Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

Nice to hear from you @lonemountain great info. Is there any way someone can use specs to put together a high end system that is active? What I’m asking for is a way to use the specs on speakers amps and crossovers that would work together optimally, I’m sure the answer is no but why. Say I buy a very expensive spare of speakers and then take the passive crossovers out then pick amps for the drivers together with outboard electronic crossovers. I really don’t want to guess when spending so much money.

I think that’s what amazes some pro folks, that "active" is a very well worn path with evidence stretching 20+ years of success and satisfied customers. ATC and Genelec may have pioneered it, but it’s certainly well understood now. The simplest benefit isn’t DSP related, it’s developing a phase linear loudspeaker. There are still all the debates about directivity, dispersion, low end etc, but active is not a new or questionable feature in loudspeakers anymore, especially when compared to the mess passive crossovers leave behind and unresolved (lack of driver phase control being just one of many problems left behind)

As said earlier in this thread, I’ve directly A/B’d active and passive of the identical model speaker, same room, same music, using the same exact amp designs (example: ATC SCM50 active vs ATC SCM50 passive with ATC P2 full range amplification which uses the same exact devices and topology of the active amp designs). The "tone" is NOT that different. The speakers sounds very similar spectrally and many would never be able to tell the difference because the bass is very close, the high end is close, the mid range is still in the same place in the overall sound. Some listeners will use a quick listen and spectral similarity as evidence of "it’s not a benefit" or "they sound the same". But given some time, some attention, you will hear a growing difference in details, fine resolution, imaging, separation of instruments and separation of distinct unique elements (like "reverb tails" in the finished mastered track. Once you hear that info, you cannot unhear it. You get frustrated that passive just smooths all this information over, covers it up in the background, the mix now is somehow missing the little elements the artist and mix engineer worked so damn hard to put in there for you, but content wise it sounds very similar. Sort of like a better pair of glasses help you see previously hidden details in a painting.

In the record building process, there is a stage of mixing where the engineer works on "balance", the relative balance of bass vs treble you could say. Are the drums forward enough or should they be less loud compared to the guitars? Are background vocals loud enough or too loud? For this lower resolution passive nearfields are quite handy, things like Auratones and NS10s, etc help you hear balance quite well. But once you get past that, to work on making the guitar track PERFECT, you need resolution so you can hear every mistake, every tiny error. IF everyone does does their job right, the final record is nearly error free- and it is a marvel to hear! a well done record is so emotionally moving and engaging you can’t stop listing to it. You are impacted in a way that nothing else does.

[as evidence, if you can stand country for one moment, listen to "Send it On Down" by Lee Ann Womack- it is a master class in well done mixes (by Chuck Ainlay) with tiny details galore. Or if you like orchestra, listen to Linda Ronstadt Nelson Riddle (done by George Massenburg)- it’s like you can hear a single viola in the orchestra it’s so clear. These mixes have so much detail in them you could listen for hours and hours. Both were built on highly resolving actives.]

Engineers in the pro business sound just like audiophiles to me, Some of them use different converters for a specific song to get the "flavor" right.  Some of them use a unique microphone on different vocals with the same person to get the "tone" or the "feel" of a particular song right.  There is endless debate about what is right.  But what there is little debate about is active vs passive.

Brad 

@lonemountain ,

I am a huge proponent of active obviously but i also have to accept that a complex (expensive) passive crossover can achieve almost all that an active system can. You would not see that in a professional monitor.

Most of our cherished music was mixed on passives complete with all those little elements as well. They couldn't work hard to keep them there if they couldn't hear them.   

You get frustrated that passive just smooths all this information over, covers it up in the background, the mix now is somehow missing the little elements the artist and mix engineer worked so damn hard to put in there for you, but content wise it sounds very similar.

@donavabdear , remember I wrote a long time ago now it seems that low distortion, accurate reproduction takes getting used to but once you do it's addictive and you can't go back? What @lonemountain just described was exactly what i meant. 

 You get frustrated that passive just smooths all this information over, covers it up in the background, the mix now is somehow missing the little elements the artist and mix engineer worked so damn hard to put in there for you

I wouldn't have been able to articulate it better. I own passive and active versions of the same Paradigm speaker and the passive smooths it out. 

@thespeakerdude 

but i also have to accept that a complex (expensive) passive crossover can achieve almost all that an active system can.

Why do you bother making stuff up like this without a link to a reference? You can't even name a speaker with an expensive crossover, prove me wrong ok?