Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

You can use an outboard crossover so you can amp roll, no excuses for the crowd that is afraid of internal amps:

🙄

@secretguy

For the price of $100K+ I would rather have a matched 7.1.4 system of bryston active speakers with bespoke amps of my choice than a pair of Sonus Fabers and a pair of Macintosh/Audio Research monoblocks, YMMV.

The Bryston Active Mini-T’s aren’t any where near six figures and this is for the entire system and the size makes them ideal for a MCH setup.:

The speakers boast a nearly perfect neutral sonic perspective and this, along with the aforementioned incredible revealing attribute serves to place a well recorded small assemble slightly in front of the system, thus producing a striking ”live” illusion, but without any of the hardness and in-your-face elements, often experienced in systems that project the sound forward.

I found that there is little, if any, way to improve the performance.

http://innerearmag.com/reviews/speakers/Audio_Observer_Bryston_Active_System.shtml

@mastering92 You're right ugly is not the right word, and you're right in your description and importance of the brand. I've spent millions on pro sound equipment and lived in LA doing the highest pressure productions on the planet. Now I'm retired and live in Idaho in a beautiful home next to a lake. I'm not watching movies or music for technical gaffs or evaluation I just want to enjoy. I've got an atoms mixing system that I'm about to do some projects on. That system is utility the speakers aren't beautiful (Genelec "the ones" ) but it sound really good and surprises me every time I turn it on.

@kota1 I haven't listened to the video yet I will and thank you. You are a never ending fountain of information. But this picture above is really bad, any speaker in that room will sound bad without exception, you couldn't make a good recording in that room you also can't listen well in that room. Looks more like a commercial set up without cables in a right angle echo chamber. Bryston is a good company this picture is embarrassing for them.

I've literally shot movie and TV productions in rooms that looked like this and told the producers if you let xxxxx actor walk in this room they will be insulted because you can't hear anything and the recording will be awful, this is what happens when a young art director doesn't think it through.

Canadiens are good at speakers (Paradigm/Bryston) , they got get their marketing guys from NYC in the future.

@kota1 On the video did you catch how they didn't listen to symmetrical speakers in the PMC / Capitol video. I haven't come to any conclusions yet but working with object based information means you are creating images between the speakers, so if you are in a completely symmetrical listening position the images can't have much depth. Consistently the best Atmos mixes I've heard and seen on ProTools meters have been mixes that sound good in stereo and the other speakers add depth in back, with some little silly instrument gimmicks that are used on side speakers just because they can. Movies are much further ahead in surround mixing than music because your brain understands the images coming at above and around you where in music everything is backwards if you are hearing the band from the side and behind. discipline is the winning and boring answer, setting up surround music mixes is disturbing to your brain because you are never in an understood environment. Eventually surround music may become a genera unto its self and become just fun but people won't have real connection to the music unless some standards are made fairly soon.

but working with object based information means you are creating images between the speakers

You do that in 2 channel stereo too, like a phantom center channel, a soundstage that extends beyond the plane of the speakers.

so if you are in a completely symmetrical listening position the images can’t have much depth

In my room the wall and ceiling seem like speakers, the room is pressurized, and images are content dependent. I posted that amapiano music for a reason. When you upmix it you get imaging that you have never heard in stereo. It is the second mix of the three I posted and you need to listen to about 30 minutes or so. Use the 7.1.4 genelec setup at up between 70-80 db upmixed in dolby surround and see. Movies are completley different depending on the content. Listen to or watch Mad Max, same volume level or higher and you will see how the audio objects follow those cars. Use the genelecs as that is a perfectly matched system as long as you have the speakers positioned per atmos specs.

Movies are much further ahead in surround mixing

This is why you use upmixers. I’m not limited by a bad atmos mix when I can switch to auro 3d, or the DTS upmixer. You can use these for movies or music. All of that amapiano music I listen to upmixed. Today I listened to Kind of Blue in the atmos mix. Unless someone told you it was atmos you wouldn’t know, the engineers kept the musicians in front of you, they didn’t mix heavy handed. Then you get a guy like Moby and his mixes are boincing around everywhere. So if you don’t like a mix that is what upmixers are for.

setting up surround music mixes is disturbing to your brain because

No, remember, YOUR brain is not average, it has been trained to focus on channel based or you got fired, I don’t know how much experience you have in immersive. I agree its early days but I have found great content and mediocre content. I upmix bad content for my "palate".

From a review of Kind of Blue:

When a high-res stereo version of “So What” was played for comparison, the sound seemed flat and “locked” to the front speakers, with little sense of height or depth.

PMC and Capitol Records worked with the Miles Davis estate to secure the three mono master tapes used to create the new recordings. (Both Davis’ son Erin and nephew and drummer, Vince Wilburn, were in attendance at the demo.) The playback system in Munich mirrored the original setup in Capitol Studios where the remixes were created: 3 PMC Fenestria towers up front for LCRs, 10 PMC Wafer on-wall speakers for surrounds, another 6 Wafers used as overheads, all of it driven by Bryston electronics.

Eventually surround music may become a genera unto its self and become just fun but people won’t have real connection to the music unless some standards are made fairly soon.

Do you know what John Storyck said about this? He said immersive music will surpass movies because all you need is headphones, not a video monitor.

If you are a two channel enthusiast I get the allure of passive speakers. There are a LOT of very beautiful amps to roll out there. Integrated, stereo, and monoblock. If monoblocks are regarded as superior why doesn’t everyone use them? The price. Look around and you can find monoblocks starting at $1000 a channel and upwards of $10,000 a channel. For a TWO channel system take that price and mutiply x 2, or x 4 if you are going to biamp. That is fine... for TWO channels.

Why are multi-channel amps so much cheaper? Because they are....cheaper, as in inferior to a good monoblock amp.

So, how can you biamp your 5+ channel system with monoblocks at a price that is even more competitve than a MCH amp? Use active speakers. Active speakers have a dedicated monoblock for each driver. You can buy a pair of good active speakers for the equivalent of ONE good monoblock amp.

So, if you are a two channel person who likes amp rolling and have a nice budget, go for it.

If you are going into MCH system and looking at MCH amps DON’T do it. Look for active speakers instead.

@kota1 I hope even someone stumbling onto this thread has at least seen why quality powered speakers are superior. I have been pointing out the problems with powered speakers and it's logical extension synergistic systems. If all the components were made for each other the entire system would sound better. When I was working in the film industry I was the first sound mixer to be completely digital from transmitter to recording there were a few others who used digital recorders before I did but not be digital through the entire path, it was a huge help I could keep a lower signal and if an actor got inspired and screamed for no reason I had way more headroom than everyone else because I only used one A to D converter. Production sound recorders now have a dynamic range of 142db we only hear 120db so that means the limitation isn't the recordings anymore 20 years ago it was about 110 db 30 years ago recorders could record about 85db. Sound now has more resolution in every way than we can hear, so naturally manufactures should market the most efficient speaker/amp/DAC/Streamer system possible, nope they are very happy to have all of us waste money buying everything separately and getting it wrong most of the time then buying more and more and more equipment.

@donavabdear

I hope even someone stumbling onto this thread has at least seen why quality powered speakers are superior

I would hope they simply see the advantages, especially price to performance ratio.

I have been pointing out the problems with powered speakers

Actually all you have done is praise the Genelecs, you may not realize it but the perception I get is you point out the problems of the 9H (passive), the subs (active) and the amp (hybrid). Then you pointed out problems of buying mismatched gear, so no, I didn’t get that point the problem is with powered speakers.

If all the components were made for each other the entire system would sound better.

To the point, your Genelecs sync, your curated system has stumbled a bit. AFTER you audition a matched Bryston, JBL, or Meridian active system we can discuss.

I realize that I have a matched system of Paradigm speakers, Anthem amps, and a Paradigm streamer/transport. If I got an Anthem AVM processor it would be completely matched but it lacks some features I like.

I had way more headroom than everyone else

You said the magic word HEADROOM, you can’t get the headroom an active system provides with MCH amps in a HT, impossible because all those channels draw from the same power supply. Like sticking 7 straws in a drink and saying its better.

Sound now has more resolution in every way than we can hear

It’s sad, MCH sounds more lifelike than hirez according to the Sound and Vision reviewer. Blind test a red book vs hirez recording with 10 untrained listeners and how many can spot the difference reliably? Put 10 people in a room for the same demo the reviewer got with Miles (hirez vs atmos) and it would be 100% reliable which one is which.

So naturally manufactures should market the most efficient speaker/amp/DAC/Streamer system possible

Bryston is already doing that, those speakers measure like a Floyd Toole master class in speaker design. The passive measure great, the active even better. Same with JBL synthesis, same with Meridian. People buy what they want, not what has the best validated performance. My Paradigm active speakers measure and perform better in every way than their passive counter part. Guess which design had a longer run? The one that was worse, go figure.

nope they are very happy to have all of us waste money buying everything separately

The members here are more sophisticated than a Best Buy shopper. Go look at their systems and if you tell them they are wasting money they are happy doing it, LOL. You got to offer what the customers want, not what they should want. Hence, the reason I like this thread you started, active is a wiser investment on a dollar to SQ basis. They are the opposite of wasteful.

getting it wrong most of the time then buying more and more and more equipment.

Says the man about to buy $$$ speakers without a proper audition, go figure.

What about we change it to:

Getting it RIGHT most of the time by AUDITIONING more and more equipment.

I saw wisdom in what one of the initial posters said "you do you and don't forget to enjoy the music"

Even through a lossy youtube video the ACTIVE Bryston Mini-T’s seem fantastic and priced very reasonable. A matched 7.1.4 system with these speakers would be great for both 2 channel and immersive. I would get the Bryston SP4 processor/preamp which can do double duty as the crossover in place of the BAX-1 crossover and preamp in the video.

And if you have to have towers the Bryston "T-Rex" ACTIVE speaker is formidable.

It wouldn’t be my choice but for the guys wanting two channel towers OMG:

@kota1 

I was just reading in a very high end forum that external crossovers are bad and setting up amps for each driver is bad, I understand there are confused people everywhere but dear lord it doesn't matter how into hi fi the people are they are there is so much mythology. 

I think you have misunderstood my view of my Genelec system, I'm very happy with it it's like a well done plumbing job I don't have to worry about it and it does the job its intended to do. There is nothing experiential about it, audiophiles don't love the music they love the experience, numbers aren't beautiful but a formula can be beautiful and deserve all the adjectives of a wine or speaker review. Simply another way audiophiles are confused.

@muaythai 

"Enjoy your music" that can be done with a 1980 ghetto blaster, I enjoyed lots of music that way. I know what you are saying and your right of course but we are going for an experience not an appreciation. The quest is the psychological fulfillment of many boxes from "ya I spent my money right" to "this is going to make me cry" and on and on.

@donavabdear 

I was just reading in a very high end forum that external crossovers are bad 

Great, but you have to compare yourself. I like forums for information but I always verify myself. There are many forums that publish misinformation, you have to sort it out. I would trust Harman and Bryston because they have warranties and returns would reduce margins. Maybe someone got an external crossover that was mismatched, fine.

There is nothing experiential about it, audiophiles don't love the music

Uhhhh, you may want to rethink that hypothesis
Simply another way audiophiles are confused

 Spending $200K on equipment before auditioning many many possibilities is rational? I just don't see a problem if confused people audition a lot of stuff first. Most websites offer trial periods, this is not a BIG problem if you audition.
BTW, the T-Rex active speakers plus the crossover is around $25K (not including the amps, you can roll your own or use Bryston). If you want towers, go BIG or go home I say. 😁

I prefer a 7.1.4 system of the active Mini-T's though.

Model T Signature + the Bax-1 crossover pre-owned for $10K + $700 shipping (byo amps)

I would marry these puppies to this 7 channel monster and live in active speaker bliss. This one amp could power all of the drivers, both speakers, at 400W a channel AND use the current source output for the tweeters for that tube like quality:

@donavabdear

Please see the above, the only thing that confuses me is when this quality is available for <$15K, all in, WHY would someone consider spending more and getting less?????

Now if you got money left over build a dedicated room, a nice wine collection, a private chef, have a party, THAT is not confusing, at least to me. 👌

That amp was made for biamping or triamping with external crossovers, see page 13 in the manual:

@donavabdear

This should put your mind at ease about the Bryston Bax-1 external crossover:

Technical Note by: David A. Rich

Unlike the analog active crossover network in the ELAC Navis loudspeakers or Carlo’s old active system that he referenced, Bryston chose to go the DSP route in the BAX-1 crossover. There are several intelligent reasons for this:

1. 1. 1. One can design a much more complex filter in DSP compared to a few inductors, resistors, and capacitors in a passive or even an analog active system.
   2. 2. DSP allows filters that cannot be synthesized in the passive domain. Finite impulse response filters are possible. Computation that is not causal is possible – one can look forward and back at a digital signal to determine a sample point to be sent to a driver. Phase correction is possible with non-causal filters although it is unclear if that does anything positive. Bryston is not correcting the phase here.
   3. 3. Drivers present complex impedances. This interacts with a passive crossover. In an active system, with the amplifier directly connected to the drivers, the speaker sees a flat response at the terminals. The acoustic performance of the driver is isolated. The non-ideal response of the driver, now isolated, can be corrected with the DSP filter. Custom compensation for a specific driver shipped with the speakers is possible although this presents issues if a replacement is needed as the DSP code must be updated.
   4. 4. In passive speakers, crossover components see very large voltage swings and high current flows in them. This results in non-linearities that can be measured easily and are high enough to be audible, especially in iron core inductors and electrolytic capacitors. Moving to air-core inductors and film capacitors are prohibitively expensive at lower crossover frequencies. Passive speakers also have very complex impedance plots and can be difficult to drive. This is due to the passive crossover network and the overlapping impedances of the drivers. Dealing with an individual driver gives us a much easier impedance to drive. What comes out of the amplifier terminal in an active design winds up at the voice coil exactly.
   5. 5. Passive components have tolerances. Capacitors and inductors are within 5% or even 10% of the specified value. The speaker’s impedance also varies from sample to sample. Combine all the tolerance changes of each component and the desired frequency response of the speaker has changed by a significant amount. This results in pair matching errors that effect stereo imaging. DSP has no such tolerance errors. Every box produces the same response.
   6. 6. Bryston’s approach has significant advantages for those who want to keep a speaker for a long time. The amplifiers inside an active speaker have little space and occasional ventilation problems. Parts availability may be 5 years or less if the company still exists. The DSP section of an all in one box speaker may also have parts that cannot be replaced and sometimes the company puts a limit on the time it will repair the electronics.
   7. 7. To ensure 10 years or more of uptime the DSP filter code should be portable to a newer external DSP box if the old one becomes obsolete or is not reparable.
   8. 8. Bryston can continue development of the DSP code for the speaker. If they make an improvement, all they have to do is send you the code to download.

(see the measurement graph using this link for the comments addressing it below)

Above is a curve pair of the response of the passive Middle T and active Middle T provided by Bryston. Each curve shows the listening window response and power response. Note that they are not flattening the listening window with DSP completely. You would see the active curve get as flat as ice if they did that.

What Bryston does is use the fact that they are applying DSP correction to each driver, not to the whole speaker.

That gives an extra degree of freedom when applying DSP filters to each driver span around the crossover points. For the woofer – midrange the crossover is 500Hz and they overlap between 300Hz – 1.8kHz. The midrange – tweeter crossover at 2kHz and the overlap runs from about 2.2kHz to 3.5kHz. In these regions, Bryston can adjust the sound power and the listening window in different directions. This is something other speaker designers may take advantage of but they talk of it in very technical terms. Bryston has come up with a brilliant explanation and it never occurred to me before that it could be this easy to explain.

The graph pair above shows the Bryston concept in practice. Both the early reflection curve and the power spectrum have been improved. Outside the crossover area, the changes track each other. In the crossover, the correction becomes almost independent.

I've tried digital eq, active, etc. and my favorite system is my Thiel 3.7s with some moderately priced but high powered ab amps, a bryston analog preamp and benchmark dac2.  I think my second favorite is turning out to be an old system I've got about 2k in.  Old Creek integrated, Thiel Viewpoints, and a $200 dac.  I enjoy music through it.  I've tried a bunch of other things.  They might have measured better.  I've got some really expensive active speakers that I got crazy cheap because audiophiles are slow.  I love them.  They have amazing dynamics, extremely low distortion, are fantastic.  But I don't enjoy music as much through them.  They excel with movies.  For music I'll take any first order Thiel over anything else.

@jon_5912

I’ve got some really expensive active speakers that I got crazy cheap because audiophiles are slow.

Bingo! That’s exactly how I scored my active speakers! Fortunately for both of us active speakers fly under the radar. I love my passive JBL’s but it took an amp that cost 3 x more than the speakers to get them to sound their best.

@donavabdear

If you are worried about crossovers I think your mind is at ease that the Bryston BAX-1 is at the same level of quality as their amps and according to David Rich, it’s brilliant. If I were shopping I would be worried about the crossovers inside your passive speakers. It is the easiest part to cut corners with because it is out of sight, here is the brand you are thinking about, YIKES:

And another benefit of an external crossover is being able to amp roll, look how Danny breaks down this ATC active speaker. @lonemountain do you want to respond. After watching this my NEXT loudspeaker will be active with either the BAX-1 of the JBL SDEC external crossover. You get the best of all worlds:

@kota1 That was an interesting video about the cheep Sonus Faber crossover. Some of the people at the SF forum were agreeing that SF was not what they used to be. Like you say I just have to listen, hope that didn't apply to the Aida. 

I like this guy on the video. This guy recognized that powered speakers with good parts were much better but the ultimate point is that speakers that are designed with an amp/driver in mind are much much better. people who want to mix and match components have more variability with an active speaker design. A powered design will last you several years, great. Some of the early Steinway speakers (Model D) are already getting old as far as tech. the speaker is fine but the components that feed it are getting obsolete and at $220k that's a little tough, but since they are passive and not powered that is at least some advantage. From what you have posted it seems that Bryston is doing things correctly. Do you remember when this conversation started immediately people mentioned cheep speakers, but that is not really what this forum is about I don't think it should be understood that this isn't the forum that is interested in cheep speakers. I've always appreciated PS Audio because they used to have a company philosophy that priced the components according to the cost of the parts, that makes a lot of sense.

It's the beginning of the month and so I get a few new videos of a renowned pianists playing their Steinway pianos for the Spirio piano that I own. I played a new song on it and felt all the vibrations all over the piano, it was vibrating everywhere. The piano is a Steinway and Sons Spirio/R Model B 7 foot Grand, it is beautiful and flawless the craftsmanship is amazing the piano is sitting in its own round room with 24 ft inverted arch ceiling. I bought this piano new and it's been tuned by a professional several times. The sound is nothing like I've ever heard on any speaker the entire piano is radiating sound not just a driver divided up into frequencies. Speakers can be works of art but this piano is a real work of art made of wood not resin polymers and it is the only HiFi playback I've ever heard in my life.

@donavabdear

Danny Richie from GR Research has a channel worth checking out. Part fact, part tongue in cheek humor. If you liked that video he gas some where he breaks down $$$ speakers and you see the beautiful cabinets with $20 crossovers and you know where your money went, ouch. You should also check out his take on cables.

I think every digital component is subject to Moores law. That hammered home the brilliance of a $4000 SOA outboard crossover. Those speakers will sound the same in 20 years covered by their warranty. That digital crossover gets software updates as long as they keep dropping. Every time you change rooms, change amps, or change dacs you can realign the individual drivers perfectly. You can’t do that with a traditional crossover of any kind that is internal.

Danny's channel is part fact, part tongue in cheek, with more than a small helping of BS. The crossover he made for the SF is different not necessarily better. Some aspects of the response were smoothed but the off axis is worse. You will see it repeated from Toole, ASR, etc about the importance of a flat on axis response. In practice that axis is not the centerline of the speaker it is the line from the speaker towards the listener which may be off axis from the centerline.  Some speakers are a bit smoother off centerline and are designed for less toe in, not pointed directly at the listener.  Going from 11 parts to 6 suggests lower order crossover or removed notch filters. I would like to see the before and after distortion plots. There could have been a reason for the higher order.

Like most things in audio, crossovers are another area that audiophiles have some extreme and poorly justified phobias. That's makes marks for overly expensive parts of suspect (read as no) value. 

@donavabdear 

Power genelecs in atmos action, what are you waiting for? Watch this:

Thanks for the videos. 

@kota1 I think the Bryston system is probably the smartest there is. I honestly don't know how audiophiles don't think active speakers are the way to get the best sound? If powered speakers are scary because you are worried about your amps going out of style then go active with outboard crossovers. The Bryston system should be the blueprint for a 3 way speaker that includes inputs from the crossovers and outputs to specific frequency windows. If all sound equipment were mad like this audiophiles wouldn't have to say "hey guys I'm buying as set of $140k XXX speakers what amp should I get?" really stupid commentary not on the one seeking info but the audiophile industry in general. Why does anyone put up with it, answer, because there is no alternative. 

When I saw that they used Bryston amps to remix Kind of Blue in Atmos at Capitol Records I realized that equipment must be perfect for immersive audio. I think the price is very reasonable and like that you can "bring your own amp" if you already have one and don’t want to buy Bryston. My Active 40’s are about the same size as the Mini-T’s and of course that enhanced the appeal for an immersive setup. I think the bigger Model T’s are great if you want a 2 channels setup but if you have subs and are going to send that bass to the subs the towers aren’t necessary. Having a digital crossover offers all of the DSP advantages plus software updates. In terms of what "audiophiles think" it is not about thinking. Nobody buys a sportscar for the MPG or being practical. It is about amp rolling and the adrenaline rush of putting your own spin on it. Going passive is NOT "logical" as you get crazy more value with active. I like getting the customization from the front end/source components while having the drivers/cabinets/active crossover and amps matched by the speaker designer. I do agree that you can go passive and get good or better SQ but it will cost at least double or more to achieve that AND there is also risk of a mismatch.

@kota1 @donavabdear Far Field multi way actives are not new or revolutionary. The ATC all analog hand made 4 channel P4 amp with built in (analog) crossovers is used to power the "active" pro ATC SCM200s and SCM300s used in studios for 20+ years?  These are some of the very few far fields with sufficient resolution one can confidently mix with them, everything hand made custom.  

Prior to this kind of speaker and the big Genelecs like them, the far fields in studios were traditional horn loaded high SPL speakers used to impress the band for playback and used by the engineer for tracking (tracking live instruments can often present sufficient peaks to blow up most speakers).  These were common back in the rock and roll era of the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Nowadays the super high SPLhorn loaded far fields are most popular in hip hop studios. 

Pink Floyds Astoria boat, East West in LA (called "western recorders" back in the 60s and 70s where Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin recorded), and the well known BlackBird Studio in Nashville (where a huge number of famous country acts, Jack White and more) all still use ATC 200/P4 or 300/P4 systems daily with a wide variety of artists using them and their near field of choice.     

There is a consumer system that parallels this ATC pro set up but with a different floor standing arrangement called the SCM200 towers and SCM 300 towers, with almost the same complement of drivers, same P4 amp pair, also all analog.  

Brad

Now I want one, I'll bet the amp is as indestructible as ATC speakers. 

Nice to hear from you @lonemountain great info. Is there any way someone can use specs to put together a high end system that is active? What I’m asking for is a way to use the specs on speakers amps and crossovers that would work together optimally, I’m sure the answer is no but why. Say I buy a very expensive spare of speakers and then take the passive crossovers out then pick amps for the drivers together with outboard electronic crossovers. I really don’t want to guess when spending so much money.

I think that’s what amazes some pro folks, that "active" is a very well worn path with evidence stretching 20+ years of success and satisfied customers. ATC and Genelec may have pioneered it, but it’s certainly well understood now. The simplest benefit isn’t DSP related, it’s developing a phase linear loudspeaker. There are still all the debates about directivity, dispersion, low end etc, but active is not a new or questionable feature in loudspeakers anymore, especially when compared to the mess passive crossovers leave behind and unresolved (lack of driver phase control being just one of many problems left behind)

As said earlier in this thread, I’ve directly A/B’d active and passive of the identical model speaker, same room, same music, using the same exact amp designs (example: ATC SCM50 active vs ATC SCM50 passive with ATC P2 full range amplification which uses the same exact devices and topology of the active amp designs). The "tone" is NOT that different. The speakers sounds very similar spectrally and many would never be able to tell the difference because the bass is very close, the high end is close, the mid range is still in the same place in the overall sound. Some listeners will use a quick listen and spectral similarity as evidence of "it’s not a benefit" or "they sound the same". But given some time, some attention, you will hear a growing difference in details, fine resolution, imaging, separation of instruments and separation of distinct unique elements (like "reverb tails" in the finished mastered track. Once you hear that info, you cannot unhear it. You get frustrated that passive just smooths all this information over, covers it up in the background, the mix now is somehow missing the little elements the artist and mix engineer worked so damn hard to put in there for you, but content wise it sounds very similar. Sort of like a better pair of glasses help you see previously hidden details in a painting.

In the record building process, there is a stage of mixing where the engineer works on "balance", the relative balance of bass vs treble you could say. Are the drums forward enough or should they be less loud compared to the guitars? Are background vocals loud enough or too loud? For this lower resolution passive nearfields are quite handy, things like Auratones and NS10s, etc help you hear balance quite well. But once you get past that, to work on making the guitar track PERFECT, you need resolution so you can hear every mistake, every tiny error. IF everyone does does their job right, the final record is nearly error free- and it is a marvel to hear! a well done record is so emotionally moving and engaging you can’t stop listing to it. You are impacted in a way that nothing else does.

[as evidence, if you can stand country for one moment, listen to "Send it On Down" by Lee Ann Womack- it is a master class in well done mixes (by Chuck Ainlay) with tiny details galore. Or if you like orchestra, listen to Linda Ronstadt Nelson Riddle (done by George Massenburg)- it’s like you can hear a single viola in the orchestra it’s so clear. These mixes have so much detail in them you could listen for hours and hours. Both were built on highly resolving actives.]

Engineers in the pro business sound just like audiophiles to me, Some of them use different converters for a specific song to get the "flavor" right.  Some of them use a unique microphone on different vocals with the same person to get the "tone" or the "feel" of a particular song right.  There is endless debate about what is right.  But what there is little debate about is active vs passive.

Brad 

@lonemountain ,

I am a huge proponent of active obviously but i also have to accept that a complex (expensive) passive crossover can achieve almost all that an active system can. You would not see that in a professional monitor.

Most of our cherished music was mixed on passives complete with all those little elements as well. They couldn't work hard to keep them there if they couldn't hear them.   

You get frustrated that passive just smooths all this information over, covers it up in the background, the mix now is somehow missing the little elements the artist and mix engineer worked so damn hard to put in there for you, but content wise it sounds very similar.

@donavabdear , remember I wrote a long time ago now it seems that low distortion, accurate reproduction takes getting used to but once you do it's addictive and you can't go back? What @lonemountain just described was exactly what i meant. 

 You get frustrated that passive just smooths all this information over, covers it up in the background, the mix now is somehow missing the little elements the artist and mix engineer worked so damn hard to put in there for you

I wouldn't have been able to articulate it better. I own passive and active versions of the same Paradigm speaker and the passive smooths it out. 

@thespeakerdude 

but i also have to accept that a complex (expensive) passive crossover can achieve almost all that an active system can.

Why do you bother making stuff up like this without a link to a reference? You can't even name a speaker with an expensive crossover, prove me wrong ok?

@kota1 for reasons only known to you you have issues with me. Feel free to direct message me and rant all you want. Be respectful and don’t make your issue everyone else’s issue as you are doing. It is disrespectful to everyone else here. Only you can make the actions of not making your beef everyone else's problem.

@thespeakerdude 

Like I said, you have no substance, no speakers, and no evidence about your "expensive crossover" claim. You obviously don't know ANY speaker that you are talking about. All you gotta do is post a link to a passive speaker that uses an expensive crossover, that's what you posted so we are all waiting.

I find dogma in this subject unhelpful.  

While active speakers have clear advantages for the designers, and measurable advantages in power efficiency it's clear the markets have decided that there's room for both, with pros choosing active more often than not.

I'm making an active center channel and I'm really not going to be thinking too much about which camp I fall into while listening to my HT system.

@kota1 for reasons only known to you you have issues with me. Feel free to direct message me and rant all you want. Be respectful and don’t make your issue everyone else’s issue as you are doing. It is disrespectful to everyone else here. Only you can make the actions of not making your beef everyone else's problem.

Actually, one more thing.  I think people who build speakers have a different perspective on this whole conversation.  If you want to opine with more authority, go build a pair of either. 

Get a kit or design a 2-way from scratch.  Want to do active? Sure, get a 2 or 3 way plate amp and set it up.  Come back and tell us what you've found.

@erik_squires 

I'm making an active center channel

+10- respect🔊

@thespeakerdude

Look, if you want to talk "expensive crossovers" you got a get a clue.

Here is a $4000 a pair of Revel speakers with a crossover that costs less than $20. If you have a clue to a speaker with an "expensive crossover" post it, if you don’t have a clue why bother making stuff up? It simply reveals the truth, you don’t have a system, you don’t have any speakers, and you don’t have any experience with building a system.😢

@kota1 for reasons only known to you you have issues with me. Feel free to direct message me and rant all you want. Be respectful and don’t make your issue everyone else’s issue as you are doing. It is disrespectful to everyone else here. Only you can make the actions of not making your beef everyone else's problem.

The vertical off-axis responses look wrong.  The vertical drop-off of the top end of the tweeter should be the same or worse than horizontal. 

@erik_squires back when I was in acoustics years ago there was a lot of talk about  frequencies riding on each other. This was when WMTMW was starting and the point was that frequencies were actually interacting nondestructively and preserving high frequencies along the axis of the companion frequencies. This could explain that plot. Sorry if that didn't make any sense.