Active is better sounding than passive

[Tangband]

That’s a thing a complete Meridian home theater was this . DSP crossover in each speaker , room correction in the controller for all those speakers. A true 24/96 digital path to 7.1 speakers.

But it’s proprietary and they have fallen behind, they don’t have the latest formats in their own AVP , even if they are horrible expensive. So that’s whats happens if you have a proprietary closed system with only one expensive brand.

And acoustics, sadly I don’t think their speakers are up to what designers with more acoustical knowledge can do.
Even if they are filled with alll the rigth stuff , implementation is still everything.

Yes I would take a well implemented passive speaker over an DSP5200 for example .

I think the acoustics of a given speaker and the drivers are such big factors that you in the end should judge each complete. Implementation on its own merits active or passive.
Even if I in principle thinks that active should be better, but the actual product that fits your needs best may in practice be a passive speaker ?

You can wish that the revel salon was an active design but it’s not , as an example . If I make sense ?

The hifi industry are very conservative.

The thruth is that Kefs flagship , The Blade as an example , are a passive speaker and that Kef is rather new in the ballgame of active speakers.

All this changes now in the form of ls60 where Kef themselves in their white papers says that active speakers has a sound advantage to passive speakers . This is a breakthrou from this conservative brand. An active dsp model of Blade would maybe be an interesting future ?

Many highend producers of loudspeakers like Linn and ATC has for many years had their topp models made all active , because they sound better that way .

Here are the white paper for the active Kef ls60 :

https://darko.audio/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/KEF-LS60-Wireless-Whitepaper.pdf

Kef themselves writes :

”In the last 10 years music consumption has changed beyond recognition, with online streaming becoming common place. This thing has been the catalyst for a resurgence of interest in active loudspeakers. Active loudspeakers have always held the possibility of improved sound quality and are already the de facto standard in most serious public address and studio applications. However, HiFi has always resisted this change, preferring to mostly stick with passive loudspeakers and separates.
Modern passive loudspeakers can give remarkably high performance. One could even argue that the HiFi market’s fondness for passive loudspeakers has led manufacturers to develop drivers with extremely refined behaviour as a direct result of the limitations and restrictions of the passive format. Nevertheless, in terms of both absolute performance and flexibility, active has a significant advantage.”

 

[NiagaraPete]

For multichannel, there is a clear case where perfomance may become a real hassle. For a baseline system, it is not that terrible, but for height speakers, active requires some serious logistics. Of course it can be done, but logistics do matter when dealing with 9, 11 or even more speakers.

Maybe I've read this wrong but what you say is a strong argument for Genelec.

 

[Vacceo]

Maybe I've read this wrong but what you say is a strong argument for Genelec.

Let's give names to clarify: is it possible that the Kef R series (to give a well known set of models) works better with Audyssey than Dirac? Or with Dirac better than with Audyssey.

 

[Peluvius]

I really do not know in any detail how far electronics have progressed in 30 years however the basic principle that you amplify after the crossover delivered a host of design benefits back then that translated into relevant and measurable acoustic outcomes. If you see speakers as a machine (as they are), I don't see much more to debate? A well designed active will always beat a well designed passive because the crossover in a passive design is post amplification. What am I missing?

 

[NiagaraPete]

I really do not know in any detail how far electronics have progressed in 30 years however the basic principle that you amplify after the crossover delivered a host of design benefits back then that translated into relevant and measurable acoustic outcomes. If you see speakers as a machine (as they are), I don't see much more to debate? A well designed active will always beat a well designed passive because the crossover in a passive design is post amplification. What am I missing?

I agree, you nailed it.

 

[nc535]

Its a little bit late in this thread but I'd like to take issue with the statement that anything that an active crossover filter function can be duplicated with passives. First though I will agree with it. One can sit at a desk in front of a computer and go out in the lab and duplicate that active filter function to the nth degree of precision. But that isn't the end of it unless you are making just one speaker or a pair of speakers. If this is a design for production, then a parts list and schematic diagram will be tossed over the walls into marketing, purchasing, and manufacturing. (perhaps multiple iterations of this loop.) Several months later, finished units roll off the assembly line. You test many random samples in the lab. The average of all those measured responses, if marketing hasn't worked too hard on reducing the cost, likely matches the optimized response of your finished design. The trouble is each one of those numerous passive components you specified had a tolerance and a cost, as did the drivers themselves. The difference between an individual speaker's response and that average may well be audible.

On the production line for active speakers, it would be a simple matter for someone with the right skill set to implement a semi-automatic measure and adjust step to optimize each speaker's response.

So if you are not a DIYer and you want high end sound, I would say your best bet is with an active solution. But don't gamble - do the due diligence.

 

[Thomas_A]

May I ask what other first hand experience you have with active, besides the 20 year old adventure?

And what you are doing to make whatever passive work you have, meet your needs?

1 Genelecs.
2 A flat on axis response, even, wide dispersion, active subwoofers, room correction.

 

[pablolie]

Engineering reality in hand, there is no fact that supports the idea that active speakers are "better". What active speakers do is avoid the pitfalls of matching/mismatching components in a very critical area for system performance.

Let's take the LS50W (a phenomenal design, IMO): if you were to take out the amplification subsystem and packed it into a separate little box, and connect the passive and active elements of the LS50W, there is no doubt it'd sound identical. However, from what I remember the LS50W as well as the LS60 use separate amplification for tweeters and woofers.

So maybe the argument here is that there may be a benefit to bi-amping and crossover-less designs? Whether it is integrated in an active speaker or with separates? It's not something I have experienced myself, but I think that line of argument would make more sense than the broad claim "Active speakers are always better"? I think we've all heard some crappy active speakers, too, so that exception negates the broad statement.

I should note I have long been a believer in active speakers - they allow the designer to completely match amplification to their speaker design and to deliver on the exact goal they are after. But then again, they are not immune to design issues or to idiosyncratic choices.

 

[NiagaraPete]

This has been a great thread.

In my view there have been decades of great analog products made and sold. It's 2022 and the world is digital. The only concept going forward should be digital to the amps.

 

[Vacceo]

Digital to digital could allow interesting propositions such as replacing XLR cables with Ethernet cables, which are often times easier to handle. Eventually, protocols like WiSa could even overcome wires sustainably.

The part I like the best is the capacity to eliminate boxes or at least, seriously reduce their size.

 

[Matthias McCready]

Digital to digital could allow interesting propositions such as replacing XLR cables with Ethernet cables, which are often times easier to handle. Eventually, protocols like WiSa could even overcome wires sustainably.

The part I like the best is the capacity to eliminate boxes or at least, seriously reduce their size.

I recently purchased a $40 USB to AES device for my rig. It is quite nice not to have to think about a DAC.

Now I just need to figure out a way to make a stepped volume controller in the digital domain.

One thing at a time I suppose!

As they say, "You can't have everything. Where would you put it all?"

 

[pablolie]

This has been a great thread.

In my view there have been decades of great analog products made and sold. It's 2022 and the world is digital. The only concept going forward should be digital to the amps.

Indeed - I am a huge believer in integrated DAC-Amp-Speaker designs.

But then the trend these days is to also integrate the streaming apps... Convenient as it is, I am not sure that's something I buy into... that means my return-on-investment in a system may be impacted by market disruptions (music service going bust etc), changes in the APIs music services offer for integration, CPU obsolescence when it comes to supporting new needs etc. So my ideal active speaker would be something like the KEF LS60 or LS50W but without the built-in streaming support (or phono input).

 

[Dial]

First measure each speaker (preferably professional models, much stronger than "hi-fi" and always cheaper -except TAD cos they're crazy-). In an anechoic room or outside. Then design the filter. Then we can talk. In the past I had a pair of active ones (ASD Dudognon then servo sound) but the amps burned out causing the transducers to be destroyed. I reused the boxes to make a pair of 2-ways for a friend.

 

[Mnyb]

Digital to digital could allow interesting propositions such as replacing XLR cables with Ethernet cables, which are often times easier to handle. Eventually, protocols like WiSa could even overcome wires sustainably.

The part I like the best is the capacity to eliminate boxes or at least, seriously reduce their size.

I think there are several Ethernet based protocols for large PA systems .
And Meridian has adopted the Ethernet cable for their current version of thier MHR link , so I use Ethernet cables to my speakers.
It would be nice if some kind of universal “speaker protocol” using Ethernet as hardware would emerge in the market.
By universal I mean widely adapted so it becomes a de facto standard.
Example are RCA conectors , everything has it but it’s not enforced by a law or something,but due to market penetration if you want to move products you have them.

 

[Vacceo]

Indeed - I am a huge believer in integrated DAC-Amp-Speaker designs.

But then the trend these days is to also integrate the streaming apps... Convenient as it is, I am not sure that's something I buy into... that means my return-on-investment in a system may be impacted by market disruptions (music service going bust etc), changes in the APIs music services offer for integration, CPU obsolescence when it comes to supporting new needs etc. So my ideal active speaker would be something like the KEF LS60 or LS50W but without the built-in streaming support (or phono input).

Ideally, an external, modular and upgradeable box should do the trick. You'd ve covered for future HDMI boards, Bluetooth, network and so on.

Similar devices exist for Dynaudio or Buchard, so not a hard concept to push.

 

[Matthias McCready]

I think there are several Ethernet based protocols for large PA systems .
And Meridian has adopted the Ethernet cable for their current version of thier MHR link , so I use Ethernet cables to my speakers.
It would be nice if some kind of universal “speaker protocol” using Ethernet as hardware would emerge in the market.
By universal I mean widely adapted so it becomes a de facto standard.
Example are RCA conectors , everything has it but it’s not enforced by a law or something,but due to market penetration if you want to move products you have them.

Dante, Madi, and AVB all work quite well.

I started to see Dante and AVB being integrated into speakers.

----

In Pro-Audio Dante has the widest acceptability, and it is fairly inexpensive to get into. Granted the chip-shortage meant no Dante chips for over a year, and now that they are being produced again, they are backlogged for almost another year. Not a fun product to be dependent upon at the moment!

I gather that AVB may be used more widely in other industries, and that it has some advantages over Dante for transmission of audio (better stability is what I heard, which is important). However this is not yet widely used in the audio industry; that being said the audio industry does not produce a lot of products comparatively to say the auto industry, so if other industries fully embrace AVB, audio may not have much choice.

 

[pablolie]

Ideally, an external, modular and upgradeable box should do the trick. You'd ve covered for future HDMI boards, Bluetooth, network and so on.

Similar devices exist for Dynaudio or Buchard, so not a hard concept to push.

When the modules are proprietary in a box, their longevity is compromised. I have zero trust in -for example- NAD supporting MDC modules for their integrated amplifiers for 10 years. And the track record shows it. I'd rather have some separate box deal with the dynamic streaming ecosystem, spitting out the bits to a future-proof core system via Toslink or Coax or HDMI.

Anything that has advanced semiconductors in it will become obsolete within just a few years these days. And companies can't keep supporting obsolete designs. That is why I believe in separation of duties. I don't like to pay thousands for stuff that I think will be obsolete in a few years. That's my issues with advanced car or motorcycle electronics too. I have a 25 year old Porsche 356 replica with a Toyota engine that doesn't have a single element of advanced electronics in it as my second (and fun) car. It'll keep being drivable in 25 years (I'll be dead :-D). I have a BMW R1100S motorcycle since 1999 that only has ABS - no advanced traction control. I keep them because they simply work. I have had 3 other cars and 4 other motorcycles in the meantime, loaded with electronics, that became ridiculously expensive to maintain at some point in time.

For vendors it is awesome if they can force customers into an expensive regular upgrade cycle, we know that. It's just not a cycle I want to always participate in, but in some ways it is inevitable these days.

 

[Reed]

My old Yamaha A-1 amp (died three times, and repaired twice, no abuse) and my NAD 7175PE (died twice, repaired once, no abuse) would like a word about reliability. These events all happened after warranty expiration but well within five years of purchase. In fact, the NAD died it’s final death at a point in my life when funding good audio could no longer be a priority so I was out of the home audio game for 15 years. Running Genelec now and loving them.

 

[G|force]

yes or no maybe sometimes
1- Yes
2- No
3- No clear answer, noise
4- This is an objectively minded environment

 

[G|force]

My old Yamaha A-1 amp (died three times, and repaired twice, no abuse) and my NAD 7175PE (died twice, repaired once, no abuse) would like a word about reliability. These events all happened after warranty expiration but well within five years of purchase. In fact, the NAD died it’s final death at a point in my life when funding good audio could no longer be a priority so I was out of the home audio game for 15 years. Running Genelec now and loving them.

@Reed if those products gave you many hours of enjoyment, fondly remember those moments, hours, hopefully years of service to enjoy the music you love.