|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.146.158.26
Who here has switched to active speakers after years of using passive speakers? Was it worth the switch? How do you control the volume from the listening position (isn't the volume control on actives on the speakers itself)?
I'm thinking to simplify my setup and am not sure if this is the way to go.
Follow Ups:
by removing the "external" XO (bass LP/mid HP) and the "internal" XO (ie. on the frame - bass LP/ribbon HP) of my Maggie IIIAs and using a 3-way active XO that uses the same filter slopes ... plus 2 more stereo amps (ouch! :-)) ).
IMO, the extra definition and 'punch' you get from having each amp module in direct control of its driver (with no passive components "in the way") is a signifcant advantage, in terms of sonics. A minor advantage is that I am no longer forced to put up with the voicing (in terms of the relative levels of bass/mid/ribbon) that the mfr decided upon ... I run my Maggies with the mid boosted a dB or so and the ribbon turned down a bit more. This to me is a more pleasing sound.
How do I control the volume from the listening position? ... By using the remote control on my preamp.
Regards,
Andy
I really love active (digital active) because it's so darned much fun to play with. Iterative EQing with digital active is SO much easier and cheaper than with passive. And you don't have to be constantly worried about impedance issues with active as much as you do with passive.
I think digital active on a best-possible PC/Mac system can rival the best systems out there. I think active starts to fall short on external digital active or "electronic" active crossovers. I really do not like the idea of adding a processor filled with OP amps to perform the crossover functions. Nor do I like "external" digital crossovers which only use analog inputs and outputs. The extra A/D and D/A steps are completely needless and only add veils to the sound if you ask me.
I like how my modded Behringer sounds using digital input and single-ended passive outputs. I like how my Audio PC using the Thuneau Allocator sounds - the only potential weak link is the audio interface (sound card) one uses IMHO. There are PC audio solutions that have excellent analog output capabilities like stuff from RME, Lynx, Lavry Engineering, and Apogee. Some folks think this stuff is equal or better than a lot of audiophile preamps. Other philes will NEVER accept these devices as audiophile worthy. It's a personal viewpoint thing. Myself, I've used $200 sound cards that eat alive the outputs on my $2000 CD player. Others have also had similar "giant slayer" experiences with modest PC audio interfaces compared to their previous reference CDP or DAC. PC audio interface also give a plethora of options in the balanced-out realm, something some folks really want to have if they have pres/amps with balanced I/O.
I really think passive crossovers are still very very transparent. There are good reasons for going active, but active is not always superior to passive in all ways. I think one has to listen to each system individually and score it on its own individual merits.
One thing for certain, dialing in "textbook" filters with no regard for driver rolloffs (actual measurements on baffle on axis) is a quite common method for many DIY active test-pilots. We have these guys offering their "dial it in an run" systems as examples of active systems when there is a whole lot more to it in fact. In fact, setting up an active system has ALL OF THE SAME steps as designing a passive equivalent, except for maybe less attention to net-resultant impedance after equalisation and impedance compensation is done - a big advantage of active systems. Some believe that active makes the user immune to impedance issues - well sort of. If you cross over a tweeter with too high of an Fs too low you're still going to get raspy distorted garbage. Tweeter Fs is still a major consideration in the design and selection of crossover points - active does not eliminate the need for this design step. It does, however, makes things like impedance rise (due to coil inductance) far less of a concern, because there are no impedance dependent passive circuits to worry about.
That's my $.02 on the subject (having built both passive and active systems from the ground up and probably the intermediate level).
The biggest thing about active (that is a misnomer) is that it somehow alleviates the need to measure when doing the design. This could not be further from the truth. Measurement is crucial for both passive and active systems. No matter what sort of results the "textbook filter DIY active system test pilots" claim to get...
Cheers,
Presto
.
"One thing for certain, dialing in "textbook" filters with no regard for driver rolloffs (actual measurements on baffle on axis) is a quite common method for many DIY active test-pilots. We have these guys offering their "dial it in an run" systems as examples of active systems when there is a whole lot more to it in fact. In fact, setting up an active system has ALL OF THE SAME steps as designing a passive equivalent, except for maybe less attention to net-resultant impedance after equalisation and impedance compensation is done"
The final "crossover," whether active or passive, is a COMBINATION of the electrical transfer function of the filters and the acoustic response of the raw drivers mounted in the cabinet. A "standard" active crossover, which produces LR4 electrical slopes at a set corner frequency, but fails to take into account the individual driver responses, will NOT necessarily result in an LR4 acoustic crossover with flat summation between drivers. To be truly effective, an active crossover must allow the corner frequencies, order, and Q of each slope to be set individually, so that in combination with the driver responses you get the desired slopes. You also need to be able to EQ out bumps and dips in the responses of each driver, at least two octaves into their stop bands, and to apply the proper degree of "tilt" for BSC. All of this requires as much measurement and modeling as a passive crossover, if you are to get the desired results.
I've been using a NHT Xd system for several years controlled by a Jeff Rowland preamp. I'm happy the them.
I also have Xd's and enjoy them a lot. I think it is a shame that NHT never got around to the room eq they envisioned at the outset, though.
My only other quibble is that the "auto-on" feature is set for too high of an input level to suit me -- the amps would shut down frequently during quiet listening.
I too enjoy by NHT XD's using DEQX pre.
The auto-off(of sub) requires removal of back to access switch--not difficult..
They are hard not to enjoy. As far as the amps shutting down, I've never had that problem. Maybe a call to NHT is in order.
Tom
It would only usually happen if you listen to music with quiet sections at a low level (i.e. some classical music).
I went from Zenith junk to EV to Altec to high end. Never owned any over 5000.00 thought. Last pairs were 801 Matrix II and Quad 22L2. Picked up a pair of Quad 12l Actives and never listened to a passive at home again.
My current system is too complex to describe, simple description is active sub and active monitors. All three have volume controls. Use a fantastic box that has PGA discrete resistor ladder volume control, electronic crossover, AK4396 based dacs, and a Lyngdorf room eq circuit.
Never used a remote to control anything in my system. Except phone for iTunes.
George
> Who here has switched to active speakers after years of using passive speakers? Was it worth the switch? How do you control the volume from the listening position (isn't the volume control on actives on the speakers itself)?Both my systems are active tri-amp. The bedroom system has on-board amplification for midrange + tweeter. It's worth it - you get enormous flexibility in how you deal with bass (for instance, you can accept reduced sensitivity in the last octave with little musical content or for baffle step without padding the rest of the speaker down to match) and more headroom. Getting flat transfer functions in 3-ways is also more practical than with a passive cross-over.
Obviously, it's still possible to build a bad active speaker. The design has to be otherwise correct.
You use your preamp to control the volume just like with a separate power amplifier. Or in a single source (digital?) system you use the source's variable outputs.
Edits: 12/22/09
Everything else being equal they are technically superior to their passive counterparts in justt about every way. Audiophiles don't like them. Everyone else in the world does.
once I got my head out of my ass- (took 15 years in this asinine hobby) I went active and could never look back.
There are active designs for any listening environment. You just need to choose the right one.
Just biamp your maggies (w ext crossover of course) and you are now active.
But if you want to really try active all the way I suggest you try a listen to the Beolab 5's. That or if the Jetson's look doesn't do anything for you try the ATC's (150 or 300) Mucho dinero however...
Good Lord Almighty, that was impressive. Can't say I've ever heard such dynamics and force from any system.
Now, if I could just find $30k in change lying around AND a place big enough to do them justice...
Volume control is via the preamp, remote or good ole' manual.
Never owned an 'active speaker' but heard them demoed...an ATC I heard was a bit on the hard side, way too 'steely' for my taste.
On the active thing...I am somewhat active in the use of an electronic crossover and there is no way I am going back to a passive crossover speaker system.
I have been told they are great, but I haven't actually even seen a pair let alone heard then.
These get listed on audiogon once or twice a year for around $3k. Makes my heart skip a beat every time. They look super cool and I bet they sound great.
I dont believe these are truly active. I want to say that there is an onboard amplifier that powers both drivers via a passive XO.
And returned a year later. Active speakers limit your choices in ways I cannot tolerate. Putting amps in a highly vibration-prone environment is not exactly ideal either.
rw
Firstly, what about putting the passive XOs into that same "vibration-prone environment" (ie. the box)??
I run my 3-Series Maggies, 3-way active. See pic (the box behind the panel contains 3 amp modules, a 3-way (mono) active XO and 4 PSes):
So active speakers don't have to imply the amps are inside the speaker cabinet ... in, as you say, a highly vibration-prone environment.
That being said, I was surprised to hear a sonic improvement when I placed the amp/XO box on a slab of stone kitchen-bench offcut, resting on 12 squash balls (a DIY air-isolation platform). Resolution was greatly improved - so I assume what must've been happening before was that vibrations were passing into the slab floor from the spikes under the Maggie stands ... and were then passing up into the amp chassis which was resting on the carpet ... and causing sonic damage! :-((
Isolating the amp/XO box with the air isolation platform stopped these slab vibrations from getting to the electronics. :-))
Regards,
Andy
Powered speakers with built in amps. Yours is merely a tri-amped system where one has the ability to provide adequate isolation and select the amplifiers you wish to use over time. Active speakers offer neither of those advantages. :)
rw
Mine are active speakers! :-)) Active speakers have the amps directly attached to the drivers with no passive components "in the way". My amps are external ... Maggies have no "box"! :-)) Makers of active speakers could do this too but for marketing reasons, they choose to internalise everything.
Regards,
Andy
I'll pass on the intractable designs which make up the majority of them.
rw
The vibration concerns can easily be worked around and are essentially unfounded. That is audiophile nonsense.
How do you "easily work around vibration" of the active devices in the amplifiers housed within an active speaker?
rw
I don't need to get into vibration dampening. It works the same way inside a speaker as it does outside. Where we will disagree is what is audible and impacts the sound. I believe that this is a non issue if reasonable care has been taken in the design stage- so do major companies that make these speakers. Dynaudio, Mackie, Genelec, AVI, ATC etc, etc.
The idea that a solid state amplifier needs to be completely isolated from vibration to perform at spec is ridiculous. Add it to the long list of horse-shit that only audiophiles buy into.
To each their own.
So antagonistic! I expected that kind of response.
rw
Not sure what I am being accused of being agnostic on? I am saying vibration in the context that your concerned with is a non-issue in reality. I do recognize that in audiofooldom it is a huge problem that costs big bucks to solve.
There are several real advantages to having short leads and the drivers directly coupled to the amplifiers. There are also several advantages to having the XO at the line level. And there are huge advantages to not having to pay for "boxes" that add enormous manufacturing costs.
Better performance in theory all around. The sound is subjective.
While I wasn't discussing religion, perhaps you are. :)
rw
Well I am agnostic- so that may have been cause for the confusion!
Still- not sure why you have any interest in this thread? You question vibration- which I still contend is irrelevant in context to the discussion and something that always gets shot down early when these "active" threads surface here. Then you state your dislike for "intractable designs" which is fine- however you have stated one irrelevant objection and another personal one. Neither of which are an reason to not utilize this technology for someone else.
Engineering amplification into the design stage of the speaker is a smart and efficient thing to do. Having ultra steep crossover slopes which only can be done at the line level is smart design choice. Dedicating an amp and directly coupling it to the driver is a good thing. These all add up to superior design and if execution is the same- superior performance.
The above are facts- backed up by their respected sciences.
Because I think the realization of the *superiority* of the active concept rarely meets the hype. Looks great on paper and arguably works just dandy for computer speakers - as illustrated here:
rw
came back. I've had JBL powered monitors that were ok. Just be aware that most powered monitors sold are targeting the home recording folks who tend to use them as near-field monitors.
Frankly, I went back to good 'ol UREI/Altec monitors run with either tube or SS gear. I tend to run things in mid/far field and like it better that way.
Those are the things you'll need to consider in your purchases. As to the volume control issues, I used a Presonus FireStudio audio interface and it supports a wired remote management device that sits on my desk where I do the work. The balanced XLR outputs directly drive my power amps.
Cheers,
David
Was it J Gordon Holt who said that the active ATC 20's are the most accurate speakers he has listened with over his years? I own a pair of Meridian M20's on better than factory stands (to me) and can say that they are very seemless and more dynamic in their presentation than other stand mounted two ways I have experienced in house from B&W, Dynaudio and Sonus Faber. The published frequency response is -3db at 37Hz for their twin 5" mid/bass drivers in each and sound quite a bit more full range than stand mounted passives I've encountered over the years. I'm guessing that their seemlessness and dynamic life is a result of their dedicated amps and crossover. The crossover is before the amps rather than after as with passive designs. I'm guessing that gives a designer more control. I use a tube pre in front of them and its volume control. They play very loud cleanly. But, you are stuck with their fundamental sound which can only vary from what's up the line (except that in my case there are contour controls to play with) and I believe is the reason active speakers are not so popular. For this jaded old fart, they are miraculous in my modest sized room and that don't never get old.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: