The SE uses all discrete amplifers, the best [sounding] amplifiers ATC makes. More esolution, finer detials are more clear, etc.
Yes ATC has made external amp actives for a long time. IN the pro side they make the SCM200 and 300- both use an external 3 channel power amp for each speaker. There are tower versions of these for home using a different tweeter (ATC vs the AUdax super high power one for pro) but it still uses the P4 external amp/crossover package liek the pro version. Tjhese sound great but use fans to keep cool so not the best for living rooms, bu better suited to a machine room where they can be remoted. RIght now they make a 150LE that uses a 3 channel, passive cooled P6, with intergrated crossover, so this is an "external active" solution that functions the same as our internal active set ups.
One reason active is better is the short speaker wire from amp to speaker and long I/C from pre to amp. I was told by one cable mfg this is the preferred way to do things.
I can say this, we get more calls about active now (regarding info on ATC as we are the importer) than ever before. I think this bias against active is beginning to change. Not that passive will go away, but some are beginning to want to scale down (a turntable/streamer, preamp and active speakers is nice simple system that has high WAF). or hear a pair of actives and like them better.
Thanks, but in the interest of staying with the OP’s topic, I’m NOT discussing the use of external crossovers and amps.
Not only was that not mentioned in his post, but the use of active crossovers and external amps in the home is probably the very rarest of beasts. I’ll happily engage in that topic elsewhere.
And what exactly is the interest of the OP in this regard going by his threat opener? He only says the following:
I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...
No specific implementation of active configuration is mentioned, so that holds every route open here, as long as it’s active. Moreover, the threat is over 3 years old (with an activity pause almost as long) - the OP might have gotten along since then, and so what we’re venturing into at this point, for as long as we’re continuing with active as a general topic that isn’t at odds with the OP, I’d say it’s all safe to go.
But really, you’re no admin of this threat (or even if you are, I’m within the confines of the OP) nor the OP poster, so loosen up on specifying what we can or cannot discuss. It seems to me it’s about what YOU would like the specific context (of active configuration) of this threat to be about, rather than the OP. My take: chart off in any direction of active as you see fit and let others do the same, and if the OP has a problem with that, he can chime in.
With regard to the link of his: Steve’s rant on active goes on to state - 2:15 into the video - that the Parasound A21 power amp (as an example) doesn’t fit into most any speaker, and you’d believe he really wanted it to if it weren’t so darn impractical. That way of thinking of his tells me Steve is not even considering that the A21 doesn’t have to fit into a speaker (for it to still be active), so my deduction is that ’active’ to him is defined as a bundled approach, and he’s stuck with that. Really, he doesn’t get it.
Take the ATC SCM300 Pro ASL. It’s an actively configured speaker through and through, yet the amps and electronic crossover are outboard, most likely due to the power requirements of the amps and the physical size this would necessitate. The JBL M2’s - another example. Sanders Sound as well. Even if there are only a few such examples of active, it doesn’t make it conspicuous or other - it’s just outboard.
Where it gets more hairy is setting the DSP filter parameters by oneself, and I’m assuming this goes for your DIY center channel as well? You think the OP initially considered a DIY approach of active like that? Maybe he didn’t even consider outboard active, and that’s where I feel correcting Steve in his video rant is appropriate. It only broadens the opportunities while potentially raising the bar even further.
I’m just saying that coming to some universal truth about the desirability of an active vs. passive speaker in the home is never going to happen.
At this point it seems the overall purpose is merely to have audiophiles accept active configuration as a viable approach next to passive, and get rid of some of the misconceptions here. Once there active can really begin its ascent into wider use (and configurations) in the domestic milieus.
There are many sceanrios where a listener could not tell there were changes to a system. Of course that does not mean there isnt a difference or it isnt a desireable difference. Much like swapping out phono cartridges, if you walked out of the room while it was switched, you may not realize what's different when you returned. Would any of us say phono cartridges all sound the same based on that? Many products in consumer are like that, requiring a very careful comparison and a educated listener. @erik_squires, you are a very educated listener!.
Working in this industry full time, where differences are a constant challenge in diagnosing problems in service (client heard something you cannot replicate) or assessing value of something new, you can be fooled but usually scinece wins. Which is why we have a $10,000 Audio Precision sytem with calibrated mic to measure things. The science behind active vs passive is conclusive and not debatable, unless you elevate your own perception as the superior test. Demos are contextual audible comparisons with a tremendous number of variables. For some, once their own perception is satisfied, even if inaccurate to science, they are happy and the search is over. Sort of a parrallel to the way we prefer one color over another in a car-they really do look different in more ways than color alone. And once we decide which color we like, we rarely look back.
Ive said it before, I think active expands the ability to hear changes in the system of various cmponents, not reduces them. All the elements before the active speakers are easier to hear, cables, preamps, turntables, sources, etc. thqtq's certainly my expereince. Sometimes it seems like the shared thought is "I'll buy active when you can pry my amp from my cold dead fingers". It like the amp makers marketing has convinced everyone that its worth buying an expensive amp. From a science point of view, passive being "better" than active is like telling someone from Arizona that snow tires are "better" on an all wheel drive sports car when you've only test driven them in the snow. Snow tires may indeed work better in that one condition, but certainly not all. Because you've never driven that car with snow tires in the summer on a dry road doesnt make it true.
Staying in the topic of practical differences between active and passive speakers for the home, I want to talk a little more about my most recent experience.
I have conventional 2-way L and R speakers. I’ve added a 3-way active speaker in the center. The mid-woofers are practically the same but the center uses a different and very highly regarded mid and tweeter. More suitable for the location.
The use of a 3-way amplifier with 50 + 125 + 125 watt sections means I have a theoretical dynamic range of around 1,000 watts. That’s a lot more than my modest Luxman integrated (100W/ch) especially given the losses in the passive crossover due to tweeter/woofer level matching. Honestly, 20W peaks are VERY LOUD in my home.
So you’d think the center channel blows away the L and R? It does not. It does not sound more dynamic, or louder. It integrates perfectly. What I do get is a fuller bass thanks to having larger woofers than my previous center, and excellent off-axis coverage thanks to the 3-way design, high order crossover and digital time alignment.
What’s my point? That in homes the dynamic range and power calculus often won’t matter to you. Buy what you like and is more convenient.
@phusisThanks, but in the interest of staying with the OP's topic, I'm NOT discussing the use of external crossovers and amps.
Not only was that not mentioned in his post, but the use of active crossovers and external amps in the home is probably the very rarest of beasts. I'll happily engage in that topic elsewhere.
Kudos on your active center channel speaker achievement.
Without getting too much into the alleged technical merits of each design, the thing that passive speakers give me is the ability to chose a very colorful amplifier.
You can do that actively as well, any amp you want. I mean, if you’re going to go active and do the filter settings yourself anyway, I’d say the more compelling route - unless your main objective is to minimize the component count, and insofar you intend to go more all-out with an active approach - is to go outboard active and that way get to choose any of the components as you see fit; power amps, DSP, DAC - that is, any separate outboard component here. No different compared to a passive setup except more amps to the separate driver sections, and a DSP (instead of a passive ditto) to handle filter settings. It’s still, per definition, active configuration, certainly if the filtration is done prior to amplification on signal level.
I just built a fully active, DSP driven center channel. What did I get? Excellent off-axis frequency response and massive dynamic range (comparable to ATC’s claimed figures) in a compact package along with objectively neutral frequency response which doesn’t mind being on a shelf while avoiding the need for yet another amplifier in my rack. Much as I love my Luxman integrated, I keep asking myself if I wouldn’t rather make 2 more active speakers and reduce my combined HT/stereo setup to 1 processor instead.
If you really want to pick your amp, go with passive. If you want to pick a speaker and not have to worry about your amp, go with active, but in no case should you pick speaker A over speaker B based on which of these types they are.
Your premise rests on the notion of limiting active configuration to a bundled solution with plate amps vs. the free choice of any amp passively. As such your "strong opinions" only cover so much of the actual potential of active to make it a worthwhile, more nuanced take comparing it to passive iterations. And that’s just with a center speaker. Imagine taking the next step to the main speakers.
From a certain perspective there’s some merit to your boldfaced part, in that actively the choice amp is less of a deal since the exclusion of a passive filter between amp and speaker frees up the workload of the amp considerably, and thereby maximizes its potential. This shaves off power requirement and harnesses better overall sound quality.
The choice of amp still makes a difference though, and although less so to my ears (compared to passive) it’s still a vital tweaking parameter with outboard active, that actually offers you this opportunity, instead of being stuck with a limited range of plate amps in a bundled solution.
In relation to pre-assembled active speakers the compelling reasons for a manufacturer to go bundled shouldn’t, and couldn’t necessarily apply similarly to the DIY segment. Coming down to it I’ll maintain DIY’ers and manufacturers are limiting themselves with a bundled approach only.
In the consumer world there are a lot of benefits to active speakers we may not care about. Dynamic range and power loss for instance. In the pro world we need every watt, and active crossovers deliver that. In the home world we are fine losing many DB’s of output due to massively overbought amps. 😀 That is, I can point to some technical benefits of active crossovers/speakers which are true, but perhaps irrelevant?
Depends on your benchmark. You want more headroom freeing up the amps (with less distortion to boot) and controlling the drivers more effectively, active makes a significant difference - not only in a pro environment, and not only providing more decibels; sonically, at all levels, the takeaway is there to savor as well.
As a consumer, do you really care that building a DSP crossover is much easier (not easy!) than passive, since we aren’t swapping parts in and out during the prototype phase? Not really. Does the digital time delay and off-axis frequency response matter to you? Most passive speakers do an excellent job with horizontal dispersion. The center I built though needed excellent vertical as well as horizontal dispersion, and that’s a feature I could only really consider in active/DSP configuration. Point is, a lot of the technical differences vanish for most of us.
Apart from the advantages I’ve mentioned earlier, DSP filter parameters with active config. matter a lot to me, also integrating subs. Actually integrating subs without the intricacy of parameters offered by a separate, quality DSP is severely hampered, from my point of view.
Having an active speaker with DSP doesn’t necessarily mean they let you adjust it for your room. You can use the DSP just for the crossover, like you would an active speaker.
This is an important point that I’ve raised quite a few times myself.
I worked with active speakers i owned for 10 years...
I bought them 10 years ago because Steve Guttenberg recommended them...
I was very unsatisfied so much i put them for seco0ndary computer use for 10 years , no music...
My life changed, i lost my big speakers, i was alone with headphone which i would modify and with the 4 inches woofer speakers... :)
Now i see it as my best purchase in audio ever...
Why ?
Because active means i only need a low cost tube preamplifier but if i want to have audiophile speakers with this under 150 bucks speakers i must modify them...No speakers designers will design porthole with three feet external tubes behind it ...Most porthole reinforce bass but with great defects because the porthole is designed to please a wife not acoustic...
I did it , story short i add a complex tuned set of tubes to the rear porthole (straws of different lenght and diameter from few inches to three feet and i modified the tweeter waveguide)...
Surprize, surprize: in their acoustic controlled corner these low cost speakers gave me now natural timbre , bass clear and extended at 50 hertz now and a pin point imaging and a soundstage exceeding the speakers plane in all direction by few feet and encompassing my listener position with sounds coming from the side of me not from the speakers...
The ratio S.Q. price matter...
This set up is unbeatable ...
They beat all my headphones easily save the AKG K340 i modified... Deeper bass to 20 hertz and a soundfield out of my head...
Not bad for 100 bucks vintage TOP headphone and 100 bucks speakers modified now becoming king in their category ....
Audiophile experience is grounded in knowledge not on price tags...
And as said here someone who know better than me about speakers :
As some may know, I’m an avid DIYer when it comes to speakers. I’ve built both passive and active and worked with pro sound speakers in theaters. I am ambivalent. That is, I have two strong opinions about each being a good choice.
I used KEF LS50 W2s with a pair of KC62 subs and now use LS60s with the subs in one setup and balanced Ayer gear with KEF Reference 1s in another. I'm undecided, but I may keep both -- I'll surely keep the LS60s. I use the actives with the excellent KEF Contact app. I put my bet on Kal Rubinson's review of the LS60s in Stereophile, and think it's a win.
You make perhaps the single most powerful point in the active vs passive argument: does anyone care? For many, flying blind, going by other peoples opinions and the power of brand marketing is too powerful a set of conditions to overcome. If you haven’t stood in a studio and heard what’s on the other side of the glass and then how that sounds in the control room (through a given set of monitors) how would you know? If you don’t understand the science behind active, how would you know? If you are used to an odd sound and that becomes your reference [confirmation bias] how would you know?
While active makes all the sense in the world from a science point of view, I guess it’s like people who buy terrible cars: you cannot talk them out of it no matter what you do! A lot of people bought Cadillac Cimarrons, Chevy Vegas and Ford Pintos! And if you ask someone why, they will defend it with gusto!
Having an active speaker which uses DSP doesn’t necessarily mean it allows for room correction.
A manufacturer may take advantage of DSP for the crossover, like you would an active speaker, replacing the caps and coils, but not necessarily allow for end user adjustments.
Even before DSP however, pro speakers often had bass level adjustments to let you move a speaker from free field to desktop, or near-wall.
As some may know, I’m an avid DIYer when it comes to speakers. I’ve built both passive and active and worked with pro sound speakers in theaters. I am ambivalent. That is, I have two strong opinions about each being a good choice.
Without getting too much into the alleged technical merits of each design, the thing that passive speakers give me is the ability to chose a very colorful amplifier. Consider my favorite amps of all time are CJ Premiere 12s. I don’t consider them neutral, but rather juicy, colorful liars. Heaven.
I just built a fully active, DSP driven center channel. What did I get? Excellent off-axis frequency response and massive dynamic range (comparable to ATC’s claimed figures) in a compact package along with objectively neutral frequency response which doesn’t mind being on a shelf while avoiding the need for yet another amplifier in my rack. Much as I love my Luxman integrated, I keep asking myself if I wouldn’t rather make 2 more active speakers and reduce my combined HT/stereo setup to 1 processor instead.
If you really want to pick your amp, go with passive. If you want to pick a speaker and not have to worry about your amp, go with active, but in no case should you pick speaker A over speaker B based on which of these types they are.
In the consumer world there are a lot of benefits to active speakers we may not care about. Dynamic range and power loss for instance. In the pro world we need every watt, and active crossovers deliver that. In the home world we are fine losing many DB’s of output due to massively overbought amps. 😀 That is, I can point to some technical benefits of active crossovers/speakers which are true, but perhaps irrelevant?
As a consumer, do you really care that building a DSP crossover is much easier (not easy!) than passive, since we aren't swapping parts in and out during the prototype phase? Not really. Does the digital time delay and off-axis frequency response matter to you? Most passive speakers do an excellent job with horizontal dispersion. The center I built though needed excellent vertical as well as horizontal dispersion, and that's a feature I could only really consider in active/DSP configuration. Point is, a lot of the technical differences vanish for most of us.
I can't speak for other active speakers but know that ATC designs the internal amplifiers for their active speakers. Each amp is designed specifically for each driver.
I use a pair of ATC SCM20ASL active monitors in my studio and would not describe them as "dry".
Came across this thread because it came up while searching for who manufactures the amplifiers in KEF active speakers. Does anyone know who manufactures the amps for various active speakers?
My $0.02 is that active speakers sound better than passives. The thing I like best is how much more dynamic active speakers are than your typical passive setup. Clean sounding high powered amps are expensive. What one would have to spend on amplification for passives to match the level of dynamics of actives is, IMHO, cost prohibitive for those on a typical budget.
Technology has advanced to the point where there is now a large market for buyers who want a simple setup that they can get up and running without having to be an audio expert. Just look at the proliferation of the market for bluetooth speakers. Times have changed and the kids growing up these days just want to buy a box/boxes that work straight away; An all-in-one solution so to speak. As those same buyers age and their buying power increases they will tend to continue to look for the all-in-one solution at whatever price point they can afford. I suspect that will drive the market for even higher end actives for consumers.
As noted, in the Professional space it's ALL actives. Live sound is the same. Active crossovers in front of the amps because they want to lose as little power as possible between the amplifier and the transducers and running the juice through a passive crossover is just plain stupid from an efficiency perspective. Ask any reasonable person if they're willing to collect their paycheck through a process whereby an intermediary robs them of 30% of total. No one in their right mind would take that deal. And so it should go with amplification. Who wants to buy an amp and have 30%+ power loss by routing through a passive crossover?
The reason I ended up coming across this thread was because I recently re-acquired a pair of Paradigm Active 40v2 speakers and was curious who manufactures KEF's amplifiers for their active line. For Paradigm, Anthem was the supplier for their Reference Active line. Anyone that knows Paradigm's history knows the Active 40v2's were the best speakers Paradigm ever produced prior to the Persona series. It was a crime that Paradigm discontinued the Active line because they were a ridiculous bargain, and they still hold up. The reason more folks don't know about the Active 40v2 is because Paradigm discontinued them far too early, and those who purchased them don't sell them very often. They won't compete with the likes of ATC, K&H, PMC, etc. in the Pro space as they are more 'consumer hi-fi' sounding. And by that I mean they're not as dry and precise as you'll tend to find with studio monitors. However, if Paradigm were to produce a fully active version of their Persona speakers that use the Beryllium tweeters I suspect they would have a massive hit on their hands.
Beyond the Active 40v2's I'm hoping my next step up will be ATC SCM50ASLT's and then I can stop buying speakers. Actives are the way to go if you can afford them.
Although he's incorrect with the clutch analogy, at least with the Buchardts. According to Mads Buchardt, the components are all modular and can be swapped out, simply with a screwdriver. No need to send the whole speaker back for repair.
Yes, but we did not do an active vs passive comparison. I did that only at AXPONA. Reading this thread makes me want to say it's all I will ever do. I cannot believe there is this much misinformation about active.
I decided today that if AXPONA happens this next fall as planned (Chicago), I’ll take a pair of ATC 50 SE’s and pair of 50 passives to compare in my exhibit room. All of you can come hear it yourself.
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.
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.
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!
Meh, you should see the scorn they heap on electrical engineers :-)
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
teo_audio1,702 posts01-13-2021 11:13am"Good enough" (a plateau by any measure): active
Inveterate tweaker looking for the best (’peak audio’): passive
It’s a really simple equation, in the end (with all the data points on the analysis table).
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.
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:
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.
lonemountain, thank you for your kind words. Something I failed to mention in my earlier post is that my active horn speakers sound damned wonderful to me and to all my audiophile friends who have heard them. It's the old "if at first you don't succeed then try try again.
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
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.
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.
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
DJones51, its difficult to judge your posts when you say "front end components are not really much of a concern on a properly designed active". Increase resolution at the speaker (via active technology) and resolution of the front end won't matter? 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
