Active Speakers Don't Sound Better

Well, I know that you like to say provocative things to start a discussion Erik

How rude and completely uncalled for! I’m absolutely shocked they’d allow gambling in this casino.... 🤣

but of course your experience with this one speaker doesn’t make it a universal truth. It was demonstrated for me some years ago at an ATC dealer in Connecticut that their active speakers sound subjectively better than when passively driven.

I’ll argue that you heard ATC speakers that were better active than passive... and that you are extrapolating a universal truth from that which did not hold up for me.

Let me clarify my original point somewhat. I’m not backpedaling, but clarifying. Based on my experience, the mere conversion of a speaker from passive to active, or design of a speaker as active does not automatically make it better sounding in a meaningful way.

That is, if I were to take an existing speaker design, map the voltage transfer functions from the passive crossover to the active crossover with precision I’d end up with an equally good or bad sounding speaker.

I know engineers, they love to change things - Dr. McCoy

And here’s the issue. The features available in DSP crossovers are vast and tempting. Even with the exact same box and drivers you almost never design the same crossover from one to the other. The economics of part costs and engineering effort needed upend what a good engineer will see as possible and you almost never get to hear a true apples to apples comparisons.

The point is, I can believe you heard two similar ATC speakers. I also believe the reproduction from the active speaker won you over. What I don’t know is all the differences that wend under the hood. Crossover points, slopes, time alignment, driver equalization, etc could all be different and so for me this is no longer a fair comparison.

I will repeat though that using DSP/active configuration gives me a lot more features available to incorporate in my design, and I can be very happy with the results but also not able to say "active is always going to sound better" because I don’t believe that to be true.

@erik_squires wrote:

I just wanted to settle a debate that has often raged in A’gon about active vs. passive speakers with my own first hand experience. I’ve recently had the chance to complete a 3-way active center channel to match my 2-way passive speakers.

I can absolutely say that the active nature of the speaker did not make it sound better. Or worse. It has merged perfectly with my side speakers.

Good thing then you're not in a position to settle anything - for anybody else than yourself, that is, and in a very limited, local context. A context btw. I'd urge you to challenge and broaden, and from the quoted part below it would seem there's an opportunity for you to do so:

I can also state that as a builder it was such a positive experience that I may very well be done with making passive speakers from now on.

That's a good outset, at least.

In your response to poster @roxy54:

I’ll argue that you heard ATC speakers that were better active than passive... and that you are extrapolating a universal truth from that which did not hold up for me.

It was his subjective opinion of a particular active speaker, as he clearly pointed out. He wasn't extrapolating any "universal truth."

Let me clarify my original point somewhat. I’m not backpedaling, but clarifying. Based on my experience, the mere conversion of a speaker from passive to active, or design of a speaker as active does not automatically make it better sounding in a meaningful way.

That is, if I were to take an existing speaker design, map the voltage transfer functions from the passive crossover to the active crossover with precision I’d end up with an equally good or bad sounding speaker.

No, it doesn't automatically make it better sounding converting speakers to active, and that's just it: it depends, but the potential is there for sure in a variety of contexts and to a bunch of peoples ears. 

And here’s the issue. The features available in DSP crossovers are vast and tempting. Even with the exact same box and drivers you almost never design the same crossover from one to the other. The economics of part costs and engineering effort needed upend what a good engineer will see as possible and you almost never get to hear a true apples to apples comparisons.

The point is, I can believe you heard two similar ATC speakers. I also believe the reproduction from the active speaker won you over. What I don’t know is all the differences that wend under the hood. Crossover points, slopes, time alignment, driver equalization, etc could all be different and so for me this is no longer a fair comparison.

It's not about fairness, but what the filter choices of active vs. passive offer respectively. You think ATC makes watered down versions of their passive variants? I can assure you they do not, and what their active iteration offers by comparison that the passive ditto doesn't comes down to the nature of active configuration and its inherent possibilities; if active comes out on top here, it's because this specific design route facilitates it. In any case I would say ATC is as good a ground for comparison here than any.

Speaking of fairness: do you think it's fair to base your findings of active speakers/configuration, as a conclusive statement no less, from class D plate amps and a DSP of unknown and questionable overall quality? From the get-go of your main speaker active endeavor it's been clear you've held the staunch decision to limit your context to these components only, which is fair enough, but going on then to make the bold statement that active speakers don't sound better is just seeing the train unrail. 

I will repeat though that using DSP/active configuration gives me a lot more features available to incorporate in my design, and I can be very happy with the results but also not able to say "active is always going to sound better" because I don’t believe that to be true.

Who makes this claim, that active is always going to sound better? 

I'd be happy to see you exploring active configuration down the road in a variety of permutations that isn't only about plate amps with integrated DSP's, and then let's see where you're standing in all this. 

Well, for one thing the bass amp isn't driving the treble or vice versa, so you can optimize with actives in a way that you can't with passives. Second, you have more options with actives, e.g. Bessell filters. Just try that with passives. Third, you can afford  exotic parts (0.01 caps instead of 10u caps) for actives which might not even exists for passives , e.g. nude Vishay resistors.

So yes, it is possible to create an active x-over which is not better - but why?

@phusis +10

Mike

Thank you @phusis