Why do passive speakers still exist?

[Colonel7]

For the time being, active speakers, with their controls in the back panel and their XLR inputs, are mainly for engineers.
I use the Neumann KH-120 on the pre-out of my hifi amplifier, but I had to build RCA / XLR adapters myself for that.
For active speakers to become popular, they need wifi, bluetooth, RCA and mini-jack input, and a remote control to turn them on/off and set the volume, like a TV set.

I'd add at least one and probably two of optical, usb, and newer hdmi. I know that gets into "lifestyle" speakers but part of the appeal to really break through is less boxes, not great active speakers but equal or even more boxes (prepro, dac and on and on).

 

[pjug]

I do think that is part of the appeal. On the other hand it doesn't get much more uncluttered than using something like the NAD M10 with passives.

 

[laudio]

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.

 

[kipman725]

For DIY minded people the disadvantages of active speakers (multiple cables and low quality/hard to maintain electronics) can be mitigated by directly connecting drive units to amplifiers using multi core cables as its done in pro audio. Cables are typicaly 4 or 8 core using NL4 or NL8 connectors from Neutrik which are very high quality and not expensive. Amplifiers are even available with built in DSP built in and many channels so this does not even have to take up a lot of space. At the top of the market the Powersoft X8 offers 8 high quality channels of amplification at extraordinary power levels in a 2U 19" rack unit.

 

[pjug]

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.

At the higher part of the curve (w/sub) it looks like there are active and passive at similar prices.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Generally speaking you can have much higher quality for the price in active speakers (if done correctly). Using DSP, the drivers can be utilized much better, and an onboard amplifier is much cheaper than a stand-alone commercial amplifier.

 

[EJ3]

I do think that is part of the appeal. On the other hand it doesn't get much more uncluttered than using something like the NAD M10 with passives.

This is what has deterred me. Seems the warranty on the electronics is 2-years on many of the active speakers I’ve seen. To me, that’s not long enough on something that could easily cost $4-5K.

The lack of choice in amplification also deters me: there are some actives that need a lot more power in the bass section. Currently most actives do not sound that good (unless you spend a lot of money) and many people already have way better amplification, than most actives and are happy with it. Why are there different anything's? Because people make different choices. Some want inexpensive,& don't care about the sound, some don't care about the price & only about the sound, some care about power cables being at every speaker, some don't. I all has to do with preferences and priorities. I could see it for for 2 channel (but wouldn't do it except with stuff I could never afford) but needing a way to power each speaker in a surround sound system, not so much. I have separates for everything, the point being that if something goes down it's can be quickly replaced or repaired while other parts of the system will handle the signal without much issue. If anything goes down with an active speaker, whatever it is, it takes that speaker out of the system until it is repairedor replaced. In 6 or 7 years (or more) will you be able to obtain any given part for the active speaker?

 

[Pearljam5000]

The lack of choice in amplification also deters me: there are some actives that need a lot more power in the bass section. Currently most actives do not sound that good (unless you spend a lot of money) and many people already have way better amplification, than most actives and are happy with it. Why are there different anything's? Because people make different choices. Some want inexpensive,& don't care about the sound, some don't care about the price & only about the sound, some care about power cables being at every speaker, some don't. I all has to do with preferences and priorities. I could see it for for 2 channel (but wouldn't do it except with stuff I could never afford) but needing a way to power each speaker in a surround sound system, not so much. I have separates for everything, the point being that if something goes down it's can be quickly replaced or repaired while other parts of the system will handle the signal without much issue. If anything goes down with an active speaker, whatever it is, it takes that speaker out of the system until it is repairedor replaced. In 6 or 7 years (or more) will you be able to obtain any given part for the active speaker?

Genelec guarantees parts for 30 years after purchase

 

[Kal Rubinson]

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).

IMHO, it is because there is too limited a selection of active speakers suitable for domestic application.

 

[Helicopter]

IMHO, it is because there is too limited a selection of active speakers suitable for domestic application.

Exactly.

There is almost no hifi. There is consumer grade like Bose and Google and professional like Genelec and JBL.

 

[Deleted member 2944]

Of course, there is no requirement for active speakers to have the power-amp/xover physically integrated into the speakers themselves.
That distinction should always be kept in mind.
That said, a "separate" active system gives the audiophile an opportunity to screw up the system design by incorporating differing amplifiers and other variations.

Dave.

 

[ttimer]

There is also very strong path dependency at work. Good passive speakers last many decades. But they might require a new amp every now and then. Which keeps the market for separate amps alive. And if you own an expensive amp, you have a strong incentive to keep it and buy passive speakers if you want new speakers.

Plus, the practical advantage of passive speaker cables over extra power cords+xlr is just gigantic. XLR is a total nightmare in most domestic settings.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I suspect we will see more and better offerings here soon. Many of the active speakers from the traditional hifi manufacturers are basically the passive variant of the speaker with an onboard amp, possibly with streaming options. But not much was done to improve the sound or take advantage of onboard DSP.

Then we have stuff like Kii Three and Dutch dutch 8c etc that are pushing the envelope and changing the game with relatively extreme bass compared to the size. If one wanted to, one could do similar things with floorstanding speakers and get pretty wild results.

 

[sigbergaudio]

There is also very strong path dependency at work. Good passive speakers last many decades. But they might require a new amp every now and then. Which keeps the market for separate amps alive. And if you own an expensive amp, you have a strong incentive to keep it and buy passive speakers if you want new speakers.

Plus, the practical advantage of passive speaker cables over extra power cords+xlr is just gigantic. XLR is a total nightmare in most domestic settings.

Not sure why XLR is a nightmare, but anyway you could use RCA if that helps?

 

[More Dynamics Please]

The best of all worlds is multiple options with different sets of pros and cons to suit different situations and different personal preferences. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.

 

[mhardy6647]

As long as Klipsch exists as a business unit, there will always be passive-aggressive loudspeakers.

 

[Ellebob]

I have used both active and passive for years. The amplifier argument about failing on the active speaker is not something I have seen in my career. Almost all speakers that fail is typically because they were overdriven or the amplifier was going into clipping and fried a tweeter which is less common in many actives because of protection built in. And on many of the higher end actives the amplifier is separate. You just need to run more speaker wires to each speaker for every driver. Genelec, JBL, ATC, etc. have models that do this, so changing an amp is not a big deal. But, again failure rate is very low for actives and passives.

 

[jgazal]

My main criteria in such buying decision are performance, longevity, repairability and easy of use.
I agree that active crossover and multiple amplifiers have better performance.
If an active speaker with integrated DSP and amplifiers fails the whole unit must be returned for repair. Genelec has pristine service, but there it comes with a higher price tag. In some countries with higher taxation it becomes prohibitive. That means fewer units in the field and less scale.
There are very few active speakers with integrated sources including HDMI and good software (one that comes to mind is the LS50 Wireless II). On the other hand, DAC and amplifiers combos are becoming more and more convenient (NAD comes to mind). Some user might not like the double conversion in active designs with only analog inputs (usually seen in pro models, although Genelec has some models with AES/EBU, but then there is the problem of finding a source with that standard).
Cables are indifferent to me. As somebody already said, there’s speakon and multiple core cables and active integrated speakers have the power cord hanging anyway...
I for one fear active integrated speakers repairability In my country. It is much more cheaper and easier to change an amplifier. Currently, I would just buy a minidsp unit (which has toslink to connect to any TV) and bypass the crossover of my preferred passive speaker.
I wish passive speakers already had multiple posts and a switch to bypass the crossover (if the concern is frying the tweeter with wrong connection, then a single capacitor could be added in the active post). You could offer a passive crossover compartment to be attached to the back of the speaker or a speakon compartment without crossover (more or less like the Purifi prototype which has the passive crossover outside the cabinet). Or at least a version for active use without an integrated crossover like the JBL M2.
To me the ideal world would be something like an M10 with four or six channels and a passive speaker with multiple biding post (or a speakon) to bypass the crossover.

 

[Ilkless]

I agree with comments above on Speakon. I admire the GGNTKT approach. Active crossover + amps outboard. I think that's the best of both worlds. Disaggregate the sources of failure so you can swap anything that fails more readily (ie. the passive user experience) + update equipment, yet with the performance of active.

 

[Helicopter]

My main criteria in such buying decision are performance, longevity, repairability and easy of use.
I agree that active crossover and multiple amplifiers have better performance.
If an active speaker with integrated DSP and amplifiers fails the whole unit must be returned for repair. Genelec has pristine service, but there it comes with a higher price tag. In some countries with higher taxation it becomes prohibitive. That means fewer units in the field and less scale.
There are very few active speakers with integrated sources including HDMI and good software (one that comes to mind is the LS50 Wireless II). On the other hand, DAC and amplifiers combos are becoming more and more convenient (NAD comes to mind). Some user might not like the double conversion in active designs with only analog inputs (usually seen in pro models, although Genelec has some models with AES/EBU, but then there is the problem of finding a source with that standard).
Cables are indifferent to me. As somebody already said, there’s speakon and multiple core cables and active integrated speakers have the power cord hanging anyway...
I for one fear active integrated speakers repairability In my country. It is much more cheaper and easier to change an amplifier. Currently, I would just buy a minidsp unit (which has toslink to connect to any TV) and bypass the crossover of my preferred passive speaker.
I wish passive speakers already had multiple posts and a switch to bypass the crossover (if the concern is frying the tweeter with wrong connection, then a single capacitor could be added in the active post). You could offer a passive crossover compartment to be attached to the back of the speaker or a speakon compartment without crossover (more or less like the Purifi prototype which has the passive crossover outside the cabinet). Or at least a version for active use without an integrated crossover like the JBL M2.
To me the ideal world would be something like an M10 with four or six channels and a passive speaker with multiple biding post (or a speakon) to bypass the crossover.

I like speakon too, and wish it were standard in home speakers. It provides a more secure and better conducting connection than bananas, spades, pins, tinned leads, and probably bare wire, and it is elegant because it combines the hot and neutral wires, sometimes more wires too, in one connector. I also like this idea to bypass passive crossover, but I understand why manufacturers are not going beyond two sets of binding posts so you can bi amp.