@dynamiclinearity, I agree, active speakers properly done is superior AND less expensive than a speaker/amp/speaker wire traditional route. Did you ever wonder that back in the day dealers found they could make more $$$ selling a sperate amp/speaker package so active speaker weren't given the time of day (except by the pros who used them in the studio)?
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.
- ...
- 75 posts total
Speaker engineers, unlike audiophiles, are in no position to discount the advantages of active speakers. Andrew Jones tells us that in actives: Each amplifier is matched to the driver, and only has to operate over a limited frequency range. It’s operating into a simpler impedance, so it’s not going to have high-current demands. Also, the temporal characteristics of music change with frequency. High frequencies require very little average power, but have a lot of peaks. Bass requires much higher average power, but has far fewer peaks. You can match the amplifier to those characteristics as well. As a gesture to the audiophile penchant for experimentation, Jones’s ARB-5s forgo digital signal processing (DSP). He nevertheless acknowledges its advantages: Plus DSP can adjust to a room’s particular acoustics; here both Kii and Dutch & Dutch are in the vanguard. And in all active speakers the specific frequencies for each specific driver “crossover” before amplification, yet another enhancement of audio design. Other engineers echo these same points. Listen to Paul McGowan from PS Audio at 03:00, or Dynaudio’s Roland Hoffman at 03:20 and 13:06, or Meridian’s Bob Stuart. They all work for companies that sell passive speakers or equipment for them, but they all clearly favor the design opportunities found in actives. |
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:
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:
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. |
- 75 posts total