active speakers, Paradise? Trouble in paradise?

Virtually every multi driver loudspeaker system has to "slice and dice" the signal with a x-over of some sort. In the broadest sense, if the x-over is ahead of the power amps in the signal path, the speaker can be called "active", because the x-over unit is an active component. Even if the active crossover, power amps and "drivers in cabinet" are each from a separate manufacturer, this is still an active loudspeaker set-up.

A single driver type monitor coupled to a powered subwoofer are, in this sense, an "active loudspeaker".

I think some people prefer to restrict the use of the phrase "active loudspeaker" to an integrated, active loudspeaker system in which all three functions (active x-over, amp, and speaker) are sold as a system.

Personally, I use the broader definition.

Marty

BTW, if you use exclusively digital sources (or don't mind A-D-A conversion of your analog sources), you could look at digitally room corrected active systems. In addition to the sophisticated room correcting EQ function, these designs go a step further in refining the "slicing and dicing" function of the x-over. Both Merdian and DEQX powered active speakers (like those from Salk, if they still make 'em), for example, employ active x-overs operating in the digital domain. This set-up offers certain extra benefits (in theory, at least) over even analog active systems.

I’m having a hard time discerning any diffs from filters used in active x overs, and passive x overs… apart from this one thing.

An active line level crossover can use much steeper slopes than a passive kind. The line level signal is much less affected by the sonic characteristics of the capacitor used. The phase of the signal can also be adjusted optimally. There is no need for padding resistors to try to match the sensitivities of the drivers to the lowest common denominator (the least sensitive driver in the passive design). There are no awkward phase angles that may give an amplifier a tough load (high current demand due to complex low impedance).

There really is no contest. Active is just a far better way to skin the cat of distributing the audio signal between different transducers.

OK Bob.. Thanks…

I’ll cruise by Sound on Sound and have a look around.

Marty
Makes sense to me, as that definition coincides with my critical thinker. Active meaning all 3 sides of the triangle are in play… filtering, amplification, and drivers in one container… digitally fed with on board dAC or not.

But I think I get it.

The active feature is confining the amps field of operation for the prescribed driver as to optimize the drivers performance. Many have on board power for one or more drivers, and MAY offer a passive option to bypass these items… or not.

A fair amount of active speakers are fully self contained, requiring no additional power.

Shaterne
There really is no contest. Active is just a far better way to skin the cat of distributing the audio signal between different transducers.

This could be very right.

Do you feel active units present a better value for one’s speaker buying buck?

Jim,

The value question is tough, because the active pro audio gear is usually built to withstand commercial abuse (probably not required for home use), generally less "jewel-like" in finish than passive high end speakers, and also usually very expensive. Also the interconnects are often balanced XLR for studio use, which may mean re-cabling for some buyers. Probably not a formula for great value.

OTOH, the Paradigm Active 40s I mentioned, fed by a quality CD player with variable output, repesents IMHO ridiculously high value. Even if purchased new at MSRP, that set-up punched way, way above its price class. I believe that has also been true of some other consumer/home studio offerings like those from NHT or KRK.

The B&O and Merdian style DRC equipment seems to run more to luxe pricing (relative to passive speakers coupled with DRC equipped preamps plus full range power amps). Most of the OEM DEQX powered gear that I've seen looks like it's priced more or less "competiviely" with passive highend gear.

Bottom line: a carefully chosen active set up can represent unusual value. If chosen without regard to price, high performance active speakers will carry a hefty price tag.

The big disadvantage in the market is not IMHO - performance or performance for money. It's the lack of flexibility. This is a hobby, and hobbyists generally like to mix and match.

Just one more point of view.

Marty

Marty

Good stuff... great points.

I noticed a lot of what you posted just now by simply looking into the PMC line up and a couple others, more closely. Aluminum cabinets for rigidity and heat sink collaboration… and a more industrial esthetic.

Flexibility too is the facet which increases the value, or bang for buck aspect of any device.... eg., Legacy DSW's, Doug mixed into the thread earlier. Now that is indeed a flexible design, once appointed properly. Had I that sort of green, I'd already have dialed up Legacy... and worried about my room dimensions later.

However, I am getting the feeling here, with active (self contained) speakers, many comparisons and bang for buck notions will hinder an honest approach to acquiring some great floorstanders in my case. Albeit too, great floorstanders, or even above the cut sorts might be past my grasp. I'd want units now that can dip down to a flat 30 or below, With authority and ease. Grace and honesty too when called for and especially in the top end.

I'd like very much, going forward, to make this next move a step up... not a sideways one.

So if there is a Sonata III out there in active loudspeakers with better performance, and affordable, I'm in... otherwise, I'm gonna just pinball my way around till something else grabs me I suppose.