B
Bluex13
New member
In terms of sound is there any difference between the two?
Also whats your preference for a live scenario
Also whats your preference for a live scenario
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
in theory a passive can sound better because the amps are designed for those particular drivers.
I say "in theory" because it's not always the case that it does sound better.
For live actives are pretty attractive ..... you don't have to carry around power amps.
Personally I prefer passive for live for a few reasons ..... one is that if an active speakers' amp fails you don't have any way to use it 'till it's fixed.
With a passive you just toss another amp on there.
If it's a driver that's failed, with an active you don't really know which it is. With a passive you know it's the horn or woofer and can bypass it and use the rest.
You can also use passives in a variety of ways such as I have some that I run one amp into for main use but sometimes they're for monitors so I have a different amp to drive them with for that situation.
But note that I'm old school, having done this full time for 40+ years. I have my preferences but it's likely some younger players might think it's anachronistic to still use passives.
But they're still around so I'm not the only guy that prefers them.
I say "in theory" because it's not always the case that it does sound better.
For live actives are pretty attractive ..... you don't have to carry around power amps.
Personally I prefer passive for live for a few reasons ..... one is that if an active speakers' amp fails you don't have any way to use it 'till it's fixed.
With a passive you just toss another amp on there.
If it's a driver that's failed, with an active you don't really know which it is. With a passive you know it's the horn or woofer and can bypass it and use the rest.
You can also use passives in a variety of ways such as I have some that I run one amp into for main use but sometimes they're for monitors so I have a different amp to drive them with for that situation.
But note that I'm old school, having done this full time for 40+ years. I have my preferences but it's likely some younger players might think it's anachronistic to still use passives.
But they're still around so I'm not the only guy that prefers them.
Last edited:
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Being old school as well, I grew up using amps and passive speakers for live work.
However, technology has changed, and for the sort of work I do, I prefer (and use) active speakers.
There are a number of reasons:
1 Current active speaker technology includes on-board speaker and sound management systems (peak limiters, overload protection, and drivers tightly linked to amps, hence no impedance mismatches).
2 You only need to carry two types of cable: power and XLR.
3 You can mix and match active speakers according to the nature of the venue.
4 Likewise, you can scale up or down easily . . . bigger venue? Just daisy chain more actives into the system.
However, technology has changed, and for the sort of work I do, I prefer (and use) active speakers.
There are a number of reasons:
1 Current active speaker technology includes on-board speaker and sound management systems (peak limiters, overload protection, and drivers tightly linked to amps, hence no impedance mismatches).
2 You only need to carry two types of cable: power and XLR.
3 You can mix and match active speakers according to the nature of the venue.
4 Likewise, you can scale up or down easily . . . bigger venue? Just daisy chain more actives into the system.
mjbphotos
Moderator
Gecko's points are all valid ones.
Think: budget, venues you will be playing at and how much power/size you will need. If you will typically be playing smaller venues you can get away with 2 small or medium sized active speakers and then if a big gig comes along, you can rent some more active speakers and plug them together easily. If you're running a passive system, you will need more amps, cables, etc.
Think: budget, venues you will be playing at and how much power/size you will need. If you will typically be playing smaller venues you can get away with 2 small or medium sized active speakers and then if a big gig comes along, you can rent some more active speakers and plug them together easily. If you're running a passive system, you will need more amps, cables, etc.
S
snatchman
Member
As for live, I prefer passive.Studio, not such a big deal as it more "controlled" enviorment...I've always been a big fan of individual components and not integrated gear..If you have a active speaker for live, better have a back up pair in case the speaker pops or the amp blows..!..With separate passive speakers, you just swap in either another speaker or another amp to continue the gig..( been there,done that...many times..!)
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Frankly, the advantages and disadvantages of both make the decision just about a wash.
Passive speakers (with an external amp) make the speaker cabinets lighter (at the expense of amp rack of course) and allow more flexibility in terms of patching around failures. They require fairly heavy duty cable to be run to each cab.
Powered speakers (a phrase I prefer to "active" since a few old school engineers use active to refer to a type of crossover network) eliminate the need for an amp rack but the cabs themselves are heavier (and may have to be hoisted in the air) and also require you to have a source of mains electricity at the cabinets. They can be connected with a simple line level cable--but, when you add in the mains cable, may not save you much copper.
In terms of sound quality, there's no inherent different, live or in the studio.
The above applies to both live and studio monitors--though the weight and wiring issues are smaller in an "install once and forget" studio.
In short, I've used both and don't have a firm preference. It all depends on the size of the system you need and what's available to you. Either can sound anything from great to crap.
Passive speakers (with an external amp) make the speaker cabinets lighter (at the expense of amp rack of course) and allow more flexibility in terms of patching around failures. They require fairly heavy duty cable to be run to each cab.
Powered speakers (a phrase I prefer to "active" since a few old school engineers use active to refer to a type of crossover network) eliminate the need for an amp rack but the cabs themselves are heavier (and may have to be hoisted in the air) and also require you to have a source of mains electricity at the cabinets. They can be connected with a simple line level cable--but, when you add in the mains cable, may not save you much copper.
In terms of sound quality, there's no inherent different, live or in the studio.
The above applies to both live and studio monitors--though the weight and wiring issues are smaller in an "install once and forget" studio.
In short, I've used both and don't have a firm preference. It all depends on the size of the system you need and what's available to you. Either can sound anything from great to crap.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Weight is an issue.
If you run unpowered speakers with an amp, you have comparatively lighter bins.
But it doesn't always work out that way. It depends on how current you are with the technology.
For example, I have a mixing acquaintance who is on the unpowered speaker path. He is running a Aussie Monitor power amp which weighs about 35kg into unpowered EVs. Those EVs are heavier than the powered EVs I have.
If you hang onto your older gear (amps & speakers), then there's every possibility that you are dragging around more weight per watt than someone using contemporary powered speakers.
If, however, you ditch the old gear and get contemporary lightweight power amps and speakers, then the weight per watt may work out in your favour.
If you run unpowered speakers with an amp, you have comparatively lighter bins.
But it doesn't always work out that way. It depends on how current you are with the technology.
For example, I have a mixing acquaintance who is on the unpowered speaker path. He is running a Aussie Monitor power amp which weighs about 35kg into unpowered EVs. Those EVs are heavier than the powered EVs I have.
If you hang onto your older gear (amps & speakers), then there's every possibility that you are dragging around more weight per watt than someone using contemporary powered speakers.
If, however, you ditch the old gear and get contemporary lightweight power amps and speakers, then the weight per watt may work out in your favour.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
if I have tons of money I can get almost anything. I don't and so I can have a couple of sets of speakers and that's it.
I'm a musician, not a sound company.If something breaks down on a gig I use what's left for the rest of the gig.
I think you'll find that's the case with the vast majority of live gigging musicians.
I'm a musician, not a sound company.If something breaks down on a gig I use what's left for the rest of the gig.
I think you'll find that's the case with the vast majority of live gigging musicians.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I'm not a musician but neither do I have a ton of money to carry spare everythings. I recall a number of times, using amps in a rack and passive speakers, I've been able to keep a show going by patching round a problem and "using what's left". This is more trouble with powered speakers where, if you lose part of it, you're stuck.
But it's not just small shows where you can't back everything up. Have a read of THIS BLOG from Dave Rat about what happened when a full glass of beer was thrown at a Red Hot Chilli Peppers concert in Rotterdam and took out his FOH console.
But it's not just small shows where you can't back everything up. Have a read of THIS BLOG from Dave Rat about what happened when a full glass of beer was thrown at a Red Hot Chilli Peppers concert in Rotterdam and took out his FOH console.
S
snatchman
Member
True this..But I'd rather tell studio musicians give me a minute to get a replacement ( as they might be a little more forgiving), than to tell 1000 drunk,rowdy fans at a live show give me a minute...(lol)..YMMV..