Active speakers have smaller lifespan than passive ones, they typically last 5-7 years. Is this true?

[Kalpesh]

I own Cabasse Albatros for 33 years ; prior they were demos for I don't know how long. Recently a guy who has spent quite some times listening to big systems at resellers and shows and who spent a lot on big ATC and Accuphase electronics left my place a bit depressed and said one should spend several hundreds K to beat the sound he just heard.

So can NOT concur that Active speakers have a smaller lifespan nor even that they get obsolete faster.

[tgb]

dear Kalpesh,

33years with actives !!!!

Did you gave this HUGE info b4 ?... (info = active setup beats any passive setup vs price/perf ratio)

I hope so... but I think you get bored to get replies like "you're a jerk, passive is he way to go"

....

just to say that on my own I swaped my passive for an active setup just 2yr-ago... to realize how... an active setup is WAY ahead/better as you want to call it vs a passive.

 

I wish you a long life with the Cabasse Albatros.... but there are many nice newer actives on the market : have a try ! 😀

 

[krass]

10 hours ago, tgb said:

….did you gave this HUGE info b4 ?... (info = active setup beats any passive setup vs price/perf ratio)

I hope so... but I think you get bored to get replies like "you're a jerk, passive is he way to go"

....

just to say that on my own I swaped my passive for an active setup just 2yr-ago... to realize how... an active setup is WAY ahead/better as you want to call it vs a passive……

 

this thread is about longevity of active systems & whether the additional electronics influence the useful lifetime. Of course there will be extreme examples in each case but the OP probably wants more general view rather than exceptions.

 

The above comments about <active better than passive> are just silly/ unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion. Fantastic systems are possible with either architecture.

[tgb]

On 2/26/2024 at 11:22 AM, krass said:

 

this thread is about longevity of active systems & whether the additional electronics influence the useful lifetime. Of course there will be extreme examples in each case but the OP probably wants more general view rather than exceptions.

yeah...

but active systems are mostly used in "pro" systems, thus +/- to run 24/7

not bad vs reliabilty, isn't it ?

On 2/26/2024 at 11:22 AM, krass said:

The above comments about <active better than passive> are just silly/ unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion. Fantastic systems are possible with either architecture.

you're right => fantastic SQ can be acheived using a passive or active setup.... "fantastic" fits anything !

 

my point was about :

1. the SQ vs $$$$ (cost)

2. I don't care about the design of the active speakers because... I just care about SQ ! Lol ! (here is a bottleneck for many..)

 

 

You have a MU-1>Mola => great ! => plug them into a 2.1 setup actives

...

you test...

and then you can draw conclusions