passive/active monitors

[darknailblue]

hey i've been reading reviews on monitors and what not and a lot of them say how passive monitors are superior to active monitors.... im using a pair of m audio sb5s? i think... and theyre just fine for what im doing right now.... but why am i reading so much saying that passives sound better than actives?

~dn

[Boray]

This is just a wild guess, but maybe the reviewers just are used to how "passive" speakers sound. Active ones should have a more accurate sound as the amplifiers are custom made just for the speaker in question. And often they are also bi-ampified; One amplifier for the tweeter and one for the woofer...

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Boray
Active ones should have a more accurate sound as the amplifiers are custom made just for the speaker in question.

This is nonsense - has nothing at all to do with "accuracy"....


Anyways - to answer your question, darknailblue --
There is no inherent reason for passives to be "better" than actives or vice-versa.... high-quality passives powered by a high-quality amp will be excellent.... high-quality actives, will be equally excellent......

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
This is nonsense - has nothing at all to do with "accuracy"....


Anyways - to answer your question, darknailblue --
There is no inherent reason for passives to be "better" than actives or vice-versa.... high-quality passives powered by a high-quality amp will be excellent.... high-quality actives, will be equally excellent......

What's the purpose of active monitors then if not to design the amps (and crossovers etc) to perfectly match the drivers?

[Blue Bear Sound]

My point was -- you have NO LESS accuracy using a good power amp with passives than you have with actives............

You used "accuracy" as a blanket qualification and that is simply incorrect (not to mention "inaccurate")....

[lomky]

Now if I have say a Hafler TA1600, would I be able to get more "bang for my buck" buying passives as opposed to Actives? There sure does not seem to be alot of passive monitors in the homerecording market, or am I just blind??

[Light]

The primary advantage of active monitors is not that they are inherently "better". The advantage is that I do not have to figure out which crossover and amp to use. I don't have to think about it, it is already done. Yes they (the designers) match the size of the amp to the driver, but I could do that myself (by buying two amplifiers of appropriate size for the drivers) if I wanted to. This is all assuming I want to bother with bi-amping my monitors (and they can be bi-amped). Active crossovers are inherently better than passive, but if you bi-amp your monitors you can use an active crossover. Active monitors are inherently better (from an electronic and theoretical point of view, though you must compare similarly priced systems) than passives which are not bi-amped.

At any rate, the main reason for the popularity of active monitors is that you don't have to think about the amp or crossover. With the number of inexperienced and untrained engineers out there these days, this is a very good thing. Even I, as an experienced and trained engineer, find actives MUCH easier.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

[Blue Bear Sound]

Agreed!

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
Agreed!

So if I had squeezed in "for the price" in my first post, then you would not have been complaining, right?

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Boray
So if I had squeezed in "for the price" in my first post, then you would not have been complaining, right?

Possibly.... but I have absolutely no doubt that you would have also included some additional nugget of misinformation in there as well....

I've come to expect nothing else from you, and you prove me right in virtually all your posts.....

[Light]

Originally posted by Boray
So if I had squeezed in "for the price" in my first post, then you would not have been complaining, right?

What you missed was more than just the price. A passive amp can be bi-amped, which you neglected to motion. The important issue is NOT really the amplifier. The real issue (and what you did not mention) is the importance of crossover. Passive monitors can be just as good as active monitors. All it really takes is more effort in designing your system. I HATE figuring all that stuff out. Why bother?

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

[Boray]

Originally posted by Light
What you missed was more than just the price. A passive amp can be bi-amped, which you neglected to motion. The important issue is NOT really the amplifier. The real issue (and what you did not mention) is the importance of crossover. Passive monitors can be just as good as active monitors. All it really takes is more effort in designing your system. I HATE figuring all that stuff out. Why bother?

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

So the definition of an active monitor is if the crossover is active or not? This was what I though from the start - that a passive crossover uses power from the audio signal itself while an active crossover uses external power. But after spending much time on the internet and BBSs it seems that everyones idea of what active monitors is, is just that they doesn't require an external amp (=powered). So was I right from the start then?

/Anders

[Light]

An active monitor has both the active crossover and the power amps built into the monitors.

A passive monitor may have a passive crossover, or may have connections for bi-amping. If you bi-amp it, you would (probably) have an active crossover, and separate power amps for the high and low frequency signals.

The difference is that a passive monitor does not have any active components built in.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

[Boray]

Thanks, Light! That explains it completely!

/Anders