Active vs Passive = tradeoffs
Those who like active focus and the advantages of active and the disadvantages of passive.
Those who like passive focus on the advantages of passive and disadvantages of active.
Endless threads out there.
Kind of like carnivores vs vegans.
Those who like active focus and the advantages of active and the disadvantages of passive.
Those who like passive focus on the advantages of passive and disadvantages of active.
Endless threads out there.
Kind of like carnivores vs vegans.
Passives only advantage is you can just hook them up to any amp. Can't think of anything else.
Agreed with your entire post. Wish more DIY folks saw it that way; it would help home multi-way catch up to proaudio.
Getting beyond acoustic issues is a robust first step since new issues have nowhere to hide.. then setting any crossover to manage each detail down to the limit of human hearing before comparisons. Talk of such significant audible differences usually speaks to one's experiences more than it does to the equipment.
. I have about $500 worth of caps, and coils.
The center channel I just built is ruler flat, and I "nailed" the x-over pretty quick. The x-over would have cost me about $30, if I had to buy the parts. Music speakers take longer, but that's part of the fun.
If 3-ways were my thing, I'd probably be willing to spend $500 on DSP. I really don't like assembling, and soldering complicated x-overs.
At $150, I might buy one anyway, just to play with. I'm not buying a new PC if that's required, and I'm not going to build a DSP either.
Nothing wrong with big tatas on my speakers.
If I took a biwireable speaker, and I tried to biamp with active crossovers.... it would still see the passive crossovers, huh?
This is true and an understatement. We all know that we change our crossovers several times and have a bunch of parts laying around. We also know that we spend much more on crossover parts than we want to admit. We have a bunch of parts on hand to get those components dialed exactly right. Some of us are obsessive so we have external crossovers to make the revisions easier.
Now, it's not just an obsessive habit. The reality is that passive components change so many factors that it is difficult to predict, even with good software. Putting passive components on woofers (especially inductors) can change the box alignment significantly. So, it takes a lot of trial and error to get it right. Plus, we are constantly getting better at measuring and objectively listening so we love to ge that extra 1-2db of compliance with our downward tilt off-axis and therefore bette run-room response.
Passive is much more expensive except when it's done with a proven design. Active gives us so many possibilities and advantages. There is a reason that 95% of Pro Audio is active now hifi is moving towards that.
This is it gated. At some point I plan to take everything I've made out to a field and put it on a very tall ladder so I can get full range measurements. Averaging a little over 0.6% distortion. Within 3db accuracy. Low end is all messed up because I took these at home in my very small Chicago living room.
Pretty decent I think
Attachments
This is not true at all. What musicians and venue techs have you been talking to? Pro is all about power and all about coloring the music for a specific artist. This is simply easier to do when you can click a few buttons rather than have to swap out components inside of a speaker.
Let's also not forget that musician have to go to different venues. They have to carry the gear. Passives are heavy. Actives are easily to make changes when dealing with a new venue every night. Pro audio use case is so far and away different from home audio hifi. I am the only person I knew personally who has home hifi. Everyone else I know in this city that is into music utilizes pro hifi because it is their livelihood.
Seems this entire thread now has been hijacked by active guys who got their feelings hurt. I do not care. Turning into a case of "thou dost protest too much". The passive speaker designs sounded better. Go to a hifi convention. Give it a listen.
I am an international touring engineer.........I work for a band that does shows in stadiums. I could send you my resume if you want it........
Have you worked in Pro Audio? Pro is about even distribution throughout the venue. Sure, we color the sound to an extent but there is much more to it than clicking a few buttons. Which techs have you been talking to?
They don't carry the gear, but the trucks do. I've been touring for decades so I'm familiar with how it works.
Active speakers, when they have the amplifiers in them, are heavier. Passive components don't add much weight to a Pro Audio speaker. The advantages are that the amplifiers are closer to the drivers and the passive components are not changing the alignment of the woofer in the box. Plus, actives are more efficient which is clearly important in Pro Audio. But it's much more than that. Actives gives us a better phase response and much better consistency.
We don't change the crossover settings (though there were a few line arrays in which we could many years ago). We change the EQ, which could be done just the same with passive speakers. D&B still utilizes passive components and a few other companies have them, but it's clear that active is the way to go for many reasons. This will also be the case in hifi once the designers are more savvy with it and the end user is willing to give up their amplifier choice. But there's no reason to make this the only way to go. I still love passive speakers and a good passive design is an excellent work of art.
But the physics of it is still the same. It's just a different room to operate in.
I work in Pro Audio and I make studio and home hifi speakers. But I guess we're probably not in the same city.
Guy, nobody is going to lug around passive gear from show to show. Why would you?
Like I just said. Listen to them back to back at a show. Ya'll active guys are seriously tiring with your constant preaching, defending, hijacking, etc.
You like active? Cool, just chill wayyyyyyyyyy out about it.
One little comment and ya'll come out of the woodwork like evangelists defending their cult. Its really quite unnecessary.
The speakers frequency response might be decent, but I can't quite tell because you are using more than a 150dB wide scale with 10dB divisions. It is more common to plot the response with only about 40dB for the entire vertical axis. Can you do that?
Distortion is good above 500Hz, not as good below. You didn't mention what sort of SPL level you are using for playback during the distortion measurement, and this is important to know. If that is at 104dB at 1m then wow. If that is at 84dB at 1m then we are talking about something more normal for home hifi.
A 4GB Raspberry Pi5 plus an 8-channel HiFiBerry Dac8x HAT is under $200... and DSP software is free.
Tell audiophiles the truth and you get spit in your face, tell them lies and you earn money.
Sort of, yes, a good plastic surgeon will do a fantastic job in restoring the functionality of skin and even of the deeper tissues, e.g. over a wide necrotic aera in the case of an unlucky paraplegic patient with a massive skin lesion. Plastic surgery will be a salvation for a hiker whose face has been ripped off by a grizzly also. Plastic surgery may help any patient with large skin tumors also. Plastic surgery is also a resort for people who have the urge to alter something about their natural look.
Plastic surgery offers wide possibilities. DSP also offers wide possibilities.
DSP offers all filtering options of a passive approach, and even more options not available with passive filtering. You like Bessell's? Then go DSP for a while and for fun! Because DSP e.g. offers the option of LTA (limited transfer aera) filters and at the same time mimicking Bessell transfer functions withing the passband. So in this example DSP joins the very best of two worlds. A smooth passband and a net cutoff for frequencies where a driver would eventually behave problematically. DSP, as mentionned before, can linearize phase independently of the frequency response. And, and, and ...
Beware: As with plastic surgery, also with DSP you may mess up a lot of things. But blaming DSP for mickey results is like blaming plastic surgeons for michael jackson's final look. If you did not like michale jackson's final look.
I am quite sure that most of the people cherishing the merits of passive systems while demonizing DSP at the same time have hardly had the opportunity to listen to a well designed (!!!) DSP setup.
Last not least: At AXPONA in every room you listen not only to a different speaker, but also to a different room. It begins with room geometry, with outfit, last not least with the numbers of people inside of the room, each person acting as a diffusor and reflector at the same time. So if you like to compare DSP vs. passive, then do it in normalized conditions.
Last edited:
I tried to hint about some blind spots, but I guess the nature of blind spots is that you can't see that you can't see that you can't see them.
Klippel has some interesting papers on distortion. Once you see the graphs of speaker impedance curves at mid-to-high frequencies, moving away from the 'nominal' value that we're all familiar with, and dynamically jumping around between min-max values in response to variables like cone displacement or current, it should begin to make sense that this is something that requires careful electronic design to support the speaker's requirements.
DSP only manipulates the input signal, and is unable to change some of the other characteristics imposed by passive filter components and the amplifiers themselves. If done well, those other characteristics can make a big difference to THD and IMD.
A listener walks into a room, is miles outside of the 'sweet spot', so the frequency flatness is bound to be sub-optimal anyway, but they are still able to discern whether HD is high or low.
Klippel has some interesting papers on distortion. Once you see the graphs of speaker impedance curves at mid-to-high frequencies, moving away from the 'nominal' value that we're all familiar with, and dynamically jumping around between min-max values in response to variables like cone displacement or current, it should begin to make sense that this is something that requires careful electronic design to support the speaker's requirements.
DSP only manipulates the input signal, and is unable to change some of the other characteristics imposed by passive filter components and the amplifiers themselves. If done well, those other characteristics can make a big difference to THD and IMD.
A listener walks into a room, is miles outside of the 'sweet spot', so the frequency flatness is bound to be sub-optimal anyway, but they are still able to discern whether HD is high or low.
Thanks! That would be great if you could do outside. It's also possible to do a gated measurement >300-500hz so its pretty accurate even indoors and then splice a nearfield below 300-500hz like JA/Stereophile. On axis and off axis of course. Maybe scaling 40db to 90db or so so like Erin does gives a pretty clear picture.
Nice looking design Btw. Is that a HiVi tweeter?