• 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?

I think the title of this thread is strange. Active speakers have built in eq which results in an improved preference score. A lot of ASR members believe preference score is everything, so they favor active speakers. That's it. Passive crossovers are not evil. Modern amplifiers can drive them. It's no big thing to apply eq.
 
Passives are good anyone with a router can make some, dealers like them because of the ‘upgrade’ opportunity, no specialist knowledge of anything in particular required, contemporary actives on the other hand require a team of specialists, dealers don’t like them because there are no ‘upgrade’ opportunities it is all perfectly logical.
Keith
I was going to disagree with this, given the existence of the FA-122 and its siblings, but then I remembered that I did an awful lot of learning to simulate the various filters, enclosure, and baffles (And the whole learning CAD to to do those things). So yeah, it takes more than a router.
 
I think the title of this thread is strange. Active speakers have built in eq which results in an improved preference score. A lot of ASR members believe preference score is everything, so they favor active speakers. That's it. Passive crossovers are not evil. Modern amplifiers can drive them. It's no big thing to apply eq.
Even speakers that don't have any EQ in the crossover (which, by the way, passives have EQ in the filter network too, it's just cut only) have some pretty obvious advantages.

1, they're much more efficient with the amp power needed. Passives bleed power off through the filter network - the insertion loss can be pretty severe. All other things being equal, a passive is generally 3-6dB less efficient than an active with the same drivers and response.
2, being able to manipulate time and frequency separate from one another either via op amp or DSP filters provides some serious benefits for audible improvements, especially around crossovers.
3. Driver protection is very important in a studio setting, where you may have loud pops or uncompressed transients going through the speakers. I've seen many a fried NS10 or Amphion tweeter... Never seen one fail on an active.
 
All other things being equal, a passive is generally 3-6dB less efficient than an active with the same drivers and response.
Is this true? Considering a two-way, won't the -3dB point in the woofer filter rolloff typically be beyond several hundred Hz? So in the low frequencies sensitivity would be similar whether active or passive crossovers are used. Overall power efficiency will be less with passives, but since most energy will be at low frequencies, I would expect the difference to be pretty small.
 
Even speakers that don't have any EQ in the crossover (which, by the way, passives have EQ in the filter network too, it's just cut only) have some pretty obvious advantages.

1, they're much more efficient with the amp power needed. Passives bleed power off through the filter network - the insertion loss can be pretty severe. All other things being equal, a passive is generally 3-6dB less efficient than an active with the same drivers and response.
2, being able to manipulate time and frequency separate from one another either via op amp or DSP filters provides some serious benefits for audible improvements, especially around crossovers.
3. Driver protection is very important in a studio setting, where you may have loud pops or uncompressed transients going through the speakers. I've seen many a fried NS10 or Amphion tweeter... Never seen one fail on an active.
Actives have lots of advantages, but not enough to wipe passives out of the market. There are disadvantages to actives which I will not go into here in the interest of forum peace and tranquility.
 
Is this true? Considering a two-way, won't the -3dB point in the woofer filter rolloff typically be beyond several hundred Hz? So in the low frequencies sensitivity would be similar whether active or passive crossovers are used. Overall power efficiency will be less with passives, but since most energy will be at low frequencies, I would expect the difference to be pretty small.
First off, I misremembered the amount of insertion loss - about 3dB is the high end, but that's still significant since that means you'd need twice the amplification to get the same SPL. Generally it's more like 1-2dB.

Think about it this way: baffle step correction, if present, is dumping signal to ground. Any notch filters if present are dumping signal to ground. Padding the tweeter down to match the woofer either involves series resistors (turns power into heat) or a voltage divider that dumps signal to ground. All of these things are done at small signal levels (line level, generally) with op amp filters in an active speaker, or in DSP. There is no insertion loss for those filters as they're buffered, or in the case of DSP, aren't even in the analog realm. Instead of using a voltage divider to dump amplifier signal to ground, you just send the amplifier less signal, or do any required compensation at small signal levels.
 
Passives are good anyone with a router can make some, dealers like them because of the ‘upgrade’ opportunity, no specialist knowledge of anything in particular required, contemporary actives on the other hand require a team of specialists, dealers don’t like them because there are no ‘upgrade’ opportunities it is all perfectly logical.
Keith

Anyone can make a painting - a canvas and paints can be picked up at any local art supply store, no specialist knowledge required.

I'm going to ask for mine to be placed beside the Rembrandts at the Met.
 
First off, I misremembered the amount of insertion loss - about 3dB is the high end, but that's still significant since that means you'd need twice the amplification to get the same SPL. Generally it's more like 1-2dB.

Think about it this way: baffle step correction, if present, is dumping signal to ground. Any notch filters if present are dumping signal to ground. Padding the tweeter down to match the woofer either involves series resistors (turns power into heat) or a voltage divider that dumps signal to ground. All of these things are done at small signal levels (line level, generally) with op amp filters in an active speaker, or in DSP. There is no insertion loss for those filters as they're buffered, or in the case of DSP, aren't even in the analog realm. Instead of using a voltage divider to dump amplifier signal to ground, you just send the amplifier less signal, or do any required compensation at small signal levels.
This seems more reasonable. Still, it would be interesting to me to see breakdown with some real speaker example.
 
IMG_9216.jpeg
Active speakers are the future , but Audiophiles like stuff and things to exchange and “upgrade” , besides Amplifiers are beautiful , I will not swap mine for an active KEF.
 
This seems more reasonable. Still, it would be interesting to me to see breakdown with some real speaker example.
About the only company I know of that makes passive and active versions of the same speaker is ATC, and unfortunately we are... Rather short on measurements of those. Let me see if I can dig something up, bear with me.
 
Because of few things:

1) Old habits are hard to break. People need time to come around.

2) Just look at the selections of active speakers out there, there's not much to select from. Yes, everyone in their mother are talking about D&D, Genelec and Kii, Jesus, why the hell are we talking about bookshelf speakers? Not everyone of us live in apartments, and many have a listening room. Yes, you have the Kii BXT, but it's $30k and I question it's worth. And with Genelec, yes they came out with this $60k full tower, ok it measures great and sounds great, but look at that thing. . .it looks like the offspring of Gollum and an Orc. Hey look, I don't want to offend any Genelec owners here, I'm just not a dance around words kind of guy.

3) I don't believe active speakers are where it needs to be yet. In terms of what the product is today and the market maturity.

I do believe in another 10-15 years it will get there though.
 
Yes a major problem is the huge disparity in terms of options for active speakers vs passive. Personally I wouldn't want my options restricted to the handful of speakers (typically active) that are routinely recommended on this forum.
 
Active speakers are the future , but Audiophiles like stuff and things to exchange and “upgrade” , besides Amplifiers are beautiful , I will not swap mine for an active KEF.
Is that your Accuphase? I love UV meters, it does it for me.

The term "active speaker" shouldn't be used, a better term should be DSP controlled speakers because there is no law to say that the DSP and the amp must be inside the speaker enclosure. I personally don't like having all the electronics inside the speaker neither. I want to see and feel my amp, there is some unexplainable satisfaction to that.
 
I still don't know of any class D amplifier that are as good as the best AB amplifiers.
Class D is as good as is necessary and a little more. The latest gen big amps have improved in construction and low impedance drive. It's good enough for prime time... I think anyway. Keep in mind mono block class D amps are putting out heaps of power. So the upper price range has options that are not crazy expensive and will satisfy most all speakers other than the worst of the worst maybe.
 
Active speaker has it limitation and many prefer doing their speakers as passive.
What are the limitations and when does one go with separates and passives rather than actives. That would be a pretty hard core system and if it sounds better than a active system is another thing.
 
Active floorstanders are rare and expensive. Long RCA/XLR cables will pick hum, wifi will introduce latency.
 
Is that your Accuphase? I love UV meters, it does it for me.

The term "active speaker" shouldn't be used, a better term should be DSP controlled speakers because there is no law to say that the DSP and the amp must be inside the speaker enclosure. I personally don't like having all the electronics inside the speaker neither. I want to see and feel my amp, there is some unexplainable satisfaction to that.
Yes it is mine :) By the way I control it via a DSP capable preamp, Trinnov Amethyst, that actually can run 4 channels with DSP crossovers, besides the Room Optimizer. but I only run 2 channels,,, so far.
 
Active floorstanders are rare and expensive. Long RCA/XLR cables will pick hum, wifi will introduce latency.
Not true, you can do a very long XLR balance run. That's what they are made for.
 
For me active amps inside speakers are often quite noisy. Sit a bit too close to them and you'll hear it.
 
The best class AB amplifiers still better than the best class D. One could argue how much of that is audible and not just measurable.
There is an argument that it is audible?? What (science-based) argument is that?
 
Back
Top Bottom