active speakers, Paradise? Trouble in paradise?

Some or much of my own confusion rests in the terminology being used I suspect.

I’m understanding so far, an active speaker may or may not have it’s own power cell to fuel the speakers with, and that active units pre-determine the optimum range for it’s drivers by filtering what portion of the bandwidth gets amplified by which amp for what driver!?

Fine. No prob there.

Apparently these ‘filters’ (adjustable or fixed, and at whatever total amounts of available power/watts) are actually not affecting the signal integrity, but allowing only bits of it to be applied to which ever transducer (s), so these filters are brick wall openings for certain frequencies.

Holes in the dam, huh?

What then, creates such an inoccuous non interfering slicing and dicing of the signal so the intended amp see’s only it’s portion.

What is the electronic dam with holes in it?

Or, in other words, who or what is the traffic cop doing all the directing of the audio signal, to these anxiously awaiting amps and drivers?

I’m having a hard time discerning any diffs from filters used in active x overs, and passive x overs… apart from this one thing.

All the freqs of the signal pass into the passive x over… getting shunted out here and there as they arrive, perhaps with some bleeding over too in areas they were not intended to land.

OK.. but something must stand in the way of the signal at some point to direct which part of it goes where and IMHO.. that sure seems a x over to me, more than a filter….

UNLESS… each amp is built with limits of bandwidth operation… that would do it too, I suppose.

Still the signal can and will be affected by the impedance of the incoming device feeding it/them… all of which changes with frequency and the number of amps the source or preamp has to feed/see.

Or am I way off with this assessment?

The big positive as in the Legacy model was the flexibility in the software which has some end user adjustment/flexibility.

Shaterne
Is the dollar to performance steps in active x over and/or self powered speakers about that of passive ones?

Does your 6K active speaker buying buck get you more speaker than it would in passives?

Thanks…

Virtually every multi driver loudspeaker system has to "slice and dice" the signal with a x-over of some sort. In the broadest sense, if the x-over is ahead of the power amps in the signal path, the speaker can be called "active", because the x-over unit is an active component. Even if the active crossover, power amps and "drivers in cabinet" are each from a separate manufacturer, this is still an active loudspeaker set-up.

A single driver type monitor coupled to a powered subwoofer are, in this sense, an "active loudspeaker".

I think some people prefer to restrict the use of the phrase "active loudspeaker" to an integrated, active loudspeaker system in which all three functions (active x-over, amp, and speaker) are sold as a system.

Personally, I use the broader definition.

Marty

BTW, if you use exclusively digital sources (or don't mind A-D-A conversion of your analog sources), you could look at digitally room corrected active systems. In addition to the sophisticated room correcting EQ function, these designs go a step further in refining the "slicing and dicing" function of the x-over. Both Merdian and DEQX powered active speakers (like those from Salk, if they still make 'em), for example, employ active x-overs operating in the digital domain. This set-up offers certain extra benefits (in theory, at least) over even analog active systems.

I’m having a hard time discerning any diffs from filters used in active x overs, and passive x overs… apart from this one thing.

An active line level crossover can use much steeper slopes than a passive kind. The line level signal is much less affected by the sonic characteristics of the capacitor used. The phase of the signal can also be adjusted optimally. There is no need for padding resistors to try to match the sensitivities of the drivers to the lowest common denominator (the least sensitive driver in the passive design). There are no awkward phase angles that may give an amplifier a tough load (high current demand due to complex low impedance).

There really is no contest. Active is just a far better way to skin the cat of distributing the audio signal between different transducers.

OK Bob.. Thanks…

I’ll cruise by Sound on Sound and have a look around.

Marty
Makes sense to me, as that definition coincides with my critical thinker. Active meaning all 3 sides of the triangle are in play… filtering, amplification, and drivers in one container… digitally fed with on board dAC or not.

But I think I get it.

The active feature is confining the amps field of operation for the prescribed driver as to optimize the drivers performance. Many have on board power for one or more drivers, and MAY offer a passive option to bypass these items… or not.

A fair amount of active speakers are fully self contained, requiring no additional power.

Shaterne
There really is no contest. Active is just a far better way to skin the cat of distributing the audio signal between different transducers.

This could be very right.

Do you feel active units present a better value for one’s speaker buying buck?