Passive or Active?

D

Dr.Cool

New member
I was wondering if anyone would fill me in on the benefits and disadvantageous qualities of each pertaining to monitors.
 
Passive: Lighter, usually cheaper, don't have to worry about routing power cables, just signal cables. However, you'll need an outboard power amp of sufficient quality to drive the monitors. Longer speaker cable runs are less desirable than balanced signal cables.

Active: Heavy, usually more expensive. On the plus side, the built-in power amp will be suited to the drivers, and may even be biamped with an active crossover, eliminating the need for a passive crossover components, and optimizing performance.

So . . . whichever floats your boat. I scored a killer 6 channel power amp years ago, and I build my own speakers, so I go passive. Actives are pretty convenient though, I must admit :confused:
 
screw passive monitors...i say unless you're getting some type of really amazing monitors, with some type of amazing amp, it's just too much of a hassle to deal with both.
 
I like powered monitors more than passive, and I've owned both. The idea behind powered monitors is that the amp and the speakers are perfectly matched, and that there is virutally no cable run between them. I also just find actives more convenient.
 
Unless the extra amp to drive the passives could be also used to drive say...wedge monitors. Thats what I do anyway. I freaking double duty just about everything. One could always use an extra amp for, monitors, small PA, guitar cab, etc.
 
If an active speaker is driven too hard, starts to smoke and possibly catch fire... is it like a 1000 times more dangerous because it's plugged into the mains??
 
> I was wondering if anyone would fill me in on the benefits and disadvantageous qualities of each pertaining to monitors. <

There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever do remotes:

Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount.

--Ethan
 
If an active speaker is driven too hard, starts to smoke and possibly catch fire... is it like a 1000 times more dangerous because it's plugged into the mains??
Click to expand...

active monitors should never do that, because the amps are perfectly matched(at least should be!) to the drivers...you would essentially have to be a complete dumbass, ignore the clip indicators, and well....yea....be a total dumbass, in order to cause that sort of damage
 
*takes a bow* :) i've had an incident where we had a sound check with active speakers and everything was perfect, but during our first song the guitar seemed a lot louder (someone stood on his floor pedals) ... as it was quite a fast and furious number and i was playing&singing, i didn't check the clip indicators and yep, we badly smoked one of our active monitors straight away... :rolleyes: i've learnt my lesson big time with the settings, but the fact electricity was being pumped into a smoking speaker scared the **** out of me, i think i kicked the power cable out
 
Ironklad Audio said:
active monitors should never do that, because the amps are perfectly matched(at least should be!) to the drivers...you would essentially have to be a complete dumbass, ignore the clip indicators, and well....yea....be a total dumbass, in order to cause that sort of damage
Click to expand...
Fact is that MOST, if not ALL, active monitors are underpowered, this is why they need to have a clip indicator....lol!

What happens when you want "louder" than what's in the box? Well you are stuck with it, cause the limiter kicks in, which sucks.

arnghh I hate active monitors! :mad:
 
That's what I'm still a little confused about, my active speakers have a built in limiter (as well as thermal, DC fault and short circuit protection) so why did one smoke like a chimney? :confused: I know I was sending too hot a signal to the speakers as the clip lights on my mixer were flashing, but my DBX compressor doesn't smoke when I'm using that as a limiter (the speaker did survive the night though and is still working)
 
Cazzbar said:
That's what I'm still a little confused about, my active speakers have a built in limiter (as well as thermal, DC fault and short circuit protection) so why did one smoke like a chimney? :confused: I know I was sending too hot a signal to the speakers as the clip lights on my mixer were flashing, but my DBX compressor doesn't smoke when I'm using that as a limiter (the speaker did survive the night though and is still working)
Click to expand...
Poor design.
Indeed, many of these "built-in amps" are poorly designed by people who have no clue whatsoever to what they are doing.
 
TheDewd said:
Indeed, many of these "built-in amps" are poorly designed by people who have no clue whatsoever to what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Well, Ms Hilarious, Sonic Albert and Ethan Winer, I guess we might as well put our tails between our legs and go on home.

The great TheDewd has spoken.

I was going to post another well-reasoned argument in favor of powered monitors, but since TheDewd has spoken...





:(
 
ssscientist said:
Well, Ms Hilarious, Sonic Albert and Ethan Winer, I guess we might as well put our tails between our legs and go on home.

The great TheDewd has spoken.

I was going to post another well-reasoned argument in favor of powered monitors, but since TheDewd has spoken...
Click to expand...
Sure, powered monitors have some advantages.
But greatest quality is not one of those... ;)
 
> many of these "built-in amps" are poorly designed by people who have no clue whatsoever to what they are doing. <

On what do you base that? Do you have any proof or hard data?

Enquiring minds want to learn!

--Ethan
 
I guess my definition of "underpowered" differs significantly from The Dewd's.

I am using Wharfdale 8.2A monitors as nearfields, and leave the volume level on the monitors set at the middle detent. The output signal from my Tascam 2488 will easily get those monitors loud enough for the neighbors to hear - across the street. They can play very loud, very clean.

As they are not the most expensive monitors around, I would feel certain that more respected brands would perform even better.

So, I don't know WTF TheDewd is talking about. Nor, I suspect, does he. :rolleyes:
 
Zaphod B said:
I guess my definition of "underpowered" differs significantly from The Dewd's.

I am using Wharfdale 8.2A monitors as nearfields, and leave the volume level on the monitors set at the middle detent. The output signal from my Tascam 2488 will easily get those monitors loud enough for the neighbors to hear - across the street. They can play very loud, very clean.

As they are not the most expensive monitors around, I would feel certain that more respected brands would perform even better.

So, I don't know WTF TheDewd is talking about. Nor, I suspect, does he. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I need LOUD shit, this is why I never use nearfields.
I need at least a 12'' woofer in order to get the response I need.
About 115 to 120 dB is a good level for me.
Those small nearfields top at about 100 or 110dB.
I can go higher than that with my headphones LOL!
Of course, I don't mix at high levels all the time, but when you need it, it's there.
Also, you have to consider that an amp that runs near its limits will exhibit much more non-linear distortion than another one that is working in its "comfort" zone.
Most nearfield builders skip on the amp, mostly on the power supply circuits, the amp topology, transistor matching and choice, opamp quality and they try to fix all that by using great amounts of negative feedback.
As I stated before, fixing a poor design by using massive negative feedback will get you nowhere.
Proper amp design, with LOTS of headroom and a power supply reserve of several thousands of uF will get you tighter bass response with the needs of less negative feedback.

Seriously, what can you expect out of a 40-60 W low frequency driver using a small cheap asian transformer and small power reserve?
To those who doubt, weight your nearfields and convince yourself that all this weight is all there is to the sound you are hearing.
Massive transformers are really heavy and nearfield manufacturers don't use them cause they're cheap.
The one exception: barefoot monitors, which use Bryston amplification, smart move, I can't stress this enough!

And for those who want proof, have you ever opened up cheap active nearfields and looked at the small transformers, poor design and cheap parts?
 
TheDewd said:
And for those who want proof, have you ever opened up cheap active nearfields and looked at the small transformers, poor design and cheap parts?
Click to expand...

Why yes, I have. :D I'll take your word about poor design because I don't have a clue.
 
I need LOUD shit, this is why I never use nearfields.
I need at least a 12'' woofer in order to get the response I need.
About 115 to 120 dB is a good level for me.
Those small nearfields top at about 100 or 110dB.
Click to expand...

you do realize that 85db is considered to be the "optimal" level for mixing, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top