Active Speakers Better? No, per Michael Borresen


The best sounding speaker I have had the pleasure to hear is made by Borresen.

I recently spent time with Michael Borresen in Seattle at a show. It was slow so

I was able to speak with him for a time. I asked him if he plans an active speaker. 

His answer was a definitive and immediate "No". He said separates sound better.

 

His statement flies in the face of what passes in most audio corners as commonly recognized facts. 

 

Sadly I am too technically challenged to convey any of his further explanation.

 

I invite all intelligent commentary on this question. Theoretical or not.

jeffseight

Active or passive are equally good. Doesn't matter at what end the amps are placed. Speaker wire should be a non-issue. I hold that it is all transparent to the source and therefore of no consequence. Only the neurotically obsessed fixate on the length of speaker wire as a tone control, which is eliminated by going active. If you must have active then I recommend a pair of Genelec monitors.

I own both active and passive speakers. If you listen to acoustic music at low volumes I don’t think you could tell the difference. Dynamic music and music at higher volumes sounds better to my ears with active speakers. This is the active speaker I own and it has a passive counter part (Paradigm Active 40 vs passive 40). Guess which one Paradigm says is better (and has measurements to prove it):

"But active loudspeakers have some distinct advantages over their passive counterparts. In fact, when I asked the designers at Paradigm which technology was better, active or passive (since the company makes both types of speakers), I couldn’t even finish my sentence before the word "active" was rushed back at me. There was just no second thought about it. But why?"

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/paradigm_active40.htm

Each designer has to work with what they got, for Michael, passive must be better for his designs.