active ibls v passive sbls

No doubt about it, the entire mid-range is clearer than SBLs but I still prefer SBLs. In comparison, IBLs sound kind of pinched and restricted, not easily giving up the music. SBLs sound looser, free-er, less restricted in the dynamics and just that bit more engaging.

Not compared the two active vs passive, just passive with the same amps.

Allan

thanks for that view allan thats interesting i would still like to know anyones thoughts on active ibls v passive sbls

IBLs have great mids and highs mainly because they have sod all else.

Get SBLs really in context of the IBL there is no compitition.

hi david
thanks for your views on bobs active system it would be good to hear bobs thoughts on the matter.

hi garyi
it sounds to me like your not a fan of the ibl but i take it from your comments the sbls are a much better speaker?

Andy it would not be fair to say that. I have not heard each speaker in a similar system.

However there are certain facts we must adress, one being physics. The size of the IBL and the main speaker must be a consideration in what you want to achieve in your system.

If you want to hear mids and trebles in a tiny rooms at low volumes, the IBL may well be your speaker.

If like me right now you want to hear PF us and them at 1 oclock on the dial so you have to shout to be heard, then SBL is the way forward ;-)

seriously though I appriciate the IBLs heritage and can only speak from very limited experience, but no one here can argure the SBL is the better full range speaker.

hi garyi
i understand what you mean now thanks for your honest views. i like a very clean detailed sound with control, i now i would get more bass from sbls but would active ibls improve in the bass area if driven active.
andy

Hi Guys,

David, thanks for your vote of confidence on the system. I did once own SBL’s driven passively with 135’s. The IBL’s are with active 250’s, so I guess it a pretty fair contest.

To my ears, and of course it’s a very subjective thing, the IBL’s win by quite a margin.

Very difficult to find the words to describe my feelings, but I will try.

The SBL’s had a rather decoupled bass that sort of came & went a bit. On some tracks there seemed to be almost less bass than I had with Kans, then on another album the bass was a bit overpowering and somewhat separated from the rest of the music. The top end could get a bit ragged as well. They were OK but I found the Kans to be a better all round speakers.

After straying from the straight & narrow for a few years I went back to Kans. I still kept looking for a speaker that was like Kans on steroids, more scale, more weight, more extension and more music. Well my search came to an end with a pair of IBL mk II’s.

To me IBL’s seem a very ‘honest’ speaker, doing everything very well, well OK, except for deep bass. The bass has great pitch are bounces along nicely, never goes very deep, but never lets go in a loose way…ever.

In my active system they sound a great deal larger than one could possibly imagine, that always put a big grin on my face!

I went back to passive IBL’s with one 250 for a few months and it was a massive backward step. The music got shut in and tingle factor had reduced dramatically, still had the edge over Kans though IMHO.

I’m sure mileages will vary dramatically over this one, but I am a very happy bunny.

Bob

I think this presents a very interesting view on what people get used too in music reproduction.

To me the ibl just sounds like a speaker with no bass, but other appear to prefer this sound, describing the quality of the bass (which to my ears dosn't actually exist!)

Bob I am suprised at your view of the SBL, but with the greatest of respect you appear to be someone who prefers very small speakers.

The SBL is by no means a bass beast. But Ihave never heard this disjointed bass of which you speak, I have used the SBL with all sorts all the way back to a 92/90 and it still held it all together rather well.

Hi Garyi,

Don’t get me wrong I love deep tight bass. I play bass guitar in a band and use an Ashdown 560 watt rig with 2 x 15” speakers, so I’m used to deep bass!

The bass from my IBL’s is in good proportion to the rest of frequencies, it just misses out the very deep bits. As I said YMMV.

Bob

PS, forgot to add that IMHO IBL's only realy work properly active. The bass is much more realistic.

Bob

hi bob,
you have had both of the setups im interested in so from what you say active seems to be the way to go. however im thinking about running the ibls active with 2 140s. do you think these will be up to the job?
andy.

Hi Andy,

The school of thought seems to be that a 250 passive with outperform 2 x 140 active. I think that IBL's need at least a 250 to get them going, maybe 140's will be OK. Anyone out there tried 2 x 140's active?

Bob

FWIW I think that 160's active would be better than 250 passive

My two pennorth is that I run IBLs actve on the end of 2 X 250s and find them superb. It all depends on how important bass is to other aspects of delivery to you.

I must try my IBL's active!

Reading Bob's original post though was fascinating, I could have written exactly the same things about my passive pair.

When I moved from Kans to IBL's the initial reaction was 'no bass'. Part of this was the system, but after a bit of adjustment you realised that the bass was there, but with absolutely no colouration, boom, overhang or unevenness that the Kans have.

I can listen to the heaviest dub reggae or synth bass lines and follow every single note, no matter how low, even though the fundamental note isn't really there. IBL's will never do deep bass, or very high volume, but have a clarity I've only heard in one other speaker (Active SBL's driven by 4x135's). They will tell youa lot about how things are played that would be lost on many 'speakers.

As a result of the lack of extension they are also not quite as dynamic sounding as fuller range speakers, but as a window on your music thay are hard to beat.

I have a feeling if you like what your IBL's do, then going active will put a smile on your face.

I rate mine as the most impressive and engaging bit of HiFi I've ever bought, after my LP12. They seem to be a perfect match for my small room, and just disppear when playing music.

Andy.

I have a pair of mk 1 IBLs that I have tried in setups from 42.5/110 via 52/250 and up to 552/500 and I´m impresst in every setup! They are so tuneful and gives You totall insight. In a room with a very floor, they worked better than the DBLs, didn´t get the bass moving the floor. The treble of the IBL is nothing but stunning and only DBLs comes to the same level. I have had SBLs, and even if they were more versatile, I still prefer IBLs.

I hope I can try them active in the future and this tread really tease me to do it.

/Erik

i think what i will do is run the ibls active with a pair of 140s until i can upgade to a pair of 250s.i like the speed and dynamics of the ibls and the sound is so clear. so thanks guys for all your views.
andy k

Andy,,

I bet 2 x 140 will sound stonking, you will not believe the improvement over 140 passive. Keep us posted & good luck.

Bob

hi bob,
when i get the system set up active i will let you know what i think of the overall sound.
cheers andy.

Interested thread guys. I run my IBLs active with 250s into an IXO and 52/SC. Bass is clean but definitely not deep. Has anyone tried IBLs active with the new SNAXO? How about adding a sub. Comments please.

Ira

quote:

---

Originally posted by afshar:
Interested thread guys. I run my IBLs active with 250s into an IXO and 52/SC. Bass is clean but definitely not deep. Has anyone tried IBLs active with the new SNAXO? How about adding a sub. Comments please.

Ira

---

Hi Ira,

In your system I would guess the limiting factor is the IXO, the new SNAXO with Hicap would help as would the new style 250. Maybe passive 300 would work really well from a bass POV as well.

regards

Guys,

Anyone got any further with trying active IBL's?

Bob

I have for years thought about changing my IBLs but everytime I have tried I have done an source or amp upgrade. The only difference was the MkII upgrade on the IBLs.

I have compared passive IBLs with passive SBLs as well as active IBLs with passive SLBs and prefered the active IBLs best. I do sometimes miss the bass when I connect the TV but no other time.

I am currently driving my IBLs with 72/Hi/135x2. Next upgrade is 52/Super I think but I got to do furniture before that.

hi,

ive now got my system going,
active 140s into ibls
the sound is very dynamic and crystal clear but i would like some more bass. ive read some threads on atc active 10s what are your views on these compared to ibls and is it safe to use a naim preamp with these speakers.


andy k

Andy,

Wow... exciting news. What XO are you using?

Bob