yachadm:

I definitely disagree on that.

Being that powered speakers are a "newish" and recent technology (generally speaking) [...]

Before you disagree, you should have read my post again. I wasn't talking "powered" speakers, I was talking "active" speakers. Although active speakers have an amp often built into the speakers (but no always), it's the crossover that is "active", as opposed to "passive" speakers which has a passive crossover.

What this means, is that a "powered" speaker is using a passive crossover and has a single amp to drive the various number of units in the speaker, whereas an active design uses an active crossover at line level, which then feeds into an amp which in turn only drives a single  driver each.

There's a world of difference between an active speaker and a passive, powered or not.

Active speaker design is not some ""newish" and recent" tech. It has been the standard in studios and live music for more than three decades, and B&O uses active design in all their speakers (except their Beovox 1) for a reason. 

The hi fi world, though, are ass-barckwards, and are still holding on to their precious passive speakers which has the crossover after the signal has been amplified

yachadm:

I do it all the time with customers, and they are very disappointed when they discover that I can't order them a pair just like mine, because they've been out of production for over 30 years! But that always clinches the order for a restoration of their existing equipment! It really puts them out when they understand that modern digital junk can't hold a candle to a 35 year-old 40Watt system. 

I'm not talking "digital junk" at all. But with comment, I take it you're probably one of the blokes who thinks a turn table sounds so much better than a digital file, even if a vinyl has rumble, poor separation between left and right channel, almost no dynamic range and the higher frequencies are almost gone.

A 40W amplifier will mean the amp will clip whenever there's dynamic range present- even at low volume. A 40watt amp driving some passive speakers is asking for distortion.

yachadm:

Maybe HiFi World should get a couple of my restored units in for their tests, and then we'll really see the sparks of jealousy fly among all the B&O haters! A 40 year-old system blowing away their brand-new 1000W digi-garbage. And maybe that's why people can't say a good word about B&O. Because B&O essentially wrote the book about reliability. It's still being proven 60, 40, and 20 years later.

I like B&O. Mostly their speakers. Because they were among the first who realised that in order to achieve better audio quality, you would have to use active speaker design. They were among the first consumer products manufacturers that took it to heart and domesticated the studio "design", and made it possible to have active speakers in our homes without making it look like we were trying to have a studio at home.

When you speak "1000W digi-garbage", are you seriously thinking that your 40W passive setup can do better than a properly designed 1000w active design?If so, that is exactly the audiophilic nonsense I talked about in my first post.

Doctor:

Well I actually sort of agree with both of you! I agree that S45-2s will give any small speaker a very good run for its money, but the S45-2 has a volume of 26 litres compared to 4 litres of the Beolab 4000. A similar sized speaker in the passive range would be the CX100!  And I know which I would choose!

I know you aren't arguing against the notion of active speakers, but I think I need to mention that I did write "of similar size".  Because if one has to compare, the best is to limit the differences as much as possible, preferably everything, except the thing you want to test. In this case, we were talking active and passives crossovers.

But even so, it doesn't mean bigger is better per se. But if we take bigger 3-way and 4-way speakers, the active design will be even further ahead than if we compare small 2-way speakers.

Your posts highlight your ignorance.

I almost commented on what you said earlier, but deleted my reply thinking that I didn't want to start an argument.

First off, you don't have to explain to yachadm what an active speaker is - 'betcha he knows more about electronics than you or I put together.

Second, you opine that just by making a speaker active, it suddenly transforms into some otherwordly creation or something.

No one is arguing that a passive X-over doesn't introduce inefficiencies and non-linearites into the equation. However, you cannot blindly say that any active speaker will out-do a passive speaker of equal size. That is blatantly naive.

It's all in the execution, and there are many passive speakers that will walk B&O's active speakers. They use all their available amplifier headroom for bass boost at low volumes for goodness sake. That's not to speak of all the distortion a little 3 or 4 inch driver with 5 liters of volume to work with makes trying to reproduce a credible 40 or 50 cycles at any decent volume level.

Too many variables to make a broad generalized statement like that. It just depends.

Jon

Jon:

Your posts highlight your ignorance.

Rather, it seems you guys take it as a personal offense the moment someone doesn't agree with you.

I almost commented on what you said earlier, but deleted my reply thinking that I didn't want to start an argument.

Yet you start your post the way you do

First off, you don't have to explain to yachadm what an active speaker is - 'betcha he knows more about electronics than you or I put together.

LOL, that is funny. I work with audio on daily basis, and it's not in retail. It's in the audio production side of things. So, no, that is not likely at all, and his use of the word "powered" as a synonym for active, his claims that his 40W passive set up will outperform an active 1000w design, mixed with his view that active (or "powered" as he put it) is "newish" and "recent" doesn't actually substantiate your claim.

Second, you opine that just by making a speaker active, it suddenly transforms into some otherwordly creation or something.

You make it sound like "active" is a small thing. It's not. It's using a cross over on the line level side of things AND adding an amp to each driver. If done by the book and you don't use some underpowered amps, yes, it will transform the box with drivers to something much more than, well, a box with drivers.

No one is arguing that a passive X-over doesn't introduce inefficiencies and non-linearites into the equation. However, you cannot blindly say that any active speaker will out-do a passive speaker of equal size. That is blatantly naive.

It's all in the execution, and there are many passive speakers that will walk B&O's active speakers. They use all their available amplifier headroom for bass boost at low volumes for goodness sake.

You seem confused about the tech.  I am not talking about bass boost at all. I'm talking active design and having amps for each driver, powerfull  enough not to clip. Bass boost doesn't even enter into it. I'm talking distortion and, by extension, clipping.

That's not to speak of all the distortion a little 3 or 4 inch driver with 5 liters of volume to work with makes trying to reproduce a credible 40 or 50 cycles at any decent volume level.

Hmm, again, a mediocre active design will still walk over a passive. That distortion inherent in every driver will actually be exaggerated by the passive design. Having an active design doesn't stop with the crossover. each driver is controlled by a single amp, and thus will be better controlled, allowing the driver inherent distortion to be minized.

What's worse is that the argument is that his 35 year old speaker is better than a 1000W active design, but the reality is, that his speakers has run it's course when it comes to accurate reproduction of audio.  Unless of course, you put more modern and more powerful drivers in it and update the internals.  In which case, of course, it's more or less just a reused box.

Too many variables to make a broad generalized statement like that. It just depends.

Sounds like yet another audiophilic notion to me. If the goal is low distortion and accuracy in reproduction, no it doesn't "just depends".

yachadm:

 It really puts them out when they understand that modern digital junk can't hold a candle to a 35 year-old 40Watt system. 

 

A 40 year-old system blowing away their brand-new 1000W digi-garbage.

 

Menahem

You seem to be under the impression that Class-D is "digital"?

In that respect, the D-signifier has been quite unfortunate for that technology.

Hey guys, take it easy - I goofed.

I misread the active vs powered in Electrified's posting.

Yes, I know the difference between active vs passive X-over, and active vs powered speakers.

And, no, I'm not in retail (I'm a very poor b-llsh-tter, so I can't convince people to buy something I know is cr-p inside) - I restore electronics, as opposed to repair, so I am strictly technical, with a whole lot of design thrown in for good measure. BeoWorld doesn't like me writing my website address on the website (so I can't direct you there directly, but if you Google "Beogram restoration", you'll find me on the first search page), and I'm OK with that.

When I speak about digi-garbage, I refer to all that DSP nonsense, which thinks it can make the human voice sound better than it is in real life, by turning it into a bunch of 0's and 1's. And being that almost all modern high-end has DSP in it, well, that's just plain unfortunate (IMHO). I'd much rather have my wife yell at me in her ordinary voice, than with a robotic sounding DSP modified voice.

And, I'll still put my restored BeoMasters with BeoVoxes (is that BeoFoxes;-) next to anything modern you lprefer, at Normal Listening Levels - I'll just shut up, and let your ears tell you which sounds more enjoyable, relaxing, happy, pleasing to the ear, non-fatiguing, Oh I could go on, couldn't I ;-?

I'm actually working on an Arcam AVR350 right now. I couldn't believe all the stroke-my-back crap that the audio press put out about this sounding so musical, best-in-its-class, etc. Out of the box, it sounds like sh-t. Component quality is atrocious - I can't believe that none of the reveiwers opened it up and said - "Hey, what's all this garbage in here? How does Arcam get away charging 1000's of pounds for what is essentially a mediocre Chinese product?"

Well I guess all the reviewers' ears have been dumbed down over the years, just accepting lower and lowwwwwer quality, so they can't tell the difference between good and bad anymore.

That's why I've got my 40-year-old B&O reference systems - well, I call them reference systems anyway.

And, take it easy - BeoWorld has been a friendly place for many years, where people manage to disagree about technical stuff without letting egos get in the way ;-))))

Menahem

Thanks Menahem,

On the other side of things, I am sorry for the tone of things.

With that said, though, DSP is not simply turning it into 0s and 1s. There is nothing wrong with digital, we have used it for decades, and it's much better than analogue in the distortion, imaging,dynamic range, and noise floor departments. But DSP is "tweaking" that digital signal so it sounds different from what it actually is. 

So, while I agree that DSP is a bad thing in general, it has nothing to do with analogue vs. digital, but rather it's a question of whether one should try to alter the sound of said audio stream after the fact, and how we alter it.

An analogue equivalent could be as simple as the loudness button. I don't think such a button is a bad thing per se if used correctly. It is meant to make up for the fact that at lower volumes our ears amplify the frequencies where speech sits, so to keep the balance between voice, bass and treble, such a button can make it pleasureably at low volumes. That is the analogue equivalent to DSP, when done correctly. DSP is often misused and awful, but that doesn't mean that all digital are DSP'd.

I can and do see the advantages of active speakers. You are quite correct that using a cross over before the power amplification has a host of benefits. I will also agree that passive speakers have compromises built in by their very design. However I disagree that passive speakers can be simply written off as an anachronism these days. Many of the best speakers available today are passive and can be easily compared to the best active designs.

A lot of B&O speakers use active design to compensate for design problems - the Beolab 6000 is an appalling design for a speaker but can be made to sound reasonable by the use of active amplification. The Beolab 2500 is an even more extreme example with the frequency response of the amplifier resembling a ski slope.B&O also used active speakers to allow the head unit to be shrunk and to allow better multi-room performance - both perfectly reasonable goals.

In my view, to see the true benefits of active design requires one to go to the Beolab 5, and even at that price range, good passive speakers can be seen that will perform at a similar level.

You do have very strong views - experience has shown me over the years that most issues are grey rather than black and white!

As is often the case, Peter brings a sane voice to the debate! 

There are good active loudspeakers, like the BL5, the bigger Meridian DSPs and the little known but exceptional ATCs.  But there are some stunningly good 'passives' as well, and arguably the Quad Electrostatics, in virtually all its manifestations over the last 50 years, takes some beating for accuracy, clarity and lucidity - and it doesn't need massive loads of power to drive the relatively complex load. 

I've owned or llstened seriously to a lot of speakers over the last 45 years or so as well as attending live (accoustic classical or jazz) concerts as much as possible so I have a pretty good idea of what instruments and voices actually sound like.  I could happily live with either active or passive speakers - one approach is no better than the other.  As always, God is in the details.

Cleve

Cleviebaby:

one approach is no better than the other

Nonsense. That argument only works if you're not aiming to have the least distortion and most accurate reproduction. If you take that out of it, yes, no approach is better than the other, then it is all subjective.

But if high fidelity (litterally), least distortion and most accurate reproduction is the goal, some types and approaches are better - measurably better - than other approaches.

Active vs. passive is one place where it is not only measurable, but also quite easy to tell which approach is used. Of course, using turntables and underpowered passive setups as a reference point might mean you have to learn what to listen for. 

Doctor:

I can and do see the advantages of active speakers. You are quite correct that using a cross over before the power amplification has a host of benefits. I will also agree that passive speakers have compromises built in by their very design. However I disagree that passive speakers can be simply written off as an anachronism these days. Many of the best speakers available today are passive and can be easily compared to the best active designs.

They have  been "dead" for three decades in the fidelity stakes. Just like valve amps have been dead for, how much is it? 50 years?

I don't doubt that passives speakers can be good enough. But no matter how much money you spend on the fabrication of them, you still cannot offer the same as an active design offers. It's not just about the crossover, it entails an amp for each driver in those speakers, and no matter how powerful an amp you use in the passive system, it's still a passive system, resulting in less control and more distortion.

Also, it will not remove the problem of the passive crossover being very present just where you don't want it.

Doctor:

lot of B&O speakers use active design to compensate for design problems - the Beolab 6000 is an appalling design for a speaker but can be made to sound reasonable by the use of active amplification. The Beolab 2500 is an even more extreme example with the frequency response of the amplifier resembling a ski slope.B&O also used active speakers to allow the head unit to be shrunk and to allow better multi-room performance - both perfectly reasonable goals.

That is not an argument against active designs. That is actually showing just how much a difference it makes to use an active design. If either of those speakers were passive, they would be unbearable to listen to. It shows how superior an active design is and how much better it is compared to a passive design.

Doctor:

In my view, to see the true benefits of active design requires one to go to the Beolab 5, and even at that price range, good passive speakers can be seen that will perform at a similar level.

You can do very well with the BL9s, or even the ADM9.1s or choose from a slew of studio monitors in all shapes and sizes (nearfield, farfield, 2-way, 3-way etc.).

And no, no passive speaker is able to gid rid of the god awful distortion of a passive crossover  right smack in the middle of what you listen to.

You do have very strong views - experience has shown me over the years that most issues are grey rather than black and white!

True, I do have strong views. But not everything is grey. Some things are black & white: Mussolini killed millions of people, the earth is round, Mount Everest is a mountain, The Great Lakes is a cluster of big lakes in North America, if properly dimensioned, you can't tell a difference between a cheap, cheap speaker cable and one costing thousands of dollars, and a mediocre active design will run rings around a similar sized passive.  The only way to get rid of the shortcomings of a passive setup is to make it active. And as such, an active design will always be better, assuming it is implemented properly.

Can't we all be friends?

I'm with the good Doctor here - the world tends to be not so black&white.

As I'm also in the position of moving with ease from my BL5 equipped and quite large listening room to my Beolab 5000/Beogram 4000/Dynaudio Focus 140 equipped reading room, which is also of a good size - I can attest to the fact that both active and passive solutions are quite ear-pleasing.

In fact, I like to take my acquaintances on a listening tour that begins with listening to a record and then Redbook file of the same music (via a DAC) on the Beolab 5000; and then moving into the BL5 room to listen to the same recording there. And then we discuss the pro's&con's of that experience.

For fun - I throw in listening to the same music from a Musicassette through the BL5s, and when we have time and I've connected for it, I'll even move the record into the BL5 room and play that through the active speakers.

We get great enjoyment out of these listening sessions, and learn quite a lot. For years, I've had a SOTA digital playback chain to the BL5s; and for the same number of years I've also had an excellent passive playback chain for analogue sources in the adjoining room. I get great enjoyment from listening to both.
Last time I did this, an American acquaintance became so enthusiastic by what he heard from the Beolab 5000/Dynaudio combo that he immediately ordered a Beolab/Beomaster 5000 from Classic Audio, and he has the speakers waiting for the set to be completed, just in time for Christmas.

And only the other day, I listened to a pair of Beovox 75 speakers that had been refurbished, and which got my foot tapping right away. I don't see this as either-or at all. We're very fortunate to be able to enjoy quality playback through beautiful components, no matter which avenue we choose. Now that I've added Pure Music to my BL5 chain, I'm even more pleased about what I hear through that; but I also find myself spending a lot of time listening to my "passive" set-up, not feeling I should be in the room next door instead. 

Say Menahem, what do you use to drive your S45-2s?

Electrified:

Jon:

Your posts highlight your ignorance.

Rather, it seems you guys take it as a personal offense the moment someone doesn't agree with you.

 

I almost commented on what you said earlier, but deleted my reply thinking that I didn't want to start an argument.

Yet you start your post the way you do

First off, you don't have to explain to yachadm what an active speaker is - 'betcha he knows more about electronics than you or I put together.

LOL, that is funny. I work with audio on daily basis, and it's not in retail. It's in the audio production side of things. So, no, that is not likely at all, and his use of the word "powered" as a synonym for active, his claims that his 40W passive set up will outperform an active 1000w design, mixed with his view that active (or "powered" as he put it) is "newish" and "recent" doesn't actually substantiate your claim.

Second, you opine that just by making a speaker active, it suddenly transforms into some otherwordly creation or something.

You make it sound like "active" is a small thing. It's not. It's using a cross over on the line level side of things AND adding an amp to each driver. If done by the book and you don't use some underpowered amps, yes, it will transform the box with drivers to something much more than, well, a box with drivers.

 

No one is arguing that a passive X-over doesn't introduce inefficiencies and non-linearites into the equation. However, you cannot blindly say that any active speaker will out-do a passive speaker of equal size. That is blatantly naive.

It's all in the execution, and there are many passive speakers that will walk B&O's active speakers. They use all their available amplifier headroom for bass boost at low volumes for goodness sake.

You seem confused about the tech.  I am not talking about bass boost at all. I'm talking active design and having amps for each driver, powerfull  enough not to clip. Bass boost doesn't even enter into it. I'm talking distortion and, by extension, clipping.

That's not to speak of all the distortion a little 3 or 4 inch driver with 5 liters of volume to work with makes trying to reproduce a credible 40 or 50 cycles at any decent volume level.

Hmm, again, a mediocre active design will still walk over a passive. That distortion inherent in every driver will actually be exaggerated by the passive design. Having an active design doesn't stop with the crossover. each driver is controlled by a single amp, and thus will be better controlled, allowing the driver inherent distortion to be minized.

What's worse is that the argument is that his 35 year old speaker is better than a 1000W active design, but the reality is, that his speakers has run it's course when it comes to accurate reproduction of audio.  Unless of course, you put more modern and more powerful drivers in it and update the internals.  In which case, of course, it's more or less just a reused box.

Too many variables to make a broad generalized statement like that. It just depends.

Sounds like yet another audiophilic notion to me. If the goal is low distortion and accuracy in reproduction, no it doesn't "just depends".

 

Well, I honestly don't care if you agree with me, I just wanted to point out that you making an all-encompassing statement like this is false and naive.

Internet, Email, and text messaging suck at conveying emotion, so I was hesitant to respond because I knew I would sound angry and worked up, even though I wasn't. If I still do, know that I'm not worked up over some post on the internet that has no affect on my life.

That being said, this is an A/V forum, and I came here to talk about audio, so I'm here to tell you that the quality of execution has more to do with a successful, high-fidelity speaker, than does it simply being an active design. If you believe the accuracy of a speaker is determined by it being active with lots of power thrown at it, then cool, hold to your beliefs. Meanwhile, there are many other important, determining factors.

How many speakers actually have 1000w of amplification? Beolab 5's. Okay. Not too many others. Lots of active subwoofers. How can you say that EQ makes no difference in these designs? With a BL5 you're looking at probably at least 10dB of low end EQ, leaving you with only 100 watts of usable power. With a BL8000, you've got what, 150w? Again, with a very likely 10dB of EQ or so, you're left with 15 paltry watts of usable power. Way less headroom than an old 40w amp.

I don't know. Whatever. It just sucks when people make incorrect. all-encompassing statements like this. It makes the rest of us B&O enthusiats look uneducated.

Jon

We have a nice forum and its interesting, and for me relxing to read all the discutions going on.

But please consider: Not all af us use the same terms, as a lot of do not speak English as our mother langauge and with that you get some misunderstandings, forthermore a lot of us are "Happy amateurs" doing our best to keep up with the slang that the experts use, so have a little patience with us outlandish sounding (bose ) people.

But keep it comming

Jon:

That being said, this is an A/V forum, and I came here to talk about audio, so I'm here to tell you that the quality of execution has more to do with a successful, high-fidelity speaker, than does it simply being an active design. If you believe the accuracy of a speaker is determined by it being active with lots of power thrown at it, then cool, hold to your beliefs

It's not "beliefs". It's an opinion derived from many measurements and a even more listening sessions. It's not that difficult to hear the passive crossover in speakers. Not even in speakers costing more than the BL5s.

 You completely ignore that I had written "even a mediocre active design". With that I think I've shown that the argument you put forth is strawman, because I never said it was as simple as any active is capable of beating any passive. I said that a mediocre active design would beat any passive of similar size. But I guess it's easier to pretend I used no qualifiers in order to continue you guys' tirade against this "newish and recent technology" ...

Jon:

How many speakers actually have 1000w of amplification? Beolab 5's. Okay. Not too many others. Lots of active subwoofers.

I was the one suggesting small active speakers with about 100 watts of amplification to make sure it didn't clip (too much). It wasn't me who introduced the "1000W digital garbage" to the discussion.

Oh, and a subwoofer isn't "active" just because it has an amplifier in it.

Jon:

. How can you say that EQ makes no difference in these designs?

I'm saying that bass boost is not the reason to go active as that was the notion put forth. I disagreed. I am not saying that equaliser doesn't matter in the sonic stakes, but it's irrelevant when we talk active versus passive.

Jon:

With a BL5 you're looking at probably at least 10dB of low end EQ, leaving you with only 100 watts of usable power. With a BL8000, you've got what, 150w? Again, with a very likely 10dB of EQ or so, you're left with 15 paltry watts of usable power. Way less headroom than an old 40w amp.

Do your math again.

The EQ is done at line level, not after it has been amplified as in a passive design.

Jon:

I don't know. Whatever. It just sucks when people make incorrect. all-encompassing statements like this. It makes the rest of us B&O enthusiats look uneducated.

Statements like yours about being uneducated rings pretty hollow when your math is shot, you don't understand what is written and then try to correct me by making ignorant statements yourself. So, yes, my posts may make you sound uneducated, but that's your own fault.

Søren Mexico:

We have a nice forum and its interesting, and for me relxing to read all the discutions going on.

But please consider: Not all af us use the same terms, as a lot of do not speak English as our mother langauge and with that you get some misunderstandings, forthermore a lot of us are "Happy amateurs" doing our best to keep up with the slang that the experts use, so have a little patience with us outlandish sounding (bose ) people.

But keep it comming

Well, if we're talking details we need to use the proper terms to describe those details. In the remaining parts of our respective posts I, for one, don't care about the language. I can't, as I'm Danish. You won't hear me demanding that we all speak the Queen's English

You make, as usual , a very cogent argument. Obviously putting electrical components between amplifier and driver is always going to complicate and degrade the sound - I am happy to agree with you there!

Speakers however appeal to different people for different reasons. I like LS3/5A speakers which have numerous faults and one could argue have no place in a Hi-Fi system. However the way they reproduce the human voice betters any other speaker of this size and price in my opinion. Equally the valve amplifiers which you deride (and which I have no time for either!) are loved by many become of the distortion they produce. Therefore if you are arguing from a technical point of view and using accuracy as your ultimate goal, you are right. If you are measuring listening pleasure, you need to take into account the foibles of human choice.

On good argumentative technique, I always remember my father, at a dinner party, waxing lyrically about how cars  kept in garages, especially those that were heated , were far more likely to rust. Warmth could only accelerate the corrosive process and therefore keeping one's car outside was clearly more sensible. The listeners were completely won over by his argument until, when leaving, they passed by his car. The remnants of the wheel arches of his rather sad Ford gave no possible support to his assertions!

By the way, I have said this before but it is worth repeating; I am in complete awe of our non English members who are able to post such superbly argued statements in what is for them a foreign language. B&O seems to attract a most erudite crowd!

Thanks Doc

Yes, I do argue from a  standpoint of getting the most accurate reproduction.

But it's not that I think it's awful to use a turntable or passive speakers per se. One just has to realise that it is not the most accurate reproduction. That particular combination (turntable and passive speakers) is awful for me to listen to. I really can't stand it, and I don't say that because it rhetorically fits with my argument. I really get annoyed when listening to such a setup. Occupational hazard I guess.

With that said, I began in audio with reel-to-reel editing, portable cassette recorders and dynamic microphones. Talk about poor sound, but reel-to-reel recorders still have a big place in my heart, and if I had the room, I'd happily have a big monster sitting in my living room. I like it. At times I even like the tape saturation, but I would never begin to think that it could compare with even an Olympus LS11, and certainly not a Sound Devices 7xx-series. As for playback on the thing, well, it can't even begin to compete with digital "stuff".

I still would love to have a Nagra SN miniature reel-to-reel. That is one hell of an engineering feat! I wouldn't use it for work, though, lol.

You would get on with Tim Jarman - a tape lover through and through! He still carries a portable broadcast tape recorder - not a Nagra mind you. I think it is a Uher. He bemoans the demise of tape as a recording  medium and despises the rise of low quality MP3 as its replacement.

I spotted a Nagra on eBay! I'll not be troubling the scorers on this one though!

I now use mainly digital sources - either high quality AAC or lossless. My high frequency hearing is now down to about 13khz so innaccuracies are no longer a problem!

Here we agree. In fact, to achieve the most accurate reproduction possible, you should:

1. Get hold of 24/96 studiomasters. This is now possible from a variety of places.

2. Play these from, for instance, a DAW-enabled Mac through a studio-quality soundcard.

3. To a pair of active studio monitors.

4. Which you listen to in near-field.

You would then achieve the accuracy that sound engineers rely on when working towards the final product.

My claim - you wouldn't want to listen to this for any length of time, because this set-up is designed to penetrate what you are listening to, and to assist you in analysing it. It is comparable to bringing along a CAT-Scanner on a date.

As people have different preferences, and differing perceptual abilities, they end up choosing the simulation of the original that is most pleasing to them - and very often this involves considerable distortion to this signal. From an engineering and oscilloscope point of view, it is incomprehensible - from a cognitive, perfectly understandable.

There is absolutely no way on earth that a vinyl reproduction is anywhere close to what was originally recorded. There is an immense amount of distortion involved, from a "purity" point-of-view. But the end result becomes pleasing to the ear, as it is apparent that the harmonics that are added through this kind of playback (often accentuated with tube-amp's) goes right to the core of what constitutes listening pleasure for many. And they'll even argue that it sounds more real, and must be closer to the original recording, when all kinds of objective data show that it is no such thing. (Just the fact that you have to compensate for different tracking speeds along the groove as the stylus moves towards the centre tells you a little about the amount of distortion required to be able to simply create a vinyl record signal.)

Still, these objective facts are moot, if the result they lead to looks perfect on the scope, but wears down the ear. Add to this the fact that most of our listening is through prejudices (which is what the thread is about), and it really becomes complicated. The acoustic lenses of a BL5 add their own distortion to the sound, compared to other speaker designs, but when I first heard their output I knew I had found what was most pleasing to my ears. And I couldn't care less about measurements, if any, that said otherwise. These days, horn speakers are becoming very popular, and people listening to them will state that they are absolutely pure in their reproduction of sound - and they'll get angry at you when you tell them that even some leading manufacturers of horns state that there is no other element in the sound reproduction chain that causes as much non-linear distortion as a horn equipped driver. But it's clearly distortion that pleases the ear ... if not, there wouldn't be an increase in the sales of these. (I think they are popular because they help take the edge off the digital signal in a pleasing way.)

Cheers!

Here's what the person in charge of designing horn-speakers for JBL says about the topic:

Horn drivers have the worst nonlinear distortion compared to other components of professional sound systems (omitting free propagation distortion). Some of the driver's distortions can be mitigated by proper mechanical measures. However, distortions caused by nonlinear air compression and propagation are inherent to any horn driver. In this work the comparison of nonlinear distortions caused by different sources is carried through measurements and modeling. The new dynamic model of compression driver is based on the system of nonlinear differential and algebraic equations. Complex impedance of an arbitrary horn is considered by turning the impedance into a system of differential equations describing the pressure and velocity at the horn's throat. Comparison is carried out using harmonic distortion and the reaction to multitone.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11243

Uhh! That Ebay auction is tempting! Isn't it impressive?

But I have to disagree with Tim (of course). Most recorders used for broadcast are capable of recording in bwf (wav), and many is capable of 24bit  (even the Olympus LS11) and some all the way up to 192kHz.

I think that is much what I said above but put in a much better way!

As I see it, B&O have attempted through the years to provide listeners with a particular type of sound. I am not sure that it is always the most accurate but it has tended to have a certain character which lends itself to extended listening without drawing attention to itself. Other companies have done the same but have chosen a different type of sound - Linn and Naim spring readily to mind. I think this allows the listener to choose and is therefore 'a good thing'. I am pretty sure none of them will be completely accurate but differ in the type of distortion they introduce.

soundproof:

These days, horn speakers are becoming very popular, and people listening to them will state that they are absolutely pure in their reproduction of sound - and they'll get angry at you when you tell them that even some leading manufacturers state that there is no other element in the sound reproduction chain that causes as much non-linear distortion as a horn equipped driver. But it's clearly distortion that pleases the ear ... if not, there wouldn't be an increase in the sales of these.

soundproof:

Here we agree. In fact, to achieve the most accurate reproduction possible, you should:

1. Get hold of 24/96 studiomasters. This is now possible from a variety of places.

2. Play these from, for instance, a DAW-enabled Mac through a studio-quality soundcard.

3. To a pair of active studio monitors.

4. Which you listen to in near-field.

You would then achieve the accuracy that sound engineers rely on when working towards the final product.

LOL, I know - I make a pretty decent living in the audio production side of things, using a combination of nearfields, farfields, and headphones.

soundproof:

My claim - you wouldn't want to listen to this for any length of time, because this set-up is designed to penetrate what you are listening to, and to assist you in analysing it. It is comparable to bringing along a CAT-Scanner on a date.

Well, I disagree. I don't find it tiring to not listen to distortion.  What I do find tiring is lack of separation(turntables), passive crossovers, clipping and distortion in general. It's not "trying to penetrate" anything, it's accurately reproducing.  There's a world of difference.

soundproof:

As people have different preferences, and differing perceptual abilities, they end up choosing the simulation of the original that is most pleasing to them - and very often this involves considerable distortion to this signal. From an engineering and oscilloscope point of view, it is incomprehensible - from a cognitive, perfectly understandable.

I agree. I only have a problem when people try to argue that their (distorting) personal choice is as good as something measurably much better. It's not.

soundproof:

There is absolutely no way on earth that a vinyl reproduction is anywhere close to what was originally recorded. There is an immense amount of distortion involved, from a "purity" point-of-view. But the end result becomes pleasing to the ear, as it is apparent that the harmonics that are added through this kind of playback (accentuated with tube-amp's) goes right to the core of what constitutes listening pleasure for many.

No it's certainly not more pleasing the moment you find out there is poor channel separation, poor imaging as a result, and a lack of dynamic range, not to mention the rumble and static noise, it becomes unbearable and just as bad as listening to a song in 32kbps mp2. It is not pleasing to my ears at all. Lack of fidelity never is. And I honestly don't want my audio to sound like its played through a pillow with speakers separated by ten centimeters.

soundproof:

And they'll even argue that it sound more real, and must be closer to the original recording, when all kinds of objective data show that it is no such thing. (Just the fact that you have to compensate for different tracking speeds as the stylus moves towards the centre tells you a little about the amount of distortion required to be able to simply create a vinyl record.)

I agree. And that is where I think they need to be educated as stated earlier. They might as well claim that headphones are good when it comes to imaging. They may feel it, but that doesn't make it factual, nor on par with what one can measure. Hearing is flawed. It really is, and we don't have a good memory for what we hear, unless it is words. We ca measure much better than we can hear, and although I rely on my ears, I trust measurements much more.

I guess one can get used to whatever quality, or lack thereof, and think the world of it. Bose and Naim users/buyers is a good example in this context.

soundproof:

Still, these objective facts are moot, if the result they lead to looks perfect on the scope, but wears down the ear.

Well, that is if you make the assumption that listening to songs with very little distortion is actually tiring. It's not. It's a myth perpetuated by the audiophile brigade. The same people who argue that studio monitors aren't meant to listen to music on, as they're "not musical". Pure bollocks.

soundproof:

Add to this the fact that most of our listening is through prejudices (which is what the thread is about), and it really becomes complicated.

That is why we have double blind tests and measurements.

soundproof:

The acoustic lenses of a BL5 add their own distortion to the sound, compared to other speaker designs, but when I first heard their output I knew I had found what was most pleasing to my ears.

At those frequencies, the distortion they produce at the energy levels they produce it  is unhearable over the the rest of the speaker's volume.

One of the things I like about the BL5s is the varied position one can be in when listening without collapsing the stereo image.

soundproof:

And I couldn't care less about what measurements said otherwise

Actually, the measurements will support your feelings. The Beolab 5s measure well.

soundproof:

These days, horn speakers are becoming very popular, and people listening to them will state that they are absolutely pure in their reproduction of sound - and they'll get angry at you when you tell them that even some leading manufacturers state that there is no other element in the sound reproduction chain that causes as much non-linear distortion as a horn equipped driver. But it's clearly distortion that pleases the ear ... if not, there wouldn't be an increase in the sales of these.

That is a logical fallacy: It's an appeal to popularity, and if it were valid, noone makes better food than MacDonalds.

Just because some (or most, for that matter) people prefer something that distorts doesn't make it on par with something that doesn't when it comes to accurate reproduction.

It may be pleasing to them, but people buying into horn speakers and whatnot probably has a big overlap with the people buying into the hi-fi cable superstituous myths and marketing speech.

soundproof:

(I think they are popular because they help take the edge of the digital signal in a pleasing way.)

Another myth. A digital signal doesn't have an "edge" inherently, unless we're talking low bit rate and extremely low sample rate and we'd propably have to toss in some lossy formats. However, a particular track may very well have some EQ thrown in to make more pleasent to listen to. But I can't see that playing everything through a thick layer of distortion is a good thing.  That is just idiotic, imo.

As for JBL's horn speech, sheesh

Doctor:

As I see it, B&O have attempted through the years to provide listeners with a particular type of sound. I am not sure that it is always the most accurate but it has tended to have a certain character which lends itself to extended listening without drawing attention to itself.

Most of that is certainly from better control and less distortion. Their best speakers, the BL5s and their second best, the BL9s are very accurate.  In that sense, they would be fine studio monitors.

Doctor:

Other companies have done the same but have chosen a different type of sound - Linn and Naim spring readily to mind.

There is no comparison between the three. Linn and Naim doesn't care about distortion, doesn't care about accurate reproduction, B&O does.  The BL9s and in particular the BL5s are a testament to that. Linn and Naim's voicing of their products is a whole other league (downwards).