Are separates on borrowed time?

[John Duncan]

Notwithstanding the fact that I think you've said precisely that about a million times, let me ask you the same question I asked Steve:

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

 

[plastic penguin]

I wonder if Max would've posted this if he still had his Marantz and Dyns?

 

[Anonymous]

Notwithstanding the fact that I think you've said precisely that about a million times, let me ask you the same question I asked Steve:

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

JD, please show me just one post where I've said that every active speaker will be better than any passive...

And my answer to your question is yes.

 

[Phileas]

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

Could I suggest "can be" rather than "is better"?

 

[the record spot]

I think that's a fair enough take Phileas.

Need to have some room to accommodate other eventualities. For instance, I think even AVI noticed a difference in their listening tests when evaluating the new DAC that went in the ADM 9.1T a year or so back - minor but noticeable nonetheless.

 

[John Duncan]

JD, please show me just one post where I've said that every active speaker will be better than any passive...

It would serve no purpose given your answer to the question, Max. My apologies for suggesting it.

 

[John Duncan]

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

Could I suggest "can be" rather than "is better"?

I think I put enough caveats in there already to make the question a reasonable one as asked...

 

[shooter]

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

0.001% active to 1% passive on paper is a fare amount but i wonder what this would be in listening terms, what you would really hear? I would of thought may be wrongly that others factors like under/over driving speakers and room accoustics for example would have a greater effect on sound degradation than this amount of distortion. It would be interesting to set up a demo of this kind, a brand with both passive and active in the range and use similar type of amp to drive the passive :?

 

[John Duncan]

[UNPUBLISHED]

 

[John Duncan]

And my answer to your question is yes.

My work here is done.

 

[proffski]

Well, there is Hi-Fi.

Then there will always be those who are happy with 2nd or 3rd best I suppose...

 

[steve_1979]

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

0.001% active to 1% passive on paper is a fare amount but i wonder what this would be in listening terms, what you would really hear? I would of thought may be wrongly that others factors like under/over driving speakers and room accoustics for example would have a greater effect on sound degradation than this amount of distortion.

I'm not really qualified to answer this question but in my experience I do think that it is easy to hear a noticable and worthwhile improvement by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover. A good quality, well designed active speaker will have slightly more clarity and detail and the bass is a fair bit better controlled compared to an equally priced good quality passive setup.

However (IMO) the difference between actives and passives isn't huge and other factors such as the drivers, enclosure design and room acoustics will make a bigger difference.

It would be interesting to set up a demo of this kind, a brand with both passive and active in the range and use similar type of amp to drive the passive :?

I have done a test with some Dynaudio speakers and the actives were slightly better in both cases (the passive speakers were powered by a very low distortion, high powered pro audio amp that cost several thousand pounds).

WHF have also reviewed the active and passive versions of the Acoustic Energy AE22 speakers and found the actives version to be better.

 

[Anonymous]

JD, please show me just one post where I've said that every active speaker will be better than any passive...

It would serve no purpose given your answer to the question, Max. My apologies for suggesting it.

No problemo

 

[Anonymous]

And my answer to your question is yes.

My work here is done.

 

[the record spot]

Surely as technology advances, more and more people are going to end up with a similar system? Why pay for stuff you don't need? Is your typical box swapping enthusiast going to be phased out? How long will it be profitable for manufacturers to make "old skool" seperates? Economies of scale and all that.

I know what you've said Max, both here and on the AVI forum (ex-HDD Audio, which was always the unofficial AVI forum anyway), but the allusion for much of the time has been either to write separates off (alebit not explcitly perhaps), or to wax lyrical about the benefits of active speakers. Neither are new and some of us have actively heard enough of both to form an informed opinion.

The reality is that advances in technology will always bring its followers - some people knock Nokia, I rate their Symbian S60 E-series handsets (try and find many duff reviews of the E52 or E55 handsets), others trumpet vinyl from the rooftops, some would throw it from the rooftops. Phil over on the AVI forum has some great vinyl content on YouTube and has a lovely Garrard 301 in a custom made plinth I think. Great work and a labour of love without question.

AVI owners wax lyrical about their speakers and for good reason, others berate them but that's usually through Ashley's slightly direct style (somebody needs to put that comment up for the Understatement of the Year awards in a few months time thanks), and they don't actually own them in most cases. I'd also be inclined to suggest that some AVI owners suffer from an OCD tidiness complex given the number of comments I read about lack of clutter, but that's another debate for a medical forum I imagine...!

When people talk about separates, they're talking, to my mind about a combination of traditional hifi components featuring at least an integrated stereo amplifier (or receiver with inbuilt radio as opposed to the home cinema variant), a pair of stereo speakers and a source item - CD player, turntable or the like.

What you're gaining with actives are - in theory - a speaker whose oboard amps are optimised to work with the driver/crossover arrangement thereby giving - in theory - a better resulting sound quality.

Equally, many actives, and dare I say it, most actives are engineered for the production studio. Many come in at under £500 and those at the bottom end of the pile (your Alesis M1's for instance) will perform an adequate and possibly very good standard of reproduction but aimed at the pro-audio music production market. Which is why you found them a flat and an uninvolving listen (I imagine) as they're not designed for the end product you buy in the shape of either a download or a physical CD, but the process in delivering what becomes the download or the CD. They're designed for the home based or small studio producer to mix their tracks on.

Some actives work well in the home setting (Genelec, Yamaha's HS80 - but not, IMO, the HS50, AVI's obviously and others) but not all.

And then you come to the box count comments - a reduction of one by my calculations. Or two if you are ditching a pre/power setup. On the other hand, you still have other boxes to manage, albeit smaller in the shape of, in your case, your ATV (smaller but fiddly little thing - I hear some users complain of it shifting too easily when cables are shifted accidentally at the back, so maybe some blu-tack under it as well as the speakers?!), iPhone, computer, TV, CD player, hard drive...this is no paradigm shift, just new technology resulting in a box reshuffle.

Separates by the tradtional sense will be with us for a while yet, but as Chebby so often and rightly points out, most folk out there probably listen to all-in-one systems of one shape or another, likely costing less than £300 and many use their phones as their entertainment hub.

 

[steve_1979]

What you're gaining with actives are - in theory - a speaker whose oboard amps are optimised to work with the driver/crossover arrangement

Amps that are optimised to work with individual drivers is only one of several reasons why active crossovers are better.

The passive crossover also adds a considerable abount of audiable distortion but an active crossover does not.

With an active crossover it's possible to use a steeper roll off slope which sounds better than a shallow roll off slope.

A passive crossover also effects the way in which a amplifier controls the movement of a driver. With a passive crossover in between the amp and the driver it's like trying to push the speaker cone in and out using a spring. But when the amp is connected directly to the driver it has a much more direct and effective control over the movement of the speaker cone.

Equally, many actives, and dare I say it, most actives are engineered for the production studio. Many come in at under £500 and those at the bottom end of the pile (your Alesis M1's for instance) will perform an adequate and possibly very good standard of reproduction but aimed at the pro-audio music production market. Which is why you found them a flat and an uninvolving listen (I imagine) as they're not designed for the end product you buy in the shape of either a download or a physical CD, but the process in delivering what becomes the download or the CD. They're designed for the home based or small studio producer to mix their tracks on.

Some actives work well in the home setting (Genelec, Yamaha's HS80 - but not, IMO, the HS50, AVI's obviously and others) but not all.

I agree that many active studio monitors sound horrible because they're 'voiced' to emphasise the treble. However, having a speaker that is undistorted and uncolored doesn't make it sound uninvolving.

When asked what the difference is between a PMC home speaker and a PMC studio speaker Peter Thomas (PMC owner) said that there is no difference between them apart from the home speakers having vaneers to make them look nice. Mechanically there is no difference and they both sound exacly the same.

 

[the record spot]

Steve, I wasn't asking for a critique of my post, nor a breakdown of the additional benefits of active speakers over their passive counterparts. I understand I can read an academic book for that. The point I am making is the the fallacy in the original premise Max is positing.

Oh, and your point re: PMC applies to PMC I think and was he talking about the active v. passive monitor or passive/passive?

Unless you're telling me that potentially, the Yammy HS50s I referred to could also be intended for the general home audio market as well, as a parallel example. In which case, if you can point me to their listing in the company's domestic audio portion of their site please? I can only see the NSB-500, while the HS50M sits under the Professional sub-section, so I assume Yamaha have established that their active monitor sits with a particular market segment. Finish-wise, it would sit nicely in the home - contemporary, smart and quite sleek.

Incidentally, I didn't suggest production monitors are voiced to highlight a prominent treble; as I understand it, they should be flat, neutral and permit the producer or mastering engineer to tailor the recording as they see fit. Anything outwith "neutral" is - from the production process perspective - doesn't let the engineer "see" the impact of their work.

 

[CnoEvil]

I suppose it's a matter of choosing your poison....for me, the removal of Crossover distortion at the amp (ie. True Class A), has the biggest effect.

This is just personal preference, but feel free to shoot me anyway!

 

[steve_1979]

Steve, I wasn't asking for a critique of my post

It wasn't ment as a critique, just a reply to your comments. No offence intended.

PMC applies to PMC I think and was he talking about the active v. passive monitor or passive/passive?

He was comparing the PMC's passive studio monitors to PMC's passive home speakers.

Incidentally, I didn't suggest production monitors are voiced to highlight a prominent treble; as I understand it, they should be flat, neutral and permit the producer or mastering engineer to tailor the recording as they see fit. Anything outwith "neutral" is - from the production process perspective - doesn't let the engineer "see" the impact of their work.

Some studio monitors have an emphasised treble which sounds horrible but it can help sound engineers to pick out high frequency details. Other monitors are voiced to sound as neutral and clear as possible allowing a sound engineer to hear what's really there and this type of monitor is a pleasure to listen to.

I was just trying to explain one of the reasons why some active monitors can sound horrible and also point out that flat, neutral and undistorted doesn't automatically mean boring.

 

[the record spot]

...and also point out that flat, neutral and undistorted doesn't automatically mean boring.

Not something I think I mentioned - uninvolving in relation to Max's experience was my interpretation of his comment and not a comment on a general perspective.

 

[Anonymous]

RS, I can't multiquote so..

A flat speaker needn't be uninvolving, my ADMs probably measure flatter then the Alesis and they're the most involving speakers i've ever heard, they're just different, and much better speakers.

And what you're gaining with good active speakers amounts to more than just an amp that's optimised to work with the speakers. You're gaining more accuracy than equivalent passives can give you, the extra control means less distortion (more accuracy), and it is audible, IMO.

More accuracy often means more space around instruments, less congestion, more realistic vocals, the ability to play very loud without compromising the sound, less listener fatigue (in some cases), etc. And these traits are a result of the active crossover, it reduces distortion, but as i said, all speakers are different, as i've found out having owned 4 pairs of actives now, not all actives are good, the KRKs were horribly bright (even though they had a soft domed tweeter).

The main point i've been trying to get across here for the past few days is, if all other things are equal, a good active version of a given speaker will suffer less from distortion than the same speaker in passive form, because of the advantages an active crossover gives it.

If that is correct as i believe it to be, and many others do too, then can we not accept that truth? Why deny it? It does not mean that all active speakers are better than all passives, or that there's anything wrong with passives, and it doesn't mean everyone will prefer the active version, it is what it is, another way of doing things that brings benefits that many people appreciate. Is that not fair to say?

 

[Dave_]

Argh... There's that word again!

 

[the record spot]

RS, I can't multiquote so..

A flat speaker needn't be uninvolving, my ADMs probably measure flatter then the Alesis and they're the most involving speakers i've ever heard, they're just different, and much better speakers.

And what you're gaining with good active speakers amounts to more than just an amp that's optimised to work with the speakers. You're gaining more accuracy than equivalent passives can give you, the extra control means less distortion (more accuracy), and it is audible, IMO.

More accuracy often means more space around instruments, less congestion, more realistic vocals, the ability to play very loud without compromising the sound, less listener fatigue (in some cases), etc. And these traits are a result of the active crossover, it reduces distortion, but as i said, all speakers are different, as i've found out having owned 4 pairs of actives now, not all actives are good, the KRKs were horribly bright (even though they had a soft domed tweeter).

The main point i've been trying to get across here for the past few days is, if all other things are equal, a good active version of a given speaker will suffer less from distortion than the same speaker in passive form, because of the advantages an active crossover gives it.

If that is correct as i believe it to be, and many others do too, then can we not accept that truth? Why deny it? It does not mean that all active speakers are better than all passives, or that there's anything wrong with passives, and it doesn't mean everyone will prefer the active version, it is what it is, another way of doing things that brings benefits that many people appreciate. Is that not fair to say?

So really, it's a case of each to their own, no? I've been saying that for years Max. And I've never denied anything.

Choir - preaching - to.

 

[Anonymous]

Argh... There's that word again!

Dave, you own two different pairs of actives, and have direct experience of the same speaker in both passive and active form, so how would you describe the difference? What do you prefer about your active 110As over your old passive 110s? They look identical so presumably you bought them because you thought they sounded better?

 

[busb]

I suppose it's a matter of choosing your poison....for me, the removal of Crossover distortion at the amp (ie. True Class A), has the biggest effect. This is just personal preference, but feel free to shoot me anyway!

I'll shoot you by agreeing with you here, CnoE. Class A/B is dead but hasn't stopped moving yet! Having heard what class D can sound like now that the technology has advanced in the last couple of years, I'll put my money on class D becoming the mainstream wih class A for those without central heating much as is now - both delivering far less distortion. There's been some talk of EU legistration effecting the technology we can buy in the near future but I heard people in Sony Centres telling folk that plasma TVs were going to be outlawed some years back.

On a broader front, I view separates as I do poetry - they both go in & out of fashion - a bit like vinyl. Radiograms & receivers have been around all my life & I expect many varients to be around beyond it. I have to admit to being a little dismissive of active speakers but reading (some of) the posts in this thread has me wondering how much can be gained by removing the passive X'over. Food for thought.