Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Why do you prefer passive speaker/monitors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do you prefer passive speaker/monitors? - Page 3

post #31 of 96

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Stuart View Post
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...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Mostro View Post

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

lol! x2

post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Mostro View Post

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


Harbeth makes an active version of the 40. Just sayin biggrin.gif
post #33 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenni View Post

 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.

post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post


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


rl.gif

 

post #35 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorbidToaster View Post


Harbeth makes an active version of the 40. Just sayin :D


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. biggrin.gif

post #36 of 96

I know I know. I like Monoblocks, too.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Mostro View Post



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. biggrin.gif



 

 

post #37 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Mostro View Post


rl.gif

 


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.

 


Edited by Mauricio - 2/29/12 at 6:12pm
post #38 of 96

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. 


Edited by liamstrain - 2/29/12 at 6:51pm
post #39 of 96
Thread Starter 

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.

 


Edited by Mauricio - 2/29/12 at 8:34pm
post #40 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

 (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.

 

post #41 of 96

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post

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.

 



 

post #42 of 96

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.

 

 

post #43 of 96

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.

post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somnambulist View Post

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.


Edited by firev1 - 3/1/12 at 2:41am
post #45 of 96

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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Why do you prefer passive speaker/monitors?