View Full Version : Active v passive
stewartwen
23-07-2011, 22:09
Hvae you heard, or owned, an active loudspeaker system.
What were the advantages or disadvantages of each?
S
audionewbi
24-07-2011, 02:48
The major advantage of active speakers is the inclusion of an amplifier so you do not need to buy one.
I believe active speakers are the best thing to go for for desktop computer based music or office. They are not really designed for the 'whole body' experience kind of feeling.
The active once again come under many division, the studio monitoring which aim to be flat and as the name goes they are used to for mixing music not really used for musicality. I say that as you most likely buy it and dont like the sound and wonder why they cost so much. They cost so much due to the features they have, the features that me and you most likely wouldnt use. A good example of affordable 2.0 active speakers are the swans mkIII 2000 or the audioengine A5.
I am very new to this sorry I cannot comment more on this.
Passive speakers (the one which is +500 dollar margine) can go a lot lower and give a better bass respond. Since we no longer paying for all the other extra features than I think it is safe to assume that the price we pay is for quality parts.
If I ever get the skills I would love to make my own speakers. Focal makes some great speakers for DIY projects.
There are some great active designs that do really good bass
I think their issues to both approaches and both can give you great sounds when done well
PLEASE don't let this thread turn into yet another all-out war :)
There are good and bad in both ways of doing it and for this alone, I can see why Richard Dunn has tried hard to eliminate a crossover altogether (I'm not entirely ignorant Richard :sofa:).
Many smaller and exceptionally cheap "Pro" active models under a grand or so tend to over-use the port to re-inforce bass and to balance this the treble is set slightly high, so you get a sort of "loudness-switch" balance which isn't unpleasant, but is a bit hyped. The cheaper tweeters used can still spit and sting when driven actively too, so the things tend to squit "deeeeeeeeetaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiil" at you as well. This ISN'T what good active can be, honest guv :)
In the same way, badly designed (or not listened through properly) passive designs can sap power (the one failing I'll agree on with the old 1970's "BBC" derivatives), can scrrew up the phasing at the crossover, smearing the image or, in my case, giving me a "pressure in my head" kind of headache. HOWEVER, get the crossover as right as it can be, and it'll disappear from the proceedings, the sound if anything being sweeter for it with gentle brush-stroked cymblas being beautifuly reproduced as well as clashy rock ones.
Not a strictly fair comparison, but when I chose to sell my trusty ATC SCM20ASL Pro's a couple of years back, I compared them to a croft series 7 driven pair of passive Harbeth P3ESR's, a precision 5" bass unit two way much admired by those who've heard them and derided as overpriced and ancient by the most vocal of the small-active-two-way brigade (who haven't heard them I understand). Surprisingly for me, the Harbeths gave NOTHING away in the midrange, seemingly any losses in the crossover being made up by the excellent little drive units they've developed. The bass region, boppy and "stunt type" in the ATC's, was not as "loud" in the P3ESR's, but conversely was far more "believable" as long as one didn't go too loud. As for the treble region, the Harbeths metal domes won hands down, the squitty spitty soft-dome Vifa things in the early version of this ATC active model sounding rough and crude in comparison.
So there we are. Apologies for the essay above, but I think each case has to be taken on its own merits. Going active (or removing the crossover completely) moves the goal posts, making the drive-unit quality even more important in my experience. Enjoy the best of what techniques are on offer is my advice these days and don't worry about it..
By the way, don't ever think that Linn and naim were the bees knees of active reproduction, their mostly half-baked active designs being, in my opinion, excuses to fleece the faithful in the hope of getting something better - £20K or more down the line. My faves at the time were the big studio PMC's, which actually worked a treat in passive form and became true monsters when actively driven..........
Hi Dave,
I compared them to a croft series 7 driven pair of passive Harbeth P3ESR's, a precision 5" bass unit two way much admired by those who've heard them and derided as overpriced and ancient by the most vocal of the small-active-two-way brigade (who haven't heard them I understand).
And so you think it's justified to defend the products of that dogmatic and blinkered brigade when I'm critical of ADM9s, and yet they're slagging off kit that they haven't heard!? :doh:
I may not have heard ADM9s, personally, but umpteen pairs of ears I trust have, which is good enough for me, and to a man, their reports are unfailingly uncomplementary, in terms of how they reproduce music. "Anodyne" is a word that regularly crops up.
Old Jamesie-boy, and his 'me too' glove-puppet, haven't heard my Lockwoods or my Copper amp, but that doesn't stop them slagging them off (and everything else that doesn't fit in with their doctrinarian audio design principles), so I guess that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? ;)
Marco.
Alex heard them at the last show and liked them for what they are and I have some N5's here, which are earmarked for the office driven by my fettled Quad 303 - and that's good enough for me at the moment.
Maybe I'm totally misguided Marco - following the middle path is difficult at the best of times and I do sometimes feel I have to be more assertive than perhaps I should - but I'm sure the ADM's do a fine job for speakers at this size and price. I think you and I may find a shared view on the baggage around them though - and we have chatted about this in the past ;)
I think that if I was recording and mixing stuff, I'd need an up-front and supremely clear presentation that the better pro monitors give - a bit like watching Corrie on IMAX (if this was ever possible :eek:). For relaxed domestic listening at neighbour-friendly levels, I need something totally different, not at all bland, but more relaxing in balance so I can sink into the music and not be put on edge with every recording.
My current compromise, if I could afford it, would be for some WELL FETTLED HPD Tannoy Devon's or Cheviot's I think, as the boxes were reasonably attractive (the chocolate or taupe grilles would be excellent here), Lockwoods could sort the drivers and better crossovers are available I believe or could be constructed. The greater efficiency would make up for the passive crossover and having heard Cheviots in domestic situations, I know they integrate well. failing that, Turnberry's, although they look horrible in comparison despite sounding fantastic (to my ears)...
The Vinyl Adventure
24-07-2011, 10:17
In response to "audionewbi"
You shouldn't get "Powered" speakers mixed up with "active"
A lot of the cheap computer or desktop options that mention saving space as thier selling point have a normal stereo amp built into one of them then a bit of speaker wire trailing to the other speaker...
That's not "active" in my books!
That sort of speaker will probably cost about the same as a cheap amp and cheap pair of speakers, and sound about the same!
Proper active speakers means having a active crossover before the amplification then in many cases having an amplifier for each driver ... This changes the game somewhat from the issues you have described
It's pointless having an argument about passive vs active because it all comes down to personal preference like everything else in this hobby!
People will always likely back whatever they think works best for them ... Ie what they have ... Ie mines better than yours ... Its human nature to do it ... And that's why it always goes round in circles and why hifi forums (however good they are) get filled will convos like it
Belt drive vs direct, silver vs copper, one big driver vs multiple small ones, mass vs vibration dispersion ... Etc etc to many variables to many rooms, to many ears, to much pride, to much self belief ... ;)
On the decent passive front, HiFi dave tells me a new Rega Brio (see Alex's post below:o) with some of their small RS speakers takes a heck of a lot of beating for less than a grand all in.
For cheapo actives, the Behringer 8" (2031A?) is incredibly solid and a decent size for bass, and there are various Alesis, mackie KRK and others under £500 that may be good (I haven't heard them).
The domestic market often calls for better finishes and this costs over the traditional black-crackle paint. The domestic market is also seen as a cash-cow too, as evidenced by some comments made when Adam entered the domestic market, marvelling at the extra money they could make over their pro models.
On the decent passive front, HiFi dave tells me a new Rega Brio3 with some of their small RS speakers takes a heck of a lot of beating for less than a grand all in.
I love it when I get to correct you Dave ;) - it's the new half-sized Brio R, not the outgoing Brio 3 that is causing the stir. :)
The Grand Wazoo
24-07-2011, 10:45
The major advantage of active speakers is the inclusion of an amplifier so you do not need to buy one.
I believe active speakers are the best thing to go for for desktop computer based music or office. They are not really designed for the 'whole body' experience kind of feeling.
No - as Hamish says, you seem to be confusing things a little. If you convert a passive speaker to active, the biggest gains are usually to be made in the bass. Some of the most 'whole body' experiences' I've had with audio gear have been with active speakers.
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 10:49
I think I will post, before this thread goes crazy.
The difference between the l/s types are as follows.
1. Passive l/s is a convetional l/s with its own crossover inside the cab(normally)
These passive crossovers are generally built down to a budget. They do suffer from the effects of multiple components in the passive crossover.
2. Powered L/S.............is a passive l/s with a dedicated amplifier built into the l/s cabinet.
3. Active l/s is a loudspeaker that doesnt use a conventional passive crossover, rather they have the loudspeaker dirve units directly connected to the amplifiers, in front of the amplifiers is the active crossover. This unit does the same job, much more precisely, as a passive crossover. The active crossover is much easier to adjust, and the crossover is run AT LINE LEVEL. ie 750 mV.
Active crossovers dont suffer as much from the vagaries of passive crossovers such as compression, signal loss, phase issues, the list is a long one.
S
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
24-07-2011, 11:19
I think I will post, before this thread goes crazy.
The difference between the l/s types are as follows.
1. Passive l/s is a convetional l/s with its own crossover inside the cab(normally)
These passive crossovers are generally built down to a budget. They do suffer from the effects of multiple components in the passive crossover.
2. Powered L/S.............is a passive l/s with a dedicated amplifier built into the l/s cabinet.
3. Active l/s is a loudspeaker that doesnt use a conventional passive crossover, rather they have the loudspeaker dirve units directly connected to the amplifiers, in front of the amplifiers is the active crossover. This unit does the same job, much more precisely, as a passive crossover. The active crossover is much easier to adjust, and the crossover is run AT LINE LEVEL. ie 750 mV.
Active crossovers dont suffer as much from the vagaries of passive crossovers such as compression, signal loss, phase issues, the list is a long one.
S
Yes they do, they suffer from more phases issues than passive crossovers because of the nature of active filters. They suffer from from multiple semi conductor gaps in the signal path and the inherent thermal noise they create. They suffer from the power supply they need because they are active and the signal lag and impedance problems associated with this.
There is only one reason for active and the reason they were developed in the first place and that is the pro market in studios and in PA rigs. The reason they came into hi-fi was purely marketing and started with Linn and Naim. It gave a more expensive upgrade path to aspire to. Having seen a market the likes of ATC stepped in as well - and why not!
Function and necessity should never be confused with excellence.
AND BTW you off course missed one type off from your list, so we have #4. The one that doesn't need either an active or passive crossover, the best of both worlds without the problems, and creates no additional problems if done correctly. AND this is not self marketing ask the people here who use line arrays and good (i.e. without whizzer cone) full range drivers like the Visaton B200.
Yes they do, they suffer from more phases issues than passive crossovers because of the nature of active filters. They suffer from from multiple semi conductor gaps in the signal path and the inherent thermal noise they create. They suffer from the power supply they need because they are active and the signal lag and impedance problems associated with this.
There is only one reason for active and the reason they were developed in the first place and that is the pro market in studios and in PA rigs. The reason they came into hi-fi was purely marketing and started with Linn and Naim. It gave a more expensive upgrade path to aspire to. Having seen a market the likes of ATC stepped in as well - and why not!
Function and necessity should never be confused with excellence.
AND BTW you off course missed one type off from your list, so we have #4. The one that doesn't need either an active or passive crossover, the best of both worlds without the problems, and creates no additional problems if done correctly. AND this is not self marketing ask the people here who use line arrays and good (i.e. without whizzer cone) full range drivers like the Visaton B200.
Once again, after accusing me of cr@p, half-truths and little knowledge, you go and do it as well :steam: Agenda Richard? :)
A few good people in the pro and domestic audio industry have shown that a transparent sounding active crossover is easily possible these days if you know how to design them, rather than write them off so blatantly. In an active crossover, getting the phasing right is one of the main advantages and ATC even had adjustments for it as their mid driver was so narrow in bandwidth.
As for the history of active, I believe Martin Audio started the ball rolling, ATC launched the predecessor of the 50's in 1976 or so, meridian used an early ATC mid driver in their fondly remembered (by me anyway) M1 and Linn and Naim followed suit with a very basic active crossover (which almost certainly suffered huge phase issues ;)) for the severely compromised Isobarik, which was pretty hideous in passive version until they went over to MDF cabinets, bu which time the active ones were sounding suspect, probably due to the overly harsh-toned CB NAP250's at that point.
Like I said earlier, there are great passive speakers out there and if you go to the pro side, there are truly awsome active models, which make all but huge passive Tannoys sound like toy boxes.
So there :ner:
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 16:33
Richard you are quite right, I forgot about full range drivers.
As to your comments on active crossovers......................forgive me for laughing at your comment!
In my original post I asked for your EXPERIENCE of using or listening to these types of loudspeakers.
The reason I couched my post in this way is that I am about to design a pair of loudspeakers using either active or passive crossovers.
I have a pair of Precision Devices PD122 and a pair of Audax two34 all I have to find is the midrange driver. These loudspeakers are for a large room so I would have thougth that F/R drivers couldnt cope. Bearing in mind the relative effiency of the two drivers I have already.
S
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
24-07-2011, 18:08
Once again, after accusing me of cr@p, half-truths and little knowledge, you go and do it as well :steam: Agenda Richard? :)
A few good people in the pro and domestic audio industry have shown that a transparent sounding active crossover is easily possible these days if you know how to design them, rather than write them off so blatantly. In an active crossover, getting the phasing right is one of the main advantages and ATC even had adjustments for it as their mid driver was so narrow in bandwidth.
As for the history of active, I believe Martin Audio started the ball rolling, ATC launched the predecessor of the 50's in 1976 or so, meridian used an early ATC mid driver in their fondly remembered (by me anyway) M1 and Linn and Naim followed suit with a very basic active crossover (which almost certainly suffered huge phase issues ;)) for the severely compromised Isobarik, which was pretty hideous in passive version until they went over to MDF cabinets, bu which time the active ones were sounding suspect, probably due to the overly harsh-toned CB NAP250's at that point.
Like I said earlier, there are great passive speakers out there and if you go to the pro side, there are truly awsome active models, which make all but huge passive Tannoys sound like toy boxes.
So there :ner:
No agenda - just reality whether you like it or not. Both Martin Audio and ATC were Pro companies that just happened to catch on a small amount in the domestic market because some people seemed to think if it was used in studios it must be better, a rather false premise as they have different needs and priorities. I said quite clearly that active started and was developed for the pro market. ALSO I said that Linn and Naim were the first DOMESTIC audio companies to market the concept ENTIRELY for and to the hi-fi market.
You obviously have no knowledge of electronic design if you think it is possible to create a active filter without changing the phase, or create an electronic crossover without thermal noise or semi conductor junctions or a power supply.
Electronic crossover can minimise the damage caused by them with good design and good components AND exactly the same is true for passive crossovers BUT "there is one thing that is better than the best component you can buy and that is no component at all."
You obviously have no knowledge of electronic design if you think it is possible to create a active filter without changing the phase, or create an electronic crossover without thermal noise or semi conductor junctions or a power supply.
Ah well, just keep on digging your trench Richard :)
ATC didn't get into the domestic market until our "friend" Ashley James started with them as I recall, sometime in the late 80's. B&W had long discontinued their "Active 1" model, which was quite good as I remember.. The studio market for large monitors appears to have all but collapsed and so has the domestic one as well. ATC are now a shadow of their size in the 90's, the old factory now a garden centre I believe.
If an active filter changes the phase, this will be taken care of as part of the whole design won't it, as the engineers should be very aware of what is going on. As for thermal noise, since most detail as we hear it in a HiFi is only around 30 - 40db down on the mean level and noise is around 50 to 60db below that, I don't think we need to worry about that one, do you? Especially since many of us use valve amps which are something like 20db higher in noise (and probably distortion) than a modern ss circuit. Perhaps if you designed a proper active crossover using modern components, you'd find things not as bad as you think, but you always seem to deal in absolutes and claim yours is the only way (you sound so like someone else "we here" know ;)). As I thought we all knew on here, designing audio is an art and IMO art involves compromise of some sort.
The really funny thing is that for under a grand, one can buy many models of good little active speakers that will p**s over most budget stereo "passive" setups. I understand the pro market for such active speakers is now much larger than the domestic "hifi" market too. perhaps some of the more enterprising people on here could pop into a local pro-audio shop and hear what's out there. the speakers won't be huge, but may just have something to offer and be a genuine and pleasant surprise, you never know :lol:
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
24-07-2011, 19:59
Ah well, just keep on digging your trench Richard :)
ATC didn't get into the domestic market until our "friend" Ashley James started with them as I recall, sometime in the late 80's. B&W had long discontinued their "Active 1" model, which was quite good as I remember.. The studio market for large monitors appears to have all but collapsed and so has the domestic one as well. ATC are now a shadow of their size in the 90's, the old factory now a garden centre I believe.
If an active filter changes the phase, this will be taken care of as part of the whole design won't it, as the engineers should be very aware of what is going on. As for thermal noise, since most detail as we hear it in a HiFi is only around 30 - 40db down on the mean level and noise is around 50 to 60db below that, I don't think we need to worry about that one, do you? Especially since many of us use valve amps which are something like 20db higher in noise (and probably distortion) than a modern ss circuit. Perhaps if you designed a proper active crossover using modern components, you'd find things not as bad as you think, but you always seem to deal in absolutes and claim yours is the only way (you sound so like someone else "we here" know ;)). As I thought we all knew on here, designing audio is an art and IMO art involves compromise of some sort.
The really funny thing is that for under a grand, one can buy many models of good little active speakers that will p**s over most budget stereo "passive" setups. I understand the pro market for such active speakers is now much larger than the domestic "hifi" market too. perhaps some of the more enterprising people on here could pop into a local pro-audio shop and hear what's out there. the speakers won't be huge, but may just have something to offer and be a genuine and pleasant surprise, you never know :lol:
So now you agree with me about the history of active and are now denying everything you wrote about it in that first post, well rock on sunshine, you should be a politician.
You still know little about electronics apart from the marketing bullshit you have been fed. Do you understand what phase is even, do you understand what thermal noise is and why it happens. Do you seriously not understand what happens when you place a box of electronics with umpteen op-amps in it with its own power supply in between your source / pre and your power amp, and what effect all that gumf has on the music.
The modern class D / active monitor / computer monitor abominations are just that an abomination in musical terms, if you are happy with that what are you doing on this forum as it is called the art of sound.
That's a rather sweeping statement!
I'm not so sure Dave is "happy" with that (he doesn't use those designs himself), but rather that he considers some active speakers as being a viable alternative to some of the very poor passive loudspeaker designs on the market, especially within the budget sector.
I think there is some merit in that viewpoint :)
Also, Richard, it wouldn't hurt if you were a little more personable towards people, and dropped the 'grumpy old man' vibe. Like I said before, Dave isn't your enemy (and nor is anyone else here).
Marco.
kininigin
24-07-2011, 20:10
The modern class D / active monitor / computer monitor abominations are just that an abomination in musical terms, if you are happy with that what are you doing on this forum as it is called the art of sound.
I'd best grab my coat and say my goodbyes then :ner:
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 20:15
Me too Kingpin!
S
Yes, let's remember that we all have different ideas as to what is our 'Art of Sound', and every one of them is valid :)
Marco.
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 20:22
Marco could you please close this thread, as it is obvious to me that I will not get any help here! I seem to have started a conflict between Richard and Dave, the last thing I wanted to do.
Thank you in advance.
S
Hi Stewart,
You've started nothing, mate, apart from asking an innocent question. Unfortunately though, the active vs. passive speaker debate is always a thorny one..... :rolleyes:
I will now insist that this thread concentrates on helping Stewart (the OP) with his original query. Simple, straightforward advice only, please. Anything else will be deleted without further warning.
Marco.
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 20:31
Thank you Marco.
S
No worries, mate. There are plenty of folks who can offer you advice on the subject of active vs .passive, without becoming involved in the entrenched views of the protagonists of either approach :)
Marco.
BTH K10A
24-07-2011, 20:40
As for the history of active, I believe Martin Audio started the ball rolling, ATC launched the predecessor of the 50's in 1976 or so, meridian used an early ATC mid driver in their fondly remembered (by me anyway) M1 and Linn and Naim followed suit with a very basic active crossover (which almost certainly suffered huge phase issues ;)) for the severely compromised Isobarik, which was pretty hideous in passive version until they went over to MDF cabinets, bu which time the active ones were sounding suspect, probably due to the overly harsh-toned CB NAP250's at that point.
Like I said earlier, there are great passive speakers out there and if you go to the pro side, there are truly awsome active models, which make all but huge passive Tannoys sound like toy boxes.
So there :ner:
Don't forget the awesome Levinson HQd system. Active, and from 1972. Even today it's still up there with the very best. :)
Oh yes, there are a few other makes (vintage & modern) that can mix it with the big boys (and better them). ;)
Passive crossovers can be excellent too but require good design and top notch components that are not viable for most manufaturers due to cost and retail price point considerations.
kininigin
24-07-2011, 20:40
On a more serious tip,I bought my actives as an experiment just to try something different and reduce my box count and simplify things abit.
I got these budget ''pro monitors'' second hand for about £170 and have been very pleased with them.Are they the last word in ''hi-fi'' or ''musicality'' of course not,but for the price they punch way above what there price tag (rrp £500) would suggest.
Now this is the dilemma im in now,to improve what i have got significantly,whilst sticking with active i would have to spend as a guess £1000+ if brand new,touch less S/H as big name monitors seem to hold there value fairly well.
If i went back to the passive route,i would be getting a croft power amp at £700 and then lets say some speakers for about £300 -400 S/H.
Which would sound better?i have no idea,but would love to be able to test out for my self but don't have that sort of cash.
Which brings me back to the budget end of things and i don't honestly think you are going to get a better passive system at say £800 that can beat a well made active at the same price.
This is all in the context of very limited experience with different equipment and i could just be talking out my arse :lolsign:
kininigin
24-07-2011, 20:55
Hvae you heard, or owned, an active loudspeaker system.
What were the advantages or disadvantages of each?
S
For me the advantages of an active over the passives i had(kef Q60's,wharefdale evolution's and some tannoys)were a more open larger sound stage,cleaner distortion free sound,more detailed but not tiring HF,and a much more deeper controlled bass.
Also a wierd thing i've noticed and indeed my brother(who keeps telling me a system only needs to be LOUD,he still needs a little educating :lol:) is that when i do turn it up LOUD,we can still speak to each other without shouting at the top of our lungs.
So now you agree with me about the history of active and are now denying everything you wrote about it in that first post, well rock on sunshine, you should be a politician.
You still know little about electronics apart from the marketing bullshit you have been fed. Do you understand what phase is even, do you understand what thermal noise is and why it happens. Do you seriously not understand what happens when you place a box of electronics with umpteen op-amps in it with its own power supply in between your source / pre and your power amp, and what effect all that gumf has on the music.
The modern class D / active monitor / computer monitor abominations are just that an abomination in musical terms, if you are happy with that what are you doing on this forum as it is called the art of sound.
And you honestly think you're doing better????
That's too much. If you want a war with everyone who engages with you in online conversations, you can go and bully someone else.
I said at the beginning that I didn't want this thread to turn into a war, but I can't let the comments above go either and have put myself in a cleft stick situation. Apologies to the OP. I think I've been fair to both forms of crossover and he can hopefully do some listening and make up his own mind.
I'm going to take Marco's (and others') advice and bow out of this one for now.
Ok, Dave, I'll let that one slip, since you hadn't yet replied to Richard's earlier post.
Right, back to the OP's original query now :)
Marco.
stewartwen
24-07-2011, 21:23
As a matter of imterest I use a pair of homebrewed active l.s already. But I was bowing to the superior knowledge on this site to get a more indepth variety of knowledge on this matter.
S
kininigin
24-07-2011, 21:28
As a matter of imterest I use a pair of homebrewed active l.s already. But I was bowing to the superior knowledge on this site to get a more indepth variety of knowledge on this matter.
S
Ahh i see,i'll keep my mouth shut :ner: :lolsign:
Rare Bird
25-07-2011, 00:13
Ah well before i throw these speaker off the edge of a cliff, i'm going back to my Studio Engineering courses.. i've ordered a DBX '223' 2 way stereo Active crossover, i'm gonna give that a whirl.. oops i need another power amp :(
I’ve had a go at this active system building :scratch:
Initially I wanted a 3 way system but when decent drivers, half a dozen amps and an electronic crossover got factored in it all got rather expensive.
I eventually built myself a two way system using the boards from a pair of Quantum Electronics 207’s for amplification with purpose built power supplies and a pair of volt B220’s matched to a number of mid/high range drivers.
I used a Linkwitz-Riley crossover
http://sound.westhost.com/project09.htm
and with much messing about I coaxed music from the system ;)
I personally don’t believe a full range driver that adequately covers the 20 Hz to 20 kHz spectrum has been made yet so be it active or passive, you’ve got a crossover in there somewhere. As is often pointed out, it’s the crossovers that tend to ruin all the care taken at source. Both active and passive crossovers seem to feck about with the signal and imo both have their advantages and disadvantages. :eyebrows:
The best results I obtained was using my mates pro electronic crossover (read yet still more money :eek:) and by altering the crossover frequencies and slopes more or less as you listened I got a very nice sound out. What I had hoped for was a comparatively more dynamic sound but with the Quantum’s as amps it didn’t really happen; perhaps gain clones or D class may have helped.
In the end I preferred the sound from my passive crossover, rather carefully built and unreasonably expensive current speakers. Should I have spent as much time and money on the active set up I suspect I could have eventually got something I would have been equally happy to listen to and this I believe may be where the active v passive debate becomes unstuck.
All the commercially availible active systems I have heard have relied on a sub woofer to pick up the bass and fairly cheap amplification all wedged into small hot boxes. I have yet to hear such a set up sound as convincing as a conventional multi driver array.
I think if an active setup was approached without the same cost considerations most commercial designs seem to be and using an electronic crossover built with top grade components that allows you to vary frequency and slope then I cant see why one shouldn’t be able to have all the advantages of an active system without the drawbacks.
It’s a matter of how much money and time you can throw at the project.
I’m pretty happy with my current passive speakers, nice tone, deep base (20 Hz), fast enough powered by a sympathetic amp and my interests wandered into the world of file audio and music servers.
Maybe one day when I’ve got more money I’ll have another go at the active project but I’ll prolly be even deafer than I am now and mp3 will sound feckin glorious through a set of PC powered speakers. :mental:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.