[JLM]

As primarily an amplifier company who offers speakers, this question of active versus passive design immediately comes to mind as I read of the new design.  (I've been a transmission line fan/user for 25+ years.)  The advantages of active design are well documented and cannot be ignored.

Years ago I auditioned Paradigm Studio 20s ($800, rather typical small 2-way standmounts) against the Paradigm Active 20s ($1600, slightly larger 2-way standmounts).  Paradigm built both concurrently and both represented their top of the line product, so it made for an excellent opportunity to compare approaches.  But there was no comparision!!  The Actives absolutely blew the Studios away.  Bass was tremendous (no sub needed, period).  Dynamics were amazing.  Frequency response was ruler flat.  Coherency/imaging/smoothness at the crossover were all greatly improved.  In this 14 ft x 24 ft room the Active 20s all but matched the $2000 Paradigm Studio 100s (full sized passive floorstanders) in terms of bass and dynamic performance, but out classed them again in coherency/imaging/crossover smoothness.

I highly recommend you consider offering an active version.  You already have varying amp sizes on the shelf that IMO are begging to be combined with a line level crossover into separate enclosures.

[andyr]

As primarily an amplifier company who offers speakers, this question of active versus passive design immediately comes to mind as I read of the new design.  (I've been a transmission line fan/user for 25+ years.)  The advantages of active design are well documented and cannot be ignored.

Years ago I auditioned Paradigm Studio 20s ($800, rather typical small 2-way standmounts) against the Paradigm Active 20s ($1600, slightly larger 2-way standmounts).  Paradigm built both concurrently and both represented their top of the line product, so it made for an excellent opportunity to compare approaches.  But there was no comparision!!  The Actives absolutely blew the Studios away.  Bass was tremendous (no sub needed, period).  Dynamics were amazing.  Frequency response was ruler flat.  Coherency/imaging/smoothness at the crossover were all greatly improved.  In this 14 ft x 24 ft room the Active 20s all but matched the $2000 Paradigm Studio 100s (full sized passive floorstanders) in terms of bass and dynamic performance, but out classed them again in coherency/imaging/crossover smoothness.

I highly recommend you consider offering an active version.  You already have varying amp sizes on the shelf that IMO are begging to be combined with a line level crossover into separate enclosures.

Hehe ... let's see how Mr Hugh replies!!  aa

Incomprehensibly (well, to me anyway!    ) Hugh is not a fan of active speakers ... although I keep beating him over the head about my active Maggies and Marcus does too (with his Orions) - both of these speakers Hugh has heard!   

IME, my 3-way active Maggies completely demolish the stock passive versions of my speakers ... and several later models too.

Regards,

Andy

[AKSA]

Hi JLM,

Many thanks for your post - a very reasonable question.  Andy is right, however.

I began my business in 1997 as a crusade against high prices and cynical design practices.  My rural background in remote South Australia compelled me to create the best quality at the lowest price - an obsession with the value equation.  As time passed and I came to understand the market better and just how businesses were run, I realised that my altruism had to give way to realism, and my prices slowly rose.  No faster than high end prices rose, however, but I still believe that simplicity and elegance is best in the value equation.

I generally prefer two way speakers, largely because the phase shift at both ends of a passband filter is significantly more damaging to the music than the much simpler high and low pass filters used in the two way.  Advances in driver technology in the last decade have seen large drivers extended to easily 3KHz, and tweeters taken down to 1500Hz with relative ease.  When you factor in that most passive LP/HP filters have insertion losses of less than half a dB, that there is added complexity in line level crossovers with their multiple ICs and power supply considerations, and that multiamp setups incur high cost, you ask yourself why it should be done this way.  Only the Orion/Phoenix comes close to the ideal in terms of sonic performance, but in fact if you use bipole design in a conventional speaker you should be able to derive most of the benefits.  I guess I'm just not fully comfortable with the value equation of multiway systems, though I can see a marginal theoretical improvement, based as it is on idealogical engineering notions.

Nonetheless, the day could be coming when I recognise that despite the added cost, the marginal improvement is worth it.  For myself, I would not build an Orion because I'm more than happy with my own passive crossover speakers.  But others do build such systems, locally Andy and Mark have one each, I respect their journeys enormously, and for them it is clearly worth it.  I might soon feel this way too, but I'd start with only a two way system, a la NaO - though not yet.

As time passes and I learn more my designs are becoming more sophisticated and slowly evolving from their extreme simplicity.  I can see a day when I will build a multiway system, and any Aspen customers who buys multiple AKSA/Lifeforce modules presently enjoys a substantial discount to allay the higher cost.

Does this answer your question, JLM?  I'm moving this way, but am presently trying to develop other products of a power supply and switching nature to fill what I think is a more immediate need.  The active market is actually very small - it represents the pinnacle of audiophilia, but I'm just not quite there yet!

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

Hi JLM,

Many thanks for your post - a very reasonable question.

I generally prefer two way speakers, largely because the phase shift at both ends of a passband filter is significantly more damaging to the music than the much simpler high and low pass filters used in the two way.  Advances in driver technology in the last decade have seen large drivers extended to easily 3KHz, and tweeters taken down to 1500Hz with relative ease.  When you factor in that most passive LP/HP filters have insertion losses of less than half a dB, that there is added complexity in line level crossovers with their multiple ICs and power supply considerations, and that multiamp setups incur high cost, you ask yourself why it should be done this way.  Only the Orion/Phoenix comes close to the ideal in terms of sonic performance, but in fact if you use bipole design in a conventional speaker you should be able to derive most of the benefits.  I guess I'm just not fully comfortable with the value equation of multiway systems, though I can see a marginal theoretical improvement, based as it is on idealogical engineering notions.

The active market is actually very small - it represents the pinnacle of audiophilia, but I'm just not quite there yet!

Cheers,

Hugh

Aha, Hugh,   

Mmmm, what has your preference for 2-way over 3-way speakers got to do with active vs. passive?   

Also, one very big consideration in terms of active vs. passive to me is ... if I used just one amp to drive my Maggie IIIas, I'd probably need - according to many posts on the Maggie User Group Forum - at least a 400wpc amp (into 8 ohms) to drive them effectively.  Which AKSA does not make!   

If I drive them actively then the combination of a 100, a 55 and a 25 drives them very satisfactorily!!   

Regards,

Andy

[JLM]

Hugh,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.  I agree with you, that except for the most extreme cases, the optimal speaker design requires no more than two drivers.  And I agree that as hobbists most audiophiles still want to pick each component.  I posed the same question to Bob at SP Tech and got similar response in regards to the imposing complications and problems with active crossovers.

After 25+ years in the serious end of the audio pool with a set of personal values that doesn't fit more than a $5000 USD system I don't ask this question lightly.  Because this epiphany that I related above ranks in the top three I've ever had.  I highly encourage folks to try active designs.  You're in a rather unique position of already offering amp and speaker kits to be able to do this with good quality at a reasonable cost. 

The low cost/active alternative has been to use single driver designs and maybe add a super tweeter with only a protective capacitor or a powered subwoofer.  This of course adds another set of compromises (limited spl, high frequency beaming, etc.) but for many situations the advantages (coherency and being active by default) outweigh them IMO.  So please do consider this concept.

[PSP]

Gentlemen,
Soon, I will be in the Orion camp (a month away??), but there is a third way between "active" and "passive".  Jens's system ( http://j-a-thorsen.homepage.dk/home_gb.html ) is a two way passive between mid and tweeter with active bass from 20-250Hz.

Now I don't claim to have heard dozens of the best systems in the world, and I will be a happy man forever with my new Orions, but there is only one system that I have heard that could punch me in the stomach, dazzle my mind, and sing to my heart and soul, and that is the system Jens had 3 years ago when I heard it (that was before he added the GK-1, the LF 55, and many other subsequent improvements he's told me about).  Jens' approach is also capable of resolving Hugh's pass-band phase error objection.  It does add costs, however.

Just my 2 cents...
Peter

[AKSA]

Hi Andy,

It's always nice to see you so alert - now, you and I should chat about this over a couple of lattes!!

You need to hear my new SB power supply at Marty's, too!  Your preamp has never sounded so good!

When can we meet?  I have a small diary......


Ciao,

Hugh