Active vs passive comparison

[Ajani]

Personally I've never been convinced by the arguments that say actives are materially better than passives. I suspect the truth is that well-designed stuff will sound good and poorly-designed stuff will sound bad.

Chris

I think audiophiles get far too invested in particular technologies. Actives being superior, all things being equal, is not the same as Actives are always better than Passives.

Simple example, if the active design uses a poor quality amp with high distortion, then the benefits of an active crossover won't outweigh the negative effects of the bad amp. So a passive system with a good quality amp will likely sound better.

Good materials and competent design will generally trump the choice of tech. So anyway you go about it you have to audition for yourself.

 

[DocG]

Personally I've never been convinced by the arguments that say actives are materially better than passives. I suspect the truth is that well-designed stuff will sound good and poorly-designed stuff will sound bad.

Chris

I think audiophiles get far too invested in particular technologies. Actives being superior, all things being equal, is not the same as Actives are always better than Passives.

Simple example, if the active design uses a poor quality amp with high distortion, then the benefits of an active crossover won't outweigh the negative effects of the bad amp. So a passive system with a good quality amp will likely sound better.

Good materials and competent design will generally trump the choice of tech. So anyway you go about it you have to audition for yourself.

Covenanter and Ajani,

Please stop spouting reasonable judgements and sensible analyses! You're killing the thread!*mosking*

 

[ID.]

Personally I've never been convinced by the arguments that say actives are materially better than passives. I suspect the truth is that well-designed stuff will sound good and poorly-designed stuff will sound bad.

Chris

I think audiophiles get far too invested in particular technologies. Actives being superior, all things being equal, is not the same as Actives are always better than Passives.

Simple example, if the active design uses a poor quality amp with high distortion, then the benefits of an active crossover won't outweigh the negative effects of the bad amp. So a passive system with a good quality amp will likely sound better.

Good materials and competent design will generally trump the choice of tech. So anyway you go about it you have to audition for yourself.

reported. There's no room for reasonable balanced discussion here. Hopefully the mods will delete these posts and we can get back to flinging sh!t at one another

 

[Vladimir]

For those who think simplicity is inherently better. Clicky

 

[MrReaper182]

I like looking at my stereo amp in my setup and would be sad if I no longer had one to look at. I guess passive speakers will always more appeal to me than active speakers.

 

[Dave_]

I like looking at my stereo amp in my setup and would be sad if I no longer had one to look at. I guess passive speakers will always more appeal to me than active speakers.

The electronics don't have to be in the speakers in an active system...

 

[lpv]

For those who think simplicity is inherently better. Clicky

now I know Vladimir from where you've got an inspiration for your last set up.

 

[Vladimir]

For those who think simplicity is inherently better. Clicky

now I know Vladimir from where you've got an inspiration for your last set up.

Believe it or not I didn't. I saw a guy selling his Lexicon Alpha and a different guy selling JBL LSR305s in my local ads and that's how I got the idea. Only days after I bought everything new (December 10th) I saw that noaudiophile.com site for the FR measurements. Now I see he has my setup in his recommended system page.

 

[lindsayt]

Ajani, that is a great big massive non-sequitur.

The briefest of listening tests will show you that LP's played on a properly engineered turntable with a decent MC cartridge sound much more realistic than 78's played on a wind up gramophone.

Just as listening tests with a properly engineered passive system, especially one with a short and simple amplification signal path will show that adding an active crossover, like the example with the circuit diagram, introduces a certain amount of transistorised hash to the midrange. With the benefit being that the system will sound as if the amplifiers are having an easier time. How much of an easier time depends on how much of a hard time the speakers were giving the amps in the first place.

And Ajani, think about it. Do you really think that adding all those components, slap bang in the middle of the midrange signal path is going to have no adverse sonic effects whatsoever?

Edit: typo correction

 

[lindsayt]

Ajani, that is a great big massive non-sequitor.

Why? Because you say so? The entire purist argument you are so in love with is about simplicity improving sound. The Gramophone is a far simpler design than any SET/LP/speaker system you are in love with. Hence from a purist stand point, the Gramaphone must sound better than your prefered setup.

The briefest of listening tests will show you that LP's played on a properly engineered turntable with a decent MC cartridge sound much more realistic than 78's played on a wind up gramophone.

Just as listening tests with a properly engineered passive system, especially one with a short and simple amplification signal path will show that adding an active crossover, like the example with the circuit diagram, introduces a certain amount of transistorised hash to the midrange. With the benefit being that the system will sound as if the amplifiers are having an easier time. How much of an easier time depends on how much of a hard time the speakers were giving the amps in the first place.

There are many reasons to use passive speakers but you are probably the first person I've heard claim that passive crossovers are superior to active ones. and you back up your claims with the opinion of one unnamed passive manufacturer. So with all due respect, I don't consider that credible.

And Ajani, think about it. Do you really think that adding all those components, slap bang in the middle of the midrange signal path is going to have no adverse sonic effects whatsoever?

And linsayt, think about it. Apply that same question to adding electrical power, amplification tubes etc to a Gramophone to create your sytem. Do you expect that to have no adverse sonic effects whatsoever?

The reason for complexity is to solve specific problems in simpler designs. The issue is whether the added complexity solves more problems than it creates or vice versa. So just using a simpler design guarantees nothing.

Ajani, I've already explained why it was a great big non sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur because I say so. It's a non sequitur because what applies to 78 gramophones does not apply to amplification chains / crossovers of hi-fi systems.

Anyone can go ahead and do the listening test to demonstrate this.

Go ahead and compare a wind up gramophone playing 78's with a decent lp based system and decide for yourself which sounds more realistic.

Go ahead and add an active crossover, similar to the example I gave, to a hi-fi system with a short, simple, high quality amplification chain and see if you can hear the transistorised hash that gets added to the midrange by the crossover.

Then come back here and debate whether you used a great big non sequitur or not.

I don't expect you or anyone else to take my claim that passive crossovers are better in some important respects than active at face value. Go ahead and do your own listening tests and make up your own mind.

BTW the pro passive manufacturer is NVA.

It's not my fault if I am the first person that you've come across that has claimed that passive crossovers are better in certain respects than active. I am not responsible for the things that you have read and the conversations that you have had in your life.

...And, if you're not willing or not able to do the listening tests I've suggested, you can always think about it from a common sense point of view:

1. Why do you think that a wind up gramophone would sound relatively unrealistic when compared to an LP based system?

2. Read this: http://www.thevintageknob.org/pioneer-D-23.html

And think about what that implies for active crossovers (at least some of the time) having a negative aspect in at least one respect of the overall sound quality.

Ajani, I agree with your final paragraph. In hi-fi, less is more where you can get away with less.

 

[Vladimir]

Is Richard Dunn an electronics engineer?

 

[DocG]

Go ahead and add an active crossover, similar to the example I gave, to a hi-fi system with a short, simple, high quality amplification chain and see if you can hear the transistorised hash that gets added to the midrange by the crossover.

Hi lindsayt, I'm very interested in this pro/con debate, since I'm planning an active system, with Magnepan MMGs and a 15" Rythmik sub. Hypex Ncore amplification. And a DEQX processor for the XO duties. If the crossover is in the digital domain, there is just a wire between DAC and power amp and between amp and driver. Less is more! Right?

 

[Ajani]

Ajani, I've already explained why it was a great big non sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur because I say so. It's a non sequitur because what applies to 78 gramophones does not apply to amplification chains / crossovers of hi-fi systems.

Anyone can go ahead and do the listening test to demonstrate this.

Go ahead and compare a wind up gramophone playing 78's with a decent lp based system and decide for yourself which sounds more realistic.

Go ahead and add an active crossover, similar to the example I gave, to a hi-fi system with a short, simple, high quality amplification chain and see if you can hear the transistorised hash that gets added to the midrange by the crossover.

Then come back here and debate whether you used a great big non sequitur or not.

I don't expect you or anyone else to take my claim that passive crossovers are better in some important respects than active at face value. Go ahead and do your own listening tests and make up your own mind.

BTW the pro passive manufacturer is NVA.

It's not my fault if I am the first person that you've come across that has claimed that passive crossovers are better in certain respects than active. I am not responsible for the things that you have read and the conversations that you have had in your life.

...And, if you're not willing or not able to do the listening tests I've suggested, you can always think about it from a common sense point of view:

1. Why do you think that a wind up gramophone would sound relatively unrealistic when compared to an LP based system?

2. Read this: http://www.thevintageknob.org/pioneer-D-23.html

And think about what that implies for active crossovers (at least some of the time) having a negative aspect in at least one respect of the overall sound quality.

Ajani, I agree with your final paragraph. In hi-fi, less is more where you can get away with less.

1) Why would I need to compare a gramophone to a traditional HiFi system? I don't expect a gramaphone to sound better. The point that you keep missing is that if it's all about simplicity and a pure signal path as you claim, then a gramophone is OBVIOUSLY a purer, more simple form of music reproduction than traditional HiFI. So therefore a Gramophone would have to be better based on a purist argument. So since you think a Gramophone sounds inferior then clearly it can't all be about purity. Hence, there are reasons to complicate the signal path. So you can't just accept that you need SETs and LPs, which complicate the signal path compared to a Gramophone, then proceed to claim that active crossovers are bad because they complicate the signal path.

2) Have you actually compared active and passive versions of the same system? You keep talking about doing comparisons. How did you/your favourite manufacturer do this comparison? You would need to use the exact same speakers and amplification, with the only difference being that one uses a passive crossover and the other uses an active one. Other than a few manufacturers like ATC who sell passive and active versions of the same speakers as well as the matching amplification, the only other option would be to build such a system myself or dissect a pair of passive speakers. So it's not that simple an experiment to conduct.

3) The point about credibility is that I'm sure even you know that your views on passive crossovers are not commonly accepted. So if you plan to present an opinion contrary to commonly held beliefs, you really need to come armed with strong references. Studies done by reputable organisations etc. Not just a claim from one unnamed manufacturer.

 

[Ajani]

Personally I've never been convinced by the arguments that say actives are materially better than passives. I suspect the truth is that well-designed stuff will sound good and poorly-designed stuff will sound bad.

Chris

I think audiophiles get far too invested in particular technologies. Actives being superior, all things being equal, is not the same as Actives are always better than Passives.

Simple example, if the active design uses a poor quality amp with high distortion, then the benefits of an active crossover won't outweigh the negative effects of the bad amp. So a passive system with a good quality amp will likely sound better.

Good materials and competent design will generally trump the choice of tech. So anyway you go about it you have to audition for yourself.

Covenanter and Ajani,

Please stop spouting reasonable judgements and sensible analyses! You're killing the thread!*mosking*

OK. I've gone back to long winded debates with lindsayt. I hope you're satisfied.

 

[DocG]

Personally I've never been convinced by the arguments that say actives are materially better than passives. I suspect the truth is that well-designed stuff will sound good and poorly-designed stuff will sound bad.

Chris

I think audiophiles get far too invested in particular technologies. Actives being superior, all things being equal, is not the same as Actives are always better than Passives.

Simple example, if the active design uses a poor quality amp with high distortion, then the benefits of an active crossover won't outweigh the negative effects of the bad amp. So a passive system with a good quality amp will likely sound better.

Good materials and competent design will generally trump the choice of tech. So anyway you go about it you have to audition for yourself.

Covenanter and Ajani,

Please stop spouting reasonable judgements and sensible analyses! You're killing the thread!*mosking*

OK. I've gone back to long winded debates with lindsayt. I hope you're satisfied.

Excellent! Thank you, sir! *ok*

 

[lindsayt]

Ajani,

1. You said "So you can't just accept that you need SETs and LPs, which complicate the signal path compared to a Gramophone, then proceed to claim that active crossovers are bad because they complicate the signal path." Why can't I just accept that an LP system, which has a more complicated signal path than a gramophone produces more realistic sound, AND that active crossovers are bad in the key respect that they add a load of components to the signal path resulting in worse sound in at least one key respect? It's the truth. That's the reality of the situation. I really can't understand why you are trying to argue that it isn't?

2. Yes I have actually heard the same speakers via passive and active crossovers. As I mentioned earlier; in the 1960's amongst high end American speakers it was seen as a feature if they could be easily converted from passive to active to passive again. Now, what type of speaker am I into?

And, by the way, using exactly the same amplifiers in passive and active mode would be a missed opportunity to get the most out of the active system. I for one would never want the same model of amplifier powering the bass, the midrange and the treble. As some amps have better bass and some better midrange.

3. My views on passive crossovers are not commonly accepted? By whom? By the people who have the most experience in buying and trying different hi-fi components? Such as the people who exhibit at Scalford, where every year you get an amazingly high standard of sound quality for a hotel based show. Look at the exhibitor list for Scalford 2016. What proportion of the systems are active and what proportion are passive?

And why do you need a study from a reputable organisation to accept that doubling the number of active amplification devices in a signal path can have an adverse effect on the midrange? Can you not see that that is just simple common sense? Or do you believe that 6 op aps plus a collection of capacitors and resistors on a circuit board would be totally audibly transparent in all respects and all conditions of operation?

And do you not regard a circuit diagram of an active crossover as a strong reference? Do you think I made that up and that we need a reputable organisation to verify that that active crossover does indeed have 6 op amps in the midrange signal path?

 

[lindsayt]

Hi lindsayt, I'm very interested in this pro/con debate, since I'm planning an active system, with Magnepan MMGs and a 15" Rythmik sub. Hypex Ncore amplification. And a DEQX processor for the XO duties. If the crossover is in the digital domain, there is just a wire between DAC and power amp and between amp and driver. Less is more! Right?

DocG I can't comment on your digital crossover as I don't have much experience of digital crossovers.

I will also freely admit that I don't understand how they work at a nuts and bolts level. Just as I don't understand how ADC's and DAC's work at a nuts and bolts level.

I have heard c£80k Linn systems with digital active crossovers in non comparative demos. I'd say that my impression of those systems were that they sounded good.

I have also heard a number of Class D amplifiers. I've not liked any of them. Especially for the way they have all made solo piano music sound "all wrong".

By all means go ahead and try a digital crossover with that system DocG. And please let us know how you get on.

 

[abacus]

Hi lindsayt, I'm very interested in this pro/con debate, since I'm planning an active system, with Magnepan MMGs and a 15" Rythmik sub. Hypex Ncore amplification. And a DEQX processor for the XO duties. If the crossover is in the digital domain, there is just a wire between DAC and power amp and between amp and driver. Less is more! Right?

DocG I can't comment on your digital crossover as I don't have much experience of digital crossovers.

I will also freely admit that I don't understand how they work at a nuts and bolts level. Just as I don't understand how ADC's and DAC's work at a nuts and bolts level.

I have heard c£80k Linn systems with digital active crossovers in non comparative demos. I'd say that my impression of those systems were that they sounded good.

I have also heard a number of Class D amplifiers. I've not liked any of them. Especially for the way they have all made solo piano music sound "all wrong".

By all means go ahead and try a digital crossover with that system DocG. And please let us know how you get on.

Here is a video of one of the many professional loudspeaker management systems available, with all processing performed within the digital domain, which goes way beyond passive systems.

https://youtu.be/V5o_WhipTlY

Bill

 

[Jota180]

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

Crossover design expert Siegfried Linkwitz said of them that "the only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal."

 

[lpv]

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

Crossover design expert Siegfried Linkwitz said of them that "the only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal."

strong statement.. I wonder if the highlighted bit is true

 

[davedotco]

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

Crossover design expert Siegfried Linkwitz said of them that "the only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal."

strong statement.. I wonder if the highlighted bit is true

If you compare it to the alternative, which is an electronic crossover and extra amplification, then yes I would say so.

Though I have no doubt that the cost of a passive crossover built using all the expensive 'hi-end' components could be pretty high, but if the active electronics and amplifiers were built to the same 'audiophile' standards, they would be pretty expensive too.

 

[drummerman]

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

Crossover design expert Siegfried Linkwitz said of them that "the only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal."

Mmmhh, I don't know how long ago he quoted that but I would have thought that these days, a good passive xover array using good quality components (just look at some designs from Magico, PMC etc will cost far, far more than a few digital codex using a chip.

As to accuracy, there are plenty of studios which use passive monitors.

The same rules apply to active and passive designs. Good quality drivers cost money, good, low distortion amplification/pre-amplifier design costs money. Good cabinets cost money.

This is why cheap actives (and passive systems) probably all sound crxxx even if their owners try to delude themselves

Reach a certain level of expense (imho Adam Ribbons at least) and active designs start to make sense as a cheaper solution than a good passive design, apart from looks.

Still, the same rules apply, not everyone will like what a particular design does. Even actives widely differ in their approach, you only have to read SOS. Now if the ultimate aim of all actives is to give the unvarnished truth ... than many have failed, otherwise they'd all sound the same ...

 

[steve_1979]

As this thread is far too polite and friendly for a WHF forum active vs passive thread it's about time I toss in a granade in the shape of an Ashley James quote. *bomb* The poor guy's about to have a coranary brought on by frustration.

The original post can be found here: Clicky

As is known I made the mistake of reading a thread on the WHF Forum in which an expert was explaining that because phase was good, first order filters were fine. He'd also failed to grasp that the main loss control is from the action of the crossover. It disconnects the driver from the amp progressively and relinquishes control, so definitely audible. Damping is a miserly 300 times worse.

We used narrow band white noise and put it through both the tweeter and the bass driver around the crossover frequency and showed that with the same signal, the two drivers sound completely different. The bass driver makes a sHawwww sort of noise and the tweeter sheesh..... This is because the total energy levels are different. The tweeter has very wide dispersion so puts much more energy into the room. Therefore if the two drivers overlap for several octaves, as they do with 1st or 2nd order filters, making completely different sounds, the result is profound colouration. This ignores the fact that a tweeter at LF is unhappy and distorting anyway. Low order filters are not adequate and if they're passive they're worse.

We found that even the overlap from a 4th order filter wasn't enough to prevent intrusive colouration around the area of the crossover, but 8th was. You simply can't hear any trace of the intersection, you're not aware of the dispersion differences, but the result is marginally duller than the HD800s, so pretty damn good.

I wonder how many other companies have sussed that one. Should I have kept quiet?

 

[matt49]

As this thread is far too polite and friendly for a WHF forum active vs passive thread [...]

Steve, you've fastidiously avoided responding to the first post in this thread. Why?

 

[Vladimir]

Couple of months ago I was reading on a speaker manufacturer website some info about how crossovers work. As with anything in its begining stage of learning I had millions of questions. I was bold enough to write an email to the company founder and chief designer filled with questions mostly about my 4-way tower speakers. I was expecting long technical answers to my long technical questions. I won't disclose the manufacturer so I can post the response in full.

[font="verdana, sans-serif"]Thank you for your appreciation of the education material. The question you ask are mostly about the problems associated with internal management practices of large corporations. Design engineers are often high turnover, low payed and have little say in how a product they had design input gets changed by marketing departments. [/font] [font="verdana, sans-serif"]There could be many reasons why the bass drivers overlap, one reason is to obtain more output energy. The only way to improve the system is to make it fully active so you can control each of the drivers independently. There are a few companies that now supply DSP crossover management systems which are simple to implement. https://www.minidsp.com/products/minidspkits/2-x-in-8-x-out[/font][font="verdana, sans-serif"]

[/font] If I may freely interpret what he was saying. The manufacturer of my speakers also makes separates that they would like to sell to me together with the speakers. Actives might not be as profitable for the hi-fi consumer market.Not to spoil the Ashley James bomb, but I thought I'd contribute something as an owner of both passive and active speakers.