active vs. passive speakers

[koushikp]

Hi,

hoping to start a constructive discussion here (apologies if this is a duplication, I haven't been able to find a thread about this HFV) about the relative advantage of active vs. passive speakers, and if members can share their experiences regarding this..

My journey in Hifi started 4 years ago when I bought my mordaunt short avant 904i based 5.1 system with the CA 540r AVR, and initially I was blown away by it, being a upgrade from cheapo computer speakers for all my previous life..since then I have heard various combinations of speakers and slowly my upgratitis is catching on, starting with my latest purchase, the Onkyo 609 for my living room setup..I still consider myself a total noob compared to most of the forum members here, and u usually always find me looking for advise when buying stuff..

My first and only substantial experience with quality active speakers happened with the Audioengine A5 2 years ago, and I was surprised at how clear they were, and definitely felt like one of the most natural sounding speakers for a pair that was costing only around 20k. to my ears they sounded better than the BR2, which was retailing around 30k then...recently I bought the Audioengine A2 for my laptops, and again was very surprised at their price/performance/size ratio (although wouldn't agree to the reviews online about how clear they are across the board, I do hear audible distortions with certain songs when the speakers start trying too hard)

recently I have been looking for a stereo setup for my bedroom with a 30k budget, and I started my speaker hunt again...I had almost ordered the BR2 from the audio people before my mind started wondering again about the AE5 and newly launched AE5+, and for the first time I started reading about the active vs. passive technicalities I found that they are generally accepted to be more neutral, efficient and better performing than passive speakers in the same price bracket...It's weird that nobody buys actives as the professionals use active speakers in their studios for mastering and so do the concerts! We are not using the technology which is being used by the people who create the music that we listen to!

I am wondering if the active speakers are to the world of speakers what the plasma screens are to the televisions..where manufacturers have pushed passives more and they have become the norm...and many people looking for high end audio equipment don't even look at actives anymore...

 

[baijuxavior]

There is already a thread on the same subject. http://www.hifivision.com/active-speakers/24098-simple-brief-description-passive-v-s-active-speakers.html

 

[alpha1]

Hi,

hoping to start a constructive discussion here (apologies if this is a duplication, I haven't been able to find a thread about this HFV) about the relative advantage of active vs. passive speakers, and if members can share their experiences regarding this..

My journey in Hifi started 4 years ago when I bought my mordaunt short avant 904i based 5.1 system with the CA 540r AVR, and initially I was blown away by it, being a upgrade from cheapo computer speakers for all my previous life..since then I have heard various combinations of speakers and slowly my upgratitis is catching on, starting with my latest purchase, the Onkyo 609 for my living room setup..I still consider myself a total noob compared to most of the forum members here, and u usually always find me looking for advise when buying stuff..

My first and only substantial experience with quality active speakers happened with the Audioengine A5 2 years ago, and I was surprised at how clear they were, and definitely felt like one of the most natural sounding speakers for a pair that was costing only around 20k. to my ears they sounded better than the BR2, which was retailing around 30k then...recently I bought the Audioengine A2 for my laptops, and again was very surprised at their price/performance/size ratio (although wouldn't agree to the reviews online about how clear they are across the board, I do hear audible distortions with certain songs when the speakers start trying too hard)

recently I have been looking for a stereo setup for my bedroom with a 30k budget, and I started my speaker hunt again...I had almost ordered the BR2 from the audio people before my mind started wondering again about the AE5 and newly launched AE5+, and for the first time I started reading about the active vs. passive technicalities I found that they are generally accepted to be more neutral, efficient and better performing than passive speakers in the same price bracket...It's weird that nobody buys actives as the professionals use active speakers in their studios for mastering and so do the concerts! We are not using the technology which is being used by the people who create the music that we listen to!

I am wondering if the active speakers are to the world of speakers what the plasma screens are to the televisions..where manufacturers have pushed passives more and they have become the norm...and many people looking for high end audio equipment don't even look at actives anymore...

You will have on less item (Amp) to fret about / boast of / show off (to your self).
An audiophile is concerned with everything BUT sounding the best.

Of course active speakers are great bang for the buck!
And I actually laugh at differences being "created" between studio monitors and hi-fi speakers.
There is only one aim of the whole audio system - reproduce the signal as truly as possible.
(if that sounds harsh / bad to you, please blame the recording engineer).

hi-fi = high FIDELITY. (nothing to do with sweet sounding / harsh sounding)

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't think that the line should be drawn between "active" and "passive."

There may still exist a handful of jazz and classical or acoustic music people to whom fifi still does mean high-fidelity. Otherwise, we line up to buy the particular flavour of sound that we like, and the manufacturers line up to sell it to us.

Some of those speakers may actually be designed to deliver unflavoured, flat, accurate sound. Some of the customers (apart from the professionals who need this in their work) want to buy that; others might find it lacking. It is commonly said that studio monitors are unforgiving: not, perhaps, ideal for those low-bit-rate mp3s. Maybe not for older vinyls either!

 

[alpha1]

In that case Studio monitors are definitely more HI-FI than the hi-fi speakers!!
Slightly ironic ...

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Well, technically, yes ... but not everybody wants to clearly hear the faults in their music

 

[alpha1]

But what are these faults that everyone talks about?
Can we have a definition, and example?

As far as I know the aim of a hi-fi speakers should be to have ruler flat frequency response, and accurate time response. Otherwise it's a LO-FI.

If someone likes the sound that comes from telephone - then let him use EQ to achieve it.
The CD was never meant to sound like telephone speakers, and the hi-fi speakers never intend to make it sound like telephone speakers.

 

[vaibhav.gadade]

active speakers may sound better but are a bit more complicated to manage with two or three amplifiers with their individual settings and a pre-amp with master volume and source selection. also, how do you know that the levels you have for tweeter, mids and bass are flat? you may have to take measurements in the room and lock the individual gain of the amps. this almost sounds like setting up a studio.

i could have a system like this at home, but i am pretty sure, my mom, dad, wife, and possibly even by brother would curse me for making something as simple as listening to music so complicated. i would probably have to put them through a course of sound engineering 101 followed by frustrating telephonic instructions to help them turn the system on while i am in the office.

i believe it is not popular and manufacturers don't push it is because lets face it, it is not user friendly.

would i love to own one myself, hell ya. but i am sure i would also have to buy something simpler for my family.

then again, you may get a better sound from your passive speakers if you spend a fraction of the amount that you spend to buy those additional pre-amp and power amps and active crossover in treating your room acoustically.




@alpha1

"As far as I know the aim of a hi-fi speakers should be to have ruler flat frequency response, and accurate time response. Otherwise it's a LO-FI."

in this case, every system out there is a LO FI, and i agree with you. The response of any speaker out there is sorta flat. there is nothing in this world that is ruler flat. speaker is a electro-mechanical device, when mechanics come into the picture, effeciency is reduced and we lose control on how to make the driver behave exactly the way we want. we can send precise electrical signals (see how amplifiers have "almost" a ruler flat frequency response) but todays speaker technology just cannot reproduce that signal to the tee.

every speaker out there is kinda flat within a certain bandwidth. we call it +/- 3 db limit. it is a wide limit so to speak, as volume doubles with a 3db rise. Within this limit we get a zig zag curve and not a flat one that varies from one speaker to other, and hence one speaker sounds different than the other. if it was possible to make it all ruler flat, all speakers would have sounded the same. hell, all amplifiers dont sound the same too.

so, what matters is what sound you like. there was a time when people thought that more bass and more treble is hi fi. some still think so. thankfully things are changing and will continue to change.

we may one day have a perfect speaker, but most likely it will be a chip that triggers a chemical reaction in our brain and makes us hear the perfect sound.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

i am pretty sure, my mom, dad, wife, and possibly even by brother would curse me for making something as simple as listening to music so complicated

There might be some complexity in the initial setup, but after that, it would be turn-on-and-play just like any other system. Something like the Genelec DSP range would do the whole job for you in a matter of seconds.

 

[alpha1]

active speakers may sound better but are a bit more complicated to manage with two or three amplifiers with their individual settings and a pre-amp with master volume and source selection. also, how do you know that the levels you have for tweeter, mids and bass are flat? you may have to take measurements in the room and lock the individual gain of the amps. this almost sounds like setting up a studio.

i could have a system like this at home, but i am pretty sure, my mom, dad, wife, and possibly even by brother would curse me for making something as simple as listening to music so complicated. i would probably have to put them through a course of sound engineering 101 followed by frustrating telephonic instructions to help them turn the system on while i am in the office.

i believe it is not popular and manufacturers don't push it is because lets face it, it is not user friendly.

would i love to own one myself, hell ya. but i am sure i would also have to buy something simpler for my family.

then again, you may get a better sound from your passive speakers if you spend a fraction of the amount that you spend to buy those additional pre-amp and power amps and active crossover in treating your room acoustically.




@alpha1

"As far as I know the aim of a hi-fi speakers should be to have ruler flat frequency response, and accurate time response. Otherwise it's a LO-FI."

in this case, every system out there is a LO FI, and i agree with you. The response of any speaker out there is sorta flat. there is nothing in this world that is ruler flat. speaker is a electro-mechanical device, when mechanics come into the picture, effeciency is reduced and we lose control on how to make the driver behave exactly the way we want. we can send precise electrical signals (see how amplifiers have "almost" a ruler flat frequency response) but todays speaker technology just cannot reproduce that signal to the tee.

every speaker out there is kinda flat within a certain bandwidth. we call it +/- 3 db limit. it is a wide limit so to speak, as volume doubles with a 3db rise. Within this limit we get a zig zag curve and not a flat one that varies from one speaker to other, and hence one speaker sounds different than the other. if it was possible to make it all ruler flat, all speakers would have sounded the same. hell, all amplifiers dont sound the same too.

so, what matters is what sound you like. there was a time when people thought that more bass and more treble is hi fi. some still think so. thankfully things are changing and will continue to change.

we may one day have a perfect speaker, but most likely it will be a chip that triggers a chemical reaction in our brain and makes us hear the perfect sound.

What is definition of hi-fidelity?
What is the frequency response of am ideal speaker?

The closer you are to this ideal, the more hi-fi you become.
The farther away you are, the more lo-fi you are.
(Whether we have achieved the ruler flat curve etc, or not is an ongoing effort)

If you love a +24dB hump in the 60-120 Hz area - that is your preference, but it has nothing to do with being HI-FI.


People have wrongly associated hi fidelity as being "pleasing" to ears.
2.5 kHz to 4 kHz is often harsh to ears.
If your speakers are reducing this spectrum deliberately - they are not Hi-fi.
I can get the same sound using a cheaper EQ and computer multimedia speakers.

Ppl love boosted low end (<80 Hz) and boosted high end (>12 kHz) - if your hi-fi speakers are guilty of pandering to your whims, they are no longer hi-fi.


If you don't like the music being played out from a true hi-fi speaker, please complain to the mastering engineer. Don't complain to the speakers.


I don't see what is the point to argue about in this ...?



(BTW, volume is doubled perceptibly by a +10 dB raise. +3dB is just perceivable difference, however demanding double power)

 

[vaibhav.gadade]

oh no point to argue at all. and i agree that a great speaker does make a lot of recordings sound too bad.

"pleasing to the ears" is a term i use in a situation when say brand A and brand B are both as flat. yet they will be different because of the limitations they have. they will never be ruler flat. can we truly say one is more hi-fi than the other? what does one do in such a case? listen and choose, right? some personal liking for one sound over the other will always come into play.

then there is psyhcoacoustics. may be our ears dont relay sound to our brains the same way as measurement microphone does to the test equipment. the liking for the warm "colored" sound of tube equipment is a case in point. we may see frequency plots that are flat and believe it is a great speaker. but may be our ears wont agree with our eyes.

yes, there has to be a common ground where we come and compare one setup with the other and flat frequency response is that norm today. probably the best thing to do in current situation would be to have one "standard" model of speaker on which the recording engineer mixes and we listen to it through that same (standard) speaker model.

Active will sound better than passive if one is ready to spend more. maybe passive is not that bad to begin with. may be recordings have to be more precise.

i hear now that there is something called as "audiophile recording". what is this audiophile genre? recordings by patricia barber, donald fagen, katie melua and the likes. am i now listening to them because i like their music better or because they sound better on my hi fi? is there audiophile quality metal? may be there is. will i perceive the difference between heavy distortion used in the recording from one speaker to another? i do not know.

may be there are not many great recording engineers out there. may be they are great but don't have the time to spend on perfecting each project. may be having a perfect audio system and only three or four recordings to listen to on it would be a bad situation to be in. blaming the recording engineer wont help much, would it?

also now, am i listening to music and musicians anymore or am i listening to the system and the recording engineer?

may be the hi fi market has to grow way bigger than what it is currently before we start demanding more from the recording engineer or the industry itself and shift to active systems.

 

[alpha1]

oh no point to argue at all. and i agree that a great speaker does make a lot of recordings sound too bad.

"pleasing to the ears" is a term i use in a situation when say brand A and brand B are both as flat. yet they will be different because of the limitations they have. they will never be ruler flat. can we truly say one is more hi-fi than the other? what does one do in such a case? listen and choose, right? some personal liking for one sound over the other will always come into play.

I started off by saying that Studio monitors and Hi-fi speakers should not be different from each other.
T.E.G. threw a popular audiophile lore to me (though I am sure, he doesn't believe in it) of hi-fi should be sweet sounding etc, compared to monitors.

In your case, because brand A sounds better to you, you would label them as hi-fi, but it may so happen that brand A has more variations from ideal speaker response than Brand B.

This is exactly what I was speaking against.
Hi-fi term is VERY OBJECTIVE, and measurable.
We should not bring in arcane terms like "sounding better to ears" to measure the Hi-Fi ness.

Why do we have standards?
It is because it can be reproduced anywhere, and it gives a level comparing field.
When I compare speaker A to ideal, and speaker B to ideal. I do exactly that.

However, when you say that "A sounds better than B", there is no way anyone else can replicate what is meant by "A sounds better than B". Hence, it conveys no other information than the fact that you favor Speaker A rather than B. And there is no objectivity to it.

The whole idea behind hi fidelity is to reproduce the record AS ACCURATELY as possible. Whether that pleases our ears or not is entirely different matter.

This is the same thing I wrote in my last post.
And this is exactly what I meant by nothing to argue about.

then there is psyhcoacoustics. may be our ears dont relay sound to our brains the same way as measurement microphone does to the test equipment. the liking for the warm "colored" sound of tube equipment is a case in point. we may see frequency plots that are flat and believe it is a great speaker. but may be our ears wont agree with our eyes.

Sure.
Then my creative 5.1 system is much better and "more hi-fi" than Krell + Thiel system. Because of a big hump in 120 Hz band and again a boosted 10kHz band which I prefer.

Tube equipment being "better sounding" than Solid state is a controversial statement. Becuase the term "better sounding" itself is highly controversial, and THUS cannot be used to measure the performance of Hi-fidelity.

yes, there has to be a common ground where we come and compare one setup with the other and flat frequency response is that norm today. probably the best thing to do in current situation would be to have one "standard" model of speaker on which the recording engineer mixes and we listen to it through that same (standard) speaker model.

Active will sound better than passive if one is ready to spend more. maybe passive is not that bad to begin with. may be recordings have to be more precise.

i hear now that there is something called as "audiophile recording". what is this audiophile genre? recordings by patricia barber, donald fagen, katie melua and the likes. am i now listening to them because i like their music better or because they sound better on my hi fi? is there audiophile quality metal? may be there is. will i perceive the difference between heavy distortion used in the recording from one speaker to another? i do not know.

may be there are not many great recording engineers out there. may be they are great but don't have the time to spend on perfecting each project. may be having a perfect audio system and only three or four recordings to listen to on it would be a bad situation to be in. blaming the recording engineer wont help much, would it?

also now, am i listening to music and musicians anymore or am i listening to the system and the recording engineer?

may be the hi fi market has to grow way bigger than what it is currently before we start demanding more from the recording engineer or the industry itself and shift to active systems.

Hi-Fi market is running succesfully because of usage and promotion of obsure terms.
The moment we end using these, that moment you will suck the money out from hi-fi markets.
These obscure terms may have great meaning to an individual - but the same terms hold no meaning to the other person - except creating a bias.

When you claim that speaker A sounds smooth and lush to you - it carries no information to me.
Except that I should expect some "smooth and lush" feeling.

However, my "lush and smooth" will never be same as your "lush and smooth"

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

T.E.G. threw a popular audiophile lore to me (though I am sure, he doesn't believe in it) of hi-fi should be sweet sounding etc, compared to monitors.

Not should be. I suspect that most buyers buy what they like to listen to. Its fidelity is not very relevant, because many of them don't regularly attend live concerts, and another segment listen to electronic music. There are many tastes in sound, and speaker manufacturers would be foolish to ignore this fact.

This is exactly what I was speaking against.
Hi-fi term is VERY OBJECTIVE, and measurable.
We should not bring in arcane terms like "sounding better to ears" to measure the Hi-Fi ness.

Byebye Hifi, Hello Audiophile.

The new word allows of unlimited abuse at unlimited prices. It is now no longer necessary to be a music lover even --- and yes, we hear of people who buy the music that will show off their system, rather than the music they actually want to listen to.

However, when you say that "A sounds better than B", there is no way anyone else can replicate what is meant by "A sounds better than B". Hence, it conveys no other information than the fact that you favor Speaker A rather than B. And there is no objectivity to it.

The whole idea behind hi fidelity is to reproduce the record AS ACCURATELY as possible. Whether that pleases our ears or not is entirely different matter.

Yes, but there is room for personal taste of course. Added to which, if every speaker sounded the same, we would be left with looks and finish as the only buying criteria.

The word audiophile should be struck from the dictionary. It has become a marketing tool and matter of snobbery. However, it would be just as wrong to force high fidelity on those that don't want it. Let those who seek thumping bass up the backside have it, and let those to whom shimmering detail is the turn on get their thrill too, but let everybody stop pretending that their sound is the real sound, and let the manufacturers stop doing that too.

For the minority who listen to or play live music, and what to get as close to that experience in their living room as possible, let's call them ...music lovers! Put the focus back on the music; take it off the equipment.

 

[vaibhav.gadade]

I started off by saying that Studio monitors and Hi-fi speakers should not be different from each other.

agreed. in fact studio monitors is just another term for hi fi equipment as probably studios started using hi fi first.

In your case, because brand A sounds better to you, you would label them as hi-fi, but it may so happen that brand A has more variations from ideal speaker response than Brand B.

This is exactly what I was speaking against.
Hi-fi term is VERY OBJECTIVE, and measurable.
We should not bring in arcane terms like "sounding better to ears" to measure the Hi-Fi ness.

no, i would call both brand A and B hi fi. they are both flat in their limits. but none is ruler flat. in such a case i would choose what is pleasing to my ears, would i not?
if hi fi is VERY OBJECTIVE and measurable, what is the most objectively hi fi speaker out there? and unless it is ruler flat, why is the response of it better than the response of something very similar but still not the same?

Why do we have standards?
It is because it can be reproduced anywhere, and it gives a level comparing field.
When I compare speaker A to ideal, and speaker B to ideal. I do exactly that.

However, when you say that "A sounds better than B", there is no way anyone else can replicate what is meant by "A sounds better than B". Hence, it conveys no other information than the fact that you favor Speaker A rather than B. And there is no objectivity to it.

The whole idea behind hi fidelity is to reproduce the record AS ACCURATELY as possible. Whether that pleases our ears or not is entirely different matter.

i am saying that in spite of knowing what standard is, we haven't reached that goal. both A and B are as close to it as possible with their jagged response curves. even if the curves are within +/- 1 db they are both not ideal. which now is more HI FI? how do i choose now? when a record is reproduced " AS ACCURATELY" and not accurately, subjectivity creeps in i am afraid. i am not drawing comparisons between creative and thiel. thats not my point of argument at all. but what abt thiel and Canton Karat or B&W? do they sound exactly the same? is one more HI FI than the other?

Hi-Fi market is running succesfully because of usage and promotion of obsure terms.
The moment we end using these, that moment you will suck the money out from hi-fi markets.
These obscure terms may have great meaning to an individual - but the same terms hold no meaning to the other person - except creating a bias.

When you claim that speaker A sounds smooth and lush to you - it carries no information to me.
Except that I should expect some "smooth and lush" feeling.

However, my "lush and smooth" will never be same as your "lush and smooth"

obscure terms are overused, but not over intently for it is a substitution of unresolved mathematics with english. the only moment we can stop using these terms is when we are able to reproduce ruler flat curves and all speakers sound the same. and when that happens, people will distinguish brands by use of industrial design. they will still be expensive.

even when you say your speaker is as accurate sounding, it equally carries no information to me because so is mine and yet different than yours.

and i say that this is not a bad situation to be in. it is good to have variety.

 

[manoj.p]

The word audiophile should be struck from the dictionary. It has become a marketing tool and matter of snobbery.

Can't say it any better. Sometimes this "snobbery" makes me hate the word audiophile.




On the second thought, snobbery will always bring out the hate, whether one is audiophile or not. (I guess I needed to put that to save myself from relentless audiophile missiles. :lol::lol: