Are studio monitors a better buy than passive hifi speakers?

[RexrothPigeon]

I kind of doubt having integrated amplification by itself results in a better speaker, compared to driving the same speaker with a great measuring external amp.

have you read these? putzeys feels pretty strongly that it does.

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

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

To my broader point, when I was looking for speakers last year, I couldn't find anything passive that matched the capabilities of Genelec/D&D/Neumann without paying a lot more, and moving to actives gave me the option to sell my amp (although I didn't, just moved it to another room). I might have missed some options of course, for sure, and there are some comparable makers that aren't available in my market as well.

 

[pablolie]

have you read these? putzeys feels pretty strongly that it does.

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

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

To my broader point, when I was looking for speakers last year, I couldn't find anything passive that matched the capabilities of Genelec/D&D/Neumann without paying a lot more, and moving to actives gave me the option to sell my amp (although I didn't, just moved it to another room). I might have missed some options of course, for sure, and there are some comparable makers that aren't available in my market as well.

Those are amazing active speakers, clearly, but they don't come in passive versions for us to establish the ultimate benefits. And while Putzey is a genius, he has a marketing and commercial agenda he'd be stupid to defeat.

That's why I said specific examples that do both. Like -as clear examples- KEF or Dynaudio. KEF make the LS50 and the LS50W. The latter has a lot more stuff included in features, but I very much doubt the passive LS50 sound any worse if one pairs it with a top SOTA amp. There is no reason why it would. Perhaps it'd cost a bit more to put together the full feature set of the active, wireless version. But OTOH, the passive will keep supporting whatever capable stuff you feed them with, while the wireless ones will inevitably lose some of their initial feature set over time (streaming services support and such).

 

[RexrothPigeon]

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

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

Since some people might not want to go read Putzeys' essays, here's a bit about cost & value (emphasis mine):

Probably the best kept secret in high-end audio is that amplifier circuits are cheap. Whatever your favorite amplifier topology, the circuit itself constitutes a fraction of the cost of the completed product. The chassis and power supply make up the rest.

Standalone amplifiers must comply with silly FTC rules requiring full-power sinewave operation for five minute—something that would likely destroy most speakers in seconds. This forces manufacturers to use oversized power supplies and, for class A/B designs, larger heatsinks. But if you design the amplifier and speaker so their continuous power capabilities are a match, you can save a lot of money.

Adding separate mid and tweeter channels doesn’t change the total output power, so doing so has no impact on the power supply. The differential cost of an extra channel is just a handful of parts. On the other hand, good, low-distortion passive filter coils are big clumps of copper. The raw metal alone costs more than adding an extra amplifier channel. Finally, hiding the amplifier in the speaker can save a fortune in chassis manufacturing costs.

So, from a cost perspective, active speakers have always made sense. Even if you just want to match a speaker and amplifier, doing so “actively” will be cheaper and more practical. That’s why active speakers are everywhere in recording studios—engineers need reliable tools, not a bunch of gear to fiddle with.

 

[pablolie]

Since some people might not want to go read Putzeys' essays, here's a bit about cost & value (emphasis mine):

Oddly, I have observed a dizzying amount of gear in real world studios, more than any crazy hobbyist I have ever seen... but of course I know some of it serves key finctions (despite the fact most is done in software these days).

I have a long history in this very forum of saying I love the idea of active speakers... but the right one hasn't come out for me yet. Either I don't like design, or I don't like the feature set. There's always been something that stood in the way of me getting active speakers in my main system - the one that's in sight, the one I interact with to experience musical joy. And it's not the performance, like I said. On my computer system, yes, of course I have active speakers.

 

[Jaxx1138]

Studio monitors with built-in optimized amps seem to cost less than buying passive speakers plus and amp. If serious music listeners are going for hearing it "like the engineer intended," what could be better than using studio monitors? And on the higher end of the scale you have speakers like Genelec SAM that can automatically calibrate the EQ for your room. Are products made for the pro market a better value than those made for home listening?

Yes

 

[CD2]

Those are amazing active speakers, clearly, but they don't come in passive versions for us to establish the ultimate benefits.

... but it could not possibly "come in a passive version" because it is designed from the ground up around a digital crossover and amplification for each driver! Putzey makes this point himself: this is *not* like starting from a passive design and then making it active. Internal combustion cars don't come in steam-powered versions, but it's not hard to work out the benefits of one tech over the other.

The benefits of digital crossovers plus directly amped drivers seem obvious from published test results e.g. in a smallish stand-mount speaker you can get bass below 30hz.

A lot of the innovation we're seeing around cardioids seems to be made possible by the newer tech. I don't doubt that you can do nice things with passives -- I'm listening to some right now. They will stick around because this is a luxury goods market and a lot of consumers have old-fashioned tastes. But in terms of technical benefits, the ship has sailed,

 

[a4eaudio]

...The benefits of digital crossovers plus directly amped drivers seem obvious from published test results

Are these "published" test results in an academic journal or by a company making money by selling powered speakers? If the latter, it isn't called "published test results", it is called "marketing". (Note, marketing can still be true.)

 

[CD2]

Are these "published" test results in an academic journal or by a company making money by selling powered speakers? If the latter, it isn't called "published test results", it is called "marketing". (Note, marketing can still be true.)

Kii Audio SEVEN active loudspeaker system Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 4: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Dynaudio Focus 10 active loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements Due to some logistical issues, I couldn't measure the Focus 10s auditioned by Jason Victor Serinus. Instead, I tested samples that had been shipped to me from Denmark by Dynaudio. The serial numbers were 10033212 (Primary, left) and 10033213 (Client, right).

www.stereophile.com

Academic journals don't do speaker measurements.

 

[Haskil]

Those are amazing active speakers, clearly, but they don't come in passive versions for us to establish the ultimate benefits. And while Putzey is a genius, he has a marketing and commercial agenda he'd be stupid to defeat.

That's why I said specific examples that do both. Like -as clear examples- KEF or Dynaudio. KEF make the LS50 and the LS50W. The latter has a lot more stuff included in features, but I very much doubt the passive LS50 sound any worse if one pairs it with a top SOTA amp. There is no reason why it would. Perhaps it'd cost a bit more to put together the full feature set of the active, wireless version. But OTOH, the passive will keep supporting whatever capable stuff you feed them with, while the wireless ones will inevitably lose some of their initial feature set over time (streaming services support and such).

On the contrary, there are many reasons why the active Kef model sounds better than the passive model powered by a Sota amplifier... including the active filtering and all the control possibilities of the coaxial speaker enabled by the DSP they contain.
However, regarding Kef : the reliability of the electronics is a weak point, and one must also add a control app that annoys more than one of their owners...

 

[Haskil]

When you go to the high end of passive home hifi speakers, the aesthetics and construction become a much larger factor in the price. With studio monitors it doesn’t at all, it’s the same plastic outer construction.

—-

Studio monitors and active speakers in general also have less output capability compared to floorstanders in practice because they’re seemingly all bookshelf designs meant for near-field.

They seem to all lack HDMI input which is inconvenient for many people.

With my active Kali’s, it’s not that easy to add the subwoofers I own outside of desktop use unless the subs have an HPF and line outs, which mine do not. They often expect you use their own subwoofers that they sell or assume your using an audio interface with multiple outputs, it seems to me.

Anyways having just had this debate elsewhere, these things stood out to me. None of them are inherent though, someone could make an active powered floorstanding design meant for home use.

Active floor-standing hi-fi speakers have been around for at least 60 years.

With equal size and design quality, an active speaker will deliver higher bass and SPL than a passive speaker if its DSP controls the woofer's operation. Forty-five years ago, Cabasse, a well-known French speaker manufacturer in Europe that supplied both amateur and professional studios, offered a dual range: passive and active. Public demonstrations were clear: the active models enhanced the qualities of their corresponding passive counterparts; the servo control of the woofer played a significant role. Around the same time, Philips was drawing crowds with a small, three-way, servo-controlled, tri-amplified model. Everyone was looking for a hidden subwoofer in the auditorium of the Festival du Son in Paris.

Pairing an active subwoofer with passive speakers is very difficult, and Rel's fanciful designs only confirm this: an active crossover is necessary, and the latency introduced by the subwoofer's electronics must be very precisely adjusted... if it contains a DSP... From this point of view, the excellent Kali IN8 V2 speakers are no different from any passive speaker.

 

[pablolie]

On the contrary, there are many reasons why the active Kef model sounds better than the passive model powered by a Sota amplifier... including the active filtering and all the control possibilities of the coaxial speaker enabled by the DSP they contain.

Which is entirely feasible with a passive loudspeaker. Lots of quoting what basically amounts to marketing in this thread at this stage.

 

[Haskil]

Which is entirely feasible with a passive loudspeaker. Lots of quoting what basically amounts to marketing in this thread at this stage.

True, but I thought you were talking about models that exist in both forms. And since I've heard of the Kefs you were referring to...

 

[Arindal]

I kind of doubt having integrated amplification by itself results in a better speaker, compared to driving the same speaker with a great measuring external amp.

Equipping a passive speaker with internal amplification, or even replacing one and the same crossover network, is not the main idea of active speakers. This indeed does only improve minor issues of how amplifiers drive transducers.

The idea of a fully active speaker is that the speaker designer can alter concept, geometry, choice of drivers, port tuning, enclosure size and other factors while having the possibilities of active crossovers in mind.

Those are amazing active speakers, clearly, but they don't come in passive versions for us to establish the ultimate benefits.

The ultimate benefit is what they do, that is not remotely possible with passive crossovers. You cannot have both, dramatic improvements and a passive derivate.

Several active speakers marketed to consumers these days have drivers and amplification proven in "studio monitors", but add streaming service integration and several other things. And we know software support for such integrations often has the life expectancy of a hamster.

Streaming, future updates or obsolescence are indeed a very big topic. And hear my fortune-telling: will become much much bigger somewhen in May 2026.

My take on that: You buy the seller. Companies with a proven record of letting customers down, may it be by IT hardware getting obsolete, incompatible app versions, disappearing third-party software, discontinued spare parts.. all this speaks for itself.

 

[pablolie]

Equipping a passive speaker with internal amplification, or even replacing one and the same crossover network, is not the main idea of active speakers. This indeed does only improve minor issues of how amplifiers drive transducers.

The idea of a fully active speaker ....

If you mean the engineering ideal and the true potential advantage I agree,

The problem with using your generalization (and this entire topic's) about active speakers is that not all active speaker designers abide by the ideals you present, and hence the generalization (and the title of this entire thread is one) falls miserably apart in the real world. There are a LOT of garbage active speakers in the world, too.

My point has never been against active speakers or their potential strengths, but about the utter invalidity of the generalization.

 

[Fongus]

Those are amazing active speakers, clearly, but they don't come in passive versions for us to establish the ultimate benefits. And while Putzey is a genius, he has a marketing and commercial agenda he'd be stupid to defeat.

That's why I said specific examples that do both. Like -as clear examples- KEF or Dynaudio. KEF make the LS50 and the LS50W. The latter has a lot more stuff included in features, but I very much doubt the passive LS50 sound any worse if one pairs it with a top SOTA amp. There is no reason why it would. Perhaps it'd cost a bit more to put together the full feature set of the active, wireless version. But OTOH, the passive will keep supporting whatever capable stuff you feed them with, while the wireless ones will inevitably lose some of their initial feature set over time (streaming services support and such).

I understand the theory, but having owned both the LS50 and the LS50W which from my understanding is a bespoke DSP active X-over design with per driver amplification, my real-world experience was very different. Out of the box, there was simply no contest between the two. The LS50W handled the bass in a much more linear and extended manner than the passive LS50.

In fact, I'm still blown away with the bass coming from my KH120II DSP studio monitors. True active designs for relatively compact loudspeakers seem to excel in that department.

 

[Arindal]

not all active speaker designers abide by the ideals you present, and hence the generalization (and the title of this entire thread is one) falls miserably apart in the real world.

I was not generalizing in the sense of praising every single active speaker on the market, but talking solely about the achievable maximum, when design principles and technical solutions are properly implemented.

Interestingly, in recent years a lot of speaker design principles emerged and got successful, which either require, or at least call for, active/DSP crossovers. I am talking about multi-driver directivity control, arrays, unusual horn/waveguide shapes, cardioids, closed-box designs with restricted enclosure volume, passive radiators, all that stuff. Not saying that active crossover technology is mandatory for these, but keeping the DSP capabilities in mind, helps a lot to make a better speaker.

There are a LOT of garbage active speakers in the world, too.

Maybe, but I am not interested in them.

The key question is which goal to be achieved by active technology. Most of popular products, like all the affordable portable stuff, use active technology seemingly to optimize maximum SPL without driver overloading, lower bass out of restricted enclosure volume, or create a certain sound signature desired by their audience. While this is absolutely legitimate to do so, it should be clear that the aim is not a maximum of sound quality.

 

[RDoc]

If people want to discuss the price and sound quality of active vs passive speakers on ASR, just look at the test results on ASR.

For example, filter by Recommended: Yes Rating: 5-7.5. Then with the results of the filter, sort by price descending.

Now pick a speaker, say the JBL 308 or Neumann 120 II, and look at the higher priced speakers above it and notice how many have lower ratings and note if they are powered or not.

 

[kyuu]

If people want to discuss the price and sound quality of active vs passive speakers on ASR, just look at the test results on ASR.

For example, filter by Recommended: Yes Rating: 5-7.5. Then with the results of the filter, sort by price descending.

Now pick a speaker, say the JBL 308 or Neumann 120 II, and look at the higher priced speakers above it and notice how many have lower ratings and note if they are powered or not.

Judging by preference scores is not useful, particularly as that score is not affected by the things that active speakers often suffer from relative to passives: low maximum SPL, compression, distortion, and hiss.

 

[RDoc]

Judging by preference scores is not useful, particularly as that score is not affected by the things that active speakers often suffer from relative to passives: low maximum SPL, compression, distortion, and hiss.

So just look at the reviews themselves for the candidate speakers. That's all there with actual measurements so you don't have to rely on people's subjective impressions or guesses. That's the whole point to Audio Science Review.

 

[RDoc]

Which is entirely feasible with a passive loudspeaker. Lots of quoting what basically amounts to marketing in this thread at this stage.

Not that feasible unless the drivers have independent direct connections that bypass the built in crossovers so a dsp can take over the crossover function. Anyway, as I said before, just look at the reviews in ASR, no need to guess.