Do DSP-free, passive monitors hold any advantage over active monitors?

[changster]

The discussion should be what is the best way to implement a fully active system, not what is better - active or passive? Because there is no debate what is better from an audio point of view. Active is far superior.

The way to implement active for the masses is probably similar to how Buchardt is doing it. You have individual amps inside the speaker cabinet, as well as the DSP and D/A conversion inside the speaker cabinet. You turn it on, you use an app and control the target curve ("tunings").

The audiophile way to implement it would be exactly like car audio. Source (like your DAP) --> External DSP (with audiophile D/A A/D inside) --> external multi-channel amps --> each channel goes to 1 drive unit. The audiophile would understand how to tune the system by matching every individual driver, driver pairs, and picking your own electrical crossover points to match the acoustical crossover points you are trying to achieve. The crossover points are picked based on best acoustical response given the system and your room, NOT set in stone as in passover networks. The audiophile way would also know how to do your own time alignment and adjust any phase issues. Of course, the audiophile also would know what is and isn't EQ-able and make adjustments to the installation (speaker placement etc) as necessary.

As an example, home Hifi has mid-bass problems just like car audio. I find many home Hi-Fi systems that basically has no midbass because of cancellations. Assuming you cannot make any more adjustments to the physical installation, what needs to happen is you have to re-adjust the crossover points and retune it. Maybe the midrange needs to do more work at 180hz instead of the 8" midbass driver as a compromise to maximize the system. Now, instead of having a gaping hole at 180hz you at least have response there.

Lastly, it's so important to have the ability to have different target curves. If two people have the exact same speakers (for example Revel Salon 2's) why would anyone think two listeners want to hear the same target curve? With passive you can't change it. With active (if say the Revel Salon 2's were fully active and you have control over every single driver), one listener can have more bass by using a half whitledge curve instead of the Harmon curve.

You get the idea.

It's about full control.

 

[changster]

Ahh grasshopper. You are mistaken. lol. I meant a bi or tri amp'd or more system with external amps.

ahh gotcha

 

[changster]

Companies like Amphion promote this type of electronic purity, but is there any validity to it?

Talking about "purity" in a passive crossover is nonsense. All those passive components do WAY more to the electric signal than what happens with an active signal coming out the active chain. Those passive components have wide tolerances. Most are +/- 20%, with good ones +/- 10%, and audiophile top notch ones +/- 2% that get ultra expensive as well. Active is so much more precise.

Active is way more pure. Active only touches the signal when you modify the signal in a DSP. Like for like, if I set an active network to bypass the signal directly into the amplifier with zero modifications to the signal except the crossover, then compare that signal to the one that goes through a passive crossover network, guess which signal is more pure? The active signal that doesn't touch any passive components.

 

[Steve Rogers]

If you have CTA-2034 measurements and the ability to apply DSP yourself there are huge reliability advantages, in 5-10 years most active monitors are going to be paper weights it seems when they fail and you can't get them fixed any longer. Passive speakers usually last much longer but will never match the response of an active monitor if they are properly designed with DSP. To me the best of both worlds is to do the DSP on your end and use passive monitors for the reliability.

What a remarkable assertion that "in 5-10 years most active monitors are going to be paperweights". Do you have any objective source for this assertion?

 

[Waxx]

Talking about "purity" in a passive crossover is nonsense. All those passive components do WAY more to the electric signal than what happens with an active signal coming out the active chain. Those passive components have wide tolerances. Most are +/- 20%, with good ones +/- 10%, and audiophile top notch ones +/- 2% that get ultra expensive as well. Active is so much more precise.

Active is way more pure. Active only touches the signal when you modify the signal in a DSP. Like for like, if I set an active network to bypass the signal directly into the amplifier with zero modifications to the signal except the crossover, then compare that signal to the one that goes through a passive crossover network, guess which signal is more pure? The active signal that doesn't touch any passive components.

That is actually not true, there are cheap parts that are good enough that are 1 or 2% precise. And DSP's get outdated very fast. So my id of the best way is to use a basic passive crossover, but use an external dsp/dac and amp system to finetune the monitors. If the dsp and dac gets outdated or broken, it's easy to replace it with something else more suited for that time. And still when you want to avoid passive parts at all costs, the use of an external dsp and amp system is better for the longlivity of the speakers.

 

[changster]

That is actually not true, there are cheap parts that are good enough that are 1 or 2% precise. And DSP's get outdated very fast. So my id of the best way is to use a basic passive crossover, but use an external dsp/dac and amp system to finetune the monitors. If the dsp and dac gets outdated or broken, it's easy to replace it with something else more suited for that time. And still when you want to avoid passive parts at all costs, the use of an external dsp and amp system is better for the longlivity of the speakers.

This means you cannot change the crossovers between drivers and can only EQ the entire L and R tower speakers.

This would not be fully active. Having control over crossover points is essential because you need to adjust them according to the acoustical response from the listening position.

The speakers can be built with no passive crossovers inside the speaker tower, but 4 sets of binding posts (for a 4 way tower) where you can connect 4 pairs of speaker cables per tower. This would be truly active. And this would for sure be better from a pure sound/audiophile perspective without monetary considerations or getting old considerations etc.

We aren’t talking about money here. We are talking pure audiophile performance. There is no substitute for controlling every driver and increasing one’s tuning knowledge for a fully customized tune for your listening location. The keyword being customized because that is what it takes for ultimate audio performance.

My opinion is everyone should build a true sound quality car and tune it themselves. Then you will gain way deeper knowledge on how best to implement audio in a tough environment.

Objective measurements are important for equipment reviews. I firmly believe that, and that’s why I support ASR. However, a good SINAD absolutely will not help you if you have a 160-200hz suckout from your listening position. The battle is 1) knowing first of all you have a 160-200hz suck out, cuz most people will not even know 2) knowing how to deal with it. Do you PEQ it or do you move the speakers?

Etc

 

[Jon AA]

Having control over crossover points is essential because you need to adjust them according to the acoustical response from the listening position.

Says who? No offense intended, but do you have any references that discuss why one might want to do this? You're basically engineering a brand new loudspeaker in a non anechoic environment. It sounds like a really bad idea to me.

 

[bloomdido]

Says who? No offense intended, but do you have any references that discuss why one might want to do this? You're basically engineering a brand new loudspeaker in a non anechoic environment. It sounds like a really bad idea to me.

But you don't need anechoic environment when you're designing a speaker for your own room. But you can change the directivity pattern of a speaker to an extent of you're able to move the crossover point.

 

[Robin L]

They tend to cost less, esp. on the used market.

 

[dfuller]

Talking about "purity" in a passive crossover is nonsense. All those passive components do WAY more to the electric signal than what happens with an active signal coming out the active chain. Those passive components have wide tolerances. Most are +/- 20%, with good ones +/- 10%, and audiophile top notch ones +/- 2% that get ultra expensive as well. Active is so much more precise.

Active is way more pure. Active only touches the signal when you modify the signal in a DSP. Like for like, if I set an active network to bypass the signal directly into the amplifier with zero modifications to the signal except the crossover, then compare that signal to the one that goes through a passive crossover network, guess which signal is more pure? The active signal that doesn't touch any passive components.

There seems to be some confusion over what active is. Active does not mean DSP crossover - it means that the crossover is active. Most are done via op-amp filters. That was how it was done for decades before DSP became both cheap enough and powerful enough to include in a speaker, and it is how many are still done today. My monitors (KH310s) have analog active crossovers.

 

[bloomdido]

I’m actually considering making my own speakers as a DIY project.
I’m not super clued up on speaker acoustics; do you know of any good resources?

Search for "Floyd Toole" on YouTube, there's a 1hr lecture by him there which is I guess the best intro to the topic one could imagine and if you want to go deeper search for his book. There are resources on speaker design specifics but if you are going to make active speakers with DSP which is a very good idea Toole's approach has the most essential things. And consider first trying to convert some passive speakers to actives if you're going active route (and in that case take a look at Hypex' FusionAmp products, they are not cheap but worth the price).

 

[bloomdido]

You assume the amp is inside the speaker, which is absolutely (to me) not the ideal way to do it.

Honestly I don't see any major problems in amps being inside the speakers and a lot of successful designs (both commercially and by performance) prove it's not a major issue. The only thing I can think of is servicing/replacing the amps but this has been already discussed here.

 

[aarons915]

What a remarkable assertion that "in 5-10 years most active monitors are going to be paperweights". Do you have any objective source for this assertion?

Sure don't but almost every issue we hear about active speakers relates to the electronics failing, same with powered subs. Then there is the issue of the DSP and/or connections possibly becoming obsolete. It's really just common sense that a speaker with more stuff on it is going to fail more often than a speaker with less stuff on it, just like a fully loaded car is going to have more stuff to potentially break.

So back to the title of the thread, yes passive monitors are more reliable than active monitors, that is the advantage they hold over them.

 

[dfuller]

What a remarkable assertion that "in 5-10 years most active monitors are going to be paperweights". Do you have any objective source for this assertion?

Considering we see monitors from the likes of ATC, Genelec, Dynaudio, Klein and Hummel, KRK, JBL, Focal, and many more continue to operate decades after their purchase, I'm pretty sure it's nonsense.

 

[BoredErica]

As long as hiss isn't an issue, I'd prefer active. Hiss can be an issue for some, even with expensive actives though. And some people don't notice at all.

Just make sure the active comes from a company with good reputation for QC/support if the speakers are very expensive.

 

[ferrellms]

If you have CTA-2034 measurements and the ability to apply DSP yourself there are huge reliability advantages, in 5-10 years most active monitors are going to be paper weights it seems when they fail and you can't get them fixed any longer. Passive speakers usually last much longer but will never match the response of an active monitor if they are properly designed with DSP. To me the best of both worlds is to do the DSP on your end and use passive monitors for the reliability.

Can't agree, not sure where you get your reliability estimates (5-10 years to turn into paperweights?) All those professional studios where the monitors have been there for various amounts of time, including years and years, evidently working just fine, are filled with paperweights?. My 10 year old Mackies and Genelecs seem to work fine and as well as they ever did. The price people are willing to buy them for has gone down over the years, of course, but not that much. They still sound way better than any passive gear at around the same cost IMHO. And do you really think you can do better than the speaker designers in implementing DSP???

As far as my experience goes, pro monitors are more reliable than audiophile speakers and amps. Think about it, as a pro customer your business relies on your monitors. Reliability is more important for you than for an audiophile.

Having decades of experience with this stuff, I would not consider anything other than powered monitors.

 

[aarons915]

Can't agree, not sure where you get your reliability estimates (5-10 years to turn into paperweights?) All those professional studios where the monitors have been there for various amounts of time, including years and years, evidently working just fine, are filled with paperweights?. My 10 year old Mackies and Genelecs seem to work fine and as well as they ever did. The price people are willing to buy them for has gone down over the years, of course, but not that much. They still sound way better than any passive gear at around the same cost IMHO. And do you really think you can do better than the speaker designers in implementing DSP???

As far as my experience goes, pro monitors are more reliable than audiophile speakers and amps. Think about it, as a pro customer your business relies on your monitors. Reliability is more important for you than for an audiophile.

Having decades of experience with this stuff, I would not consider anything other than powered monitors.

I agree I have no real data on the reliability of active monitors and maybe most are good enough that this isn't an issue. I've been into KEF for years now and I've heard of many problems with their wireless speakers so I'm basing my comments more on KEF. My point is still valid that eventually active monitors will fail and then what do you do? You're basically forced to trash them unless parts are somehow still available. I'm not saying home electronics are more reliable but they naturally get upgraded enough that it doesn't matter. If we have proper CTA-2034 style measurements we should get close enough to the manufacturer that the differences would be inaudible or better yet they could make a passive version and give consumers the PEQ filters to make them close to the active version.