Originally Posted by pase22
The passive LS50 can be found on sale and would do quite well with a decent integrated amp. You'd have more connectivity options and would only need to replace the amp. with active speakers, they're pretty much boat anchors when then amp inevitably fails.
Originally Posted by Lp85253
i , as well think passive speakers are a much better long term solution..
, active is great if you lack space or are just flat not having budget constraints.. it's easier to replace a $300 avr than a $2000 /pair set of active ls50's.. there may be small performance differences, but if you do the math common sense has a chance to prevail...
Originally Posted by Cordy
Thank you and
for your feedback. That thought did initially cross my mind but then I started talking myself out of it due to having to buy a separate amp and space concerns. I'd be using them on a 60x30 desk that already has a monitor and PC sitting on it. I'll have to look around for some small amps.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
On the question of LS50W vs LSX...I have a pair of LS50W. I used them in a living room for both music and HT. Since I am out of the country right now, they are being used on a friend's office desk. I feel they are too big for that space, and you can't take full advantage of the bass features on a normal desktop. You have to really confine their abilities on a desk since they are so close to you. When I return, I am going to get a pair of LSX for my desktop, as I feel they are better designed for that space. I prefer the LS50W as room speaker, not something right in my face.
I disagree with the negative sentiment about active speakers as an option. The responses here are made out of fear of an event that hasn't happened, and not based on any facts or numbers. The reply on that level is to say that active speakers have been used in professional environments for decades. It is not a new concept, and is a very mature technology. The fear around active speakers as an option is unfounded.
In a more practical view, let's first look at cost. With the LSX you are spending $1100 for the full package vs $1000 for the LS50. You then have to pay for the additional electronics needed to run them. If you look at what people say on here, they recommend a good quality amp for LS50, not a cheap $300 one, and also a sub to go with them. You can get quite a bill going, but let's assume you are dealing with the $300 amp, and no additional electronics. If you opt for the LS50W, you're spending $2200 for the full set, so you're closer to LS50 passives with a sub, and a halfway decent amp.
With my LS50W, I did actually have to send them in for repair. The repair was free, but I had to pay about $100 shipping. So, you're still ahead of the cheap amp, and it took about a week. If you have to send in a pair of LSX after the warranty is over, you're breaking even on the cheap amp, and way ahead on a better quality one.
Next, look at time. What happens with the "amp inevitably fails," in the LS50W or LSX. Using that logic, the amp will also "inevitably fail" in your passive system. So the failure part is consistent across both systems, and you just look at the details. With the passive set up, you have to pay for the cost of new amp, and wait for it to arrive...about the same amount of time, and more cost for the replacement.
I have never heard a legitimate argument for why active speakers are not a real option for any system, be it desktop speakers, a 2.1, or a full fledged HT set up. Every argument I see are made out of fear, by people who don't actually have active speakers. I recommend that you include them in your search. Try them out at Best Buy and see what you think. Don't discount or give any bonus to active or passive. Treat them all the same, and get the system that works best for you and your space.