Active vs Passive Speakers. Budget ~10k

[spike99]

Hi.

I'm looking to upgrade my front (L+C+R) HT Speakers. Mostly do music 40% and 60% movies.

Researching speakers I have noticed some companies offer active speakers. I have read some sites that say they are better than separates or I should say passive speakers. Wanted to see what is the consensus if active speakers are really better or not.

I'm not an engineer, but I suppose it makes sense that an integrated amp in speaker cabinet would be better than an external AMP... and I suppose integrated AMP would be better designed for that particular speaker...

I have XPA5 for AMP and Integra DHC-80.3 and B&W CM Series (CM8). I also have JL Audio F112 for subs.

Thanks in advance.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't think internal/integrated amps are better at all. If the internal amps malfunction, you can't just use any amps; you would have to replace that amp, which might be an issue if parts become back-ordered.

That is why I prefer to use external amps for both speakers and subwoofers. I can use any amp to power my speakers and subwoofers.

It's simple to match amps with speakers - just use high quality amps and don't try to blow your ear drums. There is no magic to it.

Now in terms of active vs passive speaker systems, I only see the advantage of having the bass/woofers active because of mainly 2 reasons: 1) the bass probably requires 90% of the total power requirement and 2) it is very useful to be able to adjust the bass level without messing with any EQ. The midrange and especially tweeters do not require much power.

The question is, why do you want to change speakers? Does your system not sound very good?

 

[spike99]

My system sounds good... I just thought that I can possibly do better.

The reason I asked about active speakers... I learned about funk audio and they they have 2 versions for their tower speaker... passive and an active and speaker. They seem very interesting.... and hence the question. It also seems they have ability to EQ their speaker... and thought that was nice.

BTW, I'm also considering Signature SE from Legacy Audio.

 

[KEW]

I am in the active camp.
Not many of my speakers are active, but I believe it is a better design approach.
I am not an EE, but just makes sense to manipulate the signal (i.e. crossover) at line level instead of waiting until you are pumping tens (or perhaps hundreds) of watts into the crossover.
Also, if properly designed, it should work like an intelligently designed sub - if you push the limits, it handles it gracefully before blowing tweeters or cooking the amp.
ADTG comments about reliability/replacement costs are certainly valid, but amps are really pretty simple, and thus, reliable. Most of the things that cause an amp to fail involve mismatching the load, or short in speaker wires, etc (essentially user error). Of course, these are not concerns since the amps are selected uniquely for each driver and contained where your cat can't dig his claws into the wire (my brother wasted 3 receivers before he close-inspected the speaker wire and found the tiny pin pricks that caused a short in the cable).
Probably my biggest concern is having the additional heat inside the speaker cabinet, but you only have to look at pro audio monitors to know this can be done reliably.

Funk is a small outfit, but I believe they do things intelligently. Ask them about active vs passive! Also ask how they handle the extra heat in the active speaker.

 

[Swerd]

There is always some confusion when the term "active speaker" is used.

At a simple level, "active" means the speaker comes with an amplifier mounted in the same cabinet as the speaker. In that same sense, a passive speaker requires external amplification. These active speakers, like most desktop computer speakers, require only a preamp level analog sound source. They are "self-powered". The NHT SuperPower is an example.

The term "active" is also applied to a speaker's crossover. In this sense, an "active crossover" refers to an external crossover that works between a preamp and an amplifier. Such an external crossover requires a source of electric power, hence the name active. It differs from a passive crossover, which works downstream from the amplifier. Passive crossovers do not require an external source of electricity.

Most speakers come with an internal passive crossover, including many self-powered speakers. These will have a single internal amplifier, no matter how many drivers are in the cabinet.

spike99 - Are you talking about self-powered speakers, or speakers with active crossovers?

 

[KEW]

Thanks Swerd.
To clarify, I am a proponent of having a separate amplifier designated for each driver with the crossover occurring before the amps. Thus each amp is getting the exact signal that it will pass to its driver (nothing but straight wire between the amp and driver).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My system sounds good... I just thought that I can possibly do better.

The reason I asked about active speakers... I learned about funk audio and they they have 2 versions for their tower speaker... passive and an active and speaker. They seem very interesting.... and hence the question. It also seems they have ability to EQ their speaker... and thought that was nice.

BTW, I'm also considering Signature SE from Legacy Audio.

Apparently most towers are passive 3-way/4-way.

If Active 3-way/4-way sounded significantly better, all high-end speakers would be 100% active, instead of passive.

I own the 100% active Linkwitz Orion towers. Each tower requires FOUR channels of amps, so one pair requires EIGHT channels of amps. I don't think active speakers sound any better than passive just because they are "active". I wouldn't mess around with tweaking the tweeter or midrange, but I find it most useful tweaking the bass levels.

There are the in-between towers that are passive in the treble and midrange, but active in the bass where tweaking does the most good. These towers include RBH, XTZ, Golden-Ear, and Definitive Technology.

The key is to just try out as many speakers as you can and see if they TRULY sound significantly better than your current system.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Similar to Sealed vs Ported subs age old debate. Active doesn't necessarily always means best as Ported sub doesn't necessarily always means it any less "musical"
I own active studio monitors by JBL (see sig) - The sound great, but only after placed in much smaller room with better acoustics.
I also heard passive speakers (Salk's SS8 for example) which in comparison make my JBLs sound like cheap $10 Chinese desktop speakers.

 

[Swerd]

The consensus here seems to be that active crossovers and self-powered speakers have no inherent advantage over the more conventional designs with passive crossovers. I agree with that.

It is true that active crossover designs avoid some of the problems introduced by passive crossovers, but it is also true that both designs can be used to make good sounding speakers. If you plan on spending 10 kilobucks on L, C, & R speakers, spend a good amount of time listening before you buy and find out what you prefer.

The ability for the owner to EQ speakers with active crossovers may seem nice, but it would be an advantage only if the original crossover design was poorly done. It can also be a severe disadvantage for someone who is prone to tweak without knowing what he's doing. Its better to buy speakers that already have a smooth sounding frequency response as they are originally built.

ADTG's point about how adjusting the bass is a big benefit is a good one. This is already available with powered subwoofers and bass management in most AVRs. Adjusting the midrange and higher frequencies with active crossovers provides much less potential benefit for customizing a speaker to account for a particular room's acoustic environment.

 

[lsiberian]

From a pure idealistic design standpoint active for low, passive for high, but idealistic designs are for custom audio not commercial speakers. Just get the speakers you like best and don't worry about the design. There are trade-offs for everything.

 

[spike99]

Apparently most towers are passive 3-way/4-way.

If Active 3-way/4-way sounded significantly better, all high-end speakers would be 100% active, instead of passive.

I own the 100% active Linkwitz Orion towers. Each tower requires FOUR channels of amps, so one pair requires EIGHT channels of amps. I don't think active speakers sound any better than passive just because they are "active". I wouldn't mess around with tweaking the tweeter or midrange, but I find it most useful tweaking the bass levels.

There are the in-between towers that are passive in the treble and midrange, but active in the bass where tweaking does the most good. These towers include RBH, XTZ, Golden-Ear, and Definitive Technology.

The key is to just try out as many speakers as you can and see if they TRULY sound significantly better than your current system.

This is what really confused me... If active was so much better... why do I not see them in most high-end speakers... Called a local dealer... and they did not have any active speakers... This is why I was so confused... if they are so much better... why don't high end audio dealers don't carry them ?

Another thing that I liked about this speaker is the ability to adust filters according to my room. Not really concerned much about low freq due to my sub (I use XTZ room analyzer) and I'm +/- 5db from 20Hz thru 200Hz... But my frequency response is crazy in mid and high. My pre-pro has option to adjust freq response... but I had played with it... but I don't think that works... because I got same response no matter how much I adjusted.

 

[its phillip]

If dealers carried a lot of active speakers, they wouldn't be able to sell you all the fancy amps and speaker cables.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Back to original question: At 10k budget for 3 speakers you should NOT trust any forum post, but trust your own ears only.
All we could do is to steer you into right direction. It would be up to you to make the decision with such budget.

I already mentioned Jim Salk's SoundScape8. I think pair of SS8's and SS-C would be above budget, but I think it's still worth to try to talk to Jim and see if he could help to arrange an audition.

Not to forget Dennis Murphys at http://philharmonicaudio.com/ - You could get A LOT of speaker, for NOT a lot of money (relatively)

And there is forum favorite brand - RBH - they have lot of different product at different price point. I have only heard some of budget options and they there very good.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is what really confused me... If active was so much better... why do I not see them in most high-end speakers... Called a local dealer... and they did not have any active speakers... This is why I was so confused... if they are so much better... why don't high end audio dealers don't carry them ?

Another thing that I liked about this speaker is the ability to adust filters according to my room. Not really concerned much about low freq due to my sub (I use XTZ room analyzer) and I'm +/- 5db from 20Hz thru 200Hz... But my frequency response is crazy in mid and high. My pre-pro has option to adjust freq response... but I had played with it... but I don't think that works... because I got same response no matter how much I adjusted.

Listen to your instincts.

IMO, active speakers truly aren't any better than passive speakers in reality, depending on how you set up your system.

If you use subwoofers to manage the bass, active speakers definitely don't sound any better IMO.

Of course, it's very easy for people to say that one is better than the other.

Sure, I could easily say that my Linkwitz Orion are the best speakers in the world because 1) they are Bipolar [while most speakers are direct-radiating], 2) they are 100% active [while most speakers are passive], and 3) they are active QUAD-amp [while most speakers are either single-amp or passively bi-amp. Why, some people might even believe me. They are totally up for sale BTW.

Listen to your instincts and the speakers.

 

[KEW]

The consensus here seems to be that active crossovers and self-powered speakers have no inherent advantage over the more conventional designs with passive crossovers. I agree with that.

There are lots of ways you could have worded that sentence which I would not have taken exception to, but as written, I have to take exception!
There are inherent advantages!
As far as I know none of us who responded really knows much about this topic, but there is no uncertainty among those that do. There is not a question of are there inherent advantages - there are. There is a question of how significant are those inherent advantages.

Wikipedia lists fidelity as a benefit of an active speaker as follows:

Fidelity
The main benefit of active versus passive speakers is in the higher fidelity associated with active crossovers and multiple amplifiers, including less IMD, higher dynamic range and greater output power.[1] The amplifiers within the loudspeaker enclosure may be ideally matched to the individual drivers, eliminating the need for each amplifier channel to operate in the entire audio bandpass. Driver characteristics such as power handling and impedance may be matched to amplifier capabilities.[2] More specifically, active speakers have very short speaker cables inside the enclosure, so very little voltage and control is lost in long speaker cables with higher resistance.

An active speaker often incorporates equalization tailored to each driver's response in the enclosure.[14] This yields a flatter, more neutral sound. Limiting circuits (high-ratio audio compression circuits) can be incorporated to increase the likelihood of the driver surviving high-SPL use. Such limiters may be carefully matched to driver characteristics, resulting in a more dependable loudspeaker requiring less service. Distortion detection may be designed into the electronics to help determine the onset of protective limiting, reducing output distortion and eliminating clipping.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_speakers

Wikipedia is not my favorite reference, because hot button topics such as global warming, or abortion can get derailed. However, it is still a good resource for accurate information like this, which has citations to publications from experts in the field (see footnoted references).

Note all of the qualifiers in this statement from Colin Miller, but also note there is a never a question of whether there are inherent advantages:

In general, all other considerations being as equal as possible, assuming equal competency in all areas of design, manufacturing, and value, when it comes to the upper end of the loudspeaker market where budgets allow more extensive design and manufacturing, if comparing the hypothetical technical aspects between active and passive loudspeaker systems, active is better!!!

Above statement is in the introduction of this article:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html

 

[slipperybidness]

There are lots of ways you could have worded that sentence which I would not have taken exception to, but as written, I have to take exception!
There are inherent advantages!
As far as I know none of us who responded really knows much about this topic, but there is no uncertainty among those that do. There is not a question of are there inherent advantages - there are. There is a question of how significant are those inherent advantages.

Wikipedia lists fidelity as a benefit of an active speaker as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_speakers

Wikipedia is not my favorite reference, because hot button topics such as global warming, or abortion can get derailed. However, it is still a good resource for accurate information like this, which has citations to publications from experts in the field (see footnoted references).

Note all of the qualifiers in this statement from Colin Miller, but also note there is a never a question of whether there are inherent advantages:


Above statement is in the introduction of this article:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html

Yup. OF COURSE there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to any approach when compared to a different approach to a product.

For example: 1 disadvantage of self-powered speakers is that you need a power outlet near each one (or a long run of extension cord).

 

[KEW]

To the intent of the OP, I would not go out of my way to find an active speaker. If the difference was that marked, active speakers would have dominated the audio market long ago.
The consumer audio industry has adopted passive design, so that is predominantly what you have available.

 

[KEW]

Yup. OF COURSE there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to any approach when compared to a different approach to a product.

For example: 1 disadvantage of self-powered speakers is that you need a power outlet near each one (or a long run of extension cord).

I was generally thinking from a standpoint of performance, but that is probably the biggest practical drawback I have. The outlets happen to be in the right spots, but I like to hide my cables and cords as much as possible. With speakers properly positioned out from walls, the standard IEC cord is much more conspicuous than speaker cable alone.

 

[Swerd]

There are lots of ways you could have worded that sentence which I would not have taken exception to, but as written, I have to take exception!
There are inherent advantages!
As far as I know none of us who responded really knows much about this topic, but there is no uncertainty among those that do. There is not a question of are there inherent advantages - there are. There is a question of how significant are those inherent advantages…

I agree with these ideas in theory, but in practice, they haven't seemed to matter so much.

To avoid derailing this thread from the OP's question, we can agree to disagree on this.

Note all of the qualifiers in this statement from Colin Miller, but also note there is a never a question of whether there are inherent advantages:

Above statement is in the introduction of this article:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html

I read that long page. The only point I'll readily agree with is that passive crossovers introduce losses in signal strength. Active crossovers avoid this. Sometimes these losses can be large, especially in the bass frequencies. As the price of amplification goes down, and the price of good speakers rise, this becomes a smaller and smaller problem.

I still maintain that a well designed crossover makes or brakes a speaker. It makes little difference whether this is done actively or passively. A poorly designed passive crossover will not sound better if implemented as an active one. And a well designed active crossover will not sound worse if implemented as a passive one. The theoretical benefits of active crossovers in home audio (I'm saying nothing about large auditorium PA systems), so far, have not been worth the additional costs of implementing it. This could easily change as costs change and new products appear in the future.

 

[spike99]

Thanks for all your help, comments and advise !!!

If dealers carried a lot of active speakers, they wouldn't be able to sell you all the fancy amps and speaker cables.

LOL, I like this one