active speakers, Paradise? Trouble in paradise?

There's currently a pair of Paradigm Active 40s listed for sale on this site @ $950. These may not quite compare with ATCs, et al, but offer an opportunity to "go active" with a (nearly) full range loudspeaker for a very low price of admission. Some time ago, I had the bookshelf Paradigm Active 20s in a second system and thought they represented great value.

Good Luck,

Marty

Virtually every multi driver loudspeaker system has to "slice and dice" the signal with a x-over of some sort. In the broadest sense, if the x-over is ahead of the power amps in the signal path, the speaker can be called "active", because the x-over unit is an active component. Even if the active crossover, power amps and "drivers in cabinet" are each from a separate manufacturer, this is still an active loudspeaker set-up.

A single driver type monitor coupled to a powered subwoofer are, in this sense, an "active loudspeaker".

I think some people prefer to restrict the use of the phrase "active loudspeaker" to an integrated, active loudspeaker system in which all three functions (active x-over, amp, and speaker) are sold as a system.

Personally, I use the broader definition.

Marty

BTW, if you use exclusively digital sources (or don't mind A-D-A conversion of your analog sources), you could look at digitally room corrected active systems. In addition to the sophisticated room correcting EQ function, these designs go a step further in refining the "slicing and dicing" function of the x-over. Both Merdian and DEQX powered active speakers (like those from Salk, if they still make 'em), for example, employ active x-overs operating in the digital domain. This set-up offers certain extra benefits (in theory, at least) over even analog active systems.

As a technical matter, Bob's point about passive x-overs sometimes being used ahead of the power amps is quite correct. However, that set-up is IME sufficiently rare (I think Vandersteen uses it on some models) that I actually forgot about it. I guess that I should more accurately have said that an active x-over must be ahead of the amps to create an active system.

I stand corrected.

Marty

Jim,

The value question is tough, because the active pro audio gear is usually built to withstand commercial abuse (probably not required for home use), generally less "jewel-like" in finish than passive high end speakers, and also usually very expensive. Also the interconnects are often balanced XLR for studio use, which may mean re-cabling for some buyers. Probably not a formula for great value.

OTOH, the Paradigm Active 40s I mentioned, fed by a quality CD player with variable output, repesents IMHO ridiculously high value. Even if purchased new at MSRP, that set-up punched way, way above its price class. I believe that has also been true of some other consumer/home studio offerings like those from NHT or KRK.

The B&O and Merdian style DRC equipment seems to run more to luxe pricing (relative to passive speakers coupled with DRC equipped preamps plus full range power amps). Most of the OEM DEQX powered gear that I've seen looks like it's priced more or less "competiviely" with passive highend gear.

Bottom line: a carefully chosen active set up can represent unusual value. If chosen without regard to price, high performance active speakers will carry a hefty price tag.

The big disadvantage in the market is not IMHO - performance or performance for money. It's the lack of flexibility. This is a hobby, and hobbyists generally like to mix and match.

Just one more point of view.

Marty

I agree with Shadorne's point, but I'd just note that there is (at least) one (kinda rare) exception to the high x-over point = beaming rule. Omnidirectional drivers (like those in MBL, Ohm, B&O, etc.) are usually designed with a very high "hand-off" from the mid to the tweeter, yet (due to the omni design) the mid driver doesn't narrow its dispersion pattern near the top of its passpand.

Marty

Shad,

Fair observation. However, I have measured on axis (uni mic) and something like power response (multi sweeps with an omni mic) at my listening position. I suspect that you'd be pretty impressed by both the absolute quality of each measurement and by the convergence between them.

BTW, I've treated the crap out of the room (absorbtion, diffusion, hemholtz, etc.) and use DRC EQ below 75hz, which helps.

As I indicated earlier, omnis are merely one more way to
skin this particular part or our common SQ cat and, while I think it's a good approach, I'm the first to admit that it is neither perfect, nor suitable for every taste.

Marty

Without disputing the discussion re: x-over and beaming which, in my view, is spot on, people might want to consider the other side of the coin.

If you cross from the mid driver to the tweeter much below 2K, you're nearing the a region where our hearing is more sensitive. Some would say that a well designed x-over circuit mated to appropriate drivers anywhere north of One-ish khz minimizes damage, but others disagree. The single driver crowd is all over this one.

I mentioned omnis earlier (and noted that they ARE rare) because they do satisfy both of these concerns. One driver is nearly full range (75hz to 7khz in my case) with only a subwoofer and (effictively) a supertweeter to augment. Dispersion remain essentially consistent without the need for x-over circuits where they MIGHT cause mischief.

Obviously, all designs involve trade-offs. This is just one more "recipe" to consider.

Marty