Although I can understand the reasons why a fully active system could sound superior, I'm unwilling to effectively start from scratch & would definitely worry about obsolesence due to one part failing. A friend does have an active Linn setup but ruins the sound with the addition of a poorly integrated subwoofer. He loves it & that's what matters.
Why have actives not made bigger inroads in to HiFi?
- Thread starter drummerman
- Start date
Tony L
Administrator
Just to throw another curve-ball onto the thread one can argue that if the speaker is designed really well from the ground-up it barely needs a crossver in the first place.
I recently found a lone 1957 Wharfedale Sand Filled Baffle SFB/3:
A very interesting speaker in many ways; a large open-backed dipole with a 10” mid, 12” bass and an upward-firing 3” tweeter (it has its own thread in the classic room). The “crossover” is a single 4uF paper in oil cap protecting the tweeter. That is it, the bass and mid are connected straight to the amp. I have yet to hear it as the foam cone surrounds had sadly perished and finding/creating replacements is a work in progress. I’m very interested to hear it as I have a feeling it will be yet another example of how we have lost our way over the years trying to force full-range sound out of little hollow lifestyle fart-boxes with bass EQ etc rather than actually designing proper full-range speakers from the ground up. Far too much of today’s speaker market is based on stuffing off-the-shelf drivers in cheap MDF boxes and far too little looks at the core design issues from the ground up. With modern manufacturing and CAD technology it should be a breeze to design speakers that, like this ancient Gilbert Briggs design, need no crossover at all beyond some basic protection on the tweeter. It is just a matter of designing the drivers for a very specific task.
I recently found a lone 1957 Wharfedale Sand Filled Baffle SFB/3:
A very interesting speaker in many ways; a large open-backed dipole with a 10” mid, 12” bass and an upward-firing 3” tweeter (it has its own thread in the classic room). The “crossover” is a single 4uF paper in oil cap protecting the tweeter. That is it, the bass and mid are connected straight to the amp. I have yet to hear it as the foam cone surrounds had sadly perished and finding/creating replacements is a work in progress. I’m very interested to hear it as I have a feeling it will be yet another example of how we have lost our way over the years trying to force full-range sound out of little hollow lifestyle fart-boxes with bass EQ etc rather than actually designing proper full-range speakers from the ground up. Far too much of today’s speaker market is based on stuffing off-the-shelf drivers in cheap MDF boxes and far too little looks at the core design issues from the ground up. With modern manufacturing and CAD technology it should be a breeze to design speakers that, like this ancient Gilbert Briggs design, need no crossover at all beyond some basic protection on the tweeter. It is just a matter of designing the drivers for a very specific task.
Yup, a common misconception, they are not time aligned. Thiel speakers on the other hand...
Tony L
Administrator
They are aligned by phase (the bass cone is inverted to the compression driver) and there is some timing aspect to the pepperpot too as I understand it. The key advantage is being a point-source they lack the comb effects etc one gets from multi-driver speakers where the timing alters dependent on listening height, room reflections etc.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
Yep when you hear a previously passive speaker activated there is another veil removed on the transparency and a duvet you hadn't realised was even there removed from the dynamics! The improvement in the way it goes from silent to "impact" and back to silent can make well recorded drums a shocking experience...
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
According to a Tannoy technical/advertising pdf from 1994 or so I have here, the DC drive units they were making by then are time aligned.
As Tony says there is some weird and clever stuff goes on in the way the phase is manipulated when the throat of the horn opens out through the woofer via a wave guide etc which makes things far less clear cut than it seems in the older ones... Where's RFC Paul when he's needed lol
drummerman
pfm Member
Just to throw another curve-ball onto the thread one can argue that if the speaker is designed really well from the ground-up it barely needs a crossver in the first place.
I recently found a lone 1957 Wharfedale Sand Filled Baffle SFB/3:
A very interesting speaker in many ways; a large open-backed dipole with a 10” mid, 12” bass and an upward-firing 3” tweeter (it has its own thread in the classic room). The “crossover” is a single 4uF paper in oil cap protecting the tweeter. That is it, the bass and mid are connected straight to the amp. I have yet to hear it as the foam cone surrounds had sadly perished and finding/creating replacements is a work in progress. I’m very interested to hear it as I have a feeling it will be yet another example of how we have lost our way over the years trying to force full-range sound out of little hollow lifestyle fart-boxes with bass EQ etc rather than actually designing proper full-range speakers from the ground up. Far too much of today’s speaker market is based on stuffing off-the-shelf drivers in cheap MDF boxes and far too little looks at the core design issues from the ground up. With modern manufacturing and CAD technology it should be a breeze to design speakers that, like this ancient Gilbert Briggs design, need no crossover at all beyond some basic protection on the tweeter. It is just a matter of designing the drivers for a very specific task.
You either live alone in a (very) sizeable place or have a very understanding other half and live in an even bigger place.
Most people balk at the idea of having even a small standmount in their lounges never mind something the size of a freezer.
gingermrkettle
Deep vein trombonist
Only if accompanied by cone break up making a mess in the crossover region. The Tannoy 607s in the mancave had no crossover on the woofer, converting to active via KMTech boards improved them no end.Ah yes, the sound of first order or no crossover.
Tony L
Administrator
Whch is my point really. Hi-fi never used to be this way, it was accepted that physics dictated the tools to place decent sound into the home were of a certain size and quality and needed to be placed in certain locations. Modern hi-fi takes too much from the cheap Fidelity and Bush record players of the ‘70s and not enough from the real pioneers like Quad, Wharfedale, Tannoy, Altec, Klipsch etc. The current ‘lifestyle’ trend is just ridiculous and needs calling out at every opportunity. Why do so many people want to live in boring vacuous empty rooms? Have they really so little to say about their lives? My house is not large but it is full of the things that matter to me;books, records, hi-fi, musical instruments etc. It tells the story of my life. Too many people’s homes look like prison cells to me, just ugly reverberant empty boxes devoid of any personality or traces of intelligence.
linnfomaniac83
I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!
Yes, this very much mirrors my experience!
Too many people's homes look like ugly junk-filled boxes to me, filled with an accumulation of clutter and rubbish metastasising thoughout any available free space.
No accounting for taste I guess.
tuga
Legal Alien
With actives you have to upgrade both the amplification and the speakers in one go which is more expensive, and for chronic box-swapers a lot less fun.
Most of the more affordable actives are small and the performance is quite bad.
They look utilitarian...
narabdela
who?
Fake News on PFM?
tuga
Legal Alien
linnfomaniac83
I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!
Not if your speakers have separate amps and crossovers!
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
tuga
Legal Alien
What do you mean?
System performance depends on many factors so being active per se isn't necessarily better.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
He means separate amps and crossovers... can't quite see how that is not self explanatory.. ie for example 2 Quad 306 power amps, one driving the woofers and the other driving the tweeters of a two way speaker and with an active crossover in another separate box between the pre amp and the two power amps. As I said earlier yes active is per se better if comparing oranges with oranges. The problem is that active is more expensive than passive, if done properly, simply because it needs an extra power amp (a 3 way needs 3 power amps etc) and an active crossover and many integrated offerings use cheaper drive units, less well made cabinets and el cheapo power amps to try and get the cost down.
In fact if the passive crossover were one using boutique caps and air cored foil wound inductors etc then an active crossover could be much cheaper to build than a passive!
linnfomaniac83
I bet you can’t wheelie a unicycle!
Active speakers don't necessarily have built in amplification and crossovers and powered speakers (speakers with built in amplification) aren't necessarily active. Active in the true sense means that they use active crossovers and there are many speakers out there that are active with the amplification and crossovers separate from a the speakers meaning you can upgrade your amplification at the will... and that's exactly what I've been doing for 15-16 years. Also, if you get the chance to hear the same speaker using both passive and active crossovers, you will usually find that the active crossovers perform notably better in all the ways that Arkless describes above. This of course comes at additional cost (the crossovers and additional amplification) but it's usually well worth the outlay.