Active vs passive comparison

[matt49]

In his recent active and passive poll Steve_1979 asked us not to discuss the relative merits of active and passive systems. And we were all very obedient. But …

I completely buy in to the theory behind active speakers. (I own two pairs.) But the theory isn’t especially helpful when faced with a choice in the real world. After all, how would you go about actually comparing active and passive systems when there are so many variables involved?

So I was interested to find this review in the German hi-fi mag Stereoplay (4/2011). The review does a direct comparison (with measurements) of the active and passive versions of ATC’s SCM50 towers. I’m afraid the review is, of course, in German. Here’s a summary of the conclusions:

1. the measurements of FR are very similar

2. the only major measurable difference is that the actives show considerably more distortion in the low bass

3. subjectively the reviewer finds the two speakers very similar but prefers the overall presentation of the passive set-up

There’s a big BUT though. The amps used with the passive speakers were the Ayre MX-R monoblocs, which retail at over £20K a pair. The reviewer does say that he tried some cheaper amps (from Vincent and Linn) priced at around EUR4K, which is roughly the price premium for the active SCM50s. With these cheaper amps the reviewer preferred the active set-up.

So it’s a bit of a mixed picture. In terms of VFM the actives appear to win. But if you want to cough up for some super expensive amplification, it may be that the passive version is superior.

Comments?

 

[Vladimir]

The general conclusion of that article is that plate amps can be undersized for the application.

In my past 2 days of testing the little JBL LSR305s on a brief occassion I've pushed them to clipping with some major bass pounding tracks and it was amusing to me hearing only the bass bottoming out, yet the top end remaining perfectly clear. Of course I don't expect wonders from an amp the size of my pinkey fingernail.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

In his recent active and passive poll Steve_1979 asked us not to discuss the relative merits of active and passive systems. And we were all very obedient. But …

I completely buy in to the theory behind active speakers. (I own two pairs.) But the theory isn’t especially helpful when faced with a choice in the real world. After all, how would you go about actually comparing active and passive systems when there are so many variables involved?

So I was interested to find this review in the German hi-fi mag Stereoplay (4/2011). The review does a direct comparison (with measurements) of the active and passive versions of ATC’s SCM50 towers. I’m afraid the review is, of course, in German. Here’s a summary of the conclusions:

1. the measurements of FR are very similar

2. the only major measurable difference is that the actives show considerably more distortion in the low bass

3. subjectively the reviewer finds the two speakers very similar but prefers the overall presentation of the passive set-up

There’s a big BUT though. The amps used with the passive speakers were the Ayre MX-R monoblocs, which retail at over £20K a pair. The reviewer does say that he tried some cheaper amps (from Vincent and Linn) priced at around EUR4K, which is roughly the price premium for the active SCM50s. With these cheaper amps the reviewer preferred the active set-up.

So it’s a bit of a mixed picture. In terms of VFM the actives appear to win. But if you want to cough up for some super expensive amplification, it may be that the passive version is superior.

Comments?

I like passive speakers myself and my Dali opticon speakers are really good speakers and the best I have ever owned . I personally do not like the idea of electrical cables laying about and also the fact that you do not have a choice in what amp they put in this active speakers but then if your spending £10.000 or more on actives then they should sound very good but if you go budget actives I can not see them being better then passive speakers with a good amp hooked up at least you have a lot more choice in trying to get value for money to get the sound how you want it . But do understand that some people on here swear by them so good for them but me a passive speakers man always will be

 

[CnoEvil]

The only Active speakers I've heard were very expensive ones from Linn (Klimax) and Meridian (DSP 7200).

I enjoyed the experience, but felt the Actives gave poor VFM, especially in the case of the Linn.

 

[jonathanRD]

I would like to see what I would determine as 'real life' comparisons. Take for example a budget amp, CD player and bookshelf speakers costing in total say £1000 max. Compare it to a pair of active bookshelf speakers plus whatever source is required for similar use - also costing £1000 max. And then the same for say a floorstanding based system costing £2500, and so on and so forth, working through a variety of systems, for various uses, and at various price levels.

From what I've read there seems to be definite advantages to active speakers but I would not part with large amounts of cash (maybe £1k to £2k) unless I could demo them relatively easily - and that's where one of the issues lies - there is very little opportunity to do this (especially where I live at least).

 

[Ajani]

I like passive speakers myself and my Dali opticon speakers are really good speakers and the best I have ever owned . I personally do not like the idea of electrical cables laying about and also the fact that you do not have a choice in what amp they put in this active speakers but then if your spending £10.000 or more on actives then they should sound very good but if you go budget actives I can not see them being better then passive speakers with a good amp hooked up at least you have a lot more choice in trying to get value for money to get the sound how you want it . But do understand that some people on here swear by them so good for them but me a passive speakers man always will be

I have the exact opposite view. IMO, the best use of actives is at the budget end of the scale. In my experience the transparency and dynamics I can get from a cheap pair of active speakers is far superior to any passive combo I can put together for similar money. I believe this is due to the ultra cheap crossovers you'll find in budget passive speakers.

At higher price points, passive speakers can have excellent crossovers, so the advantage of an active crossover will be less and you don't have to worry about wasting amp power, as you can afford to use an amp with far more power than required.

The only real problem with budget actives is that upgrading is more difficult than with passives, as it's not like you can choose to upgrade the speakers but keep the amp or vice versa.

 

[Ajani]

In his recent active and passive poll Steve_1979 asked us not to discuss the relative merits of active and passive systems. And we were all very obedient. But …

I completely buy in to the theory behind active speakers. (I own two pairs.) But the theory isn’t especially helpful when faced with a choice in the real world. After all, how would you go about actually comparing active and passive systems when there are so many variables involved?

So I was interested to find this review in the German hi-fi mag Stereoplay (4/2011). The review does a direct comparison (with measurements) of the active and passive versions of ATC’s SCM50 towers. I’m afraid the review is, of course, in German. Here’s a summary of the conclusions:

1. the measurements of FR are very similar

2. the only major measurable difference is that the actives show considerably more distortion in the low bass

3. subjectively the reviewer finds the two speakers very similar but prefers the overall presentation of the passive set-up

There’s a big BUT though. The amps used with the passive speakers were the Ayre MX-R monoblocs, which retail at over £20K a pair. The reviewer does say that he tried some cheaper amps (from Vincent and Linn) priced at around EUR4K, which is roughly the price premium for the active SCM50s. With these cheaper amps the reviewer preferred the active set-up.

So it’s a bit of a mixed picture. In terms of VFM the actives appear to win. But if you want to cough up for some super expensive amplification, it may be that the passive version is superior.

Comments?

Sounds like a really bad review. Since ATC makes amplifiers as well. So he should have compared the Active ATCs with Passive ATC speakers using ATC amplification.

 

[ID.]

When looking into active speakers I remember coming across references to some test on forums for pro year (maybe it was Gearslutz) where they measured hi fi speakers and concluded that hi fi speakers weren't scooped and could be used for monitoring. I think that they were talking about relatively budget speakers and I don't remember the specific speakers tested.

I bought mine based on personal preference. I haven't tests really expensive actives, but I think that they provide great value versus cheaper hi fi gear. It will also be a matter of tastes, although I don't agree that they are cold and analytical.

 

[matt49]

Sounds like a really bad review. Since ATC makes amplifiers as well. So he should have compared the Active ATCs with Passive ATC speakers using ATC amplification.

Why? Surely an owner of the passives will want to use his/her own choice of amp, and not be limited to what ATC produce? I think the review plays it exactly right: measure the passive speakers with your ideal choice of amp.

 

[Ajani]

Sounds like a really bad review. Since ATC makes amplifiers as well. So he should have compared the Active ATCs with Passive ATC speakers using ATC amplification.

Why? Surely an owner of the passives will want to use his/her own choice of amp, and not be limited to what ATC produce? I think the review plays it exactly right: measure the passive speakers with your ideal choice of amp.

Sure, the user might. But I assumed since he was comparing active with passive, his aim was to determine whether there is really an advantage to the active design. Hence, he'd want to compare apples to apples. So essentially the same combination of amp and speakers in active and passive configurations. Once you change the amp, it's no longer a direct comparison of active versus passive.

 

[Vladimir]

I've skimped through some of the explossive threads about actives vs passives on WHF and they suck how nasty everyone was. But I'm interested about this topic since I'm a newb on the material, I hope a discussion develops. At this moment i don't think we have 'the personell' and momentum to have a raging thread with insults. At worst Thompson might get some enthusiastic ideas. Nothing I'd worry about. I just wanted to say I appreciate any opinion or link shared on this thread.

Steve

 

[Jota180]

There is no debate. All things being equal, an active speaker outperforms a passive. As the poster above says, all the companies that make actives state that actives are better.

ATC -

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0403/

 

[lindsayt]

...There’s a big BUT though. The amps used with the passive speakers were the Ayre MX-R monoblocs, which retail at over £20K a pair. The reviewer does say that he tried some cheaper amps (from Vincent and Linn) priced at around EUR4K, which is roughly the price premium for the active SCM50s. With these cheaper amps the reviewer preferred the active set-up.

So it’s a bit of a mixed picture. In terms of VFM the actives appear to win. But if you want to cough up for some super expensive amplification, it may be that the passive version is superior.

Comments?

The answer for ATC50's seems to be quite simple to me.

Find an amplifier for £150 to £1500 that sounds at least as good as the Ayre with the 50's.

Or, alternatively, find a speaker that sounds at least as good as the ATC's and is much less amplifier demanding.

 

[davedotco]

First of all their are only a handfull of active speaker systems built by mainstream hi-fi companies for hi-fi use. I think that is important.

Apart from the mythical Epos K series, the ATC SCM40 is probably the cheapest system I can think of that is identical in both active and passive form. Naim, Linn and Meridian are rather more expensive, PMC a lot more, in excess of £20K for the cheapest active model, the IBS2A.

For most people the comparison that is most interesting is the one between affordable active designs and similarly priced passive-amplifier speaker systemss. The problem is that, the systems are built for very different applications in very different markets and that the compromises made by the two different approaches (to meet the 'affordable' level) are very different.

It is also important to realise that their are plenty of pretty poor actives out there in the marketplace, no different to hi-fi speakers in that sense, but there are some good ones too, some with capabilities that would surprise many hi-fi enthusiasts.

The single biggest difference is, to me, the emphasis on clarity and dynamics in the active designs and smoothness and warmth in the passive systems. There are examples that flout this view, but in general terms, among the more popular models of both types, this seems to be the case.

 

[matt49]

The general conclusion of that article is that plate amps can be undersized for the application.

In my past 2 days of testing the little JBL LSR305s on a brief occassion I've pushed them to clipping with some major bass pounding tracks and it was amusing to me hearing only the bass bottoming out, yet the top end remaining perfectly clear. Of course I don't expect wonders from an amp the size of my pinkey fingernail.

I recall some fairly feisty debates over on PFM about the quality (or lack of it) of the plate amps used by ATC.

On the other hand, the quality of the latest Class D (or hybrid) amps used in e.g. the Devialet Phantoms seems to be impeccable. The Silver Phantoms contain 3000WPC of amplification. Whether or not you like the overall sound of the Phantoms, the dynamics are jaw-dropping. This is one vision of the future.

But on the third hand, if you want to buy something that's going to last you years and be easy to repair should anything go wrong, then the latest Class D actives may not be a wise investment. There's something to be said for old skool tech.

On a personal note, I have an allergy to speakers in wooden boxes (with the exception of some BBC-style thin-wall models, e.g. Harbeth.) For me, the construction of the speaker is more important than whether it's active or passive.

 

[lindsayt]

Going through Steve_1979's 5 points:

1. Cone break up. This is less of an issue with 3 way or 4 way speakers than for 2 way or 1 ways. A well designed passive 3 way speaker with a simple first order crossover will have less cone break up than a 2 way active.

2. Depends entirely on your taste in amplification. For the midrange I prefer SET's over every other type of amplification I've heard so far. And therefore in my book any active speaker system where the amplification has been perfectly optimised will have SET amplification for the midrange. How many active speakers use SET's for the midrange? None where the amplification is in the speaker box. This is probably because of ventilation and microphony and cost issues. So therefore these active speaker companies claiming that they have perfectly optimised amplification are talking a load of twaddle.

3 (a). Going active can allow the amplifier to have a bit better damping factor than passive. Which subjectively can lead to a tighter bass. However damping factor is most needed when the bass cones have relatively large excursions. It's the excursion that generates the electricity that a high damping factor amp ameliorates. By making the bass cone area much larger you get much less excursion. So any bass cone control advantages gained by making a small speaker active can be outweighed by far by keeping the speaker passive and making it huge.

3 (b). An active speaker with a bass port will have minimal control of the port outlet on transients. Transients happen a lot at port frequencies. Bass drums and the plucking of bass guitars. A non ported passive speaker with sufficient bass cone area will have far more control over transients than an active ported speaker.

3 (c) The passive crossover acting like a spring analogy makes no sense. That analogy is pure marketing gobbledegook. With a passive speaker the amplfier sees the bass, midrange and tweeters wired in parallel. All the crossover does is to direct the most electricity to the most suitable driver depending on the frequency. There's no spring effect inherent in that.

3 (d) The "tight grip" thing is absolute nonsense - apart from the damping factor effects already discussed in 3 (a). An active speaker has no more better grip over the midrange units or tweeters than a passive speaker. These units simply respond to whatever high frequency electricity comes out the amp.

3 (e) Active speakers do not inherently have more control of the speaker drivers in the middle of the crossover area. All that is happening here in a passive speaker is that the electricity is equally divided between the 2 drivers (give or take a bit depending on driver efficiencies and impedances). Why on earth should this equal division lead to the amplifier having less control? (apart from the effects disscussed in 3(a))

3 (f) First order passive crossovers do not introduce any adverse phase effects. Also phase effects depend upon the wavelength (which depends on the frequency) and the distance of the ear from each source of any particular sound. If the designer uses 2nd or 3rd or 4th order passive crossovers then they can compensate for the phase by adjusting the depth of the driver in the cabinet relative to the listening position or by wiring the midrange unit out of phase with the bass unit. The most in phase speakers tend to be panel speakers or dual concentric type designs.

4. See 3 (a) to (e) There is absolutely no reason why a midrange unit would overshoot any more or less just because it had an active or a passive crossover. Bass drivers only overshoot because of the electricity generated from large cone excursions. And bass cone undershoot is far far far more of a problem with speaker bass drivers than overshoot. Undershoot results subjectively in compression of transients. The vast majority of speakers suffer from this. And they sound like it - with relatively undynamic / flat / boring / (maybe even pretty much non-existent) bass transient response. I'll be happy to explain why if anyone is interested. It involves very real - and not made up - spring effects. Spring effects that are easy to understand.

5. Traditional cones and domes and electrostatic panels are very very lossy energy wise. Especially when they have small bass cones. 10 watts through a 105 db efficient speaker will sound louder than 1000 watts through an 84 db efficient speaker. That's why high efficiency pasive speakers have more dynamic headroom than low to medium efficiency active speakers.

All in all whether a speaker is active or passive has some importance on the sound.

But, as discussed in this post, other factors are far more important to the overall sound quality of the speaker. EG bass cone size. Cabinet type. Driver positioning. 1 way, 2 way, 3 way or 4 way. Driver type. Speaker efficiency.

ATC, PMC and Acoustic Energy can say whatever they like. I know of at least one speaker manufacturer that says that a properly implemented passive speaker will sound significantly better than an active speaker. Mainly because the passive speaker won't have an active crossover sitting slap bang in the middle of the signal path.

If anyone thinks that active crossovers have no adverse effects on the signal, then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I would also add that the active speakers from ATC, PMC and Acoustic Energy are all high distortion designs - in certain key respects.

 

[steve_1979]

1) They have less ugly wires hanging out the back.

2) Most of them tend to be much prettier than the industrial looking studio monitors.

3) Passives are usually more convenient to setup due to only requiring one amplifier power socket, they have easier to hide wires and IME finding a convient pre-amp for controling the volume on actives can be a PITA depending on your specific requirements.

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004]

I really don't understand all this rubbish with passive vs active speakers,who actually gives a toss.I own passive today and could buy active tomorrow,you all go on as if you actually built the speakers and trying to defend your purchase to confirm to yourselves that you actually made the right choice and didn't waist your cash after all.get real guy's and just enjoy listening to your tunes on whatever you like to listen to your tunes on..eh?.

 

[Vladimir]

So if someone uses large efficient speakers and makes them actives that would be the best speaker ever. But exception would be the sgnal going through active crossover issue you mention. Can you expand on that please?

 

[Jota180]

Going through Steve_1979's 5 points:

1. Cone break up. This is less of an issue with 3 way or 4 way speakers than for 2 way or 1 ways. A well designed passive 3 way speaker with a simple first order crossover will have less cone break up than a 2 way active.

2. Depends entirely on your taste in amplification. For the midrange I prefer SET's over every other type of amplification I've heard so far. And therefore in my book any active speaker system where the amplification has been perfectly optimised will have SET amplification for the midrange. How many active speakers use SET's for the midrange? None where the amplification is in the speaker box. This is probably because of ventilation and microphony and cost issues. So therefore these active speaker companies claiming that they have perfectly optimised amplification are talking a load of twaddle.

3 (a). Going active can allow the amplifier to have a bit better damping factor than passive. Which subjectively can lead to a tighter bass. However damping factor is most needed when the bass cones have relatively large excursions. It's the excursion that generates the electricity that a high damping factor amp ameliorates. By making the bass cone area much larger you get much less excursion. So any bass cone control advantages gained by making a small speaker active can be outweighed by far by keeping the speaker passive and making it huge.

3 (b). An active speaker with a bass port will have minimal control of the port outlet on transients. Transients happen a lot at port frequencies. Bass drums and the plucking of bass guitars. A non ported passive speaker with sufficient bass cone area will have far more control over transients than an active ported speaker.

3 (c) The passive crossover acting like a spring analogy makes no sense. That analogy is pure marketing gobbledegook. With a passive speaker the amplfier sees the bass, midrange and tweeters wired in parallel. All the crossover does is to direct the most electricity to the most suitable driver depending on the frequency. There's no spring effect inherent in that.

3 (d) The "tight grip" thing is absolute nonsense - apart from the damping factor effects already discussed in 3 (a). An active speaker has no more better grip over the midrange units or tweeters than a passive speaker. These units simply respond to whatever high frequency electricity comes out the amp.

3 (e) Active speakers do not inherently have more control of the speaker drivers in the middle of the crossover area. All that is happening here in a passive speaker is that the electricity is equally divided between the 2 drivers (give or take a bit depending on driver efficiencies and impedances). Why on earth should this equal division lead to the amplifier having less control? (apart from the effects disscussed in 3(a))

3 (f) First order passive crossovers do not introduce any adverse phase effects. Also phase effects depend upon the wavelength (which depends on the frequency) and the distance of the ear from each source of any particular sound. If the designer uses 2nd or 3rd or 4th order passive crossovers then they can compensate for the phase by adjusting the depth of the driver in the cabinet relative to the listening position or by wiring the midrange unit out of phase with the bass unit. The most in phase speakers tend to be panel speakers or dual concentric type designs.

4. See 3 (a) to (e) There is absolutely no reason why a midrange unit would overshoot any more or less just because it had an active or a passive crossover. Bass drivers only overshoot because of the electricity generated from large cone excursions. And bass cone undershoot is far far far more of a problem with speaker bass drivers than overshoot. Undershoot results subjectively in compression of transients. The vast majority of speakers suffer from this. And they sound like it - with relatively undynamic / flat / boring / (maybe even pretty much non-existent) bass transient response. I'll be happy to explain why if anyone is interested. It involves very real - and not made up - spring effects. Spring effects that are easy to understand.

5. Traditional cones and domes and electrostatic panels are very very lossy energy wise. Especially when they have small bass cones. 10 watts through a 105 db efficient speaker will sound louder than 1000 watts through an 84 db efficient speaker. That's why high efficiency pasive speakers have more dynamic headroom than low to medium efficiency active speakers.

All in all whether a speaker is active or passive has some importance on the sound.

But, as discussed in this post, other factors are far more important to the overall sound quality of the speaker. EG bass cone size. Cabinet type. Driver positioning. 1 way, 2 way, 3 way or 4 way. Driver type. Speaker efficiency.

ATC, PMC and Acoustic Energy can say whatever they like. I know of at least one speaker manufacturer that says that a properly implemented passive speaker will sound significantly better than an active speaker. Mainly because the passive speaker won't have an active crossover sitting slap bang in the middle of the signal path.

If anyone thinks that active crossovers have no adverse effects on the signal, then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I would also add that the active speakers from ATC, PMC and Acoustic Energy are all high distortion designs - in certain key respects.

ATC, PMC, Acoustic Energy, Genelec and a whole host of speaker makers say active is superior to passive but they can say what they like because Thomson says otherwise? You know of at least one who says otherwise but neglect to name them.

Also you're mixing up your comparisons. A two way active v a three way passive? That's not the correct comparison. It should be two way vs two way and three way vs three way otherwise you're introducing other things into the mix.

No one says active crossovers have zero impact but what the experts say is passive crossovers have greater issues than active and they have issues that acitve crossovers do not have.

http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm

"A passive XO will always add (usually) undesirable impedance to that seen by the driver(s), the impedance is frequency dependent, and ranges from perhaps an ohm or so to almost infinite. The potential for uncontrolled cone movement, intermodulation distortion and loss of performance is so great that it is impossible to determine in advance, but it is all negated in one fell swoop by using a fully active system."

---

http://www.genelec.fi/ht/tuotetuki/active-passive/

The active vs passive crossover debate was decided in the professional audio world donkeys years ago but then they didn't have to argue with golden eared foo peddlers.

 

[Ajani]

The general conclusion of that article is that plate amps can be undersized for the application.

In my past 2 days of testing the little JBL LSR305s on a brief occassion I've pushed them to clipping with some major bass pounding tracks and it was amusing to me hearing only the bass bottoming out, yet the top end remaining perfectly clear. Of course I don't expect wonders from an amp the size of my pinkey fingernail.

How loud were you playing them and what size is the room? I've never really tested how loud my similarly sized active speakers can go, but at uncomfortably loud volumes in a 25x12ft room they've never lost their composure. And the bass sounds ridiculously impressive considering that the woofers are just 5 inches.

 

[Ajani]

First of all their are only a handfull of active speaker systems built by mainstream hi-fi companies for hi-fi use. I think that is important.

Apart from the mythical Epos K series, the ATC SCM40 is probably the cheapest system I can think of that is identical in both active and passive form. Naim, Linn and Meridian are rather more expensive, PMC a lot more, in excess of £20K for the cheapest active model, the IBS2A.

For most people the comparison that is most interesting is the one between affordable active designs and similarly priced passive-amplifier speaker systemss. The problem is that, the systems are built for very different applications in very different markets and that the compromises made by the two different approaches (to meet the 'affordable' level) are very different.

It is also important to realise that their are plenty of pretty poor actives out there in the marketplace, no different to hi-fi speakers in that sense, but there are some good ones too, some with capabilities that would surprise many hi-fi enthusiasts.

The single biggest difference is, to me, the emphasis on clarity and dynamics in the active designs and smoothness and warmth in the passive systems. There are examples that flout this view, but in general terms, among the more popular models of both types, this seems to be the case.

Very well said. While I do prefer the clarity and dynamics especially of budget active designs compared to similarly priced passives, I could certainly see someone else prefering smoothness and warmth. Likewise there are loads of bad actives just like with passives and you really shouldn't base buying decisions totally on a particular technology.

As much as I love my actives, I would have no problem buying a passive system. Especially since I like towers and active towers are fare rarer and generally really expensive.

 

[Ajani]

Depends entirely on your taste in amplification. For the midrange I prefer SET's over every other type of amplification I've heard so far.

This is where personal preference becomes more important than technology. If, for example, you love an all Audio Note SET system then unless Audio Note opts to build active versions of that system, the active vs passive debate is irrelevant to you.

 

[lindsayt]

Jota, the reason I neglected to name them is that I am a moderator on a forum that is owned by the manufacturer that claims that passive speakers are superior. I don't want to be seen as some kind of bah bah sheep acolyte / fanboy / marketing man of this manufacturer.

However, I would give this manufacturers judgement on active vs passive at least equal credence to those from ATC, PMC, Acoustic Energy.

No, I am not mixing my comparisons. I'm making the point that active vs passive is of far less importance than many other features of speaker design. And that every so called advantage of actives for a given speaker can be swamped by making other changes in the design of a typical modern speaker.

Debating active vs passive is like debating whether circuit board based or point to point wiring based amplifiers are better. When the reality is that each is just one feature of many that goes into the design of these components.

A purist passive speaker will totally kick into touch every modern active speaker, sound quality wise and from a lack of distortion in certain key areas wise. I am not aware of any truly purist modern active speakers.

Here's a hyperbolic analogy: Comparing active to passive speakers and confining the debate to (for example) 2 way slimline ported speakers is like debating whether to eat at McDonalds or Burger King. When the Georges V is on offer too.

Is it the experts that say that passive crossovers have a greater impact on sound quality? Or is it the marketing men?

Or is it that the manufacturers that are unable or unwilling to make purist type passive speakers and can only make high distortion designs find that active crossovers work better with them? Which in a way is fair enough, because with these types of speakers active may well work better. With the more purist speakers, passive can work better.

Impedance effects of passive crossovers are a big red herring. They are swamped by impedance effects of the speaker drivers themselves. Especially when nominal 8 ohm (or lower) drivers are wired in parallel.

The active vs passive debate in the professional audio world was decided by good marketing. Combined with the convenience of having the amps in the speaker boxes in a studio. As well as the convenience of reducing the size of the speaker cabinets somewhat. It was not decided on the basis of any inherent improvement in sound quality.

I would argue that active vs passive debate was decided even earlier than that. It was decided way back in the 1960's when high end American speakers gave you the choice of active or passive. Their speakers were generally designed to be very easily converted between active and passive. They quite sensibly offered the customer the choice of whichever option they prefered.

It is insulting ad hominem to imply that anyone that prefers passive to active, or is ambivalent about them is a "golden eared foo peddler".

 

[Superaintit]

The general conclusion of that article is that plate amps can be undersized for the application.?

In my past 2 days of testing the little JBL LSR305s on a brief occassion I've pushed them to clipping with some major bass pounding tracks and it was amusing to me hearing only the bass bottoming out, yet the top end remaining perfectly clear. Of course I don't expect wonders from an amp the size of my pinkey fingernail.?

I recall some fairly feisty debates over on PFM about the quality (or lack of it) of the plate amps used by ATC.

On the other hand, the quality of the latest Class D (or hybrid) amps used in e.g. the Devialet Phantoms seems to be impeccable. The Silver Phantoms contain 3000WPC of amplification. Whether or not you like the overall sound of the Phantoms, the dynamics are jaw-dropping. This is one vision of the future.

But on the third hand, if you want to buy something that's going to last you years and be easy to repair should anything go wrong, then the latest Class D actives may not be a wise investment. There's something to be said for old skool tech.

On a personal note, I have an allergy to speakers in wooden boxes (with the exception of some BBC-style thin-wall models, e.g. Harbeth.) For me, the construction of the speaker is more important than whether it's active or passive. 

Interesting point you make about wooden boxes. Mine aren't made from wood either. Never thought of it before that it would make a difference. IIRC the designer opted for a plastic compound to create a oval form that is accoustically preferable to a square box.

To me active gives a presentation that to my ears is closest to what is real. The tuning of many professional active speakers is different than mine. The beolabs are smooth, dynamic and natural. Same counts for the digital preamp I got recently.

My hypothesis is this: if done well, digital (including dac, pre and amp) sound very much like good analogue with less audible distortion.