Active vs Passive Speakers... Do you have a preference?

[Todd Anderson]

So, what's your flavor?

I guess a strong argument can be made for having a crossover occur in the digital domain before amplification gets involved. Perhaps, you could even argue that an active speaker's amplification is optimally tailored to a specific speaker's drivers. Tho, the skeptic in me is slightly suspect that manufacturers *might* opt to cut corners on the amp side of the equation for cost savings?

I do like the idea of passive's ability to give owners ultimate control over what kind of amplifier is integrated... but, that also adds bulk to any setup.

 

[Seeker-Smith]

I’m for active all the way. Sending digital to the speakers is optimal. Genelec has some great options. If you have lots of cash D&D.

 

[FrankV]

Active without question! For the analogue purists, crossovers can be done with analogue filters.
By their very nature, passive crossover components in a conventional speaker add impedence between the amplifer output and the driver, which is not ideal. It also means that amplifier choice becomes a mute point when the crossover components will likely be having a far greater effect on the sound than small differences between any decent amplifiers.

 

[brombo]

Active without a doubt. I just wish that companies that make multichannel (7.1, 10.2, etc.) signal processors (such as Emotiva, Yamaha, etc.) that do room correction would also include the software so you could have dsp crossovers with fewer speakers (reallocate the channels to support dsp crossovers).

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I guess a strong argument can be made for having a crossover occur in the digital domain before amplification gets involved. Perhaps, you could even argue that an active speaker's amplification is optimally tailored to a specific speaker's drivers. Tho, the skeptic in me is slightly suspect that manufacturers *might* opt to cut corners on the amp side of the equation for cost savings?

From a technical standpoint, active wins in every facet. From a "preference" standpoint, preference wins every time.
Indeed, with active, the filter aka crossover and subsequent drivers output can be far more precise (less variability with output levels, small vs large signal T/S parameters, interchannel, etc), helpful for artificial constructs like stereo, etc.
Ditto for directly driving transducer with amp, including transconductance, servo feedback, etc. However, that's just the nuts and bolts for typical consumer mass market speakers. Better within the same paradigm for sure. What is preferred/practical is another matter entirely.
For example, a variable directivity with perceptually indirect radiation speaker would be (practically) impossible passive. Options vanish.
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/acoustics-hearing.htm
Anecdotal evidence - at the last Axpona, several Uber-bling and mainstream companies released their flagship models with active. From Avantgarde to Klipsch. Bizarre, since at those stratospheric prices, the intended market tend to be overwhelmingly luddites, the types vehemently opposed to things like active. But the sheep must be lead, so bravo to them.

cheers

 

[Cary B. Cornett]

Active without question! For the analogue purists, crossovers can be done with analogue filters.
By their very nature, passive crossover components in a conventional speaker add impedence between the amplifer output and the driver, which is not ideal. It also means that amplifier choice becomes a mute point when the crossover components will likely be having a far greater effect on the sound than small differences between any decent amplifiers.

For primary studio monitors, I use active 2 way with analog active crossovers (Mackie HR824) for accuracy and revealing detail. My studio sub, when I use it, is fed with a digital crossover (MiniDSP). While I like the programmability of a digital crossover, I don't fully trust it for the mid and upper ranges of studio monitoring. That said, in my living room home theater setup all of my speakers are passive, and for entertainment purposes I am quite satisfied with the sound overall. In that system I do not use a sub, as the left and right mains are older JBL towers that I modified to replace the (blown by previous owner) tweeters with horns, using a fixed attenuator after the crossover to make the more efficient horns match in level with the mids and woofers. Also, it has been my experience that even with passive crossovers there can be differences in sound between amplifiers, particularly between solid state and tube amps, as the tube amps have a lower damping factor to begin with.

 

[gp4Jesus]

The short answer: Active any day of the week and twice in Sunday.

Digital or analog, I have both. For ~8 years I’ve made extensive use of DSP* in the LCR of my Home Theater. My surrounds are pending.
*converted from passive.

“Yesterday,” analog in the form of Circa early 80s designed and sold Meridian M2s. Used them until ~2008 when I got more serious about HT - nothing available w/ matching timbre.

 

[VinceHoffman]

I've been back and forth between active and passive loudspeakers over the years several times but have firmly settled on active loudspeakers. I've always admired the higher efficiency and reduced distortion intrinsic to providing each driver it's own optimised amplifier and driving it directly.

That being said, I've both listened to (many) and owned several (Meridian DSP6000 & DSP5000 24/96 models) digital active loudspeakers and ultimately they weren't a good fit for me and my listening habits. For digital actives to be seen in the best light all sources should be digital. But I still love great analogue LP record playback though and in my experience cycles of ADC->DSP->DAC conversion do analog signals no sonic favors. So my absolute favorite actives are current model UK-built ATC loudspeakers which sport entirely analog electronic crossovers and old-school Class AB amplification. I'm also a long time fan of Meridian's Kef driver based legacy actives from the late '70s through early '90s and own several pairs including the pair mid '80s flagship M100s seen below.

ATC SCM20ASL Pro MkII active monitors on custom Skylan stands circa April 2022.

 

[brombo]

My home theater system is triamped. Minidsp openDRC DA-8 (SPDIF input but it is no longer available) for crossovers and room correction. Tweeters and midbass CBT36k (thank you Don Keele also no longer available). Two Dayton Audio RSS460HO-4 18" Reference Series HO subwoofers and cabinets. Amplifiers are Emotiva XPA4 for CBT36k's and two Dayton Audio SPA1000 subwoofer plate amplifiers (integrated into cabinets). Projector Optoma UHZ65. Best system for home theater with CBT36K's beam control giving sweet spot for all theater seating (one row, eight seats).

Again, there are plenty of audio/video preamp digital signal processors with room equalization dsp but the only crossover function they have is for subwoofers.

 

[brombo]

I have a question if anyone has heard of the following for a dsp crossover. All my audio signals go through my htpc so the audio coming out of the htpc is digital. Currently, the audio output is via spdif to the openDRC DA-8 miniDSP processor which has 8 channels. Is there software I can run on my htpc so that the crossovers are implements in the hdmi audio output so that I can use a audio/video digital processor as a multi channel dac where the crossovers are implemented in the digital audio signal entering the audio/video processor and then the audio/video processor can do the room correction and act as a dac. Of course the analog inputs of the audio/video processor would then be useless.

 

[NBPK402]

I prefer active, and hopefully I will find a way to have a digital signal from the preamp straight to the amps mounted either at the individual speaker or inside it. I know there are some manufactured speakers like this, but I want to do it on my K402 MEHs affordably and be able to do it with 11 biamped speakers.

 

[brombo]

You need 22 channels of dac's that are word synced. What are you considering for that? The only thing I can think of are RME pcie cards or external dacs that can be all word synced together.

 

[NBPK402]

You need 22 channels of dac's that are word synced. What are you considering for that? The only thing I can think of are RME pcie cards or external dacs that can be all word synced together.

I would like to biamp all my channels in my HT....I currently have a Xilica 4080 and a minidsp ddrc88, but I would love to have a complete digital setup.

 

[gp4Jesus]

I've been back and forth between active and passive loudspeakers over the years several times but have firmly settled on active loudspeakers. I've always admired the higher efficiency and reduced distortion intrinsic to providing each driver it's own optimised amplifier and driving it directly.

That being said, I've both listened to (many) and owned several (Meridian DSP6000 & DSP5000 24/96 models) digital active loudspeakers and ultimately they weren't a good fit for me and my listening habits. For digital actives to be seen in the best light all sources should be digital. But I still love great analogue LP record playback though and in my experience cycles of ADC->DSP->DAC conversion do analog signals no sonic favors. So my absolute favorite actives are current model UK-built ATC loudspeakers which sport entirely analog electronic crossovers and old-school Class AB amplification. I'm also a long time fan of Meridian's Kef driver based legacy actives from the late '70s through early '90s and own several pairs including the pair mid '80s flagship M100s seen below.

View attachment 51361
ATC SCM20ASL Pro MkII active monitors on custom Skylan stands circa April 2022.

View attachment 51363

Those M100s look remarkably like the M2 & M3 big brother, the M10. Do they have a rear baffle mounted oval passive radiator?

 

[VinceHoffman]

Those M100s look remarkably like the M2 & M3 big brother, the M10. Do they have a rear baffle mounted oval passive radiator?

The Meridian M100 is just what it appears to be, an evolution of their prior M10 flagship. Externally it is identical to the M10 in nearly every way (including the "racetrack" B139 passive radiator in the rear). The only externally visible difference is the substitution of the more extended and refined Kef T33 tweeter for the relatively huge T52 dome tweeter found in the M10 (and M2). The M100 also sports a few circuit refinements in the electronic crossover. If you've heard a pair of M10s in good working order, the M100 offers the same snappy low frequencies, warm mid-band and holographic imaging of the M10 with a more extended and airy top octave.

I actually also own working examples of the M2 & its successor, the M20 (again a near identical loudspeaker but with the T33 tweeter upgrade), along with Meridian's smallest M3 & successor M30 active models. In the latter case the M30 featured the T33 tweeter along with a slightly larger enclosure to accommodate a new 6" carbon composite mid-woofer vs the 5.25" Kef B110 used on every other model. All those early Meridian actives still sound great provided the mid-woofers haven't been over driven and you rebuild the tweeters to refresh the ferro-fluid in the voice coil gap.

 

[gp4Jesus]

The Meridian M100 is just what it appears to be, an evolution of their prior M10 flagship. Externally it is identical to the M10 in nearly every way (including the "racetrack" B139 passive radiator in the rear). The only externally visible difference is the substitution of the more extended and refined Kef T33 tweeter for the relatively huge T52 dome tweeter found in the M10 (and M2). The M100 also sports a few circuit refinements in the electronic crossover. If you've heard a pair of M10s in good working order, the M100 offers the same snappy low frequencies, warm mid-band and holographic imaging of the M10 with a more extended and airy top octave.

I actually also own working examples of the M2 & its successor, the M20 (again a near identical loudspeaker but with the T33 tweeter upgrade), along with Meridian's smallest M3 & successor M30 active models. In the latter case the M30 featured the T33 tweeter along with a slightly larger enclosure to accommodate a new 6" carbon composite mid-woofer vs the 5.25" Kef B110 used on every other model. All those early Meridian actives still sound great provided the mid-woofers haven't been over driven and you rebuild the tweeters to refresh the ferro-fluid in the voice coil gap.

1. So this T33 is smaller than the T52? Otherwise the M100 is the same as the M10. save for some XO refinements. I recall well recorded material sounded almost spooky, but in a good way.

From the pics, your M100’s tweeter certainly look different, and now that you mention it, smaller. IIRC my M2 tweeters’ domes are larger than 1”. Something I thought odd but didn’t care because they sounded great. Finally the vintage M3 came w/the T33?

2. “Sounds” like my tweeters are gonna need a little of the TLC you described - they’ve been idle for 14 years though maybe I can get around that by swapping in a fresh pair of T33s!

Too many related and unrelated things higher on the list but I can dream!

Thanks for sharing that update. Tony

 

[VinceHoffman]

1. So this T33 is smaller than the T52? Otherwise the M100 is the same as the M10. save for some XO refinements. I recall well recorded material sounded almost spooky, but in a good way.

From the pics, your M100’s tweeter certainly look different, and now that you mention it, smaller. IIRC my M2 tweeters’ domes are larger than 1”. Something I thought odd but didn’t care because they sounded great. Finally the vintage M3 came w/the T33?

2. “Sounds” like my tweeters are gonna need a little of the TLC you described - they’ve been idle for 14 years though maybe I can get around that by swapping in a fresh pair of T33s!

Too many related and unrelated things higher on the list but I can dream!

Thanks for sharing that update. Tony

Kef's driver model descriptors generally referenced the driver type & it's diameter in millimeters back then. Hence the T52 being a tweeter with a (surprisingly large) 52mm dome and the B110 being a bass driver (technically a mid-bass driver) with a 110mm diameter cone (but a 5.25" stamped steel frame). So the T33 used on the later M100, M20, and M30 was a 33mm dome.

The pic of one of my M3s reveals the fact that while it shares the same Kef B110 mid-bass driver as it's brethren, it's tweeter was sourced elsewhere. The M3 sported Audax HD13D34H 34mm dome tweeters. Despite being a bit of a Meridian fanboy and having bought my first pair of M3s back in 1984, I never found out why Meridian went elsewhere for the tweeter on the M3.

The Kef T33 tweeter is long since out of production (2+ decades!) and so you won't be buying a new pair. What's more, Meridian paid Kef a premium for hand selected, stringently tested matched pairs of the Kef drivers they used. That way if you damaged a driver back then, Meridian could look up the raw frequency response of your drivers via the serial # and provide a perfectly matched, hand selected replacement. So you want to enlist a REALLY experienced speaker repair pro to tackle the refresh of your T33's 'cuz they are fragile!

 

[Clive Porter]

Active without a doubt. I just wish that companies that make multichannel (7.1, 10.2, etc.) signal processors (such as Emotiva, Yamaha, etc.) that do room correction would also include the software so you could have dsp crossovers with fewer speakers (reallocate the channels to support dsp crossovers).

I very much agree and have suggested to Denon that some of the “surplus” amplifiers in their high amplifier count AV receivers could be repurposed to support active speakers – but I’ve yet to have a response. Personally I have no interest in being completely surrounded by speakers.
So I’m doing it myself by modifying an AVR-X4000 to use the front speaker outputs for the bass drivers and the front height outputs for the tweeters with a 24 dB/octave crossover at 3kHz using a PCB from KMTech (you can find them on eBay).
Denon provide a full service manual with circuit diagrams so it is quite straightforward for a retired electronics design engineer.

 

[gp4Jesus]

Hmmm….

 

[FrankV]

I would like to biamp all my channels in my HT....I currently have a Xilica 4080 and a minidsp ddrc88, but I would love to have a complete digital setup.

Do you have electronics skills, or a friend that does? I designed a 12 channel output DSP unit using the ADAU1467. The ADAU1467 will support up to 48 output channels which will all be in sync as driven from the same clock. More details here rather than stray too far away from this subject topic: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...au1452-development-boards.320994/post-6934351

 

[Seeker-Smith]

Loo

I would like to biamp all my channels in my HT....I currently have a Xilica 4080 and a minidsp ddrc88, but I would love to have a complete digital setup.

Look at Genelec.

 

[Blueshound]

I vote for fully active. Since somewhere around 2018 I've used a pair of Bryston Model T's, together with their BAX-1 outboard active crossover and Bryston amps to drive the low, mids and high frequency drivers directly. Before upgrading to the BAX-1 and the extra amp channels, I used the Model T Signatures in passive crossover mode. (This version included upgraded, external passive crossover in their own chassis.) The system is in a fairly large dedicated listening / theater room, used 85% of the time for 2-channel listening.
Any brand of amplifiers can be used, as long as all channels have the same gain. So this system architecture allows whatever brand of electronics you favour, with the firmware of the active crossover optimized for performance of the drivers in each of the three bands. No limitations possiibly imposed by internal amp modules that can't be changed, or limited to Class D, and so on. The crossover allows for parametric EQ of low frequencies, for tailoring the lows for room response characteristics.
The Model T Actives are very good, in my opinion. Refined sounding, well detailed and with very good soundstaging. They also met my personal preference for a speaker system with dynamic range, and didn't compress dynamics at higher listening levels, a limitation that quite a few designs for the consumer market share, in my experience.
The change from good passive crossovers to active, with nothing else changing, was quite remarkable. Details became even better defined, with a more obvious sense of venue acoustics or spatial cues made clearer, relative to instruments or voices. Bass instruments, kick drums etc. became slightly more articulate.
I've just received a pair of the new Bryston Model T-10s, that are based on the original design goals, but in a true line-source style arrangement in a taller enclosure. Two woofers at the bottom, two at the top, with the mid and high drivers arranged in a d'Appolito style in the middle. I'm still setting these up, including trying to get an Umik-1 mic to work with REW, a whole other story. I can already hear that these take the performance of the Model T to a new level, however.

Brian