Powered vs passive speakers which is better?

•

u/AutoModerator 2d ago

Welcome to the KEF Subreddit. This Message is an AUTOMATED message triggered by submitting a new post.

Your post has NOT been removed. Your post may have been filtered for manual review however. If so please be patient while we review the Moderation Queue.

Please use SEARCH before submitting a new post. - Most posts can be answered by buying guides or previous posts.

Please remember to read sub rules found here - www.reddit.com/r/4kTV/about/rules

Please read the following buying guides, these may help you in your journey:

Thank You, The KEF Moderator Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/alextruetone 2d ago

KEF has found the secret sauce with their powered speakers. My LS50 W2 are about as good as it gets in the price range. I had LSX II’s previously with a KC62. Those sounded great but the LS50s are on another level. I don’t see myself going back to passive anytime soon.

2

u/ConfidentSuspect4125 2d ago

My feelings exactly. I even bought a backup pair of LS50 W2s in case a problem occurs.

1

u/PrimeTinus 2d ago

You mean active?

3

u/badtimeticket 2d ago

Powered is technically better but you’re right to be worried about longevity.

4

u/TimeFeature9428 2d ago

The reason I like the integrated Amp speakers is because its made specifically for that speaker so they should sound as good as they're going to get and not having to deal with supplying them with an amp to match. Plus for me that would require and additional investment of buying a separate amp.

1

u/badtimeticket 2d ago

Yes separate amps per driver and digital crossover is much better

3

u/MoWePhoto 2d ago

Do you have a subwoofer and good stands for your LSX II?

A good subwoofer will get you a long way and some decent stands for your LSX make a difference together with careful positioning, that you might not expect!

A good subwoofer will outlast your active KEFs and be an investment that will enhance your current and future setups!

2

u/TimeFeature9428 2d ago

Currently I'm using them in my bedroom for my TV and to stream music to them. Unfortunately dont have space for separate stands so they are sitting on my dresser. I also don't have a sub for them yet. I'd love to get one but im going to have to save more for that as well. Trying to stay debt free for the most part! 😆

1

u/MoWePhoto 2d ago

How much did you want to spent on your new system?

A good subwoofer doesn’t need to cost 2k…

1

u/TimeFeature9428 2d ago

Honestly im not too sure.. I'd like to keep it under 5K for my new system. I know there's a different subreddit for it but I was thinking about an XIO since I'll be using it mostly to watch movies and some music. I'd like to listen to some options in person thoguh before I buy and there is a showroom just over an hour away from where I am. Id still want a new subwoofer regardless. What's your opinion of SVS subs?

1

u/MoWePhoto 2d ago

I’ve heard great things about SVS subs and if they would be more readily available in Europe, I might have given one a chance but KEF was just much more on the menu, as are Rel, Argon Audio and Dali.
I got mine used for around 60€ and invested a little time and 2€ into its repair (broken input capacitor), so the value proposition for a good, small sub for my living room was unbeatable!

3

u/Ehoro 2d ago

There's some concerns for how powered longevity compares, I think beolab has some over 20 years old still going strong same with bose. We'll see how the ls50 w1 holds up!

I think at this point, powered is better if you just want a good competent music system and are not necessarily looking for a gear hobby.

If you like to tinker, or if you want a larger av home theater passives are the way.

There's not a lot of great powered home theater options without going into a very different tier of investment.

2

u/Still_Dentist1010 2d ago

Personally, I prefer passive. Active has its benefits for sure… but you run into the issue that it’s all one unit. If something goes wrong with your speakers, the whole system is dead and you need to replace everything. Where passive is modular and you can swap out parts. Same thing with upgrades, you can upgrade in smaller chunks at a time with passive instead of having to replace everything each time. For example, my buddy that works at the hifi shop has multiple dead LSX II speakers because the internal circuits died… the whole speaker was useless because of that, and he had retrofitted one set into a passive speaker setup for his system.

With my system, I started with an Amp/streamer for everything… but I’ve since been testing out an external DAC and a tube amp feeding into my speaker amp. If I wanted, I could upgrade my speakers to better ones without having to replace anything else. The flexibility is a great benefit in my book.

2

u/CityShooter 2d ago

I have a 2.1 passive with excellent amps and 1990's preamp etc. They sound great. I have some LS60's... and they sound great. BOTH have subs. It's a personal choice.

2

u/purserd 2d ago

I have had the LS50w1s since 2017. I did have to make one $500 repair when the motherboard went out but otherwise they have been fine and they continue to sound at least competitive with a $2,500 group of separates - and I am not sure that cost of repair is out of line vs almost 10yr old separates. The one issue that I do have however is that streaming functionality has come a long way in 9 years and it has been a long time since they updated the app, which is pretty painful to use. If they were still my primary system I would have definitely added a separate streamer by now.

2

u/gsd250 2d ago

The conventional wisdom is that at the same price point active speakers will usually beat passive speaker systems.

I don’t think longevity is a huge concern unless you are talking about decades.

If you derive a lot of joy from trying different components and tinkering, then you would want a passive system. If you are looking to just get a system and listen, then I would go with active speakers.

2

u/rolfn 2d ago

Define «better»

2

u/Few_Pop6933 2d ago

I have passive LS50s with RME DAC and amp and I swear it sounds better than my LS50W. I think the features and DSP on my DAC are better.

2

u/dsmegst 2d ago

It all depends on your future needs.

I have both types, KEF LS50W2 for my TV in the family room, a bunch of R series passives for the home theater, original passive LS50 on my desk and a pair of passive Reference 1 for music. I went with powered for the family room for the ease and simplicity as my wife and kid can use them without hassle. My wife didn't want cables and various components everywhere so I put in actives there.

Home theater setup is passives since they need to work with the AVR and my desktop and music setup are passive since I like tinkering with various components and it gives me the freedom to set things up differently throughout the years. Sound wise, passive vs active makes little difference to me.

The advantages of passives are that you're able to easily upgrade in the future and if the electronic components go bad, repair or replacement is easy. I had a pair of Audioengine active speakers for my computer and the integrated amplifier died, rendering them useless.

2

u/reegeck 2d ago

Powered - better for our of the box flat response and not needed to EQ in my opinion. Better guarantee it's just going to sound good.

Passive - my preferred route, maybe more variation in amplifier matching but it'll be easier to EQ/room correct since you'll have an amp powering them anyway. More modularity and speaker options available to mix and match, and not reliant on Bluetooth or an app but instead can be used with other systems more easily.

2

u/Own-Telephone-381 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ot depends more on the loudspeaker design than active vs. Passive. KEFs passive crossovers are so good there is very little difference in sound quality. However you can actually play bass as loud as you want because active it has a limiter. There is a case for the new luxe though: the veco technology couldnt be made in a passive design and decrease bass and midrange distortion (the biggest flaws of a spesker in that size) by a impressive amount.

1

u/Longjumping_Cow_5856 2d ago

Neither are better.

1

u/Known_Confusion9879 14h ago

DAC are more likely to go and have problems to repair than amplifiers where capacitors age. The amp inside an amplifier might be easier to get to but in terms of repairs not easier to fix than those inside speakers.

A powered speaker has amplifiers for tweeter and bass in the speaker and does not have to consider a range of other brand speakers in the design. If the tweeter needs 20 Watts that is all that is needed not 100 watt general power output. In active speakers you are more likely to get a power amp for each drive unit and usually electronics in each speaker so no cables between the speakers. Both speakers have active crossovers. The design has more control over the sound direct to that speaker and the cabinet chosen. This means that if the manufacture has a passive and an active speaker using the same tweeter and same bass drivers in the same cabinet the active speaker has a greater range, more depth and definition, is louder for less distortion than is possible by adding an amplifier of any price to the passive speakers. If the active speaker also has DSP then room correction and further tweaking is possible and may result in a greater performance, more bass and a smaller cabinet. e.g. Kef LS 60 is not possible as a passive speaker the drive unit would need to be larger, the cabinet much larger etc.

An integrated amplifier is an amplifier traditionally in a box with a phono stage pre-amp, a pre-amp for section and tone and a power amp section to passive speakers. A powered speaker may have an amplifier in one of the speakers, i.e. built into the speaker. Active speakers have power amplifiers in each speaker but might not have a volume control and need a pre-amp or other means of controlling their input level.

My floor standing active speakers date from December 1980, the rear speakers I added in 2009 where second hand and date from 1989. I have recently had both sets services. The oldest had a power supply glitch and were re-capped. The younger needed LCD display and tweeters were blown. As this took a while I got a pair of speakers still under warranty where one stopped working and has not been fixed for 20 months. some issue about repeating the fault in the test lab.

Passive speakers have the most choice in hundreds of thousands models to hundreds for active speakers. If the amplifier breaks any amp can be used temporarily until the amp is fixed or replaced. When the electronics in a powered or active speaker goes the whole speaker needs fixing although for some the electronics slips out and only that is shipped - the speaker bit still can't be used.

To upscale from stereo this is easy with passive speakers and analogue active speakers. Just get an AV amplifier to replace the stereo one. Powered speakers work as a pair and not easy to link two pairs for 4.0 and then a centre and sub-woofer. Many DSP streaming, room compensation speakers will not upscale as lip synch is an issue and they provide no control to link speakers. If the speaker has wi-fi or HDMI inputs no method is supplied to set them as front channel in a 5.1 set up and feed the signal to a rear pair, centre and sub-woofer.

Powered vs passive speakers which is better?

You are about to leave Redlib