Active Speakers Don't Sound Better

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

That said, I disagree with reviewers who have said that going active with ATC is the only way to go. They sound great being passively driven as well. 

So how did you go about correcting for non linearity in the drivers? Do you use PEQs in the amps or external software etc. 

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 

I have both active and passive ATC speakers. The passive ones murder the active ones any day of the week.

Hmmmm, a sampling of one....

+1@roxy54 

@riie 

That's very interesting! Are you talking about equivalent models? Which ones? What preamplifier and amplifier, respectively, did you use?

....as one who’s applied DSP since the ’80’s and quasi-active monoblocks (L-07 mono-blocks with 1 m. supplied cables...will that ’stand-in’ for active speakers? Getting ’close to concept’ in practice if not ’inboard’ within the cabinet....), I’d be onboard with ’active v. passive’ approach....

...given a more than average amount of ac plugs about your listening space...|
...a uptick in the count of ’improved’ ac cables And IC cables ’twixt pre- and active drivers...which begins to look like ’shaving peaches’ imho....
...one is relying on the ’amp in the box’, which may/may not to be your tastes....

Even dialing in a self-powered sub can be a bitch....and varies from source to source.....
Micro-management to the point of excess? Perhaps....

...why would I lie?

Ultimately....what we’re searching for is making the means.... do This.

...why should I lie? ;)

Any and all options are open to be applied, per your mind, ears, space, budget, and Intent,....like me. *S*

Try this......the backing is nice...varied....

My hill to climb is vibrations. Just on the most simplistic of evaluations placing an amp inside a speaker seems problematic. But seems more and more popular. 

I understand the simplicity, and especially time savings. Passive crossovers can take a long time to evaluate, change, burn in, re-evaluate, etc. ...But...there are pro and cons with every option, and like most things, execution of a given principle is a key factor, as is the objective.

+1 jpwarren58 … vibration isolation

There are even benefits (in passive speaker design) to having the xover Not in the Box… but separate, isolated and protected from physical vibrations. Biggest surprise/improvement in the evolution from prototype to “finished” unit I have experienced (in my most recent build). (Small sample, not a Universal Statement or Pontification… just sayin’…)

A major growth in part counts and crossover complexity

If I ever get active speakers, it would be to go in the opposite direction (towards a lower parts count). I bet this is a big motivator for many others who switch.

The question then is, if I get the active version of exactly the same pair of speakers I now use (and like), will it sound even better? Enough to justify the cost and inconvenience of the switch? My speakers are the JansZen Valentina P8s. JansZen does offer an active version, the A8. Or maybe someone can compare the active/passive version of a more popular speaker (such as a Kef product).. But you’d need to constrain the comparison so it’s as close to apples-to-apples as possible (in terms of the component quality etc.)

Just to clarify a bit, the demonstration that I heard was long ago, and I have no memory of the ancillaries that were being used, and even if I did, I realize that there are countless variables involved. I do not believe that there is an inherent superiority to active speakers.

as long as they operate properly, active speakers are  a convenience like bluetooth is or a walkman or something like that. theyre not supposed to sound better. theyre not supposee to perform better. you dont stick an amp inside a speaker box for better SQ and performance. you stick it there to get it out of the way. 

@cey 

Now that's baloney! There are very high end speakers in addition to ATC that are active.

@roxy54 + 1

Active may have a higher ceiling when implemented well, I don’t know. The Dynaudio Focus xd towers I had for a while didn’t do it for me. 

@roxy54 of course there are, and my assertion doesnt remove that from the realm of posiibilities or experiences, nor is it incompatible with the reality of high end speakers with built-in amplification.

and still, you dont stick an amp inside a speaker to make it better. you do it so the customer doesnt have to bother with amps.  

"Green cars are better than blue cars."

Of course its all relative. There are pluses and minuses to just about everything. Dedicating on-board amplification to each driver is a potential benefit but the quality of those amplifiers must also be considered as well as the specific design.  ATC speakers have been mentioned, and both Grimm Audio and Kii Audio have  done fairly well using Class D amplifiers in their active designs.

I do want to point out that as the builder of an active, 3-way speaker I can point out a number of ways in which this is a technically superior speaker vs. what I would have made as a passive version. Also that my workflow is so much simpler I’ll probably never design or build a passive speaker again.

As others have pointed out, there are a number of power efficiency problems greatly improved upon by using an active design. Those are some of the ways in which I can point to this speaker having better specs. At the same time, in a home where 10 watts is a lot, I may never hear it.

What it did not do was actually "sound better" within my modest volume requirements in my small living room. It did not say "I’m so much better than every other speaker in this room." What it does say is "I’m so much better for this living room than a lot of other designs" which is what I wanted and why I bothered to take the effort to build it. Among those requirements was introducing no more devices. I wanted to swap my previous passive, 2-way center for a powered 3-way, not add 3 more amplifiers, a 3-way crossover and a center.

Erik and others - maybe you have a comment.

I have not tried top of the line active speakers. Only mid level and below. But my experience is this: take the 'passive' speaker from a pair of active speakers. Instead of the output from the amp in the active speaker, give it the output of a good amp (in my case, the amp in my main rig).

Result - to my ears, it usually sounds much better! So I am sad, reconnecting it to the so-so amp in the other speaker.

Comment?

BTW, I want to point out that the plate amplifier in my center is in a sealed sub-compartment.  The simple box-shape actually has 3 separate chambers:

1. Woofers
2. Mid/tweeter chamber
3. Plate amplifier

All quite sturdy.  The amplifier is not directly subjected to the woofer's output, nor is the midrange or tweeter. 

The tweeter itself shares the space with the midrange but it is a closed-back design.

Stick some tubes in there and see if that helps.

@o_holter

You make exactly the right argument for an external, active crossover.  If you want to roll your own amps you can't do this with a fully active speaker design. 

My listening trends lately have been a lot more about movies than music though, so as I transition to more active speakers I'm interested in minimizing devices and cables as much as I can. 

Seems to me the greatest motivation in buying active speakers is to save space.  They're already making speakers smaller to have people more happy about buying them as evidence by smaller driver sizes which I think has been a negative.

Now because the speaker designs have drivers that are too small you have to buy subwoofers because the bass  can't be  handled as well because currently produced narrower main speakers are to narrow.

Of course they can produce active speakers that sound good but then there's always power issues and concerns that maybe can't be solved anymore which otherwise could be solved by buying a new amplifier for passive speaker.

Isn't it really that simple

“Seems to me the greatest motivation in buying active speakers is to save space.”

Don’t forget convenience. With active speakers, you could literally have a single component (streaming DAC) with variable volume control (certainly not rare these days) and all you would need is an Ethernet cable to the network, a pair of ICs, and “Bob’s your uncle.”

@o_holter wrote:

I have not tried top of the line active speakers. Only mid level and below. But my experience is this: take the ’passive’ speaker from a pair of active speakers. Instead of the output from the amp in the active speaker, give it the output of a good amp (in my case, the amp in my main rig).

Result - to my ears, it usually sounds much better! So I am sad, reconnecting it to the so-so amp in the other speaker.

Comment?

What’re the technicalities of your experience/experiment here? I mean, what do you do filter-wise with the active speakers once you’ve stripped them to a passive state - fit them with passive crossovers between the amp and drivers instead, or use the existing DSP and then combine it with your own external amp + 2 more amp channels if it’s a 2-way design?

Let’s say it’s a 2-way speaker you’d want to keep actively configured, then you would need to add another of your preferred stereo amp (one for each driver section), somehow use the existing DSP and your once active speaker with built-in amps and DSP has now been retrofitted by-passing their internal amps and re-configured actively with amps of your choosing. Is that the way of it?

@erik_squires wrote:

@o_holter

You make exactly the right argument for an external, active crossover. If you want to roll your own amps you can’t do this with a fully active speaker design.

Wrong. A fully active speaker design can be done fitting it all into the speaker as well as having the amps and DSP external to it. Semantically you wouldn’t call the latter an active speaker per se because its amp and DSP components are external to it, but insofar the crossover function via the DSP is done prior to the amplification on signal level (and they’re no passive crossover parts between the amps and drivers) and the respective amp channel are connected directly to their driver sections, it’s a fully actively configured speaker design. Period, end of f*cking story.

Fully actively one can use any external amp one sees fit, as long as you have enough of them to cover the respective driver sections. You would of course need an external DSP as well (again: prior to amplification on signal level, and sans passive XO parts for it to be called fully active), the real challenge being setting filter values - certainly if they’re done on your own. Or, a manufacturer could set the filter values just as they would, basically, a passive crossover - like ATC (electronic, analogue XO), Bryston, Sanders Sound, JBL etc. - and provide them as part of the design one way of the other. The ATC SCM300 Pro ASL’s, and others, have power amps and electronic XO/DSP external to the speakers, but that doesn’t make them any less actively configured.

@erik_squires Wrote:

Active Speakers Don’t Sound Better

They do at my house!

In my experience, when I horizontally bi-amped my speakers with an active analog crossover design by the same manufacturer (of the speakers) it brought my speakers two notches above the passive crossover in sound quality. There were lots of improvements with an active crossover, four that stood out the most were better dynamics and transient response in the bass, highs were cleaner and better delineated, the sound was more live sounding then recorded. All amplifiers and active crossovers are external of the speakers. In my opinion, amps inside speakers is not a good idea because the amps are subject to all the vibrations and air pressure and stray electromagnetic fields from the drivers inside the speaker cabinet. I guess I’m not a passive guy. LOL See here. 😎

A bit of history for the fun of it, the first powered and active speakers from JBL 1959-64 Hartfield and Paragon see here.

@donquichotte

I have both SCM20 passive and active and also SCM150 passive and active.

The preamps are Mcintosh C1100 and the amps are MC1.25KW for the 150s and MC462 for the 20. The DAC is MSB Premier and all Cardas cables. I can tell you that ATC speakers love power.

the comparison is that (at least to my ears) the passives are in every aspect better except that the actives are ever so slightly more detailed.

I hear a lot of comments about vibration, and while I have had equipment that was subject to microphonics, that was in the late 1980s and probably because of the use of very cheap ceramic capacitors. I think that overall, outside of tubes and turntables, the subjects is a bogey man without a shred of evidence. It’s a real shame because honestly it’s super easy to test for. I mean, super easy. And I’ve yet to see anyone produce a credible study that vibrations or isolation of solid state gear matters.

Please put me down as a complete skeptic until someone has any sort of study showing any piece of solid state gear has microphonics.  I'm definitely not going to worry about a separate enclosure housing  an amp.

I started a post about this subject and there were over 69k comments people know active and powered speakers are better in so many ways.

powered speakers have amps in them 

active speakers can be connected to external crossovers and amps

passive speakers have built in speaker level crossovers.

These speakers show the ridiculous cult of the audiophile, I’ve listened to many systems in which the most expensive component was the speaker cables, so why not get rid of the cables altogether? Doing crossover electronics designed for one driver and its amplifier at line level is obviously better than designing a speaker level crossover for some amp that you don’t know essential aspects of the amp and its specs. And in the professional world of recording studios powered speakers are practically the only choice. Also all the audiophiles who spend 25k on their vibration isolating equipment racks imagine the hostile environment of 120db inside a speaker to an amp, they sound fine. I think all the ultra high end new speakers in the last year from Magico, SonusFaber and the like are all using external crossovers. The only equipment manufacture that designs every aspect of their systems in this way is Steinway. I spoke to the head Bryson engineer and he said of course powered speakers are better but people are still reluctant to embrace them. Sad 

The only way to properly evaluate this on a like for like basis is to amplify the passive speaker with the same amplification as the active speaker. That's somewhere between difficult and impossible to do.

Absent that, what's being compared is amplifier/crossover combinations and not speakers.

@riie

Thanks.I can see you didn’t cheap out on those electronics. Perhaps this is one reason why your passives sound better than the actives? I don’t think the plate amps in the actives can be compared with the much more expensive Mcintosh powered amps. Just saying...

I was very interested in the ATC 40 actives for a while, but upon listening they were kinda boring, with a discolored and over-controlled sound, maybe it was the cabling used (some Nodost I think). Some passive 19's in a different system were pretty good, though, precise, detailed, competent.

Active loudspeakers have widespread use in pro audio. If they didn't sound good I doubt they would be used as much if at all.

Active loudspeakers have widespread use in pro audio. If they didn't sound good I doubt they would be used as much if at all.

@bottomzone  Absolutely true.  Active crossovers offer significant benefits in power efficiency that is much more important for megawatt installations than modest home speakers though, so pros are much more heavily invested in active configurations.  In the home we can afford to waste some watts for level matching, etc.

@phusis - my experiments have been very simple. No special filtering or DSP. Mainly with desktop or small monitors. I just unplug the speaker without the amp from the speaker with the amp. This is a speaker-level connection. Then I plug the speaker without amp to my main amp. Often, it sounds better. I make no claim that this happens with more costly speakers. But it makes me think that ’affordable’ active speakers will often sound better with a better amp. The amp really matters. Of course this is the case with passive speakers too. And I think that the quality of the amp is more important than if it is placed in a speaker cabinet or outside it.

My experiments can be ’shot down’ since in a sense they are grossly unfair. The amps I’ve used for comparing are much more costly than the speakers. You cant get the sound from the Atma-sphere MA-1 or the Krell FPB600 from inside a compact active speaker. Not that I know of. So my only point, in describing the experiments, is to draw attention to the quality of the amp in the active speakers - I think this is often overlooked.

An argument for active speakers is that the amp and speakers can be more closely matched and tuned to each other. Yet I have not been gripped by this, with the low cost active speakers I have tried. Instead, the big amps just made the speaker sound better. Interestingly, this main effect was the same even with two quite different amps (tube, solid state). My guess is that ’matching’ in affordable active speakers is only approximate, "good enough", so and so many watts drive them to required volume. The amp and the matching are hopefully much better with mid to top level active speakers - I have not tried.

Whatever the technical advantages in active designs,

I’ve yet to hear a paradigm changing moment, listening to an active design.

To me, they just sound like “yet another speaker” - They sound very good but not wow this is something new.

I auditioned the Kii Audi 3 Active speakers a number of times.

One time I was able to directly compare them with a whole bunch of my test tracks

Versus a spendor classic  1/2  Passive stand mount.

I end up preferring the Spendor.  

I own a pair of Audio Pro A4-14 (with mods and updates) and I am very familiar with Meridian and B&O powered speakers. At the time of release for each and every model that I was exposed to, I thought there was something to it, granted the Meridian and B&O speakers were always connected as part of the companies' systems. I heard a pair of ATC powered speakers, and I was surprised at the dynamics and SPL they were providing. I still prefer non powered speakers with awesome ss amplification.

And Shrek looked at Donkey and said "do you think he's compensating?"

Now, I'll return to listening to my awesome system not bothered for a nanosecond about opinions of others and enjoy the artistry of world class musicians and vocalists.   That's my world.  Ciao Bella

Audioengine A5+ is one of the better non expensive active speakers that I own. They now sound quite well integrated (drivers / amp), but needed much time to break in, at first I did not like them. They are also well designed, benefitting from a bigger size box. They sound much better on stands. Still, my Aurum Cantus 2 passive speakers, slightly larger, sound better, more refined, with a very good ribbon tweeter. I was lucky to find them used for a price ca = the A5+. Both go beyond the typical bookshelf (or desktop) role, and are able to fill a room reasonably well (on stands).

Cheap Active speakers are OK for the Garage system.....but Audiophiles like to experiment with amps, pre- amps cables , inter-connects and have fun doing so. It's our "Hobby"....Active speakers...You're stuck!

 Wow. Is there really a debate over where to put one's amplifiers?

Fascinating.

A very fair and detailed review of the ATC SCM 50 active / passive.

My take is if you have a big budget for a poweramp, then sure, the passive ATC version may suit you better and indeed sound better. But the VFM with ATC actives is undeniable, the performance vs money spent is crazy good.

https://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/equipment-menu/1135-atc-scm50-passive-active-loudspeaker

I know the dealers don’t like them much. The sell less cables and cable risers.😁

I think @prof best summarized what I was trying to say at the beginning:

Whatever the technical advantages in active designs,

I’ve yet to hear a paradigm changing moment, listening to an active design.

At the end of the day the active or passive speaker is an amalgam of all the choices made between the listener and the preamp but for the home there's no big paradigm shift in perceived sound quality due to the use of active or passive alone. 

Given that, I'll take simplicity and value as significant value indicators. 

I didn't read previous posts so apologize if I'm repeating someone.  The appeal of active speakers for me was the frustration of buying passive speakers and bringing them home to find they sounded completely different! Dealers will say the speakers need time to break in to get past the return date and after that begin the component merry go round! active is supposed to remove the variable of component matching.