ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: active VS passive for main speakers  (Read 15540 times)

Roy B Stanton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2006, 11:19:29 AM »

 aewsome guy's.I dont know how I stumbled on this site but I'm glad I did.Thanks for the straight shooten.Im a bottem line type of guy.Experance is the best teacher and you guys has really helped me.Thanks again.Any more?
Logged

Too Tall (Curtis H. List)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1591
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2006, 11:11:51 AM »

Bennett Prescott wrote on Thu, 14 December 2006 05:31

I'm not sure being "active" (read: with power amplifiers and processing integrated into the loudspeaker) or "passive" is a valid attribute... it's like saying "I need to drive at 60 miles per hour, should I use gas or diesel?".

snip-

decision.


First sorry for coming so late on this thread.

When someone says “active” that does not mean specifically “with power amplifiers and processing integrated into the loudspeaker”

That particular description would be best be labeled as “Self powered”.
If they put the power amp in the box, then the processing is normally there also.
Of course it is also “active”, but it is just a subset.

Active includes anything where the power amp is directly hooked to the driver. There are also other configurations where passive and active are used at the same time.
Another subset of “active” would be anything where you need to plug the processor into a wall circuit.
(I suppose there are a few out there on batteries I have missed)

Anyway I am not trying to bust your balls here, but things can get confusing really fast when you go back and forth with text.

Logged
Too Tall
        Curtis H. List    
             Bridgeport, Mich.   
        I.A.T.S.E. Local # 274 (Gold Card)
        Lansing, Mich
Independent Live Sound Engineer (and I'm Tall Too!)

Too Tall (Curtis H. List)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1591
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2006, 11:23:42 AM »

Too Tall (Curtis H. List) wrote on Wed, 27 December 2006 11:11

Bennett Prescott wrote on Thu, 14 December 2006 05:31

I'm not sure being "active" (read: with power amplifiers and processing integrated into the loudspeaker) or "passive" is a valid attribute... it's like saying "I need to drive at 60 miles per hour, should I use gas or diesel?".

snip-

decision.


First sorry for coming so late on this thread.

When someone says “active” that does not mean specifically “with power amplifiers and processing integrated into the loudspeaker”

That particular description would be best be labeled as “Self powered”.
If they put the power amp in the box, then the processing is normally there also.
Of course it is also “active”, but it is just a subset.

Active includes anything where the power amp is directly hooked to the driver. There are also other configurations where passive and active are used at the same time.
Another subset of “active” would be anything where you need to plug the processor into a wall circuit.
(I suppose there are a few out there on batteries I have missed)

Anyway I am not trying to bust your balls here, but things can get confusing really fast when you go back and forth with text.





Ok, it is a matter of passive and active SPEAKERS.
And I was thinking of passive and active CROSSOVERS or processors.

Well I still hate it, but the horse has left the barn on this one

My apologies Bennett.
Logged
Too Tall
        Curtis H. List    
             Bridgeport, Mich.   
        I.A.T.S.E. Local # 274 (Gold Card)
        Lansing, Mich
Independent Live Sound Engineer (and I'm Tall Too!)

Bennett Prescott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8924
    • http://www.adraudio.com
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2006, 10:32:50 AM »

Too Tall (Curtis H. List) wrote on Wed, 27 December 2006 11:23

My apologies Bennett.

No worries, I must have been hitting the ol' crackpipe when I wrote that, I've been on your side of that "debate" for quite some time now. Perhaps I was trying to make it clear to the uninitiated, but that seems silly since my policy has always been to not dumb down technical subjects.
Logged
-- Bennett Prescott
Director of North American Sales
ADRaudio d.o.o.
Cell: (518) 488-7190

"Give me 6dB and I shall move the world." -Archimedes

Rob Spence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2401
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2007, 11:48:12 PM »

So, what kinda rig are we talking about?

I started years ago with MI passive (Mackie 4x C300 speakers (12") w/ 2x M1400i amps) equipment.

Then 2 years ago replaced them with SRM450s and a pair of SWA1501s and a pair of SRM350s for wedges. They worked great for me and were easy to deploy. No amp rack.

I then added 5 Yorkville NX520P speakers and a LS700P sub. Still all 12" stuff but the Yorkies were louder and better sounding. For small gigs I used 2 for tops and the one sub was plenty. The Mackies and the other NX520Ps got used for wedges.

Then after "Wedgefest" I got the fever to get better gear but still had to lift it. I liked the sound of the FBT powered wedges but didn't like the price and weight. So, I got a bunch of passive wedges with esentially the same drivers as the FBTs had but can lift them. I now have an amp rack for the wedges and plan for new tops and subs - passive too.
Logged
Rob Spence
Lynx Audio Services
E-Mail Rob -at- LynxAudioServices -dot- com

Staying out of trouble
  Is easier than
Getting out of trouble

Your local Whirlwind Dealer

Gene Hardage

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 870
    • http://www.SarasotaSlim.com
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2007, 07:18:47 PM »

Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 06 January 2007 23:48

So, what kinda rig are we talking about?

I started years ago with MI passive (Mackie 4x C300 speakers (12") w/ 2x M1400i amps) equipment.

Then 2 years ago replaced them with SRM450s and a pair of SWA1501s and a pair of SRM350s for wedges. They worked great for me and were easy to deploy. No amp rack.

I then added 5 Yorkville NX520P speakers and a LS700P sub. Still all 12" stuff but the Yorkies were louder and better sounding. For small gigs I used 2 for tops and the one sub was plenty. The Mackies and the other NX520Ps got used for wedges.

Then after "Wedgefest" I got the fever to get better gear but still had to lift it. I liked the sound of the FBT powered wedges but didn't like the price and weight. So, I got a bunch of passive wedges with esentially the same drivers as the FBTs had but can lift them. I now have an amp rack for the wedges and plan for new tops and subs - passive too.



Kinda late to this party - sorry I just got here.
I'm also big fan of the powered speakers that have been taking over the market ever since the Mackie 450's came out.  
I also think that it's easier to use passive monitors and it helps cut down on the cord clutter on stage where everyone is walking around.
Logged
Gene SARASOTA SLIM Hardage
http://www.SarasotaSlim.com

Duane Massey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2189
    • http://www.ozknozz.com
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2007, 10:23:27 PM »

Either approach will work, just stick with the higher-end gear. I was not a big fan of self-powered speakers at first; didn't like the sound of most products, didn't like the "no patch-around if failure occurs", and all the other arguements you hear, but I gotta say, if $$$ is no object there are some good-sounding products out there. We've done several installs with Meyer products lately, and I have been extremely impressed. Of course, I wasn't paying for it, but I'd always been of the opinion that a well-designed passive system would out-perform the powered guys.
I still don't get real excited about the powered subs that I've heard, but that's a subjective thing.
Logged
Duane Massey
Houston, Texas, USA

Jason Ellis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
Re: active VS passive for main speakers
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2007, 11:33:46 PM »

As far as the no-patch around argument goes, I'm of the oppisite opinion...

When I've had a failure, I've usually lost two speakers instead of just one since I tend to run a speaker per amp channel, with a self-powered solution I'd only be down a single speaker; plus I can grab one speaker and run to another location for a quick annoncement PA...

I've yet to find a reason to not go powered for every situation I've looked at, but of course thats me. Mic cords are plentiful, AC cords are plentiful, amps and speaker cable are less plentiful, less need for a system dsp, just a pair of crossovers (Aux/matrix-fed).

I can go to single-mix to multi-mix once I'm on-site without having to drag out additional amps...to me losing an internal amps is just as bad as losing an external, my clients wouldn't have one anyway, and for the price a backup speaker costs about the same

QSC 3604 - $1000
Yorkville EF500P - $980

Plus I get a mini-mixer with every speaker...anyway YMMV of course...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 20 queries.