Active speakers stink...there, I said it...

[GCDEF]

 

Okay, that's a great analogy. I'm with you. But let's be clear about something: The documentation about smoking causing lung cancer is so absolute, so empirical, and so obviously scientific that the "one example" of the proverbial 95 year old guy who smoked his whole life has to be an anomaly. You can reference literally tens of thousands of university based clinical studies that have all been peer reviewed and journal published. But I seriously doubt that you can produce anywhere near the documentation to support the premise you are espousing. Now, bear in mind that I am NOT disagreeing with you. I don't have the knowledge to, but I have been following this thread and I see good points made on both sides. So basically now I am playing Devil's Advocate. I want to believe what you are saying because, quite simply, it would make MY LIFE a helluva lot easier if you are right. I am trying to sift through this ongoing debate and get at the truth of it. The problem, however, is that from what I see, NOBODY has any proof of their premise, which is why, as much as I like your smoking analogy, for the moment at least, I have to reject your premise. Why? Well, because if you were to take the side of the smoking debate that Phillip Morris does whenever their team of lawyers and PR people talk to the public, I could then come back with a barrage of empirically proved scientific studies to prove you wrong! There would be absolutely NO QUESTION in the minds of any thinking person that your advocacy of smoking was due to self interest and keeping your job...

 

 

It's a little more than anecdotal. The powered speakers are designed so that the amp and speakers are properly matched and usually have pretty decent protection built in, whereas with separates, there's no telling who's paring what pieces together and how well protected they are. So while there may not be vast clinical studies, from an engineering standpoint, you'd expect that the properly designed and matched systems in powered speakers should be more robust and reliable than a hodgepodge typically thrown together by people with little technical knowledge about how to properly match amps and speakers.

[abzurd]

 

,or when someone reports an active failure(which is happening more,and more BTW),they are told that is has to be expected,and blah,blah,blah.If I buy a set of 728s,and a 4050 to run them,I am NOT expecting failure of any kind with the possible exception of user error!!! For me I will stay passive,and learn what I can about all of it,but I will never accept that if I spend the kind of money that it takes to get into a good active system I should,at some point expect a failure somewhere in the line.To me that just represents the lowering of the bar as far as any expectation of quality goes. As always...Thanx!!!

 

 

Passing fad? You truly think this? Powered speakers have been around since the mid 90's and have really taken off like mad in the last 6-7 years. The recent rollout of all these lightweight amps helps keep passive around a while longer, but I think for maybe 80% of folks active cabinets have quickly become, and will continue to be, the standard for folks. It's really just the next logical development of the powered mixer / passive speakers. Modern materials and better technology allow for manageable cabinet weight with the amps "on board" where they can be assisted by DSP specifically designed for the cabinet, which is a huge improvement over the powered mixer design while offering up similar ease of use.

 

"pro-active at all cost forum".... No, what you are seeing is the shift of more people using active systems, "getting it" and passing on their opinions based on their experience. This provides proof that it's not a fad. Also, your example needs to be kept in context. Few people immediately jump on someone to "go active". What's happening is there is discovery that the user has poor quality gear and little or no knowledge on how to use it. Given those facts it's natural to recommend both better gear that is simple to operate and has the best chance of sounding good out of the box, and a less chance of a user boo-boo causing failure. Guess what? That means active cabinets.

 

There is still a market and a place for passive and it's not inferior. That said, for most people staring from scratch and backed with little knowledge, there's really not much of a reason to consider passive, IMO.

[Vito Corleone]

I am trying to sift through this ongoing debate and get at the truth of it. The problem, however, is that from what I see, NOBODY has any proof of their premise, which is why, as much as I like your smoking analogy, for the moment at least, I have to reject your premise.

 

 

My 'empirical data' in this case is listening to the full-time pro sound guys here who have years of experience working with both types of systems. They almost unanimously agree that active systems have a lower failure rate.

 

Beyond that, both common sense and my personal experience tell me that since actives are designed to be "matched", the failure rate is lower. Like many amateur (when it comes to knowledge of sound equipment) rock band dudes, I've blown more speakers over the years than I can count. Almost all due to the fact that I was pushing them too hard with amps that had the power to blow them. The fact is that it is virtually impossible to blow a speaker in an active cabinet because you push it too hard. And I've never done it.

 

Like just about everyone else, my first concern when buying active speakers was "durability". Because I know that as hard as I might try to handle all my gear with kid gloves, the fact is that the speakers are going to get shoved in the trailer, bounced around, dropped of the cart, fall off of stages, etc. And I HAVE done all of that over the years and they've all held up amazingly well.

 

My active gear consists of: 2 Yamaha powered cabs I've had for 10 years. In that time I had one horn diaphragm that needed to be replaced (not sure the cause) and one loud hum caused by a loose connection that needed to be fixed.

 

A pair of JBL PRX 512/518S that have worked flawlessly for 5 years with the exception of an annoying 'buzz' in one of the 512s that needed to be fixed.

 

4 JBL EONs that have worked flawlessly for 5 years.

 

I just simply don't have a record that is anywhere close to having that degree of reliabilty and performance with passive equipment over such a period of time. We carry at least one extra EON to every gig for a "just in case" redundancy factor, but have never needed it. (yet)

 

 

Yes, I know. All of the above is anecdotal. And maybe somebody can provide some actual stats on failure rates? I agree that would nice.

 

But in the meantime, I read these threads (and there have been many of them over the years) and the "pro-passive" argument always seems to come down to "I can always re-wire my speakers to run off the other side of the amp should one-half go out." That's nice, but I just don't see how the frequency of one-half-an-amp failing makes up for all the other scenarios where actives are more convenient.

 

It reminds me of the early days of seat belt laws when I would hear many people argue that they didn't want to wear seatbelts in case there was a crash where being ejected from the car was their only hope of survival.

[Vito Corleone]

There is still a market and a place for passive and it's not inferior. That said, for most people staring from scratch and backed with little knowledge, there's really not much of a reason to consider passive, IMO.

 

 

This I agree with 100%. For guys starting out, it's not even really a question. And as time goes on, I think passive systems are going to become more and more seen only in the hands of true pros who can pull an extra degree of performance out of the system by knowing how to fine-tune everything for maximum results. And probably mostly only in permanent installs.

[abzurd]

Not proof really, but here are things you simply don't have to worry about when going with quality active components (reliability aside). I just plug in, eq my rig to taste and I'm done.

 

- Are your amps properly sized for the speakers?

- Do you have proper limiting on all drivers (sub-woofer, mains woofer, compression driver)?

- Is the system using bi-amped mains? If so how do you know they are volume matched accurately?

- If not bi-amping then the mains are using a passive crossover, which is inferior to an active crossover in every way. There's no getting around this

- Are the subs crossed over properly?

- Is the speaker cable of suitable gauge?

- Is there a speaker processor in the chain that smooths the response of that specific box out?

- There are many more connections. Are they all made properly and are the cables in good working order (amp cables, speaker cables, processor, crossover).

[Al Poulin]

All active here for over 6 years with not a single failure. I used passive for over 15 years and would never go back. In many situations, active cabs are simply very quick and convenient with many having a flexible built-in mixer, internal bi-amping, properly matched amps+drivers, built-in protection, limiting, pre-eq - all implemented by the designers who know how to maximize the performance of each driver. The fact that powered cabs use the same XLR cables as my mics is an added bonus.

 

Yesterday, it was nice and hot outside and I was installing a pool for my family. I wanted some tunes outside. I simply grabbed one of my DXR8s, plugged it in the wall and plugged in a Sony MP3 player. Instant juke box on my deck! To do the same with a passive system would require me to bring an amplifer, the speaker, a mixer + all the wiring to do the same thing.

 

Same thing for weddings where the ceremony is outside and I'm set up inside. I don't need to modify my set up inside at all. I always bring a spare (and compact) powered speaker with me to all my gigs just in case, but if I need a ceremony speaker - there it is. No need to set up a compete system outside. A powered speaker with a mic and MP3 player plugged in works great for these types of events. Again, no need to bring an amp, the speaker, a mixer + all the wiring required. Active is simply VERY convenient in so many situations.

 

Just like there is always the risk of failure with any electronic product, actives are certainly not immune to this, but no less so than passive. I've had problems with amplifiers (or amplifer channels) intermittently working or amps shutting down completely in the past or even protection bulbs in crossover sections burning out (to protect the HF driver). It didn't make me feel that passive speakers and amplifiers sucked. This is the nature of electronics and since PA equipment is often subject to less than ideal operating conditions, the possibility of failure is always there...

 

Al

[Vinny D]

You guys can debate all you want, it won't change my opinion on the reliability of active cabs based on my OWN personal experiences...

 

Anyway, going to pull the cab out tonight and open it up.

Hopefully I get lucky and see a loose wire somewhere and it's a quick fix.....but with my luck it won't be that easy!

 

I will take some pics of the inner workings of the cabs to....never opened one of these up so it will be interesting to see anyway.

[Marko]

Active = fad?

I think most people who buy PA gear aren

[Vito Corleone]

Same thing for weddings where the ceremony is outside and I'm set up inside. I don't need to modify my set up inside at all. I always bring a spare (and compact) powered speaker with me to all my gigs just in case, but if I need a ceremony speaker - there it is. No need to set up a compete system outside. A powered speaker with a mic and MP3 player plugged in works great for these types of events. Again, no need to bring an amp, the speaker, a mixer + all the wiring required. Active is simply VERY convenient in so many situations.

 

 

Yep. The Eons are great for this. We play a lot of weddings and they almost always want a 2nd system in another area for background music and speeches. Simply plug the wireless mic into one of the inputs and the iPod into the other and we're good to go.

[drumstix]

I like both systems even though for me the failure rate issue isn't so good for the powered active camp. I want to get a couple of powered subs someday to add to my NX10's for a nice small system.

 

Regarding the failure rate, Absurb brought out a good point even though this wasn't his plan....lol.....actives have only been around for a short time compared to the more standard passive/amp combo. Something like 60years vs 15years (give or take a few).

 

I don't think the passive camp is going anywhere. In fact I think it's going to improve allot. JBL just may be leading the way. The new STX line will have factory turnings in the Itechs and in a somewhat limited fashion in the newer XTI line. While this is nothing really new, the STX is said to have Spillmann tuned settings in a locked file.

More like a powered box with a remote amp.

[ChiroVette]

But in the meantime, I read these threads (and there have been many of them over the years) and the "pro-passive" argument always seems to come down to "I can always re-wire my speakers to run off the other side of the amp should one-half go out." That's nice, but I just don't see how the frequency of one-half-an-amp failing makes up for all the other scenarios where actives are more convenient. It reminds me of the early days of seat belt laws when I would hear many people argue that they didn't want to wear seatbelts in case there was a crash where being ejected from the car was their only hope of survival.

 

Want to hear something funny? I have a friend who was ejected from a vehicle he was driving and the entire driver's area was crushed. In other words, being ejected actually saved his life. Not that this has anything to do with anything, mind you, but since you brought it up I figured I would share. As for your main point here, yes, this is very fair. But again, as I stated above, I think the people lobbying for passive gear are giving more and better reasons than just "one half an amp failing."

 

You see, and I apologize for going off on a tangent again, one of the problems with debates like this one, where it really appears as if there is little or no "actual proof" is that both sides tend to create straw man arguments where they oversimplify their opponents position, thus misrepresenting it unintentionally. Meaning, the passive gear supporters might say, "Oh! Active gear is far more unreliable because when one component goes down you lose the entire cabinet!!"

 

Meanwhile the active gear proponent will give an argument like you did in this paragraph.

 

But how I, as a sort of impartial observer read it, you are both so grossly oversimplifying your opponent's positions to look lame AND oversimplifying your own positions to look inherently unimpeachable that all semblance of communication seems to get lost in the translation from where I am sitting.

 

lol See my point?

[Marko]

Honestly, if active were proven to be less dependable than passive, it would be worth it *to me* to still go active and carry whatever backup was necessary.

The known advantages of active outweigh even a dependability factor imo.

[Vito Corleone]

But again, as I stated above, I think the people lobbying for passive gear are giving more and better reasons than just "one half an amp failing."

 

 

But do they? I haven't seen it. What are the other advantages? Either you have a backup or you don't. And that's the same whether you use active or passive gear.

 

In the meantime, there are all the advantages to active listed above regarding being able to operate the system to its fullest potential. Which, unless you're a very experienced sound guy yourself (and not just somebody who thinks they are) are tremendous.

 

I'm certainly not going to argue with any seasoned pro who insists that he knows his passive equipment better and therefore wouldn't use anything but. That makes sense. But when we're talking about relative sound noobs who are just starting out? Or even guys like me with years of playing experience but for whom running sound is, at most, a necessarily evil? I simply can't see how arguing in favor of a passive system, with all of its individual components that need to be well-matched and properly tuned, makes any sense at all.

[jwlussow]

(Active cabs = fad) = (cars with combustion engines = fad)

 

Meyer sells a lot of their fad cabs at $6000 each. I think that passive will be relegated to high end, large shows and the active cab market will keep growing at a very fast rate. Too many advantages to consider them a fad. Some of my cabs are 6 years old without any issues.

[ChiroVette]

 

But do they? I haven't seen it. What are the other advantages?

 

 

Well I am pretty new to these forums, so I am sure that more experienced passive-equipment proponents will have a lot more than what I can post. But for starters, your amp example is one valid advantage to passive. Also, with passive equipment, you can use a cabinet if, say, the horn blows. I have done shows with a blown horn. As you say, speakers don't tend to blow with active gear, but if an amp goes, let's say, the whole cab is gone! As far as backup is concerned, I think another fair point brought up by the passive proponents is that it is far easier to carry a couple of extra amps than it is a couple of extra cabinets, which brings us to another advantage of active that many people advocate, which is the portability. If you have to carry extra active cabinets then the whole portability argument for active gear becomes null and void. Why? Well, because you can carry a couple of small amplifiers in a tiny space.

 

I know there are more advantages that people have posted regarding passive gear in this thread, but I have to run out for a while and will leave this to people who know more than I do. For my part, I am not making any judgments. I am simply reiterating points I have seen raised in this thread.

[soul-x]

 

Well I am pretty new to these forums, so I am sure that more experienced passive-equipment proponents will have a lot more than what I can post. But for starters, your amp example is one valid advantage to passive. Also, with passive equipment, you can use a cabinet if, say, the horn blows. I have done shows with a blown horn.

 

 

I am not aware of any active speaker that would not (at a minimum) perform with a blown horn driver. That is, unless, it burns up in a dead-fault scenario. But in that case, you wouldn't want a passive solution to keep running either -- unless you like flaming amplifiers.

[ChiroVette]

Another thing I wanted to add, guido61, which I think I said already, is that I am only playing Devil's Advocate here. The fact is that, as of right now, my preferred system I am saving for (or at least leaning toward) is four PRX612's (two FOH and two monitors) and 2 PRX618sXLF's. So it isn't like I am some passive cab fanboy. I am just trying to get more information from BOTH sides of this debate because it is a hotly disputed topic that I am not quite sure yet what to believe.

 

 

I am not aware of any active speaker that would not (at a minimum) perform with a blown horn driver.

 

 

That's not what I was referencing, though. Most of the people in the forum recommending active gear say that one advantage is that you don't blow speakers because of the balance and engineering. So my point was that if this is true, then chances are if an active cab is in need of repair, it will simply not function because it probably won't be, say a blown diaphragm that is the problem.

[soul-x]

 

That's not what I was referencing, though. Most of the people in the forum recommending active gear say that one advantage is that you don't blow speakers because of the balance and engineering. So my point was that if this is true, then chances are if an active cab is in need of repair, it will simply not function because it probably won't be, say a blown diaphragm that is the problem.

 

 

And my point was the contrary: A blown diaphragm will not likely cause the active speaker to not function, unless it was a dead short scenario -- in which case, you wouldn't want a passive system to function, either (it will destroy the amps).

 

...and, as as is still true in point one of your scenario: a properly processed active system is less likely to encounter either situation.

[abzurd]

So Chirovette, here's some of the empirical proof you seek. The pdf is a bit slow to download but gives some real world examples of what DSP, designed for a specific box, can do and how it's flat out better than going without or even rolling your own with a generic outboard processor. - http://pteacoustics.com/linked/the%20case%20for%20powered%20speakers.pdf .

[Unalaska]

Honestly this debate tires me, but the ego to hear my own voice (read my own type?) in me will do the typing. The answer is "it depends"

Personally I use all passive cabs, and if you're in my position there are some excellent passive speakers coming on the market used and cheap too. I like amp racks, they hold smaller FOH racks/wireless mic racks/mixers and more. It is true that passive means carrying around 1 or 2 racks of gear. But it also makes for a centralized point of incoming AC. This is for my application, getting into larger systems, especially line array, active can really help clean things up. No NL4 or NL8 to deal with (that stuff is heavy). In line arrays there is already a redundancy with the cabs above and below. And they can be actively tuned and adjusted using a data port/software. OK, that's pretty damn cool. But I don't own a line array.

Back to your situtation. Passive cabs have another downside: how good are the parts/crossover and how to properly run them. As you go up the food chain in cabs, the quality of passive crossover goes up, the honesty (hopefully) of how to power them from the manufatcurer goes up too. But because the whole passive thing has been around and there seems not to be any education people get before buying them other than sales people, the public can and will do anything to passive cabs. A speaker is like the heating element in one of those dish radient heaters, except with a thin paper dish instead of a nice metal one. Oh, and if you turn it all the way on it'll catch fire.

OP, sell all the active stuff, if it isn't right for you then it isn't. I may be going against the grain here but do what's right for you, not what's cool or what everyone else is into. I have no plans on buying active speakers for now, and the only one I own is in the repair shop. It's my little 8" gemini powered speaker I use to listen to the radio with. And it broke. and I have no music now. it's too queit.

[Al Poulin]

 

If you have to carry extra active cabinets then the whole portability argument for active gear becomes null and void. Why? Well, because you can carry a couple of small amplifiers in a tiny space.

 

 

In a typical small bar band setup of 2 speakers on sticks (for example) simply having a pair of powered speakers means you already have a spare - since each speaker has its own independant amplification. If one were to fail, you could finish off the gig with the other speaker.

 

In the case of the band using an amp and passive speakers, if the amp fails, it will quickly get very quiet...

 

Just an example of course. I always bring a spare (compact) powered speaker with me at all times, but don't really have to. It often does prove to be worth it though, if not for ceremony use, for uncle Tom who thought the slideshow presentation would be loud enough for 200 people using his computer speaker. I have run into this scenario more than once and simply running over to the computer - connecting it to a powered speaker via a 1/8" to 1/4" was able to save the presentation. Seeing as the presentation is often on the other side of the room or far away fomr where I am set up, running over there with an amp, then a speaker and mixer and wires would take much more than the 45 seconds it takes with a powered speaker.

 

Al

[Marko]

How many of us had access to hard statistics or empirical evidence; we all relied on anecdotal evidence and weighed what was there to be weighed.

In my considerations, the majority, even

[abzurd]

Sure, pick what you want/what's right for you. In my mind this thread was never about convincing the OP, who said he can't be swayed. He had a bad experience and has drawn a hard line in the sand. We all have done that. For instance, I'm not a fan of Behringer so I don't buy their stuff.

 

Of course this was going to turn into a pros and cons discussion. There was no place else for it to go and the inflammatory title of the thread begged for it.

[Vinny D]

For instance, I'm not a fan of Behringer so I don't buy their stuff. .

Now you did it...now my hate on active cab's thread is going to turn into a bash on Behringer thread


Don't worry, by the time I get done unloading the truck tonight I will have another topic on *why is it the gear you need is ALWAYS in the front of the truck!*

[Vito Corleone]

Also, with passive equipment, you can use a cabinet if, say, the horn blows. I have done shows with a blown horn.

 

 

Why can't you use an active speaker with a blown horn in the same fashion?

 

 

As you say, speakers don't tend to blow with active gear, but if an amp goes, let's say, the whole cab is gone!

 

 

Yes, but it's the same deal if your amp blows in a passive system. You still have to replace SOMETHING. So what's the difference really if you're switching out a passive amp or an active cab?

 

 

As far as backup is concerned, I think another fair point brought up by the passive proponents is that it is far easier to carry a couple of extra amps than it is a couple of extra cabinets,

Except to get the full "redundancy" you also need to carry a couple of extra speakers as well. Easy to carry an extra active cab than an extra passive amp AND an extra passive speaker.

 

 

which brings us to another advantage of active that many people advocate, which is the portability. If you have to carry extra active cabinets then the whole portability argument for active gear becomes null and void. Why? Well, because you can carry a couple of small amplifiers in a tiny space.

Why do you think you would only need extra amps and not extra speakers? In my experience, it's passive SPEAKERS that fail more often than passive AMPS anyway. Think about it this way, maybe. In the same space required to carry an extra passive speaker, you can carry an active speaker AND amp!

 

 

I know there are more advantages that people have posted regarding passive gear in this thread, but I have to run out for a while and will leave this to people who know more than I do. For my part, I am not making any judgments. I am simply reiterating points I have seen raised in this thread.

 

 

Again, all I've seen is a list of arguments that, at best, add up to "six of one/half a dozen of the other" as far as replacement/redunancy/carrying extra equipment goes. The only real advantage to passives in this list is the "half-an-amp-blows" scenario. Which doesn't come close to out-weighing the many advantages listed for actives.