593 replies to this topic

[ssgp2]

I'm looking into actives speakers and would like to know if anyone went back to passive after trying active speakers.
If so, for what reasons.

Thanks

[88pro]

WHat about finding out, if anyone moved from passive to active and stayed with active. I am sure you will find lot of reasons for that as well. (Unless you already know the reason for going active)

[Nigel]

ther eare reasons why people move from one to the other, often practicality. Passive is cheaper, simpler, smaller. Active is the opposite but it's potential SQ is greater than passive.

[firefly0071]

I certainly believe a sub woofer to be active for the large "boom" effect.

[Paul Spencer]

Many have gone from passive to active. With active there is certainly the potential to be better, but never the certainty. It is too broad brush to say that one is better, or even that one is more expensive. Neither are necessarily the case.

As I see it, there are a couple of classes of each and that defines whether active is actually better.

1. Passive speakers that are well served by a passive crossover. Many speakers are in this class, they are great value and perform well. An active crossover might not bring real improvement. In some cases, it will simply add cost.

2. Passive speakers that stretch the limits of passive crossover design. Compromises where steeper slopes and more complicated crossovers would be better, drivers that might struggle to meet each other due to inherent limits, especially with ribbon tweeters trying to cross to a midwoofer. The ribbon wants to cross high, the midwoofer doesn't want to cross that high. In this case, active starts to offer more.

3. Analogue active speakers. The crossover can be more sophisticated and is more powerful. Greater options for optimising the crossover, but where that isn't needed you might not see much or any real improvement.

4. Advanced DSP active speakers. This is where the bigger improvements start to kick in because in the more sophisticated versions, one can completely transform a speaker and make it perform much better. Ideal phase and group delay can be dialed in. Limitations of typical compromises can be completely removed. I see this as the way of the future, a big leap forwards.

If you are looking to spend serious money, then something like Legend Tikandi with DEQX is one to look at. It uses a very advanced DSP crossover and very good drivers. On the budget end of things however, I wouldn't assume either is better, although with passive you do get much more choice. In some cases, like Linkwitz Orion, an active crossover is necessary. However, for a conventional cone and dome speaker, especially under $5k, passives are the ones to beat most likely.

[Metrik]

Passive is cheaper, simpler, smaller.

Not if you account for the extra amps you need when you go passive. Here is an example: I would not know any combination of passive speakers and amps which is cheaper, simpler, and smaller than, say, a pair of Neumann KH120 speakers while delivering a similar SQ.

[Cyber_Murphy]

I'm looking into actives speakers and would like to know if anyone went back to passive after trying active speakers.
If so, for what reasons.

Thanks

Yes, I have gone back to passive after trying active.. In my situation, it was a passive set of speakers that I converted to active,, but now in the process of putting the original (passive) crossover back.. I just couldn't get the sound right.. I played around with EQ and different crossover points/slopes, and took many measurements,, but just couldn'y get it sounding as "nice" as with the passive crossover..

Why not the best of both worlds?? Eg, Passive bi-amping... This is what I am going back to.. A Single amp per channel was not as good as (passive) bi-amping, and active crossover not as good as passive bi-amping.. Hope that's not too confussing??

Ta
CM

[Nigel]

Cyber, Huh ?????!!!!!!!!
what are you saying ? after all that Behringer tweaking you have decided against continuing with it ???

[Cyber_Murphy]

Cyber, Huh ?????!!!!!!!!
what are you saying ? after all that Behringer tweaking you have decided against continuing with it ???

Not at All !! I love my fully modded DCX

But for the time being, i use it without the crossover function.. I still need 5 outputs (2 per speaker, and 1 for the Sub),, pretty much its being used as my DAC, and pre-amp,, plugged into my lovely DIY mono-blocks..

Ta
CM

[aechmea]

Interesting that the older series of Magnepan speakers (3.6, 20.1) were active bi-amp-able, and a technique that was actively encouraged with plenty of instruction in the manuals and bi-amp connectors easily accessible on the back of the speaker.

The current models (1.7, 3.7, 20.7) are all passive Xovers with no capability to bi-amp (as I understand it).

Mr. Maggie seems to have made up his mind. The proof will be in the pudding (or something like that).

[LogicprObe]

I have both active and passive.
Nothing high end.
For that I have my 701's!

[b.d]

I've gone back from active digital XO to passive, for the moment. I cant say it was because passive sounds better, I dont think it does all else being equal, but all else was not equal as I only had the funds for one decent amp and dac. Also, I was happy to sacrifice a touch of sound quality for 'simplicity', or at least to remove one source of temptation to tweak. (Eq is the worst culprit here, but it also offers the largest scope for improvement)

Though, active off-the-shelf speakers like studio monitors or SGrs (as opposed to active XOs with multiple amps) might offer less choice as the amp decision is made for you. Less choice can be a good thing. But then they do have some useful knobs on the back of them...

[Arg]

Well, if you are someone who believes ALL amplifiers sound different, and you want to buy not build, you won't be able to BEAR the thought of being stuck with one amp for the life of the speakers.


And that is not a joke! The 'separates' hifi business knows they will only extract half to quarter the money from the wallets of enthusiasts who can't try 3 different amps with the same speakers, who can't indulge their lust for whatever amps the magazine reviewers are using all the right adjectives about this month, who can't get blazing hot class A valve amps that weigh 120 lbs built into the speaker boxes.....

[Paul Spencer]

Good point Arg and probably part of the reason why passive is still the most common.

[Nigel]

Most Commonnnnnnnnn???? (in a John Cleese Parrot Sketch voice)
Active systems represent .0062 % of the music systems out there and active speakers are 2.34% of the active systems.

[Paul Spencer]

I'm sure that makes sense in your mind Nigel

[bhobba]

I'm looking into actives speakers and would like to know if anyone went back to passive after trying active speakers. If so, for what reasons.

I know two speaker designers that did because they believe SOTA passives sound better.

Thanks
Bill

[Paul Spencer]

I know two speaker designers that did because they believe SOTA passives sound better.

Thanks
Bill

Mike Lenehan being one ... just curious who the other one is.

[bhobba]

Mike Lenehan being one ... just curious who the other one is.

I will send it to you by PM.

Thanks
Bill

[Whatmore]

I will send it to you by PM.

Thanks
Bill

Why the secrecy?

[bhobba]

Why the secrecy?

Why not? Its simply these guys don't like to be bugged. If you are actually interested enough to send me a PM I will say but will not reveal it casually.

Thanks
Bill

[b.d]

I know two speaker designers that did because they believe SOTA passives sound better.

Thanks
Bill

Thats a hard argument to buy. Not saying Mike was lying when he said that, but when you allow for biases/financial interests its understandable that there are be at least a few manufactures who are going to hear that way. Conversly, I dont know how to account for the fact that there are makers of arguably more resolving systems (Granda at 125k, Magico at 350k) that offer their most expensive (and no doubt pain-in-the-*** complicated) flagship speakers with active digital crossovers. Actives are going to be a harder sell at the end of the day when they require 10 amps as in the case of the Magico...

[warrengday]

I'm looking into actives speakers and would like to know if anyone went back to passive after trying active speakers.
If so, for what reasons.

I upgraded to much better speakers. The newer speakers have a higher driver count so going straight to active wasn't an option.

The basic trade off is making the best of a good speaker, or have better speakers passive.

For the record I had Linn AV5140 speakers driven by 3 KLOUTs and moved to Akurate 242 speakers driven by 1 Klout. Never ever looked back. And about the same time a friend took his Linn Ninka speakers active.

There are several advantages to active. Equally there are advantages to better amps and speakers.

Where I'm currently at (after lots of experimentation) is to get the best amp and speakers you can, and then save to go active. Naturally other people's milage (kilometre-age?) varies.

[murrmax]

Easier to sell a passive speaker, with more demand, public perception of what a speaker is, and harder to design therefore validating the designers ability,skill and experience, and value...

Most active systems are assembled by hobbyists (including myself) and will not achieve the results someone who has spent decades understanding the variables and nuances of audio design within a set of constraints to produce an exemplary outcome.

Actives benefits are more than clear but there's a little more to it than that from a design perspective..

[LogicprObe]

Why the secrecy?

Secret men's business!
There might be sheilas watching!

[Paul Spencer]

Why the secrecy?

He's a closet Dr Amar Bose fan!
Don't worry Bill, I won't let your secret out .......................................... oooops!

[bhobba]

Thats a hard argument to buy. Not saying Mike was lying when he said that, but when you allow for biases/financial interests its understandable that there are be at least a few manufactures who are going to hear that way. Conversly, I dont know how to account for the fact that there are makers of arguably more resolving systems (Granda at 125k, Magico at 350k) that offer their most expensive (and no doubt pain-in-the-*** complicated) flagship speakers with active digital crossovers. Actives are going to be a harder sell at the end of the day when they require 10 amps as in the case of the Magico...

Well lets look at it logically. These guys went out of their way to R+D active speakers. They are committed to producing the best speakers they can regardless. It was not cost etc that made them abandon it - they genuinely believed what they did sounded better - simple as that.

I will pit my ML3 Reference against any active speaker anyone cares to bring over - any active speaker. Of course I know the practicalities of it make that actually happening very unlikely but the offer is there - and no I will not draw the inference if no one takes me up on it it must be true.

The manufacturers of the speakers you mention may argue they are more resolving - but reality rests on more than claims. I know of Magico comparisons for example that do not bear out such a claim.

Reputation, marketing hype etc etc does not always stand up to scrutiny. Today I heard some speakers whose slightly bigger brother was rated as the 30th best speaker of all time - lets just say if that was the case you would think there was only 30 speakers ever made - grungy, brittle, loose bass - all sorts of wrong. I was told by someone who heard the bigger brother it was no better.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 29 February 2012 - 11:10 PM.

[warrengday]

There is no magic to this.

Multi-driver speakers need the incoming signal to be divided up into the various frequency ranges each driver can reproduce.

Passive crossovers are limited to only passive components.

Active crossovers can use a wide range of circuit design.

This opens up the possibility of having an amp per driver, so more power and back-emf from the driver is eliminated.

The best systems I've heard have been active.

[LogicprObe]

This thread needs more phase cohesion!

[bhobba]

The best systems I've heard have been active.

That's fine - but not my experience. And its not hard to see why - eg the op-amps actives often contain do not have a good reputation among many audiophiles.

Thanks
Bill

[b.d]

Well lets look at it logically. These guys went out of their way to R+D active speakers. They are committed to producing the best speakers they can regardless. It was not cost etc that made them abandon it - they genuinely believed what they did sounded better - simple as that.

But I'm sure no less is true of the designers of the speakers I mentioned. I guess we are both making appeals to 'authority' here, but I think too that Mike would be in the loosing corner on this numbers wise. As an impartial jury trying to reach a verdict on this (which both of us should still be) I'd have to say, on balance of arguments, that the smart money would have on active (from a cost-no-object purely sound quality perspective -which I grant it never is). I'm agreeing that yes they probably did believe it sounded better, but we know it isnt as simple as that, that where there's incentive to belive something there will be people (actually all of us, some of the time) that will believe things that they otherwise wouldnt, is my argument.

Reputation and marketing hype...not sure I've seen a example than the $22 Dualand pencil

[bhobba]

I guess we are both making appeals to 'authority' here.

The OP asked for examples - I gave them. He can draw his own conclusion about the persons concerned authority. My money is on the passives because I know what the people concerned did to verify it. Duelund VSF Capacitors in the values generally used in crossovers cost something like $500.00 each. The manufacturer concerned does not use them for the fun of it but because of the significant difference. I have heard that difference and its true. Doggie has heard it and agrees - in fact I don't know anyone that has heard that did not agree.

There are a number of guys in WA who have speakers with them - I suggest you contact one to hear for yourself. They impart a fast natural crystalline clarity that is hard to mistake.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 01 March 2012 - 12:56 AM.

[LogicprObe]

That's fine - but not my experience. And its not hard to see why - eg the op-amps actives often contain do not have a good reputation among many audiophiles.

Thanks
Bill

Rupert Neve said that most op amps sound OK if you bias them into class A.

[bhobba]

Rupert Neve said that most op amps sound OK if you bias them into class A.

Opinions vary. I prefer to judge by the final product and I haven't heard any I personally like.

This has been discussed before and the answer is a personal preference thing:
http://www.stereo.ne...8863#post668863

Thanks
Bill

[b.d]

The OP asked for examples - I gave them. He can draw his own conclusion about the persons concerned authority. My money is on the passives because I know what the people concerned did to verify it.

You gave one at least.

I think when looking logically at two opposing claims with little other evidence, looking into possible (unconscious) motives can be telling. It would be hard to deny that Mike must have been hoping passive would win, from a business point of view. On the other hand I cant think of an ulterior motive for a speaker designer selling an active system with its huge learning curve and additional outlay for multiple amps, one's just not going to sell as many as a plug and play passive system that sounds equally good, if you follow my reasoning.

I know this might have been touched on in an old thread, but what did Mike do to verify it? Was he using DEQX with multiple downstream PDX dacs and multiple matching amps? This is the sort of thing that would have to be done (and getting XOs identical) (and being completely impartial or blindfolded) to pass judgement on cost-no-object active vs passive. I imagine most people playing with a DEQX dont go to these extremes (and yet on the whole still seem to favor it)

Cheers
B

[ssgp2]

Thanks to all for your contribution!

To clarify my position, I believe a speaker should be as transparent as possible and that the amplifier will have the most impact on how the speakers will perform.
I see the speakers not as musical instrument, but a device that will reproduce as accurately as possible the original recording
Having an amplifier design for each specific driver sound logical to me. The ability to make adjustment to each speaker seems to be an advantage allowing to tune them to the listening room.
I also share the idea that different model/brand of any components will colour the music.
Therefore, the choice of a DAC and pre-amp would be critical.

Reading reviews and comments on the ADAM Tensor series have brought me to this position, BUT not having heard them make this position sound good only on paper....

Reading positive AND negative comments on this design allows me to get a better understanding of the technology and how it perform.

It would be simpler to walk into a store with a perfect auditioning room with all the best components available, but for now, your different perspectives is all I have.

PS: I do believe that there is an financial advantage for the passive speakers for the manufacturer(demand) and retailer(amp/cables/etc).

[b.d]

Not even sure what an op amp is, but I'm wondering its relevance. When I run my system passive it's Mac Mini -> Firewire -> Multichannel Dac -> 2 amps. When I run it active it's Mac Mini -> Firewire -> Dac -> 6 amps. Am I missing something here?

Off to bed.

[bhobba]

It would be hard to deny that Mike must have been hoping passive would win, from a business point of view.

I don't agree with that - I happen to know its not true of both the people. They want to produce the best speaker they can and if they used a device like DEQX it would simplify that considerably. I know the passive crossovers used takes considerable time and care to make - everything is cold welded with point to point wiring - not soldered - but cold welded, all coils are hand wound air coils. It was listening tests that were the decider. They were hoping the DEQX would sound better - it didn't.

If you want to pursue the other questions you asked ask the person concerned - I am not going to be piggy in the middle with such issues.

Thanks
Bill

[LogicprObe]

Opinions vary. I prefer to judge by the final product and I haven't heard any I personally like.

This has been discussed before and the answer is a personal preference thing:
http://www.stereo.ne...8863#post668863

Thanks
Bill

Well, I think you'll find a lot of the music you like was mixed on a Neve console using op amps biased to class A.

Read it for yourself.

http://www.audiotech...eve_Issue_1.pdf
http://7482280691660...&attredirects=0
http://7482280691660...&attredirects=0

[Nigel]

I know two speaker designers that did because they believe SOTA passives sound better.
Thanks
Bill

What a misleading comment -"...passives sound better" ...At any price point? or 'for apartments"... don't quote people without knowing and quoting the exact context of what they meant.
Also a commercial vendor might have 5 reasons why they do something and if they quote one of those reasons, doesn't mean it is the main one.
I would hazard a guess that profit might be in there somewhere, or market interrest ie "no-one bought the active ones" just doesn't answer the original question.

[joz]

That's right Nigel.
A commercial vendor would never impart any bias in what they say would they?

[bhobba]

That's right Nigel. A commercial vendor would never impart any bias in what they say would they?

Of course they may have bias, Nigel may have bias, Joz may have bias, I may have bias, anyone can have bias. However, having discussed the issue with them, I do not believe they do. They made a genuine effort costing considerable amounts of time and money with high hopes - it failed. Make of it what you will.

Thanks
Bill

[Drizt]

Bill perhaps sharing your own experience would be better than relaying others experiences.

[bhobba]

Well, I think you'll find a lot of the music you like was mixed on a Neve console using op amps biased to class A.

It is a well known issue in the discussion of op-amps that before it reached the CD or whatever it is played back on it often has gone through tons of op-amps. That however doers not change what people hear in listening tests. However this is not the thread to discuss that - the great debate section is.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Bill perhaps sharing your own experience would be better than relaying others experiences.

The active systems I have heard did not float my boat - clinical and un-involving comes to mind. But this thread was about people, who after trying active, went back to passives - not my personal opinion on actives.

Thanks
Bill