Active is better sounding than passive

[Tangband]

Is there any reason you aren’t naming the actual product models that you feel failed prematurely? I’d be interested to know. I currently have Genelec monitors that were manufactured in 2007 and still working fine.

This is good to know that there is active monitors still alive after 15 years.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

This is wrong - you dont have the facts to back this up . Elliott sound production and Siegfried Linkwitz has shown ( and many others ) there are big sound advantages in the active approach . And they back it up with measurements .

What evidence do you have for your statement ? . Just saying that the SQ is the same with passive and active loudspeakers is not good enough .

Your black and white statement just doesn’t hold true for the overall situation. There are very good passive as well as active speakers and one can not generalize it as it all depends on the engineering and implementation.
You want data - just look at the list of speakers reviewed on this site or by Erin. There are plenty of good passive ones and less good active ones and vice versa.

I own Kef Reference 3 (Passive) plus KF92 and Neumann KH80 plus KH750 both not too bad in their respective class, yet of different design.

 

[DanielT]

.... than an active one with poor hissing electronics. ...

Kali lp-6v1 vs Kali lp-6v2. Kali did a good job of reducing what you mention. Not that I know if V1 was bad , but still.

Incidentally, the Jamo C 93 II mentioned in this thread vs Kali lp-6v2. No talk about it there. Not many seconds are needed in the first round before the knockout occurs.
(If you don't like excessively sizzling tweeters)

 

[Tangband]

The active Kef ls50 wireless II is rewieved by Erin :

 

[solderdude]

Active speakers have the potential of performing/sounding/measuring better than passives using the same drivers/cabinet but depends on implementation.
It is easier to EQ drivers by software/hardware active filters than it is to do so passively. Easier to create steep filters as well and tolerances can be smaller.
For woofers and drivers with the resonance being close to the cutoff frequency active can provide a higher damping factor.

All of this at the cost of longevity and upgrade-ability of amplifier power.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

All of this at the cost of longevity and upgrade-ability of amplifier power.

Smart active designs provide the correct amount of amplifier power for the drivers and their associated DSPed EQ curves -- IOW, "upgrade-ability of amplifier power" doesn't make sense in the context of active speaker systems, assuming competent engineering by the mfr. As for the problem of high, hissy noise floors, that's mostly a matter of the available silicon -- usually monolithic Class D amp (or amp+DSP a la Kali) chips nowadays -- rather than an intrinsic characteristic of active speakers.

 

[Triliza]

One of the problems with active speakers is that they are too expensive for farfield listening. If you are sitting at about 4m away (13 foot), you need to spend five figures, following Genelecs recommendations and to be able to get desired spl. Same for the Kii's, 8c and other active implementation.

 

[Frgirard]

The active design is an easy way to make a good CHEAP speakers.
That's all.
The rest is the metaphysics, rethoric...

 

[Frgirard]

One of the problems with active speakers is that they are too expensive for farfield listening. If you are sitting at about 4m away (13 foot), you need to spend five figures, following Genelecs recommendations and to be able to get desired spl. Same for the Kii's, 8c and other active implementation.

4m is an insane distance. No needs to build an expensive speakers to hear the room.
In a non treated room, the high decay do than a little book shelf will do enough noise to exit the room.
A pair of kh420 is cheap regarding the hi-fi world.

 

[Thomas_A]

Active speakers have the potential of performing/sounding/measuring better than passives using the same drivers/cabinet but depends on implementation.
It is easier to EQ drivers by software/hardware active filters than it is to do so passively. Easier to create steep filters as well and tolerances can be smaller.
For woofers and drivers with the resonance being close to the cutoff frequency active can provide a higher damping factor.

All of this at the cost of longevity and upgrade-ability of amplifier power.

With respect to EQ, you can do that quite easily today with any speaker.

 

[Frgirard]

Before the jblm2, the jbl lsr 6332 has been the reference speaker in the Harman room.

 

[Mnyb]

With active filters (DSP or analog ) both xover frequency and slopes stays the way you designed not influenced by the drivers impedance etc .
With passive circuits , you may need to compensate the drivers impedance peaks with some notch circiut's so that the actual filter will do the right thing and then there's tolerances in passive component's and also series resistance and nonlinear behavior of inductances .

The benefit is obvious with subwoofers no one tries a passive xover these days .

Also a large inductor and a low xoxer point usually gives some series resistance and tweeters and midranges usually have resistive lpads due to them being more efficent than bass drivers .

Meaning that the often coveted "damping factor" in amps actually only does it thing fully in an active design where the amp is connected directly to the driver without any series impedance of any kind .

That said I'm still unsure if i ever go active again (having Meridian DSP5200 for the moment ) , the kef LS60 is tempting as it also does stuff you cant do at all with passive designs (the distortion reduction tech they have ).

That's another factor active designs can have stuff simply not feasible with a passive design

And as always implementation is everything and it must also work well within your listening space .

There are not that many active designs geared at home listening in far field . The very best/most actives are made for monitoring in near and midfield and they are probably very very good used in that way, but there is a limited selection otherwise . Unless very big and expensive main monitors are your thing

So I'm still unsure if not for a home listener , a passive can still be a better compromise ? especial re reliability and future proofing .
And I'm also held back by the fact the best semi standard for digital connection of multiple actives is Wisa ? Something better and more universaly adopted must come into existence for actives to be more common .

In some parts of the markets active has already taken over in small portable speakers and soundbars ?

 

[solderdude]

With respect to EQ, you can do that quite easily today with any speaker.

But I am not talking about EQ in the sense of room EQ or tonal correction but ensuring the drivers are 'compensated' correctly (when needed) which is a lot harder to do passively without creating very complex passive filters which also have their limitations.

Smart active designs provide the correct amount of amplifier power for the drivers and their associated DSPed EQ curves -- IOW, "upgrade-ability of amplifier power" doesn't make sense in the context of active speaker systems, assuming competent engineering by the mfr.

Yes, one of the advantages of active speakers. In fact it is even easy to apply soft clipping or programmed limiting of power for individual drivers which is not possible passively.
There is a substantial difference between a cheap/low end KRK, JBL or Mackie and a Genelec or Neumann.
I haven't seen Amir trade in his passives for some Genelecs or TOTL JBL or anything else. Maybe some day he will.

It is all about the implementation. In both active and passive speakers there is crap and top notch performance.

As for the problem of high, hissy noise floors, that's mostly a matter of the available silicon -- usually monolithic Class D amp (or amp+DSP a la Kali) chips nowadays -- rather than an intrinsic characteristic of active speakers.

Hiss in some active monitors is usually caused by skimping on production costs in entry level active speakers.
A cheap active monitor may be outclassed by a better engineered passive speaker + amp.

 

[Vacceo]

With active filters (DSP or analog ) both xover frequency and slopes stays the way you designed not influenced by the drivers impedance etc .
With passive circuits , you may need to compensate the drivers impedance peaks with some notch circiut's so that the actual filter will do the right thing and then there's tolerances in passive component's and also series resistance and nonlinear behavior of inductances .

The benefit is obvious with subwoofers no one tries a passive xover these days .

Also a large inductor and a low xoxer point usually gives some series resistance and tweeters and midranges usually have resistive lpads due to them being more efficent than bass drivers .

Meaning that the often coveted "damping factor" in amps actually only does it thing fully in an active design where the amp is connected directly to the driver without any series impedance of any kind .

That said I'm still unsure if i ever go active again (having Meridian DSP5200 for the moment ) , the kef LS60 is tempting as it also does stuff you cant do at all with passive designs (the distortion reduction tech they have ).

That's another factor active designs can have stuff simply not feasible with a passive design

And as always implementation is everything and it must also work well within your listening space .

There are not that many active designs geared at home listening in far field . The very best/most actives are made for monitoring in near and midfield and they are probably very very good used in that way, but there is a limited selection otherwise . Unless very big and expensive main monitors are your thing

So I'm still unsure if not for a home listener , a passive can still be a better compromise ? especial re reliability and future proofing .
And I'm also held back by the fact the best semi standard for digital connection of multiple actives is Wisa ? Something better and more universaly adopted must come into existence for actives to be more common .

In some parts of the markets active has already taken over in small portable speakers and soundbars ?

Hopefully, WiSa should evolve into a system capable of supporting more channels. 8 is not bad, but 16 should be a loooot more flexible, allowing to cover most home theatres.

 

[Thomas_A]

But I am not talking about EQ in the sense of room EQ or tonal correction but ensuring the drivers are 'compensated' correctly (when needed) which is a lot harder to do passively without creating very complex passive filters which also have their limitations.

I know what you mean, but I was more into the end result. 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?

 

[Bruce Morgen]

A cheap active monitor may be outclassed by a better engineered passive speaker + amp.

True enough -- likewise a typical decent entry-level combination of passive speakers and separate amp "may be outclassed by a" pair of decent entry-level active studio monitors, which would typically cost a good deal fewer $$$, e.g. "2nd Wave" Kali LP-6s vs. big box store Elac, Polk, or Klipsch two-way models plus a good amp beefy enough to deal with their relatively low sensitivity. IMO competently engineered active speakers will win every time at any sub-$1000(USD) total cost -- and those better actives comprise a total "better engineered" solution whereas the consumer makes what amounts to an (important, if rudimentary) engineering decision when s/he teams passive speakers with an amp.

 

[Tangband]

I know what you mean, but I was more into the end result. 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?

Yes - this seems to be done in the comparison between ls50 and ls50 W in the first part of this thread.
The active ls50 W were prefered.

The sound from the active speaker will typical sound clearer and more dynamic and with less distortion If the active design is well done. The active dsp crossover approach can attenuate breakups much more efficient than a passive design. This is probably done in a better way in the active Kef ls50 W than in ls50.

Again - its important to compare good designs when comparing active to passive loudspeakers - a bad active design is
worse sounding than a good passive design.

 

[Thomas_A]

Yes - this seems to be done in the comparison between ls50 and ls50 W in the first part of this thread.
The active ls50 W were prefered.

The sound from the active speaker will typical sound clearer and more dynamic and with less distortion If the active design is well done. The active dsp crossover approach can attenuate breakups much more efficient than a passive design. This is probably done in a better way in the active Kef ls50 W than in ls50.

Again - its important to compare good designs when comparing active to passive loudspeakers - a bad active design is
worse sounding than a good passive design.

I don't think it will apply since they need to EQ the response to be identical. Also, blind tests are needed to verify any preference for one or the other.

 

[Vacceo]

It would be interesting to know If there are any annoying noise from Kef ls50 W . When I listened to them 3 meters away, I couldnt hear any noise at all.

I use them on a daily basis for TV, radio and music. So far, I haven´t heard anything. The hiss has been reported on the LS60´s, but chances are it can be fixed with a patch. The listening position is around 2 meters and the only thing I miss is the capacity to EQ a bit further, because the wall in front of the speakers is reflective, so with the right eq software (I have used Audyssey in that room, so I guess Dirac can work equally well), it is easy to tone it down.

I know what you mean, but I was more into the end result. 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?

I guess that making two speakers offer a similar in radiation pattern, the potential advantage of an active is in the squeeze the frequency response all things being equal.

 

[Thomas_A]

I use them on a daily basis for TV, radio and music. So far, I haven´t heard anything. The hiss has been reported on the LS60´s, but chances are it can be fixed with a patch. The listening position is around 2 meters and the only thing I miss is the capacity to EQ a bit further, because the wall in front of the speakers is reflective, so with the right eq software (I have used Audyssey in that room, so I guess Dirac can work equally well), it is easy to tone it down.


I guess that making two speakers offer a similar in radiation pattern, the potential advantage of an active is in the squeeze the frequency response all things being equal.

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. )