Active speakers or not?

[cooky1257]

I don't think anyone is under the delusion that active filters have a magic button to correct every anomaly present in the chosen drivers, the aim and the challenge is the same whether active or passive.
Becoming more common is the digital solution from DSP/LMS where total adjustment and absolute precision is at your( well the designer's) fingertips, throw FIR into the mix and significant control in the time domain is also readily available, see the JBL M2 monitors for SOTA implementation, too bad if you are digital phobic though.
Active filtering in the professional environment is an apparent no brainer and its popularity speaks volumes- these are usually money no object systems so where/ if passive was the better choice ( in terms of reliability, robustness and consistency) then I've no reason to assume they wouldn't be.
For me the area where the audible benefits of actively driven is most apparent is in the low end, that conclusion runs across all the large monitors(ATC,Tannoyand JBL/Westlake) I've had the pleasure of owning.
I would never diss a passive approach though, I've heard some superb systems and some all time favourites were passive.

 

[irb]

Yes, active is the norm for a lot of pro audio - it makes sense there for lots of reasons.

I agree completely that DSP is a good way to do active. My Linkwitz LX521s used it, done in JRiver with an 8 channel ExaSound dac. It worked really well. (The only problem with that was that everything had to go through JRiver, which was a pain.) And I've done FIR filters too - I ran a DEQX unit for a while. It was superb. So I'm certainly not among the digital phobics; I just think the capabilites of passive crossovers are sometimes under-appreciated

 

[Woodface]

As ever, buy what you like the sound of. I am not a tinkerer, quite the opposite.

 

[Musicraft]

Over the few hours I've been listening to a pair of Devialet's Phantom I 108db's. Fascinating to say the least

 

[AndyU]

Over the few hours I've been listening to a pair of Devialet's Phantom I 108db's. Fascinating to say the least

I heard them when they came out. Bit like sticking a Kango hammer in your ear-hole!

 

[Musicraft]

I heard them when they came out. Bit like sticking a Kango hammer in your ear-hole!

Well with the current versions I like what I'm hearing. In all probability I'll be getting pair of Phantom I 108db's for myself

 

[Dazed_Confused]

Yes, active is the norm for a lot of pro audio - it makes sense there for lots of reasons.

I agree completely that DSP is a good way to do active. My Linkwitz LX521s used it, done in JRiver with an 8 channel ExaSound dac. It worked really well. (The only problem with that was that everything had to go through JRiver, which was a pain.) And I've done FIR filters too - I ran a DEQX unit for a while. It was superb. So I'm certainly not among the digital phobics; I just think the capabilites of passive crossovers are sometimes under-appreciated

At a WAM show a few years ago I got to hear the same speaker 'activated' vs a passive XO, and although it wasn't a perfectly level playing field, it convinced me to look much harder at active speakers in general. I'd really like to hear LX521s, but I don't want to have to build them to find out whether I like them!