Active and Passive Speakers

What are the advantages of active over passive speakers in domestic use?

A few I can think of:

Less boxes in the listening room.
Closer integration of amp(s) and drive units.
Less distortion and greater accuracy from line level crossover.

Disadvantages

Speaker is likely to last longer than electronics so product life is reduced if electronics are not in separate case.

 

That's the complete deal-breaker for me. Speakers should last for many decades without issue if they are treated well. I can see a lot of today's all-in-one stuff heading for landfill within just a few years as so much of the technology is proprietary high-density mass-produced circuitry (i.e. pretty much unserviceable) plus too many modern speakers have cheap painted MDF cabs that will scratch / look tatty in next to no time - it's all just built in obsolescence and is as wasteful and 'un-green' as one can possibly be IMO. There are obviously exceptions, e.g. the real pro-grade stuff such as ATC etc which has the reputation of serviceability and lasting support one needs with studio kit.

To highlight my point I have two sets of speakers in use: a pair of 40 year old Tannoy Monitor Golds and a pair of 26 year old Klipsch Heresys. A simple replacement of a few tired capacitors in the crossovers is all it took to get them both back to performing as intended, well within my and anyone else who can hold a soldering iron's ability. I bet they are good for another 20-40 years or more now, they'll see me out anyway. Quality kit like this holds it's value well too as it's always in demand, i.e. if one buys second hand there is no cost of ownership, only investment that is released on sale.

I think the same way about amplifiers, record decks etc and only buy stuff that I know to be well built and long lasting. My main turntable, a Garrard 301, is 51 years old! I do have some more recent turntables too, one is a mere 42 years old! I also have a Quad 303 knocking about as a spare, a 40 year old amp still fully supported by it's manufacturer. I had it serviced by Quad just a few months ago. This is the type of kit that's worth investing in IMO. Stuff that is proven fit for purpose.

Tony.

 

Actives should have a theoretical advantage, but I can't see how placing the amps next to the drivers is a good thing, so more separate boxes.

 

I've always felt by far the best model was the Naim / ARC 101 / later Linn Isobarik one where the passive crossovers are simply plugged into sockets on the rear panel of the speakers enabling instant conversion to active. It makes the whole thing up to the user and enables it to be done in stages should they wish, plus it ensures the speakers themselves have a very long lifespan as they are not hampered by inbuilt proprietary electronics. Best of all possible worlds IMO: multi-use, green, long service life etc.

This model should be even easier to implement these days as there is a good supply of multi-channel (HT) amps available which, given a suitable active crossover upstream, could easily be roped in for active use, i.e. all the speaker manufacturer would need to make is the speaker and both passive and active crossovers, the customer could select the rest to taste. It also means no ugly mains leads etc hanging out the back of the speakers - I'd far prefer a few discreet boxes in a corner to running mains where there is none!

Tony.

 

I'd say that where all other factors are equal, ie same drivers, cabinet, loading etc, then an active version will usually be superior - assuming competency on the part of the designer.

But.......

There are many things to consider and this isn't quite as black and white as it might seem.

Tony mentions Tannoy Golds and it might therefore be good to start with those as an example. They'll have been designed for passive use and also with a certain type of amplifier in mind.
I'm thinking here of output impedance and both the effects this will have on response and damping.
The Gold is not expecting to be clamped onto a super-tight, ultra low output impedance amplifier and both the performance of the driver and recommended cabinet tuning will have been optimised for passive use, and use with certain types of equipment.
Simply 'activating' such a speaker might give an impressive result but it will sound quite different to intended. A subjective call for sure but I notice most vintage Tannoy users rather like them best when there is a little 'slack' in the drive loop.
The most extreme example of this is of course the classic Lowther driver which can sound extremely dry, thin and lacking bass unless driven from a high output impedance.
Of course you can have active drive and deliberately drive from a higher impedance, but then you also throw away one of the main gains of active systems.

I agree with Tony on the benefits of having the crossovers and amplifiers external from a green POV, though I'm not convinced having them external improves performance and would say that the choice very much depends on the overall design, and how you envisage the upgrade/expansion path. Those speakers mentioned did sound a lot better active but for several reasons. Firstly the drivers were not as well behaved as the classic Tannoys and therefore responded well to direct connection to the power amplifier and tighter control over the passband. Secondly, they were very uneven designs in terms of frequency response and the active line stage crossover incorporated some EQ to give better results.

Driver performance is always key.
I was horrified recently to see the good name of Alan Shaw dragged through the mud and his competency questioned in another place. His speakers are mainly passive, and yes you might obtain some improvement to the raw distortion numbers if they were actively driven, but the drivers are stunning - beautifully clean and open units and the result of a huge amount of research.
We don't listen to the crossover - we listen to the speaker - all of it and that includes the contribution of the cabinet as well as the electronics and drivers. Designers like Shaw will understand perfectly that the rising impedance of an inductor will progressively disconnect the driver from the amplifier and will account for this within the design. They don't take a bunch of 'standard' drivers, link them with a textbook crossover and throw them into a Medite box designed with some Freeware design program. These things are built from the ground up, with all parts considered and all interactions accounted for to the best of the designer's ability.

One further consideration to make when someone tells you that active systems eliminate the passive filter.
They don't.
Drivers present a reactive load to the amplifier and the driver motor is in effect a rather large inductor. Therefore even if you connect the driver directly to the power amplifier, you still have a passive filter in circuit - all you've done is simplified it!

Sorry that's all rather jumbled and rambling but I hope I've illustrated that things aren't quite a black and white as they might appear.

Rob.

 

Thanks for that Rob. As the saying goes, the truth is rarely pure and never simple.

 

Yes, if anything goes wrong with the amp packs, you just unscrew them and send them back for repair.

The people at ATC are a joy to deal with, and will support & retrofit upgrades to their older gear, unlike some other outfits out there like AVI, for example.

 

ATC are unbelievable.

Bon Polley once spent 15mins talking to me on the phone about an ATC power amp I had just sold.

Even when I mentioned I was now using Bryston + PMC he didn't hang up..

 

ATC do seem to be great on customer service, to know that youll have support in the future is a very good thing, older products can be supported and upgraded, so make buying second hand is less of a risk.

As a generalisation, i find pro active speakers reasonably dynamic and punchy, very clear and precise, even the very inexpensive low power versions have some get up and go about them, and are good fun to listen too.
Ive been using a small active two way speaker for a while, for its size it has a good go at tackling all types of music in an even handed and enjoyable way.

Even at low volume or on large classical pieces they have enough weight and body to do the recordings justice and make the music satisfying. They are of course very revealing of recording and faults are there to hear compression/brickwalling being the most annoying, but the irony is all types of music and recordings sound very good indeed they seem to work with bad recordings than against them if that make any sense!

Their limitations only become apparent when switching back to much larger (either active or passive) speakers, in real terms the larger speakers are more accurate, neutral, have much less distortion high volume, are more relaxed and open, create a much more palpable illusion of real (life size) people playing, in a real space, handle (nearly) unrestrained dynamics with no compression, which in turn that energise the room (not taking about room nodes here!) this ultimately makes the larger speaker more engaging and realistic and gets you closer to to the live event or recording.

 

Good point and it highlights that this is a very complex issue.
Compare a small active with a much larger and more expensive passive and in all probability the small speaker will be better on many objective tests. It might well have better response uniformity and distortion when playing down at 85db, but start raising the spls and things can change pretty quickly.
One size most definitely does not fit all where speakers are concerned.

Nice to see you here muz.
Keep posting as we need to kick some life into the old dog

 

Hi Rob, its just unfortunate that often people are blind to the limitations of equipment, different speakers have different strengths and weakness in different areas. Some of the new expensively engineered active speakers do seem to live up to the hype, and only loose a bit in scale and the lowest octave, to bigger well regarded speakers.
(Im thinking Barefoots and the Events ) Ive not heard the Barefoots though.

I thought id find out why many very good mastering engineers used large often passive speakers, the general consensus was they could use very powerful amps to drive the speakers and the speakers themselves would handle large dynamics (ie the dynamics you find in real music and many of the better recordings) without compression and distortion.

 

I'd like to hear those Barefoot things, some clever joined-up thinking going on there for sure.

Tony.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing these new Manger actives. I use the passive 103-3 but I like the idea and look of these

 

Expensive?

Edit:

Yes

£7700.00 pair

http://www.manger-audio.co.uk/manger-speakers-msmc1.html

 

I suppose the reason for the relative lack of popularity of these for HiFi purposes is the lack of user choice over amplification? As far as I'm aware, all the commercially available active systems have dedicated amps 'built-in"?

Now if there was a move towards emulating large scale PA rigs, where you have adjustable crossovers upstream of separate amps, that might be something I could buy into.

 

I can see the advantages of crossing bass units actively to avoid huge inductors but it is less obvious going from mid/treble.I use an Ashly XR2001 to crossover at 150Hz Crown K2 for bass and MC2 650 for midrange.

 

Chaps

If you are concerned about good quality sound then active v passive is far less important than big v small.

The best sounding speakers I have ever heard were 15" Dual concentric Tannoys.

Little speakers in the main sound poor and big speakers nearly always sound better. That is a pain from a domestic point of view, but to date, big equals best.

Regards

Mick

 

Hi Mick, the active vs passive thing has been blown out of all proportion! you can of course get speakers of both types that perform great.

You can get more or less the same performance using subs and satellites as you can using larger speakers too, but they might be as expensive and take up as much (or more!) floor space than a larger pair of speakers, sometimes its easier to make the subs and monitors work in a smaller room than bigger speakers.

My adventurers in active land have shown me that not all actives (of the same type and size) are equal , some dont need a sub, despite being small to sound very satisfying with all types of music in a mid sized room.
I think if you had a listen to the Opals or to a lesser degree a pair of the pro Dynaudios, youd be shocked by the performance of them, and how good they sound in comparison to your Briks.

 

Muz

Adding a sub woofer is an act of abject failure. It is like a customer in a cheap restaurant having to sprinkle pepper over a peppered steak sauce.

A good speaker shouldn't need a sub woofer and if it does, then frankly it is only fit for land fill.

Shame on the maker and pity for the poor bugger who has to listen to it.

Regards

Mick

 

Even if it was part of the design philosophy from the beginning?