-
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!
Active vs. passive [loud]speakers
- Thread starter NoobMD
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
There’s no technical advantage to passive speakers; indeed active speakers are technically superior in a number of respects.
There’s a whole thread on this topic somewhere on this forum FYI.
There’s a whole thread on this topic somewhere on this forum FYI.
If you speak with people who have owned the passive L50's and heard them with loads of different amps (even super expensive ones) and who then also heard the active LS50W's, the reaction is sometimes 'I never knew they could sound that could'. Even though they are all-in-ones.
I am one of these people. I guess this was a great example (to me) of what can happen when the speaker designer gets to choose the drivers and amps for these drivers and optimise the amplification of the drivers and the DSP crossover etc.
But to fully appreciate what I mean, you need to demo the passive LS50's first. Even with beefy Pass Labs amps or other highly rated amps and really good DAC if you like (just for demo purpose). Then compare with the LS50W's...
Of course I'm not suggesting everyone has been and will be blown away but I was and I do know many others that have.
Kees de Visser
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Likes
- 58
Well, without an amp they are lighter
Recently I decided to pick up playing piano on chamber music concerts so had to find a good PA system for my digital piano (easier to transport than a real grand). A good friend who is a PA pro gave advice and his first choice was Nexo, a set of passive speakers, passive sub and a separate (same brand) amp with DSP. At first I thought that active speakers were the way to go these days, but apparently not in the PA world. I can pick them up next week, so no experience yet, but I can give some feedback if anyone is interested. It's not a home setup of course, although the speakers are rather small. The DSP amp has presets for all their speaker models, so it gives the impression of a well thought of concept.
Perhaps "active or passive" isn't as relevant as "matched components" ?
Last edited:
andymok
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Well, without an amp they are lighter
Recently I decided to pick up playing piano on chamber music concerts so had to find a good PA system for my digital piano (easier to transport than a real grand). A good friend who is a PA pro gave advice and his first choice was Nexo, a set of passive speakers, passive sub and a separate (same brand) amp with DSP. At first I thought that active speakers were the way to go these days, but apparently not in the PA world. I can pick them up next week, so no experience yet, but I can give some feedback if anyone is interested. It's not a home setup of course, although the speakers are rather small. The DSP amp has presets for all their speaker models, so it gives the impression of a well thought of concept.
Perhaps "active or passive" isn't as relevant as "matched components" ?
Passives are mush easier to repair if they're for installation. Can't imagine to go mid-air just to replace a fuse in the amp.
I’ve heard a couple of speakers where I compared the active version with passive (both Quested monitors) and preferred the passive versions.
Obviously, this is a highly subjective option, not blinded, not Apples to Apples. Strictly anectdata.
I only mention to let you know this is not a universal opinion, and is part of an ongoing personal inquiry which includes this issue.
While there are many advantages to bi-amped active speakers, it’s not a “slam dunk.”
Passive speakers have some advantages.
They are generally cheaper in an “all things” equal scenario, so if you already have an amp you like you can save money.
They are less prone to needing a repair which requires taking them offline, and dealing with a more complex repair scenario.
They tend to be lighter, so easier to move. This can cause difficulty in all sorts of ways. One is that it’s more of a pain to move them around to find a good listening situation. Another is that service is required, it makes it more of pain to have to get them from their listening position.
If you have an installation where heat is an issue you can actually put the amp in a different room.
The heat issue also makes them less suitable for soffet mounting.
They can be more flexible for certain installations. For example a home theater with an AV receiver that does not have pre-amp outs,
Or an installation that has speaker wire run, but not signal.
I have different listening positions, and I do like to compare speakers. In general, it is more trouble to compare active to passive speakers for the above reasons. This tends to make my comparison experiences either active to active or passive to passive. Just something to think about.
Receivers or integrated amps also offer the convenience of multiple inputs.
If you listen mainly from a source like a computer sound module or streamer, this can be less of an issue.
On the other hand, if you want to hook up an old receiver to play vinyl records, these do not interface as easily with active speakers.
In general, there will be more adjustments to things like gain or EQ settings placed awkwardly behind the speaker, away from listening position.
Generally speaker wire is cheaper and more ubiquitous than the special cables you will need to connect to the source. (Unless you are a bit kooky and feel you need fancy wires. ). This can be an inconvenience or expense if you move speakers to where the need a longer run. (If you can make your own cables this is less of an issue.)
Most of these issues are obviously solvable. But as someone who moves speakers around and does comparisons often, these issues of “convenience” start to confront my laziness, making me less inclined to make the small changes that make a big difference.
If you are very confident in your speaker choice, have largely a fixed listening setup, and your source is a computer or streamer, you don’t have amps you want to use, active speakers can make for an incrediblely cost effective and simple solution. A lot of bang for the buck, fewer wires, and consistent performance.
These are some things to consider.
Obviously, this is a highly subjective option, not blinded, not Apples to Apples. Strictly anectdata.
I only mention to let you know this is not a universal opinion, and is part of an ongoing personal inquiry which includes this issue.
While there are many advantages to bi-amped active speakers, it’s not a “slam dunk.”
Passive speakers have some advantages.
They are generally cheaper in an “all things” equal scenario, so if you already have an amp you like you can save money.
They are less prone to needing a repair which requires taking them offline, and dealing with a more complex repair scenario.
They tend to be lighter, so easier to move. This can cause difficulty in all sorts of ways. One is that it’s more of a pain to move them around to find a good listening situation. Another is that service is required, it makes it more of pain to have to get them from their listening position.
If you have an installation where heat is an issue you can actually put the amp in a different room.
The heat issue also makes them less suitable for soffet mounting.
They can be more flexible for certain installations. For example a home theater with an AV receiver that does not have pre-amp outs,
Or an installation that has speaker wire run, but not signal.
I have different listening positions, and I do like to compare speakers. In general, it is more trouble to compare active to passive speakers for the above reasons. This tends to make my comparison experiences either active to active or passive to passive. Just something to think about.
Receivers or integrated amps also offer the convenience of multiple inputs.
If you listen mainly from a source like a computer sound module or streamer, this can be less of an issue.
On the other hand, if you want to hook up an old receiver to play vinyl records, these do not interface as easily with active speakers.
In general, there will be more adjustments to things like gain or EQ settings placed awkwardly behind the speaker, away from listening position.
Generally speaker wire is cheaper and more ubiquitous than the special cables you will need to connect to the source. (Unless you are a bit kooky and feel you need fancy wires. ). This can be an inconvenience or expense if you move speakers to where the need a longer run. (If you can make your own cables this is less of an issue.)
Most of these issues are obviously solvable. But as someone who moves speakers around and does comparisons often, these issues of “convenience” start to confront my laziness, making me less inclined to make the small changes that make a big difference.
If you are very confident in your speaker choice, have largely a fixed listening setup, and your source is a computer or streamer, you don’t have amps you want to use, active speakers can make for an incrediblely cost effective and simple solution. A lot of bang for the buck, fewer wires, and consistent performance.
These are some things to consider.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
Well, without an amp they are lighter
Recently I decided to pick up playing piano on chamber music concerts so had to find a good PA system for my digital piano (easier to transport than a real grand). A good friend who is a PA pro gave advice and his first choice was Nexo, a set of passive speakers, passive sub and a separate (same brand) amp with DSP. At first I thought that active speakers were the way to go these days, but apparently not in the PA world. I can pick them up next week, so no experience yet, but I can give some feedback if anyone is interested. It's not a home setup of course, although the speakers are rather small. The DSP amp has presets for all their speaker models, so it gives the impression of a well thought of concept.
Perhaps "active or passive" isn't as relevant as "matched components" ?
Ironic that you picked this example, as I'm a manufacturer of active PA speakers! But look, the fact that active speakers are technically better doesn't mean that all active speakers actually are better. All I'm claiming - which I think is indisputable on theoretical grounds - is that active speakers are capable of better performance for the same form factor, driver selection, etc. etc.
Also, it's not particularly about component matching, which is not so important these days in which all competently designed electronic gear will tend to perform audibly transparently. It's about the control over the signal that digital signal processing offers, particularly in the design of crossover filters, but also in terms of EQ, bass management, and various other areas that enable better performance to be squeezed out of a given box and selection of drivers.
FWIW Whilst developing my own speakers I initially used a passive crossover and external amp. I spent significant time optomising the XO. It sounded very good. However there was a big step forward in terms of clarity and neutrality moving to dsp XO and active in built amps.
Whilst I am sure you can get poor active Implementations, active dsp is the way forward in terms of sound quality. Problem is that people struggle with the idea of ditching their traditional amps and set ups - where they can tweak and change indefinitely without moving the SQ forward
Whilst I am sure you can get poor active Implementations, active dsp is the way forward in terms of sound quality. Problem is that people struggle with the idea of ditching their traditional amps and set ups - where they can tweak and change indefinitely without moving the SQ forward
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I think DSP crossovers have big potential advantages over passive.
But...as someone who has owned a lot of studio monitors....I actually prefer "ultra passive" / externally active if cost is no object and not worried about space.
Like the JBL M2.
This allows one to benefit from software or amplification upgrades without the issues of a traditional passive crossover, or the vendor lock in of a normal all-in-one active system.
D
Deleted member 2944
Guest
"Ultra passive." I haven't heard that one before. Classic!
I would say that this implies that every active speaker can have 'a passive version', which I would dispute. One of the advantages of active speakers is that options are opened up that are simply not possible with passive speakers. For example, in the passive world desperate measures are taken to minimise the number of crossovers, particularly "in the middle of the vocal range", etc. resulting in a plethora of over-stretched two-way speakers which have many of their own problems.
In audiophile applications, straightforward DSP can make crossovers transparent, meaning that not only do they sound better per se, but that more 'ways' can be added without penalty. This is a virtuous circle because the demands on the individual drivers are reduced, constancy of directivity is improved and so on.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
"Ultra passive." I haven't heard that one before. Classic!
I've been experimenting with converting a few old speakers to ultra passive, ripping out their crossovers entirely and using external DSP / biamping.
Agreed, this would be the ultimate approach IMO. Rather than the crossover and all components locked into the speaker cabnet, we have the advantage of both worlds.
D
Deleted member 2944
Guest
Well, I'm afraid that's not "ultra-passive." You've made the transition to active at that point. But, call 'em whatever you want.
Dave.
Ultra-active would be more appropriate.Well, I'm afraid that's not "ultra-passive." You've made the transition to active at that point. But, call 'em whatever you want.
Dave.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Well, I'm afraid that's not "ultra-passive." You've made the transition to active at that point. But, call 'em whatever you want.
Dave.
Hush.
You will bow to the name once it is released upon the world as #ultrapassive.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Ultra-active would be more appropriate.
OpenActive
D
Deleted member 2944
Guest
Yep, you will revolutionize audiophile nomenclature and marketing with that label. Maybe you could somehow couple with "dipole circle of confusion" and create the ultimate marketing trope?
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
This is a big claim! I’d say closer to transparent, personally. Otherwise 100% agree.
Yep, I'm not sure whether a crossover can ever be deemed "transparent" as long as the result depends on mechanical transducers plus a room. Since how then do you measure the result without them???
