Active and Passive Speakers

[DrMartin]

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


Regards

Mick

I'd agree with that. They were the control room monitors in the recording studio where I worked back in the late 1970s and were superb. I've never heard anything since that came close.

Having said that, I haven't really had the opportunity to listen to many high-end systems in the intervening years.

Martin

 

[mick parry]

Yes

Sub woofers are second rate, an after thought by incompetent and unimaginative speaker manufacturers who are unworthy of the name.

Regards

Mick

 

[Labarum]

Yes

Sub woofers are second rate

Then you will be pleased to see that my MB Quart floorstanders don't need them.

http://www.hifi-wiki.de/index.php/MB_Quart_980_S

 

[muz640]

Yes

Sub woofers are second rate, an after thought by incompetent and unimaginative speaker manufacturers who are unworthy of the name.

Regards

Mick

Thanks Mick for your constructive contribution!

 

[Labarum]

Thanks Mick for your constructive contribution!

It's all right Muz. Mick calls himself a "Stroppy Old Git".

These need no (extra) subwoofer

http://www.royaldevice.com/customita3.htm

 

[muz640]

It's all right Muz. Mick calls himself a "Stroppy Old Git".

Yes i know he does it for laughs, he's crafted himself a very fine comedy character, i doubt a comedy writer could come up with something so consistent and believable.

 

[TonyL]

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

A single mono sub has to be seen as a compromise, inevitably it adds phase error as it's position is a variable. There are other issues too, e.g. in most cases the small midband unit (bass-mid if you must) in the satellite is still attempting to handle bass frequencies so will no doubt be distorting at anything beyond moderate levels. Subs only really make sense as a stereo pair located physically beneath the satellite and coupled via a high-pass filter, and if you are doing that you may as well build a decent three-way or wide-bandwidth two-way from the off IMO.

Tony.

 

[muz640]

A single mono sub has to be seen as a compromise, inevitably it adds phase error as it's position is a variable. There are other issues too, e.g. in most cases the small midband unit (bass-mid if you must) in the satellite is still attempting to handle bass frequencies so will no doubt be distorting at anything beyond moderate levels. Subs only really make sense as a stereo pair located physically beneath the satellite and coupled via a high-pass filter, and if you are doing that you may as well build a decent three-way or wide-bandwidth two-way from the off IMO.

Tony.

I did write subs in my bit on monitors and subs, a high pass does help the monitors handle dynamics, and your totally right unless it is designed as a system phase/timing errors can cause all sorts of problems.

These new über actives that have cost a few quid and a few years to develop are very impressive, made me think in a different way about what is possible from a smaller speaker (smaller to me anyway, everything is relative!)

 

[RobHolt]

Agree entirely with Tony on this.
Just adding a mono sub to a small two-way might improve the overall performance but as a solution it represents a fudge.

Effectively, what you should be doing for best effect is properly converting a two-way into a real three-way. This gives benefits all round by extending LF, improving maximum SPLs, lowering distortion, and avoiding the phase issues if implemented correctly.

This is difficult to do with universal application. You really should know and understand the parameters of the existing speaker in order that the bass speaker can integrate properly.

 

[mick parry]

Chaps

So the concensous is that sub woofers are a second class option.

We all seem to agree on something at last.

Regards

Mick

 

[muz640]

Chaps

So the concensous is that sub woofers are a second class option.

We all seem to agree on something at last.

Regards

Mick

Bob Katz (not to be confused with bob cats) might disagree.
In fact he mastered one of your favourite albums "The Words of Gandhi" which won a Grammy

Properly set up they work well and are comparative to many large speakers.

Have you heard a system done this way? No of course you haven't.

 

[mick parry]

Muz

Of of I have heard systems with a sub woofer and yes they all sounded second rate.

If you want a good sound out of any system, go for the biggest speaker your wife will allow.

Regards

Mick

PS Stop being so bloody argumentive

 

[Jimbo]

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

I've just found some 12" monitor golds in the loft which i bought in the early 70's. Just hooked them up roughly with some tape as the bananas wont go in the bare wire connector. They do sound very good actually and they are only on the floor as they are just the chassis, no cabs.

 

[ovalmarc]

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.

Well said that man.

 

[Joe Petrik]

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.

Agree 100% with what Tony wrote.

Last year I bought a pair of new compression drivers -- i.e., spares from the original equipment manufacturer -- for my 52-year-old speakers.

I bought the speakers because I like them, but knowing that the manufacturer supports a product decades after it was manufactured was the icing. I doubt I would have bought them if they weren't still supported or serviceable.


-----------

I find this obsession with actives elsewhere to be a bit odd. It's not that I think active speakers and systems don't yield any tangible practical and theoretical advantages. They do. It's just that active is being seen de facto as a sign of quality and passive as a sign of inferiority. To me that's as misguided as saying that no speaker, apart from a dual concentric, can reproduce a complex waveform correctly.

Joe

 

[Labarum]

I fly to Cyprus in ten days and have been told my consignment of boxes is awaiting delivery to the bungalow.

I am particularly looking forward to being reunited with three old friends - a pair of MB Quart floor standing loudspeakers and a fully refurbished Quad 405-2 to drive them.

I hope they survived the journey.

 

[Joe Petrik]

Perhaps something of interest -- an entry from Ashley J's blog --

On his blog Ash wrote:
I ... present measurements made of both an active ADM9.1 and a passive version driven by a low distortion Class A test amp.

Both speakers were measured at a nominal 86 dBa at 0.5 Metres. The Mike was a Bruel & Kjaer type 4165 measuring microphone and the source was the low distortion output of an HP339.

Both the active and passive version of the ADM9.1 first played a 100 Hz tone.

I had to adjust the verticals on the graphs because even though the scales were the same the Y-axis was stretched for the passive plot. I also colour-coded them (red passive, blue active) and superimposed the graphs best I could, so the comparison is easier.

The active plot is better, but apart from the peak at 300 Hz I'm not seeing a huge difference between them. The distortion components are mostly 50 db below the signal, which may not be audible in the average room.

Here are the superimposed plots for the active and passive ADM9.1, this time with a 3 kHz signal. As before, I've colour-coded the plots ââ'¬â€ red is passive and blue is active ââ'¬â€ and superimposed them.

Again, the passive plot (red) is worse, but the distortion components are mostly 50 db below the signal, apart from some peaks. However, I see that the signal is considerably higher for the passive ADM -- it's at ~+7 db vs 0 db for active one, so all distortion components for the passive version may be ~7db higher across the board. If you drop the signal by ~7db the plots probably are less different, but I would imagine that the active is still better.

The question is whether the reduced distortion translates into a real subjective difference.

I'd be interested in knowing what you make of the active and passive plots and the subjective difference that a listener might hear.

Joe

 

[Paul Ranson]

Hey, Joe*, I wouldn't trust those plots further than I could sketch them.

Paul

*Random play has Jimi sound-checking at the Albert Hall.

 

[TonyL]

Interesting to note the passive plot was published at a larger image resolution so looked bigger on the page and appears to be 7db louder than the active one. I wonder what possible motivation the manufacturer of an active speaker could have for presenting information in this way?

Tony.

 

[Markus S]

The active plot is better, but apart from the peak at 300 Hz I'm not seeing a huge difference between them.

300 hz is nowhere near any frequency where a passive crossover on the woofer should have any influence, least of all cause a distortion peak. It'd be interesting to see how exactly that passive crossover was done. It would also be interesting to know whether we're comparing apples with apples, i.e. if the box and drivers were identical between the two measurements.