Quote:



I haven't heard the A5s, but I've head the A7s, and I'm certain they were having no difficulty reproducing "pitches." And I understand that studio monitors can have a sometimes brutal transparency that reveals all the warts in our music collections, and that may not be to everyone's liking, but that has nothing to do with the ability to discern the melody.

Back on topic: To the original poster: You have a Dynaudio/Benchmark system. You have a system capable of producing a speed, transparency and clarity that you will not be able to reproduce in a passive system at any price. Unless you have decided that your system is too revealing for your tastes (audiophile code words for this would be sterile, etched, bright...though your system should not cause listening fatigue), you should seek your upgrades on the active side. I would seek it in subs or room treatment, perhaps a good digital equalizer. There are better active systems than the dynas, but they are very good.

P

Quote:



I thought you said it's about best sound quality? Most people into audio don't mind upgrading. Just getting speakers and never changing is boring. Also you may want a more powerful amplifier to give more control, you don't know if active speakers are properly designed to give maximum spl without amplifier clipping. And what if it does? Stuck. That's why Linn Aktiv system is much better than any integrated active speaker.

Quote:



But with passive you don't need to upgrade either. But it gives you more options. Another example I was using a av amplifier to power my speakers, pretty crap upgraded to stereo integrated amp.

I think you're exaggerating when you're saying "at any price". You're squeezing audiophiles to a very tight locker. I would say that there are many hi-fi passive speakers that would prevail in those areas. Dunno about the price range, but that's just silly

The A7s my friend possesses roughly the same that the A5s. Many songs that I listened to had many melodic tracks and the Adam's had no problem discerning the details, as I said. If some recording had been little trifled with, I could even hear the melody of that "detail", but not with either of the Adams fed with any DACs we had on hand.

I would wish to challenge you and dare you to try this out! I'm not into ridiculous tweaking, cables, 10,000usd CD-players and such. But some passive speakers can give you something NO ACTIVE can. Except maybe the more expensive Linn systems...

Quote:



Actually, I said both -- that actives are not about a lack of desire to tweak and upgrade, but a desire for the best sound quality.

Quote:



I believe I covered this one too. If your hobby is about buying, selling, tweaking and upgrading, absolutely, separates with as many individual boxes and as much cable as possible will lead you to your personal bliss. If it is about achieving the highest fidelity to the original recording, sooner or later you'll need to go down the active path.

Quote:



Yep. I covered this is well, as I believe I predicated all my statements about the the superiority of active systems being limited to well-designed, well-implemented systems. One of the simpler things that would need to be achieved in such a design and implementation would be an appropriate match of the power and impedance of the amplifiers to the individual drivers, something that is impossible to achieve in passive systems.

Quote:



I don't know the Linn Aktiv system, but I will patiently await any evidence whatsoever that it is superior to all integrated active speakers. If you've heard them all, I'm quite impressed. If you've even read the specs for them all I'm pretty impressed, by the voraciousness of your reading if not by your retention of the data.

P

Quote:



It would be silly to compare a pair of A5s to Wilson Watt Puppys in terms of scale and bass extension, yes, but I wouldn't make that comparison. I would compare small active monitors to bookshelf passives. If I were comparing actives to something on a scale of big floorstanding passives, I'd go for large midfield monitors, or something like the Linkwitz Orions. And what I would find is that while some may prefer the sound of the passive speakers, they simply cannot compete with properly designed and implemented actives in terms of driver control, which in turn leads to lower noise and distortion, better frequency response, much tighter, better controlled bass (you have boom that you don't even know you have...) and a precision in imaging that is to die for. There's not really much of an argument here, frankly. The lack of control is a function of passive crossovers, and is inherent in the passive design. Speaker designers have been struggling with it, with varying degrees of success, for decades. If you're interested in understanding why, here's a decent explanation...


http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm

Lots more out there, particularly in the pro audio world. Google is your friend.

ON EDIT: I understand the read I posted above is pretty technical. This one is not quite technical enough as it doesn't specify if the crossover happens before amplification, which is critical, but given the benefits they've outlined, I'll assume that it is. There is no particular advantage or disadvantage (other than longer wire connections) in having the amps outside of the speaker boxes. What is important is that the amps and the individual drivers are carefully, properly matched. If they are, "upgrades" are a completely moot point.

http://www.linn.co.uk/why_go_aktiv

The only thing I don't understand is why this bunch of smart people can't spell "active."
P

Quote:



I'm very curious about Linn Activs, but I can't find anything through google. The only thing are these and they are not speakers, but rather a internal power amp crossover upgrade for bi/tri? wiring.

Linn - Aktiv Cards

Any more info about what we actually discussing would be helpful.

Quote:



I'm assuming these "cards" are active crossovers that are installed in Linn amplifiers (two amps would be required for each 2-way speaker) ahead of amplification, and that the amps are matched to specific Linn speaker systems. What is not clear is how it is handled at the speaker's end. To achieve the benefits of an active system describe here, the passive crossovers in the speakers would have to be bi-passed, even in a bi-wired speaker. This is not mentioned. There is no reason, however, that given the right amps, drivers and crossovers (and it's all Linn stuff, they should be able to pull this off) you wouldn't be able to make it work well, but it will be grossly over-priced. Beyond the sonics, the greatest advantage to passive systems is that everything is engineered to work together (as opposed to over-engineered for anything the passive world might present), with a minimum of expensive boxes, components and wire. Active systems should be, and often are, incredible price/performance bargains. I suspect that's not the case with multiple Linn amplifiers and crossover upgrades.

P

Have any of the people arguing for active speakers actually owned and lived with both? I have and my active speakers were the very highly regarded Paradigm Active 20s. Now the Active 20s were excellent speakers. But, I highly prefer passive speakers driven by a good tube amp. Like any other time people want to deal in absolutes there are exceptions. But, in this case what active speaker is known to be hands down better than the traditional passive speakers available.

The Active 20s imaged beautifully and had above average detail and dynamics. But the 20s metal dome tweeter and/ or internal SS amp gave you hard, harsh treble. In the end I determined the combo sucked .... and driving the A 20 hard also frequently resulted in the speaker overheating and going into protection mode for 30 minutes. I suppose if I liked the A 20 speaker better I would have been ok with the active approach. But, for the utmost in sound quality the internal amp limitations limit what an active speaker can do.

I have a pair of DIY Transmission line MTMs I paid $325 for .... driven by an old rebuilt $450 6L6 push/pull pentode amp that simply trumps the ($1800 in 1998) A 20 in EVERY way. Give me the freedom to use tubes and passive speakers anyday. The fidelity of the tubes and transmission line passive speakers far surpass the best active speakers I have owned or auditioned. If you want dynamics, resolution and control hook a good TL passive speaker up to a moderately powerful tube amp

Quote:



I have owned and lived with both. Your preference for passives and tubes is valid, as is any preference. Beyond preference, what we have are measurable performance attributes. Tubes and passives will not fare well against good quality active systems in this regard. Now you will say that you trust your ears, not measurement. I trust mine as well, and our preferences differ. But this thread began with a post from a member living with an active system and looking for upgrades. If he is happy with his current, excellent system, it is unlikely he would be happy with tubes and passive speakers, as they are different worlds.

Quote:



I'm not a fan of metal tweeters myself.

Quote:



OK, this is where we leave the world of our personal preferences behind. Dynamics, resolution (ie: detail - a function of low noise, low distortion, flat frequency response...) and control are measurable and demonstrable. You're going to have to show me some data. Start with a tube preamp, any tube preamp, with noise, distortion and frequency response figures that better the original poster's DAC1/Pre. You won't find it, and it will be all downhill from there.

None of this means you can't prefer what you prefer. Valves have their charm. Enjoy.

P

Quote:



I think it is safe to assume that people with active studio monitors have upgraded from passive speakers.

But I can see your point. To me the Adam A5 sound congested at higher volumes.

Quote:



So measurements = sound quality? Sticking to my A20 /SS internal amp vs Tri Trix TL passive speaker/ 6L6 tube amp comparison .... can you measure the noticeably more expansive imaging the tube amp/ passive speaker produce? Can you measure the superior tone of the tube/ passive speaker? Can you measure the increased micro-dynamic contrasts of the tube/ passive combo? Probably not .... but you can certainly hear the difference.

You can measure the improved dynamics from the passive speakers higher sensitivity. You can measure the higher distortion of the A20s 6.5" driver being driven down to 35hz. You can measure and easily hear the tweeters distortion from the low crossover point.

I dont have any measurement gear but I can put my ear to the speakers tweeter and I definitely heard more hum and noise from the A20. Furthermore, the tweeter distortion from crossing the A20s 1" metal dome over @1500hz and applying 50 watts of craptistic SS power is so clearly evident you wonder how the speaker made it to production as a statement product?

Finally, are all active crossovers superior sounding to all passive crossovers? The benefits of an active crossover can be completely undone by a poor choice of crossover points and/ or crossover slopes.

Quote:



Nope. I didn't say that. "Sound quality" is subjective, and what you hear as good, is good. But that's not what you were talking about a minute ago. You were offering up "a good TL (?) passive speaker" and "a moderately powerful tube amp" as superior to the best active systems in "dynamics, resolution and control." Dynamic range and resolution (noise, distortion, FR) are all measurable beyond the range of human hearing. If this amp, if these speakers exist, someone has measured them. Let's pass on that next toke and get beyond "if it sounds good it is good." Show me. Or just give me an example of a preamp, amp and passive speakers that you think will beat the best active systems on those very objective measurements. I'm more than curious enough to find the numbers myself.

If you don't believe in numbers, that's fine too. But you should probably stop speaking in absolutes if your POV is based solely on your personal preference and the rejection of any data that doesn't support it.

ON EDIT: Back on topic -- OP, find yourself a dealer with a good return policy who will send you some good passive equipment of approximately the same size/power/capability as your Dynas -- a pair of Harbeth Monitor 30s and a very good 100 - 150 watt integrated amp would do the trick. Compare them to your current system. I think you'll find even the aforementioned excellent passive speakers a bit lacking, but what I think doesn't matter a bit. If you like them better than your Dynas, you've started down a new path. If not, good news. Start shopping bigger better actives, subs, whatever you think might enhance the path you're already on.

P

you guys educated me beyond my intention! anyway it really seems to boil down to taste and that sound quality is VERY subjective. both sides have valid arguements on which path would lead to a "better" system to improve on what i currently own. one system's strength maybe the other's weakness, etc. i'm no sound engineer and i'm more of enjoying the music rather than the gear (although upgrading is fun!).

i will be sticking to the benchmark/dynaudios for now. i did intend to include a good subwoofer and was looking at the BM9S. i just bought decent cables and that improved sound substantially. also, i'm slowly migrating my music collection from mp3 to lossless. going back to the original topic, improvement is the operative word.

at the end of the day, i don't want to listen to music to concentrate in noticing the imperfections (or perfections?) on how it was produced. i want to enjoy and appreciate!

thanks again!

The suggestion with the Monitor 30 is excellent. I would definitely give that a try. Even if the poster might find them a bit lacking you might be in for a surprise.

Try vocals and enjoy...

Cheers

Thomas

I have a set of modified M-Audio BX5s. These are active nearfield monitors. The sound of the stock BX5s was tonally fairly accurate but not very musical at all in the sense that much of the inner detail was missing. There was absolutely no sense of depth in the recording when there should have been. This was due to the low grade coupling caps used in these speakers. Once I got rid of the low grade coupling caps the inner detail & depth were vastly improved without otherwise losing the tonal accuracy, in fact that improved as the greyness of the veil was lifted. There was actually more color to the tone as in the overtones were laid out in a more exposed fashion but the effect was still neutral sound overall.

Also many of the active speakers use class AB amps with the heat sinks inside the speakers & not exposed to the outside air at all causing them to run hot. This can compromise the longevity of the capacitors inside causing them to fail before they should. This was the case with My BX5s. I have 2 sets & 1 set the powersupply filter caps blew taking out one of the small regulatore in the amp board. I replaced these & modded the speakers on that set as well & they have been doing fine for a while now.

I think that yes Active speakers do have thier advantages when properly implimented but many are not well implimented, especially not the cheaper ones. Actives can in fact be superior to passives though when properly done as my modded BX5's are really really nice sounding. Neutral yet musical & engaging to listen to. Much like top notch passives costing much much more.