Active Speakers Better? No, per Michael Borresen


The best sounding speaker I have had the pleasure to hear is made by Borresen.

I recently spent time with Michael Borresen in Seattle at a show. It was slow so

I was able to speak with him for a time. I asked him if he plans an active speaker. 

His answer was a definitive and immediate "No". He said separates sound better.

 

His statement flies in the face of what passes in most audio corners as commonly recognized facts. 

 

Sadly I am too technically challenged to convey any of his further explanation.

 

I invite all intelligent commentary on this question. Theoretical or not.

jeffseight

Showing 1 response by barts

I can't comment on active vs passive speakers, except to say I would hope that the speaker designer would test many amp configurations to find the best "bar none".

It has always seemed sort of self defeating to have the output signal from an amp to have to power a crossover network.  I have always thought (forty years or more) that the way to go is electronically separate the frequencies PRIOR to them being amplified and then feed them to the appropriate driver.  Yes the amps should have the same power factors and damping factors. Staying in the same family of amps can mostly negate this problem.  And hopefully phase shift is not an issue.  I say this without the aid of measurement on my part, just listening.

My system uses four amps and a Marchand 3 way electronic XO. Two mono blocks to drive the woofers, a stereo amp to drive the midrange and a stereo amp to drive the tweeters.

In this configuration when the bass is really heavy none of the other amps have a clue what the two bass amps are doing and they just keep playing sweetly.

Just my take on the myriad possibilities to set up a satisfactory system.  I love the way my system sounds...it is somewhat complicated in the wiring aspect but that is just one and done if you get it right.

YMMV.

Regards,

barts