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 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?