• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Why do passive speakers still exist?

BenB

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
284
Likes
446
Location
Virginia
The best of both worlds would be a speaker with separate inputs for each driver and a passive crossover that could be easily toggled with a switch. You could use a single amp to drive it like a regular passive speaker or separately amplify each driver.

Honestly, I would prefer that speakers came with the inputs to independently drive each driver and dropped the crossover entirely. It would have the advantages of active designs while still letting you choose the electronics. Active crossovers are better these days, and there's no sense spending money on a complex passive crossover that you're not going to use.

We would just need better options for low power amplification. In such a system one would need something like 50W x 8 instead of 200W x 2.

From what I've seen, speaker driver efficiencies follow this trend:
Subwoofers often have the lowest efficiency, in order to keep the required box size down.
Midranges and fullranges often have the next lowest efficiency, though you can certainly find examples of high efficiency midranges.
Woofers come next.
Tweeters as a group probably have the highest efficiency.

On the other hand, the spectrum for music is typically quite tilted. The means you need more power at low frequencies in general, though the increase may flatten off somewhere around 100 Hz.

What this means is that a rather typical consumer may need 500 watts for their subwoofer (use a separate amp here, it makes total sense). Then they need 200 watts for their woofer, 50 watts for their mid, and 15 watts for their tweeter (unless they want to pass test signals with flat spectrums correctly). The issue here is that once you need that 200 watts for your woofer, if the technology is perfectly capable of simultaneously providing the 50 watts for the mid and the 15 watts for the tweeter, then using separate amps just adds to the expense without any real gain.

As for the topic of the larger thread:

Regarding DSP, it's been mentioned that adding delay to align acoustic centers only works for one spot. With dispersion in mind, it's not typically a good idea to have wildly different acoustic centers. Passive crossovers can be used very effectively to combine drivers that aren't too far separated in distance, although variations from theoretical slopes will be made. There's nothing magical about text-book slopes anyway, so deviating does not degrade the sound.

Phase can be manipulated with DSP, but a speaker doesn't have to be active to do it. Additionally, typical speaker phase distortions above 1000 Hz are completely inconsequential. The same is true below 200 Hz where the room dominates. There's probably some small frequency range between 200 Hz and 1000 Hz where phase distortion could even be perceived by most people (listening to speakers in a room), and then there wouldn't be a strong preference for distortionless playback. Phase correction is just not very important to human perception of sound... it can be more important for marketing with pretty graphs, though.

Passive crossovers sometimes have to attenuate a speaker driver to match other less sensitive drivers in the speaker. This wasted energy could be conserved with an active speaker. On the other hand, if you're using more amps, they have a certain draw all the time. I don't think this is a big deal either way.

DSP can also make the frequency response flatter in magnitude. However, there's a point where this also becomes inconsequential. Is a speaker that's +/- 1 dB from the target response perceived as better than a speaker that's +/- 2 dB? How about 3 dB? There are plenty of passive designs that are within +/- 3 dB (or less) from their target.

As an amateur speaker designer with a degree in electrical engineering, and a couple decades of DSP experience... I design passive speakers. Even my multi-way line arrays with very narrow and consistent beamwidth are passive. I could have designed them to use DSP, but I figured it was in my best interest to check first whether a passive implementation was possible. It took me a few months to figure out how to do it for one particular design, and then a few more months to generalize it, but it's possible. They are efficient enough that I honestly run them off an AVR. A nice, cheap, mass produced AVR.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Interesting...

Is that person using subwoofers? From my understanding, the 8361As advantage over the 8351B is more about max spl then it is about extension, so I'm a bit surprised. I would expect the bass of the 8C to be quite a bit better than the 8361. Could just be a weird room interaction thing. Low end can be all over the place, and really takes a lot of time to setup properly.

Also, looking at the measurements of the 8361a, I'm not sure the mids and highs are as good as the 8351B, which is what I was comparing to the 8C.



The 8C was a little warming sounding, imo, whereas the 8351 sounded a touch more neutral(to my ears). If you're someone who is sensitive to high frequencies, you might actually prefer the treble on the 8C more. How close is that 8C dealer you mentioned? I would really try and see if you can get a demo.

*Edit: I misread your reply as you saying you liked the warmer sound.
I'm quoting what he wrote
"
" Both speakers deliver the best sound for money ive ever heard. They actually (to my ears) sound very alike. Transparent with a tweeter that never becoms to harsh .

Genelec 8361A has a slighly better soundstage due to the coaxial design. The midrange on the 8361A is also just a bit better , more open , clearer.

Both speakers are really good, but you need to integrate them to the room via DSP . They become twice as good then. It´s day and night in difference ."

" But they are very similar. What I can say is that the 8361A has a larger soundstage, due big wavegiude and coaxial driver. I would say that they play with a bit more ease as well . Not surprisingly, it’s a bigger monitor with more powerful amplifiers for the low end . Crazy dynamics . Both speakers are amazing, you can’t really go wrong. If I had another room , I would have saved the DD . After almost two years , it was time to move on and try something else . The 8361a is the only speaker that can be compared with the DD8C in my opinion , at roughly the same price. Do I miss the 8C , yes . Do I regret buying the 8361A , No ."
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
Hmm...

To paraphrase Mr Hitler pounding his fist in the popular parodies.... Genelec! Genelec! Genelec!

Genelec is a Finnish company.

I don't know Finnish language.

I've never heard the proper pronunciation for Genelec.

Is it pronounced with a hard or soft "G" - hard like gun, or soft soft like general?

I presume, like general, but, ???
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
If you can't get good volume in a large room at 27Hz (about the low note on a piano in a Jazz Trio), as far as I am concerned, it's all for naught.

I used to think so too, then I researched where the goal posts are for making a cab for electric piano for one of my prosound customers.

What I found is that the 27 Hz fundamental of low-A is so weak it's inaudible. The 54 Hz first overtone is also inaudible.

piano sound spectrum - YouTube

The lowest frequency which might be barely audible is the 62 Hz first overtone of low-B.

Nothing against 27 Hz in-room as a worthy goal, but imo it's not necessary for piano. As anecdotal evidence of this, consider that low-A on a piano does not begin to make the room shudder like low-A on a synth does.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Also what is this stupid arguemnt that passive speakers can’t have proper DSP?

i thought this is about the power not the crossover.
 

nerdoldnerdith

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
495
Likes
690
Location
Chicago
What this means is that a rather typical consumer may need 500 watts for their subwoofer (use a separate amp here, it makes total sense). Then they need 200 watts for their woofer, 50 watts for their mid, and 15 watts for their tweeter (unless they want to pass test signals with flat spectrums correctly). The issue here is that once you need that 200 watts for your woofer, if the technology is perfectly capable of simultaneously providing the 50 watts for the mid and the 15 watts for the tweeter, then using separate amps just adds to the expense without any real gain.

I have a pair of Morrison Audio Model 19.1's that were designed to be used with an external crossover. They are designed the way I mentioned. Fortunately, they only have two drivers per speaker, so I only need to have a four channel amp to power them.

This was the problem I faced when I searched for an amp for them. I wanted Purifi for the woofers, but I didn't necessarily need all that power for the tweeters. I searched for amps that could do 10-50 watts with the same performance as the Purifi for less money, but I never found anything. The closest thing was the Neurochrome Modulus, but that wasn't particularly cheap, so it defeated the purpose. I even thought about using a low output impedence headphone amp, but decided against it. I eventually just settled with a four channel Purifi.

If we ever got passive speakers with separate inputs for each drivers, then it would take a special amp to power them. Something with 20 watts for the tweeters, and several 50 watt modules that could power the mids or be bridged to power the woofers.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,076
Likes
8,910
I don't know if anyone already said this, but it is very easy to get into the business of manufacturing passive speakers. Wood or MDF cabinet construction is definitely low tech. Drivers are available from many sources and in low quantities. Crossover and port design is well documented and both are simple to make. Going active, especially with DSP adds at least two levels of complexity, and likely requires larger production runs, more engineering expertise and more investment.
 

Head_Unit

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,341
Likes
688
In a world where amazing active speakers / monitors exist, why do passive speakers not only continue to exist but are almost 90% of all speakers sold ( i guess).
Actually I bet by now 90% of speakers sold ARE active...but nowadays they are compact Bluetooth. As for the rest, force of habit, it's the known thing, blah blah. Also because (if we're talking hi-fi speakers) my observation is few active ones have built in streaming, and certainly not AirPlay. Sure you can add boxes etc etc etc but I think customers want SIMPLE.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Actually I bet by now 90% of speakers sold ARE active...but nowadays they are compact Bluetooth. As for the rest, force of habit, it's the known thing, blah blah. Also because (if we're talking hi-fi speakers) my observation is few active ones have built in streaming, and certainly not AirPlay. Sure you can add boxes etc etc etc but I think customers want SIMPLE.
Obviously I was talking more about hi-fi and not just every type of Speakers, but I get your point
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,175

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,153
Likes
1,662
Location
James Island, SC
I used to think so too, then I researched where the goal posts are for making a cab for electric piano for one of my prosound customers.

What I found is that the 27 Hz fundamental of low-A is so weak it's inaudible. The 54 Hz first overtone is also inaudible.

piano sound spectrum - YouTube

The lowest frequency which might be barely audible is the 62 Hz first overtone of low-B.

Nothing against 27 Hz in-room as a worthy goal, but imo it's not necessary for piano. As anecdotal evidence of this, consider that low-A on a piano does not begin to make the room shudder like low-A on a synth does.

True enough BUT if that were the case with the music I play, my pair of subs (which play 80 Hz & down) shouldn't have much to do. Because not all my music has MOOG's & other synth (Edgar Winter comes to mind. I listen to synth from Morton Subotnick to now.) But the fact is my subs have quite a bit to do with most of the music I play. Now, Jazz Trio's is not something I normally listen to although I do (and almost everything else, aside from opera). I was using that particular statement (coped from somewhere else on this site) to emphasize that without bass it ain't no good. 16 Hz on some organs too. 60 piece bands Also room pressurization (the feel of the presentation) is definitely something I like. There is information there and I have made specific efforts to be able to play it. And I know for a fact that I can hear 20 Hz (and definitely perceive lower than that) on my system. As of yet I do not have any DSD on it. I have the equipment to do so, just other things have kept me from doing it. By the end of the year is my goal to be playing with what I have. It will be a steep learning curve, as I am not particularly familiar with computers for this use (better at using them involving monitoring parameters of what is going on in performance engines while they are performing). I typically run 800 watts at 2 ohms per sub. The amp FR is ruler flat to below 10 Hz, and well extending past the 40 kHz limit of this measurement (AMIRM) [one of my personal NAD 2200 triplets], which runs the pair of subs, the other 2 run the L & R speakers at 1.2Kw each. Right now I am at my power limit for the duel 4 Ohm voice coisl running as 2 Ohm voice coil subs. I have the power and I have the subs integrated into my system. So, why live with soft, mushy or non existent bass?
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,153
Likes
1,662
Location
James Island, SC
Actually I bet by now 90% of speakers sold ARE active...but nowadays they are compact Bluetooth. As for the rest, force of habit, it's the known thing, blah blah. Also because (if we're talking hi-fi speakers) my observation is few active ones have built in streaming, and certainly not AirPlay. Sure you can add boxes etc etc etc but I think customers want SIMPLE.

Many, if not most, compact Bluetooth speakers do not qualify as listenable speakers to me.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,213
Likes
24,174
I thoght it was Genelec as in

1606360479654.png

minus a coupla syllables.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
... my subs have quite a bit to do with most of the music I play... I typically run 800 watts at 2 ohms per sub... why live with soft, mushy or non existent bass?

I hope I didn't come across as advocating living with soft, mushy, or non-existent bass. That would have been stupid and counter-productive, given that I'm a subwoofer manufacturer!

Regarding the thread topic, Earl Geddes has done active version of his Summa for customers who were willing to pay the upcharge. My recollection is that he switched to active in his own system, and then went back to passive, as he did not find the improvement to be worth the hassle.

At one time I was looking into making a dedicated studio monitor, so I spent a lot of time on Gearslutz and similar fora, reading (among other things) active vs passive threads. The impression I got from the posters who seemed to be the most experienced was that active was the way to go for small mixing monitors. But for the big main monitors, preference among the experienced leaned towards passive monitors, or towards active monitors with external amplifiers. The reason is, if your main monitors go down, your whole studio is severely limited (some used the words "shut down") until they can be put back into service. And with active monitors which have internal amplification, the solution involves panicked next-day-air shipping, and for the speaker manufacturer, a panicked repair/replace job. With passive speakers, when the amp dies you just pull the old Hafler out of the closet and hook it up.

Note that arguably the most important role of the main monitors is "impress the client". As a studio owner, you want to knock their socks off when you play the album you just produced for them for the first time. So you don't want your main monitors going down because one of the many amplifier modules failed.

Active gives the designer more tools to work with, but it cannot make up for fundamental shortcomings. For example, EQ cannot fix a radiation pattern discontinuity in the crossover region.
 
Last edited:

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,153
Likes
1,662
Location
James Island, SC
I hope I didn't come across as advocating living with soft, mushy, or non-existent bass. That would have been stupid and counter-productive, given that I'm a subwoofer manufacturer!
I felt that there was a dichotomy in what you were saying: that I (nor anyone else) needs to go as low as 27 Hz because you cannot here it when a piano does it. Then, on the flip side, it was implied that when synth is at that low a Hz, that it shakes the house (without stating if that is a good thing or a bad thing). So I was not sure what to think that your thoughts on the subject are. Now that I know what type of things you manufacture, it makes sense to me. Prior to knowing that, I felt that I had to clarify my position on having that below average Hz of bass. I do not have an AVR & don't do the LFE thing, I just want to be able to reproduce what is there, be it whatever type of instrument it be. The ported boxes that I am using had relatively innocuous 12" woofers and was said to be tuned down to 29 Hz & up to 150 Hz. I replaced the woofers with a pair of Pioneer 12" dual 4 ohm voice coil car competition speakers that move a lot more air. I can play a 20 Hz test tone and with the bass tone control set at 2:00)my speakers play it.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
56
Likes
233
+1 with Duke on this one,

My biggest issue with "all in one" active monitors is they stuff all the electronics in one box. Not a big deal when doing a pair of speakers unless you really depend on them. Pearljam does not strike me as a person that purchases speakers and will remain content with them for many years--basically, purchase what the cool kids run an pitch them when they break. Not something I do, I don't run a pair of speakers any more.

Ya know--multi-channel with Atmos speakers in the ceiling thing. Think of the fun of having amps that need an AC line AND a signal line. Now throw four (or six) of them in the ceiling and give them power? How? No problem, just put wall outlets at the ceiling mounting points and run signal cables through conduit in the ceiling/walls and getter done! Sure, my wife might want to move the living room around, really easy to then put new outlets in the ceiling, patch the old holes then re-route the signal lines because you run those away from power and....

Don't forget the surrounds--be it a 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 system or 7.1.6 system you need to power 13 speakers, 13 signal cables and make absolutely sure you have no ground loops because huuuuummmmm really negates any perceieved major increases with active filters. Some people do go through the hassle I guess, saw some really expensive HT systems with things like JBL M2 speakers for the LCR but the 10 surround speakers were passive so the amp rack contained ALL the amps in one spot with no ground loops and no outlets strewn around the ceiling. The JBL M2 speakers are fully actve but have outboard amplifiers that are placed in the amp rack then wired with conventional speaker cable.

Personally, I would prefer to have the amplifiers seperate in the rack then run conventional speaker cable from the amplifiers. Worked great in my PA days as I could swap amps quickly (had a spare in the rack) amps fail, lightning happens and I had a pair of transistors fail 10 minutes into a gig because... dookie happens. Amp swap took two minutes as the show must go on Sure, my car audio system was active with active filters, EQ and amplfiers with the drivers attached with conventional wire.

All electronics fail, just the name of the game and no brand is immune from that. Genelec assembles good boards but they only assemble them as they don't manufacture their own capacitors, inductors, transistors etc. as they buy them from other vendors. The older electronics are easier to repair because they used discrete components without many microprocessors--those days are long gone. They went the way of carbs on cars as they were replaced with SMT, coated boards and so on. Nothing wrong with SMDs, unless you want to fix/repair such things and not likely if you have blown processors or entire boards because the parts go obsolete rapidly. Yeah, even the mighty Genelec can't stop the parts companies from haulting parts production after a few years. The best they can do is stock spare boards but once they are gone--good luck on fixing that stuff. This is an issue with all electronics--you won't see a 2020 Toyota rolling down the road in 2050 as a daily driver--the plastic parts will be out of the inventory and you are stuck. Just the way it is so you design around it.

If I so choose, I can go active with no probems but would only do so with my LCR. I could do it with my surrounds but "the juice is not worth the squeeze" you could say. However, my LCR speakers easily belt out 120dB+ even with passive crossovers and they have the proper PEQ applied to get them smooth. I could gain something going active--maybe slightly better distortion by using steeper filters or something as I don't have any major issues with the speakers. After all, the subwoofers are active complete with delay, parametric EQ, high pass filters and low pass filters that work with the mains and my room acoustics.

Not sure why a person would think full active creates amazing things--it does improve what it can just like parametric EQ can only do what it can. Even full active monitors might need a bit of an adjustment with PEQ stock....and everything active needs to be EQ'd in the bass region in traditional rooms. Throw in the room throws out it's nasties and the beat goes on. If you have ever measured any speaker in a typical room, the chaos will become obvious no matter if passive, active or any speaker---the response goes to hell and must be addressed.

You can make any passive speaker active if you like. A bit of solder, use a 2 to 8 channel amp with full DSP and go. Since you need to measure anyway, not hard to get it all smooth for your room...once you know what you are doing. Active processing audio was common in car audio and PA systems over 30 years ago so not anything "new", not by a long shot. Heck, plenty of computer speakers were acive decades ago so they are not as leading edge as you think.

The reason passive speakers are still around is they work. PEQ is common and can be applied to passive speakers to cure the ills that EQ can fix. As with most things, once you are content with the sound then you press on with other things. Most people don't care about audio equipment, they just want it to sound good....then they press on with their lives. Now tell somebody that they need to run signal cables AND power to four or six locations in their ceiling and make sure they have outlets near their side/rear surrounds... I'm sure that would kill the sale quickly. For most people with most HT systems passive speakers are a superior option because of the power and signal issues. Most people would refuse to run new electrical lines,signal cable conduit through the walls just for something as basic as surround systems. Rather basic to run CL2 wire in your walls, it won't burn the house down and is simple to do. Other options are very thin/wide wire that you can paint over to hide it and so on. Try that with signal cables or extnsion cords.

Nothing wrong with Genelecs but they don't make speakers I can use in my HT system. If I had a much larger room and money to burn, it would not bother me to go full active LCR with JBL M2's--with outboard amps to fit in the rack all snugged up to the processor. Shame that most of the industry makes disposable speakers with the amps crammed into the boxes with ever looming warranty expiration dates and product replacement cycles. Not a big deal with just a pair of them, if you have 13 of them then you are tempting fate. If you want a full active system for HT, the obvious choice is eiher outboard amps with outboard processors or...a soundbar. Don't hate! Soundbars are active to stay with the cool kids. Realisticaly, if you want a full HT active system, you will be using actual HT speaker systems and processors so better have a big enough room to hold them.

I was asked about active speakers for PA and the speakers would be hung 20 feet in the air. They did not have electricity in those locations and they would need to run conduit for the XLR cables. I told them to price the cost for two outlets in the ceiling and the conduit for the signal cables and that cost more than the active speakers! Yeah, in their case using passive speakes and active subs with the amplifiers at ground level in a rack was far, far less expensive and allowed them to upgrade the passive speaker series. If/when they have an amplifier failure it can be swapped over in minutes so they can press on. Seems not a soul that worked there would want to fight a 75 pound active speaker 20 feet up on a ladder above flooring over concrete. Ten years later, the speakers are still there although they have added subwoofers, changed mixers and so on.

Just something to think about--the audio world is far, far larger than a pair of active speakers. Think bigger, grasshopper... :)
 
Top Bottom