Powered Speakers

[banana23]

I have been listening to both active and passive speakers lately and find that more often than not powered speakers sound much better than passive speakers. I was just wondering if there was some aspect of active designs that make them better than comparable passive designs. Any thoughts?

 

[Adam]

Welcome to the forum, banana!

You have an interesting question. Would you mind expanding on it and letting us know some of the speakers that you've auditioned? It might give people here a better idea of how to answer the question. (For example, it might be because the active speakers that you heard were just higher quality speakers, or might be because of some fundamental difference in the designs.) Thanks.

Adam

 

[banana23]

Welcome to the forum, banana!

You have an interesting question. Would you mind expanding on it and letting us know some of the speakers that you've auditioned? It might give people here a better idea of how to answer the question. (For example, it might be because the active speakers that you heard were just higher quality speakers, or might be because of some fundamental difference in the designs.) Thanks.

Adam

The powered speakers I have listened to are krk, m-audio, and event studio monitors which I have been comparing to paradigms, polks, klipsich etc. All the speakers are around the same price point and I wouldn't expect the drivers/enclosures/x-overs to be too different in terms of quality. I don't know why but the studio monitors sound much more dynamic regardless of the quality or quantity of amplification I use with passive speakers.

 

[Hi Ho]

My experience with powered speakers is mainly in the sound reinforcement arena as opposed to home audio. I do prefer powered speakers. I am actually looking to pick up some Mackie powered speakers.

One advantage that powered speakers have is that it is possible to use active crossovers and it is also easier to bi and tri amp speakers and fine tune the amps just right.

The SA1532z for example has active crossoers as well as phase alignment and time correction. That's not to mention the three amplifiers; two 100w and one 1100w. Active speakers can have their advantages.

 

[Davidt1]

I don't know anything about powered speakers. This dude has Mackie powered speakers, I think. He seems a knowledgeable guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbLVjHfHahg&feature=related

Anyway, powered speakers are like those computer speakers, right? Like these:

http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php/p/swan-m200mkii/products_id/80

Do they have binding posts like regular speakers and can accept speaker cables coming out of a receiver? Do you use them the same way you use non-powered speakers?

 

[mazersteven]

He seems a knowledgeable guy.

Ya I would say he is a knowledgeable guy.

Ethan Winer
www.realtraps.com

http://www.realtraps.com/contact.htm

I think he is a member here, but you can contact him over here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/member.php?u=69909&styleid=16

 

[Davidt1]

The back of this powered speaker doesn't have a L and R speaker inputs. How do I connect this speaker to a receiver?

http://www.mackie.com/home/showimage.html?u=/products/mr5/photos/MR5_Back Panel.jpg

 

[bandphan]

L or R preouts from the avr

 

[Davidt1]

L or R preouts from the avr

Thanks. It's a good thing my receiver has preouts. But for those receivers without preouts, would one use Y splitters going from the receiver's LR outputs to the single RCA on the speaker? This is exciting. My speaker options just opened up.

 

[bandphan]

Thanks. It's a good thing my receiver has preouts. But for those receivers without preouts, would one use Y splitters going from the receiver's LR outputs to the single RCA on the speaker? This is exciting. My speaker options just opened up.

No each powered speaker should be thought of as a channel and should be line level not speaker level, you could use the tape rec out *maybe.

 

[no. 5]

I have been listening to both active and passive speakers lately and find that more often than not powered speakers sound much better than passive speakers. I was just wondering if there was some aspect of active designs that make them better than comparable passive designs.

Yes, there is. Of course there are other aspects of the speakers in question that are much more important, as far as sound quality goes, that are likely to be behind the reasons for the powered speakers sounding better.

Rod Elliott has written some fairly technical articles on the subject (1, 2) as to the technical reasons active is better.

 

[no. 5]

...you could use the tape rec out *maybe.

If you were to do it that way, Davidt1, just rememberer that the record out level is not controlled by the receivers volume.

 

[bandphan]

If you were to do it that way, Davidt1, just rememberer that the record out level is not controlled by the receivers volume.

Yep, that was the *maybe some older avrs embeded vc for a zone out/tape combo. The other option would be gain control on the powered speaker(although a pain)

 

[bandphan]

I don't know anything about powered speakers. This dude has Mackie powered speakers, I think. He seems a knowledgeable guy.

here is a nice pair of quads thats up for sale
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1223136608

 

[TLS Guy]

No each powered speaker should be thought of as a channel and should be line level not speaker level, you could use the tape rec out *maybe.

Not unless you add an external volume control.

 

[TLS Guy]

Welcome to the forum, banana!

You have an interesting question. Would you mind expanding on it and letting us know some of the speakers that you've auditioned? It might give people here a better idea of how to answer the question. (For example, it might be because the active speakers that you heard were just higher quality speakers, or might be because of some fundamental difference in the designs.) Thanks.

Adam

The passive crossover is often the root of a lot of evils in speakers. It is high time ALL speakers are powered speakers. I have stated again and again, that the power amps belong in the speakers NOT a receiver case. The amp is then directly connected to the driver or drivers in that pass band, and can optimally be designed for that task. Active crossovers do have significant advantages over passive. Digital crossovers will soon routinely eliminate the time and phase problems inherent in both active and passive analog filters.

If you want to see the top of the mountain in powered speakers look here! The Quads already mentioned on this thread are a very good bet, and really deserve a place on the top recommended list on these forums.

Bottom line guys, don't bury speaker cables in walls. Put it in conduit, you will be pulling it sooner than you think. It is also time to assign the receiver to the ash bin of history and go to pre/processors, this will hasten the change. If pre/pros were made in quantity they would have to be cheaper than receivers, and significantly. If all the speakers were powered then that is all you would need after that. A receiver and passive speakers is already yesterday's technology.

 

[Djizasse]

I didn't buy active monitors because I would have to turn on three different units to get all 5 speakers working (FL/FR + C + RL/RR). I also can't imagine having to handle 3 different power cords, on top of the usual interconnects.
Would not having all these amplifiers make the system more exposed to ground loops?

And isn't it better (power efficiency wise) to have just one amplifier with some channels than various amplifiers?

I'm not knowledgeable in audio hardware, so I don't know why is better to have the amplifier in the speaker cabinet. When you say that it's because of the passive crossovers? What about bi-amped speakers? Are they also bad just because the amp was not made specifically to that speaker?

I would also like to hear your opinion on what would be the best system. I'm imagining all the speakers without crossovers, with an equalizer (a dcx 2496 on steroids) that would split the frequencies on each channel and send it to each driver in each cabinet, passing through a receiver with lots of channels.

Lot's of questions, but I'm getting into this and I'm very curious about all

 

[abboudc]

I have been listening to both active and passive speakers lately and find that more often than not powered speakers sound much better than passive speakers. I was just wondering if there was some aspect of active designs that make them better than comparable passive designs. Any thoughts?

Were the speakers used with a sub? Many of the "powered" speaker models dig a little deeper due to a powered woofer module that allow them to extend deeper.

Listening to a powered pair vs. a passive pair with a sub, and your opinion is likely to change...

Powered or passive shouldn't matter if the speakers are built and set up properly.

 

[TLS Guy]

I didn't buy active monitors because I would have to turn on three different units to get all 5 speakers working (FL/FR + C + RL/RR). I also can't imagine having to handle 3 different power cords, on top of the usual interconnects.
Would not having all these amplifiers make the system more exposed to ground loops?

And isn't it better (power efficiency wise) to have just one amplifier with some channels than various amplifiers?

I'm not knowledgeable in audio hardware, so I don't know why is better to have the amplifier in the speaker cabinet. When you say that it's because of the passive crossovers? What about bi-amped speakers? Are they also bad just because the amp was not made specifically to that speaker?

I would also like to hear your opinion on what would be the best system. I'm imagining all the speakers without crossovers, with an equalizer (a dcx 2496 on steroids) that would split the frequencies on each channel and send it to each driver in each cabinet, passing through a receiver with lots of channels.

Lot's of questions, but I'm getting into this and I'm very curious about all

The speakers will turn on when they get a signal just like a sub. Ground loops can be avoided either by balanced connection or using optical connection.

As I have stated before, passive crossovers add up to very difficult loads for amps to drive. The loudspeaker amp interface is an important one. Passive crossover will NEVER match a good electronic crossover with speakers connected directly to the amp with a short very low resistance cable. Also sophisticated feedback systems between amp and speaker can be developed. Getting away from passive speakers will open up a whole range of useful new possibilities. It is time for a new breeze!

 

[jaxvon]

I didn't buy active monitors because I would have to turn on three different units to get all 5 speakers working (FL/FR + C + RL/RR). I also can't imagine having to handle 3 different power cords, on top of the usual interconnects.
Would not having all these amplifiers make the system more exposed to ground loops?

And isn't it better (power efficiency wise) to have just one amplifier with some channels than various amplifiers?

I'm not knowledgeable in audio hardware, so I don't know why is better to have the amplifier in the speaker cabinet. When you say that it's because of the passive crossovers? What about bi-amped speakers? Are they also bad just because the amp was not made specifically to that speaker?

I would also like to hear your opinion on what would be the best system. I'm imagining all the speakers without crossovers, with an equalizer (a dcx 2496 on steroids) that would split the frequencies on each channel and send it to each driver in each cabinet, passing through a receiver with lots of channels.

Lot's of questions, but I'm getting into this and I'm very curious about all

I'd have to disagree about all speakers being powered. Stuffing an amplifier into a speaker cabinet imposes restrictions with regards to heat and noise that are simply not an issue with a self contained unit that can fit into a rack. Add to that the fact that electronics generally don't like sustained mechanical vibrations (such as those produced by a speaker and transmitted through the cabinet) and you can see where I'm coming from. But the idea of active crossovers and digital equalization? Absolutely. The best possible integration without phase issues can be had with active crossovers. Phase Technology DARTS system is a move in the right direction, imo. The speakers are passive, but utilize an active crossover system that resides in the rack with the rest of your gear. While it might not be up to my standards for true high-fidelity reproduction, I think the concept is great.

But on the subject presented by the OP, the better quality you have heard is most likely due to the reasons put forth by other posters. That said, Abbey Road Studios uses B&W 800D speakers for their monitors. They're not powered, but the speaker itself possesses a flat frequency response, no audible cabinet resonances, and sufficient off-axis response to be useful in a near-midfield environment like a studio control room. A powered speaker is not necessarily higher quality than a passive one. In fact, many powered "studio monitors" are as colored and NOT high-fidelity as any home speaker. The monitors from ADAM are a favorite example of mine. The cabinet resonance colors the midrange to the point that it's laughable, yet they are considered to be quality studio monitors. Maybe that's part of the reason a lot of modern recordings sound like garbage...(that, and the obsession with the compressor as a tool to be used for good sound).