Active is better sounding than passive

[voodooless]

I don't know, I'd assume if you use the Salons on your desktop, they will look a bit out of place and I don't think they will sound very nice that close.

We’re talking about an active vs passive speaker concept here, not random passive tower vs random active monitor.

So I am making the assumptions that the same applies for passive speakers that are not optimized for nearfield usage. Maybe I'm wrong, I am not sure.

So what about passive speakers that are optimized for nearfield?

So again: what does it matter how many amps it uses or where the filters are located?

Then there is hiss (sometimes).

Any random amp can hiss, if the system is active or not has no bearing on that.

 

[NiagaraPete]

We’re talking about an active vs passive speaker concept here, not random passive tower vs random active monitor.

So what about passive speakers that are optimized for nearfield?

So again: what does it matter how many amps it uses or where the filters are located?


Any random amp can hiss, if the system is active or not has no bearing on that.

Yes but hiss with actives is more of a complaint from users.

 

[voodooless]

Yes but hiss with actives is more of a complaint from users.

Possible, that would make them worse for near-field though, not better

 

[Triliza]

We’re talking about an active vs passive speaker concept here, not random passive tower vs random active monitor.

So what about passive speakers that are optimized for nearfield?

So again: what does it matter how many amps it uses or where the filters are located?


Any random amp can hiss, if the system is active or not has no bearing on that.

My comment was about the score and that it doesn't take into account the listening distance. 8030c has a higher score that F228Be. But they can't really be compare to each other, different usage scenarios.

 

[voodooless]

My comment was about the score and that it doesn't take into account the listening distance. 8030c has a higher score that F228Be. But they can't really be compare to each other, different usage scenarios.

I can grant you that, your premise however was a totally different one:

For nearfield I would think that we all agree that active speakers are vastly superior to passive ones.

That just doesn’t follow, it’s a non-sequitur.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Possible, that would make them worse for near-field though, not better

Ha yes true.

 

[Triliza]

I can grant you that, your premise however was a totally different one:

That just doesn’t follow, it’s a non-sequitur.

I am an innocent victim of ASR, everyone here says that active are better for nearfield/desktop use and I repeat the same. OMG, I have been brainwashed, I want out of the cult

 

[voodooless]

I am an innocent victim of ASR, everyone here says that active are better for nearfield/desktop use and I repeat the same. OMG, I have been brainwashed, I want out of the cult

Saying something doesn’t make it true. The point of ASR is to not let you get brainwashed, but give the knowledge to reason your way to a decent conclusion. So if you feel brainwashed, you’re doing it wrong

 

[Razorhelm]

I have definitely drunk the kool aid on actives being better, I modified some Kef LS50's to be active and I have never looked back!

KEF LS50's converted to active with brickwall linear phase crossovers via rephase and camilladsp!

Thought I would tell you guys about the speaker system I have built over lockdown. Particularly as I have used camilladsp for the crossovers and eq and I didn’t find much about that online outside a thread on diyaudio.com by the amazing author of the software helping people with it and the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I really think that the ultimate system is a set of discrete component with DSP based EQ and crossovers.

Speakers with no passive crossovers just binding posts for each driver

Amplifiers

DACs

DSP

Audio source

That way if anything fails you just drop in a replacement and each part can be optimised for it's function.

However I can see how this is way too much complexity for the average user but in terms of sound quality, I don't really see how a passive could ever be better than a fully optimised active system. Steep crossovers, EQ, delays for time alignment and the ability (in a system with a configurable DSP) to adjust it however you want.

The advantages of passive always seem to be due to another part not being optimised, noisy amplifiers, drivers with troublesome impedance or a cost/complexity issue not sound quality.

 

[Matthias McCready]

As always, it all depends on how a system is implemented. Are there active speakers at the top of audio reproduction? Surely! Just think of the Genelecs. Would I buy them? No, not at those prices and not instead of passive solutions of the same range, not because I think the passives sound better but because the system of speakers, amplifiers, dacs etc etc excites me more, it amuses me, it is my passion.
If I cared ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY about the music I could take the genelecs and live peacefully, but hifi for me is also a fun, a passion, the pleasure of trying new things, of trying different speakers, of changing an element when I feel like it.
And then I hate the idea that if only one element of an active amplifier breaks, the whole system won't work, it might never happen, but statistically the more complex a system is and the more elements it has, the more likely something is to break, and if many years have passed I could have great difficulties and restore the system.
Instead, I'm sure my passive speakers will continue to work over and over and over ...

This is a good point, and it is valid; I however want the opposite.

I don't particularly enjoy mixing and matching elements, this does not appeal to me.

For systems and speakers I want a tool that is flat and linear. Like any tool the performance must justify the price paid. This is why even for listening to music for pleasure, I still am inclined to stick with commercial products and brands, as there is a closer correlation between price and performance.

Like any tool should it break, it will be fixed or replaced, depending on which is most cost appropriate.

Top level speakers are very selective on the drivers used, and each individual loudspeaker system may be tailored to individual drivers used, so any repairs may mean shipping the product back to the manufacturer and paying them to bring it back to the original specs. While this is not cheap, it is thorough, and does a good job to ensure that tools are operating as intended.

---

Different strokes for different blokes.

 

[gnarly]

I have definitely drunk the kool aid on actives being better, I modified some Kef LS50's to be active and I have never looked back!

KEF LS50's converted to active with brickwall linear phase crossovers via rephase and camilladsp!

Thought I would tell you guys about the speaker system I have built over lockdown. Particularly as I have used camilladsp for the crossovers and eq and I didn’t find much about that online outside a thread on diyaudio.com by the amazing author of the software helping people with it and the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I have definitely drunk the kool aid on actives being better, I modified some Kef LS50's to be active and I have never looked back!

Nice project!! The kool aid works, huh?

I'll post onto your thread tomorrow, regarding some of the pre-ring comments i saw there. I've played with, and have measured, linear phase xovers a lot, both steep and shallow. But a bit off topic on this thread....

 

[Thomas_A]

As already pointed out - passive crossovers are innacurate and unlinear compared to dsp crossovers .

You are entirely wrong asuming that the crossovers in ls50 and ls50 wireless is the same - they are not . I would guess the ls50 has both eq , notchfiltering and a higher order crossoverslope in the dsp crossover , taiming the breakupmodes in the metal driver in a much better way than the passive speaker.

Further , the frequency response may look the same , but different order of crossover and different suppression of breakup modes makes a big impact on sound quality .

If KEF had all those things, why did they not go the whole way? LS50 active is certainly not within +-1 dB on axis. It is the final result that counts.

 

[thewas]

This is my experience to - the active crossover ( if its done right ) always wins in pure soundquality compared to a passive crossover, with better dynamics and overall a clearer sound .

That is just your anecdotal experience where I am sure like in all such typical amateur comparisons the filter functions we not absolutely identical, haven't seen any paper or blind test showing that someone could discern a well implemented passive and active crossover with the exact same filter function. As said the main advantage of active crossovers is that it is easier to achieve the desired filter function and some functions are not implementable at all with passive filters.

In a passive crossover, the crossover will be slightly different depending on volume, depending on the drivers changed inductance and resistance while playing real music - not good.

When the resistance of the voice coil increases due to heating up, the response will also change on an active crossover, unless you model and compensate it which almost no home audio company does, also because this change is usually low in typical home loudspeakers usage, in PA it is different.

As already pointed out - passive crossovers are innacurate and unlinear compared to dsp crossovers .

Such a vague statement clearly shows lack of understanding of loudspeaker engineering. Also like others have already criticised it is not clear what the exact topic and agenda is, asking general in a about a poll with the topic active vs passive and then moving the goalpost and suddenly talking about DSP crossovers.

 

[abdo123]

Why? How is listening distance a factor?

Alignment of drivers is easier when you have access to delays and FIR filters.

 

[abdo123]

If KEF had all those things, why did they not go the whole way? LS50 active is certainly not within +-1 dB on axis. It is the final result that counts.

It is a +- 1dB on axis on their advertised measurements, there has been a consistent trend of their measurements being a bit off from the Klippel, but within margin of error.

The 'Harman Measuring System' is atrocious in comparision.

 

[abdo123]

People need to stop with this narrative that passive crossovers can be just as good as active crossovers. they can't, never will never were. the Neumann KH80 just mops the floor with any passive 2-way with regards to its linearity while being very modestly priced. Heck even vertical lobing is almost non-existent due to 48dB/oct sloped crossovers.

 

[Thomas_A]

It is a +- 1dB on axis on their advertised measurements, there has been a consistent trend of their measurements being a bit off from the Klippel, but within margin of error.

The 'Harman Measuring System' is atrocious in comparision.

Anyhow the measurements from Amir and Erin looks suprisingly similar except bass extension and a higher treble of the active. Distortiion is similar. Erin shows +/- 3 dB 80-16000 Hz for the active one with a dip 1-3 kHz. The passive one looks the same with a dip 1-3 kHz.

So if you would EQ the low and high to be the same for both speakers, you would most likely not hear any difference. With on and off-axis being virtually the same, distortion the same, there is no other magic in the active one that would make it superior to the passive LS50. If there is, one should have read a lot of papers about it by Toole and company.

 

[thewas]

People need to stop with this narrative that passive crossovers can be just as good as active crossovers. they can't, never will never were. the Neumann KH80 just mops the floor with any passive 2-way with regards to its linearity while being very modestly priced. Heck even vertical lobing is almost non-existent due to 48dB/oct sloped crossovers.

People need to stop mixing all things together and making such generalisations. As said a well implemented passive crossover can be in a blind test indiscernible from a good active one with the same total filter function, it is just that on a passive one a loudspeaker engineer is more limited in what filter options can be implemented. Now about that not expedient KH 80 example as an argumentative help, the same total linearity could be even obtained with a passive crossover and many passive or DSP filters and even high slopes can be achieved with a passive crossover, like for example Gauder loudspeakers have (up to 60dB/oct) and the very good vertical directivity is also a result of the small driver sizes (and with a coaxial driver you can get an even better even with low crossover slopes). If I would engineer a loudspeaker nowadays I would also use an active DSP crossover, but the impression that threads like these give is that passive ones always necessarily sound audibly worse, which they don't, as always the total engineering and implementation counts much more than which components and route was chosen.
By the way in the German DIY loudspeaker community there was several years ago the challenge if the performance of the very good active KH120 could be also achieved with a DIY and the successful answer was even passive. https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/dxt-mon-vs-neumann-kh-120a/

 

[abdo123]

People need to stop mixing all things together and making such generalisations. As said a well implemented passive crossover can be in a blind test indiscernible from a good active one with the same total filter function, it is just that on a passive one a loudspeaker engineer is more limited in what filter options can be implemented. Now about that not expedient KH 80 example as an argumentative help, the same total linearity could be even obtained with a passive crossover and many passive or DSP filters and even high slopes can be achieved with a passive crossover, like for example Gauder loudspeakers have (up to 60dB/oct) and the very good vertical directivity it also a result of the small driver sizes (and with a coaxial driver you can get an even better even with low crossover slopes). If I would engineer a loudspeaker nowadays I would also use an active DSP crossover, but the impression that threads like these give is that passive ones always necessarily sound audibly worse, which they don't, as always the total engineering and implementation counts much more than which components and route was chosen.

You can’t do high slopes passively, the group delay in the midrange will outshine any improvements (which are tiny to begin with) you may get with better controlled vertical lobing.

 

[thewas]

You can’t do high slopes passively, the group delay in the midrange will outshine any improvements (which are tiny to begin with) you may get with better controlled vertical lobing.

You can implement also passive allpass filters, it is not simple though and personally I would rather use an active or coaxial concept though.