advertisement


Pros and cons of active speakers

Obsolescence (and perhaps limited performance) of the digital processing hardware and long-term maintenance/repairability would be my primary concerns.

Yep that's why personally I would do it multi boxes external to the speakers and analogue active crossover.
Of course I care diddly squat about appearance or WAF!
 
When a single amplifier controls/drives a single speaker cone, there is less risk of distortion or clipping and improved control. This also allows one to have a lot of horsepower hanging around for those transients. Driver impedance becomes almost irrevelant.
 
The amp pack in my master failed catastrophically
As in bang ! Followed by the rather pungent smell of fried electronics to be fair to Kef they replaced the unit without question or delay.
Luckily I live a stones throw from the factory.
So, not far from Laguna then either ;)
 
When a single amplifier controls/drives a single speaker cone, there is less risk of distortion or clipping and improved control. This also allows one to have a lot of horsepower hanging around for those transients. Driver impedance becomes almost irrevelant.

Active crossover have the advantage of bandwidth limited amplifiers. Limiting the frequency range the amplifier are required to handle. My current DSP based 4 way system users 90w class A/B for tweeter 1" & midrange 3" , 200w mid-bass Isobaric 6.5" & 500w 2 x 12" per channel allowing amazing headroom. Limited passive system even get close to providing the effortless presentation this provides. Speakers and amplifiers are all DIY other than the DSP crossovers.

Way too much money and 7 years spent to get to this point, but worth all the effort building my active system.

system02-1.jpg
 
It's a good point. The case for active is often presented as obvious and the simplicity certainly has something going for it. Yet passive systems still dominate and it can't all be put down to cost, as ATC and others offer some systems that are very competitive alongside exotic passive set ups.

Cost? Active speakers are almost always going to be cheaper these days than equivalent passive speakers plus amplifier. The latter differs in requiring a passive crossover involving large expensive components, amplifier casework which is often expensive and a relatively high cost amplifier module capable of driving potentially difficult loads over the full 20-20kHz at full power. The former differs in having relatively cheap line level circuitry for the crossover and 3 amplifier modules driving easy loads over only part of the frequency range at lower power.

I suspect it was more the lower cost of active speakers which drove the move away passive speakers a few decades ago in the prosumer audio sector. Why home audio has largely hung onto the higher cost and lower technical performance of passive speakers is interesting. By definition something else is more important than technical performance and price combined!
 
Class D can be absolutely Stella if using the correct modules and implementation. The Pascal modules are very A/B sounds - you’d be hard pushed to tell which was which. My previous amp, the Aavik U300 has this pretty much nailed too.

My experience with active set ups had of course as much to do with the speakers themselves as the Class D modules used.
 
By definition something else is more important than technical performance and price combined!

As stated above thread, an active system 'locks' you in more.

The ability to swap out speakers is a big plus.

Maybe all speaker manufacturers should allow their internal crossover to be bypassed and a simple to use/configure active crossover offered. I think Linn did this with the Exactbox and had crossover profiles for many of their own and others speakers. This would allow the benefit of running active with the ease of component swapping.
 
As stated above thread, an active system 'locks' you in more.

The ability to swap out speakers is a big plus.

Maybe all speaker manufacturers should allow their internal crossover to be bypassed and a simple to use/configure active crossover offered. I think Linn did this with the Exactbox and had crossover profiles for many of their own and others speakers. This would allow the benefit of running active with the ease of component swapping.

Back in the '80's there was an attempt to make active mainstream and various manufacturer's formed a group called "ALSO" Active Loudspeaker Standards Organisation. Several had external modules for the passive crossover which could be removed allowing active use.
 
Cutting edge active designs work with the room, bass output adjustment allows them to be used close to walls ( if desired) cardioid Fr means more direct sound, inbuilt parametric Eq allows room mode derived ‘boomy’ bass to be removed, phase coherent, completely full range, constant directivity the list of advantages goes on and on.
Keith


That's cheating that is.:)
 
As stated above thread, an active system 'locks' you in more.

In practice this only matters to those that believe well designed power amplifiers differ audibly in performance or those who wish to use deliberately low technical performance amplifiers such as valve designs. A fair proportion of audiophiles today no doubt but the numbers are almost certainly dwindling. Note the number of positive comments from relatively new adopters of speakers with active crossovers on this forum. It is almost certain to continue growing.

The ability to swap out speakers is a big plus.

Swapping is certainly a significant part of the home audio hobby for many and has undoubtedly contributed to passive crossovers surviving well past their use by date.

Maybe all speaker manufacturers should allow their internal crossover to be bypassed and a simple to use/configure active crossover offered. I think Linn did this with the Exactbox and had crossover profiles for many of their own and others speakers. This would allow the benefit of running active with the ease of component swapping.

Just before I retook an interest in home audio I took some test equipment home from work for a weekend intending to familiarise myself with it by performing an exercise to make an active version of my kitchen speakers which I knew had two pairs of terminals on the back: one for the tweeter and one for the midwoofer. I was baffled by not being able to disconnect the passive crossover. I rang the manufacturer to find out what I was missing only to be told all attempts to run them active would void the warranty due to increasing the risk of damage (which I knew from experience to be true!). It was a somewhat surreal conversation because at this time I was unaware of audiophile nonsense like biwiring and so couldn't see any purpose to the two pairs of terminals except for an active crossover while the woman at the other end took biwiring to be understood as the purpose.

I suspect we would need connections preventing the bass signal being wired to the tweeter and possibly internal protection on the tweeter. It is unlikely to happen though because as I mentioned earlier the flexibility of DSP means a well optimised active design is unlikely to have a practical passive version and, of course, the passive version will have a lower technical performance. The exercise would only have a point to a very small subset of audiophiles. Those with a strong interest in technical performance won't have an interest in passive crossovers whereas those that want passive crossovers will want passive crossovers. The number that would seriously considering active or passive while limiting the speaker to only what a passive crossover can do while paying the additional costs of supporting both is going to be very tiny. The high prices and strong audiophile appeal of the ATC brand seems able to offer it today but at more competitive price points/sectors I doubt it.
 
I quite like knowing that speakers are being properly driven & will not run out of power or clip at levels well in excess of what I choose to listen at.

If you wish the change the sound or tinker then you still can; there are pre-amps, DACs, phono stages & cartridges to be swapped etc.

I can fully understand why people may want different approaches but SETs & horns are not for me.
 
That’s reassuring as they are three way, stand mounted speakers which use class-d amplification .
They are also amongst the handful of finest measuring loudspeakers currently available, perhaps you just don’t enjoy transparency?
Keith

Or perhaps he knows what real music sounds like...
 
How can you ‘listen wrong’ I would like to know exactly why Mat found them so objectionable when they are ( one of ) if not the most transparent loudspeakers currently available.
As CK said if perhaps you are used to an extremely coloured sound…
Keith

Or perhaps he is used to listening to "live" music...
 
What is ‘big scale’ the 8Cs are completely full-range 20Hz-20kHz in room with no ‘boom’ for many customers it is the first time they have enjoyed real bass in their room, add to that their cardioid response, constant directivity, placement close to boundaries and adjustability.
Keith
This sounds very much like an advert. Could it be that you sell them? ;)

Whilst I Think they are excellent monitoring speakers, and potentially good for designed in the studio genres, that doesn’t make them the best speaker for recreating the illusion of the original performance where it exists. Horses for courses or choose speakers carefully for their intended use. And don’t believe all that partisan dealers who don’t seem to be able to see the speakers for the sound tell you.
 
Big fan of active for a couple of years now, don’t have ATC money so i went with something from Quested(S7R). Also using a Schiit Freya+ for some extra tube flavor and i couldn’t be happier. Couple of XLS200 subs for the low end since these speakers needed them.
 


advertisement


Back
Top