Active Speakers Better? No, per Michael Borresen

[...] I asked him if he plans an active speaker.

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

Not knowing the rest of Mr. Borresen’s explanation on why he clearly favors passive over actively configured speakers, I’d say the above is a peculiar answer of his, and one that would seem not to take into account what ’active’ really entails. Because active can be "separates" as well, and coming down to it whether it’s a bundled or separate component solution of active is not what defines its overall merits and defined status as active; it’s that the cross-over (analogue electronic or digital/DSP) is situated prior to amplification as a signal I/O, and not as a passive cross-over on the output side of the amp between that and the drives.

@lonemountain wrote:

The additional wire and type of wire should NOT be passed over, there are many measurements to indicate the issues there. Dampening factor losses, power losses, capacitance added with length, etc are the simple issues. There are more complex ones as well. There is a long list of differences detailed by so many in cables, how can these differences suddenly not matter when discussing active vs passive?

Wiring is a factor, yes, and going by the active-as-separates solution that more or less mimics the component configuration of a passive setup (sans of course the addition of an active XO and extra amp channels, while not least subtracting the passive XO), wiring is still a consideration to factor in here. It would say though that the freedom it lends working with an active setup this way, while maintaining the traits that comes from filtering prior to amplification and the amp-to-driver-direct connection it offers, has so many things going for it that wiring is really the least of it. And yet it offers the individual from the passive "camp" who’s used to (and possibly enjoys) working with cables and their means as a tweaking device to retain this element into an active-as-separates setup, in which case the divide going from passive to active would come down to the essentials of filter settings - unless they’d been preset from a manufacturer to a given pair of speakers.

Ad 1). +1

Ad 2). +1

Ad 3). +1

Ad 4). It’s certainly about the importance of the location of circuitry in this case and what replacing it with another means. Subtracting circuitry from being situated between the amp and drivers and taking the whole of amplifier power is the essential aspect, while its addition on signal level prior to amplification is the least interfering part to place it while accommodating the superior amp to driver control without a passive XO interfering here.

Ad 5). True. That being said amp matching with drivers in an actively configured setup is a lot easier given the much more appropriate working conditions an amp is presented with here. With passive speakers it’s more or less all about finding an amp that is impervious to load, much more so with complex an wattage draining passive filters in many "high-end" speakers, and how the more pragmatic scenario of not finding an amp that is exactly that very much affects the overall presentation of sound coming from the speakers. It also feeds the market for expensive amps with sturdy PSU’s, progressively so with complex/heavily filtered high-end segment speakers. This is not to say amp matching in an actively configured scenario doesn’t matter, in fact this is where it can really be taken to another level, but the outset of working with amps here is much more favorable so that a fitting combination is more easily found. Many don’t take this into consideration.

However, an active speaker + amp manufacturer in many if not most cases is also confronted with the need to cut corners, and while fortunately they have the better outset working on amps in an active context and the specific tailoring that can be brought about here, it is also rare to see such a manufacturer use a pure class A amp feeding the MF/HF section for example, or otherwise going an extra mile with their amps that might add that smidgen of refinement some are looking for. In an active-as-separates configuration this is what you can do and have the freedom to pursue.

@erik_squires wrote:

A shout out to many audiophile tinkerers who enjoy configuring drivers and horns and multiple types of amplifiers and are constantly switching out to try something new. There is nothing wrong with that at all and you should enjoy it.

That’s very much me, sans the "constantly switching out to try something new" line. But thank you, I certainly enjoy the outcome of working with an active setup this way, i.e.: configuring drivers and horns with multiple types of amplifiers. Of course, some element of joy taking on this approach is necessitated, and I very much "subscribe" to that.

The reason though for my replying here is to stress the fact that even though this is how I am going about it (and I’m sure many others in a similar situation as well), it isn’t necessarily to say that a "constantly trying something new" aspect is what follows; actually, it’s not in the least the primary or even secondary motivation to embark on something like this. What is however is sonic outcome, and an active-as-separates solution is one to lend a degree of freedom and uninhibitedness to this endeavor that’s very rewarding to me. A bundled approach would be very stifling and limiting to me, although I can understand why manufacturers are heading this way (while I would encourage others to go the separates route).

"Tinkering" here is what comes from the necessity of working with an active-as-separates solution where finding amps, electronic/DSP XO, the proper speakers/driver/horn elements and not least setting filter values are of primary concern. This approach naturally calls for that, but at the end of the day it all comes from the desire to achieve great sound - uninhibitedly, unapologetically, and as something I don’t have to revisit all too frequently with regard to the setting up process. A small component change in the chain however can necessitate minute filter adjustments, and that’s not because of the need to change just for the sake of change, but because with a setup like this it’s what I can do to ameliorate an ever so slight sonic imbalance to bring back the overall presentation to where I find it’s supposed to be.

@rajugsw wrote:

My problem with active speaker designs is that they are not user serviceable after the warranty runs out. You cannot adapt the sound of the Speakers to your own taste either.

[...]

The JBL M2’s pictured above are actively configured speakers, yet the accompanying Crown amps with built-in DSP are outward to the speakers as amps would be with typical passively configured speakers. Most active speakers are configured as bundled packages, but it (i.e.: bundled) is not what defines an actively configured speaker (see my post above).

If you’re a bit of DIY’er (or can see yourself as such) you can assemble an actively configured setup with separate, outward components through and through like you would with a passive system, and get to learn setting the filter values by yourself. This way you’ll have the most elaborate set of "tone controls" at your disposal, yet as an integral part of the electronic or digital cross-over they’re without the detrimental effects found in the simplistic and sonically degrading tone controls that’re imposed over an existing passive setup.

As such, and with a bit of diligence, you can have your cake and eat it too.

@johnk wrote:

Those fearing passive networks and driver integration issues seem to be a logical choice for a full-range driver system. Since it's active. 1 amp selected to best match transducers 1 driver no network. Maybe that's where you active lovers need to be in the end.

A wideband driver sans cross-over of any kind is a "pure" approach, also with regard to maintaining a single point source per channel, but driver integration actively is really the preferred route to go vs. passive, so it's the latter "camp" that would seek to benefit the most with a pair of full-range drivers, irrespective of the challenges (and limitations) such a solution brings with it. Calling a full-range driver sans cross-over an "active" approach btw. doesn't seem strictly correct, as by definition active involves an electronic/DSP XO prior to amplification to be named such. 

And keep in mind many actives still use a passive part to keep drivers from blowing during amp turn-on or amp damage. And is the cabinet really the best place for an amp and an active crossover to reside?

Safety measures with active can be part of the amplifier section as well instead of necessitating of passive component, and even so a single capacitor as a safety means isn't what constitutes a load scenario comparable to that of typical passive cross-over with coils and all. 

As I have outlined at numerous occasions active can be configured as a separate (/outward) solution as well, and so "component care" would apply as it pertains to any typical passive setup. Among the many bundled active speakers that are, incl. not least pro sector products, reliability seems pretty solid. Poster @lonemountain mentioned active ATC speakers being extremely reliable even following many years of extensive pro usage, while sounding great, not to mention cables being less of a variable here. Except..

I have to fix so so many subwoofers that have an amp and active all-in-one box they don't have longevity. Is your costly active just a short-term friend that gets binned in a few years when amps fail?

And this is the one exception - with actively configured, bundled subs - where amp durability can be rather dubious and many a (bad) capacitor in particular has blown up fairly early in its life cycle. Plate amps found in many subs may be high power, but component quality is often so-so to pretty shitty.

Again, this is where I would direct the attention towards the fact that an actively configured sub can be such with an outwardly positioned amp (of much better quality). This is what I do myself with my pair of tapped horn subs being driven by a Crown K2 - actively; the digital XO precedes the amp, and the rest of them for the remaining frequency span above sans any passive XO parts, which is to say fully actively.  

@lonemountain wrote:

If you use a super low distortion [active] speaker system, it reveals more about everything upstream. 

Agreed.

So my question: How is active taking choice away or reducing the [audiophile] hobby? There is far more to a system than amplifiers. To my ear, it increases choice, as these choices are suddenly far more obvious.. Example: the difference between cartridges is FAR greater than the difference between two good to excellent amps. Note I did not say you cannot hear a difference in amps, I said that other transducers in the system are more evident than amplifiers alone in a passive system.

Not to mention that an active approach can be taken with outboard amps and DSP/electronic XO, whereby the choice of these components exists to take the hobby element of active even further, not least with regard to setting filter values if a more radical DIY-path is chosen. Even though amps matter less imprinting-wise here there’s still a worthwhile process to be pursued in differentiating them, both in terms of quality and quantity of wattages, to their dedicated and respective driver segments.