The fun fact is that most studio monitors, i.e. the speakers the producers and sound engineers listen to while the music is being made, are active (near field) speakers.
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.
- ...
- 75 posts total
Not knowing the rest of Mr. Borresen’s explanation on why he clearly favors passive over actively configured speakers, I’d say the above is a peculiar answer of his, and one that would seem not to take into account what ’active’ really entails. Because active can be "separates" as well, and coming down to it whether it’s a bundled or separate component solution of active is not what defines its overall merits and defined status as active; it’s that the cross-over (analogue electronic or digital/DSP) is situated prior to amplification as a signal I/O, and not as a passive cross-over on the output side of the amp between that and the drives. @lonemountain wrote:
Wiring is a factor, yes, and going by the active-as-separates solution that more or less mimics the component configuration of a passive setup (sans of course the addition of an active XO and extra amp channels, while not least subtracting the passive XO), wiring is still a consideration to factor in here. It would say though that the freedom it lends working with an active setup this way, while maintaining the traits that comes from filtering prior to amplification and the amp-to-driver-direct connection it offers, has so many things going for it that wiring is really the least of it. And yet it offers the individual from the passive "camp" who’s used to (and possibly enjoys) working with cables and their means as a tweaking device to retain this element into an active-as-separates setup, in which case the divide going from passive to active would come down to the essentials of filter settings - unless they’d been preset from a manufacturer to a given pair of speakers. Ad 1). +1 Ad 2). +1 Ad 3). +1 Ad 4). It’s certainly about the importance of the location of circuitry in this case and what replacing it with another means. Subtracting circuitry from being situated between the amp and drivers and taking the whole of amplifier power is the essential aspect, while its addition on signal level prior to amplification is the least interfering part to place it while accommodating the superior amp to driver control without a passive XO interfering here. Ad 5). True. That being said amp matching with drivers in an actively configured setup is a lot easier given the much more appropriate working conditions an amp is presented with here. With passive speakers it’s more or less all about finding an amp that is impervious to load, much more so with complex an wattage draining passive filters in many "high-end" speakers, and how the more pragmatic scenario of not finding an amp that is exactly that very much affects the overall presentation of sound coming from the speakers. It also feeds the market for expensive amps with sturdy PSU’s, progressively so with complex/heavily filtered high-end segment speakers. This is not to say amp matching in an actively configured scenario doesn’t matter, in fact this is where it can really be taken to another level, but the outset of working with amps here is much more favorable so that a fitting combination is more easily found. Many don’t take this into consideration. However, an active speaker + amp manufacturer in many if not most cases is also confronted with the need to cut corners, and while fortunately they have the better outset working on amps in an active context and the specific tailoring that can be brought about here, it is also rare to see such a manufacturer use a pure class A amp feeding the MF/HF section for example, or otherwise going an extra mile with their amps that might add that smidgen of refinement some are looking for. In an active-as-separates configuration this is what you can do and have the freedom to pursue. @erik_squires wrote:
That’s very much me, sans the "constantly switching out to try something new" line. But thank you, I certainly enjoy the outcome of working with an active setup this way, i.e.: configuring drivers and horns with multiple types of amplifiers. Of course, some element of joy taking on this approach is necessitated, and I very much "subscribe" to that. The reason though for my replying here is to stress the fact that even though this is how I am going about it (and I’m sure many others in a similar situation as well), it isn’t necessarily to say that a "constantly trying something new" aspect is what follows; actually, it’s not in the least the primary or even secondary motivation to embark on something like this. What is however is sonic outcome, and an active-as-separates solution is one to lend a degree of freedom and uninhibitedness to this endeavor that’s very rewarding to me. A bundled approach would be very stifling and limiting to me, although I can understand why manufacturers are heading this way (while I would encourage others to go the separates route). "Tinkering" here is what comes from the necessity of working with an active-as-separates solution where finding amps, electronic/DSP XO, the proper speakers/driver/horn elements and not least setting filter values are of primary concern. This approach naturally calls for that, but at the end of the day it all comes from the desire to achieve great sound - uninhibitedly, unapologetically, and as something I don’t have to revisit all too frequently with regard to the setting up process. A small component change in the chain however can necessitate minute filter adjustments, and that’s not because of the need to change just for the sake of change, but because with a setup like this it’s what I can do to ameliorate an ever so slight sonic imbalance to bring back the overall presentation to where I find it’s supposed to be. |
Just putting my thought out: aren't passive capacitors and coils (C an L), and maybe even resistors causing a PHASE shift on passive crossovers, and NOT so using active crossovers? In my mind, the question is active vs passive CROSSOVER. 40 years ago, we built our own active crossovers (and tri amped our Electro Voice (I think it was called a Sentry 3?) and made it sound great even on classic music). I know bought (still in box) a miniDSP 4x2HD with hopes it can provide a 2 or 3 way active crossover (to drive my Infinity Quantum 2 with seperate amps for the Watkin bass, mide cone and dome tweeter/EMIT tweeter (maybe tube amp?).
|
Over many decades, I have listened and owned many, many speakers, trying to replicate the kind of live sound I was hearing in the mixing room of a friend's recording studio. My hunch is that crossovers are very damaging devices. After all, their goal is to kill music. I think they introduce some form of distortion that I don't like. Phase ? I don't know, but electrostatics sound clean to me, as well as the Dali Callisto 6C active I had. Last year I listented to ove half a milllion $ of speakers for my new home. In the end I chose Borrenses's Raidho X3. In this 2.5 speaker, there are two pairs of mid bass drivers. The designer MB explains that at the crossover points, there are distortions which attract the attention of the ears. Thus he did two things: make sure that at that point the measured SPL response is reduced, and that the volume of the other pair of drivers is louder than the pair which are crossing over . So to me these speakers sound clean, like if they were electrostatics, but with the focus and punch of dynamic drivers. Active speakers, bi-amping and biwire are ways to avoind crossover distortion. Active speakers can be considerably more economical than their equivalent in separates for a given SQ. But still it is possible and fun to tweak the sound with separates and wires of all kinds. My wires alone (Transparent Ultra with The Q concept 500 and Luna Red with Raidhos X3) are worth much more than the actve Dalis and Triangles I had. The members of this Forum are probably inclined to follow this latter route. But in some applications, active speakers are certainly a good solution. |
- 75 posts total