Active speakers or not?

[Woodface]

It is equally easy to design a poor active speaker as opposed to a passive one. Yes, I am an ATC fanboy but at least they give you the option of buying their speakers in passive form.

It is probably easier & cheaper to design an amplifier if you know exactly what they will be driving. When you take into account the lack of casework costs you can understand why actives are often, like for like, cheaper.

 

[gints]

Yup only good for playing music.
Keith

Yes, exact the same as any properly designed speaker and any properly designed amplifier.

 

[Purité Audio]

Contemporary active designs offer levels of performance traditional passives can only dream about.
Keith

 

[lAmBoY]

Guaranteed designed in synergy without the need for additional cables. It's hifi nirvana

 

[gints]

Where is external crossover boxes and custom adapted amplifiers for existing speakers? Why this crazy hifi world full of expensive accessories and other upgrades are not enthusiastic about making existing speakers active. My guess it that expenses are much greater than gains. And probably people want something else from speaker and amplifier than just "because it is better"

 

[gints]

Looked up popular here ATC SMC40 speaker. Active version is 7400 which is about 3400 extra, almost double. That is somewhere in Klipsch Cornwall territory, in which I have some interest. I am sure they will have different sound and presentation character and most likely not because one is active and other not. Are you going to tell me that one of them is wrong? I do not think I will be listening anyway. I agree you can compare active and passive versions of the same speaker, but make a such judgment about greatly different speakers simply is not possible to be correct in general, ok, particulal individual can do it for himself, yes. I very reserved about this generalisation active over pasive. Are there active versions of, for example, big Klipsch? Do not heard about them.

 

[Fourlegs]

Looked up popular here ATC SMC40 speaker. Active version is 7400 which is about 3400 extra, almost double. That is somewhere in Klipsch Cornwall territory, in which I have some interest. I am sure they will have different sound and presentation character and most likely not because one is active and other not. Are you going to tell me that one of them is wrong? I do not think I will be listening anyway. I agree you can compare active and passive versions of the same speaker, but make a such judgment about greatly different speakers simply is not possible to be correct in general, ok, particulal individual can do it for himself, yes. I very reserved about this generalisation active over pasive. Are there active versions of, for example, big Klipsch? Do not heard about them.

I used to have the active ATC SCM40A which I bought having heard a friends passive version and then the active version which he bought afterwards. The only time I heard the passive version sounding anywhere as good as the actives was when they were powered by an (absolutely superb) AudiaFlight FLS10 amplifier which costs £10,450. IMHO the ATC active 40’s are something of a bargain.

 

[Purité Audio]

Looked up popular here ATC SMC40 speaker. Active version is 7400 which is about 3400 extra, almost double. That is somewhere in Klipsch Cornwall territory, in which I have some interest. I am sure they will have different sound and presentation character and most likely not because one is active and other not. Are you going to tell me that one of them is wrong? I do not think I will be listening anyway. I agree you can compare active and passive versions of the same speaker, but make a such judgment about greatly different speakers simply is not possible to be correct in general, ok, particulal individual can do it for himself, yes. I very reserved about this generalisation active over pasive. Are there active versions of, for example, big Klipsch? Do not heard about them.

Decent active monitors ( or measurement led passives ) will accurately reproduce the original recording a speaker like the Klipsch will reproduce a distorted version of the recording, you may of course enjoy that distortion.
Keith

 

[gints]

In what way distorted?
And how I would know how original recording sounded anyway.

 

[TheFlash]

In what way distorted?
And how I would know how original recording sounded anyway.

It doesn’t matter. If you hear accurate and inaccurate (undistorted and distorted) and prefer the latter as a long term listening experience, go for it. In most cases, I find I prefer less distorted.

 

[Purité Audio]

In what way distorted?
And how I would know how original recording sounded anyway.

Just look at any Klipsch measurements,
Stereophile,
ASR
Erin’s Audio Corner
Hi-Fi High Fidelity, fidelity to the original recording, is reproduction with as little added distortion as possible.
Keith

 

[gints]

I can understand distortion when I turn up volume, I can hear it. With normal volume they just different. Lets say with one speakers singer is front of speakers, close to me, other somewhere further back. Which one distorting?

 

[tuga]

I can understand distortion when I turn up volume, I can hear it. With normal volume they just different. Lets say with one speakers singer is front of speakers, close to me, other somewhere further back. Which one distorting?

Maybe both.
See here: https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/#presence

 

[TheFlash]

Ah, I've missed Keith. Harking back to the literal meaning of high fidelity to justify his own preferences.

I think we all know that if hifi is short for high fideility and (a) high fidelity means accuracy = faithfulness to the original recording and (b) all audiophiles worthy of the name simply must therefore pursue the highest possible fidelity presentation, which if course is measurable, then we would all end up with exactly the same system (at any given budget). The fact that we don't is evidence that all hifi enthusiasts do not narrow our human experiences by the linguistic roots of the word.

Similarly, Keith uses the word distortion to describe any sound which is not the most accurate. This is of course a distortion of the general usage of the word distortion...

Why would anyone want to spend their money on a system which is measurably more accurate than the system it replaces if they don't actually prefer the sound it makes? Chasing numbers, chasing accuracy, is just one way of being an audiophile. It is not the only way. It is a personal preference, an opinion, like every other and it comes back to the very purpose of a hifi system: is it to be accurate or to provide pleasure? For some, these happily coincide but for others they do not. Pleasure rules.

I won't pursue the argument because it has been had before almost literally ad nauseum. But it has to be said.

Peace and love.

 

[gints]

Anyway, I think distortion a way more comes from room, acoustic environment, or amplifier overdriven than speakers themselves. Or most of speaker designers are complete idiots.
I have 4 different speakers at home (and one actives in box for years), they all give different sound presentation, a way way more noticable distinctions than any possible distortion, which I can notice only after certain volume. I may not be usefull to point at distortions, unless someone will point a finger to it. And adapt to different sound takes very litle time. So, yes, I count likeability higher than possible distortion.

 

[gints]

Maybe both.
See here: https://www.teachmeaudio.com/mixing/techniques/audio-spectrum/#presence

So, they can manipulate with it designing speaker and also when creating record.
I do not think I will go that far that will choose speakers based on neitral test signals.

 

[tuga]

So, they can manipulate with it designing speaker and also when creating record.
I do not think I will go that far that will choose speakers based on neitral test signals.

You can look at the measurements of the speakers you like the sound of. That will give an idea of what kind of presentation you prefer.

 

[gints]

You can look at the measurements of the speakers you like the sound of. That will give an idea of what kind of presentation you prefer.

Ok, that can be useful exercise

 

[gints]

Probably active vs passive speakers mostly about a crossover.
Is single driver crossoverless speaker hi-fi or not?
Is single driver speaker crossoverless passive or active speaker?

 

[camverton]

Ah, I've missed Keith. Harking back to the literal meaning of high fidelity to justify his own preferences.

I think we all know that if hifi is short for high fideility and (a) high fidelity means accuracy = faithfulness to the original recording and (b) all audiophiles worthy of the name simply must therefore pursue the highest possible fidelity presentation, which if course is measurable, then we would all end up with exactly the same system (at any given budget). The fact that we don't is evidence that all hifi enthusiasts do not narrow our human experiences by the linguistic roots of the word.

Similarly, Keith uses the word distortion to describe any sound which is not the most accurate. This is of course a distortion of the general usage of the word distortion...

Why would anyone want to spend their money on a system which is measurably more accurate than the system it replaces if they don't actually prefer the sound it makes? Chasing numbers, chasing accuracy, is just one way of being an audiophile. It is not the only way. It is a personal preference, an opinion, like every other and it comes back to the very purpose of a hifi system: is it to be accurate or to provide pleasure? For some, these happily coincide but for others they do not. Pleasure rules.

I won't pursue the argument because it has been had before almost literally ad nauseum. But it has to be said.

Peace and love.

Well “high” is a relative term so higher than low and likely less than ultimate. ‘Fidelity” could either be to the original sound or the audio file. Both perfectly valid and one of particular interest to music lovers familiar with live acoustic music and the other of particular interest to recording engineers. If you sell equipment which majors on “accuracy” to the file then you’ll market “fidelity” as being to the file. Neither definition is wrong of course, although as a lover of acoustic classical music I favour fidelity to the original performance and to my ears those cardioid active speakers don’t sound as much like having real musicians playing music in my home as the passive speakers I chose after careful auditioning of various types of speaker.

You’d have to be an audio masochist to choose, for the sake of it, an accurate to the file speaker over one that gives serious listening pleasure. As it happens I have a cousin who was a recording engineer and I was interested to see his choice of speaker. “Ah” he said with a smile, “I don’t bring my work home with me”. I can’t remember which speakers he was using at home but the point is that he chose them for listening pleasure rather than as a working tool. It does have to be said that for some people the highly accurate tool will also give the most pleasure although that doesn’t give them the right to indulge in patronising put downs of “you may of course enjoy that distortion”.