Why do passive speakers still exist?

[Chromatischism]

I don't think they should be abandoned either. They pretty obviously have some convenience advantages especially in terms of wiring, reliability, and sound quality can go either way depending on the specific model and price bracket.

Tell me if my reasoning is off here.

In a situation where I already have an AVR with preouts, so passive or active speakers are both possible;

Let's say I have $1k to spend on speakers. Wouldn't I get more for my money buying a $1k pair of passive speakers, since all of the money went into the drivers and cabinet, and no money went towards amps?

 

[Sancus]

Tell me if my reasoning is off here.

In a situation where I already have an AVR with preouts, so passive or active speakers are both possible;

Let's say I have $1k to spend on speakers. Wouldn't I get more for my money buying a $1k pair of passive speakers, since all of the money went into the drivers and cabinet, and no money went towards amps?

Most likely, yeah. Though it'd be close. The 308p sales are pretty ridiculous. But there are definitely cheap passives that are competitive. Having an AVR is a handicap, since AVRs were designed for a world where most speakers were passive and their fundamental design hasn't changed in decades.

It's sound bars that are killing passives on the low end of HT, mostly due to form factor and simplicity of use. AVRs are really complicated.

 

[Ellebob]

Having designed speakers as a hobby and knowing the differences there is no doubt that active is better. Cost is another issue but not as far off as people think. the Focal Aria 906 and Focal Shape 65 are pretty close (not identical) for passive vs active. Tannoy used to make a passive Reveal but no longer does. If I use the Focal as an example the Shape goes about 15hz lower than the Aria. That is common with active speakers is with the same design you will be able to go to a lower frequency. This difference will be audible if comparing without a sub.

Here are some articles that explain some of this better than me.
https://www.adam-audio.com/content/uploads/2016/09/active-vs-passive-speakers.pdf
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0403/
http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/active-amplification/
https://www.xkitz.com/blogs/making-...g-the-case-for-active-crossovers-vs-passive-1
https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html

 

[cistercian]

I like passive speakers because of the simplicity and reliability. I can choose any amp I want as well.
The speakers I use are available in passive as well as a powered version. The powered version is much preferred
for a pro as the DSP, presets, and built in amp offer incredible flexibility. The differences in construction are remarkable. My
passives are 95lbs, the powered ones are 87lbs. The passive version has a different front baffle with 2 ports per side
of the lf driver and nicely built passive crossovers. The powered version of the SRX835 has the two lower corners
gone from the baffle as ports. Bracing is slightly different too.
I never plan to replace these speakers so I am glad I never have to worry about the internal amp failing. As opposed to
replacing my external XLS2502 amp which is easy to pickup and ship, my speakers came via trucking company...and I used
a hand truck to move them. I can't imagine the the horror of taking them to be serviced when an amp fails.

I can easily service the passives myself. I cannot service SMC laden modern amps though.

 

[Frank Dernie]

However wireless will make the whole industry go active.

It already has for most people.
I agree the electronics has been audibly transparent for decades, DACs were a solved problem as far as music listening is concerned a very long time ago.
However, for a music lover, as opposed to a home entertainment system for a family, (I agree, probably only a tiny proportion of the population) a multi channel system is not the best choice IME, not because of the electronic side, some of that is good enough, but the speakers.
I, as a music lover, will stick to 2-channel for now probably.
My wife, who is a professional musician, and listens to a lot of music, either researching new stuff or listening to different interpretations, is happy to listen on her laptop speakers, musicality comes through fine on them just not much bass. She has zero interest in hifi or home theatre if it involves any wires or boxes.


One of the most ridiculous/absurd claims of hifi enthusiasts is fancy hifi is needed to reproduce musicality!

 

[Frank Dernie]

Krell did over a decade ago. Sounded very nice too. But probably didn’t catch on for cost reasons.

I have been using speakers with cabinets made from ally plates for about 25 years. It is certainly expensive if done properly

 

[Ellebob]

Just a side note the SRX835 in powered form is not an active speaker. It is a passive speaker with an amplifier attached. That is no different than its passive version. The only advantage the powered version might have is if one had very long speaker wires using too small of a wire gauge. A lot of consumer speakers are powered and even some low end pro models like some studio models by Mackie, JBL, Presonus, M-Audio, Behringer, Samson, Aperion, Emotiva, Edifier, klipsch, etc. These powered models offer no acoustic advantage over passive because they are passive with an amp attached. Theoretically this would be the most expensive type of speaker.

Although the terms active and powered are often used interchangeably there is a difference. A true active speaker has and electronic crossover not a passive one that can only cut frequencies and is powered by the amplifier. The active speaker will have multiple amps, one for each driver. So a separate amp for the tweeter and one for the woofer in a 2 way speaker, 3 amps in a 3 way speaker, etc.. Since the amp is directly powering each driver this has a lot of advantages. So the electronic crossover can be more precise and distortion is greatly decreased when powering each driver directly. A powered speaker is basically a passive speaker with an amplifier attached. I don't know if there is any technical definition between these but in the pro world I think this is understood if using the terms active or powered.

 

[srrxr71]

Just a side note the SRX835 in powered form is not an active speaker. It is a passive speaker with an amplifier attached. That is no different than its passive version. The only advantage the powered version might have is if one had very long speaker wires using too small of a wire gauge. A lot of consumer speakers are powered and even some low end pro models like some studio models by Mackie, JBL, Presonus, M-Audio, Behringer, Samson, Aperion, Emotiva, Edifier, klipsch, etc. These powered models offer no acoustic advantage over passive because they are passive with an amp attached. Theoretically this would be the most expensive type of speaker.

Although the terms active and powered are often used interchangeably there is a difference. A true active speaker has and electronic crossover not a passive one that can only cut frequencies and is powered by the amplifier. The active speaker will have multiple amps, one for each driver. So a separate amp for the tweeter and one for the woofer in a 2 way speaker, 3 amps in a 3 way speaker, etc.. Since the amp is directly powering each driver this has a lot of advantages. So the electronic crossover can be more precise and distortion is greatly decreased when powering each driver directly. A powered speaker is basically a passive speaker with an amplifier attached. I don't know if there is any technical definition between these but in the pro world I think this is understood if using the terms active or powered.

Exactly. My first pair was a powered NHT. They were not active.

 

[srrxr71]

It already has for most people.
I agree the electronics has been audibly transparent for decades, DACs were a solved problem as far as music listening is concerned a very long time ago.
However, for a music lover, as opposed to a home entertainment system for a family, (I agree, probably only a tiny proportion of the population) a multi channel system is not the best choice IME, not because of the electronic side, some of that is good enough, but the speakers.
I, as a music lover, will stick to 2-channel for now probably.
My wife, who is a professional musician, and listens to a lot of music, either researching new stuff or listening to different interpretations, is happy to listen on her laptop speakers, musicality comes through fine on them just not much bass. She has zero interest in hifi or home theatre if it involves any wires or boxes.


One of the most ridiculous/absurd claims of hifi enthusiasts is fancy hifi is needed to reproduce musicality!

I’m still on 2 channel but I am waiting for wireless multichannel if only to play with ambisonics or the commercial implementation called atmos. Those surrounds would be a lot cheaper than my mains though. Mostly for experimental use.

 

[Ellebob]

Tell me if my reasoning is off here.

In a situation where I already have an AVR with preouts, so passive or active speakers are both possible;

Let's say I have $1k to spend on speakers. Wouldn't I get more for my money buying a $1k pair of passive speakers, since all of the money went into the drivers and cabinet, and no money went towards amps?

If I had the ability I would use active speakers. I don't think the price difference is enough. Speakers like the JBL or recently reviewed Kali are just too good and I don't think there is a passive speaker in that price range that performs as well. Active is simply not practical for most. In the residential world people are using in wall, on wall, in ceiling as well as bookshelf and tower speakers. Many of those type of speakers are not easy to find in an active version that is reasonably priced. Never mind active also requires power as well as signal wires going to it or multiple speaker wires if the amp is not built in. For a basic 5.1 system where it is easy to get power and the signal cable to all the speakers, I would go active. For $1k I think 5 JBLs would be killer and tough to beat with passives.

 

[volkl77n]

"Why do passive speakers still exist?"

For the same reason they became the norm. Putting a tube amplifier inside a wood box with paper cone speakers was probably tried once, and just once.
(and for every other reason mentioned in the previous 25 pages)

 

[Tonygeno]

Silly question. If you look at performance vs price curves on this site you can see why. Never had a sub where the plate amp didn't act up either.

I've never had a sub where the plate amp did act up. Currently using Monoprice 12" THX Ultras (2 of them) to good effect. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've owned subs from Outlaw Audio, Hsu, Monoprice, and Rhythmik among others and have never had a plate amp failure.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I've never had a sub where the plate amp did act up. Currently using Monoprice 12" THX Ultras (2 of them) to good effect. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've owned subs from Outlaw Audio, Hsu, Monoprice, and Rhythmik among others and have never had a plate amp failure.

My sub is well over 20 years old and still works fine too. It is the only one I have ever had though!

 

[StefaanE]

Although the terms active and powered are often used interchangeably there is a difference. A true active speaker has and electronic crossover not a passive one that can only cut frequencies and is powered by the amplifier. The active speaker will have multiple amps, one for each driver. So a separate amp for the tweeter and one for the woofer in a 2 way speaker, 3 amps in a 3 way speaker, etc.. Since the amp is directly powering each driver this has a lot of advantages. So the electronic crossover can be more precise and distortion is greatly decreased when powering each driver directly. A powered speaker is basically a passive speaker with an amplifier attached. I don't know if there is any technical definition between these but in the pro world I think this is understood if using the terms active or powered.

Thanks for the clarification.
So, my speakers have four drivers, each with their own amplifier. The company calls it a 3.5 way as there are to identical 8" bass drivers, one 6.5" mid driver, and one 1" tweeter. True "active" speakers thus, and as far as bass response is concerned, they are indeed mightily impressive.

 

[Count Arthur]

For the same reason they became the norm. Putting a tube amplifier inside a wood box with paper cone speakers was probably tried once, and just once.

You can still buy guitar amps like this, so a bit more than once: https://www.andertons.co.uk/guitar-...&pageView:grid&minPrice:&maxPrice:&pageSize:&

 

[volkl77n]

You can still buy guitar amps like this, so a bit more than once: https://www.andertons.co.uk/guitar-...&pageView:grid&minPrice:&maxPrice:&pageSize:&

True.
Though old school guitar and bass amps aren't exactly known for their fidelity and the cabinets are adequately vented to deal with the heat. It's really an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[MattHooper]

My wife, who is a professional musician, and listens to a lot of music, either researching new stuff or listening to different interpretations, is happy to listen on her laptop speakers, musicality comes through fine on them just not much bass. She has zero interest in hifi or home theatre if it involves any wires or boxes.

Same with my wife. Especially when I met her, a TV was something that was best tiny and hidden behind a potted plant. Cables were The Devil, aesthetically. In my earlier audiophile days it was the amount of cables hanging around that bothered her most (not that I was a cable-head, only that the amount of equipment I had required lots of cables). If one of my friends was phoning she'd answer the phone "House Of Cables, may I ask who is speaking?"

Since I also don't like the look of cables I made sure to make them invisible when I renovated the room for home theater duty. Also, even the cables leading to my 2 channel speakers in that same room are buried invisibly in the shag rug. Hence, my wife actually likes the room.

One of the most ridiculous/absurd claims of hifi enthusiasts is fancy hifi is needed to reproduce musicality!

That's for sure.

I mean, I love listening to music on my standard car stereo.

And in fact last night I hauled out my old Thiel 02 speakers - a very plain 2-way box speaker that went for a few hundred bucks in the 80's - and I enjoyed music on those things as much as anything anywhere. (And in fact their performance in some parameters left my other stuff wanting a bit).
I had one of those creeping urges to chuck all the expensive gear out "if this is all I need."

But, being an inveterate audiophile, I know I start to crave more after a while. 'Tis a curse....

 

[naviivan]

I’m sure someone else has mentioned this:
unless you spend mega-bucks, most active speakers are ugly black or grey boxes. Any cheap, large floor standers with real wood veneer active speakers?

 

[Chromatischism]

I’m sure someone else has mentioned this:
unless you spend mega-bucks, most active speakers are ugly black or grey boxes. Any cheap, large floor standers with real wood veneer active speakers?

I agree that it's all Skunkworks black boxes unless you spend a lot. Can't make many of them work in a living room.

I don't know about real wood, but look at the Buchardt A700.

 

[StefaanE]

I’m sure someone else has mentioned this:
unless you spend mega-bucks, most active speakers are ugly black or grey boxes. Any cheap, large floor standers with real wood veneer active speakers?

Well, my wife actually prefers a matt black box over the high-gloss exotic veneers of audiophile speakers. A light honey-coloured veneer such as beech she likes, but that's not very popular . Even medium-priced speakers, active or passive, hardly ever come with real wood veneer (the Fyne F502 is an exception, and the salesman presenting it to me said it was vinyl when I commented on the nice structured finish -- it's real veneer but reddish). As far as I am concerned, I'm happy as long as it isn't high-gloss; I really don't understand the current craze for piano-lacquer, mock or real.