Active vs Passive Speakers. Budget ~10k

[spike99]

I would like to thank all with your comments and help... I did have the feeling at the beginning of this thread that active speakers may sound better than passive... I understand active having some benefits as some of you have pointed out... I also liked the idea being able to EQ mid and high frequency... But I have also been told that it is difficult to EQ mid and high frequency... and I should not buy active speaker on the idea that I would benefit in attempting to EQ this area.

I will start auditioning speakers and go from there...

Again... Thanks

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

To quote Dennis Murphy, "If a speaker sounds good, it's good".

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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

Who cares about selling amps when you can sell active speakers that cost $80,000.

 

[Swerd]

I would like to thank all with your comments and help... I did have the feeling at the beginning of this thread that active speakers may sound better than passive... I understand active having some benefits as some of you have pointed out... I also liked the idea being able to EQ mid and high frequency... But I have also been told that it is difficult to EQ mid and high frequency... and I should not buy active speaker on the idea that I would benefit in attempting to EQ this area.

I will start auditioning speakers and go from there...

Again... Thanks

I hope my bickering with KEW didn't scare you off. It's one of those audio argument topics that never seems to end.

Using active crossover controls as sophisticated tone controls is an appealing idea. But unless you know how to do crossover filter design, and have a way to get reliable frequency response measurements, you probably shouldn't rely on it as a way to fine tune a speaker.

The gear you now have seems pretty good. I haven't heard the B&W CM8 speakers, but the CM series doesn't seem to have the problems of the B&W 600 series. Is there anything in particular about their sound that makes you want something else, or do you just have that itch for something new?

 

[Swerd]

I would like to thank all with your comments and help... I did have the feeling at the beginning of this thread that active speakers may sound better than passive... I understand active having some benefits as some of you have pointed out... I also liked the idea being able to EQ mid and high frequency... But I have also been told that it is difficult to EQ mid and high frequency... and I should not buy active speaker on the idea that I would benefit in attempting to EQ this area.

I will start auditioning speakers and go from there...

Again... Thanks

I hope my bickering with KEW didn't scare you off. It's one of those audio argument topics that never seems to end.

Using active crossover controls as sophisticated tone controls is an appealing idea. But unless you know how to do crossover filter design, and have a way to get reliable frequency response measurements, you probably shouldn't rely on it as a way to fine tune a speaker.

The gear you now have seems pretty good. I haven't heard the B&W CM8 speakers, but the CM series doesn't seem to have the problems of the B&W 600 series. Is there anything in particular about their sound that makes you want something else, or do you just have that itch for something new?

 

[spike99]

The gear you now have seems pretty good. I haven't heard the B&W CM8 speakers, but the CM series doesn't seem to have the problems of the B&W 600 series. Is there anything in particular about their sound that makes you want something else, or do you just have that itch for something new?

Yes, I suppose it does have to do with upgraditis

BTW, if I upgrade.... would be nice if I can still use my current towers. I would not be able to re-use center and would look to possibly sell.

Would it be good idea to use CM8's as front wide speakers ?

 

[andy19191]

I will start auditioning speakers and go from there...

Active vs passive crossovers is a rare examples where one side (active) has a number of modest technical performance advantages and the other has none at all. It is not possible to make a valid case for passive crossovers on technical performance grounds but one can make a case on other grounds like packaging and it being what the industry has tooled up to sell for use in the home.

If you want to audition examples of active speakers you will probably need to go to a music shop rather than a hi-fi shop. If you do then a good example in your price range might be the Neumann KH420.

 

[funky waves]

I hope my bickering with KEW didn't scare you off. It's one of those audio argument topics that never seems to end.

Using active crossover controls as sophisticated tone controls is an appealing idea. But unless you know how to do crossover filter design, and have a way to get reliable frequency response measurements, you probably shouldn't rely on it as a way to fine tune a speaker.

The gear you now have seems pretty good. I haven't heard the B&W CM8 speakers, but the CM series doesn't seem to have the problems of the B&W 600 series. Is there anything in particular about their sound that makes you want something else, or do you just have that itch for something new?

I would not advocate messing with the crossover settings as "tone" controls, as this will likely have adverse affects. Once the active crossover is set by the designer that is left alone. EQ adjustments should be made separately and are often minor changes that make things sound much better. As for active crossovers in general all else equal active is always better, as you can do things actively that you simply cannot do passively, for example you can "steer" the imaging to be exactly how you want/need it in your setup.

 

[andy19191]

I would not advocate messing with the crossover settings as "tone" controls, as this will likely have adverse affects. Once the active crossover is set by the designer that is left alone. EQ adjustments should be made separately and are often minor changes that make things sound much better.

If you follow the link to the Neumann speakers in the previous post and click on the measurements section on the RHS you will see plots of the types of equalisation that can be performed with a modern active studio monitor. Room boundaries will shift the perceived frequency response away from neutral and so if you want to restore a reasonably neutral sound one has no option but to use such controls somewhere in the reproduction chain. Might as well be by twiddling little knobs on the back of the speaker if they are present.

 

[funky waves]

If you follow the link to the Neumann speakers in the previous post and click on the measurements section on the RHS you will see plots of the types of equalisation that can be performed with a modern active studio monitor. Room boundaries will shift the perceived frequency response away from neutral and so if you want to restore a reasonably neutral sound one has no option but to use such controls somewhere in the reproduction chain. Might as well be by twiddling little knobs on the back of the speaker if they are present.

What I mean is the DSP crossover settings themselves should not be changed to adjust the response, as this has to be set permanently to make the drivers work correctly together. Parametric EQ should be done as a separate operation, even if it is done with the same DSP system. I am not sure if swerd meant it the way it sounded to me I just wanted to clarify that while he is right most people should no be messing with the "crossover" portion itself as a means of adjusting, being able to EQ the system to the room is very beneficial, but also that is not the only benefit to an active system.

 

[Swerd]

What I mean is the DSP crossover settings themselves should not be changed to adjust the response, as this has to be set permanently to make the drivers work correctly together. Parametric EQ should be done as a separate operation, even if it is done with the same DSP system. I am not sure if swerd meant it the way it sounded to me I just wanted to clarify that while he is right most people should no be messing with the "crossover" portion itself as a means of adjusting, being able to EQ the system to the room is very beneficial, but also that is not the only benefit to an active system.

Yes, that is what I meant. Your words say it better.

It is very rare to be able to listen to two speakers with the same drivers and cabinets, where one had an electronic active crossover and the other had conventional passive crossovers. Both had the same crossover designs. I've done that once. For that single example, both sounded so similar that I could not tell a difference. I can't say whether that applies to all cases.

 

[pachieh]

If you have a 10k budget, hands down go for the Aerial Acoustics 7T speakers. They are simply amazing. I have the smaller brother, 6T... Want an amazing speaker, the 7T will blow you away. I run my 6Ts on some Emotiva XPA-1s.

If you want to save some bucks, go with some 6Ts, buy the new upcoming 7CC center from Aerial, and you'll be set.

Go passive all the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pachieh]

Hmmm... Won't let me edit for some reason. I'm way off in my assessment.

Let me rephrase my post... For L/C/R... Look at the 6Ts with a 7CC center from Aerial. The 7CC should be released next month, total will be about $10k for just the speakers. Or you can save a little more by going with Vandersteen Treos with a VCC-5 center. That'll get you to $8.5k. Then spend the remaining $1.5k on room treatments (DIY absorption panels, diffusers). I just built 4 x absorption panels for about $200 total (including wood, Spoonflower fabric prints, Rokul 60).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes, I suppose it does have to do with upgraditis

BTW, if I upgrade.... would be nice if I can still use my current towers. I would not be able to re-use center and would look to possibly sell.

Would it be good idea to use CM8's as front wide speakers ?

Just audition a bunch of speakers first, both passive and active, before wasting $10K on speakers someone or some group personally likes.

 

[TLS Guy]

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.


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.

You have hit the one of the main advantages of active speakers, and that is high power.

The lower the crossover point the greater the advantage of active designs. Strictly the disadvantages of passive designs rapidly increase as the crossover point is lowered.

From a design point of view an active approach gives much more freedom. For instance a passive circuit can never apply boost, only cut. An active crossover can provide both cut and boost. So it easier to get a flat response. In addition passive designs are very limiting as to which drive units you can integrate. An active design allows you to choose any decent drivers you want.

All things being equal, if the industry could escape the shackles of the past, all speakers would be active. In car audio that has happened. All the crossovers in the stock audio system in my car are active. This is true I think, for pretty much all autos now. I believe that this is the prime reason for the quantum leap in performance of car audio systems in recent years.

In fact I would say that a huge number of home audio systems are inferior to stock car systems now, in many important parameters.

As I have said before, for the vast majority of the public, the best audio system they own is in their cars.

 

[slipperybidness]

Yes, that is what I meant. Your words say it better.

It is very rare to be able to listen to two speakers with the same drivers and cabinets, where one had an electronic active crossover and the other had conventional passive crossovers. Both had the same crossover designs. I've done that once. For that single example, both sounded so similar that I could not tell a difference. I can't say whether that applies to all cases.

But, does the passive crossover take more power from the amp to achieve the same SPL as the active crossovers? Passive crossovers are terribly inefficient, right?

 

[pachieh]

It depends on the crossover design. Read the specs, then go listen. The listening/ear test is the ONLY way to truly determine of passive or active is what YOU like.

BTW, you probably don't need as much power as you think. There are numerous calculators out there depending on speaker sensitivity to help determine how much ACTUAL power you need. You don't need 2000 watts per speaker, hell, you don't even need 1,000. If you want to destroy your hearing, then by all means. Focus on the quality of the power being supplied.

 

[Swerd]

But, does the passive crossover take more power from the amp to achieve the same SPL as the active crossovers? Passive crossovers are terribly inefficient, right?

I would call them "less efficient", but not "terribly inefficient". Although Rod Elliot and TLS Guy are correct in their descriptions of the potential advantages of active crossovers, people have an exaggerated understanding that this makes a night & day difference in all speakers. It matters most when a bass low filter is lower than about 450 Hz. Above that, passive crossover filters get the job done at a lower cost (today) than a system with all active filters.

Just how inefficient passive crossovers are varies with the woofer, the Q resulting from the cabinet design and the chosen woofer, and the amount of baffle step compensation required by a design. These vary widely from speaker to speaker.

As amplification becomes less and less costly, the benefits of active crossovers get smaller. This will be true until the audio industry provides AVRs with all the necessary circuitry for fully active crossovers. Everyone talks about this as coming in the future, but at present it is not in the predictable future.

 

[TLS Guy]

But, does the passive crossover take more power from the amp to achieve the same SPL as the active crossovers? Passive crossovers are terribly inefficient, right?

It all depends on the design. The higher the order, the greater the loss. For a fourth order is will be three or four db. So you loose half your amp power in the crossover and the thermal compression in the crossover is additive to the thermal compression in driver.

There is a particular problem with three ways however, which I don't think I have discussed before. In a passive design the woofer always has to be least sensitive driver. This is an absolute requirement. So the mid range (bandpass) driver will be more sensitive. There is also bandpass gain due to overlap of the woofer and tweeter. So the mid range ends up being padded down quite a bit as a rule. The mid range often takes close to half the power. It is common to have to pad a mid 4 to 6 db. So you can loose 25% of total amp power in addition to the inductor and cap losses. The power lost in the tweeter padding is not usually significant to the total power requirements.

This is another reason that I strongly favor three ways being at least active in the woofer mid crossover even if the mid tweeter crossover is passive.

As an example of the above, in my right and left mains, the woofers are more sensitive than the mids, so an active solution is the only one possible for that crossover. I can't stress enough that passive crossovers restrict design choice and freedom in many situations.

 

[mtrot]

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.

As a long time owner of the Signature IIs, I dare say the Signature SE would be a massive upgrade for your front mains. My dream front L/R speakers are the Legacy Focus SE, and for the center speaker the Marquis! Maybe some day...