• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Your opinions please?

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
2
0
On the following statement...

All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate

Thanks..

[NOTE FROM MODS: Gentle reminder of House Rule 12]

"Members should not register more than once, nor submit the same or similar posts to more than one area of the site. Duplicate registrations, threads or posts will be deleted. Members are also encouraged to search for the topic they intend to post before starting a new thread, as existing discussions may already exist"
 

ID.

New member
Feb 22, 2010
207
0
0
ooh.. said:
[Note from mods: Please note House Rule 12]

"...the same or similar posts to more than one area of the site. Duplicate...posts ..."
Logged in to say something to this effect.

Thanks mods!

[NOTE FROM MODS - For those looking for the 'same or similar posts', there are hundreds in this recent thread Fresh opinions obviously more than welcome!]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
My apologies if this seems repetative, but i thought it might be good to get peoples views on the very specific statement above, why they agree or disagree with it, etc..
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,232
5
19,195
ooh.. said:
All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate...
There are instances - ATC is the only one that springs to mind - where the same manufacturer makes both versions of the same speaker and also make their own active & passive amplifiers too.

Quad were another one (they made active and passive versions of the 11L and made their own active and passive amps).

However, even in these examples, the manufacturer might still 'voice' the different versions for their intended use. (Studio/near-field, domestic hi-fi.)

Even if every variable could be controlled and minimised, you still end up with somebody listening and deciding what they like the sound of best, regardless of measured accuracy. That could go either way.
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
ooh.. said:
All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate
Correct, in theory. However, there are two points to make;

1) there are so few examples of speakers where active and passive versions are available, that the point is almost moot.

2) theoretical superiority needs to be tested, rather than stated as fact without any reference to how that superiority manifests itself in practice. Which is why I can say "I preferred the sound of PMC's powered passive speaker over a broadly similar active equivalent", whereas it is somewhat dangerous to say "this active speaker is better than JD's system" when you haven't heard one of them, let alone ABXed the two :)
 

marou

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2010
18
0
18,520
And I'd be interested to know why you think accuracy important - compared, say to looks, cost, size and, importantly, the ability to make the best of the source. Given the variation in sound recording - jazz from the 50s sounds better to me than rock from the 70s - I'm not sure I value accuracy that highly. When you listen are you moved by the music or the accuracy?
 

moon

New member
Nov 10, 2011
47
0
0
ooh.. said:
My apologies if this seems repetative, but i thought it might be good to get peoples views on the very specific statement above, why they agree or disagree with it, etc..
Thanks for apologising ooh, but it does seem very,very,very,very,very repetative. I am wondering, that if this thread continues it will just end the same way as" are separates on borrowed time ."
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
moon said:
Thanks for apologising ooh, but it does seem very,very,very,very,very repetative. I am wondering, that if this thread continues it will just end the same way as" are separates on borrowed time ."
Only if somebody calls somebody else a tosser
 

moon

New member
Nov 10, 2011
47
0
0
John Duncan said:
moon said:
Thanks for apologising ooh, but it does seem very,very,very,very,very repetative. I am wondering, that if this thread continues it will just end the same way as" are separates on borrowed time ."
Only if somebody calls somebody else a tosser
:rofl: just spilt my tea,

On a NEW JUMPER.

Cleaning bill on its way.
 

Andy Clough

New member
Apr 27, 2004
776
0
0
John Duncan said:
moon said:
Thanks for apologising ooh, but it does seem very,very,very,very,very repetative. I am wondering, that if this thread continues it will just end the same way as" are separates on borrowed time ."
Only if somebody calls somebody else a tosser
Steady on JD! Not sure we want that sort of language here
 

AlmaataKZ

New member
Jan 7, 2009
295
0
0
chebby said:
ooh.. said:
All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate...
There are instances - ATC is the only one that springs to mind - where the same manufacturer makes both versions of the same speaker and also make their own active & passive amplifiers too.

Quad were another one (they made active and passive versions of the 11L and made their own active and passive amps).

However, even in these examples, the manufacturer might still 'voice' the different versions for their intended use. (Studio/near-field, domestic hi-fi.)

Even if every variable could be controlled and minimised, you still end up with somebody listening and deciding what they like the sound of best, regardless of measured accuracy. That could go either way.
there is a third option from ATC - atives with discrete elements electronics which are supposed to further reduce distrotion

as to the OP - theoretically yes, but I do not know of any objective tests/measurements of real examples or even calculations. there was a German(?) test linked somewhere showing slightly worse freq amplitude response or distrotion on active ATCs vs passive? not sure.

I did hear a side-by-side ATC SCM 50 passive (with ATC amps) vs active and the only difference I heard was slightly slower/boomier bass on the passives.
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
446
0
0
But joking apart. My 2 cents...

I think what Max is trying to say but again not being specific enough is probably true in the majority of cases. But it doesn't take into account the fact that many active designs will not be built with the ideal amplification for the drive units. If he rephrased to say as such, then I would say it was almost universally true.

I have heard quite a few actives now and many passive systems, and my own (current) opinion is that the actives offer far more SQ per £, but that's it. I've heard some fantastic passive systems and some fantastic actives (only ADM9Ts in a HiFi design though) and some dreadful of both too.

Would I have a pair of Yamaha HS50/DAC-pre for around £600, or a good powerful budget amp and a pair of Avi Neutrons, still available at £300 a pair...? Total £600. Which is the best? My betting it's the passive system. The HS50 are a little brutal from my very brief listen.

I wouldn't buy a passive "stereo" system now though, having heard what £500 can get you SQ wise in our local pro audio shop.

On the other hand if I was buying a new 5.1 system, I would probably buy passive, if for no other reason than not to waste the power amps on my AV receiver! :)
 

paradiziac

New member
Jan 8, 2011
17
0
0
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate
Correct, in theory. However, there are two points to make;

1) there are so few examples of speakers where active and passive versions are available, that the point is almost moot.

2) theoretical superiority needs to be tested, rather than stated as fact without any reference to how that superiority manifests itself in practice. Which is why I can say "I preferred the sound of PMC's powered passive speaker over a broadly similar active equivalent", whereas it is somewhat dangerous to say "this active speaker is better than JD's system" when you haven't heard one of them, let alone ABXed the two :)
Fully agree with JD.
 

plastic penguin

Well-known member
Apr 28, 2008
1,677
122
19,870
Not sure what Max is trying to prove - after all, I own an out of date passive system. There's me taken out of the equation.

Anyhoo, I'm actually going to dem a Dyn active set-up, something I arranged this morning. Don't know what to expect but I'll know sooner or later. It won't resolve anything as I'm not planning to change, however, at least then I can say I've heard one. I can also decide whether the boasts are correct or not. We'll see.

The dem is Saturday 19th May.
 

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
John Duncan said:
moon said:
Thanks for apologising ooh, but it does seem very,very,very,very,very repetative. I am wondering, that if this thread continues it will just end the same way as" are separates on borrowed time ."
Only if somebody calls somebody else a tosser
I'm just going to quote this because it amuses me to do so.

And the temptation was almost overwhelming.
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
fr0g said:
my own (current) opinion is that the actives offer far more SQ per £, but that's it
This I can also agree with. I would say that, generalising, given two equivalent-sounding systems, the active one will almost certainly be cheaper. Add your own multiplier, but my own experience suggests a factor of two.
 

paradiziac

New member
Jan 8, 2011
17
0
0
John Duncan said:
fr0g said:
my own (current) opinion is that the actives offer far more SQ per £, but that's it
This I can also agree with. I would say that, generalising, given two equivalent-sounding systems, the active one will almost certainly be cheaper. Add your own multiplier, but my own experience suggests a factor of two.
Yep...that's why almost all my gear was bought used at around half the RRP, apart from the Mac mini...

Seriously, I think actives are potentially very good. Well worth an audition for anyone looking for an amp+speakers.

At the end of the day, you pays yer money...

Now gentlemen, excuse me while I go off and enjoy my passive system ;)
 

Big Chris

New member
Apr 3, 2008
400
0
0
Without trying to appear glib, what's it matter and who really cares?

We all know a speaker/amplifier can measure better than another speaker/amplifier, but that doesn't necessarily mean it sounds better.

I'm sure someone hear has/had a signature saying "If it sounds good, listen to it!".... I'm inclined to agree..... Anyway, with the stuff I listen to, distortion is a good thing.:rockout: :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts