Is it a common practice to use passive speakers with a computer setup? So an amplifier in between the speakers and the computer sound card. Is there anything I should worry about when doing this? I am getting new speakers soon so I thought it might be a good idea to use passive speakers instead of actives. Will my results be good? Or should you only use active speakers with computers?
Passive Speakers
- Thread starter Devon8822
- Start date
- Status
computer is an audio source as anything else you can use passive or active setup, make sure you know the connections and have suitable cables.
It is quite popular idea nowadays to use a receiver which accepts digital audio stream, converts it into analog and sends to speakers via built in amplifier.
It is quite popular idea nowadays to use a receiver which accepts digital audio stream, converts it into analog and sends to speakers via built in amplifier.
passive is never better. passive is too lossy. active handle the stuff before amplification so there is no loss
you also need amplification for passive too. you can just hook it up to a computer devon8822
I disagree. Why do hi-fi manufacturers very rarely make active speakers if there so good.
Sure, £200 active speakers are better than £200 passive's and a £100 amp. Active are probably better for the money. But if your willing to spend many thousands i would go with a passive setup.
Sure, £200 active speakers are better than £200 passive's and a £100 amp. Active are probably better for the money. But if your willing to spend many thousands i would go with a passive setup.
it's not an opinion thing for you to disagree. active is a superior technology than passive. ask any car stereo pro, in a car where it is practical to run an all active system. active kills passive. the difference is so big that people can't begin to opinionate it
cost and practicality is the reason that home aren't fill with active speakers.
google difinitive...... nevermind here
http://www.definitivetech.com/literaturereq/prod_lit/BP7000sc_BP7001sc.pdf
their half active speakers started at 2500.00 12 years ago. they started a revolution. their 2500.00 speaker sounded better than everybody else's 10,000.00 speaker. everybody copied it
could you imagine have 7 high end active speakers in your room.
your front speakers would have 3-4 amps on each of them and your other 4 speakers have 2 amps on each of them and your sub will too. imagine those amps to be bryston and the speakers to be thiel.
you will have a 500,000.00 system that can easily catch fire, rca wires running wild everywhere and a no good speaker if the amp blows. they use passive speakers for simplicity and cost
cost and practicality is the reason that home aren't fill with active speakers.
google difinitive...... nevermind here
http://www.definitivetech.com/literaturereq/prod_lit/BP7000sc_BP7001sc.pdf
their half active speakers started at 2500.00 12 years ago. they started a revolution. their 2500.00 speaker sounded better than everybody else's 10,000.00 speaker. everybody copied it
could you imagine have 7 high end active speakers in your room.
your front speakers would have 3-4 amps on each of them and your other 4 speakers have 2 amps on each of them and your sub will too. imagine those amps to be bryston and the speakers to be thiel.
you will have a 500,000.00 system that can easily catch fire, rca wires running wild everywhere and a no good speaker if the amp blows. they use passive speakers for simplicity and cost
But people spend $50,000 on passive setups... im sure they could afford active for that. And you can't EVER say you can't opinionate on somthing so subjective as audio. I don't care if its 100x better, who's to say i will prefer that sound ?
I'm not disagreeing with you after reading up on it like you just suggested. I just don't beleive it's as plain cut as you make it sound. And for speaker manufacturers choosing it for simplicity, no way. Especially extremely high end brands, they don't care about aesthetics, simplicity, cost or anything. They release some half a million bucks speaker that looks like crap and ways a tonne - quite literally. But it sounds like something you couldn't imagine. Now why would they go through all that effort if active was better ? But i guess it could be the simple reason Hi-Fi junkies would refuse to abandon there loved preamp/amp setup.
I'm not disagreeing with you after reading up on it like you just suggested. I just don't beleive it's as plain cut as you make it sound. And for speaker manufacturers choosing it for simplicity, no way. Especially extremely high end brands, they don't care about aesthetics, simplicity, cost or anything. They release some half a million bucks speaker that looks like crap and ways a tonne - quite literally. But it sounds like something you couldn't imagine. Now why would they go through all that effort if active was better ? But i guess it could be the simple reason Hi-Fi junkies would refuse to abandon there loved preamp/amp setup.
oreo, you are missing the point.
that 50,000 speaker setup would be maybe 750,000 to 2,000,000 if made an active system. yeah some people would by it but not many. a 1000.00 speaker would cost 20,000.00 to 30,000. I'm not rich but I can afford some 1,000.00 speaker, but I could never afford 20,000. if everybody switched to active, audio would be something reserved for the richest of the rich.
audio is subjective. that said, active kills passive. there's no debate. there's no "my adcom sound better than your bryston amp" argument. the difference is humongous.
instead arguing off of something that going in your head in theory, go get the exact same setup twice, be it high end of low end. run it passively of an amp in one scenario. in the next setup, disconnect the internal crossover. get a pre amp external crossover like a rane or use a good quality car crossover hooked to a dc power supply (in the early mid nineties this was exactly how I change my passive setup to active). get 3-4 amps. run one amp to the tweeters, one to the mids, one for the bass and maybe 1 for your sub.
the difference will be tremendous. the system will be louder by a tenfold (a 30 watt amp and a 60 watt amp in an active setup will clip at the same point as a 175 watt amp in a passive setup). your spaciousness will be greater, there will be more detail. the clarity will be amazing. but here was the tradeoff
that 90's setup took up most of my living room. that nineties setup costs a lot of money. too much money. while I could afford that electric bill in the 90's (when money was plentiful), I can't now. electric went up, I sold most of my amps (adcom 555 II, acurus 200x3, NAD 2200, mtx soundcraftmen, mackie 2600 and a qsc 2400) around 2002-03 because I could no longer afford to pay 300+ a month electric bill that would be 500 a month now with today's pricing. I now run my bi amp capable paradigm 11semk3 in single channel mode off of a RECEIVER. I sold my 4,000.00 tri-mode capale thiels. I have my Vandersteen 1c in the basement running off another receiver. I gave my infinity speakers to my cousin. boy, do I missed the nineties. my system don't sound anywhere as good as it use too.
http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Pdffiles/Model 1C Manual.pdf
that 50,000 speaker setup would be maybe 750,000 to 2,000,000 if made an active system. yeah some people would by it but not many. a 1000.00 speaker would cost 20,000.00 to 30,000. I'm not rich but I can afford some 1,000.00 speaker, but I could never afford 20,000. if everybody switched to active, audio would be something reserved for the richest of the rich.
audio is subjective. that said, active kills passive. there's no debate. there's no "my adcom sound better than your bryston amp" argument. the difference is humongous.
instead arguing off of something that going in your head in theory, go get the exact same setup twice, be it high end of low end. run it passively of an amp in one scenario. in the next setup, disconnect the internal crossover. get a pre amp external crossover like a rane or use a good quality car crossover hooked to a dc power supply (in the early mid nineties this was exactly how I change my passive setup to active). get 3-4 amps. run one amp to the tweeters, one to the mids, one for the bass and maybe 1 for your sub.
the difference will be tremendous. the system will be louder by a tenfold (a 30 watt amp and a 60 watt amp in an active setup will clip at the same point as a 175 watt amp in a passive setup). your spaciousness will be greater, there will be more detail. the clarity will be amazing. but here was the tradeoff
that 90's setup took up most of my living room. that nineties setup costs a lot of money. too much money. while I could afford that electric bill in the 90's (when money was plentiful), I can't now. electric went up, I sold most of my amps (adcom 555 II, acurus 200x3, NAD 2200, mtx soundcraftmen, mackie 2600 and a qsc 2400) around 2002-03 because I could no longer afford to pay 300+ a month electric bill that would be 500 a month now with today's pricing. I now run my bi amp capable paradigm 11semk3 in single channel mode off of a RECEIVER. I sold my 4,000.00 tri-mode capale thiels. I have my Vandersteen 1c in the basement running off another receiver. I gave my infinity speakers to my cousin. boy, do I missed the nineties. my system don't sound anywhere as good as it use too.
http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Pdffiles/Model 1C Manual.pdf
oreo, you are missing the point.
that 50,000 speaker setup would be maybe 750,000 to 2,000,000 if made an active system. yeah some people would by it but not many. a 1000.00 speaker would cost 20,000.00 to 30,000. I'm not rich but I can afford some 1,000.00 speaker, but I could never afford 20,000. if everybody switched to active, audio would be something reserved for the richest of the rich.
audio is subjective. that said, active kills passive. there's no debate. there's no "my adcom sound better than your bryston amp" argument. the difference is humongous.
instead arguing off of something that going in your head in theory, go get the exact same setup twice, be it high end of low end. run it passively of an amp in one scenario. in the next setup, disconnect the internal crossover. get a pre amp external crossover like a rane or use a good quality car crossover hooked to a dc power supply (in the early mid nineties this was exactly how I change my passive setup to active). get 3-4 amps. run one amp to the tweeters, one to the mids, one for the bass and maybe 1 for your sub.
the difference will be tremendous. the system will be louder by a tenfold (a 30 watt amp and a 60 watt amp in an active setup will clip at the same point as a 175 watt amp in a passive setup). your spaciousness will be greater, there will be more detail. the clarity will be amazing. but here was the tradeoff
that 90's setup took up most of my living room. that nineties setup costs a lot of money. too much money. while I could afford that electric bill in the 90's (when money was plentiful), I can't now. electric went up, I sold most of my amps (adcom 555 II, acurus 200x3, NAD 2200, mtx soundcraftmen, mackie 2600 and a qsc 2400) around 2002-03 because I could no longer afford to pay 300+ a month electric bill that would be 500 a month now with today's pricing. I now run my bi amp capable paradigm 11semk3 in single channel mode off of a RECEIVER. I sold my 4,000.00 tri-mode capale thiels. I have my Vandersteen 1c in the basement running off another receiver. I gave my infinity speakers to my cousin. boy, do I missed the nineties. my system don't sound anywhere as good as it use too.
http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/Pdffiles/Model 1C Manual.pdf
Holy $!"" i never new eric
I would of paid so much to visit your house then I never new active systems would cost so much more ? arn't they essentially passive setups except the amps are within the speakers and theres an amp to each driver, so why would that cost so much more ? (i would of expected a 30 percent price increase)
You just got yourself a whole lot more respect than me buy saying what i quoted in bold.
Holy $!"" i never new eric
I never new active systems would cost so much more ? arn't they essentially passive setups except the amps are within the speakers and theres an amp to each driver, so why would that cost so much more ? (i would of expected a 30 percent price increase)
You just got yourself a whole lot more respect than me buy saying what i quoted in bold.
A passive 7.1 set requires 1 amp (not counting subwoofers). 7.1 active would require 10 - 18 powered channels. that's 5 to 9 xtra amps. they need crossovers in each of them. they need a dedicated pre amp (expensive. check google on a 7.1 pre-amp. they started at around a grand).
you also have to take into account the you need to have more electrical outlet in that room with the juice to handle all of that electronics stuff (it's a good thing that I'm a electrician on the side. it ain't nothing for me to upgrade a house from a hundred amp to 200 amps. it cost me 300 bucks to do this house. an electrician would charge you 6,000.00 to do it).
you need to have speaker away from flowers curtain etc. because they now generate a lot of heat. which bring up another point. who in the **** would ever put a thousand watt class ab amp into a speaker? you can do a thousand watt class d no problem. you can't run class d into mid and highs speakers.
if you put a amp into a speaker, at the very least, you triple the price on that stuff and that's not counting the other amp or crossover. amps are expensive too. there nothing anywhere close to a 30 percent increase.
you are either going to get this or you won't. I'm through explaining
- Status
Similar threads
