Intriguing inquiry, are floor-stand speakers always better than active speakers?

@ghdprentice --

"There is an economic aspect of active speakers that has a big impact on the market. In general, creating the best system possible at say $25K, $50K, or $200K… typically speakers would be the most expensive investment. You start adding more functions to speakers like amplification, then they get even more expensive. Most audiophiles are not rich enough to just plunk down 50% of there final investment or more in speakers. But they work over time to get there. There is an economic advantage in being able to get the best speakers at any given time and upgrade the amp and other aspects as money becomes available.

So, for the time being this is a real headwind for companies creating active speakers. Less competition, higher cost… smaller niche… I can’t see anything changing this soon."

It’s not an apples to apples comparison factoring in all components here, and the accumulated price this leads to. Part of the advantage with an active design is that both amps and drivers will be given better conditions to work from with the omission of a passive cross-over. I’ve heard excellent active setups with amps so cheap you’d normally never associate with sound that good, and this also points to how amps matter less with active setups. An important reason why amps sound relatively different in passive constellations is to which degree they’re impervious to load, but with the negation of an often complex passive cross-over and amp-to-driver direct coupling the swings in amp performance are somewhat ameliorated, meaning cheaper amps can sound great here and the more expensive alternatives offer less of an uptick in performance - or at least one may not deem it worthwhile in light of the SQ level with cheaper amps. To boot the driver cones are better handled now that the dedicated amps sees them directly, often resulting in less smear and a more transiently clean and resolved sound.

What most don’t seem to realize, still, is that an active design isn’t defined by it being a bundled all-in-one speaker package with amps and all. Active means the filtering is done prior to amplification on signal level, not on the output side of the amp between that and the drivers as a passive network. Naturally an active design can be one where the amps, electronic cross-over/DSP and DAC(s) can be situated as separate components and externally to the speakers - a designer could fully opt for this with preset filter values and recommended components, if he wanted to! Most don’t, however, but that doesn’t mean such a solution can’t be pursued as a DIY approach where one can choose whatever separate components one prefers. Yes, you would have to do filter settings yourself, but why not take tweaking and customization to the next level?

Think about the freedom one is afforded once you get accustomed to handling filter setting by yourself; sitting in your listening position with your laptop or tablet you can make filter setting changes on the fly both getting to learn and further optimize the sound to where you want it to go. You can tailor your system to sound more to your specific liking and acoustics with an extra set of important tools here that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to with passive speakers, and this doesn’t exclude being able to choose every single piece of component in the chain, should you want to. I’m using a Class-A amp for the midrange (~600Hz) on up and Class-D variants for the range below that; quality of wattage where it matters most, and sheer brute force where it’s mostly in demand.

Active configuration as a solution of separates holds the possibility of having your cake and eat it too, it’s just a matter of having an open mind and knowing of that possibility, wanting to explore it, and get on with it.

@preston8452 --

"Intriguing inquiry, are floor-stand speakers always better than active speakers?"

To begin with above formulated question doesn’t really make sense, that is; an active speaker is defined by an electronic cross-over/DSP functioning prior to amplification on signal level, and not passively between the output side of the amp(s) and the drivers. That’s is to say: an active speaker can be a floor standing or stand-mounted ditto or whatever you can imagine, so long the filtering is done prior to amplification. This also entails that the components used with an active speaker doesn’t have to be placed internally to it to qualify as being an active design; they can be situated separately and externally to the speaker as well.

That said I believe I get what you’re saying: most active speakers aren’t floor standing but rather of the more compact variety as bundled, pre-configured and -assembled packages where both the amps, electronic cross-over and sometimes DAC’s are placed within the speaker itself. Most refer to active speakers as such, but to reiterate, this is not what defines an active speaker.

My own fully active speaker setup (view my profile) is a solution of external components (amps, DSP and DAC) with floor standing main speakers and subs. It’s also a fully DIY-approach, so everything concerning the filter settings has been done by myself and with the initial help of a friend to get me started, both with the aid of measurements and listening. It’s a long process and not for the faint of heart, but very rewarding once you get the hang of it.

As to what’s better, passive vs. active? The actual range of active speakers sold is still relatively limited, but some of the very best I’ve heard count ATC and Grimm Audio. The vast majority of speakers sold are passive, but on principle and in practice an active design - be that DIY, as separates or bundled - can be the easy equivalent to a passive ditto. As I'm sure you know it's all about the implementation, be that with active and passive designs, and both can house great results. Myself though I’m not going back to passive designs.

@ghdprentice --

"Yes, as in all things there are advantages and disadvantages in different system designs. It is great to discuss different approaches to system design. Most audiophiles are very cautious when trying a new paradigm. I have never had the money I needed to buy the equipment I wanted, and haven’t had the money to cover a step in the wrong direction.

Professionally I spent decades choosing new technology for global corporations… decisions each of millions of dollars, and sometimes upon which the very continued existence of the corporation would depend. I am very good at it, ideas that sound good and follow a new path are easy to find, unfortunately many are dead ends. I am not saying active is a dead end… but at this point in high end audio it is not the low risk proposition. Great possibility for one and done, cutting end types, well healed. But, for me, I would kick the tires a lot before heading down this path, as rosy as it is conceptually."

A glance at your great looking and no doubt very capable main system (one of three, no less) puts the cost of all well in excess of $100k, so I hope you’ve come closer to realizing your sonic dreams.

Exploring home audio reproduction avenues and where to possibly settle here takes a good dose of trial and error and open mindedness to follow an intuition, which in turn may invite risk and finding oneself sometimes in uncharted territory. Fortunately risk taking in home audio reproduction doesn’t call for considering the survival of global corporations, so it’s a "free" playground to gain some experience that should invite exploration rather than being, perhaps, as you pointed to: (overly) cautious.

One of the good things with risk taking and exploration - which needn’t cost a lot of dough, I might add, nor be devoid of careful analysis - is that principles, areas and segments of audio reproduction one may have more or less (un)consciously deemed unsuitable for domestic use, are suddenly "unveiled" to prove the contrary scenario. This is quite an uplifting and freeing discovery, and moreover sheds some light on audiophilia being very much a monetary affair rather than one primarily invested in the physics of audio - wherever that may lead.

A few years back I took a chance with a pair of used pro cinema speakers (augmented by a pair of my existing horn subs) at a very fair price, thinking they’d be an interesting and not too expensive experiment into accommodating more readily some physical properties in audio reproduction, while also trying out a fully active-as-separate-components configuration. They were later fitted with a (much) bigger horn variant intended for setups in large cinema auditoriums, something I initially deemed too bonkers for a home setting, but it turned out so successfully, also with dialing in filter settings and doing measurements that it’s now a permanent part to my setup.

Is it close to perfection? Of course not (what is?), but you know that giddy feeling of sitting in front of your stereo - not really intending for it to be a listening session - and it spontaneously dawns on you that what you’re hearing is just downright awesome? No genre of music is left by the wayside, what is being fed is served, no restrictions to size and scale of presentation, dynamics galore, totally effortless overall reproduction and honest 20-25Hz extension at ANY volume, prodigious resolution and insight. Conceptually few audiophiles would have given this a chance, but that’s where risk taking becomes your friend.