Thoughts on Active/Passive Speakers? Looking for pros and cons.

From what I've read, active can sound great. It limits your options for experimentation with different amps, etc. Consider how interactive you want to be with your sound as a first step, and then read reviews, test out, etc. to suit your ears.

I have a pair of meridian dsp8000se and a pair of persona 7f, I've also owned several other well regarded speakers that I sold because I couldn't find a good match between components.

The GE and and new paradigm founder with active woofers are passive speakers with powered woofers built in. The upside is you don't have to worry about driving the woofers so you can choose about any amp and have enough power. If you like using subs in your system these are probably not as much an advantage as they would be to a dedicated 2 channel system that needs muscle in the bass, either way you gotta listen.

Active crossovers are the BEST. Contrary to what hilde45 said, the opposite is true, gives you more amplifier options. Benefits - Almost total elimination of intermodulation distortion, which is what your ears are most sensitive too. No phase shift, extremely low THD, no delay unless you choose to add some. Very low resistance between voice coils and amplifier outputs, so more power goes directly to the drivers. I do not use anything but wire between the driver voice coils and amplifier outputs.
Passive crossover benefit - You may not blow your drivers if the amplifier has a hard failure. However, with an active and nothing between the voice coils and amplifier outputs, I have only blown one (1) midrange and (1) tweeter in 41 years! (Tri-amped) It is not a guarantee that you will blow a driver without caps and inductors in line with the outputs of the amplifiers. It is a guarantee that the sound will be muddy and not as clear as an active crossover. Wait for others to respond.

@fiesta75 I only assumed that if the amp was built into the speaker, one couldn't try different preamps & amps to get different synergies with the speaker. Is that mistaken? Please help me understand. I don't want to mislead.

Sorry, guess I'm the one that jumped to a conclusion. I was not even thinking about amps internal to the speakers.

In all of my experience active speakers were always suggested to be better than passive speakers.

The main (only?) drawbacks were always said to be greater expense and greater complexity of setup.

Having said that the only active setup I was quite familiar with was an Alpine car system.

Did it sound good?

Yes it did, with an exceptionally dynamic and fluid sound!

Actives are built to matched amps. The only thing they limit it is your ability to blow dough.

fuzztone - Huh, I don't get it. If your comment was for me, I said passive crossovers will protect drivers better. Since when are actives built to matched amps?

Actives are amps built to match speakers, is what I think fuzz meant.

Which is true. But as most of us know, there's more than one "match" between speaker and amp. In the case of active, an engineer has decided what's best. Probably a really tight and careful fit -- but it would be that fit, only. That was my initial point. 

The new P.S. Audio speakers will be partially active -- bass only. https://www.psaudio.com/askpaulvideo/active-loudspeakers/

Some of the Legacy speakers allow partial (just the woofers) or full range active operation. Couple with the Wavelet line stage/processor/DAC for active equalization and room correction.

There seems to be a big disconnect here. An active speaker design is a system which includes amplifiers, drivers and an active crossover. What I am talking about is an electronic crossover or active crossover which distributes the correct band of frequencies (my choice) through the amplifiers of my choice to the drivers of my choice. The active electronic crossover can be analog or digital and include a range of other options. By locating the active crossover and amplifiers outside of the speaker enclosure, it allow for so many more choices. Crossover frequencies, slopes and many driver options. Just because a tweeter is designed to operate over a range of say 1kHz. to 20kHz., with a 12db/octave slope, doesn't mean it should or must be operated over those parameters. For example, a large Heil tweeter will operate from 800Hz. on up in a 2-way design. I have used this driver crossed over at 3kHz. or higher with astonishing results in 3-way or 4-way systems. If this is beyond comprehension, I can just stop my participation. Does anyone understand or want my input? I think cd318 understands what I'm talking about. 

@fiesta75 your second sentence above is what I'm describing.  Also well summarized in the video above, thanks @hilde45.  

Well fiesta75, I think everyone hears you loud and clear. The problem with Active XOs from bottom to top is the cost. A GOOD active is 4-6k from bottom to top. Krell makes a GREAT active. Behringer on the other hand is good for bass duty. :-) Exactly what it is good for 300hz and below..

I have a First Watt active that is FULL of Wima caps.. sound wonderful...

STL another GREAT (valve) active crossover 3-5K.. BIG valve design too.. Power valves being used as PRE amp valves..  Go crazy ALL the way DUDE!!!

Offer a solution with some chops.. :-)

Active speakers are sure easy on speaker cable cost.  No 20K cables there thank God.. 

Regards

When one compares the exact same speaker in active/passive configuration the difference is actually not terrific. That was borne out by my comparisons in reviews of the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition and the more recent Iconoclast Cables, both at Dagogo.com

Proclamations that actives are always superior are worthless. Declarations made with either different brands/models of speakers, different systems, and different rooms are of marginal value - regardless how vehemently the poster insists.   :) 

Active bass in a speaker can be quite nice and advantageous to incorporate it into a room. However, things such as genre of speakers, imo, are far more important than whether it has active bass. YMMV 

One of the pros with the Founder 120h is it comes with ARC so it should be easier to optimize the subwoofer to the room, the con is sometimes the subwoofers optimal position isn't where you need to place your speakers. There are different types of active speakers, to me the best now use all DSP controlled crossovers. Most have the electronics inside the speaker but some like the JBL M2 use a seperate amplifier/controller. 

Only con of active is you can’t tune the sound with different amps. All other things being equal are better IMO. 

Only con of active is you can’t tune the sound with different amps. All other things being equal are better IMO.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Active speakers have their SONIC limitations for sure. UNLESS the amps has swappable opamps. Easy fix for the right class d amp..
Sure changed the way NC500 sounded. SI vs Sparco vs Sparco pro vs Wiess.. ALL different.. Sparco 2590s and small planars.. Hard pressed to beat that speed and sound.. Jet black background.. .5 distortion at 400 watts and 115 db.. 9.8 ohms. Serious undistorted power..

The bass and MB 300hz and below. Under 10% Hard to get below 10% without DSP and or a GOOD servo system.. I use both..

I stopped most of the waves in the neighbors pool. When I want too. ;-)

Regards

Active has a lot of limitations.  And not only that the complexity is not worth it.  For low end to mid fi, may make some sense.  But high end will always be passive.

actives can be simpler, more convenient, space efficient, as the amp and speaker are one (at least till something doesn't work right)

passives are decoupled, so they offer choice/optionality of amp/speaker

performance, value, cost depend totally on the specific design and implementation

@james633 james633

Only con of active is you can’t tune the sound with different amps. All other things being equal are better IMO.

You might want to rethink this because...

@djones51 hits on something important when he says:

…the con is sometimes the subwoofers optimal position isn’t where you need to place your speakers.

As someone trying to master the room modes in my space, the ability to move the subs is crucial. The idea that the low end would be locked into one place severely limits options. Because at that point, it’s either more treatment or (possibly) radical changes in speaker or listening position. The ability to locate sub(s) is not a tool I’d be able to do without -- in my room. YMMV.

Another brand enters the market.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/heavenly-soundworks-five17-loudspeaker

Depends on your taste and the brand of speaker.

OP, you should listen to what @fiesta75 says about this topic and ignore the rest.

Active has a lot of limitations. And not only that the complexity is not worth it. For low end to mid fi, may make some sense. But high end will always be passive.

Oh really? Then can you please explain why nearly every professional audio rig you have ever heard (maybe you have not, which would make sense) at a live event uses active speaker systems?

Only in the US would an "audiophile" make such dubious claims without any experience.

The absolute best systems I have ever heard in people's homes have been active systems.

Active systems (if done correctly) are far superior to passive systems. Especially, and even in the "high end". Get with the times people.

^^^ If done right active can sound good but the complexity is probably not worth it.  You will need external amp and dedicated ADC per channel which won't come cheap.  Most people won't put up with all that external equipment.  Cheap miniDSP stuffs are not going to cut it.

On paper active may have an advantage but real world constrains make it not practical.

If you're just contend with built-in class D amp and cheap digital to analog conversion then well I suppose active is a good alternative.

@ironlung  Way to hector us. Really uplifting.

Srajan over at 6moons has a whole series of articles exploring the use of active and passive crossovers from them being implemented in a pre amp to outboard devices, from his search for the best way to integrate his subs. Worth the read.

All the best,
Nonoise

@hilde45 the OP asked a question which @fiesta75 provided the best, most helpful, and technical explanation as to what the pros are for active systems.

Pretty much everyone else's comments were not useful as far as I could tell. Just trying to point out that many audiophiles are not helping OP with his actual question.

The only "pro" for a fully passive system is that you can use a single amplifier and thus save on expense. That's pretty much it. Everything else about a passive speaker is a "con" - even the best passive crossover is susceptible to noise and interference, let alone the fact that it is an inefficient use of the amplifier's energy.

OP, if you would like a great breakdown of the actual benefits of active systems, why they are used to record and mix the music you listen to, why they are used in live professional applications, and why so many loudspeaker manufacturers are beginning to integrate this principle into their current and future designs, read the last point on ATC's FAQ page:
http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/faqs/

Concerning the OP  Paradigm Founder Series 120H, they are basically 3-way with built-in sub, so I wouldn't say these speakers are active in the traditional sense.

mtbiker29, Like everything in this life it all depends. I have not heard an active speaker get to the absolute sound which does not mean it can not be done and I have listened to very few active speakers. The Sonos speakers that I use around the house and in my office sound great for what they are. They are background music. None of the active speakers on the market excite me otherwise from a design perspective. You can have DSP management of any speaker on the market. You do not need to buy an active one. You have to listen and judge on your own. 

@mijostyn—isn’t your system effectively active? Also, someone above stated he/she didn’t want woofers stuck where the active speakers were. You can still use a swarm with an active system. It might even help if your main speakers were less than full range. I’d love to hear ATC 40a or 50a with a swarm.

I've never heard a passive that could do what Dutch and Dutch 8c can do control the directivity down to 100hz. I've never heard a passive come close to top line actives like Genelec. To each there own. 

I moved to active ATC and would never go back to passive speakers.

hedwigstheme, depends how you look at it. My speakers are all passive so, in the classical sense no, they are not active. If you define active as having DSP shenanigans then yes, I use a digital processor. The processor is vital to get to the absolute sound. You can get there without but it is very difficult and in my experience more by accident than anything else. Not one system we ever put together at Sound Components got there and there was an excellent room for it. With the processor it is much easier but it still requires the right amp, speakers and room management. The processor has the best bass management, allows you to EQ to the exact sound you like and "control" the room to some extent and finally lets you match the channel's frequency response to within one dB across the frequency spectrum from 100 to 10,000 Hz. You still have to manage room acoustics and set up your system in a symmetrical fashion. Stereo is all about symmetry. You can not have one speaker in a corner and the other in  the middle of nowhere. Both speakers have to be exactly the same distance from the front wall and from the corners and both speakers should have clear  walls past the first reflection points on both the side and front walls. It is very difficult to treat a first reflection point over a fireplace or window. Getting to the sound you like is relatively easy. Getting to that magic image is very hard. The processor and a calibrated measurement system make it much easier but there are never any guarantees. I did not hear a system do it until 1979 and I did not get there the first time until 1997 or so. Both systems got there by accident. There were however problems with the 1997 system the killer was the fragility of the Apogee Divas and the fact that Apogee went out of business. The 1979 system belonged to a high school teacher who liked to drive Alpha Romeos. I had never heard a system image like that before and never even knew it was possible until I heard that system. I have been chasing that sound ever since, trying to figure out what the essential ingredients are. Still do not know all of it.  

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Fiesta 75 has it pretty close, active means "amplifiers AFTER the crossover connected directly to the driver". Nothing about digital, or analog or amps inside or outside.

If you see how much copper is in the passive crossover, then how much speaker wire is added on to that, with all of it between the driver and the amp, its hard to imagine how someone would view active as more complex. The amplifier cannot "see" the driver at all, it sees a crossover and speaker wire.

You cannot adjust driver phase in a passive crossover system- probably one of the single most important issues (a phase linear loudspeaker).

To argue that you someone is "taking away your options to switch amplifiers" is to ignore how much active is increasing the importance of the front end, the improved transparency in EVERYTHING before the speaker input. The amp, while important, is only one of many things that influence sound quality.  To hear a significantly bigger difference in tonearms, cartridges, phono preamps, streamers, CD players, preamplifiers and cable between all those elements is the benefit of active.

The experts in active where the first two players: Genelec and ATC. They’ve been after this idea with real commercially available product since early 80s.  Look to technical research and white papers written by both.

Brad

I'll second poster @fiesta75's first reply above. Active at its core is simply defined by having the cross-over placed prior to amplification and acting on signal level, instead of it receiving the output power from the amp on the receiving end between that and the drivers. This holds many advantages, like giving the amp(s) far better working conditions and effectively lessening their importance. This is what "matching" amps with all-in-one actives mostly comes down to, I find, as a means of economizing or down/up scaling each amp section to its respective driver segment (not to say there can't be a degree of SQ-matching with parameters involving damping factor, topology etc., but this opportunity goes for active-as-separates as well), rather than some fancy "they're a match made in heaven you won't find elsewhere." Marketing tactics, right? Or at least a modified truth that calls for the need of the reader to decipher "matching" and its possible meanings. 

Nothing dictates for active configuration to be a bundled solution, but as such would likely just be called an active speaker because it's a product ready for implementation with a source/preamp. That is, an active speaker simply points to being an actively configured plug-and-play product with the XO in some form prior to amplification as this principle dictates, whereas 'active configuration' just points to its basic principle as mentioned, which can be either a bundled or separate component solution. I use the latter solution.

I prefer the former but I’m not a DIY guy and I don’t want to fry a speaker using the wrong parameters. I know some have used different amps and tweaked the settings for JBL M2’s but setting up actives with DSP crossovers is more than simply picking what amp you like and randomly plugging numbers in the control engine.

Boy I must be living on a different planet. You guys are talking about having an active VS passive crossover. That has ZERO to do with active loudspeaker that have the amplifier/Amplifiers built into the speakers with electronics to provide not only the crossover but also to EQ the speaker. Sonos speakers are an example of "Active" loudspeakers. Active crossovers and bi or tri amping have been around for decades. Whether doing this is better than a well designed passive crossover is a toss up and depends on who you talk to. You are using passive loudspeakers. As long as the amps and crossovers are outboard the speakers are passive. If you think you can do better using an active crossover than the designer's passive crossover you might be sadly mistaken. 

Nope, not at all. You bypass the passive crossovers entirely. Eliminating resistances of the inductors and phase shift and delay of the caps. Solid wire between voice coils and amplifier outputs. You can still use you DSP for corrections if you like...

Eliminating resistances of the inductors and phase shift and delay of the caps.

Nope, you can't eliminate phase shift even with active.

fiesta25, I have been biamping speakers with active crossovers since 1978. I have had no passive crossovers in my system since I got rid of the Divas around 2000. I have said on numerous occasions the best crossover is no crossover. There is a difference in a passive speaker owner selected electronics and an "active" loudspeaker with built in electronics designed specifically for that speaker and for which the owner has no say in the matter. Some of them are only partially active requiring an outboard amp usually to drive the midrange and tweeters. Again, My Sonos 3's are a good example of an active speaker. You just plug them into the wall and you are ready to go (they are also wireless) My Soundlabs are passive speakers and they are driven by JC1's after an active crossover at 120 Hz along with room control and digital EQ. It seems some people here would call them active loudspeakers. That would be incorrect.

@andy2 , sure you can, as long as your active crossover is digital there is no distortion or phase shift.

djones, Using active crossovers is quite simple. You start with the same slopes and crossover points used in the passive crossover and if things sound fine you leave them there. The only danger you have to be aware of is trying to run a tweeter too low down and damaging it. It is difficult o harm a driver with too much power. It will distort like crazy before it blows.
It is underpowered amps clipping that blows drivers. You burn up the voice coils. In my case you burn up the brilliance controls:-)

mijostyn - This is fiesta75 or maybe there is a fiesta25 too. I've been active crossover bi-amping for a couple years longer, but that's not the point. Seriously, you should know by now that an active system is superior in ALL resects, that kinda why you are bi-amping. In this most recent post you indicate that your speakers are active, I understand that. They are plug & play, not really an active SYSTEM. You say the "brilliance controls" are what would get burned up incase of an amplifier failure, isn't adding a control or resistance after the amplifier outputs counterproductive? Is it a digital control? An active bi-amp system is with the crossover at the INPUT of the amplifiers and nothing but wire after the amplifier outputs. A passive bi-amp system is with the crossover after the amplifier OUTPUTS. Your system has active speakers, the crossover could be active or passive, correct? So which is it, do you know? It seems like you've been at this long enough to realize that a system with an active crossover sounds better than a passive one. PS. I totally agree that the best crossover is no crossover. 
andy2 - As for phase shift you understand the concept correctly, capacitors add a 180 degree phase shift. But when they are coupled with inductors and the variable impedances of drivers the entire "system" becomes unpredictable and only roughly stable. Phase shift will not remain constant with the changing frequencies. That's another reason that doing the crossover at the INPUTS of the amplifiers is better, so much more stable and predictable. I'm not wanting to argue, just trying to convince some people to try a "real" active bi-amp or better yet, tri-amp system that allows YOU to make some decisions on the sound outcome. Best to all.

@djones51 --

I prefer the former but I’m not a DIY guy and I don’t want to fry a speaker using the wrong parameters. I know some have used different amps and tweaked the settings for JBL M2’s but setting up actives with DSP crossovers is more than simply picking what amp you like and randomly plugging numbers in the control engine.

Indeed, there’s more to it than that - hardly a surprise. Cross-over/DSP settings and overall implementation is the real challenge, which you’d aid with a combination of thorough listening evaluations and measurements, fiddling with speaker placement, acoustic treatment and knowing full well the specs of the drivers/horns. This is a process that can last quite a long time, months even, and isn’t for the faint of heart. It is however a rewarding process of implementation; one you learn from and that can lead to great sonic results. Amp selection is really the easy part.

@mijostyn --

You are using passive loudspeakers.

Who are you addressing here? Be specific.

As long as the amps and crossovers are outboard the speakers are passive.

No. Whether the amps are placed in Japan, the active cross-over in Finland and your speakers rests on the floor in front of you in the US, if the filtration is done prior to amplification (and no passive XO’s are used in the speakers) your speakers are actively configured, period. Calling them active speakers, as per my earlier post, would in all practicality simply mean it’s simply a bundled solution. Active per definition is filtration done prior to amplification on signal level, be it a bundled or separate component solution.

If you think you can do better using an active crossover than the designer’s passive crossover you might be sadly mistaken.

My advocacy here is not really stripping passive, pre-fitted cross-overs from speakers and instead configure them actively - although you could, with an entrepreneurial spirit, and I’ve heard this being done in more than one instance with the active scenarios being the very clear winners - but it’s to tell people that active configuration isn’t just a pre-assembled all-in-one solution, but can as well be pursued as a DIY-option of separates. It’s what I do, and with care and attention the results can be (and are) great.

I have had no passive crossovers in my system since I got rid of the Divas around 2000.
...
My Soundlabs are passive speakers ...

...

djones, Using active crossovers is quite simple. You start with the same slopes and crossover points used in the passive crossover and if things sound fine you leave them there. The only danger you have to be aware of is trying to run a tweeter too low down and damaging it. It is difficult o harm a driver with too much power. It will distort like crazy before it blows.
It is underpowered amps clipping that blows drivers. You burn up the voice coils. In my case you burn up the brilliance controls:-)

Indeed, using an active cross-over (I use a digital XO from Xilica) is really quite simply once get the hang of it. No soldering on and off passive components and fiddling with values of caps, coils and resistors, but simply sitting in the listening position and doing adjustments on the fly. I was surprised how easily I got a quite manageable result within not too many minutes setting gain, cross-over, slopes and their types, and initial delay and Q-values (on some HF-notches). The real trickery on honing in more precisely on everything involved and learning often how less (than expected) is needed with regard to the changes in filter values to make a difference.

I would trust a mic more than my ears but I'm 65 so...

While nearly everyone in this hobby admits that the cable makes a difference everywhere it is used in the system, how is it that here, between amp and driver, it doesnt make any difference? Isnt that up there with all cable sounds the same and all amps sound the same? Isnt a passive crossover a whole bunch of cable PLUS a lot of other stuff in the audio path?

Brad

Nearly everyone but not all. 

You diy's are great at explaining fundamentals, but sometimes ignore the commercial segment many of us are asking about. I get the idea ya'll come from an 'everything being equal' stance where in the retail so much more can effect the quality of sound besides a passive or active xover. As to comparing the founder line to the persona line thats more than double the price paradigm needed a bridge product as the price gap was so wide b4 the founder was introduced.

Most, if not all active speakers have active crossovers...what does that mean? It means the signal passes through the crossover, followed by the power amp and then reaches the speaker. Passive goes power amp -> crossover -> speaker. The main difference is that an active crossover can work at 'low' voltage where heat and power dissipation are vastly easier to manage and there's a lot more flexibility in what you can achieve. It's a bit like the difference between a scalpel and a meat cleaver. A significant disadvantage is that you need a separate power amp for each driver. It's probably also worth saying that an active crossover can be analogue.
Just because something is active doesn't mean it's better, the manufacturer needs to have used those tools to the best of their advantage for the result to be worthwhile.
I'm currently working my way through 'The Design of Active Crossovers' by Doug Self, which I think is the same book Siegfried Linkwitz gave to Nelson Pass when he asked him to design the analogue active crossovers for his LXminis. There's a great section in chapter 1 which covers the pros and cons for active crossovers.

The first speakers I owned that I was truly happy with were active Genelecs, the second were Seas A26 passives - both sound great to me.

Most, if not all, speakers are designed using active crossovers nowadays. Passive crossover speakers can sound very good, parts cost $$. But if they were left as actives they would sound even better in my opinion. My 2¢

pragmas: signal processing at speaker level is a WHOLE different animal than at line level. Heat is the lowest issue compared to the rest of the losses and lack of phase control. Have you seen a proper passive crossover, how much copper is involved in air core inductors etc?  Should I post a picture of a good 3 way passive crossover so you can see?

It is NOT a disadvantage for seperate amp for each driver: active means its possible to provide the right power for each driver for matched dynamics acoss all the drivers. With seperate amps, a big peak in the bass does not raise distortion on the tweeter or midrange as it does with one amp. The cost of a big power supply and transformer for one big amp can be much more difficult and expensive to execute than two or three smaller amps.

Of course the manufacturer needs to do a good job with active- this is true of everything. It is true that active can be done cheap- especially using little Class D amp modules available everywhere now (95% of which sound awful).

IN the case I am very familiar with , ATC, the electronics are all analogue. ATC avoids digital for that changes too much too often and better to chose your own converters.

Whether analogue or digital designs, that has nothing to do with active vs passive.

pragmas: signal processing at speaker level is a WHOLE different animal than at line level.

Yes I agree, that's what I said.

Have you seen a proper passive crossover

Yes lots

It is NOT a disadvantage for seperate amp for each driver

As long as you don't care how much you spend on equipment

Of course the manufacturer needs to do a good job with active

Yes, I think I said that as well.

I get the feeling you didn't like what I said, just can't work out which bit.