Passive loudspeakers aren’t as lame as vinyl…yet!

[jeffhenning]

Moore’s Law certainly hasn’t made its way to the world of loudspeakers and, most especially, the world of active loudspeakers.

About 25 years ago when I bought my first active sub/sat loudspeaker system (Paradigm LCR–450 mains/servo 15 subs), I couldn’t imagine that by now everyone wouldn’t be using active loudspeakers. The price to performance ratio was so great compared to separate amps and passive speakers, it seemed like a no-brainer.

Well, here we are in 2024 and active loudspeakers are more prevalent than they used to be, but aren’t the dominant category I thought they would be in HiFi.

When it comes to studio monitors… You know, those speakers that hi-fi guys think are too accurate… Yeah, those things… Active tech is all over the place. It’s ubiquitous.

Other than KEF, very few companies are wading into the active end of the pool. I have my theories about it and think most of them are spot on. It certainly isn’t their performance or their return on investment.

So, what does the peanut gallery think?

 

[Cbdb2]

Home theater. If you use your speakers for this than actives are usually more expensive and harder to set up. Preamps that do everything an AVR does are rare and expensive. And you need to get power to all the speakers instead of just a speaker wire, an expensive pain if your installing in walls and/or ceilings. Do they even make active ceiling speakers ?

 

[Talisman]

Personally, although an active configuration certainly offers great advantages in terms of sound quality and DSP, it has never attracted me for a series of considerations

- The electronics last less, or even much less than the life expectancy of a passive speaker, there are myriads of speakers around from the 70s to today, still perfectly functional, but much less electronic (often however repaired or with replaced components)
And if the idea of sending an amplifier under warranty is boring, let alone huge tower speakers. Just not for me.

- Command center, the amplifier or preamplifier in a central position is a real control station of the hifi system, an active farfield configuration cannot ignore the remote control for management, but remote controls get lost, break, end up between the sofa cushions, your son's coke ends up on them etc etc.... In short, I'm not thrilled about having to rely on a remote control to manage any parameter of my system

- possibility of hissing or noise, generally this does not happen with high-end products, but with less professional products the possibility is real.

Furthermore, I am a boy from the 80s, I am still tied to a classic concept of stereo system, and since this is a passion and not a job, I can simply orient myself towards the things that satisfy and gratify me the most, even if not the most performing

 

[StigErik]

I've been running active speakers with DSP for almost 20 years now, and have never looked back. Currently have a 5.1.4 setup with all active speakers.

I think audiophiles in general are very conservative. Just remember how long it took for digital audio to get acceptance. Not to mention DSP, which is still regarded as the devil himself I guess...

 

[Waxx]

The main issue i have with active speakers is that amps build into speakers die way faster than the speaker itself, but it makes the speaker unusable. That is also why a lot of hifi guys refuse to use those. It's not all snake oil or snobism.

I'll rather have speakers with active crossovers and amps per speaker, but in a seperate enclosure so i can replace the amps without compromising the speakers.

 

[StigErik]

I'm running MiniDSP Flex and separate amps for my main speakers. But the ceiling speakers are dirt cheap JBL active ones. If they fail, it's just pocket money anyway.

 

[Cbdb2]

Personally, although an active configuration certainly offers great advantages in terms of sound quality and DSP, it has never attracted me for a series of considerations

- The electronics last less, or even much less than the life expectancy of a passive speaker, there are myriads of speakers around from the 70s to today, still perfectly functional, but much less electronic (often however repaired or with replaced components)
And if the idea of sending an amplifier under warranty is boring, let alone huge tower speakers. Just not for me.

- Command center, the amplifier or preamplifier in a central position is a real control station of the hifi system, an active farfield configuration cannot ignore the remote control for management, but remote controls get lost, break, end up between the sofa cushions, your son's coke ends up on them etc etc.... In short, I'm not thrilled about having to rely on a remote control to manage any parameter of my system

- possibility of hissing or noise, generally this does not happen with high-end products, but with less professional products the possibility is real.

Furthermore, I am a boy from the 80s, I am still tied to a classic concept of stereo system, and since this is a passion and not a job, I can simply orient myself towards the things that satisfy and gratify me the most, even if not the most performing

Well designed electronics usually last longer than well designed electromechanical systems, things with moving parts. Remotes are easy to replace, and very handy.

 

[Talisman]

Well designed electronics usually last longer than well designed electromechanical systems, things with moving parts. Remotes are easy to replace, and very handy.

Frankly no, that's not the case in my experience. Furthermore, remote controls are certainly easy to replace within two or three years, but I don't think it is easy to find remote controls for products from 20 or 30 years ago.
You don't necessarily have to insist on a position and defend it at all costs. Actives have undeniable advantages in some areas, equally they have weaknesses in others and there is no reason to deny it

 

[Anton D]

Wow, Hi Fi guys think active speakers are too accurate?



I rate your troll a 6.

 

[mlee]

Built in Actives located in speakers = usually DSP compression and electronics obsolescence.
External actives = Very nice once you account for the above.

 

[terryforsythe]

Other than KEF, very few companies are wading into the active end of the pool.

There are quite a few companies that produce active speakers: Genelec, Neumann, JBL, Klipch, SVS, Elac, Focal, Fluance, Buchardt, Q Acoustics, Kanto, Jamo, Audioengine, Edifier, etc., etc.

Some people want to keep their electronics and speakers separate, for various reasons. But, I agree, active speakers have some advantages. Indeed, I removed the passive crossovers from my speakers and now I run them all active. The improvement in sound is significant.

 

[Overseas]

I listen to my 40 kg a piece stereo floorstanders, not to the price - performance ratio.

 

[MattHooper]

Passives for life!

 

[krabapple]

Frankly a nightmare to even contemplate setting up in a 5.1 (or more) system, plus wanting the connectivity, calibration/room DSP and all the decoding capabilities of your average modern AVR.

Though I wish it wasn't so.

 

[highender]

The main issue i have with active speakers is that amps build into speakers die way faster than the speaker itself, but it makes the speaker unusable. That is also why a lot of hifi guys refuse to use those. It's not all snake oil or snobism.

I'll rather have speakers with active crossovers and amps per speaker, but in a seperate enclosure so i can replace the amps without compromising the speakers.

These are made for such an application:

Sun Audio Purified 4

I was contacted by the manufacturer and he gave me the spinorama for this speaker: Purified 4. "The measurements are performed by IFAA in Germany within the following semi-anechoic class-1 chamber: https://ifaa-akustik.de/en/the-institute/technical-facilities/". As the name implies that's a 4...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Cbdb2]

You don't necessarily have to insist on a position and defend it at all costs. Actives have undeniable advantages in some areas, equally they have weaknesses in others and there is no reason to deny it

Your the one defending your position, I posted one brief comment. If you want to listen to speakers from the seventies go ahead, I believe there have been advances in the last 50 years.
And passives have electronics too, usually the worst kind for aging, electrolytics.

 

[Talisman]

Your the one defending your position, I posted one brief comment. If you want to listen to speakers from the seventies go ahead, I believe there have been advances in the last 50 years.
And passives have electronics too, usually the worst kind for aging, electrolytics.

Your arguments simply don't make sense.
I don't want to listen to speakers from the 70s but I also don't want to change audio systems costing thousands of euros like you change a telephone or a television

 

[Cbdb2]

Your arguments simply don't make sense.
I don't want to listen to speakers from the 70s but I also don't want to change audio systems costing thousands of euros like you change a telephone or a television

Which argument?

 

[Rick63]

I know one thing - I'm in love with my Dynaudio's, in combination with my Audiolab M-DAC+.

Not sure I'll ever own another set of passive speakers or an integrated amp.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

There are a fair bit of subwoofers from many different brands for sale on the used market for cheap but with the amplifier missing, built to passive or with a broken amplifier. The proposed price for those is a fraction of that of a functional one or new. If they ever get them sold that is.

I'm certain this is the future for many active speakers as well. I won't be a part of it.