State-of-the-Art Loudspeakers

[svart-hvitt]

How is it possible to correlate any or all of these features to the subjective relatively positive impression?

A listening impression is just that; an impression.

A test is much more elaborate; needless to say.

But one could argue that some (probably not all) of those factors mentioned are what describes a SOTA speaker in 2019.

 

[HammerSandwich]

OK, any idiot can buy drivers and "stuff" them in a box.

Well, you've obviously never seen my father work with power tools.

 

[Sal1950]

Instead of a passive crossover they could supply an off the shelf programmable DSP and a configuration file. Some have opined this is easier than designing a passive speaker.

There are programs, just plug in the driver and box specs, out come the file.

 

[Ron Texas]

There are programs, just plug in the driver and box specs, out come the file.

True, but it might take a bit of finesse to get the best results. Since I don't live in the mountains, I can't go into the speaker business. Besides, that's not what I am good with.

 

[MZKM]

i appreciate this feedback as it’s not something I really seriously considered until now I guess. At least two of you guys have indicated that at this price range all you might get for your trouble is different sound. In that regard I guess the Jbl 4367 really is that good... or “state of the art” so to speak.

Room treatment and DSP would make a larger jump in quality than new speakers. You could contact GIK and say you wanna spend maybe $5K. DSP is a bit involved, but if that isn’t a challenge, you could get the MiniDSP SHD and that would be your DAC as well (and even pre-amp if you wished).

JBL 4367 Spironama Plot:

Not the best in the world, but very good.

Even if you wanted a new power amp, McIntosh is overrated, the Benchmark AB42 is astonishingly good, and can even be monoblocked if you need more wattage (would not monoblock if using 4ohm nominal speakers).

 

[vitalii427]

Not the best in the world, but very good

What is better? (Except M2)

would not monoblock if using 4ohm nominal speakers

Why?

 

[MZKM]

What is better? (Except M2)

Why?

Some Vivid Audio Giya models are amazing (but very expensive).

Bridging a stereo amp into mono means the amp sees half the impedance, so instead say 100W into 4ohm for stereo, it does 200W into 8ohm for mono. Because of this, if you have a 4ohm nominal speaker, the bridged amp now sees it as 2ohm nominal, which hardly any amplifiers like to see. If using regular native monoblocks, this isn’t an issue.

 

[vitalii427]

Some Vivid Audio Giya models are amazing (but very expensive).

Giya’s have better on-axis response, but not directivity and distortions. Why else @dallasjustice sold em for 4367?

Bridging a stereo amp into monomeans the amp sees half the impedance, so instead say 100W into 4ohm for stereo, it does 200W into 8ohm for mono. Because of this, if you have a 4ohm nominal speaker, the bridged amp now sees it as 2ohm nominal, which hardly any amplifiers like to see. If using regular native monoblocks, this isn’t an issue.

This is not an issue for bridged mode either.
From official site: “Stereo loads as low as 1.4 Ohms can be cleanly driven to full output levels.”
I assume it will be stable until 2.8 Ohms in bridged mode. So nominal 4 Ohms is no problem.

 

[MZKM]

Giya’s have better on-axis response, but not directivity and distortions. Why else dallasjustice sold em for 4367?


This is not an issue for bridged mode either.
From official site: “Stereo loads as low as 1.4 Ohms can be cleanly driven to full output levels.”
I assume it will be stable until 2.8 Ohms in bridged mode. So nominal 4 Ohms is no problem.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=685:nrc-measurements-vivid-audio-giya-g2-loudspeakers&catid=77&Itemid=18

Some retained energy around 500Hz and 5000Hz, but really good, very low distortion as well. I would say the higher efficiency of the JBL would be a factor.

That 2.8ohm is for minimal impedance, the manual states 6ohm nominal or higher for bridged mono. But yes, if you speaker doesn’t dip too far from the nominal, then 4ohm could be used.

 

[vitalii427]

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=685:nrc-measurements-vivid-audio-giya-g2-loudspeakers&catid=77&Itemid=18

Some retained energy around 500Hz, but really good, very low distortion as well. I would say the higher efficiencies of the JBL would be a factor.

Actually I saw those measurements, but unfortunately there’s no spinorama. And off-axis is not smooth enough to me eye. Fat from M2.

That 2.8ohm is for minimal impedance, the manual states 6ohm nominal or higher for bridged mono. But yes, if you speaker doesn’t dip too far from the nominal, then 4ohm could be used.

Yes, but only if you require full power. Else it will work even into 1 Ohm until it has enough current. And AHB2 is good for almost 60A.

 

[LightninBoy]

I think the confusion around the M2 being active or passive represents the fundamental problem of claiming that "active" speakers are the only true SOTA speakers.

Active speakers refer to any speaker that are self powered. Nothing more. An active speaker says nothing about how the crossover works. Some active (powered) speakers actually use passive crossovers. On the other hand, there are a handful of other speakers, such as the M2, that are passive (not powered), but designed for external amps and potentially external active crossovers. Basically, active vs passive speakers simply means whether the amp is in the speaker box or not. And just because an amp is co-located within the same speaker box in itself provides no sound advantage compared to an external amp.

What the "active" speaker proponents in this thread are really advocating is an "active" topology. That topology is "Active Crossover -> amp -> Driver" versus the traditional "amp -> passive crossover -> driver" topology. In some modern cases the active topology is "DAC/DSP/Active Crossover -> Amp". Whatever the topology, how it manifests itself physically (all in one box or in separate boxes) is not relevant to the sound quality.

Viewed this way, the typical Home theater setup shares much with the active topology. The HT processor is acting as a DAC/Active Crossover and in many cases applying room correction eq via DSP. Then signals with the appropriate frequency bands are sent to separate amp channels that in turn power subs, mains, and surrounds. Sure the mains and surrounds are still injecting passive crossovers into the signal path, but after all the upstream processing and EQ, how much are those passive crossovers really detracting from the ideal active topology? I would think very little, provided they are well designed.

In any event, I think this discussion would greatly benefit by making the distinction between the active topology vs active speakers, and pressing the advantages of the active topology instead of active speakers.

 

[vitalii427]

I think the confusion around the M2 being active or passive represents the fundamental problem of claiming that "active" speakers are the only true SOTA speakers.

Active speakers refer to any speaker that are self powered. Nothing more. An active speaker says nothing about how the crossover works. Some active (powered) speakers actually use analog crossovers. On the other hand, there are a handful of other speakers, such as the M2, that are passive (not powered), but designed for external amps and potentially external active crossovers. Basically, active vs passive speakers simply means whether the amp is in the speaker box or not. And just because an amp is co-located within the same speaker box in itself provides no sound advantage compared to an external amp.

What the "active" speaker proponents in this thread are really advocating is an "active" topology. That topology is "Active Crossover -> amp -> Driver" versus the traditional "amp -> analog crossover -> driver" topology. In some modern cases the active topology is "DAC/DSP/Active Crossover -> Amp". Whatever the topology, how it manifests itself physically (all in one box or in separate boxes) is not relevant to the sound quality.

Viewed this way, the typical Home theater setup shares much with the active topology. The HT processor is acting as a DAC/Active Crossover and in many cases applying room correction eq via DSP. Then signals with the appropriate frequency bands are sent to separate amp channels that in turn power subs, mains, and surrounds. Sure the mains and surrounds are still injecting analog crossovers into the signal path, but after all the upstream processing and EQ, how much are those analog crossovers really detracting from the ideal active topology? I would think very little.

In any event, I think this discussion would greatly benefit by making the distinction between the active topology vs active speakers, and pressing the advantages of the active topology instead of active speakers.

I agree. Only some edits. In active topology at least two amps. And M2 has no internal crossover, so it should definitely use external one.

 

[RayDunzl]

M2 has no internal crossover

It has a passive high pass filter for the horn.

JBL M2 Tech Manual

 

[Cosmik]

I think the confusion around the M2 being active or passive represents the fundamental problem of claiming that "active" speakers are the only true SOTA speakers.

Active speakers refer to any speaker that are self powered. Nothing more. An active speaker says nothing about how the crossover works. Some active (powered) speakers actually use passive crossovers. On the other hand, there are a handful of other speakers, such as the M2, that are passive (not powered), but designed for external amps and potentially external active crossovers. Basically, active vs passive speakers simply means whether the amp is in the speaker box or not. And just because an amp is co-located within the same speaker box in itself provides no sound advantage compared to an external amp.

What the "active" speaker proponents in this thread are really advocating is an "active" topology. That topology is "Active Crossover -> amp -> Driver" versus the traditional "amp -> passive crossover -> driver" topology. In some modern cases the active topology is "DAC/DSP/Active Crossover -> Amp". Whatever the topology, how it manifests itself physically (all in one box or in separate boxes) is not relevant to the sound quality.

Viewed this way, the typical Home theater setup shares much with the active topology. The HT processor is acting as a DAC/Active Crossover and in many cases applying room correction eq via DSP. Then signals with the appropriate frequency bands are sent to separate amp channels that in turn power subs, mains, and surrounds. Sure the mains and surrounds are still injecting passive crossovers into the signal path, but after all the upstream processing and EQ, how much are those passive crossovers really detracting from the ideal active topology? I would think very little, provided they are well designed.

In any event, I think this discussion would greatly benefit by making the distinction between the active topology vs active speakers, and pressing the advantages of the active topology instead of active speakers.

It's a very simple problem: make several cones move in a way that, when combined, act as one, and under the explicit control of the designer - even if the designer is really a piece of software. Whatever you call it, it is distinct from systems that are slave to the foibles of transducers and boxes and what they do when told vaguely to waft about at the end of thin copper wires and bits of waxed paper.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I think the confusion around the M2 being active or passive represents the fundamental problem of claiming that "active" speakers are the only true SOTA speakers.

Active speakers refer to any speaker that are self powered. Nothing more. An active speaker says nothing about how the crossover works. Some active (powered) speakers actually use passive crossovers. On the other hand, there are a handful of other speakers, such as the M2, that are passive (not powered), but designed for external amps and potentially external active crossovers. Basically, active vs passive speakers simply means whether the amp is in the speaker box or not. And just because an amp is co-located within the same speaker box in itself provides no sound advantage compared to an external amp.

What the "active" speaker proponents in this thread are really advocating is an "active" topology. That topology is "Active Crossover -> amp -> Driver" versus the traditional "amp -> passive crossover -> driver" topology. In some modern cases the active topology is "DAC/DSP/Active Crossover -> Amp". Whatever the topology, how it manifests itself physically (all in one box or in separate boxes) is not relevant to the sound quality.

Viewed this way, the typical Home theater setup shares much with the active topology. The HT processor is acting as a DAC/Active Crossover and in many cases applying room correction eq via DSP. Then signals with the appropriate frequency bands are sent to separate amp channels that in turn power subs, mains, and surrounds. Sure the mains and surrounds are still injecting passive crossovers into the signal path, but after all the upstream processing and EQ, how much are those passive crossovers really detracting from the ideal active topology? I would think very little, provided they are well designed.

In any event, I think this discussion would greatly benefit by making the distinction between the active topology vs active speakers, and pressing the advantages of the active topology instead of active speakers.

Did you read this?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...understand-the-appeal.6456/page-5#post-144682

In the 50 year jubilee article from AES the defintions used are «active crossover networks» and «active filters».

So we have all the definitions we need to have a proper discussion on active vs passive.

 

[Ron Texas]

Why would a speaker which is designed to run bi-amplified downstream of a DSP have a passive high pass filter on the HF unit?

 

[RayDunzl]

Why would a speaker which is designed to run bi-amplified downstream of a DSP have a passive high pass filter on the HF unit?

Protection from misconfiguration

 

[Ron Texas]

Protection from misconfiguration

Good answer.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Why would a speaker which is designed to run bi-amplified downstream of a DSP have a passive high pass filter on the HF unit?

Often, especially in PA speakers, a cap is placed on the HF driver to protect it from DC.

I’m guessing in the case of the M2, given the greater complexity of the passive filter, that it’s there also to interact with a standard active HPF to produce the correct crossover slope. More specifically, given that the M2 uses a constant directivity waveguide, that the passive filter corrects the downward sloping response of the HF unit.

 

[Ron Texas]

Often, especially in PA speakers, a cap is placed on the HF driver to protect it from DC.

I’m guessing in the case of the M2, given the greater complexity of the passive filter, that it’s there also to interact with a standard active HPF to produce the correct crossover slope. More specifically, given that the M2 uses a constant directivity waveguide, that the passive filter corrects the downward sloping response of the HF unit.

A more interesting answer.