advertisement


Is it time for active speakers?

I don't think it's a case of active speakers always being better. It depends on the overall design and implementation. This is a bit like the large v small speaker thread or the belt drive turntable v direct drive turntable debate. There are good and bad examples of both types.

No doubt, ATC have a lot of expertise in active speaker design (the design of their amp modules and how they are positioned/connected relative to the speakers). This is not the case with all manufacturers. Also, as has already been mentioned, a lot of the budget active speaker designs are far from high-fidelity.
 
Isn't there more potential in optimising your listening environment with an active speaker?

I find my listening room to be a pain in some respects, and some good speakers have failed to match the demo room experience.

Not all of us want speakers sat 3 foot into the room.
 
david ellwood said:
I've been active for about a quarter of a century and can
Allay any concerns regarding box count.

My system currently stands at 10 boxes just for amplification. (Not including phono as its in the plinth)
Click to expand...

Me too with Linn isobarics. Being active is a no-brainier IME, its one of the biggest improvements you can make to a hifi.

Purite Audio said:
There are genuine advantages with active operation, especially when the crossover is implemented digitally, DSP can be used to correct driver anomalies, reduce distortion ,the Kii's have a motion feedback circuit, the speakers can limit themselves to avoid damage , correct overall phase, virtual point source, added to the features I mentioned earlier a whole host of advantages over passive .
Keith
Click to expand...

Keith, I just thought it allowed the power amps to really grip the drive unit without anything in the way....you have added much to my arsenal of arguments for active operation....Cheers!
 
Just as with passive designs there is the whole gamut from super cheap to hugely expensive active studio monitors.
Most 'active' manufacturers do not make passive speakers at all so to compare active/passive equivalents is difficult, the modern actives, Kii,Grimm, Dutch & Dutch just couldn't be manufactured 'passive'.
If you are of the mindset that you just want to hear what is on the disc then actives could be for you, if you enjoy creating your own 'sound' or enjoy regularly swapping components
Then probably not.
Keith
 
Actives are also more efficient than passives - no power sapping inductors on the bass driver.
The amplifiers see saner impedances too, which means that they don't need to be overengineered compared with conventional amplification
 
Presonus Eris studio monitors are the best cheap studio monitors I've heard. A friend bought the Eris 8 and we were both impressed at €500.
 
kc5819w said:
-Improved transient response
-Improved low frequency reproduction
Click to expand...

My bass system has massively improved transient response and lf reproduction, but that's active and uses a unique compensation scheme.
Most active speakers use simple equalisation to change the bass response but this is still messed up by ports or other box tuning. A few (like the Kii3 and Devialet's SAM) have cleverer DSP that can correct some of the tie domain problems.
However, if we are talking about "basic" active speakers then I cannot see why the above two points are true.

Also these are technical points. We were talking earlier about sound quality.


kc5819w said:
-Low distortion even at high SPL
-Improved stereo imaging
Click to expand...

How?
Driver distortion is usually much greater than amp distortion. Active speakers hae no method of reducing driver distortion (unless they use my clever bass scheme which actually does reduce driver distorion by around 10X, but only at LF).

How does active produce better stereo imaging?
 
There is no problem running DSP like DIRAC with a passive system... and there is no need for huge box counts with passives either .. here is my "passive" box count .. hardly a stack and a minimal cable setup
My speakers can be made fully DSP active if I want . Underneath the speakers , after the external crossovers, is an 8 pole speakon connection so each driver can be accessed for its own power amp ..Vivid will offer no warranty if you do this yourself as its pretty easy to mess up a driver doing so , what with digital crossovers etc.
I have no desire to do so

19225162_767463080100962_7848161289642283184_n.jpg
 
I have a sort of half way house between active and passive. Balanced pre to balanced mono power amps----> outboard crossover----->speakers. It means the power amps and crossovers can be placed right under/next to the speakers keeping the amount of speaker cable needed to a minimum.
 
kc5819w said:
Because the passive crossover messes it up. The control the amplifier has over the woofer motion is massively reduced when you put a crossover in the way. Damping factor is reduced to about 5% of what you get with direct coupling. With greater control, at bass frequencies the woofer is strongly locked into the signal so when it undergoes long excursion it wont distort.

.
Click to expand...

Not according to Mr Toole:
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/damptoole.htm

You seem to be ingnoring the voice coil resistance.

Also, ports etc will totally screw up the transient response however much "control" you have from the amp.
 
kc5819w said:
Please, this isn't a active v passive thread. I'm personally convinced by active technology through experience not just theory.

Passive crossovers always introduce colouration.

Both systems have their merits, but I think actives may finally gain some popularity over time in the home or perhaps not.
Click to expand...

well think of all the amp makers who would be put out of business?
 
Well, my first pair of actives (ATC SCM50a) was bought in the mid 90's .. its now 20 years on and actives, despite all their advantages , have not taken the world by storm...
However, what I *do* see compared to 20 years ago , is that there is a huge uptake in interest in what really matters... the speaker/room interface
 
kc5819w said:
No because they're obviously never going to be used on such a large scale. Actives are not practical in many cases - you have to run power to each speaker etc. Imagine having to run a power cord to every speaker in a 5.1 or bigger setup as well as signal wires.
Click to expand...

Aren't 5.1 setups so last decade?

In any case, the future is networked. If you want to have network-connected speakers, they will be active. And if you worry about cables, use wireless.
 
kc5819w said:
No because they're obviously never going to be used on such a large scale. Actives are not practical in many cases - you have to run power to each speaker etc. Imagine having to run a power cord to every speaker in a 5.1 or bigger setup as well as signal wires.

That said I think they will gain popularity especially as all-in-one systems with streaming facilities all built in for two channel setups.
Click to expand...

I use an Illusonic processor for multi channel , just plug the actives into the back, a three way Kii THREE set-up was superb.
Keith
 
Rodney gold said:
Well, my first pair of actives (ATC SCM50a) was bought in the mid 90's .. its now 20 years on and actives, despite all their advantages , have not taken the world by storm...
However, what I *do* see compared to 20 years ago , is that there is a huge uptake in interest in what really matters... the speaker/room interface
Click to expand...

I see great potential in doing that within active speakers themselves rather than applying just an eq curve. Genelecs SAM system optimises driver phase time delay as well as response characteristics.

Of course nothing beats room treatment, but it's not practical in many cases. Carpeting the room and using heavy curtains is the most I have been able to do.
 
kc5819w said:
No because they're obviously never going to be used on such a large scale. Actives are not practical in many cases - you have to run power to each speaker etc. Imagine having to run a power cord to every speaker in a 5.1 or bigger setup as well as signal wires.
Click to expand...


I don't have to imagine it..... and it's not a problem.
 
I'll contradict the current trend here; went from decent passive/pre/power setups to ATC SCM50ASLs, Adam Audio Tensors Deltas, and Meridian DSP6000s with the likes of Zodiac Gold, Lavry DA11, BMM DAC2, Resonessence Labs MIRUS etc. and now back with a sophisticated little integrated passive system, which IMHO, is better than all the others mentioned.
 
Cereal Killer said:
I'll contradict the current trend here; went from decent passive/pre/power setups to ATC SCM50ASLs, Adam Audio Tensors Deltas, and Meridian DSP6000s with the likes of Zodiac Gold, Lavry DA11, BMM DAC2, Resonessence Labs MIRUS etc. and now back with a sophisticated little integrated passive system, which IMHO, is better than all the others mentioned.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - being lazy, and finding it more difficult to justify the cost of changing kit, then actives are like an old shoe, reliable, with a sound that easily fills the room, and gets the thumbs up from grandchildren. Sad old git that I am
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top