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 4

post #46 of 96

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

post #47 of 96

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. 


Edited by liamstrain - 3/1/12 at 6:33am
post #48 of 96

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.

post #49 of 96
Thread Starter 

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."

post #50 of 96

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.

post #51 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

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.

post #52 of 96

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

post #53 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post


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.
post #54 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexAeterna View Post

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. 
 

 

post #55 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post


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.
Edited by RexAeterna - 3/18/12 at 12:45pm
post #56 of 96

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.

 

vapor-audio-cirrus-loudspeakers_COuxc_48.jpg

post #57 of 96
Thread Starter 

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?


Edited by Mauricio - 3/18/12 at 10:11pm
post #58 of 96

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.

post #59 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

 

 

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...

post #60 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post

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.


Edited by DaveBSC - 3/18/12 at 11:09pm
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?