Are active speakers still worthwhile?

[kyuu]

Much of the power 'does' reach the woofer in a passive crossover. (DCR of series inductor(s) is usually minimal.)
And the components become high impedance out of band, so the power is not "wasted."

I wonder about statements like these. You need to be very clear with statements when talking to audiophiles so as not to confuse them.

The notion that significant amounts of power are lost in a passive crossover always seemed weird to me. Is there really a ton of waste heat getting generated by crossover boards and dumped into speaker chassis? I mean considering that average power levels in real use are usually in the single digits of watts, "significant" power loss would be on the order of microwatts. But that doesn't seem like something worth worrying about in that case.

 

[Heinrich]

Much of the power 'does' reach the woofer in a passive crossover. (DCR of series inductor(s) is usually minimal.)
And the components become high impedance out of band, so the power is not "wasted."

I wonder about statements like these. You need to be very clear with statements when talking to audiophiles so as not to confuse them.

It's not so much power, but voltage. There's a difference ;-) This needs a deeper investigation, that is part of the DIY fun - I won't take it away from you.

Anyway, an example: bass drivers usually need equalisation because efficancy rises with frequency, baffle step etc. With passive this is done using an inductor plus. For a given voltage from the amp it gets attenuated in the x/over and the current likewise, and so the power. Conversely for frequency response that amp's output is required. With active the designer can take advantage of the rising efficiancy, and by that reducing the amp's output voltage. The current at the driver, hence in the whole chain is the same. Since the inductor is reactive, and the amp has a minimal internal impedance, and the drivers resistance is the same, virtually no power is saved (sorry, I know).

But, the amp's output, voltage wise, is lower. Voltage is the most limiting factor in modern digital amps. More headroom!

 

[Davey]

It's not so much power, but voltage. There's a difference ;-) This needs a deeper investigation, that is part of the DIY fun - I won't take it away from you.

Thank you. I wouldn't want you to spoil it for me.
I'm fully understanding now why many have you on 'ignore'.

 

[Nih Noh]

It's not so much power, but voltage. There's a difference ;-) This needs a deeper investigation, that is part of the DIY fun - I won't take it away from you.

Anyway, an example: bass drivers usually need equalisation because efficancy rises with frequency, baffle step etc. With passive this is done using an inductor plus. For a given voltage from the amp it gets attenuated in the x/over and the current likewise, and so the power. Conversely for frequency response that amp's output is required. With active the designer can take advantage of the rising efficiancy, and by that reducing the amp's output voltage. The current at the driver, hence in the whole chain is the same. Since the inductor is reactive, and the amp has a minimal internal impedance, and the drivers resistance is the same, virtually no power is saved (sorry, I know).

But, the amp's output, voltage wise, is lower. Voltage is the most limiting factor in modern digital amps. More headroom!

This is total BS lol

 

[Heinrich]

This is total BS lol

I deleted a post of mine that tried to defend myself, before I read this one. Sorry, guys. You may bring this over to the DIY section, and I explain it in detail. (So, it's not 'BS'.)

 

[Nih Noh]

Bring it wherever you want. It's total bullshit.

 

[Heinrich]

Bring it wherever you want. It's total bullshit.

It started w/ post #111, where efficiency was introduced to the comparison active/passive. Insertion loss due to passive components (in bass especially) was stated in post #113. Post #118 celebrated 3dB gain in efficiency - mind you, with the same drivers, referring to post #2.

It's a merry-go-round of urban legends, propelled by sloppy problem statements. Would one compare, efficiency wise, a passive driven by one amp to an active having multiple amps? Cost, any consideration?

Yes, a crossover will eat watts. Most have resistors in that attenuate the tweeter by large, especially with the exemplary AsciLab waveguide.

But what's the problem with that?

If the bass is attenuated towards the mids by an inductor - DIY knowledge, will that eat watts? Yes, thermal watts, heat in an A/B-amp, the analog variety. Because ... - deeper engineering knowledge. But until the amp is not overheated, because the "watts" are only demanded on peaks, it is not the thermal power that limits output. Neither is it the current because, maybe general knowledge, there are reserves in the power supply. It's the operating voltage. More so with a D-amp, digital.

I assumed, that the problem statement with questioning insertion loss is the available max sound pressure level given an amp of finite capabilities.

Again, if you say 'BS', because I compared a passive driven by a single amp with an active driven by multiple amps, alas, you are perfectly right.

 

[jEDGEc0m]

My amateur active bi-amp conversion employed a decent amount of DSP cuts to the signal going to the woofer - so maybe that's losing effective final "SPL" - but the signal the amplifier is receiving is reduced in energy in the areas of those cuts - That'd surely be less "work" for the amp to do.

Presumably more "efficient" for the amp's task, but maybe not actually more SPL than a passive crossover with the same amp?

 

[Heinrich]

Correct.

Confirmed, that's what I was talking about. With passive, as to have the desired sound output, you need a certain voltage at the binding posts of the speaker box into the crossover. The crossover attenuates the voltage before it is applied to the speaker driver's terminal - a passive equalisation. That attentuation is (nearly) lossless** due to the reactive impedances involved, inductor(s), capacitor(s). Only the current gets phase shifted, which may induce some losses in an A/B-amp. The latter is for the most part not relevant with class-D amps. (Word of caution: the EPRD is only remotely relevant in this regard. EPRD addresses the instantaneous stress on the just and only A/B's output transistors, the so called SOAR, safe operating area, in connection to secondary breakdown. How to explain all these complications to the general public? In brief: don't worry, if it doesn't kill the amp, the sound will be fine?! But which eager hifi-enthisiast is going to believe me. You asked, but at which level to answer, without generating 'FUD'?)

With active the equalisation is done on signal level, which naturally circumvents the above. But logically that's not comparable, because you sinply have at least doubled the number of amps. It was my fault to fall for it, cementing a fallacy. I hope I finally could contribute a little to help out.

** talking about bass / mid equalisation, not tweeter, which are eq'ed mostly by resistors designed to be lossy - look how complicated it gets! How to explain correctly to someone w/o some basics at hand, trustworthy real knowledge.

 

[traind]

Bring it wherever you want. It's total bullshit.

I would downvote this post if the option was available. Not because I think you're wrong, I don't know enough to take a side, but because you provide no counterargument, data or thinking. Just a derogatory statement with no evidence, kind of like we see from many of the talking heads on TV news.

 

[Heinrich]

... talking heads on TV news.

And again a fallacy. Mine again, guys. One could think of a speaker box that has a passive crossover, and only one amp. But its irregularities are left alone by the crossover, instead these are equalised on signal level. I did that many years before, and still do. Wonder why that slipped through. So, be clear with the problem statement. I made that up, ok, and won't distract further, sorry.

 

[heflys20]

Active speakers have their perks, but with how good modern passive designs like the C6B are, plus easier upkeep, going passive feels like the smarter move now.

Easier upkeep? How so? One of the whole points of active/powered speakers is to be more convenient. LOL.

 

[Mike_Trueman]

The new Elac ConneX DCB61 should be a good compact 6.5" active speaker.

Debut ConneX | Powered Speaker | DCB61 | Best Audiophile Speakers

Elac - The life of sound | Best Audiophile Speakers

elac.com

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Active Speakers—The Second Wave, by Bruno Putzeys, Part 1 of 2 (Unabridged)

What can active speakers do that passive ones can’t? Impulse response, impulse response, impulse response, says Bruno Putzeys. That, and their sheer practicality, makes them the wave of the future.

pmamagazine.org

Active Speakers—The Second Wave, by Bruno Putzeys, Part 2 of 2

Bruno Putzeys concludes his two-part series that explains why active speakers are inherently better than passive ones.

pmamagazine.org

 

[kyuu]

Active Speakers—The Second Wave, by Bruno Putzeys, Part 1 of 2 (Unabridged)

What can active speakers do that passive ones can’t? Impulse response, impulse response, impulse response, says Bruno Putzeys. That, and their sheer practicality, makes them the wave of the future.

pmamagazine.org

Active Speakers—The Second Wave, by Bruno Putzeys, Part 2 of 2

Bruno Putzeys concludes his two-part series that explains why active speakers are inherently better than passive ones.

pmamagazine.org

Yeah I'm not so sure about all that. He repeats what seem to me to be fallacies: that ported speakers are inherently slow or muddy, that sealed speakers aren't viable without being fully active, that directivity control is the only way to address room modes, that impulse response is all important. But I'm no audio luminary, so.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Yeah I'm not so sure about all that. He repeats what seem to me to be fallacies: that ported speakers are inherently slow or muddy, that sealed speakers aren't viable without being fully active, that directivity control is the only way to address room modes, that impulse response is all important. But I'm no audio luminary, so.

Yeah, I have no idea and definitely I'm not qualified to assess

 

[sigbergaudio]

Yeah I'm not so sure about all that. He repeats what seem to me to be fallacies: that ported speakers are inherently slow or muddy, that sealed speakers aren't viable without being fully active, that directivity control is the only way to address room modes, that impulse response is all important. But I'm no audio luminary, so.

Did he?

I agree he was not super nuanced on ported speakers.

On sealed he claims with active you can do bass better, which is true.

I did not read anywhere he said directivity control is the ONLY way to address room modes, rather that it was a clever way.

 

[Davey]

Did he?

I agree he was not super nuanced on ported speakers.

On sealed he claims with active you can do bass better, which is true.

I did not read anywhere he said directivity control is the ONLY way to address room modes, rather that it was a clever way.

You can use active equalization to extend the response of a closed-box system......at the expense of other factors. Whether that's "better" or not is up for discussion.
I think Bruno is largely considering the usage of DSP capabilities, that are more recent, in his assessment.

Active speakers (and their advantages) have been around since before Bruno was born.
I think many in the audio community don't have a proper historical reference.
The title and premise of this thread is rather ridiculous because of course they're still worthwhile. To think that passive speakers could render active speakers no longer worthwhile is just ignorance.

 

[sigbergaudio]

You can use active equalization to extend the response of a closed-box system......at the expense of other factors. Whether that's "better" or not is up for discussion.
I think Bruno is largely considering the usage of DSP capabilities, that are more recent, in his assessment.

How is it debatable?

Active speakers (and their advantages) have been around since before Bruno was born.
I think many in the audio community don't have a proper historical reference.

Modern DSP hasn't been around in active speakers since before Bruno was born.

 

[Davey]

Modern DSP hasn't been around in active speakers since before Bruno was born.

Yeah, that's what I said in the previous statement. "......that are more recent...." Are you not following?

You call it "better" I call it a "trade-off." Is that really a debate you want to have?