Active Speakers Better? No, per Michael Borresen


The best sounding speaker I have had the pleasure to hear is made by Borresen.

I recently spent time with Michael Borresen in Seattle at a show. It was slow so

I was able to speak with him for a time. I asked him if he plans an active speaker. 

His answer was a definitive and immediate "No". He said separates sound better.

 

His statement flies in the face of what passes in most audio corners as commonly recognized facts. 

 

Sadly I am too technically challenged to convey any of his further explanation.

 

I invite all intelligent commentary on this question. Theoretical or not.

128x128jeffseight

@esarhaddon , as for the value of going active here is what Soundstage said about the speakers I eventually bought when compared to a much more expensive speaker (without including the additional cost of the amp and speaker cables. YMMV):

And when you compare a much more expensive speaker, such as JMlab’s $7000 Mini Utopia, you’ll find that it has a much more luxurious appeal with a nicer finish (and given the price difference, this is to be expected). But when it comes to comparing the sound, again it is more about differences than one being better (although the Active/40s do have much better bass extension). The Mini Utopia is a bit more incisive, visceral and lively in the midrange and up top. The Active/40s, on the other hand, don’t jump out at you quite as much, and they are not quite as precise, but what they do well is play music superbly across the board with top-to-bottom coherency and balance.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/paradigm_active40.htm

@rajugsw , I understand your point about the benefits of external amps. You can adapt the sound of a lot of active speakers with built in controls on the plate amp (volume, treble, bass, crossover point, etc). For example, look at the back of this speaker in the pics on the website, you won't get that on a passive speaker:

 

I don't understand why either design, active or passive, should be inherently better than the other (w.r.t. sound quality.) .My floor-standers are offered in both passive and active designs. I chose passive. I did not want almost all the system eggs in one big, heavy, expensive basket. If anything went wrong (probably more likely with the electronics) shipping them out for service would have been a real pain.

@rajugsw wrote:

My problem with active speaker designs is that they are not user serviceable after the warranty runs out. You cannot adapt the sound of the Speakers to your own taste either.

[...]

The JBL M2’s pictured above are actively configured speakers, yet the accompanying Crown amps with built-in DSP are outward to the speakers as amps would be with typical passively configured speakers. Most active speakers are configured as bundled packages, but it (i.e.: bundled) is not what defines an actively configured speaker (see my post above).

If you’re a bit of DIY’er (or can see yourself as such) you can assemble an actively configured setup with separate, outward components through and through like you would with a passive system, and get to learn setting the filter values by yourself. This way you’ll have the most elaborate set of "tone controls" at your disposal, yet as an integral part of the electronic or digital cross-over they’re without the detrimental effects found in the simplistic and sonically degrading tone controls that’re imposed over an existing passive setup.

As such, and with a bit of diligence, you can have your cake and eat it too.

@phusis Wrote:

Most active speakers are configured as bundled packages, but it (i.e.: bundled) is not what defines an actively configured speaker (see my post above).

I agree!

Mike