the Year" Salon's at most have a few hundred bucks of materials and components, and that is probably a pretty big stretch. They cost how much at "retail" back in 99' $12-13k? At wholesale cost to a distributor/end retailer, slice that in half. Based on $250 cost in materials, components thats pretty heavy markup. Now obviously add some cost in for marketing/advertisement,electricity,R&D, and the number is going to be a bit higher depending on how many sets are sold etc etc.......but regardless, the costs are spread out over years and countless products in a line etc etc.

I mean, you can buy a brand new car with thousands of components for less money than some of these glorified high end speakers. Automobiles have thousands of components, miles of wiring, etc etc.......vs a pair of speakers with a few bucks worth of mdf,cheap xover parts and a few drivers.............so yes, speakers and may of these components are highly overpriced. But hey, why sell a speaker for a few hundred bucks when you can sell it for a few thousand or more right? Again, its marked up like jewelry, not because it has to be, but because it can be.

Again, as stated, the electricity ended up being more expensive to mfg. some of the products vs. the actual components and materials.

B. As for publications like Stereophile, or "take your pick" A/V magazine..........its a form of PAID ADVERTISEMENT. Has anyone ever seen a bad review done on ANYTHING audiowise? Especially if the said product being reviewed is a major advertiser at said publication?

And Nethawk: Your Mordant Carnival 2's........depending on volume..........your pretty darn close to actual component cost give or take a few bucks. Go ahead and take your speakers apart. Give me the square footage of your mdf cabinets, lay out the xover parts, 4 drivers, ports, binding posts etc........your not much more than $12 bucks at mass wholesale cost I bet, without question under $20 bucks........like I said, my Salon's have at most a few hundred bucks in components, AT MOST.......and I have 2 pairs of tweeters, a pair of upper midrange drivers, pair of lower midrange drivers, and 3 pairs of 8" bass drivers..........attenuation swtching, and a multiple xover boards.........

Dude, once again you provided no actual proof; you're just spewing random numbers and not taking into account dozens of variables. You haven't provided one shred of proof, and I doubt you will at all.

As for magazine reviews, you're preaching to the choir. However, their measurements aren't insignificant and shouldn't be quickly dismissed like the subjective review portion. They can tell you a lot about the speaker, which was my point; a point that clearly went right over your head.

The total costs of parts and materials is $300 for the Revel Salons? What a laughable claim! LOL! We're still waiting for the proof, chief

ntrain96 has officially reached forum troll status.

Want the proof, take apart your own speakers and lay out all the components.......the proof is literally right in your own home.

As for testing of response curves, distortion etc.....again, yep it gives you a baseline......problem is, a baseline in what environment? Certainly not your own home and where you actually place your own speakers with your own equipment setup............so where does that leave you for your real world speaker performance potentially in your own setup?

Which is why I feel that specific electronics are most important. I can actually mimic response curves and sound reproduction due to specific pieces of equipment I employ. Can you?

And to add, about jobs and supporting and promoting jobs by buying products> I am all for this, but the problem is that 99% of all these products are made offshore.........So who are we supporting other than the the corperate people..........Id like to support more of the blue collar workforce here in our own country..........but not much stuff is built in the USA anymore.......its all sources out..........because its CHEAPER to build overseas. And corperate knows that, and if they can line their own pockets with X amount of dollars by outsourcing vs. employing here.....that ends up being done 99 out of 100 times.

Im sure your speakers sound great to you.........but I can garentee you that I can mimic those speakers sound qualities in my own enviromnent with a much cheaper set to the point where you could not tell the difference. I would gladly place a large dollar bet on it too in a blind listening test.

If you question my pricing of wholesale mdf.........do some research..........make some calls on cost of 1000ct. or higher............. It might be higher than the price I gave(this was back around 2000), but it sure isnt gonna be too far off. MDF is dirt cheap, and alot of it comes from overseas.

I disagree with all of you. I think electricity is the most important aspect of any system. Go ahead, try to design a room, listen to speakers or power your electronics without it:-) Hopefully, we don't run out of it! In fact, this thread would not exist without it.

I know the owner of the company and the designer; I know what they cost to manufacturer, and thus I know that you're way off with your figures. You've got nothing but empty claims, ntrain.


Anechoic measurements tell you everything you want to know objectively about a speaker. Then there is the room, which can be fixed; simple, really. My in-room response is +/- 5dB without much assistance or EQ above the Schroeder Frequency, and that's from 15Hz-20KHz. After I play around I can achieve +/- 3dB no sweat, which I'll eventually end up doing once things are finalized. All of this was without active crossovers.

You can easily tell if a speaker is good without hearing it in your own room, provided the speakers isn't poorly engineered, of course.


That's your opinion; one a lot of people disagree with. Why would you want to mimic in-room response based on a piece of equipment? If your equipment is giving it's own sonic signature (and isn't of the tube variety) it is flawed. A great speaker is designed with the ultimate goal being low distortion, linearity, good sound power/off-axis response and a relatively easy load. If you need to tweak your speaker to your room's acoustics or to a piece of equipment you've got worse issues than this silly debate.


This really has nothing to do with your silly claims, but thanks for skewing further off-topic.

HA - touche good sir!


Good point, but that wasn't part of your original choices. If you change them, I'll change my response to "the listener."


More claims with no factual or objective foundation? I'm bored already...lets just ignore the troll folks.