Active is better sounding than passive

[voodooless]

it is not simple

That's basically what it boils down to You can do all kinds of wacky shit passively, but it's going to be complex, big, and expensive.

Imagine doing a passive subwoofer room correction...

Obviously, a passive filter cannot mess with causality as an FIR filter can.

 

[thewas]

That's basically what it boils down to You can do all kinds of wacky shit passively, but it's going to be complex, big, and expensive.

Imagine doing a passive subwoofer room correction...

Obviously, a passive filter cannot mess with causality as an FIR filter can.

Exactly, it always depends on the usage, that's why on subwoofers and large power PA systems you rarely see passive solutions, but for example for a typical compact 2-way loudspeaker the numberr of advantages of an active solution can be often be similar to the number of disadvantages, like hiss, extra cabling, AD/DA for DSP etc, reliability/cooling, especially on a non unlimited budget.

 

[Mnyb]

Active has rolled over passive for studio use since decades ? even in smaller monitors for many reasons , so the pro's and con's would in the end favor active especially now with all cheap digital trickery at hand ? Interesting nitpicking as always by the readership for the last pages of this tread .

I thinks it really about the lack of good products at reasonable prices geared at the home user for various reasons that I think includes the following (but there are certainly more ) .

* conservative users who are steeped in the lore of audiphilia and value for example large monobloc's on the floor etc , and don't see the higher grade of optimization and integrations as having any value , they still want to tinker with cables and DAC and stuff , even if it's a known dead end and wont help .

* conservative manufacturers catering to their customers ? often because that's what they know how to do , for example endless variation of the old BBC paradigm without any innovation ?

* no "killer app" by any company the KEF LS60 is tantalizing , but it could be more . Meridian had a go 20 years ago , but all they did was a proprietary silo .
But really they are to few we need variety from a plethora of manufacturers and also dearly needed is a common standard for these things (home active speakers ) .

The future , well it looks like active is coming after all , but from the bottom not from the top (as in high end ) what we enthusiast would consider "junk" is getting bigger better and more expensive from sonos like systems to bt speakers and soundbars et all ? that's what i think.
The active subwoofer is very popular is it not ?
But its very very slow going .

 

[fpitas]

I'm not even sure how you could design a meaningful test of passive vs active. I guess you could put the drivers in their box(es), with terminals to attach either a passive or active crossover. Fine. But then the quibbling begins. How much EQ circuitry (traps etc) will you tolerate in the passive? Can it end up being a monstrous collection of coils and capacitors? How powerful can the DSP be for the active? Who does the programming? And the vagueness just gets worse...

 

[Vacceo]

I´d say that for high end, active often times competes with older customers who already have gear they want to keep. If you already have a good amp, preamp, AVP and so on, passives are a good idea just to cut costs.

With programs such as Dirac or Audyssey, the distance between an active and a passive gets reduced in terms of final output. User cases are varied, that´s why systems are also varied.

 

[Thomas_A]

I had active filter for subwoofer and used Behringer 1100P as PEQ 20 years ago. And LR4 active for mid and tweeter. The latter was replaced with a passive x-over and one notch filter. Active subs still but Behringer ditched for Audyssey to tame room. I miss nothing and is happy for less gear.

 

[Vacceo]

There is, however, an area where speculation is interesting. Companies such as Klipsch, JBL or KEF, who have one leg on the passive and another on the active, can compare results and implementations quite well.

The basis for a good speaker are the same for both active or passive: cabinet, drivers and frequency management (traditional crossover, dsp...). That said, I wonder how well the knowledge from one side permeates to the other. In the case of KEF, it is clear that the Blade has influenced the LS60, but at the same time, I wonder how the LS60 may influence future passive speakers.

 

[JiiPee]

As the music is mainly stored in digital domain, it makes sense to keep it digital as long as possible in the playback chain, so that only one domain transformation is needed. I understand the comments about possible repair costs and hassle in case of speaker-integrated amplifier failure, but I see no reason why the amplifiers could not be made as easily removable units that could be swapped by users. Ditto for digital electronics.

Of course, for those who love separate boxes for maximum flexibility, we could have systems consisting of the following components: A streamer - a DSP (for accoustis correction) - Second DSP(for speaker specific crossovers) - DACs for each driver - Amplifiers for each driver - Speakers(basically just drivers in boxes).

 

[Thomas_A]

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/

Regading, the DXT-MON, seems like a good speaker. Very linear fr response and smooth off-axis.

 

[Vacceo]

As the music is mainly stored in digital domain, it makes sense to keep it digital as long as possible in the playback chain, so that only one domain transformation is needed. I understand the comments about possible repair costs and hassle in case of speaker-integrated amplifier failure, but I see no reason why the amplifiers could not be made as easily removable units that could be swapped by users. Ditto for digital electronics.

Of course, for those who love separate boxes for maximum flexibility, we could have systems consisting of the following components: A streamer - a DSP (for accoustis correction) - Second DSP(for speaker specific crossovers) - DACs for each driver - Amplifiers for each driver - Speakers(basically just drivers in boxes).

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.

 

[gnarly]

I'm not even sure how you could design a meaningful test of passive vs active. I guess you could put the drivers in their box(es), with terminals to attach either a passive or active crossover. Fine. But then the quibbling begins. How much EQ circuitry (traps etc) will you tolerate in the passive? Can it end up being a monstrous collection of coils and capacitors? How powerful can the DSP be for the active? Who does the programming? And the vagueness just gets worse...

Easiest way I know is to have two of the same speaker, and put the best passive you can make in one, and the best active in the other.
Measure and listen.

I don't think it makes sense to constrain either the passive or the active, other than how much time/money/effort am I willing to put into each type to make the best i can.
That's all i care about; what's the best sound I can make....i swear, if a monkey beating a piece of plywood was the best speaker i ever heard, that's what i want! haha

I don't know how to make passives, so all my speaker comparisons with passives have been against what the manufacturer made.
Having a pair of speakers that measure that same whichever way they are setup is obviously necessary. Haven't had a problem there, and if it gets suspect, I just swap which speaker gets what and re-compare.

 

[fpitas]

Easiest way I know is to have two of the same speaker, and put the best passive you can make in one, and the best active in the other.
Measure and listen.

I don't think it makes sense to constrain either the passive or the active, other than how much time/money/effort am I willing to put into each type to make the best i can.
That's all i care about; what's the best sound I can make....i swear, if a monkey beating a piece of plywood was the best speaker i ever heard, that's what i want! haha

I don't know how to make passives, so all my speaker comparisons with passives have been against what the manufacturer made.
Having a pair of speakers that measure that same whichever way they are setup is obviously necessary. Haven't had a problem there, and if it gets suspect, I just swap which speaker gets what and re-compare.

Passives have the distinct disadvantage that some otherwise excellent drivers have bad spots that need EQ. That can get "partsy" with a passive, adding traps etc. With DSP it's just another PEQ point or three.

 

[Tangband]

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.

Very true.
We, who have experience in a lot of DIY building with dsp crossovers KNOWS that this is real and its a fact.

No one , I say again no one, has shown any links with information were passive are as good as actives in this thread. There are just a bunch of passive believers, who really wants to believe that passive crossovers are just as good as actives, which they arent, as Linkwitz and Elliot AND Genelec/ Neumann already has shown. Its time to wake up and help us all to take the next active dsp-step into the future of hifi.

 

[fpitas]

Very true ! We, who have experience in a lot of DIY building with dsp crossovers KNOWS that this is real and its a fact.

No one , I say no one, has shown any links with information were passive are as good as actives in this thread. There are just a bunch of passive believers, who really wants to believe that passive crossovers are just as good as actives, which they arent, as Linkwitz and Elliot AND Genelec/ Neumann already has shown. Its time to wake up and help us all to take the next active dsp-step into the future of hifi.

I'm on your side. But as I said, it's a hard thing to test or prove.

 

[Tangband]

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.

You are a true believer without any fact to prove your statement in this matter.

Havent you read the Elliot and Linkwitz papers I already linked to in the beginning , or are ju resistant to facts and physics ? The evidence of active superiority is there for everyone to see. Why dont you show ME some links for your statements of passives as good as actives ? I guess you cant, cause theres no such information….

 

[Thomas_A]

You are a true believer without any fact to prove your statement In this matter.

Havent you read the Elliot and Linkwitz papers I already linked to in the beginning , or are ju resistant to facts and physics ? The evidence of active superiority is there for everyone to see. Why dont you show ME some links for your statements thpassives as good as actives ? I guess you cant, cause theres no such information….

Nope, I am not a believer. Toole et al. has already published most of the research. A linear response with smooth off-axis dispersion is ideal. Such as the DXT-MON passive monitor:

Heissmann Acoustics | DXT-MON vs. Neumann KH-120A

DXT-MON vs. Neumann KH-120A. A scientifical comparison, or "How far can I get to DIY and where are the boundaries"

heissmann-acoustics.de

I read a lot Elliot pages when I modified my LR active filter 20 years ago being a believer that active all the way must be the ideal. I am not convinced today. It is the final result that is important. And LS50 active is not accurate enough for my needs.

 

[Timcognito]

Pretty simple from my prospective its a scenario that repeats with all technology called integration. One use to stand in front of a car or plane to crank start it, not anymore, you need a computer to analyse it when it breaks. With passive speakers the brain trust is with you and with active the brain trust is with the designer who is getting paid to integrate it. I think the advantage goes to the later for better execution in vast majority of cases. Now as for room correction that can be debated.

 

[Mnyb]

As the music is mainly stored in digital domain, it makes sense to keep it digital as long as possible in the playback chain, so that only one domain transformation is needed. I understand the comments about possible repair costs and hassle in case of speaker-integrated amplifier failure, but I see no reason why the amplifiers could not be made as easily removable units that could be swapped by users. Ditto for digital electronics.

Of course, for those who love separate boxes for maximum flexibility, we could have systems consisting of the following components: A streamer - a DSP (for accoustis correction) - Second DSP(for speaker specific crossovers) - DACs for each driver - Amplifiers for each driver - Speakers(basically just drivers in boxes).

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 ?

 

[Vacceo]

Perhaps this may sound completely stupid, but given the same passives, is it possible that Audyssey (or Room Perfect, or...) work better than Dirac (or the other way round) on said particular speaker model?

 

[gnarly]

I read a lot Elliot pages when I modified my LR active filter 20 years ago being a believer that active all the way must be the ideal. I am not convinced today. It is the final result that is important. And LS50 active is not accurate enough for my needs.

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?