Are separates on borrowed time?

[fr0g]

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

Nonsense..

I explained what i meant, quite clearly.

And i'm right...

I agree you explained it perfectly, and I agree that Oldric was barking up an odd tree, but I don't actually "quite" agree.

I think maybe if you said "should" rather than "could" it would be spot on. I imagine there are many actives that are not as good as they could be because the amplification is not as good as it could be, even if it has plenty of power. In such a case, it is conceivable that the active version of said speaker could be outgunned by its passive brother with superior amplification...

But I agree with the sentiment.

If the amplification of a given active speaker isn't lacking in power (which is what i said), and is thus driving said speaker to it's maximum designed potential, how could it be outgunned or beaten, by the passive version of the same speaker?

And what does outgunned or beaten mean? How does one quantify what better is when comparing an active and passive version of the same speaker if not by levels of distortion? And if the speaker with the least distortion is better, it'll be the active version every time (as i said, once it wasn't handicapped by a lack of power)

You could connect the passive ATCs mentioned to a nuclear power station but they'll still distort more than their active counterpart, because they're passive.

It isn't just about power though. So the highlighted text does not necessarily follow.

 

[Anonymous]

Well what else is it about

 

[fr0g]

Current, impedance. You could throw together an active speaker that gives 100 wpc to the woofers at 8 ohms, but chokes when the driver dips to 4 or 2 ohms. Or you could attach an amp to the same (passive) speaker that provides 50 wpc at 8 ohms, 100 at 4 and 200 at 2 without breaking sweat.

Which will distort less?

(Apologies if this is not quite correct, I am no expert )

But I would agree that a properly designed active should always sound better than its passive brother.

 

[BenLaw]

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

Nonsense..

I explained what i meant, quite clearly.

And i'm right...

I agree you explained it perfectly, and I agree that Oldric was barking up an odd tree, but I don't actually "quite" agree.

I think maybe if you said "should" rather than "could" it would be spot on. I imagine there are many actives that are not as good as they could be because the amplification is not as good as it could be, even if it has plenty of power. In such a case, it is conceivable that the active version of said speaker could be outgunned by its passive brother with superior amplification...

But I agree with the sentiment.

If the amplification of a given active speaker isn't lacking in power (which is what i said), and is thus driving said speaker to it's maximum designed potential, how could it be outgunned or beaten, by the passive version of the same speaker?

And what does outgunned or beaten mean? How does one quantify what better is when comparing an active and passive version of the same speaker if not by levels of distortion? And if the speaker with the least distortion is better, it'll be the active version every time (as i said, once it wasn't handicapped by a lack of power)

You could connect the passive ATCs mentioned to a nuclear power station but they'll still distort more than their active counterpart, because they're passive.

I've linked to it before, but a German magazine compared ATC50As with passive 50s driven by very expensive Ayre amplification and preferred the latter, marginally: http://www.klingtgut-studio.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ATC_SCM50_aktiv-passiv-Stpl-4-2011.pdf Apparently they also measure marginally better but the graphs aren't really decipherable on this pdf.

ATC of course do an 'Anniversary' edition of their Actives with upgraded amp packs, so it is not simply a matter of driving a speaker to its 'maximum designed potential'.

 

[John Duncan]

According to the powered speakers page on wikipedia (which I'm fairly sure steve_1979 spend rather more time than is healthy rewriting):

"The amplifiers within the loudspeaker enclosure may be ideally matched to the individual drivers, eliminating the need for each amplifier channel to operate in the entire audio bandpass. Driver characteristics such as power handling and impedance may be matched to amplifier capabilities."

Bang and Olufsen say the same thing.

I therefore think oldric's question is a valid one, as Max is employing a logical fallacy. There seems to be a tacit assumption that just because a speaker is active, and therefore the opportunity exists to optimise amplification to drive unit, that all those altruistic not-for-profit active speaker manufacturers then do so as a matter of course, as opposed to chucking in any old OEM amp plate they can get the cheapest from China.

Therefore, there does exist the possibility that a very high quality amplifier (because they are not all the same) through a passive version of a given speaker can sound better than an active version of the same speaker with suboptimal amplification, no? This is why the statement about all active speakers being better than the equivalent passive version (forgetting about the totally made up bit and the fact that the speakers were not 'equivalent' in any sense that could constitute binding proof) doesn't actually prove anything; was it the active crossover that's better, the drive units, the box, the amplification? Every one of those was a variable in that case, as far as I could tell. Unless the same amp is used with the same speakers and the only thing is different is the crossover, those comparisons are meaningless. And don't get me started on the fact that it wasn't ABX .

The comparison between Active and Passive AEs is a much more compelling example, because reading between the lines one might suggest that the 400 quid's worth of amps in the AE active seems capable of beating the 10k worth of reference Bryston through a passive crossover, but I can't say because I don't know how the tests were conducted nor have I heard them myself.

 

[BenLaw]

Max is employing a logical fallacy.

Ooh!

 

[Craig M.]

edit: can't be bothered.

 

[the record spot]

The comparison between Active and Passive AEs is a much more compelling example, because reading between the lines one might suggest that the 400 quid's worth of amps in the AE active seems capable of beating the 10k worth of reference Bryston through a passive crossover, but I can't say because I don't know how the tests were conducted nor have I heard them myself.

They were lovely though, the AE22s - fabby design.

Great post too JD.

 

[fr0g]

nm

 

[Anonymous]

:quest:

Current, impedance. You could throw together an active speaker that gives 100 wpc to the woofers at 8 ohms, but chokes when the driver dips to 4 or 2 ohms. Or you could attach an amp to the same (passive) speaker that provides 50 wpc at 8 ohms, 100 at 4 and 200 at 2 without breaking sweat.

Which will distort less?

(Apologies if this is not quite correct, I am no expert )

But I would agree that a properly designed active should always sound better than its passive brother.

But surely all of the above IS relevant to power? All I'm saying is that once an active speaker is being driven properly,it will suffer less from distortion than the same speaker in passive form, whatever is driving it.

 

[fr0g]

:quest:

Current, impedance. You could throw together an active speaker that gives 100 wpc to the woofers at 8 ohms, but chokes when the driver dips to 4 or 2 ohms. Or you could attach an amp to the same (passive) speaker that provides 50 wpc at 8 ohms, 100 at 4 and 200 at 2 without breaking sweat.

Which will distort less?

(Apologies if this is not quite correct, I am no expert )

But I would agree that a properly designed active should always sound better than its passive brother.

But surely all of the above IS relevant to power? All I'm saying is that once an active speaker is being driven properly,it will suffer less from distortion than the same speaker in passive form, whatever is driving it.

That, I agree with. But then I'll bet most active speakers aren't being driven to their potential /properly. I'd wager of course that the ADMs most certainly are, but then you can't judge all actives by those. Avi having been in the high end amp business ought to know how to make an amp drive a driver properly, but what JD says is pretty true...I imagine many of the pro monitors, especially the cheaper ones have off-the-shelf amp packs that "do the job".

 

[Anonymous]

:quest:

Current, impedance. You could throw together an active speaker that gives 100 wpc to the woofers at 8 ohms, but chokes when the driver dips to 4 or 2 ohms. Or you could attach an amp to the same (passive) speaker that provides 50 wpc at 8 ohms, 100 at 4 and 200 at 2 without breaking sweat.

Which will distort less?

(Apologies if this is not quite correct, I am no expert )

But I would agree that a properly designed active should always sound better than its passive brother.

But surely all of the above IS relevant to power? All I'm saying is that once an active speaker is being driven properly,it will suffer less from distortion than the same speaker in passive form, whatever is driving it.

That, I agree with. But then I'll bet most active speakers aren't being driven to their potential /properly. I'd wager of course that the ADMs most certainly are, but then you can't judge all actives by those. Avi having been in the high end amp business ought to know how to make an amp drive a driver properly, but what JD says is pretty true...I imagine many of the pro monitors, especially the cheaper ones have off-the-shelf amp packs that "do the job".

Agreed

 

[steve_1979]

According to the powered speakers page on wikipedia (which I'm fairly sure steve_1979 spend rather more time than is healthy rewriting)

The Wikipedia entry for powered speakers used to have some information missing. It didn't explain that there are differences are between powered and active speakers so I added a couple of paragraphs explaining what these differences are.

If you're interested to know what was added to Wikipedia have a read of this thread: http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=4224

 

[John Duncan]

If you're interested to know what was added to Wikipedia

Not really.

 

[lindsayt]

Better is sooo subjective

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

And an active speaker with adequate amplification will always suffer from less distortion than the exact same speaker in passive form, (no matter what amplification is being used to drive it) and less distortion makes for truer sound reproduction, which to me, means better.

Always?

What about distortions introduced by the active crossover? That electronic box of tricks that sits between the pre-amp / volume control and power amps? Is anyone seriously claiming that active crossovers introduce no distortions? That for all active crossovers in use today the signal coming out of it is exactly the same as the signal going into it apart from it being split-up into separate frequency bands for the digestion of the power amps and speaker drive units? Bearing in mind the logarithmic nature of music when it comes to power and frequency inputs. So we're expecting the active crossover to be distortion free over a vast range of power and frequency inputs and not just some steady state test tone which may suit the active crossover from a test bench distortion measurement point of view.

Sadly active crossovers are not some kind of magical electronic box of tricks. They all impose their own sonic character onto the signal.

When I've compared passive versions of my own speakers against actively bi-amped versions I've found that I've swapped one type of distortion for another. Going active resulted in greater dynamic ease at the expense of some detail masking transistorised hash in the midrange. Hash that was introduced by the active crossover. Overall I prefer them actively bi-amped. With different speakers and the same or similar active crossover it's highly likely I would prefer them passive. This is typical for hi-fi. There are very few hard and fast rules in hi-fi. When it comes to active and passive and which sounds better or which is less distorted it's a big fat "it depends".

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

so ooh../ Max tell me. what specific engineering makes "purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker" any different from any other amp? I just don't get this statement. are there any hidden, magical technical qualities of such amps that are inaccessible for full range power amps? or what is it? please elaborate.

I think you've misunderstood my point, Oldric. It's the active crossover that's key, the active version of a speaker will always distort less than the passive version of the same speaker. And one would assume that the makers of an active speaker like the ATC's, would give the amplification sufficient power. So how could the passive version sound *better with any form of external amplification?

*If what's best is quantified by what distorts less...

so, now it's crossover that's crucial. how convenient... you dodge bullets better than Neo.

you're really sure that "purpose built amps" for active speakers, which in most cases are plain off-the-shelf ICs, are no better than other amps on the market?

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Current, impedance. You could throw together an active speaker that gives 100 wpc to the woofers at 8 ohms, but chokes when the driver dips to 4 or 2 ohms. Or you could attach an amp to the same (passive) speaker that provides 50 wpc at 8 ohms, 100 at 4 and 200 at 2 without breaking sweat.

Which will distort less?

(Apologies if this is not quite correct, I am no expert )

not necessarily. power amps in active speakers would normally not be asked to drive low impedance loads. (condition, active speakers are moving coil speakers.) unless you come up with some really weird drivers. the most severe impedance dips in passive moving coil speakers are introduced by the crossover itself.

so, that's just one of the reasons you can use sh***y amps with active speakers without care.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

So we're expecting the active crossover to be distortion free over a vast range of power and frequency inputs and not just some steady state test tone which may suit the active crossover from a test bench distortion measurement point of view.

that's a very valid point and one that few people out here (and out there too) really grasp.

Sadly active crossovers are not some kind of magical electronic box of tricks. They all impose their own sonic character onto the signal.

that would pretty much go hand-in-hand with what people on DIY forum say about active xovers. they would choose active over passive because of simplicity and ease of implementation and not because of alleged sonic advantages. and they also warn that active xovers have their "sound" which may or may not suit all. (also, they sell nothing to nobody).

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm not taking sides on this one, but surely if the company makes both the amps and the speakers, it can tailor each amp to suit the characteristics of each drive unit (eg. frequency range, bandwidth, impedance and power handling etc).

This is all well and good, and may it be "academically better", but all this means nothing if one doesn't like the sound....which is why we buy the thing in the first place.

There is also the chance it could sound better of course....which brings you back to the fact there is good and bad of each type, and also the subjective taste of the person buying it.

 

[Anonymous]

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

so ooh../ Max tell me. what specific engineering makes "purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker" any different from any other amp? I just don't get this statement. are there any hidden, magical technical qualities of such amps that are inaccessible for full range power amps? or what is it? please elaborate.

I think you've misunderstood my point, Oldric. It's the active crossover that's key, the active version of a speaker will always distort less than the passive version of the same speaker. And one would assume that the makers of an active speaker like the ATC's, would give the amplification sufficient power. So how could the passive version sound *better with any form of external amplification?

*If what's best is quantified by what distorts less...

so, now it's crossover that's crucial. how convenient... you dodge bullets better than Neo.

you're really sure that "purpose built amps" for active speakers, which in most cases are plain off-the-shelf ICs, are no better than other amps on the market?

I'll need to be able to dodge bullets if people keep twisting what i'm saying

I didn't say all active speakers are better than all passive ones.

I didn't say no amp can be better than any amp in any active speaker.

And i didn't say that any or all active speakers suffer from zero distortion.

I Quoted Ben, who said

I've asked the question before, but I'd still like to know whether anyone from the WHF test team has heard what they consider to be a better amplifier with their reference ATC SCM50s in passive mode compared to their own amplification in active mode.

To which i replied

Better is sooo subjective

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

And an active speaker with adequate amplification will always suffer from less distortion than the exact same speaker in passive form, (no matter what amplification is being used to drive it) and less distortion makes for truer sound reproduction, which to me, means better.

Note the part in bold, my point is that once an active speaker (like the ATCs) is being driven by amplification that's powerful enough for the demands of the speaker, then that's good enough.

And because the passive version will suffer more from distortion, *it won't sound as good, no matter what kind of amplification is driving it, it's at a disadvantage (in relation to it's active counterpart) for being passive.

*Assuming more accuracy and less distortion is the criteria for what's better. It is for me.

That's my opinion, make of it what you will...

 

[Anonymous]

So we're expecting the active crossover to be distortion free over a vast range of power and frequency inputs and not just some steady state test tone which may suit the active crossover from a test bench distortion measurement point of view.

that's a very valid point and one that few people out here (and out there too) really grasp.

Sadly active crossovers are not some kind of magical electronic box of tricks. They all impose their own sonic character onto the signal.

that would pretty much go hand-in-hand with what people on DIY forum say about active xovers. they would choose active over passive because of simplicity and ease of implementation and not because of alleged sonic advantages. and they also warn that active xovers have their "sound" which may or may not suit all. (also, they sell nothing to nobody).

What "sound" would that be? The sound of less distortion? Sounds good to me..

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

What "sound" would that be? The sound of less distortion? Sounds good to me..

When I've compared passive versions of my own speakers against actively bi-amped versions I've found that I've swapped one type of distortion for another. Going active resulted in greater dynamic ease at the expense of some detail masking transistorised hash in the midrange.

if that's the sound of less distortion?... but fair enough.

 

[Anonymous]

Better is sooo subjective

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power.

And an active speaker with adequate amplification will always suffer from less distortion than the exact same speaker in passive form, (no matter what amplification is being used to drive it) and less distortion makes for truer sound reproduction, which to me, means better.

Always?

What about distortions introduced by the active crossover? That electronic box of tricks that sits between the pre-amp / volume control and power amps? Is anyone seriously claiming that active crossovers introduce no distortions? That for all active crossovers in use today the signal coming out of it is exactly the same as the signal going into it apart from it being split-up into separate frequency bands for the digestion of the power amps and speaker drive units? Bearing in mind the logarithmic nature of music when it comes to power and frequency inputs. So we're expecting the active crossover to be distortion free over a vast range of power and frequency inputs and not just some steady state test tone which may suit the active crossover from a test bench distortion measurement point of view.

Sadly active crossovers are not some kind of magical electronic box of tricks. They all impose their own sonic character onto the signal.

When I've compared passive versions of my own speakers against actively bi-amped versions I've found that I've swapped one type of distortion for another. Going active resulted in greater dynamic ease at the expense of some detail masking transistorised hash in the midrange. Hash that was introduced by the active crossover. Overall I prefer them actively bi-amped. With different speakers and the same or similar active crossover it's highly likely I would prefer them passive. This is typical for hi-fi. There are very few hard and fast rules in hi-fi. When it comes to active and passive and which sounds better or which is less distorted it's a big fat "it depends".

Take two speakers that are the same apart from one being passive and one active, give them both sufficient amplification and, assuming they were both correctly designed, the active one will suffer less from distortion, or less colouration. If my understanding is correct.

And i never said active crossovers were magic either

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

my point is that once an active speaker (like the ATCs) is being driven by amplification that's powerful enough for the demands of the speaker, then that's good enough.

and my point is there's no difference between those amps inside ATC's towers and metal cases.

well, maybe one exception. those amps encased in metal will be linear over wider freq spectrum and be energised by better quality power supplies. but other than that (mostly) identical.

 

[Anonymous]

my point is that once an active speaker (like the ATCs) is being driven by amplification that's powerful enough for the demands of the speaker, then that's good enough.

and my point is there's no difference between those amps inside ATC's towers and metal cases.

well, maybe one exception. those amps encased in metal will be linear over wider freq spectrum and be energised by better quality power supplies. but other than that (mostly) identical.

Then we're agreed

The differences start in the process of getting the power from those amps to the drivers, active speakers enable this to be done more effectively, their drivers are better controlled, hence less distortion