Done right, dsp magic can flatten out frequency response ripples a lot more comprehensively than passive usually does.At least in comparison of the new new LS50 models (which I don't doubt is the same with the old ones), the wireless one with inbuilt amplification/dsp is clearly objectively better. How much better is up for you to decide.
View attachment 224316
The technology is a way not a goal.Done right, dsp magic can flatten out frequency response ripples a lot more comprehensively than passive usually does.
IMD is surely different thou, its much lower in active designs and will also gain a better sound with real music ( many tones played at the same time in the whole frequency spectra ) . 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.Looking at the spins for LS50 Meta passive and the Wireless active there are some frequency response differences, especially in the bass. Distortion, there is not much difference. So EQ is needed for comparison.
Not sure what your point is. Obviously passive can give perfectly good speakers. DSP allows finer adjustments of frequency response than is practical with passive. It's all measurable.The technology is a way not a goal.
What is audible between passive design and active design?
It's the more important.
Listenable? It's the function of a speaker.Not sure what your point is. Obviously passive can give perfectly good speakers. DSP allows finer adjustments of frequency response than is practical with passive. It's all measurable.
I'm not sure what you mean. Both can be very listenable. Active has the capability to be closer to perfection.Listenable? It's the function of a speaker.
Great question....gets to the nuts of active vs passive sound quality potential.If you take the same speaker and make a good passive and a good active x-over and apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, would you be able to tell them apart?
You make a good point about the individual driver response, and that active can get you closer to the "target curve" desired for each driver.Great question....gets to the nuts of active vs passive sound quality potential.
My answer is yes, i expect to be able to tell the same speaker apart.
If by apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, you mean build a passive crossover with EQ filters built into the passive crossover, and compare that to an optimized active....... well, it can't be done, ime.
The problem is a passive EQ network simply can't duplicate the precision of active EQ. Nor can it duplicate the fine delay capability of active.
So at this level of comparison, it's not really possible to achieve the exact same on-axis response with passive as available with active.
If by apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, you mean apply EQ to the passive speaker as a whole to match the optimized active implementation with an external EQ or DSP, this can be done ime.
But the problem with this technique, is that the response matching will be at on-axis only, and even worse, only at one distance on-axis.
Reason being, an optimized active implementation will first EQ drivers individually, before summing them with xovers.
This makes the xover summation regions behave better both on and off axis.
Technically, EQ at the individual driver level (minimum phase) is almost always an appropriate benefit, but once two or more drivers are summed, their region of response overlap is not a good candidate for EQ (no longer minimum phase. (my sense is you know all this, I mean to be writing for others following along)
So, back to the case in question , when applying EQ to the entire passive speaker to match the optimized active, the EQ applied will span the xover regions and only work to match for a specific spot. The listening window response, and room response will be different, and be able to be heard.
I've tried both of these alternatives.
Replacing supposedly well done commercial passive xovers with active, has so far always improved the sound.
Trying to EQ the passives with an external EQ or DSP, has again so far, never matched the active. (this includes all-out FIR based EQs that completely match transfer functions between the passive and active...but again, only to a spot!)
Oh, I've been using the term 'optimized active'. I should mention that includes having chosen signal chain and amplification components, whose input sensitivities, output levels, and gains...allow for proper hiss-free gain staging. There's no reason for active hiss ... just means a suboptimal design imo.
Haven't even mentioned the well known sonic benefits of multi-amping...again, just part of what i mean by 'optimized active' implementation.
I enjoy listening at a greater distance in a larger room, than closer distance in a smaller.4m is an insane distance.
I´m taking the case of the LS50 Wireless II and the LS50 Metal. Amir´s review points out that the LS50 Meta reaches 80hz and from there, it goes down quite fast. The Wireless II reaches 50hz relatively well.Not sure what you refer to regarding squeeze. I just can say that proper testing is needed to verify any preference.
(And even if it adds nothing to the issue; as an active speaker user for many years (analogue LR4), replacing the filter in the current speaker with a passive filter in the mid to tweeter section, I can’t say I miss anything. )
Potentially yes but like you say it depends. The complexity of modern passive networks can give brilliant results. It's all in the implementation.They are not!
I voted “No”, but not because passive sounds better. I voted “No” because it’s a blanket statement, and things depend very much on the implementation. There are good and bad examples to be found of both concepts.
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 .Great question....gets to the nuts of active vs passive sound quality potential.
My answer is yes, i expect to be able to tell the same speaker apart.
If by apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, you mean build a passive crossover with EQ filters built into the passive crossover, and compare that to an optimized active....... well, it can't be done, ime.
The problem is a passive EQ network simply can't duplicate the precision of active EQ. Nor can it duplicate the fine delay capability of active.
So at this level of comparison, it's not really possible to achieve the exact same on-axis response with passive as available with active.
If by apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, you mean apply EQ to the passive speaker as a whole to match the optimized active implementation with an external EQ or DSP, this can be done ime.
But the problem with this technique, is that the response matching will be at on-axis only, and even worse, only at one distance on-axis.
Reason being, an optimized active implementation will first EQ drivers individually, before summing them with xovers.
This makes the xover summation regions behave better both on and off axis.
Technically, EQ at the individual driver level (minimum phase) is almost always an appropriate benefit, but once two or more drivers are summed, their region of response overlap is not a good candidate for EQ (no longer minimum phase. (my sense is you know all this, I mean to be writing for others following along)
So, back to the case in question , when applying EQ to the entire passive speaker to match the optimized active, the EQ applied will span the xover regions and only work to match for a specific spot. The listening window response, and room response will be different, and be able to be heard.
I've tried both of these alternatives.
Replacing supposedly well done commercial passive xovers with active, has so far always improved the sound.
Trying to EQ the passives with an external EQ or DSP, has again so far, never matched the active. (this includes all-out FIR based EQs that completely match transfer functions between the passive and active...but again, only to a spot!)
Oh, I've been using the term 'optimized active'. I should mention that includes having chosen signal chain and amplification components, whose input sensitivities, output levels, and gains...allow for proper hiss-free gain staging. There's no reason for active hiss ... just means a suboptimal design imo.
Haven't even mentioned the well known sonic benefits of multi-amping...again, just part of what i mean by 'optimized active' implementation.
Great question....gets to the nuts of active vs passive sound quality potential.
My answer is yes, i expect to be able to tell the same speaker apart.
If by apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, you mean build a passive crossover with EQ filters built into the passive crossover, and compare that to an optimized active....... well, it can't be done, ime.
The problem is a passive EQ network simply can't duplicate the precision of active EQ. Nor can it duplicate the fine delay capability of active.
So at this level of comparison, it's not really possible to achieve the exact same on-axis response with passive as available with active.
If by apply EQ to have the exact same on-axis response, you mean apply EQ to the passive speaker as a whole to match the optimized active implementation with an external EQ or DSP, this can be done ime.
But the problem with this technique, is that the response matching will be at on-axis only, and even worse, only at one distance on-axis.
Reason being, an optimized active implementation will first EQ drivers individually, before summing them with xovers.
This makes the xover summation regions behave better both on and off axis.
Technically, EQ at the individual driver level (minimum phase) is almost always an appropriate benefit, but once two or more drivers are summed, their region of response overlap is not a good candidate for EQ (no longer minimum phase. (my sense is you know all this, I mean to be writing for others following along)
So, back to the case in question , when applying EQ to the entire passive speaker to match the optimized active, the EQ applied will span the xover regions and only work to match for a specific spot. The listening window response, and room response will be different, and be able to be heard.
I've tried both of these alternatives.
Replacing supposedly well done commercial passive xovers with active, has so far always improved the sound.
Trying to EQ the passives with an external EQ or DSP, has again so far, never matched the active. (this includes all-out FIR based EQs that completely match transfer functions between the passive and active...but again, only to a spot!)
Oh, I've been using the term 'optimized active'. I should mention that includes having chosen signal chain and amplification components, whose input sensitivities, output levels, and gains...allow for proper hiss-free gain staging. There's no reason for active hiss ... just means a suboptimal design imo.
Haven't even mentioned the well known sonic benefits of multi-amping...again, just part of what i mean by 'optimized active' implementation.
You keep on asking for blind tests , but you havent posted any links for information that shows that your statement is correct . Is it not - I suggest you read the papers from Linkwitz and Elliot in the beginning of the thread , because you have not linked to any proof or real sciencereports that one can read .As I mentioned, a proper blind test is needed to solve the question of active vs. passive. I you look at the Meta +/- active, it is easy to adjust the response with EQ to be equal on and off-axis.
Well the information is there by Toole et al. If you have a speaker with identical on- and off-axis and similar distortion, there is a low probability that one excels over the other in a preference test.You keep on asking for blind tests , but you havent posted any links for information that shows that your statement is correct . Is it not - I suggest you read the papers from Linkwitz and Elliot , because you have not linked to any proof or real sciencereports that one can read .
That could bring light to a matter of preference; and perhaps in a test of that kind the results could show that there is no clear preference for one or the other set. Even when pure performance numbers could suggest that one is better than the other, the final user may find no substantial difference.As I mentioned, a proper blind test is needed to solve the question of active vs. passive. I you look at the Meta +/- active, it is easy to adjust the response with EQ to be equal on and off-axis.