Active vs passive comparison

[steve_1979]

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?

Sorry. I read your post and then forgot all about it.

Regarding your 3 questions I'm not qualified to answer any of them I'm afraid. I just don't know.

As far as a passive speakers with expensive amplification being better than the active version of the same speakers it would depend on some other factors such as do the active speakers amplification have enough headroom to drive the speaker properly and is the amplifier audiably transparent? If the answer is a 'yes' to both those questions then the active version should be noticably better from a technical point of view of having less distortion than the passive speaker.

 

[lindsayt]

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?

Steve, what do you think about what Ashley has written?

Do you think it has any merit whatsoever?

Do you, for example, think that damping is 300 times worse in a passive system than an active one?

And by damping I mean damping in the critical area, which is the resonant frequency of the bass cone?

Which speakers do you think would have their damping factor improved by 300 times by going from passive to active?

Do you think that any of my speakers would have their damping factor improved by 300 times by going from passive to active?

Would you like me to say what I think of what Ashley James has written, and why?

 

[lpv]

[y=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.

[/quote]

hmmm.. strange you've mentioned amplification. I thought crossover is crossover and amplification is amplification and yes, the two components cooperate one with the oher but if we take this approach we can also add dsp to the mix, room control switches and gain control.

I think ( may be wrong) biggest cost ( apart from dealer and manufacturer profits) in building loudspeaker goes into cabinet.. don't know what's next on the list but probably crossover or driver.. not much left in the loudspeaker really.. actives add amps and eq or dsp or gain control or pre amp or dac..

I wonder whats the price of so called high end crossover components?

 

[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?

Steve, what do you think about what Ashley has written?

Do you think it has any merit whatsoever?

Do you, for example, think that damping is 300 times worse in a passive system than an active one?

And by damping I mean damping in the critical area, which is the resonant frequency of the bass cone?

Which speakers do you think would have their damping factor improved by 300 times by going from passive to active?

Do you think that any of my speakers would have their damping factor improved by 300 times by going from passive to active?

Would you like me to say what I think of what Ashley James has written, and why?

It sounds reasonably logical and it doesn't contradict what else I've read from qualified electronics engineers regarding active speakers. But the truth is I'm not actually qualified nor experienced enough in loud speaker design to say either way.

What I can say from a consumer point of view is that high quality active speakers such as AVI, Genelec, Quested, PMC etc sound much clearer and smoother than any passive speakers that I've heard.

 

[lpv]

if someone say something is 300 times better than something else it looks to me like a 3rd class advert from 80's

300 times better? thats a lot.. even 3 times better is an achievement.

 

[Vladimir]

Remove the chokes from a crossover and you get better damping factor since you reduced resistance from all that wire, not to mention other components in the crossover.

The real question is what happens to the signal when 50V/5A pass through the resistors, capacitors and chokes. Any issues there?

 

[steve_1979]

if someone say something is 300 times better than something else it looks to me like a 3rd class advert from 80's

300 times better? thats a lot.. even 3 times better is an achievement.

It depends on the figures used. It might not be as big a difference as you're probably imagining.

For example if an active speaker has 0.001% added distortion due to damping and a passive speaker is 300 times worse that's still only 0.3% of added distortion due to damping.

(Those numbers are totally made up by me to just show a point BTW)

 

[lpv]

ok Steve, that's sound better.. 300 times better

and yes, the scale is important.

 

[Ajani]

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?

This will be my final response, as I doubt you're going to get the point I've made since my first post with the Gramophone. Simply put - A simpler system does not guarantee better sound quality. So just because an active crossover is more complex does not mean it will sound worse than a passive one.

Exhibitors at a HiFi show using passive systems is in no way a sign of their faith in the superiority of passive sound quality. Even brands that make both active and passive speakers readily admit that despite actives sounding better, passives sell much better among audiophiles. Keep in mind the audiophile obsession with tweaking and upgrading. So most would rather be able to choose their own amp to use with their speakers than to buy an active pair. And truth be told, if you really care about being able to upgrade easily then actives are not for you.

 

[davedotco]

hmmm.. strange you've mentioned amplification. I thought crossover is crossover and amplification is amplification and yes, the two components cooperate one with the oher but if we take this approach we can also add dsp to the mix, room control switches and gain control.

I think ( may be wrong) biggest cost ( apart from dealer and manufacturer profits) in building loudspeaker goes into cabinet.. don't know what's next on the list but probably crossover or driver.. not much left in the loudspeaker really.. actives add amps and eq or dsp or gain control or pre amp or dac..

I wonder whats the price of so called high end crossover components?

The cost breakdown you describe is common to all loudspeakers, drive units, good ones, are not cheap and neither are cabinets.

But if we compare identicle designs, the only difference is the cost of the passive crossover on one hand compared to the cost of the active crossover and second amplifier on the other.

I am sure you can spend a lot of money on 'audiophile' components for the passive crossover but if you do that it is only rational that you compare their cost to the cost of active crossovers built to the same 'audiophile' standards. Even if the cost is comparable, you still have the cost of the second power amp to take into account. This is of couse a theoretical argument where the crossovers and amplfiers are all housed in their own enclosures and powered separately.

In the real world the big price advantage that most active speakers have is that they are integrated, amplifier casework, a huge part of an amplifiers cost is simply done away with, amplifiers do not have to be build to handle unspecified 'difficult loads' and digital to analogue converters can be added at minimal cost, as indeed can other fearures.

 

[Ajani]

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 ...

I know you have a smiley there, but I wouldn't say cheap systems must sound awful. They won't have that final level of refinement of more expensive systems, but many persons would be surprised how good a cheap active system can sound.

As for reading SOS: the truth is that not all actives really are aimed at 100% accuracy just as all passives aren't aimed at 'recreating the live event' or whatever their manufacturers claim. There is a certain amount of tailoring that goes into most, if not all, products. Plus some manufacturers just suck, so even if they were aiming for accuracy they missed the mark by a mile.

 

[lindsayt]

It will take me more than 1 post to say what I think of Ashley James's statement.

Starting with his claim that "Damping is a miserly 300 times worse" in a passive system than an active one.

That statement is based on which amplifier, speaker and cables? He doesn't say.

Let's see if his statement applies to speakers, amp and cables that I am highly familiar with and where we all have easy access to the technical info.

Starting with what is damping? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor

http://www.crownaudio.com/media/pdf/amps/damping_factor.pdf

Wikipedia says:

"The voltage generated by the moving voice coil forces current through three resistances:

• the resistance of the voice coil itself;
• the resistance of the interconnecting cable; and
• the output resistance of the amplifier."

For my example I will use my Bozak Symphony speakers, JBL 6290 power amplifier and 10 metres of my 752 strand speaker cable.

In passive mode there's actually a 4th resistance / reactance not mentioned in Wikipedia: that of the inductor in my passive crossover.

In the circuit between my power amp and speakers in passive mode we have:

Amp: 0.04 ohms output impedance (source: amplifiers owners manual)

10 metres speaker cable with an impedance of approx 0.1 ohm (source: amplifiers owners manual)

The L1 inductor which has a value of 1.58mH (source Bozak Yahoo group crossover ref document)

The speaker coils themselves in the bass drivers with a nominal impedance of 8 ohms. In reality it'll vary between just under 6 ohms and 14 ohms depending on frequency. I'll assume near worst case (rounded off) in terms of passive crossover impact and use 6 ohms for my calculations.

To find the effect of the L1 inductor we can use this calculator: http://www.electronics2000.co.uk/calc/reactance-calculator.php

Where we find that the L1 inductive reactance depends on the frequency (and so it should. That's what it's there for). So that at 400 hz - the crossover frequency of my speakers, L1 is giving us a reactance of 4 ohms. Which makes a lot of sense as at that frequency we want the signal equally split between the 8 ohm bass drivers and the 8 ohm midrange unit.

At 100 hz L1 gives us 1 ohm reactance.

At 60 hz (the approx resonant frequency of the bass drivers) L1 gives us 0.6 ohms.

So in passive mode, the total impedance / reactance of our circuit is the total of the impedance of the cables (0.1 ohms), plus the reactance of the passive crossover (4 ohms at 400 hz down to 0.6 ohms at 60 hz), the impedance of the speaker voice coils (6 ohms), plus the impedance of the amplifier (0.04 ohms)

At 400 hz, adding these all together gives us a total of 10.14 ohms. This is the load through which the electricity generated by the voicecoils has to dissipate.

But, and it's a big but, 400 hz is quite a long way above the resonant frequency of my speaker drivers.

If we add all the numbers up for our 60 hz resonant frequency we get a total of 6.74 ohms through which the electricity generated by the voicecoils has to dissipate.

If we go active and hypothetically move our amp into the speaker cabinet we can get rid of the L1 inductor and the speaker cables from our circuit. This would give us 6.04 ohms at 400 hz and 60hz through which our voicecoil electrity has to dissipate.

You need to bear in mind that at 400hz my bass drivers will have more mechanical damping than they will at 60hz. Also they will have less movement and therefore generate less electricity at 400 hz for a given volume than they will at 60hz.

So, active to passive we're taling about a difference of 6.04 to 10.14 ohms (at 400hz). Or 6.04 to 6.74 ohms (at 60hz).

That is nowhere near a 300 times difference.

Therefore, IT IS TOTALLY MISLEADING FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT DAMPING IS 300 TIMES WORSE IN A PASSIVE SYSTEM.

You can all, of course, do your own calculations on your own speakers, crossovers and cables to see what figures you come up with.

 

[lindsayt]

There's also one important factor when it comes to speaker damping that I didn't mention in my previous post.

And that factor is: how much electricity is the bass driver voicecoil generating?

So, for example, with a bass drum transient that we want to play at 80 dbs on our hi-fi, how much electricity is generated by the voicecoils in your speakers?

I predict that two 6" drivers plus a single 10" driver will generate more electricity than four 12" drivers, or two 30" drivers in this example.

After all, four 12" bass drivers have 3.3 times the surface area of two 6" drivers plus a 10" driver.

And two 30" cones have 10.4 times thesurface area of two 6" drivers plus one 10" driver.

Surface area is important for minimising bass cone movement at bass frequencies. And it's the cone movement that generates the electricity.

Trouble is, this is something that would be difficult to measure. How do you measure how much electricity the voicecoils are generating whilst also feeding them with electricity from an amplifier?

 

[abacus]

There's also one important factor when it comes to speaker damping that I didn't mention in my previous post.

And that factor is: how much electricity is the bass driver voicecoil generating?

So, for example, with a bass drum transient that we want to play at 80 dbs on our hi-fi, how much electricity is generated by the voicecoils in your speakers?

I predict that two 6" drivers plus a single 10" driver will generate more electricity than four 12" drivers, or two 30" drivers in this example.

After all, four 12" bass drivers have 3.3 times the surface area of two 6" drivers plus a 10" driver.

And two 30" cones have 10.4 times thesurface area of two 6" drivers plus one 10" driver.

Surface area is important for minimising bass cone movement at bass frequencies. And it's the cone movement that generates the electricity.

Trouble is, this is something that would be difficult to measure. How do you measure how much electricity the voicecoils are generating whilst also feeding them with electricity from an amplifier?

Connect a meter to the coil of a speaker then push the cone, and you will see that it acts like a generator in producing electricity, thus is easily measured.(Its a basic and known quantity that has been taken into consideration by speaker designers for decades) How good an amplifier can control the back electromagnetic force is determined by the damping factor of the amplifier, but basically the lower the output resistance of the amplifier the more it can control the speaker, however put something in the path that increases the resistance etc. (A passive crossover is one type) then it makes it more difficult for the amplifier to control the speaker, hence the reason for direct coupling the speaker driver to the amplifier is preferable.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[Vladimir]

 

[lindsayt]

Ashley James said "We used narrow band white noise..."

That whole paragraph is meaningless because he doesn't state what frequencies the white noise was restricted to (as well as what speakers he used and what crossover point was used).

Let's say, for example I were to generate narrow band white noise, restricted to the frequencies between 200 hz and 800 hz only. And I were to feed that to my Bozak speakers with their crossover point at 400 hz.

I'd fully expect the noise from the bass drivers to sound different to that from the midrange unit. Because the crossover would be allowining more of the lower frequency content to the bass units and more of the higher frequency content to the midrange unit.

His statement about his white noise test and the inferences he makes from it make no sense. Any speaker would be acting as it should if the white noise sounded different from each driver.

On the other hand, if I were to feed a single frequency signal of 400 hz to my speakers I'd expect the sound from the bass drivers to sound the same as the sound from midrange unit, with them being roughly the same volume from each driver.

Lo and behold, when I do this test it does!

This is a test that anyone can do. Find out the crossover point of your speakers. Download a test tone at that frequency from here: http://www.audiocheck.net/audiofrequencysignalgenerator_sinetone.php

And play it through your speakers.

If I repeat the test with a 200 hz test tone I find that, as far as I can tell, the sound coming from the bass drivers sounds the same as that coming from midrange unit, except that the sound from the midrange unit is much quieter. And vice versa with an 800hz test tone.

Again, anyone reading this can do the same sort of test through their speakers.

If I insert an adjustable active crossover into my system and play about with the crossover frequency I find that my bass cones can play comfortably well above 400 hz without going into gross audible distortion. And my midrange units can play well below 400 hz without sounding "unhappy and distorting". This is hardly surprising as the Bozak midrange units are 5" big.

One of the ways to getting first order crossovers to work successfully is to have drivers with a decent amount of overlap before they go into distortion / break up. You are more likely to get that in a 3 way or a 4 way design than a 2 way.

 

[lindsayt]

Connect a meter to the coil of a speaker then push the cone, and you will see that it acts like a generator in producing electricity, thus is easily measured.(Its a basic and known quantity that has been taken into consideration by speaker designers for decades) How good an amplifier can control the back electromagnetic force is determined by the damping factor of the amplifier, but basically the lower the output resistance of the amplifier the more it can control the speaker, however put something in the path that increases the resistance etc. (A passive crossover is one type) then it makes it more difficult for the amplifier to control the speaker, hence the reason for direct coupling the speaker driver to the amplifier is preferable.

Hope this helps

Bill

Bill, the trouble with that, is that my fingers are not trained to move my bass cones in exactly the same way that they move when playing, for example, a bass drum transient at 80dbs.

And they're certainly not trained to move the bass cones of a pair of AVI speakers and sub in exactly the same way that they move when playing that bass drum transient at 80 dbs - IE so that they take account of the different characteristics of the AVI speakers when compared to my own.

So therefore your suggested measurement method is of no use to me in measuring how much electricity is generated by the voicecoils in each system in normal use.

 

[steve_1979]

But I'll quote Ash again as he explains it far better than I can.

Re: Passive speakers

"for no sound to come out a driver, the passive crossover must effectively disconnect the amp from it. The impedance seen by the amp starts to rise from a few hundred Hz. It is this action, far more than the resistance of the inductors, that reduces damping right through the range and dramatically."

Re: Active speakers

"In an active design, the crossover doesn't use lossy and distortion introducing inductors and it is placed before the power amp, which remains permanently connected to the driver and maintaining maximum damping/control over its entire operating range."

 

[steve_1979]

Software based digital active crossovers like that are fascinating. I'd love to have a play around with one of them.

Modern active speaker designers have many more tools at their disposal to further improve and evolve their speakers. I remember a couple of years ago on the AVI forum Ashley James was describing how they used similar software when designing the 8th order crossovers for the DM10's and how the information gained from this enabled Sinar Baja to custom design a new mid/bass driver with even less distortion. Clever stuff.

 

[abacus]

Connect a meter to the coil of a speaker then push the cone, and you will see that it acts like a generator in producing electricity, thus is easily measured.(Its a basic and known quantity that has been taken into consideration by speaker designers for decades) How good an amplifier can control the back electromagnetic force is determined by the damping factor of the amplifier, but basically the lower the output resistance of the amplifier the more it can control the speaker, however put something in the path that increases the resistance etc. (A passive crossover is one type) then it makes it more difficult for the amplifier to control the speaker, hence the reason for direct coupling the speaker driver to the amplifier is preferable.

Hope this helps

Bill

Bill, the trouble with that, is that my fingers are not trained to move my bass cones in exactly the same way that they move when playing, for example, a bass drum transient at 80dbs.

And they're certainly not trained to move the bass cones of a pair of AVI speakers and sub in exactly the same way that they move when playing that bass drum transient at 80 dbs - IE so that they take account of the different characteristics of the AVI speakers when compared to my own.

So therefore your suggested measurement method is of no use to me in measuring how much electricity is generated by the voicecoils in each system in normal use.

The example I used was just to point out that a speaker is also an electrical generator, where the output can easily be measured & calculated. (As speaker desiners have been doing for years)

BTW you do realise that adding inductance & capacitance into an AC circuit (Music is an AC signal) causes the voltage & current to become out of step (Phase) with each other.

Bill

 

[steve_1979]

ATC, PMC and Acoustic Energy all make both active and passive versions of their speakers. All three companies say that when implemented properly an active speaker will be significantly better than a passive speaker with lower distortion and better dynamic range. The short video below sums up the basics pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3A4UMh1AOHw

Without going into too much detail (google is your friend) here are 5 of the main advantages that active speakers have:

1) With active speakers steeper crossover slopes can be achieved so that each driver is only being asked to reproduce audio in the frequency range that it can comfortably handle. This means less distortion because the drive units don't go into 'cone break up' because they aren't forced to try and reproduce frequencies out of the range that they can handle.

2) With active speakers the individual amplifiers can be perfectly optimised for each drive units needs. The requirements of a bass driver amplifier and the requirements of a tweeter amplifier are very different. By definition a passive speaker amplifer can never be perfectly optimised for all of the different drive units which have differing requirements to each other.

3) With active speakers the amplifiers are connected directly to each drive unit which gives them much better control over the movement of the drivers. In a passive speaker the crossover is between the amplifier and driver which gives the amplifier much less control, especially around the crossover frequencies. In laymens terms imagine that the decoupled amplifier in a passive setup is effectively pushing the cone in and out using a 'spring' but with an active speaker the direct connection of the amplifier to the driver gives it a tight 'grip' on the driver allowing the movement to be much more accurately controlled. This is why active speakers have much less relative phase distortion between the drivers where the drivers in passive speakers become more and more out of phase with each other the closer to the crossover frequency they get.

4) With active speakers the extra control brought about by directly coupling the amplifiers to the drivers also means that you get less 'driver overshoot' than what occurs with passive speakers.

5) Passive crossovers are very lossy energy wise and make the amplifier work much harder. A 100 wpc active speaker will go roughly as loud as an equivalent 200 wpc passive speaker. This is one of the reasons why active speakers tend to have more dynamic headroom than passive speakers.

 

[Ajani]

Gentlemen,

the problem with having a technical discussion of active vs passive speaker design is that it's pointless talking about the negative effects of active crossovers or passive crossovers. Any kind of crossover is likely to add something to the system. The question is really which one has the least negative effect on the sound quality. I don't think anyone will be convinced to change their views based on such a discussion. And frankly it falls into the category of does it really matter anyway?

Just audition passive/amp combos and actives in your budget and buy what you like.

I love budget actives, simply because for just $300 US for a new pair of speakers I am amazed at the clarity and dynamics available. I have absolutely no clue what passive system I would be able to build for $300 new (and I don't mean B-Stock or closeout sales) that would be satisfying to me. Obviously that is just my experience and it's why I like actives. Increase the budget to $3000 and I would be overwhelmed with great choices in both active and passive (especially in passives), so the decision would not be so simple.

 

[drummerman]

Highly (Over?) damped systems = boring, soulless, dry

Imho

 

[Ajani]

Highly (Over?) damped systems = boring, soulless, dry

Imho

As usual you are completely wrong. Underdamped systems are overly excitable, ghostly and wet. They fail to convey the subtle mystic physicality that makes the music peer into our souls and ignite the senses. The visceral impact that transcends our plane of existence and elevates us to the summit of Olympus.

 

[davedotco]

Highly (Over?) damped systems = boring, soulless, dry

Imho

As usual you are completely wrong. Underdamped systems are overly excitable, ghostly and wet. They fail to convey the subtle mystic physicality that makes the music peer into our souls and ignite the senses. The visceral impact that transcends our plane of existence and elevates us to the summit of Olympus.

This Thompsonitis.

We all need to be carefull, I would avoid 'intimate' contact with your computer or mobile device until we have a cure for this.

Mercury might work, but it makes your teeth go green. A bit like crystal meth....*shok*