Don't forget the seniors with hearing loss who may be best suited for actives firing directly into the face.
Profoundly ignorant doesn't even begin to describe this comment. I owned the passive version of the active speaker I currently own (Legacy Audio Calibre). Fronted them with a Musical Fidelity M6 500i integrated amp and an Esoteric K-03 player. The passive and active speakers reside in the same location in the room set up the same way. The current set up is significantly better. Micro and macro dynamics, sound staging, inner detail are all improved. Believing the blanket statement that active speakers cannot do these things well is like believing that all horn speakers have resonances and a cupped hand sound to vocals. It is just not true.
Dutch & Dutch seem very appealing--active done right. For people who don't want to mess around and for people trying to reduce boxes/clutter, clearly the way to go.
I respect Steve, I do not follow him closely, but in previous videos of his that I have seen, he seems to come from a position of experience and research. In this video he seems to come from a position of speculation and assumption. There are plusses and minuses to everything and the only opinion that matters is yours.
With such lousy room and not really any options for acoustic treatments, a few have suggested that active is possibly a cure-all for this?
The only way an active speaker can help with a lousy room is if they give you access to adjust the parameters in the DSP to allow you to tune the speaker to the room. Active speakers with ARC is one way of adjusting the parameters. Out board DSP units like those from MiniDSP, DBX, XTA and others, allow you to adjust the parameters via built in interface or computer or both. You can also adjust some of the parameters with out board analog e.q.s
SG states about ¾’s of the way through his rant that "as the speaker ages you get stuck with the out-of-date DSP”
Any technology will become out of date as it ages. DSP in a lot of cases can easily be kept up to date with software updates downloaded from your computer.
Getting close to double the price of the Buchardts'. Not most pleasing looking speaker. And nothing against bookshelf's as long as there on the bookshelf, not really big on stands. Unless of course, there like theses:
OK folks. Listen up. Here’s WHY active crossovers are so very much better than passive.
... Except when they are not.
A single loudspeaker driver is an inductor, and provides a frequency dependent,
the fact that there are multiple impedance peaks in most driver’s impedance curve should give us a clue that they are not electrically a simple inductors but an inductor, plus a resistor plus a resonant circuit.
But do please go on...
give you a frequency dependent impedance curve which looks like a Coney Island roller coaster. And that’s just for a tweeter high-pass circuit.
So, without taking this much further, almost any competent SS amplifier will handle these impedance issues. Please look at the simulated speaker load curve in any Stereophile amp review. Even for tubes, it’s not that bad.
Some speakers, like << PLUG!! >> Fritz << /PLUG! >> are naturally a lot better than others and will behave very very well even for modest tube gear. Joseph Audio is another brand that seems to take impedance flattening seriously.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that you cannot make an exceptional active crossover, but these arguments have for the most part been overcome by modern, low output impedance amps.
I’ve heard TERRIBLE fully active systems, and I’ve heard sublime traditional systems.
audiorusty - In the past, I purchase a microphone off Amazon and downloaded Room Perfect. I found the whole thing a little overwhelming. I gave up and returned the mic. I need the DSP for Dummies edition!
Darko seems to like the Buchardts A500 bookshelf's:
I would love to see Fritz try a 2.5 or 3 way model with his drivers and materials, but I don’t want to put the poor guy on the hook for my dumb ass ideas. ;-)
People fixating on whether the amp is internal or external are emphasizing the wrong thing. I'm sure there are a lot of cheap active speakers that aren't very reliable but that's because they're a cheaply made throwaway items. You can get active speakers with external amplifiers. If you want ATCs with external amps you can order them that way. They just stick the amp in a separate box, no big deal. Both ways are compromised with different strengths and weaknesses. There are great examples of both and terrible examples of both and personal preference obviously comes into play. The stuff people get hung up on.
When I hear people say that dsp can take room problems out of the equation I have to say something. It can certainly help, but a really reverberant room isn't going to be solved by dsp. An empty plaster room with wood floors in a brick house is going to have problems and dsp can't solve them. It can ameliorate them to some degree but there's no way speakers can stop the echo.
If this worked, the speakers would be on either of the fireplace (which will be removed). I think, from the corner on the left to the side of the door is around 12’. Windows to the left (no widow coverings). Room L’s into the small kitchen to the right. The length of the room is 40’ with the front door exactly opposite the one you see in the pic.
Slightly vaulted ceiling walls are wood paneling and eventually, the floors will be vinyl planked floors. The ceiling is OSB which I think is a bit sound deadening?
The person who built the house must have worked at an OSB factory or something a lot of the interior walls are OSB too. Not to mention the top side of the ceiling joists and the underside of the floor joists are also fully sheathed in OSB. Unrelated, but kinda weird.
I originally had some Spatial in mind or maybe some Magnapans but I’ve heard neither. With little room to pull any speakers out into the room, away from the wall (there will be couches and chairs in close proximity, then a dining table beyond that). I think anything that needs room to breathe might not be a good fit.
This is when I started thinking active(ly).
I was hoping that our next home would have had a nice, dedicated listening room, but as I previously mentioned, due to Covid, my wife and I had to step it down a bit. Basically, this place is a cabin.
Not in a rush either, this home is in a big state of disrepair. I am hoping to be listening to some tunes by late next summer, after getting through this mess.
For that "Close to the wall thing" I going to listen to some (passive) Larsons on the 26th.
I don't understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active crossover and your choice of amps.
That's "invalid" I am not seeking a speaker manufacturer to build me an active speaker, but I do like your advice. I will need to research what you are talking about and see how to exactly do this.
Damning truth for me is that I have been going to trade shows for 30 years and have never heard anything particularly good as the rooms are awful and totally mask speakers. If you are using shows as reference I don’t know what to say.
Active speakers will be for people who want accurate reproduction. Passive speakers will be for people who think what they like is accurate.
It is impossible to achieve in a passive speaker what is possible in an active speaker. It is a simple truth.
douglas_schroeder2,742 posts12-10-2020 9:12pmOne 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.
Deep understanding of the drivers and how to correct for their faults and understanding what is a factor of driver and cabinet and correcting for same.
invalid75 posts12-11-2020 8:45pmI
don't understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active
speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active
crossover and your choice of amps.
My understanding is that to run in an active configuration that the amps neednt be inside the speaker.The conveniance of having the whole lot in one package appeals to our sense of tidyness,the advantage is the direct amplification without a passive crossover.
A lot of mis-information in that Guttenberg article. Almost none of his generalisations are true of ATC. - All amplification made in house and has been for decades - No DSP, all analog active crossovers with class A/B output - exemplary reliability as required by around the clock studio use - Service/replacement of active amps available for models that are decades old Not sure if Steve is just ignorant or has gone soft in the head?
Both audio2design and tobes are exactly on the money, and that Guttenberg fellow, whoever he is, is just full of both it and himself. When it comes to quality active speakers, Guttenberg is talking nonsense or worse.
Moreover, anyone who trashes a speaker for being a studio monitor is likewise deluding themselves and others. Studio professional *know* sound, both live and reproduced, and with some few exceptions know what tells the truth to them in their studio monitors. And these days, most often that’s an active speaker for all the reasons that others have explained. As a rule, they’re more accurate, a better value for the money, and they simply sound significantly better.
So fine if one’s hobby is listening to gear and EQing one’s system by other means, but I and others are into listening to the music and frankly don’t want the "hear the gear" getting in the way. At any reasonable price point, and by that I mean at least several thousand $, active speakers will deliver significantly more coherent, transparent, and accurate sound.
BTW, PSI makes a svelte floor-standing pure analog active monitor that I would expect would fit ideally into high-amp’s room, the A215-M. https://www.zenproaudio.com/psi-audio-a215-m If I ever find I need to replace my "living room system" (Thiel 2 2 speakers, Classé CA-200 amp, McCormick pre-amp, actively crossed Mirage sub, balanced interconnects & Kimber speaker cables, balanced AC), I’m certain those PSI A215-Ms along with a proper sub would easily match or exceed my current system.
Having various passive speakers for around 30 yrs I always remember being impressed by a casual listening experience with ATC 100s active. I was not getting the imaging and three dimensional projection, I had heard from the ATCs, with my own Isobariks and TDL speakers. I now use ATC 100s with the anniversary amp pack (Ben Lilly from ATC told me these amp packs are as good as their P6 amp). I have a dedicated listening room with an ATC C6 sub and a 18in IB manifold built into the ceiling. This produces the best imaging, lowest, cleanest bass I have heard via hifi, the music sounds real. A saxophonist friend played my alto along with an Art Pepper track - the tonal quality was indistinguishable, only the dynamic quality on loud passages was less. Over the last few years I went out of my way to listen to some high end speakers at dealers and shows. The pinnacle being Magico M6 driven by constellation monos, tech das TT, ARC phono etc. I felt I was missing little or nothing in terms of detail or dynamics and I had better bass and imaging at home. Obviously we all have bias and preferences, an audiophile friend does not like the sound of my system. He has travelled far and wide listening to exotic and incredibly expensive systems so has a much wider listening experience. There again, I have listened to a system he does like and heard nothing that made me want to change my own. Actives are definitely a more cost effective route - it was a way for me to spend more on the front end. I guess if you have unlimited funds you could experiment with endless amp and speaker combinations to obtain the ultimate result. Like all things in hifi you have to hear it with your own ears to decide.
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. :)
dctom, nice post; I had not seen your post prior to putting up my thoughts. I think your reply represents the kind of comparison that would be helpful to discuss. :)
BTW, you discuss the quality of the bass in particular. If there is one area that I feel active could excel, it's in the bass.
Hmm.....If you go onto YouTube and search 'Guttenberg active speakers'. You'll find he's made three almost identical video rants against active speakers in the past 2 years. Maybe he's sponsored by the amp and speaker companies? - gotta maintain that status quo.
I'm not interested in what speaker was replaced or any other subjective argument. I'll look at the measurements, technology used and the science behind it. I'm not interested in a shrine of equipment amassed in a room. Those days are dying and none to soon. Adios, farewell, bye bye.
High-amp I've been reading about the Buchardt A700 you mentioned. Not a lot on it but sure looks interesting. I might order a pair they have a 45 day return policy. If I do I'll post some room measurements of them.
djones51 - That would great, please keep me posted. Are you aware that Buchardt has software available that can change the configuration (and sound) of their active speakers. It's called "Mastertunings" Basically plug & Play. Here’s the link:
That links the A500 the A700 are different you can't interchange them. I've been researching them and the Genelec 8351b. The Buchardt are more consumer friendly which might influence some people, it doesn't really matter to me I'm looking for the best sounding and easiest to integrate within a certain price range. Genelec has their own room correction with the GLM add on. If I had unlimited funds and a larger room I'd look at the Kii3 with BXT.
Even with actives it's good to get the best FR , to me that's the flattest, with placement and acoustic treatment before using room correction. My room isn't that bad I've only used a few filters below 200hz on passives and actives I've had.
No one talks about ABx for speakers because the sonic character is generally enough to easily match x to A or B. Of course AB speaker comparison is very difficult due to movement and positioning issues and accurate volume matching in room without suitable tools or experience. It's almost silly bringing up.
Also silly is to use Legacy as an example, not the most accurate speakers at the best of time and no guarantee that the passive or the active versions are optimum and doubtful Legacy had the knowledge or experience to optimize an active crossover or if DSP, the ADC to be transparent.
The best would be to compare equal priced speakers considered state of the art in both genres and then compare the sound to very neutral headphones as the goal is not to determine what you "like" but what is most accurate. We are not judging flavor here but accuracy.
M Colloms slightly preferred the timing of the passive version driven by a £20k naim power amp. However the discrete anniversary amp pack is a significant improvement over the standard one used in the review.
I don’t understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active crossover and your choice of amps.
Um, kind of sort of, but not fully. There are a couple of things you are missing:
1 - Crossovers are more than Hz and slope. They also have EQ features and level matching. 2 - You have to remove the internal crossover to achieve all the benefits of an active speaker system, especially higher efficiency.
Consider for instance that most tweeters are padded down because they tend to have a higher sensitivity than their mid/woofer counter parts. That is, there are resistors in there which are converting power to heat. If you remove them, then there’s no such waste.
Next, your external crossover is additive, not in place of the existing crossover and slope, so things get complicated. Now instead of 1 high-pass filter, and 1 low pass filter you have 2 of each.
So, if you do remove the internal crossover, you will also have to make up for any EQ that was built in.
I mean, it’s not a completely useless idea to use an external crossover on a speaker designed to be bi-wired or bi-amped, but it’s also not the same as a fully active system.
Should also point out that we are doing a lot of this when we add an active subwoofer with crossover, but in this case most speakers dont' have a high pass filter (YG being one very weird exception) at the crossover slope.
Studio professional *know* sound, both live and reproduced,
They might know sound but they also gave us the loudness wars. I think a lot of recording engineer's try to change the sound and call it art. I have heard recordings from the 50's that sound better than a lot of the recordings made today, why is that?
12-13-2020dctom86 posts Thanksdouglas_schroeder HiFi Critic, a respected UK mag, did a comparison between the standard passive ATC 50 and the standard active 50 version.
Worth noting that Martin Colloms appears to have done this 'comparison' based on memory/notes of the previously tested passive version - where he used amplifier/cables that doubled the cost of the active setup.
In Neil Gader's TAS review of the ATC SCM50aslt he substitutes the ATC passive crossover + ATC stereo amp for the active tri-amp pack and comments on the differences. Neil preferred the active version (and bought it). https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/atc-scm50-aslt-loudspeaker/ Anecdotally, I can't recall reading in any forum where an actual consumer compared the ATC active and passive models and preferred the latter, but I guess there must be some(?).
This is of course not to say that a particular passive setup can't outperform some other active one, or be preferred for some personal reason - that would be a ridiculous claim. However in an apples to apples comparison active speakers offer many real world performance advantages that make it difficult for a passive counterpart to compete.
They were designed as an active speaker initially so I guess it makes sense that the active is generally preferable. Colloms seems particularly keen on Naim power amps - having used them for many years myself, I dont miss their ( to me) rather relentless sound.
BTW I think the expensive cables he mentioned appeared even more expensive due to the length he used.
Great discussion, but most of the actives you speak to are north of $10 grand, even the PSI Audio if you add their recommended sub. I was trying to keep the whole system to $10K.
McIntosh could pull it off. I could see a Mac tower speaker with a built in, specially designed amp. Complete with a blue meter below the woofer somewhere. That would get people's attention at lease
Active can be better because there is no power lost, nor frequency perversions, from having to use more massive crossovers from amps, versus pre-amps. This does not mean that the active speakers available are not going to be compromised by manufacturing costs. Saying that the builder does not do such is naivety in the extreme.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
