Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Active Speakers/Monitors: Dispelling the ignorance, confusion and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Active Speakers/Monitors: Dispelling the ignorance, confusion and myths - Page 3

post #31 of 140

Well that's interesting - though totally at odds with my impression of the Behringer monitors. I'll have to read through the test methodology. 


Edited by liamstrain - 3/13/12 at 8:02pm
post #32 of 140

As a pacifist and a conscientious objector, I feel that passive speakers jive better with my outlook on life. I'm also not into exercise, so active speakers are out for me.

post #33 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRG1990 View Post

With the small speakers the amp takes up space that could be used for airflow in a passive speaker the active speaker of the same size has less airflow space for the drivers, theres not really an advantage to either 1.

linkwitz orion maybe the behringers lol http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what.html .



Why couldn't the designer of the active speaker simply increase the cabinet size accordingly?  I mean, where--besides in your imagination--is the precise dimensions of the cabinet fixed or limited?  You are bringing a problem for which the solution is the easiest:  simply enlarge the cabinet.  Is that your most potent criticism of actives?


Edited by Mauricio - 3/13/12 at 10:10pm
post #34 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post



...At these levels, the amount of improvement an active offers over the passive system represents a smaller and smaller overall change.

 

 



Ok, let's assume for argument's sake that you are right.  Now, please present the technical reasons for why this is so.  Also, as price and size goes up, why are better components available to passive, but not to active designs?  What exactly are these magical components that only designers of passive speakers can get their hands on.  Please present a mechanism that would make this plausible.


Edited by Mauricio - 3/14/12 at 5:29am
post #35 of 140
Thread Starter 

[Reserved]

post #36 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post



Why couldn't the designer of the active speaker simply increase the cabinet size accordingly?  I mean, where--besides in your imagination--is the precise dimensions of the cabinet fixed or limited? 


Where is the precise dimensions of the cabinet fixed or limited?

 

In the home of most every married man on the planet. evil_smiley.gif

 

se

post #37 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:

 

 

 

The ultra high end is entirely dominated by passives. 


Is the "ultra-high end" segment defined by price and/or perceived sound quality? 

 

 

 


Edited by Mauricio - 3/14/12 at 12:33am
post #38 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post


Is the "ultra-high end" segment defined by price and/or perceived sound quality? 

 



Yes. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Ok, let's assume for argument's sake that you are right.  Now, please present the technical reasons for why this is so.  Also, as price and size goes up, why are better components available to passive, but not to active designs?  

 

 

1. in small box/small driver systems, actives can be used to overcome the limitations in sq presented by the lack of space and the frequency range the small (usually under 5") single drivers + tweeter, are asked to present. In a larger box, you often have several drivers in the mids, a large woofer for lows, and the tweeter - there is less need for that one 5" driver to perform miracles. You can use active components in the bigger box, but the need for it in order to get great sound, is reduced. By the same token, since the larger speaker needs to overcome fewer hurdles and compromises in the first place, the improvement an active system provides over a simpler passive system, is reduced. 

 

2. Those same components are available to both passive and active designers. The need for them (and the added cost they represent) is reduced (or eliminated).  


Edited by liamstrain - 3/14/12 at 7:49am
post #39 of 140
Thread Starter 

That's rather odd.  On this thread alone, we have one who criticizes actives for not having enough enclosure space, and another who says that they are superior when enclosure space is limited.  In fact, the differences between the two systems and the advantages of one over another have fundamentally little to do with enclosure size.  Your "logic" would only be true if enclosure size were a limiting factor in performance of passives.  As I have explained, that is not where their faults lie.  An enclosure the size of an aircraft carrier does nothing to change the basic nature of passive RLC circuits and the fundamental differences in system design.


Edited by Mauricio - 3/14/12 at 8:14am
post #40 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post

That's rather odd.  On this thread alone, we have one who criticizes actives for not having enough enclosure space, and another who says that they are superior when enclosure space is limited.  In fact, the differences between the two systems and the advantages of one over another have fundamentally little to do with enclosure size.  Your "logic" would only be true if enclosure size were a limiting factor in performance of passives.  As I have explained, that is not where their faults lie.  An enclosure the size of an aircraft carrier does nothing to change the basic nature of passive RLC circuits and the fundamental differences in system design.



Enclosure space and geometry affects the performance of any speaker driver (regardless of active/passive). You need the *right* size, not just bigger or smaller. When that size is not ideal - and rarely is a small space ideal if you want full range and bass... you need more compensation from other parts of the system (crossover/eq/amplification) to mitigate the performance flaws. So when those are factors (small drivers in small enclosures) an active gives you some advantages over passives. 

 

But my point was more that with full size passives you frequently have more and bigger drivers, and those are better paired to the job required of them, which means the crossovers and eq, etc. have less hard work to do - the larger enclosure with bigger dedicated drivers to their frequency ranges, does the heavy lifting of the sound quality. You can certainly use active systems with these, but the NEED to from a performance standpoint, is significantly reduced. 

 

I don't know of anyone (aside from Linkwitz) that makes full size actives. I would be curious to hear side by sides. (Ooo! thanks Lenni)


Edited by liamstrain - 3/14/12 at 12:38pm
post #41 of 140

maybe a few examples here....... check some of those prices!

 

also...


Edited by Lenni - 3/14/12 at 12:34pm
post #42 of 140

Thanks Lenni - good to see some of those. Prices are more or less in-line with mid and high end passives, no surprises there really. I would definitely be curious to hear them. The Orion/Pluto are the only ones I've actually heard myself (I have the Adam ARTist 5's, but have not heard the 6's). Good to see a ML in there too, I didn't think there were any stat's in this category at all.


Edited by liamstrain - 3/14/12 at 12:39pm
post #43 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamstrain View Post

 full size actives.


The plethora of so-called "full-size" actives should clue you in, once again, that this issue of enclosure dimensions is a red-herring.  The "problem" with passives is not that their drivers are small, or that their enclosures are small or have the wrong dimensions.  The inherent problems of passives are listed in post no. 3, and have little if anything to do with drive or enclosure dimensions.  But even if the "logic" is true, the benefits of large drivers and enclosures would benefit not only passives, but also actives.  An enclosure or drivers the size of  the Empire State Building will do nothing to change that.


Edited by Mauricio - 3/14/12 at 6:43pm
post #44 of 140

Actives take out all the fun of buying and swapping gear to impress your friends, therefore they are inferior

post #45 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post



But even if the "logic" is true, the benefits of large drivers and enclosures would benefit not only passives, but also actives.  An enclosure or drivers the size of  the Empire State Building will do nothing to change that.



Yes. I clearly, repeatedly already stated that - I agree with you. What I do not agree with is that the advantages of an active system, once we are into the full size are as significant as they are when in the compact size. That is to say, the handicap the passives have, is reduced as a percentage of overall sound quality (the importance of the amplifier, differences between active and passive crossover, etc) is smaller once you have the right drivers for the right job in the right size enclosure. 

 

 

Quote:
The plethora of so-called "full-size" actives should clue you in, once again, that this issue of enclosure dimensions is a red-herring.

 

 

I already thanked Lemmi for sharing the listing he did, and stated that I was unaware of most of these. I am happy to have been corrected, and look forward to listening to some of them at the nearest opportunity. However, I do NOT believe for one instant, that I have said anything above in any of my posts, if you choose to actually look at what I wrote (not what you think I said), that will be proven to be wrong. 

 

 


Edited by liamstrain - 3/14/12 at 7:37pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Active Speakers/Monitors: Dispelling the ignorance, confusion and myths