Do active speakers for hifi listening (not monitoring/pro use) make sense anymore?

[DSJR]

Thanks both.

Perhaps I need to refocus my question a little.

These are the ATC SCM40, and these speakers have been on my 'to audition' list for a while.

SCM40 - ATC Loudspeakers

Overview New ATC designed and built 25mm soft dome HF unit with precision alloy wave guide. ATC 164mm bass driver. Massive optimised motor assembly. ATC Soft Dome mid-range driver. Flat impedance curve allowing easy load for amplifiers. Veneered Finish Options - Cherry, Black Ash. Painted Finish...

atc.audio

These are the ATC SCM40A, the active versions of the ones above:

SCM40A - ATC Loudspeakers

3-way, tri-amplified, active, floor standing sealed box loudspeaker featuring hand made drive units and amplifiers

atc.audio

They passive 40s cost on average 6500 Euros, whereas the actives cost about 11000 Euros.

Can I get close to, or match, or even improve on, the performance of the ATC SCM40 actives by buying the SCM40 passives instead, and by spending less than (11000-6500)=4500 Euro on good quality, third party (e.g. Chinese) power amplification?

I suppose the only answer to this is to do a blind test comparing the two and the setup I have in mind, but this is currently very difficult for me, so I wonder if someone had any strong opinions about this due to personal experience already.

It's like this and since the brand has appeared to largely stand still for some decades, I think the following still applies-----

The ATC mid dome is used almost wide open with very little available at the extremes for crossover overlap. This means the applied doping to the mid domes has to be done exactly right as too much or too little affects the top and bottom regions of the dome's response (this from ATC themselves). The active crossovers (used to) have phase matching as well as level matching in the bass to mid crossover at least, to make the transition as seamless as possible - certainly in the 50/100/150 amp packs and hopefully in the 40A as well. The passives don't have this, so all other things considered, it's more than a bit of a compromised fudge. Billy W himself told me at the time that the three-way passives were only primarily offered to the audiophile domestic market and he didn't particulay recommend them. Now he's gone, who knows...

Subjectively and irrespective of the driving amp, the 40, 50 and 100 I've compared in passive and active versions (sometimes the same speaker upgraded to active) have always favoured the active version...



To @tokyo_blues - I'd happily suggest you upgrade your Focus 110 to the Focus 50 if you can (I've not heard the dinky floor-stander in between). The stand-mount Focus has what I call small-box 'stunt bass' which isn't particularly truthful in my opinion. the Focus 50 can appear to disappear from the soundstage and on a suitable good recording that's not been messed with too much in the mix or mastering, the perceived soundfield can be holographic in a way that conventional domestic systems simply don't do. I believe the '50 measures pretty well also from what little I've seen.

 

[melomane13]

"In other word can, in 2025, a combo of well matched (power amp(s) + passive floor standers) have a better performance/price ratio than an active design?"

NON! The only thing that is really an advantage of passive is the aesthetics; active ones are very often professional models, with the look that goes with it.

 

[Rick63]

In my opinion, active speakers make  more sense now than ever.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Part One

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

Part Two

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

 

[rirelien]

Thanks for posting the Bruno Putzeys videos again. I found these absolutely fascinating and they have certainly influenced my views.

(Intersection of science -- what Putzeys says -- and subjectivism -- my reaction to it!)

 

[Eddybiker60]

I absolutely see where you're coming from and I love getting rid of big boxes. But I have sources already, and a DAC+preamp, so the only boxes I'd need to reintroduce would be two power amps.

I see the beauty and obvious technical advantages of having tailored amplification after the crossover in the speakers, but I don't want to spend money on in-speaker connectivity and electronics I won't need (bluetooth, wifi, dsp, etc) and most of the new active speakers seem to me to be lifestyle statements too ('get rid of boxes! get rid of cables! All you need is a phone and these speakers!') which doesn't particularly interest me.

If I bought a pair of Chinese monoblocks measuring well and matched them to passive standmounts, I would have huge choice of a) speaker drivers b) cabinet shape, design, materials, etc. On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, I'd miss out on the improved bass response and driver performance allowed by the active design.

The question is - would I hear it. Not sure yet.

But, does speaker build and composition matter so much when, in theory, everything in an active speaker is carefully matched and optimized for the best results?

 

[tokyo_blues]

But, does speaker build and composition matter so much when, in theory, everything in an active speaker is carefully matched and optimized for the best results?

No idea Eddy. I have more questions than answers atm

 

[tokyo_blues]

But, does speaker build and composition matter so much when, in theory, everything in an active speaker is carefully matched and optimized for the best results?

EDIT - are you suggesting that a well designed+implemented active speaker setup should in theory sound better than a passive setup regardless of build and composition?

Well. I don't know. Would a modern active standmount with a 5 inch woofer make a passive design with a 10 inch woofer redudant, given an equally correct listening room?

If you're suggesting modern active design can help overcome some typical physics limitations in speaker design - it's an interesting question and I don't have an answer.

 

[Nopiano]

Can I get close to, or match, or even improve on, the performance of the ATC SCM40 actives by buying the SCM40 passives instead, and by spending less than (11000-6500)=4500 Euro on good quality, third party (e.g. Chinese) power amplification?

I suppose the only answer to this is to do a blind test comparing the two and the setup I have in mind, but this is currently very difficult for me, so I wonder if someone had any strong opinions about this due to personal experience already.

In my experience with the SCM40 passives and actives you can’t beat the actives, even with significantly costlier amplifiers. I’ve not done a true blind test, and never have in fifty years of enjoying audio gear, but the actives are very obviously superior in every regard. They’re recognisably similar but simply better all round, whatever adjectives, metaphors or similes one uses!

I have heard both in the same domestic room, using a free choice of music. And I’ve heard my preamp with the actives at a local dealer and they’re notably better than the passives I own. Indeed I was going to buy a pair until a fluke find of an almost unused pair of Sonus faber Guarneri and a Pass Labs amp tempted me to the ‘dark side’!

IMHO the Actives are one of the easiest speakers to recommend domestically in anything like that price range. And the six year warranty attaches to the product not the original buyer, so if you choose used you get the factory backup too.

 

[Audio Science Pal]

They passive 40s cost on average 6500 Euros, whereas the actives cost about 11000 Euros.

Can I get close to, or match, or even improve on, the performance of the ATC SCM40 actives by buying the SCM40 passives instead, and by spending less than (11000-6500)=4500 Euro on good quality, third party (e.g. Chinese) power amplification?

The self powered tri-amped active speakers will have DSP tuning, better crossovers, and reproduce the sound more precisely than the near equivalent passive model.

 

[Carlton80@0]

Actives still make sense in most of my systems. Have multiple pairs of legacy Meridian DSP speakers that are still performing well after decades of use. The simplicity of having everything contained in one enclosure DAC/AMP/PRE makes for a very simplistic means of playing music. Feed the speakers a digital coax stream and you are good to go

 

[DSJR]

Actives still make sense in most of my systems. Have multiple pairs of legacy Meridian DSP speakers that are still performing well after decades of use. The simplicity of having everything contained in one enclosure DAC/AMP/PRE makes for a very simplistic means of playing music. Feed the speakers a digital coax stream and you are good to go

Always in the shadow of the digital models, Meridian did a floor-standing analogue active (M60)

Meridian M60 speakers in rosewood, outstanding condition in very rare finish | eBay UK

These speakers are active speakers with internal power amplifiers and may be used in single-ended or balanced input mode. Supplied with standard power leads.

www.ebay.co.uk

...And I remember a very pleasant sound from them. Never bells and whistles, but they just got on with it. My employer was more into active Linn and Naim at a much higher price and back then, Meridian were always tinkering with some of their models which kind-of put us off. These M60s weren't 'in the headlamps' so to speak, so I suspect a good buy, especially if partnered with their 502 preamp, which always 'sounded' so good I remember.

 

[Ziltoe]

[.../]

and active speakers are known, regardless of brand, to fail after many hours of use. usually the capacitors.. jbl had problems with glue becoming conductive, even seen genelecs fail in the past its no a price thing, it just happens. then you can throw them out if no one can or wants to repair them.

[\...]

I’m not sure what led you to that statement. In my opinion, active speakers, regardless of brand, are not generally known to fail after “many hours” of use
[I’d appreciate a clearer definition of what you mean by that].

Failures can occur in any pre- or power amplifier as well. While those can often be exchanged or repaired while keeping the passive loudspeaker, they also
contain components such as capacitors that may fail over time. In that sense, they are no less susceptible to age-related issues, maybe just in different ways.

My 8020s, for example, have been running on average about two hours daily for the past two decades, totaling over 14,000 hours. This is only an estimate of
total and average usage; standby time [powered on but with no signal]is excluded. And there are still people around who would repair them if needed.

They are still doing a good job every single day. I could also mention my very first active Mackies, which have been in regular use by a friend of mine for more
than 20 years.

 

[Ellebob]

Having worked in this industry for decades and also designing speakers as a hobby. There is absolutely no doubt active is better. If everything else is equal, drivers, cabinet, Etc. Active is the way to go. That doesn't mean passive it's bad and should be avoided. It really depends on the situation.
As far as reliability goes like many others have stated here we have had installations with active speakers being used that have been running for decades without a problem. The better brands you can get repaired if needed even decades later.
On the lower end it might be a little bit more of a toss-up. Not counting the cost of a receiver or amp. If you are looking under ~$500 for a pair of speakers then the passives very well might last longer than the actives. When you're trying to build something to a price point less expensive parts are often used. It might not have as good of a power supply, common failure for many electronics. Well this is true of passive speakers as well, not using as good of capacitors for instance they most likely will last longer.
For the most part, find speakers you like and that work for your situation and enjoy!

 

[Puddingbuks]

Summary of the Talk​

Putzeys argues that "commodity" active speakers (which just copy passive filters electronically) offer little benefit. However, a fully optimized active speaker uses DSP to solve fundamental acoustic problems. He explains that passive speakers are forced to make massive compromises in cabinet size, bass extension, and timing (phase) because they must work with a fixed, unoptimized signal. By contrast, an active system can "look ahead" at the music, adjust the drivers in real-time to prevent damage, and use heavy amplification to force small drivers to produce massive, accurate bass that would be impossible in a passive setup.

---

Top 5 Reasons Why Active Speakers are Better​

1. Superior Bass from Smaller Cabinets​

In a passive speaker, the box size and magnet strength must be physically tuned to get a flat response. Active speakers use DSP Equalization to "force" the bass flat. By pairing small drivers with incredibly powerful Class D amplifiers, you can achieve the deep, tight bass of a giant cabinet in a fraction of the size.

2. Perfect Time Alignment (Phase Correction)​

Passive crossovers naturally cause "group delay," where the woofer's sound arrives slightly later than the tweeter's. This smears the "step response" of the music. Active speakers with digital processing can delay the high frequencies by milliseconds to perfectly align them with the slower bass frequencies, resulting in much sharper imaging and "timing."

3. Enhanced Power Handling and Protection​

Because the speaker knows exactly what signal is coming, it can act as its own "bodyguard." If a bass note is about to push a woofer past its physical limit, the DSP can temporarily retune the response to keep the driver safe. This allows designers to push drivers much closer to their 100% potential without fear of them "bottoming out" or breaking.

4. Elimination of the "Port" Compromise​

Most passive speakers use a "bass port" (a hole in the box) to boost low-end, but this causes the bass to "ring" or sound sloppy. Active speakers can use a sealed box (which has much better transient response) and simply use extra amplifier power to make up for the lost volume, providing "tighter," more accurate bass.

5. Synergistic System Integration​

A traditional Hi-Fi chain has no "synergy"—the amp doesn't know what the speaker is doing, and the speaker doesn't know the amp's limits. An active speaker is a complete, closed loop. This integration allows for advanced features like "directivity control" (controlling how sound reflects off your room's walls), which is nearly impossible to implement effectively in a passive system.

 

[CJH]

The self powered tri-amped active speakers will have DSP tuning, better crossovers, and reproduce the sound more precisely than the near equivalent passive model.

Check out Genelec 8030c vs 8330.
CJH

 

[Ziltoe]

[.../] If you are looking under ~$500 for a pair of speakers then the passives very well might last longer than the actives. [...\]

Really? Why?

 

[Eddybiker60]

EDIT - are you suggesting that a well designed+implemented active speaker setup should in theory sound better than a passive setup regardless of build and composition?

Well. I don't know. Would a modern active standmount with a 5 inch woofer make a passive design with a 10 inch woofer redudant, given an equally correct listening room?

If you're suggesting modern active design can help overcome some typical physics limitations in speaker design - it's an interesting question and I don't have an answer.

Now, I only have very limited experience, but some of the active speakers that I’ve seen and heard of seem quite impressive, given their relatively modest size and driver composition.

 

[Ziltoe]

Would a modern active standmount with a 5 inch woofer make a passive design with a 10 inch woofer redudant, given an equally correct listening room?

No! Active speakers cannot overrule physics. A 5″ woofer can’t match the authority of a 10″. EQ, built-in DSP, or whatever the market offers can give a low-frequency response, but while a 5″ can go very deep in frequency, it cannot deliver the same SPL, dynamics, or low-distortion output as a true 10″.

 

[Ellebob]

Really? Why?

It comes down to using quality components as well as good design. For instance if they have electrolytic capacitors those typically leak after a period of time. They will degrade easier especially if in a warmer environment or without good cooling design. Probably ok for 10 years but better designed capacitors can last 40+ years.

A good power supply can last decades especially ones with good copper winding. That type of power supply is a lot more expensive than a switching mode power supply. But, even with switching mode power supplies there can be differences in quality of materials. So having a switching mode power supply doesn't mean it is necessarily bad.

Something built to a price point is likely not spending the extra to use good components. Even the speaker divers if using foam for their surrounds probably won't last as one that use rubber surround material.