Not only that, my system for the sake of this discussion started out as entry level ish LP12, CD3.5 flatcap, 92 flatcap/90/IXO Intro
The only remaining components in the system have been the active IXO 90/3 which have held there own as the rest of the system has improved quite significantly from ground zero, I attribute much of that to the active operation, I’m pretty certain that if I was using a single passive 90 that just wouldnt do.
Active can become a bit of a willy waving exercise, god it looks impressive multiple amps electronic xovers , miles of cables…
For me it’s the only way now after years of compromised tonality with some frankly superb speakers
How many times do we hear, need to change the furnishings, get rid of the leather settee, get a book rack, more rugs, less rugs etc etc.
When you buy passive you get the tonality, or should I say the frequency balance, dictated by the manufacturer. Some great speakers can have tottaly wrong balance for your room.
I want my sound to be exactly the way I want, sufficient bass and just the correct level of high frequency for MY liking, not accepting some generic preassumed balance that should suit most rooms of today.
That’s the basis for me, then add in, ultra low noise floor that let’s you hear everything at low volumes, and when turned up that direct amp to driver connection gives you breathtaking dynamics that passive xovers suck away.
I’ve heard so many systems that need to be louder that optimal to sound good, not so in my experience with active, everything kicks in at much lower volumes.
Just my opinion
3 Likes
Of course I’m just trying to demonstrate that I believe persons make the wrong kind of comparison when it comes to active vs passive.
I think I’ve tried to labour this point but I will try one more time.
Amplifiers dont make a sound on there own, we all listen to a system made up of the sum of its parts.
So 2 systems costing the same, otherwise identical but one using passive amplification the other active amplification. One system may sound better than the other.
Yes, the active system will use a combination of less costly electronics for the same budget, but I would argue that if we are to evaluate whether the benefits of active outweigh passive, we have to compare the improvement brought to the less costly amps vs the reference of the single amp for the same cost.
Put two £3000 amps together totalling £6000 and compare to the same single amp costing £3000 you would expect the active to sound better.
Totally agree.
That’s exactly what I find even with my little baby’s.
As I’ve tried to get across, I strongly feel that people also go about making A/B comparisons of passive v active in the wrong way and thus totally miss the point.
I do understand the point that you are making, and to an extent agree with it in principle. But it depends upon the actual costs that you are considering. I have one 500DR. I could get another (possibly 2nd hand) and biamp my speakers. Your alternative is to sell that (not sure how much I would get, but lets say £6000.00 or so), and would have to buy a couple of Statement Monoblocs. That is much more expensive than getting another 500DR, even if I (could) buy it 2nd hand. So it depends upon your starting point and what the next step up is. And of course, I could consider selling the 500DR and my Ovator S600s and buying an ATC active speaker - and I’m really not certain what the comparison would be, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ATC were better…
I think that saying that you should compare active amp ‘X’ with passive amp of a higher specification is not comparing apples with apples. The question for me is whether active using amp ‘X’ sounds better than passive ‘X’. What you are doing is looking at cost effectiveness, which is another matter, and doesn’t address the question of whether active is better than passive. It addresses the question of whether one amplifier is sufficiently better than another to better the active setup of the other. I.e. is active amp X better than passive amp Y - and now you have more than one variable (active/passive). The question is impossible to answer because it depends upon whether Y is sufficiently better than X that the advantage of active operation is less than the advantage of the better amplification. When I first went active there was no way that I could afford the next amplifier up in the hierarchy, but I could afford to do what I did - and was very pleased with the results.
You have to take all the variables into consideration, or its pointless and only kinding yourself into an answer that you have already made your mind up on.
Comparing a cheap secondhand amp and then adding an extra cheap secondhand amp, the same as the other, plus the snazo, power supply and all the other bits, is nothing like the same, in fact the biggest difference you can get.
You need to even things out, or it not a fair comparison is it.
Cheap amp cost £1500
Cheap second amp cost £1500 + cheap snazo £500 + cheap power supply £500, again we will forget about the other gear you will also need, but already the difference in cost is £2500 more, or you could have £4000 for a better secondhand amp
Or a lot of money for a better preamp 
ATB Peter
3 Likes
Try and put it another way.
Most of us in the real world judge whether A is better than B by how it performs for a given cost.
To answer whether active is better over passive needs to be looked at holistically, system A costs £10000 passive, System B costs £10000 active, which sounds better?
Yes, the active system uses a combination of “lesser” electronics, but thats to miss the point, for all the technical reasons already discussed those “lesser” amps actively will theoretically be performing at a much higher level than its same cost “better” single passive amp. So do the superior performing lesser amps, greater than the sum of their parts, outperform the single amp.
The basic question must logically be answered in relation to performance return for given cost, it’s just common sense really.
I would disagree.
The question that you seem to be answering is “is it possible to get a passive system that is better than a given active system?” - and the answer might be “yes” - depending upon the systems, of course.
Back in the day, I heard a full 6-pack NAC135 driving DBLs - and it was superb - much better than passive 135/DBL setup. There was nothing better in the Naim family better than the NAC135s. Given that - the answer to whether active is better than passive is “yes” - quite certainly.
Now when you go on about cheap secondhand amps etc., the price is not the issue, really - the question is whether the active sounds better than the passive (say, active 250 vs passive 250) and the answer is “yes”. Would you disagree with that? Changing the amps for the comparison is no comparison at all - you are comparing two different things. I have taken the OP question as an enquiry into whether active X is better than Passive X. Once you start saying “oh, well, change the power amps for something else” then you are no longer comparing like with like.
As for your preferred comparison using a better secondhand amp (for £4000, which seems like a number you have chosen simply to try to support your POV), I have no idea whether it will sound better or not - it depends upon the original amps and the other, ‘better’ amp. Nor, I suggest, do you. It depends upon the different amps - and this difference complicates the comparison. I am quite prepared to believe that you can find a passive amp setup which is better than some other active amp setup. But now, make that passive setup active, and it will almost certainly be better.
Let me try this. You have passive Statement. Would an Active Statement setup be better or not? OR would you suggest using something other than Naim to find a passive setup that beats the active Statement?
1 Like
On paper maybe, but its not quite like that in practice because most power is required in the bass, and the power availability at higher frequencies is simply surplus - that’s the reason why in the pro world, and some hifi active speakers, the they don’t waste resources on as high amp power capability as you go up the frequency spectrum. N.B. this is different from the argument of putting the best amp on mid, that being in terms of quality not power (the two just happen to go hand in hand with Naim amps).
When I was playing with active systems, I did mix different amps, but Naim recommended that the most powerful amps should drive the tweeters, rather than the bass. I was never entirely convinced, though presumably they knew better than I did. The reasoning, AIUI, was that the more powerful amp would have a higher slew rate and would have faster voltage rises than the less powerful one - so would follow the HF better than a less powerful amp. So though you are right that the tweeters don’t need the current drive/capability of a more powerful amp, they benefit from the faster speed of the more powerful amp.
If, of course, you design the power amps for a particular frequency range, then that’s different.
Well, it’s an option, certainly, and an important one when considering what to buy - particularly if buying from scratch. But it is an interesting and perfectly viable question - is active 250 (for example) better than passive 250?
There is no inherent difference between active and passive driving of the same speakers in this regard! And it has nothing to do with whether there are adverse room interactions
Of course, if wished, and depending on the AXO it may be possible to tweak the frequency response if you wish, maybe to correct some unwanted room effect, or maybe to better match another room if you move, or just for a personal preference for different balance between high and low frequencies. (With mine when my speakers and listening positions are non-optimum I have dialed in some compensation, cancellable if I return to optimum positioning).
And that is what I was getting at - Naim’s better amps are their more powerful so recommendation might be expressed highest quality, most powerful, even most expensive, on the most critical frequencies. But you can achieve the sound quality with less power at higher frequencies without tge excess power headroom, as done by some manufacturers of active speakers like ATC.
The figures are just figures, and a very low price point, but even then it soon adds up. This was just to show the very basic price points.
Also you quote now, 6 x 135’s compared to 2 x 135’s into the same speakers and your surprised by the results, you will be even more surprised at the price difference, but then that doesn’t matter in your world does it, well if that doesn’t matter then i will go buy a £500k amp lol
@Dunc, could I please gently prompt for an answer to my question in post 125, as I don’t understand why you say Statement needs to be modified to use active .
(I think clicking my avatar on the right with the arrow next to it at the start of this post should bring it up here)
Not sure I follow what you are trying to say here…
The problem with comparing active systems to their passive equivalents (where this is even possible) is that I have yet to come across an active crossover that genuinely duplicates the transfer function of the passive version. It’s not that this isn’t possible, but even if the orders off the crossover are maintained designers usually mess with the relative levels of drivers (at a minimum).
If that is the case, I suspect it is because an active XO lends itself far more to fine-tuning than a passive, so the response can be tuned more exactly to what the manufacturer intends - but I would not expect a major deviation, not affecting the overall speaker character. Or do you have specific evidence to the contrary?