Active or passive are equally good. Doesn't matter at what end the amps are placed. Speaker wire should be a non-issue. I hold that it is all transparent to the source and therefore of no consequence. Only the neurotically obsessed fixate on the length of speaker wire as a tone control, which is eliminated by going active. If you must have active then I recommend a pair of Genelec monitors.
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 responses Add your response
I own both active and passive speakers. If you listen to acoustic music at low volumes I don’t think you could tell the difference. Dynamic music and music at higher volumes sounds better to my ears with active speakers. This is the active speaker I own and it has a passive counter part (Paradigm Active 40 vs passive 40). Guess which one Paradigm says is better (and has measurements to prove it): "But active loudspeakers have some distinct advantages over their passive counterparts. In fact, when I asked the designers at Paradigm which technology was better, active or passive (since the company makes both types of speakers), I couldn’t even finish my sentence before the word "active" was rushed back at me. There was just no second thought about it. But why?" https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/paradigm_active40.htm |
To put it bluntly, passive crossovers are crude. That's why some sophisticated audiophiles prefer no crossover loudspeaker designs. A line level crossover can be much more precise while doing less damage (adding distortion) to the music signal. Couple a line level crossover with multiple power amps and it's possible for the designer to have more control over the final sound. The synergy is built into the loudspeaker and the audiophile doesn't have to search for some magical pairing of loudspeaker and amplifier. Active loudspeakers definitely have the potential for better sound compared to passive designs. |
@invalid , the active speakers have the amps inside, like a studio monitor. They have both XLR and RCA inputs, a high pass filter that can be engaged when using them with a sub, and knobs to adjust the volume and contour bass and treble. The controls are useful to really dial in the speakers when you place them. The center height channel is connected to a Dayton monoblock with a crossover setting and volume control. This helps me blend it the the active center channel. Here is a shot of the amp on the back of all the active speakers:
|
@onhwy61 , +1, I agree with all of the advantages you mention about active speakers as well as the space and savings on separate amplifiers and speaker cables. Each of these speakers are internally biamped and I have a lot of speakers. It wouldn't have been practical to biamp 13 speakers with external amps and the long runs of speaker wire. https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/paradigm_active40.htm |
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? In addition to the issues of wire and which ones sounds "right" or wrong, there are even more issues/problems: 1) phase: you cannot adjust driver phase in passive. A phase linear speaker system is very important to best possible sound. 2) Changes with heat and temperature of drivers: as drivers heat up, they change properties and interact with a passive crossover in a way that can change the crossover point, the sensitivity, etc. The long and short of this is that the speaker sounds different "hot" (on for 5 hours straight) vs. "cold". Not true in the same way with an active system. Most passives are NOT phase linear because you cannot have precision in adjusting this phase via passive components. With active, its easy. 3)The driver never "sees" the amp: there is a significant amount of stuff audio is traveling through (wires, inductors, coils, connectors, etc) permanently between all the speaker drivers and the amp. How can this be said to actually improve transparency? The obvious answer is it doesn't improve anything. It also makes it difficult if you replace drivers that have ever so slight difference in sensitivity: this is not adjustable unless you reengineer the entire crossover. 4) Adding a bunch additional circuitry seems to be a negative in almost all situations, many electronics companies talk about reducing the circuitry to improve performance. Why here, in this amp to speaker location, is it pitched as BETTER to add bunch of extra parts ? 5) If you are a speaker designer, that doesn't mean you are also an amp designer and vice versa. So most speaker companies must go elsewhere for amp designs, making the entire project more complex and involving more engineers. Few have both disciplines in the same house. (Genelec and ATC were the pioneering companies in active and their founders could do both). Comment? Brad
|
It doesn’t matter. It all depends and people go round and round. The active speaker argument holds up really well in professional environments which need lots of power. Thats the only place where active is 100% better. I have made passive 2-way speakers for my mains and planning a fully active 3-way for the center. In each case there are pro’s and cons and I know I’m trading off. I think asking a manufacturer why don’t you make an active version, or why don’t you make a passive always elicits this kind of response, that what they are selling is best, and that’s the way of the world. The consumer should go with what sounds best and what complexity levels of wiring and amplifiers they want to live with and fuss with as audiophiles, but anyone who tries to sell me that "technology x is always better than technology y" is not going to get an active engagement from me, it’s not worth it. 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. PS - this kind of arm-chair tech discussions are exactly why I feel our community is served when more audiophiles build something themselves vs. rely 100% on marketting and media. |
I second the spirit of Eric's post. In fact, I am waiting for glue to set as I type, on a set of passive loudspeakers in the shop. It has been several years since I experienced the active loudspeaker idea. I was working with an engineer in Tucson who is brilliant with the technology of an active design, yet, in my application or use of such speakers, I still preferred the passive design that originally complimented these speakers (also designed by him). The active crossover chosen was made by a company that was popular but not impressive in build quality IMO. Bryston amps were used for power to all drivers. Balanced interconnects were used throughout, and I forget which AudioQuest speaker cable we chose. In a word, I found the result too dry for my taste. Again, the passive crossover was my preference, even though as stated before, they are rough in comparison of what can be accomplished with an active line level device. |
@lonemountain +10, that is a lot of great info, are you an engineer or designer? Interesting point about speaker and amp designers as my vendor, Paradigm, does happen to make both (Anthem amps and Paradigm are owned by the same group). |
@russ69 , IDK about choices being limited, maybe not as common though, yes. You have the pro gear and you have the new "simpli-fi gear" being offered now by more vendors all the time which bundles everything into the speakers like these:
or these:
|
@4krowme , you mentioned Bryston, check out their active speakers: |
kota1,If I were to start all over again, the total price wouldn't bother me so much. In fact, if this an item that spells out the answer for audio in the long run, likely money would have been saved. Really, just look at the total spent on audio over decades in our systems. And in the case of speakers, I have kept one pair (coincidently the one that I posted about here) for well over 10 years. It wasn't until I started to build speakers again that I sold these, of course at a loss, and tried new designs. It is too late in the game to start again considering my age and hearing. In the end, I am glad to have the chance to have so many experiences with all audio, i.e., not just in stereo/music but the observation of it in daily life. |
The LS-60 was the only one I could think of. At 45 Hz the PW60 is not a full range loudspeaker in my opinion. |
Active speakers not as good ,for the quality of the amplifier is night and day better with separates of good quality , I am not saying digital amps are all bad but n a speaker you are never getting their best efforts. The speaker cables too need to be of good quality ,any worthy Audiophile would already know this. |
Speakers are a reactive load meaning a combination of resistance, capacitance and inductance. Amplifiers don't like reactance. They want just resistance, alas. The less reactive the load the more the amp acts like its specs. An amplifier only needs to drive the reactance of the voice coil in an active speaker, a much easier load than a passive crossover with capacitors, resistors and inductors. Which load will the amps be happier with. It's obvious. Add in each amp doesn't have to drive the full audio bandwidth and a few other advantages, all things being equal it's no contest. An active speaker properly done is superior. The biggest problem is audiophiles think they can choose a passive speaker and amp combo better than a good designer can do a speaker combo. So active speakers are a hard sell. |
It depends on how much $$ you have and how good or crappy your amp is. For a TV signal cheap actives are an upgrade to the TV speakers. On the other hand if you have a decent receiver and not much $$ passives may work for you. If you have tons of $$; like a lot of those on this site a really good receiver and great passive speakers are hard to beat ( w/ a good powered subwoofer). FYI comments by NOT an AUDIOPHILE!! |
@dynamiclinearity, I agree, active speakers properly done is superior AND less expensive than a speaker/amp/speaker wire traditional route. Did you ever wonder that back in the day dealers found they could make more $$$ 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)? |
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. |
Just putting my thought out: aren't passive capacitors and coils (C an L), and maybe even resistors causing a PHASE shift on passive crossovers, and NOT so using active crossovers? In my mind, the question is active vs passive CROSSOVER. 40 years ago, we built our own active crossovers (and tri amped our Electro Voice (I think it was called a Sentry 3?) and made it sound great even on classic music). I know bought (still in box) a miniDSP 4x2HD with hopes it can provide a 2 or 3 way active crossover (to drive my Infinity Quantum 2 with seperate amps for the Watkin bass, mide cone and dome tweeter/EMIT tweeter (maybe tube amp?).
|
Over many decades, I have listened and owned many, many speakers, trying to replicate the kind of live sound I was hearing in the mixing room of a friend's recording studio. My hunch is that crossovers are very damaging devices. After all, their goal is to kill music. I think they introduce some form of distortion that I don't like. Phase ? I don't know, but electrostatics sound clean to me, as well as the Dali Callisto 6C active I had. Last year I listented to ove half a milllion $ of speakers for my new home. In the end I chose Borrenses's Raidho X3. In this 2.5 speaker, there are two pairs of mid bass drivers. The designer MB explains that at the crossover points, there are distortions which attract the attention of the ears. Thus he did two things: make sure that at that point the measured SPL response is reduced, and that the volume of the other pair of drivers is louder than the pair which are crossing over . So to me these speakers sound clean, like if they were electrostatics, but with the focus and punch of dynamic drivers. Active speakers, bi-amping and biwire are ways to avoind crossover distortion. Active speakers can be considerably more economical than their equivalent in separates for a given SQ. But still it is possible and fun to tweak the sound with separates and wires of all kinds. My wires alone (Transparent Ultra with The Q concept 500 and Luna Red with Raidhos X3) are worth much more than the actve Dalis and Triangles I had. The members of this Forum are probably inclined to follow this latter route. But in some applications, active speakers are certainly a good solution. |
This happens with active and passive crossovers. it is the natural outcome of using analog circuits to create high and low pass circuits as well as any equalizers. It is not distortion. The concern in either case is that the combined (electrical + acoustical) amplitude and phase match seamlessly across the crossover band. In terms of design, crossover designers are creating to systems, drivers and circuits, which sum to a final result. Changes in amplitude go hand in hand with phase shifts. The one area where things get easier is in the active crossover we can ignore driver impedance as part of the equation. We pay attention strictly to driver amplitude and phase. |
I can see some benefit in isolated situations, but don't see a mainstream use for them.. You are actually expecting a $1,000 active speaker to have the sound quality seen from a $20,000 Amp-speaker Combo. Oh ya, you don' thave to pay $555 for a special speaker cable, But Oh ya, you still do. Unless you are opting for a wireless speaker then all you have to worry about is someone hacking you home for the sidewalk or the HAM operator next door totally overwhelming your Bluetooth signal. |
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. Plate Amplifiers won't last twenty years without dying to my knowledge. Just look at all the great Subwoofers form 20 to 25 years ago. The plate Amps are dead and a swap in from Parts Express doesn't work or fit all the time. Will the manufacturer even support repairs should it fail ? Stick with separates unless you are on a tight budget or with a manufacturer who'll support an out of warranty dead Amplifier after many years of service. |
@esarhaddon , as for the value of going active here is what Soundstage said about the speakers I eventually bought when compared to a much more expensive speaker (without including the additional cost of the amp and speaker cables. YMMV): And when you compare a much more expensive speaker, such as JMlab’s $7000 Mini Utopia, you’ll find that it has a much more luxurious appeal with a nicer finish (and given the price difference, this is to be expected). But when it comes to comparing the sound, again it is more about differences than one being better (although the Active/40s do have much better bass extension). The Mini Utopia is a bit more incisive, visceral and lively in the midrange and up top. The Active/40s, on the other hand, don’t jump out at you quite as much, and they are not quite as precise, but what they do well is play music superbly across the board with top-to-bottom coherency and balance. https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/paradigm_active40.htm |
@rajugsw , I understand your point about the benefits of external amps. You can adapt the sound of a lot of active speakers with built in controls on the plate amp (volume, treble, bass, crossover point, etc). For example, look at the back of this speaker in the pics on the website, you won't get that on a passive speaker:
|
I don't understand why either design, active or passive, should be inherently better than the other (w.r.t. sound quality.) .My floor-standers are offered in both passive and active designs. I chose passive. I did not want almost all the system eggs in one big, heavy, expensive basket. If anything went wrong (probably more likely with the electronics) shipping them out for service would have been a real pain. |
@rajugsw wrote:
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. |
@phusis Wrote:
I agree! Mike |
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
|
Erik I agree with you I wish more people understood what they were buying. At ATC, we build both active and passive of nearly every model from 2 way to big high power three ways. Understanding the advantages of an active system is not well understood out there in the market but should be. Reasons to NOT like it are usually baseless, such as "you can't service the amps if they are installed inside a speaker" (silly as ATC amp packs bolt on and off and are can be sent to us for service without the entire speaker coming along- its usually easier to send us a amp pack then a standard 3-5Ru rack mount amp). Or other reasons like "plate amps don't last that long" which is also completely untrue, I have so many active ATC speakers on for 15- 20 years for 18 hours a day its crazy. If they all broke I would be buried in service. Reliability doesn't really enter into it as I think most well built gear lasts a lifetime now. Unless you are talking about cheap active, thrown together low cost contract speakers with amps inside that are built for price. That's a different story but it has nothing to do with being active. Again, being in the studio business as well as home audio in active and passive I see both. Studios have issues with passives and outboard amps more often than issues with actives because of the constant connections and unconnecting and the additional part and pieces that need adjusting. Connectors are a huge issue in reliability. Users at home have issues with outboard amps ( of various brands) than active set ups (of various brands) from my direct experience I think its marketing that has convinced everyone they need to buy amplifiers and if they don't all hell will break loose. Somehow something is being taken away or somehow something is lost when its really the reverse. Wire and caps and inductors are added between amp and speakers that doesn't need to be there. I think what's taken away with passives is imaging and a significant amount of your money. When I see someone saying they like the ability to change the sound of their system, that's totally fair and okay. That IS the single best reason to stay passive, not performance or reliability. Some people want it to sound like it's supposed to, the way Fleetwood Mac decided or Tom Petty or Lenny Kravitz. ATC enables you to get that, and you cannot get that with passives. You can get close, but not "there". Realism is what drives Billy Woodman- or should I say "low distortion", the doorway to realism. Brad |
Phusis is right, you can build your own active. This would make sense if you want to DIY. If you have the ability to adjust crossover point, slope, output level and driver phase, you have it all. JBLs M2 was an attempt to build a system that could be "tuned" on site for best performance. Its a good idea, except fiddling by different users renders many of these expensive systems far from target without some regular checking. There are many examples of good M2 demos and spectacular M2 "that's awful" misses. Its also a very difficult system to calibrate and set up, and is beyond the ability of many dealers to put together on site. When Peter (from JBL) sets it up or someone like Nate Kunkel, and the system is left alone, it can be spectacular. Brad |
kota1, I missed your comment about my post asking if I was a designer or engineer? Forgive my oversight. I am neither, I am the ATC importer to the USA for the last 20+ years. Before that I worked at JBL as in charge of theater and installed sound. In both roles, there was/is a lot of interaction with the engineering department about "why" they do things a certain way. Brad |
