Tsunami coming
I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...
173 responses Add your response
@douglas_schroeder -- 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. Yes, an active speaker should have (at least) build-in amps and DSP/electronic cross-over to be called exactly that. However, when pointed out the negatives of not being able to choose your own amps, DSP/elec. XO or even DAC in such a bundled constellation, it implicitly begs: what if we could choose our own electronic devices as a solution of separates that’s so urgently desired, and uphold it as an active set-up? Well, sure we can! Ask yourself: why be limited to an active speaker as one of a bundled package (that can still be a great one), typically pre-assembled and -configured, when an active configuration is defined through the cross-over being placed prior to amplification on signal level? Yes, cables are likely to be longer with active-as-separates, certainly IC’s depending on the physical config., but you still get the essential benefit of active, and you can get to choose the components YOU prefer - like you would with a passive set-up. Of course: it involves your part to set it up, and so is not one thought out for you - mostly, at least. I can’t speak for others, but drawing comparisons on passive vs. active would of course entail the active solution having being done to full completion from scratch and to more than hold its own vs. the passive counterpart. More on that below. 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. Yes it is; filtration prior to amplification on signal level, sans any passive filters between the amp(s) and drivers, is a fully active configuration - be that as a bundled package or one of separates. As separates it isn’t an ’active speaker’ per se, but it’s still fully actively configured. The speaker set-ups I’ve heard where comparisons between passive and active could be "investigated," were passive speaker set-ups converted to active dittos by wholly extracting the passive cross-over(s), and then adding an external digital XO and more amp channels (plus extra cables). New filter settings were then implemented digitally from scratch, and in some cases with waveguide designs with non-linear acoustic amplification that’s no easy task. My own horns amplify linearly, so that was somewhat easier. Doing the filter settings by yourself, sans passive filters, involves everything - be that from gain matching between drivers and to the subs, choosing XO frequencies, filter slope type and steepness, delay, PEQ with q-values and their frequency settings and gain, measurements, etc. An arduous task for sure, but it’s a steep learning curve well rewarded, and moreover setting up the cross-over digitally can be done on-the-fly, from the listening position with your laptop/tablet. Once you get a hang of it it’s actually quite freeing. So, active-as-separates IS fully active when configured as outlined above. Where it potentially involves a lot is on the part of setting up the cross-over digitally by oneself. An intimidating thought for many, as it was for me, but get your head around it and the effort will be rewarded. |
Unfortunately phusis, your view towards active speakers is simple, just the replacement of passive crossover to active crossover. There is far more possible in terms of active speaker development that cannot be implemented in this piece-wise fashion. Not to mention very few have the tools, knowledge, or space to develop their own crossovers effectively. It is not something that can be done by ear, and done well, requires either a large space for effective gated measurement and/or an anechoic chamber. The goal is not "okay" it is great. |
Russbutton, you present like a savant. These posts wander and I find the lyrics “frequently wrong, but never in doubt” apropos. My ATCs came by way of a deal struck with a high end shop showing interest in the line. I committed the finances for a deal cut with an agreement to leave them in the store for two months before taking possession. In those two months they scared customers with all of the positive attributes of active. Every one loved them...no one ordered a pair. A confusing outcome for the owner and sales people. The true listening test is simply within one’s own space, not at a show. Those of us in the active camp are simply trying to share our excitement of conversion. After all, rare is it that someone has lived in the world of true quality active and then changes teams. |
celtic66 Honestly, I was moved by your post. Thank you for sharing. I didn’t realize the there was so much passion regarding this subject. Obviously, more than I imagined. I thank you all for contributions. A lot of the technical jargon is over my head, but I am just happy that my post has generated so much interest and discussions. I really look forward to reading more of all your thoughts on this subject and learning from the more vested. |
Just an update on the Buchardt as they now offering mastertunings for the A700. They even have amastertuning which the A500 does not. Being a 3.5 way speaker the A700 does not need as many variations of the mastertuning programs according to Buchardt. They will be releasing a new app that has an advanced EQ so you can create your own sound profiles for them. When this is released they would also delete many of the balance mastertunings for the A500. The mastertunings are meant to do dramatic design changes such as 2.5 way or 3 way design on the A500, Cardioid or standard on the A700. From there the rest can be done via the app much faster and easier. Sounds intriguing... |
@audio2design -- Unfortunately phusis, your view towards active speakers is simple, just the replacement of passive crossover to active crossover. There is far more possible in terms of active speaker development that cannot be implemented in this piece-wise fashion. Not to mention very few have the tools, knowledge, or space to develop their own crossovers effectively. It is not something that can be done by ear, and done well, requires either a large space for effective gated measurement and/or an anechoic chamber. The goal is not "okay" it is great. Or maybe you read what I write: simplistically. Do you develop your own active speakers - as a brand, that is? What you point to sounds like a well-known narrative leveled at DIY'ers, that what they're about to embark on can only scratch the surface of what manufacturers can achieve with all of their tools and (self-)proclaimed knowledge. Of course those manufacturers are only trying to protect their business with said (repetitive) narrative, not that I can't understand that, but with the digital tools offered today the individual has far more options into creating the sound of their speakers on their own, and much easier at that. The more they learn the greater it will sound. I don't like repeating myself, but what you address is all there in my earlier post; I'm not about to neglect the effort and what's there to be learned about setting up a cross-over digitally by oneself, and when you look into the different technical aspects where audiophiles already invest their time, brain capacity and money implementing their own set-ups, it would seem no further stretch to ask of them to look into digital cross-overs as well. It's a freeing process once you get around the technicalities of using a digital XO, and one where you learn about setting up a cross-over with all the parameters that can be involved, digitally. Forums are there to help if you're stuck, maybe someone you know can help - make the jump and try it out. What do you know about the results my friends and I have achieved setting up our active-as-separates set-ups? Nothing. You would assume "okay" only, and yet the speaker systems I've heard here compare and in many areas exceed most everything else I've heard in vital areas in their reproduction. In other words: these set-ups sound great. No need for anechoic chambers than what our listening rooms offered. Measurements, yes, and lots of trial error and listening countless hours. Yes, predominantly it can and must be done by ear, and the good thing is it needn't sound great anywhere else than in your very own listening room and to your own ears. Manufacturers need to please many ears, have a business to consider, are fiscally restricted and so on, and you don't think that involves severe compromises? Give me a break. |
phusis, Why are you going on about something that 99.9% of audiophiles have no interest in doing, and 9/10 of the remaining 0.1% are going to screw up? I am very cognizant of the DIY speaker community. There is some great craftsmanship, and some very good mid-level speakers, but at the top end, I can't say I have heard much. That you keep repeating "Digital Cross-over" like it is the be all and end all shows how large the gap is between the average DIYer / probably most DIYers and truly professional designers working on advanced active speakers. It is not simply a matter of getting some amps, even expensive ones, and a DSP and playing with digital crossover implementations, and no, I don't care how long you listen to it, you will never achieve a very good design without complementing that with a lot of measurements, and again, most DIYers have fairly basic measurement capability for advanced speaker design. I know ... pretty much the same techniques, but better S/W than what I was using to DIY 20+ years ago. The implementation of a design I was involved in required a custom amplifier topology that you cannot buy off the shelf. The techniques implemented go beyond simple digital cross-over design and are beyond almost all DIYers as it would be rare to find that cross disciplinary expertise. That is not even getting into things like finite element analysis to optimize bracing or complex acoustic field simulation to optimize the lenses. The drivers were not off the shelf, but optimized for our drive/control methodology. Again, not available to the DIY community. Don't get me wrong, there are some great DIY designs out there, but as you move into active designs, the complexity of what is possible just went well beyond "DIY". Its a lot more than just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...) |
I think this is a great post from the Audiophiliac. I personally love powered speakers and have many but they are in my secondary system. They are great for that. Steve is right though a real audiophile should have separates. If you are into the "hobby" of being an audiophile and discovering what the differences different components can make then all in one takes a lot of the fun out of it. Now if your friend just want some good sound and wants to enjoy music then all in one is the best bang for the buck I think. |
One word: "Phase" Of all the advantages/disadvantages/qualities/ a phase-coherent active speaker can, "get you there" hearing into the recording, providing spaciousness and accurate sound-staging...kind of magically. In other words crossovers cause phase shifts that active speakers can avoid. Game changer! Put another way...when listening to live music, it's ALWAYS phase-coherent so transients, echos exist in all their glory. I see no problem embracing the technology. Steve's wrong. |
I think audiophiles have been using active tech for a long time many use subwoofers most are powered active types. I have active systems passive systems outboard crossover actives. I do think when it comes to amplification if class d or ab designs are not what you're looking for then outboard active or passive are your choices nothing wrong with any of it. But many seem to have strong biases and limited knowledge that in itself is what audiophiles are mostly about. |
russbutton understands active speaker tech much like what I have read and understand. I think there certainly is a place for both passive and active speakers however to me it seems that active speakers with DSP have to be the wave of the future for many people for great reasons. A well-designed active speaker with DSP should be easily the most cost effective way to get great sound at a certain price point as well as fix issues in the listening environment. Even when ideally set up without using any DSP there is no comparison when playing my listening area's passive speakers. Turn off the DSP unit I'm using and you'd be stunned at the bass boom as well as other anomalies. No one who enjoys music would prefer it; the hump is part of the speaker and NOT room fixable, at least without trashing the environment. The half dozen 14kft peaks viewable from where I sit and listen are now snow-covered and I'm not giving up that view. The DSP yields a wonderfully flat response down to 30 with an REL. Now my wife and I can enjoy our primary living space with great sounding music. |
musicaddict What active speakers are you using? |
musicaddict19 posts12-19-2020 4:30am to me it seems that active speakers with DSP have to be the wave of the future for many people for great reasons.I think you are right. If I was starting again active speakers with DSP like the Dutch & Dutch 8C and Kii 3 would be top of my list. |
I've been into hifi for over 40 years now. I have been using active studio monitors for 6 years. I won't go back to separates. Don't listen to people who claim that what they experienced with KEFs extrapolates to the active experience as a whole. High quality studio monitors are a different playing field. |
@audio2design -- Time I picked up on this: Why are you going on about something that 99.9% of audiophiles have no interest in doing, and 9/10 of the remaining 0.1% are going to screw up? To begin with most audiophiles seem to have no concept of active-as-separates as an option for hi-fi use, let alone the sonic results produced here (unless you assume all of the 99.9% supposed disinterested audiophiles know what they’re turning their back on and that’s the basis of their claimed disinterest?), so an introduction into its existence and possibility of successful use seems prudent - not least coming from someone with several very positive experiences of this solution that trumps most passive and (bundled) active set-ups that have been auditioned, regardless of price. On the face of it your stance here sounds more like wanting to instill discouragement (and protecting your own business) than a level-headed assessment on the interest in and potential of active-as-separates as a DIY approach. 1-2/10 mayn’t achieve greater results, but if a higher percentage instead of those 0.1% that remain interested would break the mold of their hi-fi dogma, unawareness, prejudice, or other and invest some time into active-as-separates, then we’d see a wider and very different playing field that would seriously challenge the established norms of passive configuration and the existing bundled active approach, and one that would as well bring with it even more tweaking possibilities than the passive set-up - not to mention the all-in-on active package. I am very cognizant of the DIY speaker community. There is some great craftsmanship, and some very good mid-level speakers, but at the top end, I can’t say I have heard much. The best active-as-separates systems I’ve auditioned distanced themselves from most of the best passive set-ups I’ve heard as being a cleaner, less smeared, more resolved, transparent, coherent, and dynamically uninhibited sounding package. That you keep repeating "Digital Cross-over" like it is the be all and end all shows how large the gap is between the average DIYer / probably most DIYers and truly professional designers working on advanced active speakers. It is not simply a matter of getting some amps, even expensive ones, and a DSP and playing with digital crossover implementations, and no, I don’t care how long you listen to it, you will never achieve a very good design without complementing that with a lot of measurements, and again, most DIYers have fairly basic measurement capability for advanced speaker design. I know ... pretty much the same techniques, but better S/W than what I was using to DIY 20+ years ago. Most "truly professional designers" work to create bundled, all-in-one active speakers, and while I’ve auditioned a few excellent sounding iterations here, ATC and Grimm Audio being perhaps the most noteworthy examples, I haven’t found them to better, or even fully approach the best DIY active-as-separates systems I’ve heard, likely for other reasons than their specific active configuration. I couldn’t care less about the work, dedication and claimed sophistication that went into these bundled, preassembled and -developed actives by said professionals when what I’ve actually heard hasn’t convinced me of their supposed merits, except named examples. As an outset IT IS about simply getting that quality digital XO hooked up and extra amps and cables all connected, preferable on a smaller secondary 2-way speaker set-up to experiment with, and then work one’s way around the basics. I didn’t take me long (i.e.: mere minutes) to figure out the potential of active-as-separates and how it would come to eclipse its passive iteration, even with initial filter settings, and from then on it’s about fine tuning with the aid of measurements, hours of listening with the input and help from friends and a lot of trial and error/exploration with filter settings and their influence on the sound. Getting rid of the cross-over on the power side of an amplifier and instead letting the amps see their respective drivers directly is in itself of significant importance, both in regard to letting the amps work at their fuller potential (effectively minimizing the need for amp prowess here) and bypassing the sonic bottleneck a passive cross-over, not least a more complex one, is, for a sonically less degradable XO option prior to amplification. The implementation of a design I was involved in required a custom amplifier topology that you cannot buy off the shelf. The techniques implemented go beyond simple digital cross-over design and are beyond almost all DIYers as it would be rare to find that cross disciplinary expertise. That is not even getting into things like finite element analysis to optimize bracing or complex acoustic field simulation to optimize the lenses. The drivers were not off the shelf, but optimized for our drive/control methodology. Again, not available to the DIY community. Conversely I’d level at you: you stress the implementation of non off-the-shelf items "not available to to the DIY community" as if to signal exclusivity and something we as DIY’ers can only dream of attaining - unless of course we indulge in your narrative and buy your product. Haven’t we heard that song before. It’s a trait claimed by other manufacturers out there, and by and large - as heard in-the-flesh - it hasn’t made me appreciate the sound of those products more than others. Too many factors of implementation are at play to single out that one contribution as anything of outright significance. The DIY’er into active-as-separates has the option to optimize and go tweak galore on all product category fronts, and as well go all-in with regard to accommodate physics and a pre-existing, passive speaker package - not to mention what can be learned in the process. Don’t get me wrong, there are some great DIY designs out there, but as you move into active designs, the complexity of what is possible just went well beyond "DIY". Its a lot more than just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...) You’re evading an important point: with the complexity chosen in the active-as-separates set-ups I’ve heard, an outset that could as well be favorably chosen by others, the results are great - not to say among the best I’ve ever heard. They better their passive iteration (if they were such to begin with) by a noticeable margin, and in general outperform a range of much more expensive set-ups I’ve heard - mostly passives, because all-in-one active set-ups are relatively far and few between. Whichever way you want to bend it we’ve gone beyond "... just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)" and in doing so created impressive sounding set-ups, so we get the gist. Which is to say: DIY’ers/audiophiles can certainly tackle an active-as-separates approach if they set their minds on it, and in the process produce great results. Whether that complies with your methods and ultimately to your liking is another matter, and not really relevant it would seem. |
There's a couple pair of meridian dsp's listed. The 5200 for under $4k and the dsp 7200 which has a pretty heroic cabinet build for under $9k. The meridians are british and are on the polite side of neutral regarding the top end, but bass is full and mids are rich. I wouldn't recommend them at new list prices as there's a lot of competition out there but used are hard to beat for the money. They go about getting high resolution by controlling cabinet vibration and distortion, not by dialing up the tweeter so they take a little while to adapt to, but then they get ya. |
Phusis I will just leave this here as it shows to those who know something about actual loudspeaker drivers that you hit your knowledge limit quite early. You just don't get it and I don't think you have the knowledge to get it. There are things we have known since the 70s about loudspeaker driving that clearly you don't. Good day. Love to have a discussion with you but you don't seem interested in learning but may want to learn about more complex drive methods for loudspeakers all beyond your simple implementation. As an outset IT IS about simply getting that quality digital XO hooked up and extra amps and cables all connected, |
Full disclosure: I have never heard powered speakers.My only hesitancy about powered speakers is the hassle of return or repair if something goes wrong with the amps. My current integrated is a McIntosh MA7900. It is my second MA7900. The first had a faulty DAC (not a problem with the amp itself but still...) and I returned it. That was enough hassle, I can't imagine dealing with the return of an ATC tower speaker because of a problem with the electronics. If you live close to your dealer, not too much of a concern. But if, like me, you live in an audio desert or buy used, it is something to think about. |
Some ask for direct comparison of active vs passive of the same speaker and I have done this many times. SCM 40 passive vs SCM 40A active, plus SCM 50 passive vs SCM50 Active. In both cases using ATC P1 or P2 amps to drive the passive. So this yields the same exact speaker, same exact model, same exact amp design and same exact output devices in the passive amp vs active amp set up. Pretty much a direct comparison except the cable being a factor, I used Cardas 6 foot clear light speaker cable and Cardas clear light 6 foot XLR line cable in both. I have done this at shows and at home as well as the shop. I'm the US ATC importer so obviously I have to do this to be informed and accurate in answering people's questions. I was also the one who provided the passive and active ATC 50s to Neil Gader for his review in Absolute Sound. The simplest way to state the comparison is the tone and timbre (frequency response) are the same between active and passive, the difference comes in image and resolution. The actives image much better and more finely resolve things like reverb tails, harmonic structures of complex instruments like piano and "room sound" - elements of a recording that reside in the background of most recordings. You can hear placement of instruments more clearly and hear the ultra fine details of the microphone/gear used in the recording process. For example, in Stevie Ray Vaughns live recording of Tin Pan Alley, you can tell the microphone Stevie uses for his vocals is a dynamic mic, as the bandwidth of the instruments is much wider in bandwidth than his vocal mic. Most of the negatives I read in this thread are from people not really understanding the simple difference. In its most simplistic difference is there is nothing to be improved or gained with a large quantity of copper (wire) and inductors/capacitors (passive crossovers) placed in line between the amp and the driver. That's it, in a nutshell. The endless arguments over cable should be evidence of the sonic influence of cable/copper/silver/wire/etc. This "passive" solution may be the best idea if you like to play around with different sonics, changing amps, cable and all the rest and it IS fun. But removing all this copper and inductors/capacitors and wire DOES have direct performance benefits. The most significant advantage IMHO is the ability to create linear phase of a speaker, by controlling the individual phase of the drivers. The second advantage is precise level calibration of individual drivers which can vary by 1/4 to 1/2 dB or more from unit to unit (even more variance in machine produced drivers). Passive crossovers do not offer this kind of adjustment. The third advantage is avoiding the change in sound of drivers/loudspeakers as they heat up (power compression for example). The values of the combo of driver/passive crossovers begin to change with temperature changes (increases) therefore changing the sound of the overall speaker. This is most audible after long periods at higher level, such as experienced in a recording studio where a mix session can last 10-12 hours at 85-90dB SPL (or more). [note: listening at low level for an hour may not reveal this temperature issue so this may not affect every passive speaker the same. Some drivers have better cooling or venting than others so there is variance in this side affect among loudspeakers based on driver design and length of listening sessions] With a properly designed active the differences in the front end are far more dramatic than ever before, yielding just as much fun in experimenting with cartridges, tonearms, DACs, etc. So from my experience, active enables even greater insight into the minute details of recordings and all the associated gear. Brad Lone Mountain Audio TransAudio Group ATC USA Pro and Consumer |
Depends on the active speaker. Newer designs are using DSP and have DACs in the speaker I don’t think the digital front end will have any difference. I had a. discussion with a salesman trying to sell me a 16K DAC as to how it would benefit me after the signal passes through the DAC in my speaker? He eventually admitted it wouldn’t. |
Sorry musicaddict with my wife and I’s 10th wedding anniversary coupled with the Christmas holidays, I took a brief hiatus from this thread. Currently I have no speakers, I had Martin Logan Spire's before Covid forced me to sell not just my 2 channel system but also my house. Now I have purchased a smaller house and am looking to rebuild. Would like to purchase a system in the next 6-9 months and was looking at the Buchardt A700’s active speakers as a all-in-one set-up. lonemountain wow, very informative Brad, thanks. crouse99 sorry for your troubles with the Mac. The Buchardt A700’s are more of a modular design from what I understand, most components can be replaced with a simple screwdriver in a couple of minutes. Which I could have done that on my old Mac! Great thread, Happy New Year to all, can’t be any worse than the last one... |
djones51: An active speaker can be an all analog design or a digital input/DSP design and Class D amplifiers, but inputs and amps do NOT make it "active". The critical issue is simply where the processing takes place, at speaker level [passive] or line level [active]. A "powered" speaker is not active and this term does not infer active; active speakers are not "powered". "Powered" is a passive speaker with an amp [usually] inside, placed before the passive crossover just like any other passive speaker. A "powered speaker", with processing at speaker level, can be Class D or Class A/B amps or digital inputs or analog inputs. This powered description is used most often improperly, often by users or dealers (or manufacturers) who don't understand the term either or are attempting to deliberately fool a buyer into thinking that powered and active are the same. They are a completely different designs and concepts. If one focuses on "where the processing is", before [active] or after [passive] the amplifiers, the "active" label become much easier to discern. Brad |
Why are you telling me what I already know? I never mentioned "powered speakers" I was talking about active speakers with digital active crossovers. Active speakers can have digital and analog inputs and not necessarily be class d but class AB, G or H. With a properly designed active the front end components are not really much of a concern. If you want to see a properly designed modern active look at the Genelec Ones , ATC is still in the dark ages. |
I was referring to this. An active speaker with DSP I'm not sure what you mean? I've had different active speakers using very different sources I never noticed much difference , I noticed a difference between speakers not what fed them. With a properly designed active the differences in the front end are far more dramatic than ever before, yielding just as much fun in experimenting with cartridges, tonearms, DACs, etc. So from my experience, active enables even greater insight into the minute details of recordings and all the associated gear. |
That is not true in my experience. I don't think whether its DSP or Analog would affect the outcome either, unless its a low quality (DAC or analog) design masking information. I guess its certainly possible to hear no difference. My preference is not to have a DAC in my speaker, as these designs change constantly. No matter the DAC loaded speaker, the entire package will be obsolete in a year as a new DAC arrives to market that replaces the previous one. Id prefer to use my own DAC and change that as I see fit. So analog inputs work for me in light of a sea of constant DAC upgrades. Many pro customers have commented to me over the years that not all "active" speakers are very revealing of details. One can see significant engineering investment into the designers concept of what the "problem to solve" is. This is of course is fair enough, room acoustics are indeed a huge issue. High end DSP electronics mated to lower cost OEM drivers may be great at room correction and low on resolution. While the speaker sounds good in the room it may be poor at revealing the subtle information that many seek. To my customers way of thinking, this is not good enough. They want an all out effort in both electronics AND drivers. They will deal with the room as a separate acoustical problem but please please PLEASE make the most revealing speaker possible. Brad . |
Back in 1999 I got the idea to build for myself a pair of fully horn loaded speakers with folded corner horns back in the room corners and mid range and tweeter horns out in the room where they would image better. Because of the time difference caused the distance separation between the woofers and mid range drivers I knew this could only work through the use of DSP. I eventually settled on a DEQX DSP for time correction, phase correction, speaker correction, room correction and crossovers.. The speakers are triamplified with a channel of amplification for each driver. After building the horns I spent years programming and reprogramming the DEQX and even hired professional help from a DEQXpert before I was fully satisfied. I initially used all tube amplification before changing to a Pass Labs amp on the woofers and a pair of First Watt stereo amps on the mids and highs. I also changed bass horns, woofers and midrange (actually wide range) drivers. My speakers are an active system. I defy anyone to convince me otherwise. I could never have made changes I made if everything was stuffed inside the box. |
| Post removed |
I think you said it all there KingHarold: you put forth a LOT of effort to correct for issues you encountered. A true engineering project! Problems are inherent in every loudspeaker design and I think ATC and Genelec would 100% support you in your effort. What you accomplished could not have been done in a passive system. I think many that dislike active out of hand are just focused on a single feature which is actually not part of what makes a speaker active or passive. Don't dismiss active because of the amp swap issue alone when there are so many other problems active addresses that cannot be addressed in passive. Phase Linearity is a big one. Brad |
It’s a compromise to have active speakers and is technology mostly embraced by the professional audio sound people. They listen for frequencies, not tonal shadings or micro dynamics...certainly not for the differences in instrument voicing or spatial imaging. All of us have goals in what we hope to achieve in our systems. If having active speakers and DSP lights your fire and attains your personal goals, then congratulations!! Some of us want to hear the sweet rosin flaking off the bow of Bell’s violin as he digs in for the climax, or the burnished breathy whiskey colored texture of a Coltrane sax solo. So many colors exist for those willing to explore the jagged landscape of high end audio...I’ll choose my own amplifier. I think this nailed my feelings on the subject. Active speakers and DSP can nail frequency response. Ruler flat. But just based on being active and using DSP, does not address the type of subtleties that speakers and various amp combos are capable of. And active crossovers are not the panacea that many believe they are. Even if one gets the: slopes, frequency of cutoff, type of filter used, etc optimized, that does nothing to adjust for issues within the operating band of individual drives. There are no drivers made, that do not have 'problem' frequencies within their passband, that need to be compensated for. There may be a budget range in which active speakers may get one the best sound for the money, but the best currently are passive speakers with outboard amps. As someone else already stated, I've been going to audio shows for a long time, and with only a very few exceptions, passive speakers consistently make my best list, in almost every budget level. |
I think this nailed my feelings on the subject. And this is why they are feeling and not reality or informed opinion. When you talk about rudimentary things like crossovers, then you are already 5 years behind, and certainly not looking to the future. "There are no drivers made, that do not have 'problem' frequencies within their passband, that need to be compensated for. And passive speakers will never be able to compensate for this. Active will. |
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 |
Although way out of my price range, this is an interesting take on active vs passive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkeIanGsKYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms0WLy7dAlk |
teo_audio1,702 posts01-13-2021 11:13am"Good enough" (a plateau by any measure): active Good Enough: Passive Capable of performance no passive speaker will ever be able to achieve due to the inability in a passive speaker to have immediate feedback from the driver itself, nor intimate knowledge of said driver and any number of other factors: Active Active speakers are quite threatening both to the speaker community and the amplifier community. Similar to good Class-D with amplifiers, very few speaker companies will have the technical wherewithal to extract the maximum performance out of active speakers and we are just getting started. There are things that can be done in an active system that are virtually impossible in a passive system. Not just simple things like perfect phase alignment even with higher order crossovers, but applying closed loop position feedback to higher and higher frequencies, compensating for thermal and magnetic compression (and other magnetic factors) on all drivers, and even some concepts for reducing the impacts of doppler distortion. Add in multiple similar drivers and you start to get into controlled dispersion, etc. If you apply old thinking to new ideas, you end up with obsolete opinions. |
It’s a compromise to have active speakers and is technology mostly embraced by the professional audio sound people. They listen for frequencies, not tonal shadings or micro dynamics...certainly not for the differences in instrument voicing or spatial imaging. I cannot find who posted this, but this is a complete inaccuracy. Pros listen for frequencies? I’ve worked in pro my entire life and I have yet to meet someone who "listens for frequencies". The tonal shadings and micro dynamics is exactly what pros listen to. Instrument voicing and spatial imaging is exactly what a real engineer in a real studio listens to for hours and hours, days upon days. It is not exaggeration to say that someone like Al Schmitt can listen to one track a thousand times before he’s tweaked everything to his and the artists satisfaction. The exact harmonic presentation of the piano with this mic or that one? The position of the mic and how it changes the way the piano sounds. Fixing the small error in a vibration of a snare when one particular tom tom was struck. Building an image out of separately tracked instruments. Using a specific type of compressor on the orchestra that gives it a sexier presentation than a simple full band compressor. This absolutely blows my mind that someone would think pros [specifically recording engineers] don’t understand the details or are ignorant of the very details that audiophiles value. They are obsessed with it! A comment I read in this thread that recording engineers gave us loudness wars- complete BS. RADIO gave us loudness wars, and Record companies responded as records had to compete to be popular on the radio. Fletcher Munson curves say the loudest song wins and Record companies who controlled everything told their Mastering Engineer to make it louder. The mastering guy absolutely hates this as much as you do! Fortunately record companies do not have the level of control they used to and now artists are creating, funding, recording their own record. Brad |
The passive only crowd is heavy on condescension and light on knowledge or understanding. Almost everybody is looking for the best they can afford. Sure, there are people who don't care about the difference between $300 and 3 million but I doubt any of them hang around here. If you care so much about the difference between amps why not care about the difference between passive and active. There are some distinctive, irrefutable advantages. Learn to appreciate the advantages that active designs provide and decide whether you prefer those advantages to the ones of passive. What would be a good list of advantages of active? 1. amps chosen to suit the driver. No need to spend more for an amp that can drive anything. 2. No lossy passive crossover feeding multiple drivers that wastes amplifier power and creates much more complex load than an amp in an active design will ever see. Far less total amplifier power required. 3. Active crossovers can deal with phase better than passive ones. (I don't understand the technical explanation but I assume it's true) 4. Don't have to deal with active crossover heating up and changing behavior. What are the advantages of passive? 1. Can choose amplification that suites your taste. I'm sure there are others... |
@jon_5912 -- Ad 1: Indeed, agreed. Seeing the somewhat easier load presented to an amp when coupled directly to a driver without the interference of a passive cross-over, the "impedance matching" of amps to drivers that is often heralded as an advantage with active speaking in effect is mostly about scaling down/specifying the amp to its intended (and easier load) usage. That's not that to say it's really an advantage in absolute sonic terms; if one were to use more "all out," non-tailored amps to each driver section instead it wouldn't be detrimental to the sound, just more expensive overall. That is to say: the claimed "advantage" earlier mentioned with tailored amps comes down to cost savings, most of all. The one true advantage in sonic terms is the active configuration itself with all that implies. Ad 2: Again, agree, and this ties into what I've written above. Ad 3: Agree. Ad 4: Certainly; having the XO prior to amplification on signal level naturally leaves it impervious to load variations on the power side. With regard to mentioned advantage with passive and the choice of amplification: to my mind this is in part a forced choice and mostly comes down to the disadvantage of passive: its cross-over and the greater importance and stress it puts on the amp(s), and thereby the rather varying results that may come of using different amps. While amps are also consciously chosen to active speakers as pre-build and all-in-one solutions and one would not be able to exchange them for a more tailored sonic result to each individual, I'd argue the sonic differences would also be somewhat less outspoken here compared to swapping amps with passive speakers. You can however also use an active configuration as a solution of separate components and choose your amps. That's what I do myself, and that also involves and element of tailoring; pure Class A amp to the compression driver handling the mids on up, and even more powerful Class D variants for the midbass section and the subs. |
