• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Passive speakers, separate boxes...help me understand the appeal

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Awesome. I've heard many ML designs over the years and enjoyed them. My friend has a pair of ML hybrids and I always have to sit down and spin some tunes.



At the time I generally had two different amps I would use: a Conrad Johnson 55W tube amp, and a Bryston 4B (then 4B ST) solid state amp.
The 63s actually sounded really wonderful on just the tube amps, and when I added the subwoofer it took some load off the panels. Sometimes I'd switch in the Bryston just to play around. I tend to gravitate back to tubes, though. (I use Conrad Johnson Premier 12 140W/side monoblocks at this point).
I owned a few different bits of C-J gear. A few tube amps, and pre's. I ditched them when I decided to try some VTL's. Man what amps. I had at one time SN-007 of the VTL 75-75 amps. Great on the 63's. I've had 57's too. I still think 57's with a woofer and a ribbon tweeter would be hard to beat. Now a close second on those were Spectrals. But when I converted my amps to triode it was a whole 'nother experience.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Why?

I like mine because they can measurably play more loudly than I can listen with measurably low distortion while throwing a measurably flat phase above a measured 200Hz to the listening position, which is no doubt due to the measurably higher ratio of direct to reflected sound than the optional little wide dispersion units in my measurably untreated but livable TV/Music room.

What ills?
Quad 2912's as an example
1549525350900.png


1549525367975.png
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,779
Location
Oxfordshire
One of my biggest surprises were the Shun Mook speakers! I was, and remain, as skeptical as anyone here would be about their mpingo speaker tuning pucks. And their speaker was designed for the cabinet to be somewhat thin and resonate - "the wood selected over hundreds of contenders for just the right sound."
This is not clever design producing a good quality hifi speaker, it is selecting a euphonic sounding radiator to "enhance" the sound to produce a sound the designer, and certain potential customers, like.
IMO a lot of people don't like the sound the engineer/artist settled on and want a system that adds a bit of their favourite colourations. There is no chance that a speaker with its box vibrating like a musical instrument is producing the sound on the recording, however "nice" it sounds.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
My question to you was
Do you have links to scientific publications (published in peer reviewed journals, of course) proving (or very strongly indicating) that active speakers are audibly superior to passive? (in general or "specifically")

But you do post a lot a links to Genelec home page etc. and to other stuff which does not answer my question.
Your attitude regarding active VS passive seems very black (passive) and white (active).

May I ask what is your education since you obviously did not understand my question? (please be precise: degree (if any) and fields (and depth) of study).
To me it seems that you are a philosopher, and that you have no scientific background.

Actually I’m also curious as to whether you know of any scientific studies that suggest the opposite?
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
My question to you was
Do you have links to scientific publications (published in peer reviewed journals, of course) proving (or very strongly indicating) that active speakers are audibly superior to passive? (in general or "specifically")

But you do post a lot a links to Genelec home page etc. and to other stuff which does not answer my question.
Your attitude regarding active VS passive seems very black (passive) and white (active).

May I ask what is your education since you obviously did not understand my question? (please be precise: degree (if any) and fields (and depth) of study).
To me it seems that you are a philosopher, and that you have no scientific background.

I gave you 15 references on active speakers, some of which are JAES references. 2 out of 15 references are from Genelec. 2/15 is not a lot, is it?

Do the references give you an impression that passive design is the technology of choice among J(AES) writers and renowned speaker producers? What did Toole write on this subject?

I think the answer you’re searching for - is passive as good as active design? - is found in Toole’s statement (my underlining):

«Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound».
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
We don't need a specific study for everything in order to know something. svart-hvitt asked me the same question when I said room correction didn't work to non-minimum phase behavior and accused med of being a subjective audiophile when not providing an exact study on it. But my answer to him, and which he did not seems to understand, actually gave the scientific answer. Something he would have known if he knew the information behind the words I used.

And the same goes for passive vs active speakers. When you look at what can be done with both technologies, there's no doubt that active is better. When we learn the details of something, that will in many cases give us a clear answer. Despite that you don't find a certain study on whether active is better than passive. There's simply no need for that because the answers are obvious when getting into to the details of both.

While active is a better technology, that doesn't automatically mean an active speaker is always better than a passive speaker. But it does mean that most passive speakers would become improved if they were built as active.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I gave you 15 references on active speakers, some of which are JAES references. 2 out of 15 references are from Genelec. 2/15 is not a lot, is it?

Do the references give you an impression that passive design is the technology of choice among J(AES) writers and renowned speaker producers? What did Toole write on this subject?

I think the answer you’re searching for - is passive as good as active design? - is found in Toole’s statement (my underlining):

«Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound».

I think the underlined bit is key, it says "can yield even better sound". I think it is now pretty widely accepted that dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components can yield better sound, that is fundamentally a different statement from "does yield even better sound". The reason for that is that in any engineering discipline application is critical and whether or not a nominally "better" design solution will actually deliver better performance is down to how well it is implicated. And it is not only possible but very common for nominally lesser solutions to deliver better performance if well implemented.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I think the underlined bit is key, it says "can yield even better sound". I think it is now pretty widely accepted that dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components can yield better sound, that is fundamentally a different statement from "does yield even better sound". The reason for that is that in any engineering discipline application is critical and whether or not a nominally "better" design solution will actually deliver better performance is down to how well it is implicated. And it is not only possible but very common for nominally lesser solutions to deliver better performance if well implemented.

Yes, «can» is a key word here. «Will» would’ve been too strong of course. And he doesn’t write «can yield worse sound» for the sake of giving a «balanced» review.

Interestingly, this is about all Toole says about active vs passive in his book.

And have in mind that Toole wrote this despite his association with Harman, which use its luxury brands to push passive design. It’s a sign of integrity, isn’t it?
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Usually if you write something may be better than an alternative it's not necessary to say it may also be worse, since one is a natural corollary of the other. Which way around you write it (may be better, or may be worse) is a way of giving emphasis to which you believe to be more probable. I think Toole's integrity and expertise are both beyond question, his statement seems pretty reasonable.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I am just curious if it is any scientific studies (published in peer reviewed journals, of course) giving clear conclusions whether active is audibly better than passive or vice versa. In contrast to svart-hvitt, I have no agenda and I am open-minded regarding this hypothesis which are best.
If there is no such publications, we can not conclude that one of the principles is superior.

I'm also curious as to which you think is audibly better (if either) and why?
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
I think the underlined bit is key, it says "can yield even better sound". I think it is now pretty widely accepted that dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components can yield better sound, that is fundamentally a different statement from "does yield even better sound". The reason for that is that in any engineering discipline application is critical and whether or not a nominally "better" design solution will actually deliver better performance is down to how well it is implicated. And it is not only possible but very common for nominally lesser solutions to deliver better performance if well implemented.
We don't need a specific study for everything in order to know something. svart-hvitt asked me the same question when I said room correction didn't work to non-minimum phase behavior and accused med of being a subjective audiophile when not providing an exact study on it. But my answer to him, and which he did not seems to understand, actually gave the scientific answer. Something he would have known if he knew the information behind the words I used.

And the same goes for passive vs active speakers. When you look at what can be done with both technologies, there's no doubt that active is better. When we learn the details of something, that will in many cases give us a clear answer. Despite that you don't find a certain study on whether active is better than passive. There's simply no need for that because the answers are obvious when getting into to the details of both.

While active is a better technology, that doesn't automatically mean an active speaker is always better than a passive speaker. But it does mean that most passive speakers would become improved if they were built as active.
I agree most passive speakers could be improved with an active multi amp crossover system. It is just as true that any active speaker could be improved with better mechanical components. An active systems adds a lot of costs and complication but with costs of amps and DSP coming down the cost benefits is shifting towards active. It is far from a revolutionary technology. No matter the crossover system the biggest driver of both cost and performance of a speaker is going to be mechanical.... The electrical part is just fine tuning.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I have no opinion on that.

We have an ongoing thread «Does DSD sound better than PCM?» That thread is 15 pages long.

Is there a definitive proof that would stop that debate going on, for ever?

Still, I think the DSD vs PCM debate has a simple answer.

I think the active vs passive debate has some similarities. One of which is flexibility and hence cost. An audio technology is better not only if it sounds better. An audio technology is better if it’s more flexible and/or can produce same result for less effort and/or cost.
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,437
Location
Singapore
We have an ongoing thread «Does DSD sound better than PCM?» That thread is 15 pages long.

Is there a definitive proof that would stop that debate going on, for ever?

Still, I think the DSD vs PCM debate has a simple answer.

I think the active vs passive debate has some similarities. One of which is flexibility and hence cost. An audio technology is better not only if it sounds better. An audio technology is better if it’s more flexible and/or can produce same result for less effort and/or cost.

Or vastly reduces the tradeoff typically required to pursue a given design aim - eg. time-alignment and phase linearisation. No more sloped baffles or crippled first-order passive crossovers. Just define filter parameters.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
I'm also curious as to which you think is audibly better (if either) and why?
The problem I have with the term 'audibly better' is who defines what 'better' means? Is it what YOU prefer? Does that make it better?

If so, then whether active or passive isn't important, what's important is what YOU prefer. If, however, 'better' means objectively better as evidenced by measurements, then I don't think there can be any arguments that active, especially DSP active is capable of objectively better results.

S.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
The problem I have with the term 'audibly better' is who defines what 'better' means? Is it what YOU prefer? Does that make it better?

If so, then whether active or passive isn't important, what's important is what YOU prefer. If, however, 'better' means objectively better as evidenced by measurements, then I don't think there can be any arguments that active, especially DSP active is capable of objectively better results.

S.

I agree of course that active speakers are technically better. The thing is that @sprellemannen is asking for peer-reviewed scientific evidence that active speakers are audibly (not technically) better. So I'm trying to work out what that evidence would look like in his opinion.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
The problem I have with the term 'audibly better' is who defines what 'better' means? Is it what YOU prefer? Does that make it better?

If so, then whether active or passive isn't important, what's important is what YOU prefer. If, however, 'better' means objectively better as evidenced by measurements, then I don't think there can be any arguments that active, especially DSP active is capable of objectively better results.

S.

Listening tests will always be somewhat disputable due to lots of factors (trained listeners vs ordinary folk, did you test the design in general or just one specific speaker? What if a SOTA is built bottom-up based on DSP and active design; how can you make such a design a passive one? Etc etc).

Genelec did a blind test when they developed their first speaker 40 years ago. They had skin in the game as an entrepreneurial start-up.

Yet, @sprellemannen doesn’t think this early listening test on an R&D stage by an emerging start-up is relevant.
 
Last edited:

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
962
Likes
3,045
Location
Switzerland
I am not the person claiming the difference, svart-hvitt is the person claiming it.
This is basic scientific knowledge: Unless proved otherwise, the hypothesis of no difference is not rejected.
The job to prove the claim (support it with the appropriate scientific proof which I have asked for multiple times) therefore belongs to svart-hvitt.

Attacking the persons who ask for evidence is a standard trick which it may seem that you like in this specific case.

Svart-hvitt obviously denies to disclose his education. A course or two in Philosophy does not make him a scientist.

Hum why do you think a diploma or not will help this discussion to move fwd?
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Attacking the persons who ask for evidence is a standard trick which it may seem that you like in this specific case.

I’m not attacking you. I’m trying to clarify what it is you’re asking for.

I find it hard to conceive of a meaningful study designed such that all variables other than passive/active are controlled for.

To illustrate, on one hand you could take a passive speaker and replace the crossover with an active crossover having identical frequency and phase response.

That would control for (most) other variables, but then you would have an active speaker lacking most of the inherent technical advantages active speakers offer; in other words, the study would be meaningless.

On the other hand, you could take a passive speaker and actively redesign the crossover and make other changes which do capitalise on the technical advantages of active speakers, but then you would end up with many other variables (eg amplitude response, phase response, polar response, nonlinear distortion, bass extension, etc) changed.

No doubt there would conceivably now be an audible difference, but this would be (at least arguably) attributable to the differences between this particular active implementation vs this particular passive implementation.

I wondered if you had a clearer idea than I do what you were asking for?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom