Great laws, seems legit.Jan's Law: For any [speaker, amplifier, DAC] you can find someone who thinks this is the best sounding [speaker, amplifier, DAC] ever!
Corollary to Jan's Law: For any [speaker, amplifier, DAC] you can find someone who thinks this is the worst sounding [speaker, amplifier, DAC] ever!
Jan
I would add all the variations between the worst and the best.
Jan's Law: For any [speaker, amplifier, DAC] you can find someone who thinks this is the best sounding [speaker, amplifier, DAC] ever!
Corollary to Jan's Law: For any [speaker, amplifier, DAC] you can find someone who thinks this is the worst sounding [speaker, amplifier, DAC] ever!
I'll add 2 more.
2nd corollary: For either of the above you can find someone at diyaudio who thinks such claims are useless unless proof in the form of measurements or DBT is presented.
3rd corollary: If the person making the claim is an evil snake-oil merchant (i.e. has even remote connections to business) he/she will be haunted for ever!
That is what I have been asking about, opinion based on actual experience with the product, or based on strong technical background.
If you were to ask me about my opinion on something from my field of expertise (IT) I would certainly be able to provide answers.
I know what your asking.. I asked you why? Because as I (and others) have pointed out, it will not answer the underlying questions you have.
I haven't heard the Kii so far so no opinion from my side of this one. What I have heard so far regarding active monitors are the three-way PSI, the Grimm Audio LS1, several Geithains, Neumann O300, ATC SCM 100 ASL, and PMC BB5. It is quite difficult to make a comparison because I listened to them at different times in different Locations. Personally I could like with all of them. The Grimm could be a bit "beefier" (in terms of more headroom) maybe.
I write this because SahshaV did ask for it. But to make a fair comparison there had to be an opportunity to listen to them side-by-side.
Regards
Charles
I write this because SahshaV did ask for it. But to make a fair comparison there had to be an opportunity to listen to them side-by-side.
Regards
Charles
A half reason I see opinions are maybe beneficial if you heard two good speakers (one analogue and one digital) and you still can't decide which one you want to use. So you can buy whichever receive more positive opinions. But then, that choice would be not really your choice but the ones who gives you the positive opinions. But then it's still possible, that positive opinions are false positives for some reason, whether due to circumstances or anything else.
And at the end, buying a complete speaker is not really DIYaudio, at least not in the multi-way forum.
And at the end, buying a complete speaker is not really DIYaudio, at least not in the multi-way forum.
Last edited:
My questions were probably not understood. For example, although I have expressed my experience with additional AD conversion being detrimental, I do not care about it because all my material is digital and I will be feeding DSP speakers (if I get such) via digital input. Also, I have no doubts that potential of DSP is much bigger than analog active or passive, but again my questions are not about advantages of one over the other. Everyone understands the technology, my questions are about the quality of parts and quality of implementation in the examples given. Based on my own experience I know how significant impact jitter can have and how different digital inputs can sound, for example sending the same signal from the same source to the same DAC over USB and network, the differences can be enormous, you do not need any extensive listening, a few seconds of sound and you hear it right away. I am saying this in attempt to explain what I am after. On the other hand I also know that excessive analog processing has detrimental impact on transparency, there is no single pre-amp that is transparent enough IME. So when you consider the subpar digital circuits and DA in DSP based speaker (subpar compared to standalone DACs for example, due to the price point), or all the processing in analog crossover (examples given are Bryston analog crossover and PSI Audio and ATC active speakers), what can be expected to have less impact on transparency, what will better preserve minute details, the DSP/DA used in presently available products (Kii, 8c) or analog active (PSI Audio, ATC)? If someone had experience in building active speakers for decades, and has gained experience with solutions available on the market, or has gained experience working with specific examples of the products (many sound engineers have) then such person can provide well informed opinion. But what you hear mostly is just a drivel, someone built one or two systems, and believes it is the best that can be achieved.
That is great list of speakers and I would really like to hear more, a bit more detailed description and impressions. Leave it to me to digest the subjective reviews and draw conclusions, I do not think I ask for much
A half reason I see opinions are maybe beneficial if you heard two good speakers (one analogue and one digital) and you still can't decide which one you want to use. So you can buy whichever receive more positive opinions. But then, that choice would be not really your choice but the ones who gives you the positive opinions. But then it's still possible, that positive opinions are false positives for some reason, whether due to circumstances or anything else.
And at the end, buying a complete speaker is not really DIYaudio, at least not in the multi-way forum.
All true, but if you get several opinions on one the same driver, amp, DA, technology, etc., and from people that work with individual components, such as DIY crowd, then you can draw some well founded conclusions.
I'll add 2 more.
2nd corollary: For either of the above you can find someone at diyaudio who thinks such claims are useless unless proof in the form of measurements or DBT is presented.
3rd corollary: If the person making the claim is an evil snake-oil merchant (i.e. has even remote connections to business) he/she will be haunted for ever!
I can agree to the 2nd, both the Law and the statement; the 3rd, I've seen too many people getting away with it laughing all the way to the bank
Jan
Yeah, you are right, but the lack of real experience based opinions are talkative. In good cases, they are so close that it really doesn't matter, analogue or digital. That's my opinion then.
But, to me, the DSP solution gives a more transparent and detailed sound due to the corrected in-room low frequency response and time compensation between the drivers of my speakers.
I understand this very well. Still the only information your getting is a subjective comparison of system A to system B. The systems as a whole are compared, not only the specific part that you might be after.
Since your understanding of quality is highly subjective (and therefore unquantifiable), you cannot assume that the quality of the whole is always determined by the quality of the worst part. In a subjective world any combination of things can end up sounding either way. See it like colors: you might like yellow and blue, but not the combined green. You might not like red and white, but might love pink a lot.
If I am still not clear enough, consider this:
Active ATC have arguably great drivers (consider the latest models with new tweeter, S specs mid and bas), they use decent MOSFET A/B class amps, and analog crossover of to me unknown quality.
In the same category you have PSI Audio, they also develop their own tweeter and midrange driver (they must do it for reason, and I think it is safe to assume that those drivers in their implementation of active speakers perform very well) and focus on analog crossover dismissing DSP (must be for some reason).
These manufacturers are producing studio monitors, it is all based on good engineering. They apparently go to great lengths to produce speakers that meet high standards in sound reproduction.
On the other hand you have two leaders in DSP based speakers, Kii and D&D with their respective models. Without any doubt DSP speakers will measure better and sound better IF the quality of components used will not degrade signal too much.
Someone who has extensive experience building speakers will certainly know that it is better to start with high quality drivers selected to work well together. So this begs the question, are ATC and PSI Audio drivers so much better than off-the-shelf drivers picked up by Kii and D&D so that no amount of fiddling with DSP will make them sound as good?
Then consider the noise active electronics in analog crossovers will introduce in ATC and PSI Audio, will all that destroy the transparency to higher or lower degree in comparison to DSP and DA used in Kii and D&D (specific technology at specific price point, not academic view od DSP vs analog)?
It is known what drivers, DSP, DA, amps, PSUs Ki and D&D use, at what bit depth DSP works, so I am sure that someone who worked with all these components, being drivers of similar quality and construction, same or similar technology of amps, DSP, etc. as well as some analog equivalents, can say based on experience that for example (I am guessing):
a) Good drivers with decent crossover and amps will always sound better than lower quality drivers no matter how much you try to do with DSP
And/or
b) Analog crossover will introduce too much noise that will end up being worse than any DSP implementation
And/or
c) D-class amps are not as good as A/B especially on tweeter so stay away from it
And/or
d) This particular DSP is not great due to introducing artifacts or whatever.
And so on.
Active ATC have arguably great drivers (consider the latest models with new tweeter, S specs mid and bas), they use decent MOSFET A/B class amps, and analog crossover of to me unknown quality.
In the same category you have PSI Audio, they also develop their own tweeter and midrange driver (they must do it for reason, and I think it is safe to assume that those drivers in their implementation of active speakers perform very well) and focus on analog crossover dismissing DSP (must be for some reason).
These manufacturers are producing studio monitors, it is all based on good engineering. They apparently go to great lengths to produce speakers that meet high standards in sound reproduction.
On the other hand you have two leaders in DSP based speakers, Kii and D&D with their respective models. Without any doubt DSP speakers will measure better and sound better IF the quality of components used will not degrade signal too much.
Someone who has extensive experience building speakers will certainly know that it is better to start with high quality drivers selected to work well together. So this begs the question, are ATC and PSI Audio drivers so much better than off-the-shelf drivers picked up by Kii and D&D so that no amount of fiddling with DSP will make them sound as good?
Then consider the noise active electronics in analog crossovers will introduce in ATC and PSI Audio, will all that destroy the transparency to higher or lower degree in comparison to DSP and DA used in Kii and D&D (specific technology at specific price point, not academic view od DSP vs analog)?
It is known what drivers, DSP, DA, amps, PSUs Ki and D&D use, at what bit depth DSP works, so I am sure that someone who worked with all these components, being drivers of similar quality and construction, same or similar technology of amps, DSP, etc. as well as some analog equivalents, can say based on experience that for example (I am guessing):
a) Good drivers with decent crossover and amps will always sound better than lower quality drivers no matter how much you try to do with DSP
And/or
b) Analog crossover will introduce too much noise that will end up being worse than any DSP implementation
And/or
c) D-class amps are not as good as A/B especially on tweeter so stay away from it
And/or
d) This particular DSP is not great due to introducing artifacts or whatever.
And so on.
Sorry. but I only read one assumption followed by a string of more assumptions... I cannot objectively conclude anything from what you've said.
Very dangerous are those "they must have done it for a reason" arguments.. That is exactly what the brands want you to think. A whole lot of it often boils down to one thing: marketing. To separate yourself from others, be unique, be different, stand out. Sometimes there even is a viable engineering reason for something as well, but definitely not always. Note that some objectives can be achieved using various ways. Sometimes the "other" way makes you just that little bit more exciting and excentric. Doesn't mean any of those products are bad, or even worse than others (and that goes for all of those products, including the D&D en Kii). It just means that assumption is the mother of All f*** ups
Very dangerous are those "they must have done it for a reason" arguments.. That is exactly what the brands want you to think. A whole lot of it often boils down to one thing: marketing. To separate yourself from others, be unique, be different, stand out. Sometimes there even is a viable engineering reason for something as well, but definitely not always. Note that some objectives can be achieved using various ways. Sometimes the "other" way makes you just that little bit more exciting and excentric. Doesn't mean any of those products are bad, or even worse than others (and that goes for all of those products, including the D&D en Kii). It just means that assumption is the mother of All f*** ups
Last edited:
The "without any doubt" sounds like a statement, but it is only your opinion
After DSP there is D/A conversion and additional analog circuitry like buffers and amplification before the signal reaches the power amplifier.
The assumption that there is less electronics in a DSP system is not correct, I'd say more the opposite.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.