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.
@rajugsw , I understand your point about the benefits of external amps. You can adapt the sound of a lot of active speakers with built in controls on the plate amp (volume, treble, bass, crossover point, etc). For example, look at the back of this speaker in the pics on the website, you won't get that on a passive speaker:
|
I don't understand why either design, active or passive, should be inherently better than the other (w.r.t. sound quality.) .My floor-standers are offered in both passive and active designs. I chose passive. I did not want almost all the system eggs in one big, heavy, expensive basket. If anything went wrong (probably more likely with the electronics) shipping them out for service would have been a real pain. |
@rajugsw wrote:
The JBL M2’s pictured above are actively configured speakers, yet the accompanying Crown amps with built-in DSP are outward to the speakers as amps would be with typical passively configured speakers. Most active speakers are configured as bundled packages, but it (i.e.: bundled) is not what defines an actively configured speaker (see my post above). If you’re a bit of DIY’er (or can see yourself as such) you can assemble an actively configured setup with separate, outward components through and through like you would with a passive system, and get to learn setting the filter values by yourself. This way you’ll have the most elaborate set of "tone controls" at your disposal, yet as an integral part of the electronic or digital cross-over they’re without the detrimental effects found in the simplistic and sonically degrading tone controls that’re imposed over an existing passive setup. As such, and with a bit of diligence, you can have your cake and eat it too. |
@phusis Wrote:
I agree! Mike |
I can't comment on active vs passive speakers, except to say I would hope that the speaker designer would test many amp configurations to find the best "bar none". It has always seemed sort of self defeating to have the output signal from an amp to have to power a crossover network. I have always thought (forty years or more) that the way to go is electronically separate the frequencies PRIOR to them being amplified and then feed them to the appropriate driver. Yes the amps should have the same power factors and damping factors. Staying in the same family of amps can mostly negate this problem. And hopefully phase shift is not an issue. I say this without the aid of measurement on my part, just listening. My system uses four amps and a Marchand 3 way electronic XO. Two mono blocks to drive the woofers, a stereo amp to drive the midrange and a stereo amp to drive the tweeters. In this configuration when the bass is really heavy none of the other amps have a clue what the two bass amps are doing and they just keep playing sweetly. Just my take on the myriad possibilities to set up a satisfactory system. I love the way my system sounds...it is somewhat complicated in the wiring aspect but that is just one and done if you get it right. YMMV. Regards, barts
|
