I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...

McIntosh could pull it off. I could see a Mac tower speaker with a built in, specially designed amp. Complete with a blue meter below the woofer somewhere. That would get people's attention at lease

aberyclark :-)

Active can be better because there is no power lost, nor frequency perversions, from having to use more massive crossovers from amps, versus pre-amps.  This does not mean that the active speakers available are not going to be compromised by manufacturing costs.  Saying that the builder does not do such is naivety in the extreme.

Tsunami coming

@douglas_schroeder --

Further, so now it’s being said that you can have an "active" speaker without the amps in the box! Well, isn’t THAT a revelation! I always thought that was designated a speaker with an active x-over. That opens up questions, doesn’t it? So, you apparently, according to some, do not need the amps in the box to have an active speaker. Huh, I thought the amp right there without cables was supposed to be a huge boon to the result. Apparently in the minds of some, that’s not so important; we can just screw around with the build and no problem, "active" is still better! Of course, no actual comparisons are necessary, as is typical when someone makes conclusions based on mind experiments rather than actual system building. Do we see a pattern here? Of course; the same pattern that plagues the entire hobby and this site.

Yes, an active speaker should have (at least) build-in amps and DSP/electronic cross-over to be called exactly that. However, when pointed out the negatives of not being able to choose your own amps, DSP/elec. XO or even DAC in such a bundled constellation, it implicitly begs: what if we could choose our own electronic devices as a solution of separates that’s so urgently desired, and uphold it as an active set-up? Well, sure we can!

Ask yourself: why be limited to an active speaker as one of a bundled package (that can still be a great one), typically pre-assembled and -configured, when an active configuration is defined through the cross-over being placed prior to amplification on signal level? Yes, cables are likely to be longer with active-as-separates, certainly IC’s depending on the physical config., but you still get the essential benefit of active, and you can get to choose the components YOU prefer - like you would with a passive set-up. Of course: it involves your part to set it up, and so is not one thought out for you - mostly, at least.

I can’t speak for others, but drawing comparisons on passive vs. active would of course entail the active solution having being done to full completion from scratch and to more than hold its own vs. the passive counterpart. More on that below.

I don’t understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active crossover and your choice of amps.

Um, kind of sort of, but not fully. There are a couple of things you are missing:

1 - Crossovers are more than Hz and slope. They also have EQ features and level matching.
2 - You have to remove the internal crossover to achieve all the benefits of an active speaker system, especially higher efficiency.

Consider for instance that most tweeters are padded down because they tend to have a higher sensitivity than their mid/woofer counter parts. That is, there are resistors in there which are converting power to heat. If you remove them, then there’s no such waste.

Next, your external crossover is additive, not in place of the existing crossover and slope, so things get complicated. Now instead of 1 high-pass filter, and 1 low pass filter you have 2 of each.

So, if you do remove the internal crossover, you will also have to make up for any EQ that was built in.

I mean, it’s not a completely useless idea to use an external crossover on a speaker designed to be bi-wired or bi-amped, but it’s also not the same as a fully active system.

Yes it is; filtration prior to amplification on signal level, sans any passive filters between the amp(s) and drivers, is a fully active configuration - be that as a bundled package or one of separates. As separates it isn’t an ’active speaker’ per se, but it’s still fully actively configured.

The speaker set-ups I’ve heard where comparisons between passive and active could be "investigated," were passive speaker set-ups converted to active dittos by wholly extracting the passive cross-over(s), and then adding an external digital XO and more amp channels (plus extra cables). New filter settings were then implemented digitally from scratch, and in some cases with waveguide designs with non-linear acoustic amplification that’s no easy task. My own horns amplify linearly, so that was somewhat easier.

Doing the filter settings by yourself, sans passive filters, involves everything - be that from gain matching between drivers and to the subs, choosing XO frequencies, filter slope type and steepness, delay, PEQ with q-values and their frequency settings and gain, measurements, etc. An arduous task for sure, but it’s a steep learning curve well rewarded, and moreover setting up the cross-over digitally can be done on-the-fly, from the listening position with your laptop/tablet. Once you get a hang of it it’s actually quite freeing.

So, active-as-separates IS fully active when configured as outlined above. Where it potentially involves a lot is on the part of setting up the cross-over digitally by oneself. An intimidating thought for many, as it was for me, but get your head around it and the effort will be rewarded.