Your opinions please?

[Overdose]

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

But would it SOUND better?

I really don't get this odd obsession some people seem to have with nailing down statements of 'truth' on a subject that is fundamentally subjective.

But a lack of distortion is not subjective though, is it? It is measurable and by definition of the term hi-fi, should be what is strived for by design. This must surely be the basis for a good speaker, active or otherwise, along with good frequency response and dynamic range. After all that, fiddle around with tone controls to colour the sound to your hearts content, at least you start from solid foundations.

 

[Bodfish]

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

But would it SOUND better?

I really don't get this odd obsession some people seem to have with nailing down statements of 'truth' on a subject that is fundamentally subjective.

But a lack of distortion is not subjective though, is it? It is measurable and by definition of the term hi-fi, should be what is strived for by design. This must surely be the basis for a good speaker, active or otherwise, along with good frequency response and dynamic range. After all that, fiddle around with tone controls to colour the sound to your hearts content, at least you start from solid foundations.

There we go with definitions again. I agree you can measure distortion but can you hear it? For example:

Amp A has a measurement of 0.0001% THD and amp B has 0.01 (several orders of magnitude 'worse') but on auditioning you prefer the sound of amp B. Are you seriously suggesting you'd buy amp a because of the lower distortion measurement?

Personally I couldn't give two EDITED's about measurements and spec sheets but if that's your bag then fill your boots (and that was what I was trying to get across in the original post).

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Round like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple(no not that one)
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving
In a half-forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble
Someone tosses in a stream(please note JD)
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

 

[Bodfish]

^^^^ :clap:

 

[the record spot]

LOL, what he said! :cheers: :beer:

 

[BenLaw]

Round like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple(no not that one)
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving
In a half-forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble
Someone tosses in a stream(please note JD)
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

Love that song May stick it on spotify again later

 

[Overdose]

Personally I couldn't give two EDITED's about measurements and spec sheets but if that's your bag then fill your boots (and that was what I was trying to get across in the original post).

But the original post was with regard to speakers and actual audible distortion, not infinitessimally small amp THD figures. Spec sheets can actually say quite a lot about a product, if the right information is displayed. Best to avoid a head in sand approach I find.

Given a choice, I'd prefer minimal distortion with neutrality and then EQ the sound if required, although I have to say, that I've not really found the need to EQ my system at all. If you start with speakers with an an audibly (and measurably) distorted sound, no amount of equipment or cable swapping will remove it.

If you prefer distortion over clarity then that, as you say, is your bag. Each to their own, just don't confuse clarity or a lack of distortion with any particular sound presentation, as all speakers are voiced differently and some deliberately so. You can just as easily get a clear warm speaker as a bright one, although any colouration is really only a certain amount of distortion anyway.

 

[simonlewis]

ray:

 

[Bodfish]

Personally I couldn't give two EDITED's about measurements and spec sheets but if that's your bag then fill your boots (and that was what I was trying to get across in the original post).

But the original post was with regard to speakers and actual audible distortion, not infinitessimally small amp THD figures. Spec sheets can actually say quite a lot about a product, if the right information is displayed. Best to avoid a head in sand approach I find.

Pffff...OK, substitute the word 'amp' for 'speaker' and the whatever the correct unit of measurement is then. It was an example. I note you didn't actually answer the broader question though.

Was it someone's user name or sig on here that went something like 'if it sounds good listen to it'?

On that note, I'm out.

 

[John Duncan]

Someone tosses in a stream (please note JD)

Are you calling me a...actually, never mind.

 

[the record spot]

I thought you like streaming JD... *cough*

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Someone tosses in a stream (please note JD)

Are you calling me a...actually, never mind.

No-never- merely using the lyrics to link to a previous comment on this subject.

Edit- on which subject you can still see the edited word when one quotes- is this a continued software issue?

 

[John Duncan]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Sigh. Yesssss. And it is as boring as the rest of this thread.

To be fair, I don't think I started the thread. But since Max seems to want An Answer about What We Think, perhaps I could summarise some of the discussions so far - and add some special, just for you - and see if we can come to a conclusion we can all agree upon? That way maybe some of the mods will get some sleep instead of staying up all night removing the word 'EDITED' from posts such as this.

So here's my manifesto (deep breath)

This House Believes:

1) an active crossover is, theoretically, technically superior to a passive one, producing less distortion.

2) improved accuracy is not necessarily audible (cf 16/44 vs 24/96).

3) since very few speakers exist that are available in both passive and active versions, it is extremely difficult to make an objective comparison between just a crossover.

4) many other variables exist in speaker manufacture.

5) for any given active speaker, there exists a passive speaker that sounds better than it.

6) for any given passive speaker, there exists an active speaker that sounds better than it.

7) active speakers have the potential to have their amplifiers built specifically to match drivers. However, whether all manufacturers do this is unclear.

8) it is possible to find an amplifier that matches a passive speaker perfectly. It just takes longer.

9) given two equivalent-sounding systems, the active one is probably cheaper than the passive one, since there are fewer boxes to manufacture.

10) there are both active and passive systems which offer spectacular value.

11) there are both active and passive systems which are overpriced.

12) If we believe all the above to be true, one must conclude that none of: crossover, driver, cabinet, wiring, topology, whatever in isolation can define how good a speaker is.

and finally, just for kicks:

13) Every single hifi manufacturer on the planet - whether they be manufacturers of active or passive equipment - is trying to make as much money out of you, the consumer, as they possibly can. Anybody who tells you that they're not, but that everybody else is, is...mistaken.

Anybody in?

 

[matthewpiano]

Completely JD. :clap:

 

[Alec]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Sigh. Yesssss. And it is as boring as the rest of this thread.

To be fair, I don't think I started the thread 1 . But since Max seems to want An Answer about What We Think, perhaps I could summarise some of the discussions so far - and add some special, just for you 2 - and see if we can come to a conclusion we can all agree upon? That way maybe some of the mods will get some sleep instead of staying up all night removing the word 'EDITED' from posts such as this 3.

1 - Oh come on.

2 - For me? Please don't, just lock this nonsense.

3 - Why?! Isn't that just what the "language" blocking thing does? Why not just leave it; it's less offensive than what would otherwise be there.

I didn't read the rest as: It. Doesn't. Matter.

 

[John Duncan]

I didn't read the rest as: It. Doesn't. Matter.

It does to max...

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Sigh. Yesssss. And it is as boring as the rest of this thread.

To be fair, I don't think I started the thread. But since Max seems to want An Answer about What We Think, perhaps I could summarise some of the discussions so far - and add some special, just for you - and see if we can come to a conclusion we can all agree upon? That way maybe some of the mods will get some sleep instead of staying up all night removing the word 'EDITED' from posts such as this.

So here's my manifesto (deep breath)

This House Believes:

1) an active crossover is, theoretically, technically superior to a passive one, producing less distortion.

2) improved accuracy is not necessarily audible (cf 16/44 vs 24/96).

3) since very few speakers exist that are available in both passive and active versions, it is extremely difficult to make an objective comparison between just a crossover.

4) many other variables exist in speaker manufacture.

5) for any given active speaker, there exists a passive speaker that sounds better than it.

6) for any given passive speaker, there exists an active speaker that sounds better than it.

7) active speakers have the potential to have their amplifiers built specifically to match drivers. However, whether all manufacturers do this is unclear.

8) it is possible to find an amplifier that matches a passive speaker perfectly. It just takes longer.

9) given two equivalent-sounding systems, the active one is probably cheaper than the passive one, since there are fewer boxes to manufacture.

10) there are both active and passive systems which offer spectacular value.

11) there are both active and passive systems which are overpriced.

12) If we believe all the above to be true, one must conclude that none of: crossover, driver, cabinet, wiring, topology, whatever in isolation can define how good a speaker is.

and finally, just for kicks:

13) Every single hifi manufacturer on the planet - whether they be manufacturers of active or passive equipment - is trying to make as much money out of you, the consumer, as they possibly can. Anybody who tells you that they're not, but that everybody else is, is...mistaken.

Anybody in?

very good remark!

but I'm sure that in a few days time we're gonna see known "active speakers are better because they have active xover which distorts less and therefore active speakers are more accurate" kind of posting...

 

[Anonymous]

I only started the thread because the_lhc attacked me this morning (isn't he lovely), declaring that i was constantly copying and posting from elswhere (once, that wasn't something i wrote, elswhere), that i had said all actives are better (never once said so even though half the forum have said i have), and saying i didn't know what i was talking about, well not the real technical stuff, no, who does? I 've owned 4 pairs of actives though, so reckon i've more experience of them than most who discuss them, and each of them had a clarity that no passive i've ever heard had.

Anyway JD you've made a generally fair summation, IMO apart perhaps from the bit where you say accuracy isn't necessarily audible, it certainly is to many people that i've come across on Fora, that own good active speakers.

One thing to bare in mind is that most that have argued against the benefits of actives haven't owned any, some have never even heard any, but those that swear by them actually own them, having owned many passive systems on their way to getting them, and there's a certain resistence to change here that is not based on demoing, listening, facts or measurements, IMO, but on needing to believe the Hifi path one has chosen is the best one, and that's flawed thinking, IMO.

 

[BenLaw]

but I'm sure that in a few days time we're gonna see known "active speakers are better because they have active xover which distorts less and therefore active speakers are more accurate" kind of posting...

What are your thoughts then on page 16 of this, ATC's view on the benefits of active over passive?

(Also recently posted by Rick.)

 

[simonlewis]

but I'm sure that in a few days time we're gonna see known "active speakers are better because they have active xover which distorts less and therefore active speakers are more accurate" kind of posting...

What are your thoughts then on page 16 of this, ATC's view on the benefits of active over passive?

(Also recently posted by Rick.)

Exscuse me i might be a bit thick here, but it only goes up to page eleven ???

 

[Alec]

i dont swaer by them, i merely own them, and only owned one setup before. ownership of them is an experience i often find distasteful. can we go home now?

 

[John Duncan]

Anyway JD you've made a generally fair summation, IMO apart perhaps from the bit where you say accuracy isn't necessarily audible, it certainly is to many people that i've come across on Fora, that own good active speakers.

These are the two possible options, which are logically mutually exclusive. Which one do you agree with?

"a more accurate speaker may not necessarily be identifiable audibly"

"a more accurate speaker will always be identifiable audibly, for any given value of 'more'"

 

[Frank Harvey]

One thing to bare in mind is that most that have argued against the benefits of actives haven't owned any, some have never even heard any, but those that swear by them actually own them, having owned many passive systems on their way to getting them.

I beg to differ. I notice there's a few active owners that bang on about the superiority of active speakers who actually admit to never having heard any active speakers other than the pair they own.

 

[John Duncan]

One thing to bare in mind is that most that have argued against the benefits of actives haven't owned any, some have never even heard any

You once said that your active speakers were 'miles better than JD's system'. I forget the exact phrase you used, and I can't look it up. Have you a) owned my system or b) heard it?

 

[steve_1979]

This House Believes:

1) an active crossover is, theoretically, technically superior to a passive one, producing less distortion.

2) improved accuracy is not necessarily audible (cf 16/44 vs 24/96).

3) since very few speakers exist that are available in both passive and active versions, it is extremely difficult to make an objective comparison between just a crossover.

4) many other variables exist in speaker manufacture.

5) for any given active speaker, there exists a passive speaker that sounds better than it.

6) for any given passive speaker, there exists an active speaker that sounds better than it.

7) active speakers have the potential to have their amplifiers built specifically to match drivers. However, whether all manufacturers do this is unclear.

8) it is possible to find an amplifier that matches a passive speaker perfectly. It just takes longer.

9) given two equivalent-sounding systems, the active one is probably cheaper than the passive one, since there are fewer boxes to manufacture.

10) there are both active and passive systems which offer spectacular value.

11) there are both active and passive systems which are overpriced.

12) If we believe all the above to be true, one must conclude that none of: crossover, driver, cabinet, wiring, topology, whatever in isolation can define how good a speaker is.

and finally, just for kicks:

13) Every single hifi manufacturer on the planet - whether they be manufacturers of active or passive equipment - is trying to make as much money out of you, the consumer, as they possibly can. Anybody who tells you that they're not, but that everybody else is, is...mistaken.

Anybody in?

I agree except for point 5.

The best active speakers are better than the best passive speakers.