-
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 is better sounding than passive
- Thread starter Tangband
- Start date
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.
The technology is a way not a goal.
What is audible between passive design and active design?
It's the more important.
- Thread Starter
- #66
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.
So the measurements you refer to is less useful.
”In short, there is simply no comparison between the two systems. A passive XO will always add (usually) undesirable impedance to that seen by the driver(s), the impedance is frequency dependent, and ranges from perhaps an ohm or so to almost infinite. The potential for uncontrolled cone movement, intermodulation distortion and loss of performance is so great that it is impossible to determine in advance, but it is all negated in one fell swoop by using a fully active system.”
Active Vs. Passive Crossovers
Active Vs. Passive Crossovers - what are the factors that make active the only choice for serious hi-fi? Driver control is not well understood, but perhaps this article will help.
Last edited:
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.
Listenable? It's the function of a speaker.
I'm not sure what you mean. Both can be very listenable. Active has the capability to be closer to perfection.
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 make a good point about the individual driver response, and that active can get you closer to the "target curve" desired for each driver.
I enjoy listening at a greater distance in a larger room, than closer distance in a smaller.
Sounds more convincing, more real.
Current setup is 4-5m.
Last edited:
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,659
- Likes
- 2,808
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.
I´m sure there´s DSP trickery involved, but it seems quite clear that the active version squeezes performance on the lower end compared to the LS50 Meta, which both share drivers and cabinet. Of course, this does not allow general conclusions on active vs. passive, as we should consider case by case.
Potentially yes but like you say it depends. The complexity of modern passive networks can give brilliant results. It's all in the implementation.
However if I was making a speaker I'd without question go active but with external electronics in a box outside the speaker . For me that's best of all worlds . I'd want control over the potential behaviour of thr drivers and want to make sure they won't ever get pushed too far buy the kinds of insane loudness and compression you can get in modern music but at the same time use the throw potential and direct amp connection to get the maximum out of all drivers at all times (.need some sort of monitoring software possibly ) . This way your golden , you won't ever have to get inside the speaker and any repair is simple in all respects.
Amps go wrong too but in a external box thats fine and dandy . , you could even have some software running room management and some sub outs on the box for a easy to manage 2.1 or 2.2 .. hell it would be much harder to go multichannel if its a intergrated program. You would just need a little box to decode the DSD or Dolby whatever .
Why this isn't done, in general the kind of high end audio manufacturers just don't have the required skill sets in-house. Even the folks like D&D took years to get Roon working , the software is not always in the wheelhouse .
One can dream , some of you I know actually do have most of the skills necessary to create these fantasy speaker systems of mine , better men than me lol
BTW the pole in the OP is silly imo .
- Thread Starter
- #75
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 .
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.
- Thread Starter
- #77
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 .
If you have valuable links about your statement to show - show it !
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.
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,659
- Likes
- 2,808
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.
Convenience and usability is a different matter, though. We don´t typically factor that element, but I think we are all aware that it is crucial when making a buying decission.
Similar threads
