Yes. KEF LS60 have class AB for the high and class D for the bottom end. I receive mine yesterday and I was impressed. It outperforms everything I have had of seperated priced under 10.000 euro.
Not to mention the physical (strong) vibrations inside the speaker will resonate and especially affect the low level DAC signal. I'm sure preamps don't sound their best in a paint shaker either.
I believe that digital/wireless speakers will be the future of not just consumer audio, but hi-fi as well. First, the convenience factor of not having to deal with separate components and interconnects is significant. It will make entry into this hobby easier, bringing in more listeners. Or heck, maybe you're a hobbyist who is tired of trying to buy gear that synergizes with each other. It's nice to have an all-in-one design that was designed from the ground up by a company that knows what it's doing. Second, the use of proprietary digital and analog equipment in the speaker allows for enhanced control over not just the speaker, but the drivers themselves. Instead of having to use passive crossover components, which can come with drawbacks, each driver/ can be powered by a separate amplifier. Phase correction, low-pass filters, high-pass filters, etc can be designed in the digital domain specifically for each driver. Class AB amplification can be used for the tweeters and class D for the woofers. Digital/wireless speakers have a number of advantages. However, there are also disadvantages. The future might be bleak. First, the implementation of proprietary electronics means that the end user will not be able to make repairs or modifications to the speakers. If any one component fails, the entire speaker will have to be serviced. Second, the smart world is fickle. Wireless speakers require an external digital user interface for control over various settings, such as a smarphone app, as well as connectivity to wifi and/or bluetooth for an audio signal. As time passes, there is a probability that the speakers will become 'outdated' when it comes to wireless connection standards. This brings security risks, such as vulnerability to hackers, as well as the possibility of an end-of-life situation in which the manufacturer no longer provides software support for the speakers.
People already had wireless audio : tube pre-war radios. Active type speakers with amplifier inside and required only mains which we have to accept in best wireless But large number was battery operated. The signal was delivered by antenna stright from station went through rf amplification and detection. No cable. 😃Except 20 meter outside antenna but still most distance without wire.🙃
@@gordthor5351 Correct. The point is, the KEFs are outstanding wireless speakers *which also have* an analogue input if you so desire. In other words, they're everything you could need in a speaker (if you like the way they sound).
For those of us, who can only dream of owning such magnificent speakers and associated equipment such as yours . . . it is a pleasure for many to try to improve and copy as much as we can. Actually, I think many times we do come up with some very good facsimiles in our endeavors . . . much to the surprise of people who hear the results. I won't go into any boring details, but I do have a classic speaker system that I transformed over the years into an active system, powered by four Class D Amps, along with some planar drivers in the tweeter and midrange area, which has given the speed of attack, the accuracy of detail and timbre new meaning to my ears. I kept the woofers and double sub-woofers as the bass quality has a musical, fast, and sound quality I really enjoy . . . for now unless I feel I can tweak it also to get better results. After all, part of the charm of being an audiophile hobbiest is to constantly experiment with elements and updates that sound promising to see how close I can come to the expensive big boys out there, and insense the "label wearers" who do have the checkbooks to buy ready-made latest and greatest! ;-) I just basically sit back and enjoy what I am very fortunate to be blessed with, and the good Lord has truly blessed me with much! So, please keep challenging us to come up with inventions and ingenuities to try and emulate in a more money-challenged environment and enjoy your classy inventions to marvel at in our version of becoming "audiophiles also! :-)
Way back in 1974, probably before some here were around, Zenith Radio Corp. developed an “infrared wireless speaker system” utilizing an infrared wide band FM transmitter and receiver used in combination with a conventional audio receiver and speaker system. I don’t know the quality of audio but obviously it hasn’t gotten anywhere.
Paul: I'm old enough to give you an advise (84 years of audio love). There it should be an amp or pre amp with a proper adjustment to the hearing decay so as to enjoy music without the hearing aids. This due to the limited dynamic range of them. No matter how old you are music remains as best friend. David Chile
PS audio needs to start making products of the future. Wireless versions of the FR speakers could define a new level of performance and if done well, the wireless version will sound better also. The new floor standing wireless KEF LS 60 is getting great reviews btw.
Yes, but there are compromises, the idea of high end is to rid yourself of as many compromises as possible, even if that means a pile of extra equipment. Many audiophiles like to continuously improve their setups, hence separate components, a process that is a tad hard if everything is in one box.
@@paulstubbs7678 Reality is that an active speaker can allow more optimization by the engineer as everything can be matched and tuned more optimally. And as it is all baked into the speaker, you can also get more audio fidelity for the same money. Of course an active speaker doesn't allow you the same flexibility in hardware choices but it often allow you more flexibility in audio tuning through an embedded DSP. KEF LS60 is a good example of a reasonable design and as people wake up to realize there is great value in active speaker designs, we will see more of such speakers now that music streaming has become audiophile.
@@zeram01 KEF still has some connectivity software bugs that need to be flushed out. Give it a few more weeks and I would expect a new SW release to get that resolved.
This video was marketing the new KEF LS60. Paul knows industry is going 3 steps ahead and he need to sell his new FR30 with some good arguments. The good thing is that there were be people for the all-in-one hi end products and for the "build your system", like laptops or PCs. Which sounds better is a matter of taste, because also music is evolving and being recorded on the digital domain, so Wireless speakers will match digital recordings and analog systems will match analog recordings. Like people tunning old vintange cars or new "Fast & Furious" cars. In synthesis, it's about the music been play by the new generations.
I think that better than wireless and a more down to earth idea, would be a "simple" all in one HiFi package set with two full range speaker towers, two subwoofers and A SEPARATE "MAGIC BOX" that streams, powers and controls those speakers and subs in a magnificent HiFi way. There will be one power wire and 4 speaker wires, but who cares. On the other hand, that "magic box" will get rid of all interconnect cables and guess work of compatibility and sinergy, warranting a "simple" best sounding HiFi system. To make this "magic box" really magical, it would take that many of the best speaker and component HiFi companies team together (easier said than done).
How about start small first maybe with bookshelf wireless speakers then progressively improving the future lines and increasing the size until you finally reach the full range speakers.
To me one of the biggest problems is syncing the two speakers. You could put all your electronics in just one speaker and then run a cable over to the other - yuk, kind of imbalanced, or for proper wireless, identical electronics in both, but then you have to get them in perfect phase - an interesting problem, another bottomless pit, like the never-ending quest to perfect the amplifier etc. etc. etc. At least we could say goodbye to the snake oil speaker cable purveyors. As for a wireless turntable, I once toyed there, turntable, dedicated phono pre-amp, A/D converter, raspberry pi, to WiFi (no bluetooth junk) as an interesting experiment (to see if I could, not for any prolonged serious use though). I had a small stack of gear, with many issues. In the end I needed to swap the 'pi for a laptop (or put a keyboard and screen on the pi). it was all looking a tad silly so I stopped. (I needed a way to select the wireless destination, hence the keyboard etc. - I didn't want to use a phone, it had to be 'self contained' in my book)
> To me one of the biggest problems is syncing the two speakers. Oh please........ Bluetooth® technology uses the 2.4 GHz ISM spectrum band (2400 to 2483.5 MHz), which enables a good balance between range and throughput.
I've found a wireless extender that uses analog low frequency transmission to the receiver. No DA or AD conversion going on. Just broadcasting from the tx to the rx unit via 4v rca outputs. The signal is far superior to bluetooth of the same type of extenders because there is no conversion going on. There is also no lag. I use it currently for my rear surrounds with a separate amplifier about 30 feet from the Receiver. Game changer and old technology really. Because it uses a frequency band other than FM radio, the freq response is what the source is. This is susceptible to interference from the spectrum however. The occasional pop or crackle from another device turning on or off. The device is very hard to find too. FYI
I had a pair of Beolab 50, ( 50.000 USD ) - they are now sold and replaced by a pair of a Infinity Kappa 9, driven by a pair of Aragon Palladium’s - pure music ❤️
A direct connection is always better in my opinion, that's right a class a/b for mid and highs and a class d for the lows in the same cabinet, that's would be worth all the challenges
for convenience (or improved WAF, or whatever) you trade problematic RF signal quality, drop-outs, & interference issues (esp in complex interior spaces & dense urban settings). of course, that can be solved (kinda... "most of the time in most set-ups at most of the sites... we promise"). high end (reliable, RFI tolerant links that maintain audio perf equivalent to the best of hard-wired links) is costly... EM fields are analog... always a bit of mystery there. everyone gets to become an EM propagation weenie. acoustic treatment companies start marketing Faraday Cages for the Listening Room. obviously, why not to the whole house? or better yet, build a dedicated underground listening room... or both - what fun!
Meridian and Linn both have digital active ultra high end speakers - these are connected by ethernet or link cables and a power cable. So not entirely wireless - but certainly no need for speaker cables of audio interconnects. Dynaudio have somewhat lesser high performance spks (I have a pair) that work great in an office or general area. Mine use a dynaudio box to convert the analogue to a wireless digital signal that then connects to each speaker. And way down the list all the apple and other bluetooth speakers including much of the Sonos range all just need power cables and a controller (could be a smart phone or a dedicated box). Most folk simply cannot hear the difference.
Hey Paul, I learn so much from your content, so thank you. I don't know if you're the one to ask, but can I run my boss rc300 through an audio interface and an amp sim, or do I have to use an actual amp?
How are you going to power these "wireless" speakers? By the time you power amplifiers and DSP etc etc you aren't going to do any sizable speakers on batteries. So if you are going to run power you may as well run speaker cables.
Also Dutch & Dutch and Meridian (going way back). Paul doesn't seem to know that everything he's talking about has been done decades ago to one extent or another many times over by other companies.
Could be some design advantages if it is a complete digital playback system as you mentioned amps tailored for each driver with amp, driver and cabinet designed all together. If a system has analog playback tape / vinyl the extra conversion step of a to d may present some degradation of sound quality with the extra process though. As we know there will still need to be a power wire going to each speaker as the amps will need power still to run. So we may be able to reduce the amount of connection wires but not all though it would reduce the number of boxes needed for the system which some folks would like.
One right pain to me is turning it on and off (I don't believe in leaving everything on). With a conventional wired system, you can usually get away with one switch at the main system rack, however with a fully wireless setup you'd have to do the rounds to two speakers, and maybe also a sub. You could run all the leads back to a central point, but then those leads might as well be speaker leads - i.e. a regular wired system, you are just replacing one wire (speaker lead) with another (power lead) so is there any real advantage?
@@paulstubbs7678 Not for turn ing it one and off as you mention. May be removing clutter of multiple boxes for the system which some may like for the visual part??; personally I like looking at all the boxes, cables wires etc lol others don't. May be some sonic advantage to design each amp to work with each individual speaker driver with the box parameters supporting each driver as mentioned in the video. Some may argue otherwise though. As pointed out in comments below there are companies doing some version of this already. happy listening :)
Oh please........ Bluetooth® technology uses the 2.4 GHz ISM spectrum band (2400 to 2483.5 MHz), which enables a good balance between range and throughput.
Is it absolutely necessary to convert to/from digital for analog sources. Is there any value in local FM transmission so that the analog waves do not need to be shredded and reassembled?
IMHO good sound comes from big stuff or headphones. On top of that you will have to power the "speaker unit" somehow so you already will have wires so it defeats this reason not to.
You "only" need to fit half of that in to each speaker. The wireless have come a long way, not only wireless but active speakers wich is alot less stuff. Wouldent it be nice if all brands could settle for one formfactor for the built in amps so it would be possible to buy the one you like, far fetched but it can be possible with next gen amps if they shrink with high preformance.
We should go back to explore other wireless and radio transmitting methods, develop more codecs by revisiting precedent ones. Before the boom in popularity of "true wireless" bluetoth iems ans headphones those other methods of transmitting wireless audio were much more prolific (there are still such products developed by major consumer audio brands, but they don't hold much of a following). I bet there's a pretty wide amount of experimentation going on with high-end audio in that regard, but until some company makes a major break-through of such a technology in the mainstream market, there won't be a quick growth in development and adaptation. The good thing about speakers, being them a source of audio that isn't supposed to mode during sound playback, is that there are MANY more possibilities compared go say, a pair of high-end headphones: for instance, directional light, laser and IR based methods of wireless data transmission IS an option. There is no need to have a common method of transmission developed for both static (speakers) and mobile (headphones) audio sources.
While an uncomfortable truth for many-analog systems may stick around for the nostalgic but advances in digital technology have already rendered the analog medium inferior….
I don’t want to buy tech that’s fit for the bin in 5 years when the next gen of DAC’s, Bluetooth standard, Wi-Fi standard, streaming standard etc comes in… plus when I’m relaxing with music I don’t want any issues - just needs to work, work well and continue for decades, especially if I’m spending serious money. I thing a case for active versions of these speaker can be made but leave the source’s out ….
I see FOUR Major problems with a "wireless" system and/or speakers.. 1. If everything is built into the speaker (Amp, Pre, Dac, Streamer, etc), then you have to send the whole speaker for repair if anything goes wrong. My current speakers weigh 140 lbs each, and that's without the rest of the system inside. My amp weighs 60lbs, my pre is also 60lbs, my dac is 30lbs, etc.. If it's all built in, that's going to be one hell of a heavy speaker(or pair) to pack up and ship, and the cost to ship to and from the manufacturer or repair facility will also be significant. 2. Mixing and matching components from different manufacturers won't be possible, so you'd better really like the ONE company that builds your entire system inside the speaker. ...upgrading a single component will also be a thing of the past. Likely the only path to upgrade will be to buy the whole all-in-one system again. 3. Upfront Cost will be significant, because you'll be buying an entire system at once. Most audiophiles purchase and upgrade one component at a time, as budgets allow. That's no longer an option if everything is built into the speakers. Think of how much your entire system costs....because that will be how much you'll be spending on your new "wireless" all-in-one system. Can you convince your significant other to a 10, 20, or 50k stereo purchase? Good luck. 4. After all those drawbacks, it's not even truly wireless, as there will be two power cables across the floor to the nearest power outlets.
If you are into high end audio, then there is a compromise - and that compromise is layout...having speaker cables. Personally I don't want Bluetooth or proprietary wireless protocols running over already congested channels. For me it's an absolute no.
@@MrWookie1981 Take a look at GoldenEar Triton’s with DSP and ClassD amp for the bass only ! Works really perfect,,,,DAC and streaming separate or in an integrated amp, for driving the midrange and tweeter. My current set up: Devialet Expert 220 Pro and GoldenEar Triton Ref.
There are companies with way bigger R&D budgets than PS Audio who are already doing it. The next generation of active speakers will take things to another level.
A speaker is a very simple (the simplest) lorentz motor that requires power (In accordance to Ohms Law, AND Watts Law). You can’t cram a Class-D, Class-AB, DAC, ADC, and a partridge in a pear tree, into a box and expect big output, without bigger box. None of it sings without power. Don’t get mad at me… blame Newton, and Einstein, and Descartes, Curie. But I think Paul *may* have shown his age, and misunderstood the question? No shade, I’m only a couple behind. I think the question is *actually* ; “Why can’t we have speakers that are plugged in (have the big power) be capable of wireless connectivity”? The truth is we do, but the quality kinda sucks, for many reasons (some of which Paul states). I’m not sure who invented Bluetooth, but they should be fired 10x over. The cause is saturation. Too much Radio Frequency Interference. or RFI. 2.4GHz… saturated. 5GHz… saturated. I won’t even get into EMI (Electromagnetic Interference). It doesn’t help when the reality is this: 1) If you’re building a big system… you’re going to need big power. 2) #1 eliminates integrated batteries 3) #1 & 2 means… Power Cords. 4) # 1-3 Means…. Already need cords for power…. Need cords for signal. 5) Oh… still want wireless signal and wired power…. 6) Speaker work great…. signal work bad. 7) Run signal wire to speaker. 8) Hmmmmm…… still not sound great. 9) Grab you receiver… put a quality wire (signal) to the amp. 10) Put some speaker wire from your amp, to the speakers (maybe signal or signal/power) and let ‘er buck. My 10 Cents. My 2 cents is also free.
I'm sure someone can come up with a process that works but I don't see it yet. Bluetooth in anything I have seen is not good enough. Even the TV band wireless mics I use which cost about $1,000.00 aren't as good as a $50.00 mic cable.
technically you don't have to make de audio digital first before transmitting it...... (for the analogue purist ^_^). But wireless has many other (technical)issues to get high-end results... still not preferable to me.
The best way would be with light that has a laser transmitter and receiver it would have to have line of sight . Could that rival even high end cables?
I think the whole idea with wireless is to make it more convenient than cables, not making it more complicated and more difficult to use than cables. IMO the best way to transfer high end audio wirelessly is to use sound waves. 😎
@@toecutterjenkins All it takes is someone walking into the room blocking the light, or you will have to make an arrengement with mirrors. But if using light it seems much more convenient to use optical fibre to transfer the light, just like it is already done.
A whole lot of people would be more interested in high end audio if they could turn on a speaker and stream straight to it with their phone. Heck, as long as I wasn't losing audio quality I'd prefer it too.
It's too much to deal with cables? Really? You want me to listen to it for you too? There's no way you'll transmit and receive error free. It's digital transmitted on an analog signal.
Wireless loudspeakers have all the electronics built in. When something breaks down , you need to take the lot to be repaired or dispose of them and get new ones. A throw away consumer item. Most likely mass produced in China.Also there no such thing as all digital. You cannot listen to 1s and 0s. That is why we have DACS which stands for Digital to Analogue Converter.
I’ll speak as sound engeneer who really enjoys quality recordings. There’s slight missunderstanding in your thought process. About 99% of music is mixed and mastered on that „ugly” studio speakers with class D amps. Final product - recording - is on its’ finests quality after doing mastering of the track. Therefore any „tube warming” or other plesurable defects done to that original recording is ruining the concept of original record.
Also consider that a decent transmitter and receiver are very expensive. You can get a wireless guitar setup for under 50 bucks, but it's a glorified toy. Good ones can easily reach 800 to 1000 dollars, and that's a single channel.
@@MrWookie1981 I bet you're right. Sad thing is those people are simply pissing their money down the drain. Speaker cables are easy to make and you choose what goes into them. Mine are 10 gauge O2 free copper. cost me about 8 dollars for a 10 foot cable.
It's coming. It's inevitable. Just like electric cars. It's already been decided. It's all over but the shouting, as they say. There are systems that are close enough now that most of us wouldn't care about the difference. ...and they will save the industry by engaging young people. I'm in my 40s and still enjoy changing components, and literally hooking things up to each other, because it takes me back to my youth and messing around with my dad's HiFi gear as I learned "stereo stuff". But my 5 year old (who I know will want good sound from his stereo because I'm raising him right...wink wink) will be happy to go from Bluetooth portable boombox types into something like the KEF LS60 as his income increases. It is indeed the future. And it will save the industry. With DSP too And no matter how we feel about it ...It's a done deal.
what's stopping you tho! you got the resources, you can make your equipment wireless connection just run at 10MHz, you just have a transmitter and receiver. make some new type of format that's lossless. you're not innovator get some guys on your team who are. amplifiers can be put on the back or underneath a speaker with ventilation completely separate from the box.
1:32 "Digital guy", like where is the beauty in that really? There's nothing attractive about going all digital, and analog audio sounds better in comparison to digital equipment most of the time anyways.
@@selfelements8037 Have to agree, most would say the 1957 Les Paul is better than any made in 2022. In general though technology marches on and improves and betters what was made in the past, especially when talking about digital audio. Finally gave up my iPhone 6 and traded up to iPhone 13 ProMax! Can't argue with one terabyte in my pocket! Who would argue a decade ago digital tech was better?
@@WWeiss-nv5vz If you are talking about smartphones, they will definitely get better with time, but even when you consider the audio department of smartphones specifically, you will definitely notice a decrease in quality especially in terms of DAC (not sure about iPhones because I never had one and never will). Another good example of technology going backwards in terms of quality is flat panels. In comparison to the old CRTs, flat panels (or LCD screens) are still catching up in terms of overall image quality, and resolution alone is not a good indicator of that. Of course flat TVs are much smaller in terms of size and weight, but panel quality is still inferior in many ways (black levels, color reproduction, image uniformity, refresh rate, backlight strobing, etc).
How can it ever be wireless? You need either, a cable to power the audio connectivity and amps within the speaker, or a traditional pair of analogue cables. It can never be wireless until you can transmit power, and a lot of it, through the air.
@@kurtisk_cbgb Seriously? You need to be enlightened on the actual meaning of wireless? So, to take you at face value, I'll explain. It doesn't refer to power cables or speaker cables - it refers to the transmission of a signal, carried over airwaves in the more traditional sense or in the more modern sense of the word, over Wi-Fi (literally wireless ethernet). At no point has "wireless" ever implied that there is no power supply (or even interconnecting cable between components).
@Patty O'Furniture You first. Tell us your reason for your comment, when "expensive audio cables" have nothing to do with the video. And "ROTFL". What I find amusing is that you pull an unrelated subject out of the sky, and you actually included "ROTFL", conveying how amused you are with your meaningless comment.
I agree with you, but "need" is in my opinion, the wrong word choice. No one needs any of it. No one "needs" a Corvette when they can have a Corolla and still get from point A to point B. Need is a strong word. Some people "want" things for good and bad reasons. Just semantics, but not meaningless. Cheers.
@@dank.6942 My bad. I mean that amps don’t need to be huge boxes that weigh 100 pounds to achieve great audio performance. Amps like the Benchmark AHB2 or the Purifi are a fraction of the size of PS audio or McIntosh monoblocks but absolutely put them to shame with their sound quality. And because good amps are getting smaller and smaller you don’t sacrifice performance by getting speakers with good build in amps.
@@juliangst "I mean that amps don’t need to be huge boxes that weigh 100 pounds to achieve great audio performance" That is a different topic from why Paul's amps are that size. You don't need a Ferrari when a Corvette performs nearly the same. If Paul could manufacture his amps, to have equal sound quality in smaller boxes, he probably would. It costs him more to have bigger, heavier parts manufactured and shipped. Have you done A/B comparison listening tests between Paul's 100 pound amps and the Benchmak AHB2 or the Purifi amps? Please post the results of your listening sessions. Also post how Paul should re-engineer his amps to retain their sound quality in smaller form factors.
@@NoEgg4u I’ve compared a lot of amps and those who measure better always sounded better to me. The terribly measuring ps audio amps are no match to something like the AHB2, purifi or hypex amps.
@@jaytorr6701 "I bet anything that no one can tell the difference between cables and a wireless protocol like WISA." Apparently, you have done the A/B listening tests, and you know others that have done the same listening tests. Please elaborate. Let us know which interconnects were involved in your listening test. Also list every component in your stereo system that you used for your listening test. Did the stereo's room have room treatments? Was the stereo professionally set-up? By whom? Also let us know who else has done the listening tests (since you are betting anything that no one can tell the difference, you must be basing your bet on actually knowing people that have done that listening test).
Why are some folks focused on eliminated cables? Just like any other part of the stereo, cables are one of the parts. Why not shoot the works? Let's eliminate the speakers. On Star Trek, they have holodecks. When the holodeck characters make sounds, there are no speakers. It is all created with photons and force-fields. Getting back to reality... If you want to eliminate cables, you eventually end up with a receiver built-in to your speakers. And that is fine, for low-fidelity music reproduction. Can a high-fidelity speaker/receiver be engineered? A lot of wives would probably love to eliminate their husband's stereo boxes. So such a product would probably have a high demand. If that is the case, then someone would have engineered one. Since no one on the planet has done so, it is likely due to bumping up against reality. For great sound quality, you cannot have a speaker with a built in receiver. Isolation from vibrations is key to great sound quality. So putting components (other than a bass amp) into the speakers is counter-productive.
