Active vs passive speaker set ups

Loheswaran

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2014
432
99
258
Dear All

I put this post in this forum as opposed to the speaker forum. I am just curious as to who hear has used or has experimented with active adjustable crossovers, and or active speakers.

People I know that have worked in professional audio are often bemused by the fact that 'audiophiles' use passive speaker systems. I think the arguments go something like this:
- the crossover robs the speaker of efficiency
- the amplifier has to work too hard
- passive systems lack real accuracy as they do not fully control the drivers

I, perhaps like many, use an integrated amp and conventional speakers with crossovers - I have to say that I have had the same amp and speakers for over 10 years, so I am gonna take my time over any 'upgrade/change'.

I started pondering this because I was umming and ahhing about some active subs, and then progressed to considering a marchand adjustable electronic EQ and a multi-channel power amp to drive the drivers directly.

I would be very grateful for your considered views and opinions
 

Blizzard

Banned
Sep 30, 2015
3,049
3
0
Dear All

I put this post in this forum as opposed to the speaker forum. I am just curious as to who hear has used or has experimented with active adjustable crossovers, and or active speakers.

People I know that have worked in professional audio are often bemused by the fact that 'audiophiles' use passive speaker systems. I think the arguments go something like this:
- the crossover robs the speaker of efficiency
- the amplifier has to work too hard
- passive systems lack real accuracy as they do not fully control the drivers

I, perhaps like many, use an integrated amp and conventional speakers with crossovers - I have to say that I have had the same amp and speakers for over 10 years, so I am gonna take my time over any 'upgrade/change'.

I started pondering this because I was umming and ahhing about some active subs, and then progressed to considering a marchand adjustable electronic EQ and a multi-channel power amp to drive the drivers directly.

I would be very grateful for your considered views and opinions


From the point of view of someone who has built passive speakers for 20 years, and is currently working on a no compromise active system, no matter what anyone tells you, if you want to build an active system that surpasses the quality of passive in all departments, it's not gonna be cheap. Much more expensive than going passive. These MiniDSP etc solutions are aimed towards the mid-fi market. Not high end applications. The main problem is the DAC's and DSP chips used in DSP based active systems. For analog active systems, your putting a whole pile of extra circuitry in the signal path. So it get's very expensive to do right.
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
The original design of the IRS bi-amplified, having active crossovers to separate the woofer from the midrange/tweeter sections and a passive crossover for the midrange/tweeter towers.

I have my Infinity IRS-V system tri-amplified with PassLabs XVR1 active crossovers and six channels of power amplifiers -- three left and three right -- woofer, midrange and tweeter.

There is no way I would go back to using passive (in the speaker/after the fact of amplification) crossovers.
 

zztop7

Member Sponsor
Dec 12, 2012
750
3
0
Edmonds, WA
Infinite Baffle

More bass - you mentioned active subs. If that is the major concern, and you have a house that lends itself; then Infinite Baffle subs are the way to go.

Dear All
I started pondering this because I was umming and ahhing about some active subs

zz.
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
More bass - you mentioned active subs. If that is the major concern, and you have a house that lends itself; then Infinite Baffle subs are the way to go.
zz.

Rotary woofers, anyone???
 

Blizzard

Banned
Sep 30, 2015
3,049
3
0
The original design of the IRS bi-amplified, having active crossovers to separate the woofer from the midrange/tweeter sections and a passive crossover for the midrange/tweeter towers.

I have my Infinity IRS-V system tri-amplified with PassLabs XVR1 active crossovers and six channels of power amplifiers -- three left and three right -- woofer, midrange and tweeter.

There is no way I would go back to using passive (in the speaker/after the fact of amplification) crossovers.

To put things in perspective, what was the MSRP of your entire system?
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
MUCH LESS when I got it than what it would cost now!

Prior to the turn of the millennium, the IRS was expensive but affordable. For some reason after 2000, stereo prices went through the roof. Now, the Genesis 1.X series is much more costly. The three way PassLabs crossover is about $8000. Amplifiers depend a lot on what your taste is.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Dear All

I put this post in this forum as opposed to the speaker forum. I am just curious as to who hear has used or has experimented with active adjustable crossovers, and or active speakers.

People I know that have worked in professional audio are often bemused by the fact that 'audiophiles' use passive speaker systems. I think the arguments go something like this:
- the crossover robs the speaker of efficiency
- the amplifier has to work too hard
- passive systems lack real accuracy as they do not fully control the drivers

I, perhaps like many, use an integrated amp and conventional speakers with crossovers - I have to say that I have had the same amp and speakers for over 10 years, so I am gonna take my time over any 'upgrade/change'.

I started pondering this because I was umming and ahhing about some active subs, and then progressed to considering a marchand adjustable electronic EQ and a multi-channel power amp to drive the drivers directly.

I would be very grateful for your considered views and opinions

I haven't owned an active system with adjustable crossover, though I'm headed in that direction now, but I've owned a couple of pair of active speakers and listened carefully to many more. My opinion is that in passive systems:

- the crossover robs the speaker of efficiency
- the amplifier has to work too hard
- passive systems lack real accuracy as they do not fully control the drivers

Actually, I think that might be a bit more than an opinion. I do believe that passive systems can be made to sound nearly as good, but it costs a lot more money to get them there. If you want amps that are built to drive all the speakers in a cabinet, through an unknown passive crossover, designed by engineers with no prior knowledge of what the individual drivers will be and what their requirements are, yeah, that's gonna be expensive or compromised. That amp designer, working in the dark, has no high quality choice but to design something he thinks can handle whatever you throw at it. If a that designer, however, has the opportunity to pair amplification with individual drivers, knowing exactly what the performance requirements are, that's going to be efficient, in cost and performance.

Tim

Tim
 

Keith_W

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2012
1,024
95
970
Melbourne, Australia
www.whatsbestforum.com
My speakers started off with a passive crossover. They have been extensively modified and I now use an active crossover. In fact, I have two active crossovers in my system - an analog crossover handles the midrange and treble, while a digital crossover looks after the woofer and the sub. My system is still in a state of evolution, but the reason why it is configured like this at the moment is because I have not yet found a digital solution that is sufficiently transparent not to damage the midrange and treble.

As Blizzard says, going active is NOT cheap and WILL involve a steep learning curve. After you purchase separate amps for each channel, you will have to decide on a crossover. If you have a mid-fi system, the choice is easy: go digital. But if you have high end aspirations, the choice isn't so easy. Bigger budget opens the door to more potential solutions - for example, it is possible to create an analog crossover that replicates most of the functions of a digital crossover, but without the damaging ADC-DAC step. It is also possible to reduce the damage of ADC-DAC by purchasing better equipment. Or, if you are using a digital feed, you could purchase separate DAC's for each channel. Each of these options WILL cost money, and WILL be very expensive if you do not know what you are doing and make bad decisions along the way. And you will make bad decisions - it's part of the learning curve!

I disagree with Blizzard on a minor point - he says that one disadvantage of analog active systems is more circuitry in the signal path. Yes this is true, but I contend that this is far less damaging than a lossy passive crossover in the amplified path.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

New Member
Nov 3, 2014
394
2
0
I do not think active vs. passive is a simple choice, and all generalizations about them, probably including my own, are not necessarily true.

First, I think just taking a passively x-overed speaker which has separate hi/low (plus mid, maybe) input terminals, then using that with an external active xover and amps is unlikely to deliver much improvement. There is a good chance it might even be inferior. Those speaker input terminals are still connected to the drivers via the internal passive xover sections. So, to properly go active, you have to internally rewire the speaker. Bye, bye warranties, etc. unless you are very careful.

Second, a whole lot of engineering expertise, time and hence cost are embedded in the design and implementation of internal passive xovers with traditional speaker systems, including the extent to which the internal xover may be compensating for some driver deficiencies. Bypass that and you are throwing away much of what you paid for in a speaker system. You are essentially designing your own speaker, but without the driver choices the speaker manufacturer has at his, but not your, disposal.

Third, experience has proven, to me at least, that really good active xovers are very difficult and expensive to do well in the analog domain, without increases in noise and distortion and while maintaining "transparency". I think digital xovers can do a much better job much less expensively. So, unless you are content with all digital playback, or going a-d, d-a with analog source material, you have a major cost and tradeoff issue with active xovering.

Fourth, it ain't cheap. A top quality external xover plus additional amps, cables, etc. is something to be reckoned with in $$$.

I conclude that the best path to success with this idea is to buy an actively powered and xovered system from the get go rather than trying to retrofit a passively xovered speaker to active xovers. I can see many possible theoretical advantages from this active approach, however, if properly done and engineered into a complete system. In addition, you can audition what you are seeking to buy without the mods necessary to convert a passive system into a multi-way active one.

The fact is that most speaker manufacturers make speakers with built-in passive xovers, not with amps or active xovers. They may farm out amp or active xover development to other industry expert engineers to create a true activesystem beyond their own core competence. Relatively few manufacturers have all the expertise under one roof or readily available to design and produce a top quality active system.

As a footnote, I would submit that most of us can get most of the pluses of this active speaker advantage much more easily. How? Just add a good quality subwoofer (more than one if you prefer). It will "bi-amp" and "bi-wire" your system, eliminating many distortion products that mostly emanate from the deep bass. And, the good ones have active digital xovers that do not diminish overall transparency.
 

Rodney Gold

Member
Jan 29, 2014
983
11
18
Cape Town South Africa
I have owned many actives and passives as well as DSP actives
All I can tell you is that neither system is really superior to another in terms of SQ.
My current passive system is better than any actives I have owned , including my meridian DSP actives but it is a lot more expensive
 

Nevillekapadia

VIP/Donor
Aug 30, 2010
231
27
933
I have had passive all my life, till I started going active too. It gives you more flexibility. You have choice of drivers, that you may like and amplification that suits it.

Doing it well, is a nose bleed when it does come to spend. So many more components, cables and interconnects.

But there are very good passive speakers too, due to their quality of drivers and well engineered xovers.

I would love certain speaker manufacturers come out with an all out assault with active analog X-overs. Who knows it may become their reference flagship speaker some day. I suppose they don't do it due to its commercial viability.
 

Barry

Member Sponsor
Jan 7, 2012
273
54
1,220
Somewhere near Philadelphia, USA
Have been actively tri-amping my system for 30 years. Currently have modded Magnepan 3.6 speakers(bi-amped, so 2 amps) with a pair of Kinergetic Research subwoofer towers separately powered by yet another amp. I am also using a Pass Labs XVR-1- 3way crossover like Gary. So I have 6 total channels of amplification using 3 amplifiers. I am assuming you will be duplicating a passive crossover in your current system with active amplification. After spending a few hundred hours trying dozens of different settings, I concluded that Magnepan knew what they were doing in their original crossover selection.

Some Active/Passive observations:
The downside of more cables and amps was easily offset by the resulting transparency, dynamics, and immediacy over a passive crossover and the ability to have low frequency extension down to 15 Hz, but there is one major drawback. It's much easier to break the signal up than to put it seamlessly back together and create a good soundstage. I did some work as follows:

1) It is essential to very closely level- match left and right channels if you want superior results. I use a function generator (or a test CD) to generate a test sine wave at frequencies of interest and a digital volt meter on the amp outputs to measure the level and match the 3 left and right amplified channels to well within a .5 dB/ 1 millivolts of each other. You can NOT match this closely by ear. You will learn to hear the mismatch if you don't!

2) You must use the same amplifiers for any active amplification channels over 80-100Hz if you want a coherent soundstage even if you level match. This is not critical on the subs if you're using 18dB or 24db/octave steeper crossovers. I used 2 different amps for years at the 250 Hz cutoff and the soundstage never gelled. The result drove me totally nuts. It's like a phasing anomaly.

3) It's a PITA to get the right output level on the main/subs on each speaker to match if you are doing it by ear. For the subs, you'll find you are always fiddling with volume on music with different amounts of bass content. For the main speakers (3.6 panels), you can hear if there's an imbalance between tweeters/midrange and bass drivers even if left and right channels are perfectly balanced. It's relatively easy to set active channels and sub levels in each speaker with the Room EQ wizard (REW) program or a measurement tool.

It is possible, but very expensive, to have a state-of-the-art passive crossover. I built a custom one between the Magnepan 3.6 tweeter/midrange and the bass panel replacing the stock one. It is all Dueland Cast copper caps and inductors. Parts costs as much as the Magnepan 3.6s. It sounds every bit as good as the Pass Labs active unit. Oh, I'm not sure it would work as well on the subs.

I'm not alone in observations #1-#3. They are echoed by points made by Jim Smith in his "Get Better Sound" book and by others. If this sounds daunting, it's not. It requires some patience and learning. The results are well worth it.
 

Blizzard

Banned
Sep 30, 2015
3,049
3
0
My speakers started off with a passive crossover. They have been extensively modified and I now use an active crossover. In fact, I have two active crossovers in my system - an analog crossover handles the midrange and treble, while a digital crossover looks after the woofer and the sub. My system is still in a state of evolution, but the reason why it is configured like this at the moment is because I have not yet found a digital solution that is sufficiently transparent not to damage the midrange and treble.

As Blizzard says, going active is NOT cheap and WILL involve a steep learning curve. After you purchase separate amps for each channel, you will have to decide on a crossover. If you have a mid-fi system, the choice is easy: go digital. But if you have high end aspirations, the choice isn't so easy. Bigger budget opens the door to more potential solutions - for example, it is possible to create an analog crossover that replicates most of the functions of a digital crossover, but without the damaging ADC-DAC step. It is also possible to reduce the damage of ADC-DAC by purchasing better equipment. Or, if you are using a digital feed, you could purchase separate DAC's for each channel. Each of these options WILL cost money, and WILL be very expensive if you do not know what you are doing and make bad decisions along the way. And you will make bad decisions - it's part of the learning curve!

I disagree with Blizzard on a minor point - he says that one disadvantage of analog active systems is more circuitry in the signal path. Yes this is true, but I contend that this is far less damaging than a lossy passive crossover in the amplified path.


Well it all depends on if your going with DSP based or Analog based Xovers in your passive system. And also depends on the system.

With a simple passive 2 channel system, you can use state of the art 2 channel DAC's that are far beyond what's feasible for use in a multi way active DSP based system at the same price level. With the right drivers, you can get away with minimalist 6dB per octave crossovers that only have a single cap in the tweeter signal path, and single inductor in mid/woofer signal path. I have a pair of passive speakers right now that I'm using the mid full range with absolutely nothing in the signal path.

So really depends on the implementation. Active speakers can be made to blow away passive, but if you use all the same quality of DAC's, DSD 256 capabilities, same amp quality for each driver etc, the price you will pay for this performance can be 5-6 times the same system built passively.

Personally I couldn't offer a full range 20hz to 20khz full blown floor standing active tower built to my standards for under $80000 USD MSRP. Any less would mean compromises I'm not willing to take. But this of course includes DAC's, and amps. Turn key complete system.

For more info on what I'm working on please go here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18648-The-best-way-possible-to-build-an-active-system
 
Last edited:

esldude

New Member
Active simply has advantages. Simply as in being a better way to do things. Now depending on your market, the use you have in mind, whether you need a turn key system or not can cloud the issue. When I see some very, very expensive passive audiophile offerings I believe an active offering would either be better for same money or be better for less money.

Of course active speakers among the enthusiast market are something like fusion reactors. We are 20 years away from it being the norm and always will be. :) The inherent distrust of AD/DA conversion and things digital in this market is not well founded at all. Using digital crossovers, and quality class D amps to build active speakers could result in quite the leap forward in performance at most budget levels. If you can't convince anyone to lay down their prejudices the market for that never happens.

There are some offerings like Genelec, Focal and pro JBL products. Though mostly meant for pro studio use some products would serve well for consumers to play music upon. Then again, I think we should already be at the point all speakers should be active and need nothing more than a power cord, and digital or line level input. Were I doing a big upgrade that is the target I would have in mind.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Actives are not always particularly popular amongst retailers ,simply because once you have sold a pair, there are much fewer options for further sales.
Keith.

Actives can be a nightmare for consumers. If something goes wrong they will have to be sent to the distributor for repair, as diagnosing faults is much more difficult for owners.

The market is not ignorant and stupid - it chooses to stay away from actives also because they have not proven yet to be an acceptable alternative. We have some examples of quality actives in Europe - companies like Meridian, B&O, Backes & Müller and Cabasse. Ask their owners about the service costs of these products after the warranty period.

Surely the faster obsolescence of active speakers as a complete product and the difficulty for the consumers to know the real operational conditions of the speaker will lead to much lower re-sale value when it is time for an upgrade.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I have owned active speakers since 81, Meridian m2's then m10's, subsequently Genelec ,currently Grimm LS1's and soon Kii THREEs, I have not encountered one single fault in all those years.
Keith.

It seems you are a lucky man.

My list of active Meridian's was longer - M2's, M20's, M30's, M1, M60 and D600. Fortunately I was able to diagnose and repair them myself. Most of them had some issues - speaker coils frying due to faulty amplifiers with DC, dry electrolytic capacitors, faulty audio ICs, power transistors going in short - the typical problems of consumer audio equipment.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Active simply has advantages. Simply as in being a better way to do things. Now depending on your market, the use you have in mind, whether you need a turn key system or not can cloud the issue. When I see some very, very expensive passive audiophile offerings I believe an active offering would either be better for same money or be better for less money.

Of course active speakers among the enthusiast market are something like fusion reactors. We are 20 years away from it being the norm and always will be. :) The inherent distrust of AD/DA conversion and things digital in this market is not well founded at all. Using digital crossovers, and quality class D amps to build active speakers could result in quite the leap forward in performance at most budget levels. If you can't convince anyone to lay down their prejudices the market for that never happens.

There are some offerings like Genelec, Focal and pro JBL products. Though mostly meant for pro studio use some products would serve well for consumers to play music upon. Then again, I think we should already be at the point all speakers should be active and need nothing more than a power cord, and digital or line level input. Were I doing a big upgrade that is the target I would have in mind.

This. It is the nature of the audiophile hobby to contemplate and complicate things. Shake off that urge, and active can be both higher performance and lower cost. And you quickly understand how so many great active speakers that are relatively inexpensive, and why the best active solutions are often turnkey and self-contained. And exceedingly accessible from the user's point of view.

Tim
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I will tell you that active speakers with adjustable crossovers can be both simple and low cost...

Talk of extra AD/DA stages assumes that you would be anticipating feeding your system with analogue signals. If you stick with digital sources and use an asynchronous digital interface you can be 'bit perfect' all the way through.

High quality DACs are cheap. Multichannel amplifiers are cheap.

The key to making the whole system work is to linearise the phase of the individual drivers in their enclosures using DSP (from anechoic measurements) so that all crossover settings are 'valid' and you can play with the slopes and frequencies with minimal side effects. Each driver also has its appropriate delay for time alignment at the typical listener's position. The upshot is that modifying crossover slopes and frequencies over quite a wide range has virtually no audible effect, and you are really tweaking your settings for the best compromises in terms of performance at high amplitudes, and subtle changes in the dispersion balance. This is something that cannot be done using passive crossovers. You can overlay the crossover filters with a smooth EQ for in-room balance that compensates for 'baffle step' etc. (Or use DRC derived from acoustic measurements if you prefer, but I do not do this).

Three or four way systems become no more difficult to set up than two way, and of course work much better, reducing the side effects of intermodulation distortion, doppler distortion, beaming and lobing.

Sealed woofers as opposed to bass reflex are also key to making the system work.

You may now all proceed to shoot me down! :)
 
Last edited:

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
228
4
0
In regards to what I consider the high end market in $$'s I'm always surprised at the $30K and up passively managed speaker systems.

You can get great sounding active crossovers from BSS, Lake, DEQ-X and the list goes on.

The biggest fallacy is that a boutique shop with a single EE or even one that just rents one from time to time is going to have the chops a shop like the above mentioned will have. They have entire engineering teams and their job is to make a great sounding and dependable live performance.

The exact same thing people want from their speaker systems.

I always get a kick out of people with passive speakers talking about the damping factor of their amp. They don't realize that damping factor just went out the window because the damping only applies to a directly connected driver.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing