Actually, it's a very tight race between the Dell laptop and the non-powered Insignia speakers and the Lenovo unit with the Logitech actives! ;)
I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...
Showing 6 responses by douglas_schroeder
One damning truth for me is that in 15 years of shows I don’t recall any active speaker (Legacy audio being the exception; hybrid) making my top 3 of show, ever. Until they actually DO outperform they are for me a waste of my time. The AXPONA 2019 demo of active/passive did nothing to change that opinion. It was actually a fairly good demo of why one does NOT have to go active. :( I will add this; In order to confirm or falsify my impressions from the show, I sought a set of larger active/passive speakers from a big name company, high profile. They were on board - until they saw the shipping cost. They balked, and the community lost a potentially very insightful article about pro/con of active/passive. It seems people can’t interpret "reviewer speak" all that well, so I will for you. Steve said the active did a few things better; translated, UNIMPRESSIVE. Precisely. My conclusion as well. Active speakers in use for smallish rigs, space constrained, budget constrained. Sure. For more serious, big rigs? I’ll leave that to someone else. :) |
In what follows, my intent is not to get on the bad side of persons in the Pro side of audio. I know some of them in the industry, and have good relationships with them. So, my comments to follow do not reflect universally my opinion of all Pro oriented individuals. We have a problem here that is rearing its head, as it does in many sectors of discussion of equipment. Namely, the problem is what I will call "claimed authority". IWO, someone does NOT have experience, but claims authority to make a conclusion as though they had. Our post from Ip2cd is a good example. Plenty of denouncement of anyone who thinks otherwise, but then admits he uses passive speakers and seemingly has not done any comparison in his room at home. This kind of claimed authority without actual experience/comparison is perpetuated continuously, and if I am correct, there is quite a bit of it here in this thread. I defend Steve in this particular thread, not because I am a fan of his (I do applaud his positive demeanor and friendliness in his videos, and I am not impressed by people who would assault him for his attire, etc., as if that impacts actual system building.), but because having a similar, but independent, experience I concluded the same, that in head to head comparison with the identical form of speaker, the active wasn't impressive. Now, he didn't say it in those words; that's my take on his comment that the active did some things better. It certainly wasn't a rave over the active. How about our Pro friends answer this: Just how does comparison to a different speaker entirely settle the question of whether active vs. passive is better? These are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL sound people, and they seemingly can't figure out that the ONLY way to conduct a proper comparison is with the identical speaker active/passive! Instead, they make the same mistake as these others, who BTW notoriously fail to even mention brand and model of passive speaker replaced. Hmmm. just a thought. Could it be that the passive speaker replaced simply wasn't that good to begin with? Audiophiles do tend to upgrade, not downgrade. So, how is that variable factored into a claim that active speaker X beat passive speaker Y? How many things screwed up do we want to include in the nebulous claims of superiority? Don't answer; it's not worth my time to point them all out here, but could we possibly say BIAS is a factor in it? No! Couldn't be! Notice how none of these active speaker fans are calling for ABX? Huh, one might think that if this was so important, then ABX should be employed to prove active is better. What if... the horror scenario happened, where listeners to a blind comparison were split on preference. You bet it could happen, and I will tell you why. Some would likely in blind listening feel the active had too much detail, was too harsh. Now, as a reviewer, I will follow proper procedure and say I do not know the answer, because I have not done the testing. That would be quite professional, you know. It's something our Pro friends here could learn from. You see, we still need reviewers to keep the public honest. Further, so now it's being said that you can have an "active" speaker without the amps in the box! Well, isn't THAT a revelation! I always thought that was designated a speaker with an active x-over. That opens up questions, doesn't it? So, you apparently, according to some, do not need the amps in the box to have an active speaker. Huh, I thought the amp right there without cables was supposed to be a huge boon to the result. Apparently in the minds of some, that's not so important; we can just screw around with the build and no problem, "active" is still better! Of course, no actual comparisons are necessary, as is typical when someone makes conclusions based on mind experiments rather than actual system building. Do we see a pattern here? Of course; the same pattern that plagues the entire hobby and this site. So, if the X-over is really the big deal, then I refer the community back to my work with the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW, wherein I did extensive comparison of this same speaker (literally the same; it has capacity to operate in active x-over, and has passive x-over built in!) in both active/passive modes and guess which mode was universal superior. Our fans of active speakers would intone, "Well, of course, the active!" Wrong. It was entirely dependent upon the selection of ancillary gear. I could make either the active or the passive outperform. Some common sense might conclude that, but it's tough to have common sense prevail in emotional discussions. Well, now, that was precisely the result that was found by Steve and myself in direct comparison of active speaker to passive speaker. Are we seeing a pattern here? Here's the fun part. I will be revisiting the active/passive x-over comparisons again with the Whisper DSW Clarity Edition speakers. I have a new amplification scheme that will bring a wealth of comparisons, insights, etc. One of the planned outcomes is to revisit my prior article, "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In", wherein I compared new/not warmed up identical components to "burned in/broken in and warmed up components. It was conducted out of curiosity, but has become a direct assault on the hubris that plagues this community. I plan on seeing whether it is upheld, this time with isolation devices in the mix! Trust me, I have fun with these things! I wish to learn, rather than just flap my jaw. :) I find it intriguing that our isolation fanatics are quiet. Not a peep from those peeps. They are rabid about the critical nature of isolation, and how one can't begin to optimize a system when there are vibrations. Now look, not a word from them about Steve's observation about vibrations in the cabinet that could affect the electronics! Note that both of these groups, the active fans and the isolation fans, often portray themselves as the "scientific" ones, even going to the point of intentionally using faith illustrations negatively. Yet, imo they are wretchedly unscientific in their method of drawing conclusions. It's the audiophile sin of pride, wherein, when I think I'm right, I don't need to actually test it. Then, the arrogant and ignorant argue over it! How fantastic! What advancement of the hobby and industry! No wonder so many don't take audiophiles seriously. If they operate that way in life, they would be ignored. Here, we have a collection of such individuals all jockeying for importance of their opinions based on nothing more than their expectations. Perhaps you can see why, as a reviewer, I'm not impressed. :( If anyone in favor of active speakers would like to address this extended argument by actually showing/discussing the active/passive speakers that were compared in your room, or passive speakers that were replaced by active, it would be appreciated. While it is still not imo an appropriate test to consider active/passive, it may shed light on what is really going on with the claims, i.e. what caliber of passive speakers have been replaced, and by what active speakers. It is at least interesting, a LOT more interesting than one sided declarations without any reference to actual passive speakers replaced! Why do I suspect that won't happen? Perhaps because it would show how weak the arguments of the active fans are. Claimed Authority always seems more impressive when you don't have to show your evidence. So, there, I have argued my position on the goings on here. Do you wish to ridicule me, disdain me? Then, of course, we will have the ignorant comments about, "They are selling...," or "They're paid to say that..."I am not paid to write my articles; I have done countless hours of work on them for the love of audio and of course, to get my hands on the gear to build systems. It should not be surprising that is a motivator. I have done my comparisons on these matters voluntarily, as pure personal curiosity, because I like finding out the truth about building audio systems. :) |
I found that my new Logitech active computer speakers ($20) vastly outperform my previous Insignia passive computer speakers (price unknown, as bundled with ancient computer)! ;) I picked a very nice first video to watch as test: World's Largest Devil's Toothpaste Explosion - YouTube |