I want to check whether a preconception I have about Active Vs. Passive speakers is true.

[Quinton595]

Hello everyone,

I recently acquired my first actual set of audio source gear -- A Schiit stack consisting of a Modius and a Jotunheim, being used for my computer and headphones.

I am considering adding a Gjallarhorn to power some near-field bookshelf speakers, sitting on the desk in front of me.

However, before I buy the Gjallarhorn, I want to check whether my preconception about speakers is correct.

I don't know where I got this notion from, or why I have it, but I believe two things:

The first doesn't really matter all that much:

1. There is a greater number of passive speakers on the market than active ones.

But the second preconception matters:

2. The vast majority of "high-end", "Audiophile", "quality" speakers are all passive, and active speakers are more geared towards the general public and consumer audio.

Is this actually true?

I have heard that it ISN'T true for subwoofers, as there are many very high-end ones which are active, but for bookshelf speakers, passive is usually better, right?

I ask because if great active speakers can be had for a reasonable price, then I should just not buy the Gjallarhorn, and put that money towards even better speakers, right?


Thanks!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Most expensive speakers are passive yes. Actives are probably foremost in pro audio and studio sound. General public and consumer non-audiophile I'm not sure about. It too was heavily passive, but over time that has changed. So not sure which mode is most prominent currently. Also don't see what difference it makes. None of these confirm or contradict a good or poor speaker choice in any circumstance. Pick what makes sense for your situation. I have a surround system with two passives up front and all the others active.

 

[Chrispy]

A subwoofer wouldn't be the same as a speaker with active crossovers, tho so not comparable in that respect (altho an active crossover between sub and speakers I prefer). The sub needs an amp, whether on board or not. A passive sub may allow a separately located amp in your gear rack or something.

I wouldn't worry about what is considered "audiophile"....it is a phrase referring to a person, not hardware....if you consider yourself an audiophile and use a piece of gear, then it is audiophile gear . Since you don't have an amp now for speakers, actives may well be a better way to go altho with desktop speakers nearfield you may have to consider hiss like in this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/hiss-in-active-speakers.7358/ but I wouldn't worry about sound quality particularly.

 

[Quinton595]

Thank you both.

The question I'm asking myself is would I be better off spending, say, $300 on a Gjallarhorn, and then $400 on some passive bookshelf speakers and a regular sub, or would I be better off not buying the Gjallarhorn at all, and instead taking that money and spending $700 on some active bookshelf speakers and an active sub that requires no amp?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thank you both.

The question I'm asking myself is would I be better off spending, say, $300 on a Gjallarhorn, and then $400 on some passive bookshelf speakers and a regular sub, or would I be better off not buying the Gjallarhorn at all, and instead taking that money and spending $700 on some active bookshelf speakers and an active sub that requires no amp?

The latter more than likely. Probably not need to spend $700 on active speakers. Might save some money.

 

[Chrispy]

Well, finding a "passive" sub these days can be difficult, altho I just DIY them as I already have amps to use and fwiw the Gjallarhorn of course would be no help with a sub so would require more expense if you chose a sub without it's own built in amp. If I did get passive speakers I'd want a more powerful amp than the Gjallarhorn but maybe for your use/speakers it could be sufficient. I'd probably just get the active speakers but I don't do nearfield or desktop either....

 

[DVDdoug]

Home speakers are usually passive (except for the subwoofer). Tradition is part of it, and I believe a big factor is that with surround sound every active speaker needs a power outlet (or extension cord).

AVRs have a low-level subwoofer output so you need an active sub or a separate power amp.

There are theoretical advantages to actives - Mainly, EQ can be built-in to flatten and extend frequency response. But there are lots of trade-offs in speaker design so active isn't always better, and I don't know of any speakers that are available in configurations so you can't do an apples-to-apples comparison.

2. The vast majority of "high-end", "Audiophile", "quality" speakers are all passive, and active speakers are more geared towards the general public and consumer audio.

Audiophiles are also consumers.

Studio monitors are usually active and many are sold to people with home studios. If you go into a store that sells musical instruments and equipment for recording & live performance, you'll find lots of active monitors and active PA speakers.

"Computer speakers" are active, and lots of people who are using a computer as there music source are using active studio monitors.

 

[staticV3]

Thank you both.

The question I'm asking myself is would I be better off spending, say, $300 on a Gjallarhorn, and then $400 on some passive bookshelf speakers and a regular sub, or would I be better off not buying the Gjallarhorn at all, and instead taking that money and spending $700 on some active bookshelf speakers and an active sub that requires no amp?

I'd put that money towards better speakers.

You've got a lot of great options there: Adam, iLoud, JBL, Kali, Kanto, even Genelec.

 

[Quinton595]

Thank you all for your comments. It seems you all feel if I don't already have a power amplifier, that I'm better off taking the money I would have spent on one and getting better quality speakers instead.

And sorry for the confusion, I was confusing active and passive speakers with subs in my head. I realize now that all subs require their own plug to power them, I just thought that you still needed a power amp to drive a subwoofer, unless you went and bought an "active" sub that was somehow even more powerful. I see now I was mistaken, and it's just the bookshelf speakers that work this way.

My follow-up question, then, is that if all I have is a Modius and a Jotunheim, my only options for outputs are RCA and XLR preamp outs from the Jotunheim. This means I would take the RCA cables and run them into the back of the active bookshelf speakers, while also taking one of those RCA lines and splitting it with a Y-splitter, to run to the subwoofer, yes? Or could I use the other set of outputs, the XLR's, and use those to get around needing a splitter? Is there any advantage to doing so?

 

[Chrispy]

Somewhat depends on the active speaker inputs and sub inputs, but you can make it work with splitters in any case. Just no real bass management, just a low pass filter. Altho some subs can provide an actual crossover rather than just a low pass filter (often to my chagrin the latter being labeled "crossover").

The bit about adding power with an active sub is interesting, have seen that before with people thinking along those lines....but, no. You choose one amp vs another, they are not additive.

 

[staticV3]

My follow-up question, then, is that if all I have is a Modius and a Jotunheim, my only options for outputs are RCA and XLR preamp outs from the Jotunheim. This means I would take the RCA cables and run them into the back of the active bookshelf speakers, while also taking one of those RCA lines and splitting it with a Y-splitter, to run to the subwoofer, yes? Or could I use the other set of outputs, the XLR's, and use those to get around needing a splitter? Is there any advantage to doing so?

You can:
-split XLR to Sub and Mains
-split RCA to Sub and Mains
-RCA to Sub, XLR to Mains
-XLR to Sub, RCA to Mains
-XLR to Sub, Sub pass-through to Mains
-RCA to Sub, Sub pass-through to Mains
-XLR to Mains, Mains Sub out to Sub
-RCA to Mains, Mains Sub out to Sub

 

[Blumlein 88]

One clean implementation of subs I wish more people would copy is what JBL does with their LSR subs. You input to the sub, it does a crossover, and spits out the high pass onto your active speakers. One pair of connections with one or two subs is a no brainer.

 

[Chrispy]

One clean implementation of subs I wish more people would copy is what JBL does with their LSR subs. You input to the sub, it does a crossover, and spits out the high pass onto your active speakers. One pair of connections with one or two subs is a no brainer.

That is a nice feature of that series of speaker/sub altho it is limited to an 80hz xover IIRC. Some subs still have such but pretty rare that I've seen the last few years....

 

[staticV3]

That is a nice feature of that series of speaker/sub altho it is limited to an 80hz xover IIRC. Some subs still have such but pretty rare that I've seen the last few years....

Most studio subs have high-passed Line outs for the Mains, even super inexpensive ones like the ESI 10S.

It is rather rare on HT subs though.
A notable exception are the original SB-1000 and PB-1000.

 

[Chrispy]

Most studio subs have high-passed Line outs for the Mains, even super inexpensive ones like the ESI 10S.

It is rather rare on HT subs though.
A notable exception are the original SB-1000 and PB-1000.

What is the typical filter value on those? Adjustable or fixed? I was thinking more of older sub models than just the last few years where an actual crossover in the sub simply isn't expected as bass managment in avrs is generally expected/preferred....

 

[staticV3]

What is the typical filter value on those?

Anything from 50 to 120Hz usually.
80 and 100Hz are most common.

Adjustable or fixed?

Depends on the budget.

 

[Quinton595]

Yeah, see, that's another can of worms I've never wanted to open... mostly cause I know it's above my pay grade and I won't understand it.

People spend thousands of dollars on DACs and Amps, arguing the minutia of how such and such device will "colour" or ruin the fidelity of the audio signal, but then when that analog signal is actually being fed to the speakers and sub, it's just some cheap analog circuitry that does a basic low-pass split to decide what gets sent to the sub and what gets sent to the speakers? It seems surprisingly rudimentary to me. So surprising that it makes me think I'm just getting something wrong, and don't understand how it actually works.

Is there a "high-fidelity" way to properly split the signal to speakers, tweeters, and subwoofers? Is it some other kind of device, like a preamp, or is it just better-quality crossfading hardware in the subwoofer or speakers themselves?

Regardless, my situation is that I listen to headphones 99.99 % of the time. I may switch to my speakers once per month for an hour, meanwhile I use my headphones for 5-8 hours a day, every day. As such, I don't really care to have ultra high-fidelity speaker sound. What I do care about, though, is that I don't undermine the money I just put in to a good DAC and amp.

My father has a few pairs of old bookshelf speakers that he no longer uses -- from times when he tried 5.1 setups and such experiments. They're fairly good speakers, from Pioneer, JBL, etc, but they're all passive. So I figured I could drop $300 on a Gjallarhorn, and then use the existing bookshelf speakers, and buy a sub, or use one of my dad's "passive" subs (which I thought was passive because it had a direct line off his receiver, rather than a spliter from the speakers). The alternative is I take that $300 and buy some active speakers. Whether they're any better than my dad's passives, though, I don't know.

 

[staticV3]

Is there a "high-fidelity" way to properly split the signal to speakers, tweeters, and subwoofers?

The most advanced speaker systems receive audio digitally, split it up using DSP, and then there's a dedicated DAC and Amp per driver.

 

[wwenze]

Hello everyone,

I recently acquired my first actual set of audio source gear -- A Schiit stack consisting of a Modius and a Jotunheim, being used for my computer and headphones.

I am considering adding a Gjallarhorn to power some near-field bookshelf speakers, sitting on the desk in front of me.

However, before I buy the Gjallarhorn, I want to check whether my preconception about speakers is correct.

I don't know where I got this notion from, or why I have it, but I believe two things:

The first doesn't really matter all that much:

1. There is a greater number of passive speakers on the market than active ones.

But the second preconception matters:

2. The vast majority of "high-end", "Audiophile", "quality" speakers are all passive, and active speakers are more geared towards the general public and consumer audio.

Is this actually true?

I have heard that it ISN'T true for subwoofers, as there are many very high-end ones which are active, but for bookshelf speakers, passive is usually better, right?

I ask because if great active speakers can be had for a reasonable price, then I should just not buy the Gjallarhorn, and put that money towards even better speakers, right?


Thanks!

If you want my preconception...

1. There is a greater number of passive speakers on the market than active ones.
- This is an apple vs orange thing really. Like the world's biggest seller of computer GPU by a large margin is... Intel.
The majority of "things containing speakers" are active. The majority of speakers you see at an audiophile mall are passive.

2. The vast majority of "high-end", "Audiophile", "quality" speakers are all passive, and active speakers are more geared towards the general public and consumer audio.
Pretty much, because
- The vast majority of "high-end", "Audiophile", "quality" cables and tweaks are also passive because that's where you can sell the most snake oil
Other reasons:
Sometimes, sometimes, more often in the past, there are manufacturers who have good speaker science but no electronic manufacturing capability. So they make passive speakers.
Today, electronics are cheap, electronics are often used alongside speaker science, so more serious manufacturers are selling active speakers. However passive speakers still have a market e.g. AVR so they live on. For the rest of the world, active speakers provide a turnkey solution.

 

[Chrispy]

Yeah, see, that's another can of worms I've never wanted to open... mostly cause I know it's above my pay grade and I won't understand it.

People spend thousands of dollars on DACs and Amps, arguing the minutia of how such and such device will "colour" or ruin the fidelity of the audio signal, but then when that analog signal is actually being fed to the speakers and sub, it's just some cheap analog circuitry that does a basic low-pass split to decide what gets sent to the sub and what gets sent to the speakers? It seems surprisingly rudimentary to me. So surprising that it makes me think I'm just getting something wrong, and don't understand how it actually works.

Is there a "high-fidelity" way to properly split the signal to speakers, tweeters, and subwoofers? Is it some other kind of device, like a preamp, or is it just better-quality crossfading hardware in the subwoofer or speakers themselves?

Regardless, my situation is that I listen to headphones 99.99 % of the time. I may switch to my speakers once per month for an hour, meanwhile I use my headphones for 5-8 hours a day, every day. As such, I don't really care to have ultra high-fidelity speaker sound. What I do care about, though, is that I don't undermine the money I just put in to a good DAC and amp.

My father has a few pairs of old bookshelf speakers that he no longer uses -- from times when he tried 5.1 setups and such experiments. They're fairly good speakers, from Pioneer, JBL, etc, but they're all passive. So I figured I could drop $300 on a Gjallarhorn, and then use the existing bookshelf speakers, and buy a sub, or use one of my dad's "passive" subs (which I thought was passive because it had a direct line off his receiver, rather than a spliter from the speakers). The alternative is I take that $300 and buy some active speakers. Whether they're any better than my dad's passives, though, I don't know.

My thoughts are its better to learn a little more to help understand it....rather than going blind.

Spending thousands on dacs and amps are often not particularly fruitful either.

Don't like headphones myself, only use in power outages these days.

The gjallarhorn is just a very limited amp in terms of power so you'd need fairly sensitive speakers or simply at nearfield distances use at relatively low volume.

My first active speakers a few years ago were the JBL LSR305s, which you can find various reviews of. I got them on a particularly good deal and find them quite excellent for what they are.