Why is the idea of active HT not so popular?

[prateekatasniya]

Sounds like it is a very customized setup to be implemented by professionals. I don't think a layman can properly setup an active crossover.

Leads me to believe that such setups are far from mainstream.

Yeah.. I don't think anyone would do such setups without the help of a professional.
The company provides with the active crossover settings.

 

[chander]

Read list of benefits of active speakers in book "loudspeakers for music recording and reproduction"
It has a list of more than 20 reasons stating that active is better than passive ( everything else being equal)

By active I am assuming that the crossover is also active.
I'm not sticking to objective standards.

Thank you so much for this!

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Read list of benefits of active speakers in book "loudspeakers for music recording and reproduction"
It has a list of more than 20 reasons stating that active is better than passive ( everything else being equal)

By active I am assuming that the crossover is also active.
I'm not sticking to objective standards.

So you just parrot what you read without understanding anything hence you are unable to provide any reason. Obviously you are sticking to objective standards.

 

[prateekatasniya]

So you just parrot what you read without understanding anything hence you are unable to provide any reason. Obviously you are sticking to objective standards.

Isn't that rude ?

The reasons are highly technical which is difficult to understand for audio enthusiast who don't have enough time because of their busy schedules to go into the depth of it.

By that post I thought I conveyed enough to conclude that active is better.

Maybe you can read that book and analyse the facts yourself without being ignorant.

 

[prateekatasniya]

Everyone has their own level of understanding the subject.

There is no one like ultimate genius. Everyone is a constant learner.

But still one can point out towards some other authentic source of information.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Isn't that rude ?

The reasons are highly technical which is difficult to understand for audio enthusiast who don't have enough time because of their busy schedules to go into the depth of it.

By that post I thought I conveyed enough to conclude that active is better.

Maybe you can read that book and analyse the facts yourself without being ignorant.

It's simply saying what the situation is, if you find that rude then all I can tell you is that it wasn't meant to be. Note that you still haven't given a reason.

I am well aware of the technicalities, hence my position that active isn't particularly special. All it does is offer a little more flexibility in shaping response without a passive XO.

You conclude active is better, that does not mean it is fact nor does it mean everyone believes so, all it means is you believe it is better.

I think it is you who are ignorant my friend, you spend too much time reading the deluded and misguided views on AVS forum.

 

[kanna.sridharan]

I believe whatever form speakers maybe, either Active or Passive, the room in which their played becomes the ultimate decider. Most active speakers, give you a bit of tweaks to play around with, to change the response of the speaker to your taste or room. Whereas in a passive you rely on your amplifier's ability. I am not saying Actives are superior and Passives are inferior, but the flexibility provided by actives is great and if you know to put good use to those controls, you could make them sound really good. There are modern amplifier both Integrated and Pre, which have flexibilities such as room correction, etc which if put to good use in an untreated room could bring great results too.

I feel that passive crossovers would rob power if not matched well and that is taken care in active speakers the crossover is decided before amplification, hence greater control of the drivers. But then there is more to than crossovers and amplification, the speaker itself and everyone's taste is never the same, what my ears like is not necessarily what everyone would like.

I am no expert here, neither do I possess any in-depth technical knowledge of speakers and audio waves. I am learning everyday and sharing my views, would like to learn from others view also.

Cheers

 

[Enkay78]

My issue with this idea is (and I have been on this for a long time…..I simply love active. My Kali LP 8 with Topping d90se sounds superb.Prviously it was with a Sabaj D5):
Is there a affordable processor?
I simply waiting for these Chinese companies like Topping/SMSL/Sabaj/Gustard to bring out a cheap but excellent measuring AV processor.

Just imagine a system with JBL 308p LCR, 305p as surrounds and with a woofer. The power cables sub outlets are non-issues.

I own klips RP8000Fs….but slowly I am leaning much towards Kali/JBL actives.

The way DACs are getting cheaper and super quality, I guess we will eventually get an AV processor with excellent measurements.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

There might be some confusion here as to what is active and passive.

Passive - Most speakers fall into this category. They have a "passive" (analog) crossover inside the speaker that "splits" the signal to go to the different drivers, such as high frequencies to tweeter, mid frequencies to mid range driver and mid bass/bass frequencies to mid bass/bass driver. This is done without any digital processing, and noteworthy is that this passive splitting is done *after* the amplification, since the amplifier amplifies the signal and then sends it to the speaker, where the signal is split by the internal passive crossover. Note that you can add digital processing to a passive speaker before the amplifier by adding a DSP, however the internal passive crossover inside the speaker still remains and will continue to function.

Active - The speakers in this category usually have an amplifier built into the speaker with DSP capabilities. In this case since the amp/DSP is already attached to the speaker there is usually no need for a passive crossover inside to split the signal, instead the DSP uses it's processing (digital) to split the signal into HF/Mid/Mid bass/Bass. Other than LPF/HPF duties it also applies EQ (sometimes out of band) and other processing to smooth the response, both frequency and phase. This can also be done to a passive speaker as noted above by adding DSP. Of note here is that since active speakers do not come with passive crossover networks it means that the speaker is basically a cabinet with drivers, it needs the inbuilt amp/DSP to function as intended. Finally in active speakers usually the processing is done first and then amplified, this means there are no more "splits" after the amplifier amplifies and sends the signal to the drivers.

If you take two systems, one passive and one active, both with DSP (built in or added separately as a stand alone DSP) then the only real difference here would be the active does not split the signal after amplification while the passive one does split the signal after amplification.

I hope this makes it clearer for people who may not be aware of what an active/passive difference is.

 

[ssf]

There might be some confusion here as to what is active and passive.

Passive - Most speakers fall into this category. They have a "passive" (analog) crossover inside the speaker that "splits" the signal to go to the different drivers, such as high frequencies to tweeter, mid frequencies to mid range driver and mid bass/bass frequencies to mid bass/bass driver. This is done without any digital processing, and noteworthy is that this passive splitting is done *after* the amplification, since the amplifier amplifies the signal and then sends it to the speaker, where the signal is split by the internal passive crossover. Note that you can add digital processing to a passive speaker before the amplifier by adding a DSP, however the internal passive crossover inside the speaker still remains and will continue to function.

Active - The speakers in this category usually have an amplifier built into the speaker with DSP capabilities. In this case since the amp/DSP is already attached to the speaker there is usually no need for a passive crossover inside to split the signal, instead the DSP uses it's processing (digital) to split the signal into HF/Mid/Mid bass/Bass. Other than LPF/HPF duties it also applies EQ (sometimes out of band) and other processing to smooth the response, both frequency and phase. This can also be done to a passive speaker as noted above by adding DSP. Of note here is that since active speakers do not come with passive crossover networks it means that the speaker is basically a cabinet with drivers, it needs the inbuilt amp/DSP to function as intended. Finally in active speakers usually the processing is done first and then amplified, this means there are no more "splits" after the amplifier amplifies and sends the signal to the drivers.

If you take two systems, one passive and one active, both with DSP (built in or added separately as a stand alone DSP) then the only real difference here would be the active does not split the signal after amplification while the passive one does split the signal after amplification.

I hope this makes it clearer for people who may not be aware of what an active/passive difference is.

Any advantages of one over the other ?

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

One can more easily achieve a flat response with active than passive (without DSP on the passive). If you use DSP with both then I don't think there is much difference in terms of response when both are made by good designers, however in terms of passive you will be power limited by what the passive network can handle (this is only when you get into very high power speakers), in active you are power limited by the driver itself, also in active the manufacturer can set limiters which will help for regular users who don't understand the limits of the design and may push the system too hard. Finally passive can sometimes have a certain analog/warm sound while actives these days are tuned to be flattish and often use class d amps, this makes them sound typically sharp and bright, some may prefer this, particularly for HT but many would probably consider other options for music unless they like this sharp/bright sound.

 

[prateekatasniya]

Any advantages of one over the other ?

Sorry for my longest post till date

Benefits of active speaker( active crossover )

# loudspeaker drive units of different sensitivities can be used without the need for lossy resistive networks or transformers thus giving flexibility to choose sonically compatible drive units ( low frequency and high frequency driver)

# Distortion due to overload in any one band remains captive within that band. ( imagine you push a woofer hard - in a passive system it will end up with both the HF and LF distorting) in an active speaker only the woofer would be distorting which is less audible when compared to the HF distortion.

Cont. of the above point - occasional LF overloads do not pass distortion products into the HF drivers.

#Amplifier power and distortion characteristics can be optimally matched to the drive unit sensitivity and frequency range.
For example some manufacturers use class AB for HF and Class D for the LF.

#Driver protection can be precisely tailored to the needs of each driver.
Example - no matter how hard you drive a genelec speaker- the driver protection circuit turns on, this prevents the user from damaging the speaker. And the light indicator turns red from green ( indication of clipping) Super… isnt it?

#There are no complex load impedances in actives as found in passive crossovers, thus making the whole system performance more dynamically predictable.
[ speaker impedance affects the performance of an amplifier ]

#System intermodulation distortion can be significantly reduced. As separate amps are driving separate speaker drivers.

#Cable problems can be dramatically reduced.
With the amplifier being very close to the speaker drivers in powered speakers the effect of cables is significantly reduced.

#Thermal compression can be reduced to a certain extent by incorporating thermal time constants in the amplifier.

#Out of band resonances are better damped in an active speaker.

#Speakers are essentially voltage controlled, which means that when coupled directly to a power amp, they can be more optimally driven than when impedances(passive crossover) are placed between the amp and speaker. (the crossover components represent an irregularity in the amplifier output impedance).

#Higher order filter slopes can easily be achieved. Thus reducing the bandwidth of frequency produced by both the LF and HF drivers. (improved clarity at the crossover region which is mostly in the vocal frequency range)

#Speaker driver production tolerances can be trimmed out using dsp. And speaker frequency response deviations can be reduced using dsp.

#An active speaker can be perfectly time aligned. I.e sound from HF and LF drivers arrive at the same time. Time aligning a passive speaker correctly is no joke.


Benefits? of passive speakers

#Reduced cost?
Reduced cost of the speaker at the expense of increased cost of making an amplifier which has to drive a complex loads (HF, LF, crossover) that to in full band (20hz to 20,000hz)
An active speaker driven by multiple amps doesn't have to face similar problems. Relatively lower cost amps can handle the job very well.

# It is often said that passive crossovers are less prone to being misadjusted by misinformed users like in an active setup where people adjust to taste. However many passive systems have a tendency to misadjust themselves with age and power levels.

#Ruggedness ? no, because a change in the characteristics of any component of the loudspeaker system can unbalance the crossover.

#Flexibility to try different amps with different speakers and vice versa to achieve better sound which is already achieved in an active setup.



Subjective performance of a similar cost active vs a passive setup has proven that active design is far better than a passive design. (much better clarity, spaciousness and fidelity)
Yes you read it right “SUBJECTIVE”.

Pardon me for grammatical or spelling mistakes.(if any)

Reference : book-" loudspeakers for music recording and reproduction."

 

[kanna.sridharan]

Great info Decadent and Prateek. Thank you

 

[prateekatasniya]

One can more easily achieve a flat response with active than passive (without DSP on the passive). If you use DSP with both then I don't think there is much difference in terms of response when both are made by good designers, however in terms of passive you will be power limited by what the passive network can handle (this is only when you get into very high power speakers), in active you are power limited by the driver itself, also in active the manufacturer can set limiters which will help for regular users who don't understand the limits of the design and may push the system too hard. Finally passive can sometimes have a certain analog/warm sound while actives these days are tuned to be flattish and often use class d amps, this makes them sound typically sharp and bright, some may prefer this, particularly for HT but many would probably consider other options for music unless they like this sharp/bright sound.

Passive speakers sound more brighter.
Both active and passive Speakers in general are targeted for flat anechoic response to provide neutral response in room.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Distortion occurs in many forms, the most common (no matter how you try to phrase it) is due to driver non linearity (thermal or mechanical) and input signal. Both of this will affect passive and active speakers, and in both cases if the active or passive crossover is not done well it could result in distortion.

All that said people may prefer some distortion.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Passive speakers sound more brighter.
Both active and passive Speakers in general are targeted for flat anechoic response to provide neutral response in room.

Passive speakers can sound bright but in general they sound less bright than active speakers. Particularly studio speakers like Genelec.

Not everyone targets a flat response, and not all speakers are meant to be used "in room". Many pro speakers are designed for use outdoors. Most home speakers if you go by some of published responses by reviewers seem to have some flavor. Flat response sounds like garbage.

 

[ssf]

however in terms of passive you will be power limited by what the passive network can handle

I never knew that the crossovers can be a bottleneck although like you mentioned, this bottleneck might never be reached in a domestic environment.

Thanks for that.

 

[ssf]

Sorry for my longest post till date

Benefits of active speaker( active crossover )

# loudspeaker drive units of different sensitivities can be used without the need for lossy resistive networks or transformers thus giving flexibility to choose sonically compatible drive units ( low frequency and high frequency driver)

# Distortion due to overload in any one band remains captive within that band. ( imagine you push a woofer hard - in a passive system it will end up with both the HF and LF distorting) in an active speaker only the woofer would be distorting which is less audible when compared to the HF distortion.

Cont. of the above point - occasional LF overloads do not pass distortion products into the HF drivers.

#Amplifier power and distortion characteristics can be optimally matched to the drive unit sensitivity and frequency range.
For example some manufacturers use class AB for HF and Class D for the LF.

#Driver protection can be precisely tailored to the needs of each driver.
Example - no matter how hard you drive a genelec speaker- the driver protection circuit turns on, this prevents the user from damaging the speaker. And the light indicator turns red from green ( indication of clipping) Super… isnt it?

#There are no complex load impedances in actives as found in passive crossovers, thus making the whole system performance more dynamically predictable.
[ speaker impedance affects the performance of an amplifier ]

#System intermodulation distortion can be significantly reduced. As separate amps are driving separate speaker drivers.

#Cable problems can be dramatically reduced.
With the amplifier being very close to the speaker drivers in powered speakers the effect of cables is significantly reduced.

#Thermal compression can be reduced to a certain extent by incorporating thermal time constants in the amplifier.

#Out of band resonances are better damped in an active speaker.

#Speakers are essentially voltage controlled, which means that when coupled directly to a power amp, they can be more optimally driven than when impedances(passive crossover) are placed between the amp and speaker. (the crossover components represent an irregularity in the amplifier output impedance).

#Higher order filter slopes can easily be achieved. Thus reducing the bandwidth of frequency produced by both the LF and HF drivers. (improved clarity at the crossover region which is mostly in the vocal frequency range)

#Speaker driver production tolerances can be trimmed out using dsp. And speaker frequency response deviations can be reduced using dsp.

#An active speaker can be perfectly time aligned. I.e sound from HF and LF drivers arrive at the same time. Time aligning a passive speaker correctly is no joke.


Benefits? of passive speakers

#Reduced cost?
Reduced cost of the speaker at the expense of increased cost of making an amplifier which has to drive a complex loads (HF, LF, crossover) that to in full band (20hz to 20,000hz)
An active speaker driven by multiple amps doesn't have to face similar problems. Relatively lower cost amps can handle the job very well.

# It is often said that passive crossovers are less prone to being misadjusted by misinformed users like in an active setup where people adjust to taste. However many passive systems have a tendency to misadjust themselves with age and power levels.

#Ruggedness ? no, because a change in the characteristics of any component of the loudspeaker system can unbalance the crossover.

#Flexibility to try different amps with different speakers and vice versa to achieve better sound which is already achieved in an active setup.



Subjective performance of a similar cost active vs a passive setup has proven that active design is far better than a passive design. (much better clarity, spaciousness and fidelity)
Yes you read it right “SUBJECTIVE”.

Pardon me for grammatical or spelling mistakes.(if any)

Reference : book-" loudspeakers for music recording and reproduction."

A few of the points mentioned seem more relevant to designers than end users. Many might however translate to audible improvements to end-users.

Thanks for the post.

 

[ssf]

also in active the manufacturer can set limiters which will help for regular users who don't understand the limits of the design and may push the system too hard

I have read that the Crown amplifiers have limiters built in. Is that for the amp or the speakers ? Am guessing for the speakers in which case it should be able to provide the same protection as actives.

IIRC, Bose used to do this with their speakers.

 

[Enkay78]

I would be happy if more excellent measuring affordable AV processors say for 9.1, 11.1 are around. The separates of Marantz/mono price/emotiva etc turns me off…..I mean they cost more than the total active speakers (off course not considering Genelecs )

(If anyone have some links, kindly share )