# Why do you prefer passive speaker/monitors?



## Mauricio

Why do you prefer passive speaker/monitors?


----------



## MorbidToaster

Takes the load off the speaker (heat). Chance to use much higher quality amps. Often nicer looks (Maggies for example).
   
  Powered speakers have their place, but Passive is usually my choice when I can pick either or.
  
  Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Why do you prefer passive speaker/monitors?


----------



## Hellbishop

Control. I can set the bass level very low so it doesnt bother the neighbors on the tone setting of my Onkyo reciever. I love my Bose Companion II bookshelf speakers but due to them being powered i would get some very strong bass even at the lowest volume. Not a good thing in the middle of the night when playing Warhammer 40k Dawn Of War or Skyrim full of explosions and combat thumps.
   
  Now am using some JBL Control One and Insignia Bass Reflex bookshelf speakers and only hear the bass when i want to hear it or the elderly neighbors are being unreasonable slamming doors as if its going out of style due to someone else in the vicinity playing their music. Sheesh i hope am never that ignorant or hateful of other peoples presence and good times when am at that age.
   
  I can also tweak the treble to my liking giving it a headphone level of detail especially when listening at low nearfield positioning volumes. Its defnitely a magical experiance hearing music so low with such depth.


----------



## Lenni

most speakers are passive; more choices.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Takes the load off the speaker (heat). Chance to use much higher quality amps. Often nicer looks (Maggies for example).
> 
> Powered speakers have their place, but Passive is usually my choice when I can pick either or.


 
   
  Takes the load off the speaker?  That's a good one.  The main reason passive speakers have to have overbuilt, massive amps is because i.) of the efficiency losses inherent in a passive crossover, and ii.) the fact that the amp has to handle the whole frequency range and an unknown range of driver impedance and efficiency.  That's why amps in a passive system need to be so big.  Likewise, a passive speaker has little way of reacting to the changes of a driver as it heats up.  The sound of a cold vs. a hot passive speaker can vary dramatically.  Much less so for a active system.
   
  Chance to use much higher quality amps?  Only if you equate having to use huge, wasteful amps with quality.    Make no mistake about it: the main reason why passive systems need huge amps is because of their primitive, brutish way of delivering power to the drivers.  Look at the amps in, say, the Focal CMS Sub and tell me those are low quality amps.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





hellbishop said:


> Control. I can set the bass level very low so it doesnt bother the neighbors on the tone setting of my Onkyo reciever. I love my Bose Companion II bookshelf speakers but due to them being powered i would get some very strong bass even at the lowest volume. Not a good thing in the middle of the night when playing Warhammer 40k Dawn Of War or Skyrim full of explosions and combat thumps.
> 
> Now am using some JBL Control One and Insignia Bass Reflex bookshelf speakers and only hear the bass when i want to hear it or the elderly neighbors are being unreasonable slamming doors as if its going out of style due to someone else in the vicinity playing their music. Sheesh i hope am never that ignorant or hateful of other peoples presence and good times when am at that age.
> 
> I can also tweak the treble to my liking giving it a headphone level of detail especially when listening at low nearfield positioning volumes. Its defnitely a magical experiance hearing music so low with such depth.


 
   
  Don't confuse active systems with the ability to alter and equalize the input signal.  Apples and oranges.  Nothing stands in the way of active system of altering the frequency characteristics of the input signal.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





lenni said:


> most speakers are passive; more choices.


 


  True, but the choice is hardly limited with passive systems, with the exception, perhaps, of low price, mass consumer products.  Hollywood also offers more choice of films, if by choice you mean quantity.


----------



## Hellbishop

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Don't confuse active systems with the ability to alter and equalize the input signal.  Apples and oranges.  Nothing stands in the way of active system of altering the frequency characteristics of the input signal.


 


 I thought active systems came with a certain sound that was unchangeable and not affected by having them hooked up directly to my reciever or computer. I tried hooking up my active Bose Companion II bookshelf speakers to my Onkyo reciever to use its tone controls to lower the bass but it had no effect at all on the sound of the bass on Bose. So i figured i was stuck with the bassy sound and would have to get actual passive speakers to mess with bass settings etc.
   
  Thanks for the interesting info especially the part about the brutish way of power delivery on a passive setup. I always thought it was the other way around due to my experiance with the Bose and a Altec Lansing with subwoofer i had previously. Eventhough the Altec Lansing did come with a wired remote control to adjust the bass and treble separately from the computer software.


----------



## Mauricio

Passive and active systems are identical in one respect.  They reproduce the signal fed to them.  If the signal has boosted bass (by the bass control of a preamp, for example) both passive and active systems will respond to the boost.  If there was no way of altering the signal, you'd be stuck listening to a tone of a singular frequency.
   
  Why are standalone amplifiers in a passive system a primitive, brutish way of powering drivers?
   
  Because the single, standalone amp has to be overbuilt so that it can i.) provide power across the entire frequency range, from 20Hz to 20,000Hz, ii.) provide enough power to cope with the resistive losses of a passive crossover, and iii.) provide power to speakers whose drivers present an unknown impedance.  Since the impedance range to be faced by the amplfier is unknown, it has to be built to cope with a wide range of impedances.  In an active design, each amplifier is designed only to power the frequency range of its associated driver.  So, the amp that powers the subwoofer driver is designed to provide undistorted power over a frequency range of 20Hz to 120Hz.  Since the same team that designs the amp gets to chose the driver, the team knows exactly the impedance range of the subwoofer driver over its frequency range, and designs the amp accordingly.  Ditto for the amp powering the midrange and treble drivers.  It is the active system, rather than the passive one, that provides for superior amplification by avoiding a one-size fits all design.
   
  Those who say that a passive system allows for better amplifiers are still stuck in silos thinking about the components when the unit of analysis ought to be the complete system.  They are missing the forest from the trees, the system from the individual components.


----------



## Tetsuma

Prefer active. Passive just incites the urge to 'tinker', I.e. waste a lot of time and money for little gain with amps (at the very least). Or even occupy your mind with valuable thoughts like what you may potentially be missing out on with x amp, compared to that prettier y amp. Active just cuts that out of the equation.
   
  But I use monitors, hi-fi wouldn't adhere to that school of thought anyway. Nor do they really have the option outside of sub woofers generally.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Well...When I was a traveling DJ, active speakers over heating was a problem. Had it happen to me, to smaller clubs (who didn't have their big systems in yet), and to friends. Once I switched to a passive system with a separate power amp it was never a problem. 
   
  Most passive speakers don't _need_ a huge amp. A lot of the dynamic speakers out there can be driven just fine with 50wpc. People just want more power. Whether it sounds better or not is a different story. 
   
  Also, you really should've said this was going to be a debate thread when you posted. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Most people don't like being blindsided. 
   
  EDIT: Choice is also a pretty good reason.
  
  Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Takes the load off the speaker?  That's a good one.  The main reason passive speakers have to have overbuilt, massive amps is because i.) of the efficiency losses inherent in a passive crossover, and ii.) the fact that the amp has to handle the whole frequency range and an unknown range of driver impedance and efficiency.  That's why amps in a passive system need to be so big.  *Likewise, a passive speaker has little way of reacting to the changes of a driver as it heats up.*  The sound of a cold vs. a hot passive speaker can vary dramatically.  Much less so for a active system.
> 
> Chance to use much higher quality amps?  Only if you equate having to use huge, wasteful amps with quality.    Make no mistake about it: the main reason why passive systems need huge amps is because of their primitive, brutish way of delivering power to the drivers.  Look at the amps in, say, the Focal CMS Sub and tell me those are low quality amps.


----------



## JRG1990

Each have there advantages/disadvantages , active speakers do have better crossovers, but the cooling of the amps is poor class d are normally fine but AB generates alot of heat, the amps have to small in size to fit in the back , the amp takes up space that would be used for air flow in a passive speaker, the passive disadvantages are the poorer crossover network. You don't need a huge amp for passive speakers you can get little 10watt t-amps that will do the job fine normal listening only requires 1watt or less.


----------



## Hellbishop

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> Each have there advantages/disadvantages , active speakers do have better crossovers, but the cooling of the amps is poor class d are normally fine but AB generates alot of heat, the amps have to small in size to fit in the back , the amp takes up space that would be used for air flow in a passive speaker, the passive disadvantages are the poorer crossover network. You don't need a huge amp for passive speakers you can get little 10watt t-amps that will do the job fine normal listening only requires 1watt or less.


 


  Yes thats another thing i've been hearing more and more since last year how actives seem to have heating problems. Something i've never had happen to me with my passive bookshelf speakers. I wonder if the heat issues are due to playing them too loud and if at low nearfield volumes its never a problem.


----------



## Mauricio

You really think that professional recording studios work with technologies that are fundamentally flawed?  I mean, you think studios often have to take a break to let their monitors cool down?  You know, the record company is keen to put U2's new CD on the market, but every time they call the producer, they are told that the mixing and mastering is going to take a couple of weeks more cuz the monitors overheat.  Right.


----------



## Hellbishop

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> You really think that professional recording studios work with technologies that are fundamentally flawed?  I mean, you think studios often have to take a break to let their monitors cool down?  You know, the record company is keen to put U2's new CD on the market, but every time they call the producer, they are told that the mixing and mastering is going to take a couple of weeks more cuz the monitors overheat.  Right.


 


 Ha ha  and no. I've always had the idea whatever equipment  professional recording studios use are top of the line. Whether this means using modern equipment or vintage studio gear i can only guess. I also assumed its kept from the hands of the public due to costs and being unwieldly for the average consumer to use not to mention industry profits. Kind of like using an old Kray computer but advanced enough to do what needs to be done in the present.
   
  Besides even if their monitors did heat up they would probably have redundent safety measures in place like back up monitors and perhaps even back up studios.
   
  I might look into some actives in the near future to see what the difference in sound is and just for variety.


----------



## Mkubota1

Aren't most active or powered speakers 'studio monitors'?  Typically these are used near field, like on a desktop or just above a mixing board, etc.  And these speakers are usually tuned accordingly.  If you're looking for something to put on stands in a listening room type environment, I don't think these monitors would be the best choice.
   
  Otherwise, I appreciate the idea of a speaker, amp and crossover, designed as a completely system from the start.  Let the engineers roll amps and crossover points!  =)


----------



## jenneth

Quote: 





mkubota1 said:


> Aren't most active or powered speakers 'studio monitors'?  Typically these are used near field, like on a desktop or just above a mixing board, etc.  And these speakers are usually tuned accordingly.  If you're looking for something to put on stands in a listening room type environment, I don't think these monitors would be the best choice.
> 
> Otherwise, I appreciate the idea of a speaker, amp and crossover, designed as a completely system from the start.  Let the engineers roll amps and crossover points!  =)


 


 While a lot of active monitors are nearfield, there are still quite a bit of Mid-Field monitors (i.e. Klein & Hummel O410, or the upcoming KH510). Personally, I prefer active monitors over passive ones. Why? less clutter.


----------



## Il Mostro

Let me see, active monitors or a pair of Sonus Fabers, Harbeths or Spendors paired with a really good tube amp.  Tough choice...


----------



## jenneth

Well, even though I haven't heard of their latest offerings, I have heard the Sonus Faber Extremas before. Really wonderful speakers... but you know what, in my opinion, some of the bigger offerings from the top active speaker manufacturers are on the same tier. Now, if you were talking about a pair of Nautilus, well, that might be another story....


----------



## Mauricio

"Sorry, boss, please apologize to Bono and the band for the delay.  Yes, I know we were due to give them the demos weeks ago, but I tell you,  you can thaw a frozen lasagna next to these blasted actives we got here in the studio.  You know what, if these little furnaces keep giving us trouble, I'm just gonna bring my crossoverless sub and my college Polk speakers from home and rig them up in parallel with a mono amp."


----------



## Black Stuart

Why has no one mentioned 'active x/overs' which is a completely different proposition.
   
  With AXOs it is the amp driving the speakers, not as per passive with the speakers dictating to the amp/s. Take a look at Rod Elliot's site - ESP/Elliot's Sound Products. Read why active x/overs are way better than any passive set-up, his explanation makes perfect sense, indeed his site contained no waffle or unsubstantiated b/s at all.


----------



## Mauricio

I, for one, have mentioned on a few occassions within the last few weeks the preponderance of technological superiority of active designs in general and specifically of active crossovers.


----------



## Black Stuart

Sorry Mauricio,
  I missed those posts. The superiority of AXO's is undoubted - so why is'nt the market dominated by integrated amps with built in AXO's or make it easy to insert the AXO after the pre-amp section - the inertia effect aka 'we've always done it this way and we don't want to change'.
   
  I hav'nt had the space until now to use my s/hand Grand Heils/air motion transformers to build open baffle speakers with efficient 15" woofers. The G/Hs are mid/treble units so I wll only need a two-way AXO - can't wait to get started.


----------



## JRG1990

Active speakers won't over heat in nearfield when your using 1watt of power or less, I doubt any studio engineer uses them above 90db all day as it would damage there hearing, but if you crank the volume for a house a party or to fill a large space with sound some do heat up very qucikly and then cut out when they get too hot.

Active crossovers are better but are they audiable better?, can our human ears actually hear the differences probley not.


----------



## Mauricio

Do you understand the range of advantages of active crossovers fully?


----------



## liamstrain

For me it depends on what I'm doing. 
   
  My mastering/mixing areas have active monitors. This is more due to repeatability than anything else. I have two spaces, and they are both tuned pretty well to be about the same. Having the same monitors, in the same position, helps. Well designed monitors are also pretty well optimized to have a known amplifier and a crossover built tailored to it, to help get flatter response. 
   
  With that said. If I am listen to music for pleasure, I prefer passive speakers - I like the choice, the tinkering with the system, often the coloration or less than ruler flat performance... etc. I liken it to a sports car. The actives are a race tuned ultralight track car. They are hard work and fatiguing to drive, but the performance is hard to beat. The passive system, for me, is getting into a luxury sports coupe... still has mind blowing performance, but now I get air conditioning, leather seats, and a stereo...


----------



## Mauricio

Yes, I know what you mean.  Whenever I go into to a "hi-fi audio" store, I can't stand the hyping...err..sorry, I mean, the "musicality" of passive "hi-fi" speakers.  So contrived and artificial.


----------



## liamstrain

Sounds like you've been listening to crappy systems/speakers.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I can get behind this.
  
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> For me it depends on what I'm doing.
> 
> My mastering/mixing areas have active monitors. This is more due to repeatability than anything else. I have two spaces, and they are both tuned pretty well to be about the same. Having the same monitors, in the same position, helps. Well designed monitors are also pretty well optimized to have a known amplifier and a crossover built tailored to it, to help get flatter response.
> 
> With that said. If I am listen to music for pleasure, I prefer passive speakers - I like the choice, the tinkering with the system, often the coloration or less than ruler flat performance... etc. I liken it to a sports car. The actives are a race tuned ultralight track car. They are hard work and fatiguing to drive, but the performance is hard to beat. The passive system, for me, is getting into a luxury sports coupe... still has mind blowing performance, but now I get air conditioning, leather seats, and a stereo...


----------



## Nepenthe

black stuart said:


> I hav'nt had the space until now to use my s/hand Grand Heils/air motion transformers to build open baffle speakers with efficient 15" woofers. The G/Hs are mid/treble units so I wll only need a two-way AXO - can't wait to get started.


 
  Awesome! I had Great Heils growing up. Fantastic speakers.
   
  Where will you cross them over?


----------



## Lenni

Quote:  





> The superiority of AXO's is undoubted - so why is'nt the market dominated by integrated amps with built in AXO's or make it easy to insert the AXO after the pre-amp section - the inertia effect aka 'we've always done it this way and we don't want to change'.


 

 oh come on, it's got to do more than just inertia. I know nothing about how to built speakers, but for what I understand the inside speaker's design is a big factor on how it'll ultimately sound. putting an amp inside has to have some implications. also the built-in amp has to have some limitations; even though might be good enough, but can it be as good as a pair of monoblocks?  just wondering...
   
   


il mostro said:


> Let me see, active monitors or a pair of Sonus Fabers, Harbeths or Spendors paired with a really good tube amp.  Tough choice...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  lol! x2


----------



## MorbidToaster

il mostro said:


> Let me see, active monitors or a pair of Sonus Fabers, Harbeths or Spendors paired with a really good tube amp.  Tough choice...




Harbeth makes an active version of the 40. Just sayin


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





lenni said:


> also the built-in amp has to have some limitations; even though might be good enough, but can it be as good as a pair of monoblocks?


 


  Apparently you still have not understood the concept behind passive and active.  In a passive system, you have to use overbuilt, over-engineered mooblocks.  In an active system, this primitive, brutish approache to amplification is eliminated.  You are comparing apples and oranges.
   
  You also fail to address the limitations of even monoblocks and passive system amplification.  On the balance, the limitations/disadvantages are greater for passive than active.


----------



## Il Mostro

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> In a passive system, you have to use overbuilt, over-engineered mooblocks.  In an active system, this primitive, brutish approache to amplification is eliminated.


----------



## Il Mostro

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Harbeth makes an active version of the 40. Just sayin


 


  It's been around for years and I know it is an excellent speaker -- quite popular for mixing and editing yet still very true to the breed for music lovers.  But there just isn't much system flexibility there, and its internal amp will never have that beautiful glow in the dark.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I know I know. I like Monoblocks, too.
  
  Quote: 





il mostro said:


> It's been around for years and I know it is an excellent speaker -- quite popular for mixing and editing yet still very true to the breed for music lovers.  But there just isn't much system flexibility there, and its internal amp will never have that beautiful glow in the dark.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





il mostro said:


>


 

 Yes, it is quite risible that a person will invest thousands to get the fanciest DAC to get a pristine signal, and then that signal is passed through a Neanderthal array of inductors, risistors and capacitors that stymie and bedevil their precious monoblocks at every turn!  Imagine Porsche offering a state of the art vehicle, but it couples with a carburated, 1970s muscle-car engine.  Passive systems live in a world of technological schizophrenia.


----------



## liamstrain

Mauricio - what, exactly do you think the amplifier circuit inside an active speaker is, if not an array of inductors, resistors, capacitors, etc... it's not as though opamps and IC's play no role at all in any modern amplification system. There is nothing unique to an active speaker that cripples an passive system. One can make a very good argument the other direction, in fact - if one needed to (regarding more space between power transformers and amplifier circuitry leading to less noise, and more room for bigger heat sinks, etc. etc.) 
   
  I think you are making assumptions and assertions that frankly, are not supported.


----------



## Mauricio

Active crossover:  Capacitors, resistors and *transistors* powered by their own rail power supply acting on *line voltage levels*
  Passive crossover:  Capacitors, inductors and resistors operating sans a power suplly, acting on high voltage levels.
   
  Not that it is required, but I have a EE degree.  As an example of the elemental nature of passive crossovers, basic electric circuit theory (i.e. dealing with passive circuits of inductors, resistors and capacitors) is taught as a core engineering course during the second year.  Electronics (i.e. dealing with active circuitry based on transistors) is taught only to EEs, CEs, etc. as part of their specialized major curriculum.  If someone is talking sans knowledge, it is not I.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> (regarding more space between power transformers and amplifier circuitry leading to less noise, and more room for bigger heat sinks, etc. etc.)


 

 Again, you misunderstand the fundamental differences between the two systems.  You are faulting active systems for lacking the space for large power transformers and massive amplifier circuitry.  Guess what?  Active systems don't need that.  You are applying a requirement of passive systems upon active ones.  You are comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## alv4426

Wow. Congrats on making us engineers seem even more DBish.
  
  Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Not that it is required, but I have a EE degree.  As an example of the elemental nature of passive crossovers, basic electric circuit theory (i.e. dealing with passive circuits of inductors, resistors and capacitors) is taught as a core engineering course during the second year.  Electronics (i.e. dealing with active circuitry based on transistors) is taught only to EEs, CEs, etc. as part of their specialized major curriculum.  If someone is talking sans knowledge, it is not I.


----------



## Black Stuart

Mauricio,
  I must applaud your no  nonsense explanations
   
  nepenthe - yes they are great are'nt they. I visited another forum member's home ( a different forum) to buy a spare pair of the G/heils and listened to his ESS speakers and within a minute I knew I had not made a wasted journey.
   
  Lenni - if you know nothing about speaker building, should'nt you be asking questions rather than making pronouncements. OB - open baffle = no box = no colourations. Only room acoustics to integrate with.
   
  I phoned my mate in the Netherlands about this very subject last night and he had difficulty understanding that massive power amps are'nt nec. because energy is being optimised with AXOs and not wasted in heat generation.
   
  Mauricio has only hinted at the advantages of AXOs - for those who want to know and for those that 'think' they know - go read Rod Elliot's article on active v passive. There almost certainly are  other fine explanations about this but Rod writes in a no nonsense way - typical Aussie. You also have access to a computer programme he supplies on his site to work out values for AXOs and he provides very reasonable PCBs to build them with.


----------



## Somnambulist

For desktop listening I'm only ever going with near-field actives, got Focal CMS 50s, want to get Event Opals when I have the space/money.
   
  I'm building Linkwitz Pluto speakers - also active.
   
  I'd like to build Linkwitz Orion speakers, active crossovers, although it still requires several stereo amps, which handle the individual drivers.
   
  I like actives... I want to get a pre/pro and use them for 5.1 or 5.2 surround, but it seems very hard to get active home theater speakers that don't cost the earth.


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> I like actives... I want to get a pre/pro and use them for 5.1 or 5.2 surround, but it seems very hard to get active home theater speakers that don't cost the earth.


 

 THAT^ Good cheap passives are a lot easier to find than good actives sometimes.


----------



## Somnambulist

I think it's mainly down to a lack of market demand and the fact that 99% of all home theater receivers are the all-in-one's with amps included. Pre/pros are generally expensive, e.g. the Marantz AV705 is one of the more affordable ones and that's like 1.5k. There are things like the Blue Sky 5.1 which are aimed at the home enthusiast for mixing, but generally powered speakers that are designed for home theater not nearfield listening (i.e. wider dispersion/driver placement) seem rare. Also, it would be a bit of a pain having to go round and turn on 5 speakers individually, as well as making for 5 sockets required rather than just the one for the receiver. I think for TV/HT I'll have to go passive, but for stereo or 2.1/2.2 I'll stay with actives and stay out of the amplifier game. It's bad enough wanting to change your speakers or your DAC, so once less bit of equipment is welcome.


----------



## Zeebra

I don't. I get a shorter signal path with DAC - balanced cable - > studio monitor.

 I cannot fathom how someone would think active speakers have no ability to be equalized, or that their amplifiers are inadequate. If anything, the amplifiers are matched to the transducers impedance, and active crossovers are designed to co-operate with the amplifiers, at least they should be. Compare this to throwing the passive crossovers an unmatched impedance response from whatever amplifier they're running from. Add some DIY-like silver cables with no adequate shielding with exotic materials, and in worst case scenario, a tube amplifier with exposed tubes that introduce a lot of RFI into the mix.

 Then again, some might like the "flavour", I think it's more like dropping a Big Mac on the floor and still calling it a meal. Now THAT'S flavour


----------



## liamstrain

Mauricio - I do not doubt the benefits of an active crossover versus a passive crossover. But that is not strictly the discussion here. The question is active monitors (those that have built in aplification) versus passive monitors, those which use external amplification. You can use active crossovers with EITHER system. See, for example the Crossover system for the Linkwitz Orion. 
  
 And of course, the best crossover, is no crossover.  I'm a big fan of my back loaded full range horns. These would actually be easy to make into actives, by putting a 3-10 watt mono amp in the base ... but I enjoy the sound my vintage McIntosh receiver puts out. If my active monitors in the studio are a space age memory foam cot, my home speakers are a big warm eiderdown in front of a roaring fire. As I said before, they serve different needs for me.


----------



## JRG1990

The advantages of the active crossover is meant to be the much higher damping factor in the hundreds vs the 1 or 2 for passives, so there should be big audiable differences between the two and the actives  sounding much better which isn't the case, in case of the alesis m1 mk2 the passives sound much better than the actives the actives have boomy muddy bass clearly they were designed as passives from the start and then they shoved an amp in the back and changed the air flow resulting in sloppy bass, the behringer b2031a vs the b2031p sound the same I couldn't tell the difference maybe the actives were a little smoother but blind tested I would have a really hard time telling which was which.


----------



## Mauricio

Here is Sound on Sound's review of the Alesis M1 Active MkII
   
   
 "Testing with a range of CD material showed the Alesis M1 Active MkIIs to be capable of delivering a solid, detailed sound with good tonal balance and excellent imaging. The silk tweeters were crisp and detailed, but without the aggressive edge that often accompanies metal tweeters, and the bass end felt substantial, while still being well-defined and tightly controlled...In all important respects, the M1 Active MkII sounds like a serious monitor and fills the important role of delivering a representative tonal balance, while at the same time providing enough detail to let you listen 'into' the mix without the sound becoming fatiguing...The Alesis M1 Active MkII delivers everything that's needed from a small monitor...I'd certainly be very happy to use M1s as main monitors in my own studio. They have a tight, revealing sound with first-class stereo imaging and enough bass to work with..these deserve a position on the short list of anyone needing a small two-way active monitor with full-range performance."


----------



## JRG1990

The tweeters are silk domes not metal, A & B the passives and actives the bass on the passives is much more controled and cleaner look at the cabinet's 1 is rear ported , the other front ported clearly there differently designed and not likely to sound the same.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Sounds like you've been listening to crappy systems/speakers.


 


  Obviously.  Their prices, however, would lead most to think that they are far from crappy.


----------



## TMRaven

For me it's pretty simple.  Less wires leading to the speakers makes the speakers easier to integrate into a living room.


----------



## RexAeterna

mauricio said:


> Takes the load off the speaker?  That's a good one.  The main reason passive speakers have to have overbuilt, massive amps is because i.) of the efficiency losses inherent in a passive crossover, and ii.) the fact that the amp has to handle the whole frequency range and an unknown range of driver impedance and efficiency.  That's why amps in a passive system need to be so big.  Likewise, a passive speaker has little way of reacting to the changes of a driver as it heats up.  The sound of a cold vs. a hot passive speaker can vary dramatically.  Much less so for a active system.
> 
> Chance to use much higher quality amps?  Only if you equate having to use huge, wasteful amps with quality.    Make no mistake about it: the main reason why passive systems need huge amps is because of their primitive, brutish way of delivering power to the drivers.  Look at the amps in, say, the Focal CMS Sub and tell me those are low quality amps.




i hope your just trolling or something because that's really wrong. for any well built amp with close to output impedance of 0ohms there is zero lost of effciency within the speaker and the amp. the speaker's motor is fully controlled across it's full frequency spectrum. the amp itself will only deliver the power it needs and when no signal is running through the amp it will remain idle with no worry of thermal runaway. only true Class A amps are not efficient and suffer from thermal runaway due to them keeping all transistors turned on even at idle.

it also don't make sense you praising active speakers and downing passive speakers. all active speakers are is a passive speaker with a built-in amp. it can be as inefficient as any other passive design.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





rexaeterna said:


> it also don't make sense you praising active speakers and downing passive speakers. all active speakers are is a passive speaker with a built-in amp. it can be as inefficient as any other passive design.


 
   
  Semantic quibble. You are describing powered speakers, not active speakers. Active speakers use dedicated, powered crossover networks which can be tuned a bit differently (and incorporate more compensation and even eq tuned for the specific enclosure) than passive crossovers typically do. You can actually have active speakers that use external amplification.


----------



## RexAeterna

liamstrain said:


> Semantic quibble. You are describing powered speakers, not active speakers. Active speakers use dedicated, powered crossover networks which can be tuned a bit differently (and incorporate more compensation and even eq tuned for the specific enclosure) than passive crossovers typically do. You can actually have active speakers that use external amplification.




yes you are right. i have gotten mixed up with the whole ''powered'' and ''active'' thing. my fault. i still stand though bout what i said about passive speakers and amplification though(the whole efficiency thing). nothing wrong with either approach and both are great. it's usually matter of preference i personally think.


----------



## DaveBSC

I owned the Dynaudio BM12As for awhile, and I've had several active studio monitors and listened to many more. They are good for the role they were designed for, and they can challenge passives even in living room situations... to a point. Pretty much any active monitor that goes into a fight against this guy is going to lose though, and lose badly.


----------



## Mauricio

Given the identified technical superiority of actives, it is incumbent on passives to prove or show that they can be the equals of actives.  Your simply saying otherwise without explaining why (the technicalities) is little better than speculation.  *All* technologies that passives can use to improve the drivers, the crossover and the enclosure are available to active designs as well.  As hard as this could be for most of you, ask yourselves:  why--if all technologies available to a passive speaker are available to active speakers, and then some--would a passive speaker be superior?  Why do you have this bias when the preponderance of technical knowledge shows that the bias should be in the opposite direction?


----------



## DaveBSC

Theoretically, an active Vapor Cirrus could be incredible, I'm not saying that it couldn't be. Vapor Sound doesn't make one. In a challenge against actives that do exist, Event, Genelec, Adam, etc, my money would be on the Cirrus every time. It's incredible, one of the best speakers I've ever heard, and I've heard stuff that costs $200K.
   
  Active crossovers and bi-amped drivers are not magic bullets, they don't make a KRK Rokit sound better than a Cirrus or a Merlin TSM, or even much if any better than a comparably priced passive speaker from somebody like NHT. It's just one way to do it.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Active crossovers and bi-amped drivers are not magic bullets,


 
   
  Strawman, once again.  The question is not whether biamplification and active crossovers are a magic bullet.  One red-herring after another in here...


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Strawman, once again.  The question is not whether biamplification and active crossovers are a magic bullet.  One red-herring after another in here...


 

 In my experience active monitors in the $500 range sound roughly like other $500 level speakers. Having the active crossover and the built in amplification is a nice bonus, as a comparable sounding $500 passive may require another several hundred dollars worth of amplification. Dirt cheap amps tend not to sound very good, as you would expect. $500 active monitors do _not _outperform $2,000 passives. That's what I meant by magic bullet. The crossover is only one part of a speaker, and using an active crossover does not let you take down vastly more expensive monitors using passive crossovers.
   
  Merlin considers every aspect of speaker design, down to the binding posts. That's why, IMO, the TSM is so good, it's been refined over and over and Merlin have left no stone unturned. The KRK Rokit series is built to a price, and active crossover or not, in the environment that the TSM was designed for, a KRK Rokit is going to get destroyed.


----------



## jenneth

KRK Rokit monitors are okay for their prices, but really, they are not highend. I think a pair of Manger MSMc1 could possibly compete with the Vapor Cirrus.
   
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Theoretically, an active Vapor Cirrus could be incredible, I'm not saying that it couldn't be. Vapor Sound doesn't make one. In a challenge against actives that do exist, Event, Genelec, Adam, etc, my money would be on the Cirrus every time. It's incredible, one of the best speakers I've ever heard, and I've heard stuff that costs $200K.
> 
> Active crossovers and bi-amped drivers are not magic bullets, they don't make a KRK Rokit sound better than a Cirrus or a Merlin TSM, or even much if any better than a comparably priced passive speaker from somebody like NHT. It's just one way to do it.


----------



## DaveBSC

Interesting driver design. The x-over is at 330Hz, so nearly the entire frequency range is handled by the "tweeter". I'd need to hear it. The RAAL used by Vapor is among the very best there is. As far as ribbons are concerned, I think only the Raven is in the same class.


----------



## Blurr

Simple reason why I prefer passive over active, upgradability. I started out with a simple sony surroundset, slowly phasing out the cheapies with better floorstanders, then upgraded my receiver to a marantz with pre-outs, slowly adding poweramps and later on even better speakers. To get the same SQ I would have to invest a small fortune in active speakers, which will lose it value real fast on the second hand market cause there is very little demand for them.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote:  





> To get the same SQ I would have to invest a small fortune in active speakers, which will lose it value real fast on the second hand market cause there is very little demand for them.


 
   
  That's not really true. High-end monitors like Adams or Genelecs hold their value very well, and are pretty easy to sell.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





jenneth said:


> KRK Rokit monitors are okay for their prices, but really, they are not highend. I think a pair of Manger MSMc1 could possibly compete with the Vapor Cirrus.


 

  
  how about a pair of Lindemann BL-10?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





lenni said:


> how about a pair of Lindemann BL-10?


 
   
  Nice. I haven't heard them, but I suspect that Vapor could challenge them, and most likely beat them in the highs. The RAAL easily beats just about every metal dome tweeter out there.


----------



## Matt head 777

Active crossovers are superior to passive. Then you might be wondering why the top end speakers like $30000 a pair use passive? Well passive can be good too. Spending that much money likely means expensive amps as well and who wants to buy multiple amps costing that much? Then they would have to fuss over does this tweeter amp synergising with the midbass amp etc...paranoid audiophile headaches...Could be other reasons and their would certainly be megabuck active systems of course.  Also consider the simplicity of using passive most people have one amp ie 5.1 channel so if they buy/build speakers they can use their common commercial 5.1 amp. For most people the multiple amps and crossovers  just cost too much and as said it doesn't blend easily with common audio systems. Most high end buyers (not the mega wealthy) would be turned off having to buy multiple expensive amps I imagine.


----------



## jenneth

Interesting indeed. Gonna throw in another potential contender: PMC AML2. I only have some very limited experience with PMC monitors, but I was very impressed with their sonic quality. At any rate, I did a little more digging on the Vapor Cirrus, and they do look quite intriguing (reminds me of the Sonus Faber Guarneri Memento, even the cabinet designs are kind of similar). Pity they are made to order.
  
  Quote: 





lenni said:


> how about a pair of Lindemann BL-10?


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





jenneth said:


> I did a little more digging on the Vapor Cirrus, and they do look quite intriguing (reminds me of the Sonus Faber Guarneri Memento, even the cabinet designs are kind of similar). Pity they are made to order.


 

 That's how they are able to price them starting at $3700. You can't build a speaker like that and sell it through a regular dealer network for that price. The other advantage of factory direct is that you can have them exactly how you want them. Internal wiring, crossover components, even the binding posts are up to you.


----------



## Mauricio

I listed to these, the ATC SCM100ASL, the other day:
   
​   
  ...but I was most impressed by these:
   
​  ​  I am now most intrigued by these, the Munro Egg, which is also an active design, but one that places the amps and crossovers in an outboard box.
   
 ​ ​  ​  Here's a review of the Munro Egg, including an informative video of a presentation by Andy Munro on speaker design and the Egg.  For Munro's pedigree and credentials, check the review.
   
  Those PMC look very nice, but I'd hate to ask the price...


----------



## jenneth

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> That's how they are able to price them starting at $3700. You can't build a speaker like that and sell it through a regular dealer network for that price. The other advantage of factory direct is that you can have them exactly how you want them. Internal wiring, crossover components, even the binding posts are up to you.


 
   
  That make sense. Now the million dollar question is.. just how do they compare with the established brands? It's unlikely I'll ever be able to go to their factory in Missouri and find out first hand for myself.
   

  
  Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Those PMC look very nice, but I'd hate to ask the price...


 
   
  They're quite a bit cheaper than the ATC you mentioned... around 10K a pair.


----------



## DaveBSC

Quote: 





jenneth said:


> That make sense. Now the million dollar question is.. just how do they compare with the established brands? It's unlikely I'll ever be able to go to their factory in Missouri and find out first hand for myself.


 

 They are giant killers, I've heard monitors at $6, 7, and 8K a pair and the Cirrus is better. You really need to spend $10K+ to beat them.


----------



## hallom

Hey Guys,
   
  Would anyone recommend me the Alesis M1 Active MKII for lay home listening? Or it would be too analytical or dry?


----------



## Lord Soth

Quote: 





hallom said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> Would anyone recommend me the Alesis M1 Active MKII for lay home listening? Or it would be too analytical or dry?


 
   
  I'm using the *Passive *version of the Alesis M1 MKII speakers.
   
  The active version, though newer, sounds very bad as compared with the Passive version.
  Users who bought both the active and passive versions have complained that the bass is too boomy on the active version.


----------



## Mediahound

I haven't read through this entire thread yet but in general active speakers can be better in that the amp can be tuned specifically for the speaker, which can yield a more efficient, graceful and better sounding speaker design.
   
  It's also better to get the power source (amp) close to the speaker rather than run power via speaker cables, especially for long runs.  I know that in the pro audio world, Meyer Sound prefers and specializes in active speakers.
   
  In a stadium for example, they power the speakers in place are and are able to run a clean line level signal, separate from power, into the speakers.
   
  I have the active Audioengine A5+ speakers and am a lot more impressed with their sound over what I heard from the passive P4 speakers and their separate N22 amp.


----------



## briskly

To the best of my knowledge, the A5+ is a powered speaker. That is to say, it has an internal amp, but the x-over is a passive.


----------



## blazer78

As the 3rd post said, its all about the control. The ability to pick your own amplifier and pair them up with your passive speaker can yield very "musical" results.
   
  Less of an issue with larger active speakers, we also need to keep in mind that there are space constraints in speakers containing 6.5inch woofer and smaller (bookshelves/2-way). The engineering design needs to consider both cost and space available for power and filtering circuitry. So a discrete amplifier has the advantage in that it doesn't really have a space constraint and can have very clean output (KRK's rockits, Alesis m1 and low end models all have very audible noise when they are turned on). Having owned many active studio monitors myself, I do not believe heat is ever an issue though (The times they do overheat is when they are being overdriven, due to using the wrong tool for the job (i.e. small speaker for large room).


----------



## goodolcheez

Active speakers have the advantage on better sound quality as the amp is built right in the cabinet of the speaker.   Old traditional passive system require extra connections, such as interconnects and speaker wires.  More wires, longer wires = degrade signal quality.  
   
  And you can't carry around passive audio system around easily.  You would need to rent a U-Haul truck to transport them.  With active speakers all you need is a backpack.  Active wins.  Next.


----------



## Chris J

Here you go,
  an active speaker system using tubes and solid state amps!
   
http://www.aurumacoustics.com/integris_300B.html
   
  Yummy.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





goodolcheez said:


> And you can't carry around passive audio system around easily.  You would need to rent a U-Haul truck to transport them.  With active speakers all you need is a backpack.  Active wins.  Next.


 
   
  or you could use headphones... instead of carrying a backpack... if you move around a lot, that is...


----------



## vermilions

Quote: 





mediahound said:


> I haven't read through this entire thread yet but in general active speakers can be better in that the amp can be tuned specifically for the speaker, which can yield a more efficient, graceful and better sounding speaker design.
> 
> It's also better to get the power source (amp) close to the speaker rather than run power via speaker cables, especially for long runs.  I know that in the pro audio world, Meyer Sound prefers and specializes in active speakers.
> 
> ...


 
   


 So do you reckon the AE A2 will sound better with their D1 DAC compared to a O2/ODAC (or Schiit M/M) combo with a passive speaker like the Q Acoustics 2010i? I would really appreciate any feedback from more experienced head-fiers. Cheers.


----------



## cel4145

I'm not familiar with the Q Acoustics 2010i. Don't hear much about them in the US. 

But you need a regular amp, not a headphone amp, to power passive speakers. You would still need a DAC, but the O2 or the Schiit Magni are not gonna work to power speakers. For an inexpensive solution, look into the Lepai LP-2020A+ t-amp: 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57439115-47/build-your-own-desktop-stereo-for-under-$70/
http://www.head-fi.org/t/627161/my-very-low-budget-nearfield-desktop-rig-lepai-amp-and-dayton-audio-speakers

Otherwise, if you have for it, a used audio/video or 2 channel receiver is a great way to get an amplifier for a good price.


----------



## vermilions

Quote: 





cel4145 said:


> I'm not familiar with the Q Acoustics 2010i. Don't hear much about them in the US.
> 
> But you need a regular amp, not a headphone amp, to power passive speakers. You would still need a DAC, but the O2 or the Schiit Magni are not gonna work to power speakers. For an inexpensive solution, look into the Lepai LP-2020A+ t-amp:
> 
> ...


 
   


 thanks a lot cel4145. do you know of any paired combos like the O2/ODAC or M/M but for speaker setups? I will look into some receivers. thanks again.


----------



## cel4145

You don't need a paired setup. You either (a) buy an amp/receiver with a built in DAC or (b) by them separately. In the case of (b), vendors don't typically sell matching DACs and speaker amps. No need for that anyway. You can mix and match as you want. 

A used audio/video receiver can be a great way to get a good deal. Most old ones will have optical inputs; newer ones will have HDMI inputs as well. If your computer has either or both of those, then that can work out pretty well. However, if you need USB connection to your computer, then you'll have to go the external DAC route. 

Most full sized 2 channel receivers and integrated amps for speakers do NOT have a built in DAC. Still, they can be a great value, and then you can get an external DAC like the Modi. 

I'm running the ODAC with an HK 3390 2 channel receiver. HK also makes the 3490 2 channel receiver that has a built in DAC. I think Onkyo has one, too.


----------



## vermilions

You cleared it up for me so much! I need USB so I'll go the external DAC route. How do I know if an amp is suitable for speakers? sorry last question....


----------



## cel4145

Questions are fine 

First, stay away from 4 ohm rated speakers. They can be difficult to drive. Most passive speakers that require amplification are 6 or 8 ohm rated, so that should not be a problem, and any entry level receiver can handle them, but maybe not 4 ohm rated. 

Don't over stress about wattage ratings. If you get a 50 watt per channel receiver (AVR or 2 channel), it will drive the speakers fine. It takes double the wattage to get 3db more volume sound output, and it takes a 10db increase for there to be a perceived doubling of volume by the listener. So the difference between a 50 watt and 100 watt per channel receiver is not that important in terms of max volume because it's only about a 30% increase in perceived volume. 

Any name brand receiver, such as Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha, Harman Kardon, Marantz, and newer Pioneer models, can work just fine. Some Sony stuff is quite as good in SQ, so not the best choice. But then again, if you could find a used one for $25, what a great way to get started


----------



## thazy2

Passive would be the choice but powered for convenience for sure.


----------



## Lord Soth

Quote: 





cel4145 said:


> Questions are fine
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Normally, SS amps drive lower ohm speakers much more easily, i,e, more "W" amp power from lower Ohm speakers.
  For tube amps, it is the reverse.
   
  However, a lower ohms passive speaker can also be driven easily by Tube Amps.
  It also depends on the impedance curve, the flatter (neutral) ones are more easily driven.
  For e.g., my 4 Ohm rated Alesis Monitor 1 Mk2 passive speakers are easily driven by my 8W Tube Amp!


----------



## cel4145

lord soth said:


> Normally, SS amps drive lower ohm speakers much more easily, i,e, more "W" amp power from lower Ohm speakers.
> For tube amps, it is the reverse.
> 
> However, a lower ohms passive speaker can also be driven easily by Tube Amps.
> ...




Makes total sense. 

But if someone is new to this, it can be difficult to figure out when a budget SS amp will be fine with 4 ohm speakers and when not. Since there are so many more 6 and 8ohm speakers, particularly in this kind of budget range, it's just the safer bet.


----------



## Scotjudy

Only need to run one wire to each speaker. With active you always need to...power and line.
 Each speaker is lighter in weight.
 I use a powered mixer, so set-up is quick and easy.


----------



## Black Stuart

vermillions,
 you've got it all wrong - active x/overs are introduced after the pre-amp, so that the amp drives the speakers, for a complete understanding of actives v passive x/overs take a look at Rod Elliot's ESP site - you won't find a better explanation - all sound science and no mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Shaffer

Because, these speakers were not available in an active configuration, nor would the market have accepted the idea. 

(not my pic, but same speakers as mine)


----------



## 450

^^
  
 I don't know what those are... But I'm quite jealous.


----------



## goodolcheez

Passive systems are inferior because amp in the receiver is infested with more noise, plus you have long wiring to get to the speakers which carry even more noise along the way.  This is why passive audio systems tend to sound muddy and flat.
  
 Active system is superior because the amp in the left and right channel speakers are isolated and are directly connected to the speakers.  Meaning less noise driven.  That's why they sound cleaner and more transparent.
  
  
 Active wins.


----------



## Shaffer

450 said:


> ^^
> 
> *I don't know what those are*... But I'm quite jealous.




Dunlavy SCIV. As a point of interest relevant to this board, they're almost completely objectively designed.


----------



## cel4145

goodolcheez said:


> Passive systems are inferior because amp in the receiver is infested with more noise, plus you have long wiring to get to the speakers which carry even more noise along the way.  This is why passive audio systems *tend to sound muddy and flat*.




I do believe that amps can be sound subjectively different, but "noise" is one of those things that is easily measured. For the person listening to redman cd recordings, the signal to noise ratio of the media is, at best, around 96db. It's not hard to find an amplifier for passive speakers with better signal to noise ratio than that. For example, the Marantz NR1403 home theater receiver is rated 98db. So the slight edge that say the Genelec 8040Bs have with rated SNR of 100db, which is not that much of a difference that the Marantz would sound "muddy and flat" in comparison anyway, would not matter with listening to CD quality music because the noise from the recorded media would act as the noise floor.


----------

