Nope... No idea what they do inside - just commenting on the costs as per your speculation of what's in there.
The bom cost is <<$2k even for that image - which also contains stuff they wouldn't need (displays, controls, separate psu, perhaps...).
But, I'd hope they used the class D arrangement as integral to the D/A, as you also speculated, which drops the bom cost even more.
The mark-up is up to them...
The bom cost is <<$2k even for that image - which also contains stuff they wouldn't need (displays, controls, separate psu, perhaps...).
But, I'd hope they used the class D arrangement as integral to the D/A, as you also speculated, which drops the bom cost even more.
The mark-up is up to them...
Something about vibration on this page:
Kii Audio Three loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
Seems to me I read an interview with Bruno where he said the vibration issue they found was almost a very big deal that would have required a lot more bracing inside the case, but fortunately they were able fix it satisfactorily with DSP. If I run across it again I will post the link.
Watch a B & O Speaker module, lots more stuff inside. Be it 2 or 3Ch.
No comment abouth Sound quality.
They probably do, it's just simpler and using more highly integrated parts. For example, JBL LSR305 (which I bought at $99 each) use CS5341 for the ADC and STA350BW for everything else, which integrates DSP and Class D amplifier.
Interesting. Which semi-omnis were that?
FWIW, I've heard the K3s on several occasions, and they never really won me over. I'm aware of their excellent measurements, but they still didn't sound completely right to me. All subjective of course. Maybe my subjective impression has an objective correlate, and maybe it's just some kind of perceptual bias.
The thing where active speakers have a real BOM advantage is they don't need a shiny, spangly case, which for high price audio components can be a scary % of the parts cost.
That depends, Bill... Do you want ATC's "350w" amp on the speaker, or a true many several hundred watt amp? The ATC would light on fire if it tried to put out much of it's rated wattage. Once you start really backing up the power with enough heatsink, and also shield it, the cost starts to close the gap.
It seems like everyone ignores EMC once they make a plate amp. Hardly any actually shield the amp on the inside, like the speaker is somehow blocking RF...
It seems like everyone ignores EMC once they make a plate amp. Hardly any actually shield the amp on the inside, like the speaker is somehow blocking RF...
For commercial systems, fully active DSP speakers are clearly the most rational choice IMO, if accurate sound reproduction is the goal. No matching, everything is optimized. Can't see any strong reasons to buy anything else these days. Going the DIY route changes the equation somewhat.
Last edited:
The ATCs have a pretty chunky heatsink, certainly bigger than a number of hifi amps I have owned*. I haven't looked, but I haven't heard any horror stories of them not going loud enough for long enough in a studio. And at £14000 a pair in uk for the pro and £18000 for the audiophile approved SCM100 they remain as far out my budget as they did when I first heard them in 1990.
* I am not brave enough to get into the crest factor argument here. For active speakers this is valid for thermal management but I know it causes too much aggro to suggest that a 350W amp pack only needs to deliver an average of 30W even when giving it large in the mixdown.
* I am not brave enough to get into the crest factor argument here. For active speakers this is valid for thermal management but I know it causes too much aggro to suggest that a 350W amp pack only needs to deliver an average of 30W even when giving it large in the mixdown.
It's really about if you like listening to a bunch of bass crazy music.
They're fine for most playback, but for the price I'd be expecting them not to overheat if doubled for HT or electronic music in larger listening rooms. I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit. You can go from one enclosure to 2, and if you make them nice shielded ones with enough heatsink to really use some power, the price isn't exactly going to be a huge argument. That is unless you want to start comparing nonsense speaker cables that cost as much as a Toyota Camry.
I know people like to balk at the costs of some enclosures, and some are simply "ordain" looking, but what is the alternative? Should designers use flexi-mats to mount 1.5kva transformers? You can just roll it up like a rug and put it in the closet when you aren't listening or use a class D during the summer?
They're fine for most playback, but for the price I'd be expecting them not to overheat if doubled for HT or electronic music in larger listening rooms. I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit. You can go from one enclosure to 2, and if you make them nice shielded ones with enough heatsink to really use some power, the price isn't exactly going to be a huge argument. That is unless you want to start comparing nonsense speaker cables that cost as much as a Toyota Camry.
I know people like to balk at the costs of some enclosures, and some are simply "ordain" looking, but what is the alternative? Should designers use flexi-mats to mount 1.5kva transformers? You can just roll it up like a rug and put it in the closet when you aren't listening or use a class D during the summer?
Last edited:
The SCM100A pro is specced for 115dBa at 1m continuous. I would expect the amp pack to be able to support that without going phut or the thermal overload cutting in. Not aware of anyone trying this, but a lot of studios use them so they must be doing something right.
Not saying a case is not necessary, just saying its a fact of live that it ends up being a big chunk of the cost, moreso when the client wants audio jewellery. Integrate it into the speaker and a bit of bent tin can be used w hich is a lot cheaper.
Not saying a case is not necessary, just saying its a fact of live that it ends up being a big chunk of the cost, moreso when the client wants audio jewellery. Integrate it into the speaker and a bit of bent tin can be used w hich is a lot cheaper.
The Benchmark PCB may cost around $200 in parts. Its not that exotic. A typical modern mass market speaker will have several amp chips. They have internal DSP so you don't need an external one. Up to 50W no heat sink required. Over that not much heat sink. The FET on resistance is so low little heat is dissipated there. The typical digital amps do not have ultra low distortion but they are quite low enough and can sound good. EMI and EMC all need to be dealt with. They cannot be ignored and most products do that pretty well. You can build one of those for a BOM in the $30-$50 for a serious effort. For a big Bluetooth speaker expect no more than $20 for 3-4 amp channels, DSP etc. including the Bluetooth module.
Typically its hard to overheat the amplifiers . Driver voice coils are where the technology is focused today. They can predict the temperature of the voice coil and fold back before burning it out. This could also be used to correct for thermal compression.
Casework can be 50% or more of the cost. Even at Constellation level its really expensive.
Typically its hard to overheat the amplifiers . Driver voice coils are where the technology is focused today. They can predict the temperature of the voice coil and fold back before burning it out. This could also be used to correct for thermal compression.
Casework can be 50% or more of the cost. Even at Constellation level its really expensive.
Are you guys trying to make some point that the main cost of a device is a bag of parts bought in quantity discount lots and the rest is mostly profit?
Because my point seems to have been entirely lost. It had to do with the sound quality Benchmark achieves as verified by lots of things including detailed measurements anyone can see at Stereophile. If the cost of the parts is the main trick to that why don't a lot of other converters measure as well or better, and at lower cost? Probably those in $2k JBL monitors included.
EDIT: We all know some or many of the parts in a picture I showed wouldn't be needed by a converter inside a speaker. However, some of the parts are needed for SQ, and some of those are probably not in the JBL box or not doing the same function in the JBL box except maybe in very general terms.
Because my point seems to have been entirely lost. It had to do with the sound quality Benchmark achieves as verified by lots of things including detailed measurements anyone can see at Stereophile. If the cost of the parts is the main trick to that why don't a lot of other converters measure as well or better, and at lower cost? Probably those in $2k JBL monitors included.
EDIT: We all know some or many of the parts in a picture I showed wouldn't be needed by a converter inside a speaker. However, some of the parts are needed for SQ, and some of those are probably not in the JBL box or not doing the same function in the JBL box except maybe in very general terms.
Last edited:
Mass market gear is designed to be as good as it needs to be. Other than for maybe their flagship or statement products, big outfits are going to be practical about their decisions and decide there is no need to chase the last bit of measured performance if they don't think it's going to impact the actual performance of the product.
To be specific, on most products JBL is probably not spending for an ES9028 PRO DAC, or a Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA (regardless of the use), or maybe even the same level op-amps Benchmark is using.
For the low volume high end stuff it seems to be different. Benchmark has better measured results than many for a couple reasons. First, they care about the measurements and make that their focus - many high end manufacturers don't. Second, it seems to me they are more technically competent than many others high-end manufacturers.
To be specific, on most products JBL is probably not spending for an ES9028 PRO DAC, or a Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA (regardless of the use), or maybe even the same level op-amps Benchmark is using.
For the low volume high end stuff it seems to be different. Benchmark has better measured results than many for a couple reasons. First, they care about the measurements and make that their focus - many high end manufacturers don't. Second, it seems to me they are more technically competent than many others high-end manufacturers.
Fair enough.
One reason I am concerned is related to some of the complaints made about music made today being distorted. It actually turns out in most cases that the distortion is inadvertently added a little bit at a time in many stages of processing and associated decision making.
The people making records except those who can afford the best are using equipment that produces distortion, masks distortion with other distortion, is not up to the task of revealing each small added layer or contribution to distortion, etc. It used to be there were a few big studios with the best equipment that sounded great. Not anymore. Everybody is using junk converters, monitors, and plugins that all contribute to the accumulated damage.
Agreed there is another problem with the loudness wars, but things like "mastered for Apple," and loudness metering and standards are starting to help with that.
One reason I am concerned is related to some of the complaints made about music made today being distorted. It actually turns out in most cases that the distortion is inadvertently added a little bit at a time in many stages of processing and associated decision making.
The people making records except those who can afford the best are using equipment that produces distortion, masks distortion with other distortion, is not up to the task of revealing each small added layer or contribution to distortion, etc. It used to be there were a few big studios with the best equipment that sounded great. Not anymore. Everybody is using junk converters, monitors, and plugins that all contribute to the accumulated damage.
Agreed there is another problem with the loudness wars, but things like "mastered for Apple," and loudness metering and standards are starting to help with that.
I don't know, I think the quality of pop releases has actually greatly increased since the 90s-early 00s.
I think it comes down to the attention to detail of the engineers working on it. Some people just don't really care about the sound quality that much. It's their day job.
I think it comes down to the attention to detail of the engineers working on it. Some people just don't really care about the sound quality that much. It's their day job.
The apprentice system for training engineers in big studios is gone. The big pop acts can afford the remaining preexisting established engineers who happen to have their own collections of great equipment. A few of them get most of the high end work. Most others are trying to figure out how to run their own project studios to compete in a low cost recording world. Their jobs at big studios with good equipment are gone. Most music is made in lower quality digital 'project studios,' not Capital Records or similar.
It's not the end of the world, its just painful and taking time to work itself out somehow. Nobody knows how it will end up.
EDIT: Sound quality certainly has improved for basic digital recording. When everybody switched from tape to the early Pro Tools systems it sounded much worse. That has improved a lot. Different set of problems today.
It's not the end of the world, its just painful and taking time to work itself out somehow. Nobody knows how it will end up.
EDIT: Sound quality certainly has improved for basic digital recording. When everybody switched from tape to the early Pro Tools systems it sounded much worse. That has improved a lot. Different set of problems today.
Last edited:
Distortion with the analog equipment back in the day was several orders of magnitude higher than even the cheapest digital equipment one can find at Thomann these days. And personally I find that recordings from the 70s often had very good quality. So I doubt that distortion from electronics may account for any deficiency in recording quality today.
What is undoubtedly the case though, is that music production isn't what it was. Like you say in in your other post, the big studios have given way to home studios. And the apprenticeship model in music production has faltered. I think the human factor - together with the loudness wars - is the most important aspect by far for explaining the production quality in today's music.
What I do suspect, is that the dominance of smaller production rooms and small near-field monitors does something with the sound. This may lead to music productions which sound good in the near-field in treated rooms, but doesn't work as well under more normal listening circumstances in reflective rooms. This is only a hunch I have though.
The JBL708P are $2k each, so 4k a pair. The passive version are IIRO $1400 each so $800 selling price difference.
I think the reaction is due to the fact that your comments suggested that it can't possibly be good enough at that price compared to your preferred Benchmark as it was too cheap. And by inference the M2, which likely uses the same DACs. The water is muddied by the buying power of Harman so apples to apples cannot be done, but there remains the question of what is 'good enough' as in transparent vs better than needed in the application.
As they do active and passive versions in theory this could be tested, just a big pain.
And I am aware that JBL pro have little or no truck with audiophile approved electronics as they are addressing the planks rather than the specs 🙂.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.