The only difference is where you put the amp. For active the signal from source to speaker is line level all the way (except for vinyl). For passive you take the amp out of the speaker and put it somewhere else, running an output level cable between.
Oh, and the amp of course. Generally there isn't a whole lot of space inside a speaker and the amp needs to be cooled. So you can't put a big valve amp in a speaker. You also can't have Class A or probably Class AB as there would be too much heat. So you are left with Class D - small size and little heat.
If you like Class D, that's fine. If not.....
|
Focal uses class g and ab amps in some of their active speakers. ATC uses ab amps.
|
I can try and fill MC’s role if you like?
@holmz - you just be you mate. Oh my word.
And you could use the valve springs if you had the correct mass loading for them to achieve <4Hz isolation. If you haven’t tried good isolation on your speakers, you should try it. And you're kinda crossing into territory of the great Geoff Kait, not seen in here of late.
How’s that for controversial?
Again, I think GaN Fet class D modules in an active speaker could be a game changer.
|
This question thread is related to the room dimension and the way the room will be acoustically controlled or not....And ESPECIALLY here of the quality of amplification like said my friend above: high quality class D will do the job...
Es^pecially if the room is controlled for these speakers response...Vibrations controls is especially important for sure....
|
Good discussion folks. I like a thread that makes me smarter by providing me with more information than I started with. Thanks.
|
one day, they built the best floor standing speaker you have ever heard.
The next day, someone built an active speaker that was better then the best floor standing speaker
The following day....
|
@holmz
I suppose I can, but like each device can perform to its best separately I guess, hahah, PS Audio is real mellow, and Silent Angel Munich M1T is a new Roon Ready streamer, so I thought it wouldn't hurt to give it a try, turned out it was't bad at ball 😂
|
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.
|
I suppose I can, but like each device can perform to its best separately I guess, hahah,
If ^that^ was true, then I would have suspected that you would have passive speaker and power amp?
PS Audio is real mellow, and Silent Angel Munich M1T is a new Roon Ready streamer, so I thought it wouldn't hurt to give it a try, turned out it was't bad at ball 😂
What did you try? Without it all or with it?
If the KEF accepted the streaming, then you would remove the need for a DAC and then the ADC inside the KEF.
Whether it sounds better, the same or worse remains to be seen.
Usually less stuff in the path can be better.
|
Personally I prefer separates and I don't like to idea of being stuck with a speaker manufacturer's choice of amplifier.
I don't like the idea of being stuck with a manufacturer's choice of passive crossover, with the many feet of lossy wire (air core inductors) and a whole bunch of electronic parts that have "a sound" now stuck forever between my amps and the drivers where the sound begins. With active, I can get the crossover part done BEFORE the amps at line level without any loss and I can control driver phase to get a phase linear system, and I can get rid of the biggest lossy thing in the entire system, the speaker cable. Just sayin....
This isn't controversial is it?
Brad
|
Clearthinker, again you are not thinking clearly. ATC speakers use class A/B amps, not class D.
|
@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.
|
@phusis
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.
|
Active is far from a dead end. To see state of the art sound reproduction look no further than active speakers. The newest most interesting designs are from companies like Kii, Dutch and Dutch, Genelec, Mesanovic who's known for microphones, Ex Machina, Adam, Sigberg, GGNTKT, and on and on. They might not all make it but they are the companies pushing the envelope.
|
@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.
|
@phusis
Good discussion. There are many approaches to high end audio. Typically they reflect a persons personality. Often idealistic vs pragmatic. One of the reasons I take a fairly conservative approach here is there are a lot of folks that are fairly new to the pursuit. Many do not know what a complex and multifaceted pursuit it is. Contradictory recommendations are the norm. It is somewhat like investing. Until you have a lot of experience under your belt and know what you are doing you should not take on more complex, higher risk avenues. This is why I am a strong supporter of more main stream solutions. I completely support going digital only if you are just starting. Not trying to discourage exploring, but want as many as possible to be as successful as possible in this pursuit.
|
@holmz LMAO , thanks for that one
|
