[rjoseph]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but for the sake of relevance and to ask you of your personal preference, which do you prefer and why?

I personally have both. Denon receiver connected to Boston Acoustic speakers for the home theater rig (5.1); and then the Mackie MR5s connected to my desktop for my musical needs. I like the passive for movies but for music, its definitely the active which I invariably turn to.

Since we deal with music here, and I'm inclined towards active, I'm curious to know what you have and most importantly why you selected one over the other. Maybe w'll learn something new from this thread. So please contribute.

 

[Mr. B]

I'm new to taking audio seriously and I went with active speakers mostly because it was cheaper and more convenient (A5's for $261 was too good to pass up). Perhaps in a couple years when I want something more and have several hundred bucks to throw at my discontentment, I'll get a receiver and some proper speakers. By then I should will have likely weeded all the lossy music out of my collection.

 

[3X0]

With the same music files, my Infinity Primus P152s driven by my Denon DRA-425 beat out my roommate's Audioengine A5s in every possible sonic aspect (imaging, detail & resolution, clarity, extension on both ends). They were just noticeably better as a whole and clearly on another level, and my roommate himself conceded to this sentiment.

That said, I would have probably gone with active only if space was an issue.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Passive.

Have any of you actually listened to good passive speakers?

 

[FallenAngel]

Passive of course, "active" is simply a passive speaker that has a little amp built into the back of the box. I'm sure there are much better amps out there.

 

[rjoseph]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Passive. Have any of you actually listened to good passive speakers?

Thanks Erik. As for me, I have heard a few mainly at Bestbuys and CC. I however did not feel they were that great and the next best that I heard was the Mackies and so I picked it up.

Can you elaborate on why passives? The reason I'm asking is I was reading up on this and came across this article - active loudspeakers [english] which says active is better. Your thoughts please.

 

[julius_the_cat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Passive of course, "active" is simply a passive speaker that has a little amp built into the back of the box. I'm sure there are much better amps out there.

Active monitors often have two amps between the "active" crossover and the drivers. Passive crossovers have a few disadvantages in theory at least. The lack of a passive crossover likely contributes to the dynamics of full range single driver speakers. Pro audio recording monitors are usually active, FWIW.

 

[backtoreality15]

I'm going to try to trade for my friend's passive A5 speaker and give him the other active LOL. And then I'll get that sub 100 dollar amp. What's it called? Its suppose to look really cheap, but be really good for the price.

 

[dizzysnakepilot]

in my active setup, there are two stereo amplifier that are modified with a circuit board that is installed in each amp- one for bass and one for the tweeter. these cards are matched to the particular model of speaker i have. the difference is pretty dramatic. the sound is not only better, but has a different quality as well. sound like different speakers.

the crossovers in a standard speaker absorb a lot of power- thats their job to reduce power to the small or larger speaker cone for non-optimal frequencies.

 

[twylight]

passive, some <$300 nearfield actives are ok for desktop use

 

[joe_cool]

My experience is obviously subjective, but I found a pair of $300 passives (with active crossover and subwoofer) to be my best solution. I tried a $1000 pair of actives but didn't find the overall balance to be suitable.

P.S. If you want to use an active pair (near field monitors) with a computer be prepared to provide a balanced ouput to the speakers.

 

[krmathis]

Passive.

Since the speaker vendor should concentrate on building the speaker only, while an electronics vendor should build the amplifier.

 

[dugq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Passive of course, "active" is simply a passive speaker that has a little amp built into the back of the box. I'm sure there are much better amps out there.

Actives are a different design to passives. They place the crossover before the power-amp, rather than after it. Passives with an amp in the box are merely powered speakers, rather than actives (although the terms are getting more and more confused due to dodgy marketing speak).

From a theoretical perspective actives win the day in almost every way, however like most things in audio a lot comes down to implementation. The Hi-Fi industry has had a lot of time to get passives design right

 

[paaj]

Don't think one is really better than the other. Making a passive speaker is probably easier, but by designing an active speaker they can include the perfect amp for the speaker so theoretically an active speaker should be best.

 

[rjoseph]

Yes, I do agree that if the amp in the active does not do a good job then the output is not too good. But if well done, isnt active theoritically superior?

joe_cool, I am using the balanced 3 pin XLRs on the Mackies to connect them to my desktop. I however doubt they are truly balanced since its a 1/8" (desktop out) to XLR cable. But the sound is still far superior to just the 1/8" to RCA.