[JLM]

The advantages of active speakers is undeniable.  Flat frequency response, greatly improved dynamics, and unbelievably deep bass.  This was one of my three epiphanies in 30+ years in audio. 

Audiophiles for the most part are unfamiliar with them, don't want to give up part of the "equipment hunt" by letting the speaker designer pick the right amp, or just like looking at lots of equipment.  The question of tubes, digital, whatever you ask of amps goes totally out the window.  Listeners are slackjawed.  Search 6moons review of PMC speaker or Soundstage's review of the Paradigm Active 40 to see the audiophile perspective.  The search should begin and end with active speakers.

I went the purist route with single driver speakers (another epiphany) which are by default active in transmission line cabinets (my 3rd ephipany).  But they're not for everyone.

[JohnR]

The advantages of active speakers is undeniable.  Flat frequency response, greatly improved dynamics, and unbelievably deep bass.

I haven't been reading this thread, but... I fail to see how active speakers automatically confer any of the benefits claimed here.

[BrianM]

The advantages of active speakers is undeniable.  Flat frequency response, greatly improved dynamics, and unbelievably deep bass.

I haven't been reading this thread, but... I fail to see how active speakers automatically confer any of the benefits claimed here.

Or how a passive speaker automatically forfeits any of the benefits claimed here.

[mfsoa]

Or how the loss of the ability to pick and choose amps and cables is automatically a good thing...

[KCI-JohnP]

Some interesting and surprising info here:  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=41254.0

[miklorsmith]

JLM - While active speakers in one context may confer some benefits, I don't think that's automatically true in every case.  In your case, you get to have your cake and eat it too - you're "active" with your TL/SDs (how's that for an abbrev) but you still get to pick your amp.

Aphiles like to season to taste.  Amp selection is a big time personal choice.  Having it locked in the speaker cabinet is a problem for most of us.  I agree that having the XO at line level instead of speaker level makes sense and that performance could be objectively superior using this technique.  However it wouldn't be better for everyone, maybe even most people, for their personal biases.

I've had discoveries myself which make my ideas about this stuff more similar to yours than different.  But, we are not the majority comprising the market manufacturers serve.

. . . Having written this, I'm not seeing how it relates to the main topic - sorry for the detour.

[raztec]

Actually, all this talk of active speakers, while somewhat off topic, is very relevant to my situation since I'm starting from scratch.

The question is with a 7.1 system can I mix active and passive speakers?

The guys at Outlaw say I can run the actives on their pre/pro 990 and then use their 5 channel balanced 7500 to run the remaining speakers.

What do guys think of mixing active and passive speakers in such a way?

[Bob Reynolds]

Actually, all this talk of active speakers, while somewhat off topic, is very relevant to my situation since I'm starting from scratch.

The question is with a 7.1 system can I mix active and passive speakers?

The guys at Outlaw say I can run the actives on their pre/pro 990 and then use their 5 channel balanced 7500 to run the remaining speakers.

What do guys think of mixing active and passive speakers in such a way?

The question is why would you want to?

Active speakers (active line level crossover) have well known technical advantages (thus, their wide spread use in recording/mastering studios), but those technical advantages do not automatically make them subjectively a better speaker to everyone. Toole & Olive have shown through over a decade of listening tests that most people prefer a speaker with a smooth frequency response, but you may be a statistical outlier and don't.

So, if you like the sound of a particular active speaker system, then I'd use it everywhere.

[raztec]

The question is why would you want to?

The four rear speakers will be in-ceiling. Does anyone know if there are active in-ceiling speakers?

[Bob Reynolds]

The question is why would you want to?

The four rear speakers will be in-ceiling. Does anyone know if there are active in-ceiling speakers?

Well, that's a good reason! Genelec's HT series can probably be built into a ceiling, but you might want to read Dr. Toole's paper "Part One: How Many Loudspeakers? What Kind? Where?" on the Harman site: http://www.harman.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx before making that decision.

Click on the White Papers link. As I recall, ceiling placement was not a consideration for getting good sound in an HT. I assume you are considering ceiling placement due to aesthetic reasons.

[Mike Dzurko]

Actually, all this talk of active speakers, while somewhat off topic, is very relevant to my situation since I'm starting from scratch.

The question is with a 7.1 system can I mix active and passive speakers?

The guys at Outlaw say I can run the actives on their pre/pro 990 and then use their 5 channel balanced 7500 to run the remaining speakers.

What do guys think of mixing active and passive speakers in such a way?

I think what you want to be very careful of is mixing and matching speakers that have different characteriistics in a 7.1 system. The front three in particular must be designed to go together for optimum sound. The surrounds aren't as important, but the closer they are to the front sound, the more pleased you'll be.

[satfrat]

Actually, all this talk of active speakers, while somewhat off topic, is very relevant to my situation since I'm starting from scratch.

The question is with a 7.1 system can I mix active and passive speakers?

The guys at Outlaw say I can run the actives on their pre/pro 990 and then use their 5 channel balanced 7500 to run the remaining speakers.

What do guys think of mixing active and passive speakers in such a way?

I think what you want to be very careful of is mixing and matching speakers that have different characteriistics in a 7.1 system. The front three in particular must be designed to go together for optimum sound. The surrounds aren't as important, but the closer they are to the front sound, the more pleased you'll be.

That's especially true for Dobly digital/DTS music playback or any surround music for that matter. Tonal/sonic simularity is important which is why having a system with all the same speakers is optimal.

[JLM]

JohnR/BrianM/mfsoa/miklorsmith,

I've done head to head comparison active to passive.  Years ago I compared Paradigm Studio 20 ($800/pair small 2-way standmounts) versus Paradigm Active 20 ($1600/pair of the same drivers/cabinet design).  No comparison, not even close, obvious to anyone.  Same "house sound" and appearance (the actives were heavier/deeper due to the built-in amps and of course have power cords) but thats where any comparison stopped.  The Active 20 compared closer to their $1600/pair floorstanding Studio 80.  And this is from a company that had no experience building active speakers.  Just imagine of what PMC, JBL, or Mackie could do.

If you haven't compared, you just don't know and probably can't appreciate.

[bpape]

That particular comparison is valid - active to passive on the same speaker by the same manufacturer.  However, to extrapolate that out to all active speakers being superior to all passive/separate amp systems is just completely invalid - sorry.   "My cat is bigger than my dog -> all cats are bigger than all dogs".  Bad logic.   

Yes, there is the possibility to gain a lot but there are good and bad in both camps.  I'll take a pair of Sapphires driven by a nice class A solid state amp any day over an active pair of Mackies or JBL's (and yes, I've heard those too).

Also, this mixing of a true active speaker system in the same conversation as a biamped system via an active xover is not valid.  They're 2 completely different things.  Some real active speakers still use passive xovers inside - some don't.  The advantages of an active design is that one can build in response and phase adjustments in the electronics where this is not possible with an external amp (at least not adjustments that are specifically for that one and only that one speaker).  Now, I will agree that using a biamped system with and active xover has theoretical advantages over a single amp with passive xover components. 

Again though, not all of one are better than the other - they just have the POTENTIAL to be better.

Bryan

[BrianM]

JohnR/BrianM/mfsoa/miklorsmith,

I've done head to head comparison active to passive.  Years ago I compared Paradigm Studio 20 ($800/pair small 2-way standmounts) versus Paradigm Active 20 ($1600/pair of the same drivers/cabinet design).  No comparison, not even close, obvious to anyone.  Same "house sound" and appearance (the actives were heavier/deeper due to the built-in amps and of course have power cords) but thats where any comparison stopped.  The Active 20 compared closer to their $1600/pair floorstanding Studio 80.  And this is from a company that had no experience building active speakers.  Just imagine of what PMC, JBL, or Mackie could do.

If you haven't compared, you just don't know and probably can't appreciate.

I take it this is your idea of an argument.

[Mike Dzurko]

For about 5 years we invested heavily in developing partially powered speakers. Some of you will remember the Veritas series.  We eventually developed and used a pretty sophisticated amp for the bass drivers with the mid-tweeter being driven passively. The bass system employed what we named AWS for Adaptive Woofer System and included two bands of parametric eq as well as adjustable volume and adjustable cutoff. You could fine tune the heck out of these things. The funny thing is, folks were immediately asking for fully passive versions of the same.  A lot of people said the AWS was just too complicated, and besides they’d already paid for the power amps, etc.  Even thought the amplifiers we used were of very high quality (and costly) folks just figured they MIGHT not sound as good as the amps they had. We developed the Essence series which was a completely passive version of the same speaker. 

Point One: The Essence sold FAR better, and maintains higher resale value.
Point Two: The Essence and Veritas sounded the same other than the ability to tune the heck out of the Veritas.

So, while active speakers do present some cool engineering advantages, those don’t necessarily translate into real, sonic advantages. And, other than a relative handful of people, the market is still pretty uncomfortable with active speakers.

[miklorsmith]

I've done head to head comparison active to passive.  Years ago I compared Paradigm Studio 20 ($800/pair small 2-way standmounts) versus Paradigm Active 20 ($1600/pair of the same drivers/cabinet design).  No comparison, not even close, obvious to anyone.  Same "house sound" and appearance (the actives were heavier/deeper due to the built-in amps and of course have power cords) but thats where any comparison stopped.  The Active 20 compared closer to their $1600/pair floorstanding Studio 80.

I think this makes a different statement than you intended - the Active vs. Studio 20 was no contest.  OK, I won't argue that point as I wasn't there.  But, the Actives were twice as expensive according to your numbers and the Active 20 at $1,600 was "closer" to their $1,600 Studio (passive) speaker.  So, what's the real comparison?  It sounds like the $1,600 passive was still better.  I understand there is amplification included with the active speakers but I'd bet the internal amps weren't any worldbeaters.  Plus, the upgrade path with the passives would be easier as external amps can be swapped unlike those in the active speaker.

Question - what do you do when one of the amps in your speakers craps out after 5 years?

[srb]

Question - what do you do when one of the amps in your speakers craps out after 5 years?

Good point, as well as the fact that a speaker cabinet is not the ideal place to house amplifier electronics due to vibration and no flow-through ventillation (even if it's ported)

Steve

[JLM]

Don't want to argue, just to open your minds to other possibilities, and apparently its not working.   

And to clarify, the Active 20 had the bass output of the Studio 80 for the same price, but the frequency response was flatter and it was way more dynamic.  Most studio monitors, powered or not, (like JBL/Mackie) will sound highly analytical to fit the work they do.  Its not a sound I'm after at home either, but that is an individual thing.  Good points about the exact crossover design, but honestly if you'd heard what I heard, the quibbles over amp swapping/placement would stop. 

Just to get the thread back on track, I don't like seeing comparisons between two AC vendor's stuff in open forum.  But I see the Sapphire as the better/more expensive down the road/ultimate solution when subs and surround speakers are factored in.  I'd start with the final budget in mind and work towards that.

[bpape]

Yes - the active 20 had the output of the 80 - because they included EQ circuits in the built in amp.  That's an advantage but if not done properly can have other negative effects.

Would it surprise you to know that there are a few nice studios that actually use Sapphires for mixing?  Also, had you recommended something like an active Dynaudio or Adam, you might not have gotten the dissent. 

I think the point was that the JBL and Mackies, active or not, are not going to even approach the sound desired in a home from either the Sapphire or the Strata.  Yes, active has it's advantages - if done properly.  It's just that it's not automatically a better solution just because it's active - just like it's not a better speaker just because it's a single driver. 

Bryan