Passive or active monitors?

[brandmansam]

What are the advantages/disadvantages of having passive/active monitors?

Which one should i choose for my home studio?

 

[grimtraveller]

For passive monitors, you'll need an amp to drive them, kind of like a regular stereo but better suited to what you're doing {unless you have a really high end stereo}. The active monitors have the amps inbuilt so you'll save on space, if nothing else. I can't think of any real disadvantages or advantages either way. I personally use active ones. More for convenience than anything technical. I think active ones are a great idea.
You'll find in this recording area that we so love that you'll be confronted with lots of conflicting info and opinions and sometimes, the more differing experiences people describe, the harder it can be to choose. But choose you must. Make your choice and go with it, learning on that.

 

[snatchman]

Here's a difference you may consider..Active monitors are great for sure ( well, some of them)..If the amp is well matched with the speaker, good.. As stated, they save one additional set up step.But my main reason for using passive monitors: If my amp goes down,I just stick in another one. If my speakers go down, I just stick in another pair..Unlike active. If either one goes down, you are SOL in either case unless you have another powered set laying around. Good luck..

 

[Bobbsy]

Exactly what the others have said. Either way can work well. Active monitors guarantee the amp is well matched to the speakers but also mean that, if one part or the other goes, you lose everything. Passive monitors take a bit more thought with the matching of gear but mean that you can swap things around as required.

One potential small advantage of passive with an amp is that you can place the amp someplace convenient and use the volume control as required. With active, you need to have some sort of remote control on your interface or mixer. Not a biggie but something else to consider.

 

[John Willett]

There are actually THREE types of monitor:-

PASSIVE
These have a passive crossover and require an external amplifier.

POWERED
These are similar to the passive, but have the amplifier built into the loudspeaker. (NB: some people incorrectly call these "actives" - they are NOT).

ACTIVE
These have an active (electronic) crossover which then feeds separate amplifiers - one for each driver. With actives there is no passive crossover to soak up power and the full power of the amplifier drives each loudspeaker driver.


Personally I prefer actives.

 

[gecko zzed]

Here's a difference you may consider..Active monitors are great for sure ( well, some of them)..If the amp is well matched with the speaker, good.. As stated, they save one additional set up step.But my main reason for using passive monitors: If my amp goes down,I just stick in another one. If my speakers go down, I just stick in another pair..Unlike active. If either one goes down, you are SOL in either case unless you have another powered set laying around. Good luck..

Well yes . . . If the amp goes down replace it. If a speaker goes down, stick in another pair. Which means you have another amp and another pair of speakers at hand. If you have that, why wouldn't someone else have another pair of actives. Seems like six of one and half a dozen of another to me. In either case, it is useful to have spares handy.

 

[Bobbsy]

There are actually THREE types of monitor:-

PASSIVE
These have a passive crossover and require an external amplifier.

POWERED
These are similar to the passive, but have the amplifier built into the loudspeaker. (NB: some people incorrectly call these "actives" - they are NOT).

ACTIVE
These have an active (electronic) crossover which then feeds separate amplifiers - one for each driver. With actives there is no passive crossover to soak up power and the full power of the amplifier drives each loudspeaker driver.


Personally I prefer actives.

Technically, absolutely correct. However, the phrase "active speakers" (meaning "powered") has crept so much into the lexicon, even from manufacturers, that I've given up arguing the fact.

Personally, I've never heard enough benefit from bi or tri-amped systems to feel the extra complication is worth it.

 

[miroslav]

I keep a pair of each, active and passive on my meter bridge.
They are not both the same brand/style, but at least that way I always have a backup in case something goes with the other set.
I use the active monitors as my primary set.

 

[grimtraveller]

There are actually THREE types of monitor

POWERED
These are similar to the passive, but have the amplifier built into the loudspeaker. (NB: some people incorrectly call these "actives" - they are NOT).

I stand corrected.
Well, actually, I slouch around watching the olympics and Columbo corrected.

 

[Armistice]

If your active / powered monitors die, it's a message from the gods to upgrade...

And really, how often does that actually happen? I've been hoping my old Behringer Truths would kark it for ages so I could go a bit more upmarket, but they're stubbon bastards...

 

[Bobbsy]

Have you never heard of assisted suicide, Armistice?

 

[grimtraveller]

But my main reason for using passive monitors: If my amp goes down,I just stick in another one. If my speakers go down, I just stick in another pair..Unlike active. If either one goes down, you are SOL in either case unless you have another powered set laying around.

but also mean that, if one part or the other goes, you lose everything.

Well yes . . . If the amp goes down replace it. If a speaker goes down, stick in another pair.

In either case, it is useful to have spares handy.

but at least that way I always have a backup in case something goes with the other set.

If your active / powered monitors die, it's a message from the gods to upgrade..

And really, how often does that actually happen?

It's an interesting concept, having back ups of stuff. Where does one draw the line ? If the DAW goes kaboom ? Or the telly ? Or the computer ? Or the car ? Or the wife {}?
The notion that, as snatchman pointed out, if one set of {or a individual speaker} powereds goes down you're stuffed unless you have a back up set applies to powered, passive or actives and for that matter an amp, which hardly renders powereds at an intrinsic disadvantage.
It's all Moroccan roll.

 

[Bobbsy]

Well, I don't deliberately have backups (except maybe for some big live stuff) but, over the years, you tend to acquire extra bits and pieces. If the amp that drives my passive speakers goes down, I do have an old one in the cupboard. If I should blow a driver in one of the speakers, I do have old speakers I could hook up to the existing amp and keep going until I can fix or replace my 30 year old monitors.

It's not just the backup issue though, there's also cost. Powered monitors cost more than passive ones and, if the amp in one goes smokey, you have to replace the whole thing. If my amp goes, I just replace the amp and keep using the old speakers.

Neither argument is totally compelling and I have worked with powered monitors in the past. If I could afford them again, I'd have another set of Genelecs in an instant. Either work--I think we were just pointing out that there are advantages and disadvantages to either system.