@seadogs1 -- I have been looking at several active loudspeakers, Heavenly soundworks, Buchardt, and, and KEF LS50 wireless II. Any thoughts on these or are there others you think are better? Thanks!!!
Bundled active speakers such as ATC come recommended. Most don’t seem to realize though that ’active’ isn’t only an all-in-one solution, but simply means the cross-over functions on signal level prior to amplification, and as such can be a separate component choice as well where you get to choose your own digital/electronic cross-over, amps and the whole shebang. This entails setting up the filter values by yourself (unless pre-set like from Sanders Sound), and can take some time getting right. You may know your sonic preferences and have sharp hearing acuity, but knowing which filter values and their combinations(!) that lead to a desired sonic outcome - with the aid of knowing specs and likely involving measurements - isn’t something one simply does overnight. This can take weeks, months even, but a manageable outcome can often be had within shortly; it’s the fine tuning that’s "a bitch," but the more work you put into it and experience is gained, the more rewarding the process (and outcome) becomes. @lonemountain -- ... Every A/B I’ve ever done proves again and again that same exact speaker, same exact amplifiers, active means imaging is better, fine details more clear, resolution is higher.
My assessment as well. More transparent, stable, fluid, less smear, and indeed somewhat better resolved. Heavy DSP processing/correction I find impacts the top end in particular, making it too distinct and at times coarse, which is why the less-is-more approach into PEQ is my preferred scenario. Fiddling with acoustics, speaker placement and overall design decisions is paramount here to ease the processing part, and this involves the low end as well. Done right such an active set-up - tailored to a specific acoustic environment and from a given listening position - simply steamrolls over most any passive dittos I’ve heard. @fiesta75 -- So many here on AG have no clue about active crossovers and the benefits. Actives can improve the entire spectrum, midrange is so much clearer and detailed. It sure does remove distortion like IM, the most irritating, just plain gone. I’ve mostly given up trying to help because many THINK they know best. Time is a wasting! There’s a very conservative/stifled/prejudiced attitude towards active configuration in audiophiles communities in general, yes. I would gather most speak from limited experience, and certainly active-as-separates is something very few have heard let alone had their hands on. Once juggling with filter values actively feels more natural and "learned" - in the listening position from your laptop/tablet and on the fly - it becomes an indispensable tool where corrections can be made to accommodate a variety of situations. I can’t imagine ever going back passive again. |
@georgehifi --
As with analog active xover in the mids and highs, you’ll have at least a dozen more opamps pots, switches powersupplies interconnects etc etc in the signal path, and to me the that’s opposite of what you just said, there’s more distortions, they also strip the natural decay from the music going through all that ****.
That's not taking into account the impact of a passive cross-overs between the amp(s) and speakers in all their more or less complex varieties and differences in quality, how they take away from a given amp's potential and its control over the drivers, and how this scenario compares to an active solution with its own set of (to my mind lesser) compromises. Oftentimes that's the discussion on active configuration in a nutshell; it's in a hurry to highlight, not least theoretically, the deficiencies of active without considering passive a rather substantial compromise itself. Passive is most widely used, yes, but that only makes it a reference in light of what's more widely implemented and habitually assessed. |
@andy2 --
Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive.
Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?
Whether or not going active, be that bundled/preset or as separates/DIY, is "worth the trouble" is up to each to decide, but I'd wager active being less popular is very much due to conjecture, habitual use and conservativism rather than assessing it, openly, on its own merits and the basis of sound quality.
Cheap class D are not going to cut it. Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with. Active configuration renders amplification less vital, meaning cheaper amps in particular will perform somewhat better (and closer to their über-priced brethren) in active config's being given better conditions not looking into a passive cross-over, with all that entails. That doesn't mean you have to go cheap, but conversely going very expensive here won't bring the same potential advantages compared to a passively configured context. The resolving capabilities of active however more clearly exposes changes on the side of the front end, cabling, wall power and such. Maybe an issue with active config, from the perspective of certain amp manufacturers, is that amps matter less here, but it may also present an issue to those costumers who buys with their expectations and wallets rather than with their ears and assimilating to the proper (active) context. |
@andy2 -- It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.
With passive, there’s nothing to setup. You just hook to the amp and that’s about it.
You're asking for conflicting things here: The way most would approach active, i.e.: as a bundled product, it’s even less complicated as there’s not even amps or possibly a DAC + associated cables to connect and setup. Obviously this robs flexibility. If you want flexibility from an active setup you’d approach it as a separate component solution, with non-preset filter values if none are available, but this adds complexity per above. Seems to me it’s about making up one’s mind and stop placing unwinnable roadblocks in your way; if ease of setup and plug-and-play is desired it’s bundled active speakers for you. Conversely if flexibility is sought it’s rolling up one’s sleeves a bit and go the route of separates and prepare to learn about filter settings. As I said complexity mostly comes into play when setting up filter values. The addition of extra amps and an active cross-over is really the least of it. |
@audioquest4life --
I don’t know if spending time going active, researching amps and/DSPs, measuring each change is worth my time and effort when I have such really great satisfying results with my non active speakers. Granted, I have measured in room response and treated frequency anomalies with appropriate diffusers or absorption material as needed. I would suggest anyone serious about this hobby to at least take the time to measure the room to identity problem frequencies. My room is also built to soundproof specs which also increases my listening pleasure.
At the end of the day, I can’t say that I would disagree with anyone wanting to go active, it would be different in other ways. If it works for you, go for it. It’s not for me, for the reasons stated above, I am out.
I wouldn't want to come across claiming that every serious home audio reproduction "adventurer," for him/her to actually be serious, should pursue active as the one and only route achieving great sound. Mostly what it comes down to, to me, is letting people know that active configuration, one way or the other, holds great and different potential, and that in the face of many audiophiles effectively dismissing active for reasons that seem.. shall we say, questionable. In your specific context I can only imagine the T1.5 Reference model from Classic Audio Loudspeakers (with associated equipment + acoustics) to be extremely well-sounding and versatile - I've certainly always been intrigued by their range of speakers and endeavor at large. Being as happy with their sound as you appear to be I wouldn't change anything, let alone convert them into active config. Not that it wouldn't be interesting to explore their performance envelope this way, but as is in their current passive state I'm sure they've been optimized into a very capable package. |
@mijostyn -- Theoretically, active loudspeakers could be amazing...until you add in the profit motive. I have not heard one yet that amazed me.
Profit motive? I’ve heard so much bland passively configured that it tires the mind, and the by comparison few active iterations that have entered the stage have, by and large, been delightful deviations to that (passive) trend. The best active systems I’ve heard are non-bundled, separate component solutions that’ve been setup and fine tuned by their users in specific acoustic environments over months of time. No restrictions wrt. speaker size, type, sensitivity or component choices in general - just carte blanche. Those are the set-ups that have truly blown my mind and that have left most everything passive fighting in vain for similar scale, cohesion, dynamics, resolution, ease, stability, etc. A worthwhile takeaway with such separate component active solutions: typically they’re much less expensive for what they offer sonically. |
