Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mesmer]

Trying to save some money. I have a quad 102 amp that I like very much. How different are the passives from the actives? looks like the tweeter is different, and the actives are biamplified. how much of a compromise would it be to go to the passives?
thanks,
Mesmer

[ajmogis]

We've got a pair of them in our B room.  They have a very smooth yet detailed sound to the tweeters.  My only minor complaint is that the bottom sounds a little "squishy."  It hasn't been enough of an issue for us to replace it, though.  I don't know how they compare to the actives unfortunately.  A friend said the passives sounded less hyped and more natural.

-AJ

[MFDC]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but...

RE: BM-15 Low End Squishiness

Have you tried putting the included foam plugs in the ports?  This effectively changes the speaker to a "closed-box" design and tightens up the bottom end.

I'm afraid I also have not compared the passives to the actives, but I can say I enjoy the passives a great deal.

dan

[drumsound]

Look Here

Jay Kahrs over at Gearslutz bought some BM15s a while back.

[Michael Greene]

I would have to say that one of the biggest differences is the amplifier.  The monitor will sound totally different depending on what is powering it and how much juice the amp has.  Some examples:
I used to mix with a pair of KRK 703's.  I first used a Hafler P-500 and thought they sounded mushy.  I then tried a Yamaha that was modified by Doug Sax and that quite a few people say is the only amplifier to use on the Tannoy SGM-10 monitors and it sounded better.  I then put on a Bryston 3-b and they sounded like a totally different animal.  Low end was tight for days (As tight as a 6" woofer can be) and the top end was crisp and extremely well defined but not harsh.  I then used a modified Hafler P-500 that had all the caps bypassed that could be and it sounded good also.  Still not as great as the Bryston but good.  So during all this we tried a bunch of different amps to see just how different they all sounded.  We tried a Crown DC-300 fire burner,  A Crown Macro-Tech 1200, a Ramsa 300 watt piece of shit and a cheaper Hafler.  Not one of them sounded the same.  I still prefered the Bryston over all the others.  It seemed the best match for the speaker.  

If you buy the BM-15's you owe it to yourself to try a bunch of amps to see which one sounds the best to you.  It may be an amp that someone else wouldn't hammer nails with but if you like it, and things translate will then go for it....

Michael Greene

[barefoot]

Michael Greene wrote on Fri, 25 June 2004 09:45

I then put on a Bryston 3-b and they sounded like a totally different animal.  Low end was tight for days (As tight as a 6" woofer can be) and the top end was crisp and extremely well defined but not harsh.... I still prefered the Bryston over all the others.  It seemed the best match for the speaker.

I couldn't agree more!  Brystons are truly outstanding.   They really are making some of the best amplifiers in the world.   Few can match them, even those considered "boutique".   And the ones that do, are usually many $thousands$ more.

As for the BM15, sorry to say, but a 10" 2-way is simply WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!   Nobody has been designing serious speakers this way for twenty-five years.   A 10" midbass driver is INCAPABLE of reproducing anything but mediocre midrange at best  - not the 24W100, not any 10" using current technology.  I personally feel 6.5" is the maximum size for modern high performance midrange.  Even then, you have to be very selective.  

If you want good midrange performance, get a small 2-way.  If you also want deep bass extension, get a pair of subs or a 3-way.   Don't mess around with this BM15 anachronism.

Thomas

[Mesmer]

I really like the bm15a's. I think I'll get a pair of the passives for now. Coco has been recomending the bm15a's latley. That reinforces it for me. I'll let yall know how it goes.
Mesmer