2. speakers
  3. 190339-20253

Active Speakers Don't Sound Better

I just wanted to settle a debate that has often raged in A’gon about active vs. passive speakers with my own first hand experience. I’ve recently had the chance to complete a 3-way active center channel to match my 2-way passive speakers.

I can absolutely say that the active nature of the speaker did not make it sound better. Or worse. It has merged perfectly with my side speakers.

What I can say is that it was much easier to achieve all of the technical design parameters I had in mind and that the speakers have better off-axis dispersion as a result, so it is measurably slightly better than if I had done this as a passive center. Can I hear it? I don’t think so. I think it sounds the same.

From an absolute point of view, I could have probably achieved similar results with a passive speaker, but at the cost of many more crossover stages and components.  It was super easy to implement LR4 filters with the appropriate time delays, while if I had done this passively it would require not just the extra filter parts but all pass filters as well.  A major growth in part counts and crossover complexity I would never have attempted.  So it's not like the active crossover did any single thing I couldn't do passively, but putting it all together was so much easier using DSP that it made it worthwhile.

I can also state that as a builder it was such a positive experience that I may very well be done with making passive speakers from now on.

 

All the best,

 

Erik

erik_squires
jpwarren58
670 posts
 

My hill to climb is vibrations. Just on the most simplistic of evaluations placing an amp inside a speaker seems problematic. But seems more and more popular. 

knotscott
921 posts
 

I understand the simplicity, and especially time savings. Passive crossovers can take a long time to evaluate, change, burn in, re-evaluate, etc. ...But...there are pro and cons with every option, and like most things, execution of a given principle is a key factor, as is the objective.

ticat's avatar
ticat
357 posts
 

+1 jpwarren58 … vibration isolation

There are even benefits (in passive speaker design) to having the xover Not in the Box… but separate, isolated and protected from physical vibrations. Biggest surprise/improvement in the evolution from prototype to “finished” unit I have experienced (in my most recent build). (Small sample, not a Universal Statement or Pontification… just sayin’…)

 

tk21
238 posts
 

A major growth in part counts and crossover complexity

If I ever get active speakers, it would be to go in the opposite direction (towards a lower parts count). I bet this is a big motivator for many others who switch.

The question then is, if I get the active version of exactly the same pair of speakers I now use (and like), will it sound even better? Enough to justify the cost and inconvenience of the switch? My speakers are the JansZen Valentina P8s. JansZen does offer an active version, the A8. Or maybe someone can compare the active/passive version of a more popular speaker (such as a Kef product).. But you’d need to constrain the comparison so it’s as close to apples-to-apples as possible (in terms of the component quality etc.)

 

 

roxy54's avatar
roxy54
7,982 posts
 

Just to clarify a bit, the demonstration that I heard was long ago, and I have no memory of the ancillaries that were being used, and even if I did, I realize that there are countless variables involved. I do not believe that there is an inherent superiority to active speakers.

More to discover