Why do passive speakers still exist?

[MKR]

^^^ This post from the first page also seems like a good point about the limited practicality of active speakers.

I myself really dislike any added power cords in my listening room. Much more hassle (and harder to hide) than speaker cables. (One of the reasons I got rid
of my subs, the annoying requirements of finding a good spot for them but also near enough a power outlet, etc).

Is it possible that generally speaking a powered design will eek out some performance over a passive version of the same speaker? Sure. But in terms of the actual speaker landscape of existing choices, I try to keep the actual sonic gains in some perspective. Whether it's demoing active vs passive speakers at the shops, or hearing active speakers at shows vs all the other designs in other rooms, I've had no come-to-jesus experience hearing an active and tended to be more impressed by some of the passive speakers. I mean, for me, gimme an MBL 101 over a Kii 3 any day of the week. I know others would prefer otherwise. But...choice is why its good passive speakers still exist.

I am also inline with this train of thought … while I am certainly back in the active camp after my recent experiences with D&D and Soundfield, I still struggle with the use in multichannel system, as well as the fact that you “lose control” to an extent on the DA, AD signal chain. Multiple conversions if you go analog into the actives. Of course you can go direct digital, but as I have recently discovered, good luck finding multichannel digital output with volume control. I think Storm makes such a beast, but at significant cost. All that to say, actives just do not seem “user friendly” for multichannel system. Not yet anyway, maybe that will change in the future.

And related, I am also really struggling with the fact that with actives, you have no true path for a full analog signal chain. Meaning, if I want to run some LPs (please let’s not make this about how terrible LPs sound, not the point), it is impossible with most (all?) actives as the signal will always be converted to digital, fully losing the point of an LP to begin with.

I am actually starting to lean in the direction of having two dedicated systems … Active for 2ch, passive for HT

 

[IPunchCholla]

fully losing the point of an LP to begin with.

If that is really a concern, I would recommend going to wax cylinder . In terms of cables and such I wonder if there are any actives that take advantage of USB-C’s 240 watt capabilities? Is there a technical reason one couldn’t make a multi-channel system with the active speakers connected solely via USB/thunderbolt?

 

[Owl]

I'm sure it was mentioned earlier, but there are people like me who cringe at the thought of spending months working with a computer program(s) to properly implement an active speaker or muti-amp set up. I recently finished my four way speaker setup, and the ridiculously looking crossover boards that were needed. In total I spent about $200 dollars for both crossovers. To do it another way I would have needed an 8 channel amp and DAC costing over 2K. Then spent, god knows how long learning to program and set up the whole. system. Could it be fun? Sure, like others have said, old habits die hard.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I'm sure it was mentioned earlier, but there are people like me who cringe at the thought of spending months working with a computer program(s) to properly implement an active speaker or muti-amp set up. I recently finished my four way speaker setup, and the ridiculously looking crossover boards that were needed. In total I spent about $200 dollars for both crossovers. To do it another way I would have needed an 8 channel amp and DAC costing over 2K. Then spent, god knows how long learning to program and set up the whole. system. Could it be fun? Sure, like others have said, old habits die hard.

Still more expensive, and only up to three way, but I am hoping more solutions like Hypex’s FA plate amps become available. Also, it would be nice if the software was more multi platform.

 

[MattHooper]

I am also inline with this train of thought … while I am certainly back in the active camp after my recent experiences with D&D and Soundfield, I still struggle with the use in multichannel system, as well as the fact that you “lose control” to an extent on the DA, AD signal chain. Multiple conversions if you go analog into the actives. Of course you can go direct digital, but as I have recently discovered, good luck finding multichannel digital output with volume control. I think Storm makes such a beast, but at significant cost. All that to say, actives just do not seem “user friendly” for multichannel system. Not yet anyway, maybe that will change in the future.

And related, I am also really struggling with the fact that with actives, you have no true path for a full analog signal chain. Meaning, if I want to run some LPs (please let’s not make this about how terrible LPs sound, not the point), it is impossible with most (all?) actives as the signal will always be converted to digital, fully losing the point of an LP to begin with.

I am actually starting to lean in the direction of having two dedicated systems … Active for 2ch, passive for HT

I struggled with that as well since I play so much vinyl. Strictly speaking it may well be that I could put my vinyl signal through digitization and not notice a difference.
But I guess it's sort of a conceptual thing, keeping one source "strictly old school analog" for my turntable, vs my digital source.

One exception I tried to make is when I had powered subs and used room correction (Dspeaker anti-mode). In that case I only ran the subwoofer signal through the DSP to even out the bass. (But I ended up getting rid of the subs anyway).

My home theater wiring is already nightmarishly complex, running from my AVR room under floors, through walls, 7.0 set up. The idea of turning that active makes my blood run cold.

 

[Purité Audio]

A/D is completely transparent and has been since what the first Sony unit and the infamous Ivor Tefenbrun test.
Keith

 

[gnarly]

They aren't exactly common on the consumer market though, are they? I think the M2 is the only such speaker that Erin has reviewed and I think the Grimani in-wall is the only one Amir has reviewed (and that's out of a lot of speakers). Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine solution but it seems pretty limited in availability beyond high-end home theaters (Grimani, Hales, etc).

True.
And is one of the many reasons I've almost totally abandoned looking at consumer products.

Home-audio is sooooo far behind pro-audio, in terms of embracing and implementing technological innovations, ..imso..

 

[MattHooper]

Since there is a very narrow set of criteria by which Amir and many ASR folk judge the quality of loudspeakers, I did a thread a while back asking ASR members if their ideal was that all speakers end up sounding mostly the same. Because if you are evaluating speakers on a narrow criteria (e.g. the Harman curve) then the implication is all speakers should essentially sound "like that." The general trend was basically, yes, many were ok with the idea of the eventual commodification of audio, towards a standard.

Whereas I appreciate the wild west nature of high end audio. I don't necessarily need to see yet another monkey coffin...whether it contains an amplifier or not.

When I see extreme or wild looking systems like this, I immediately feel I would LOVE to hear what they sound like!

The folks building/owning these systems look like they are having so much fun. There's just a lot of wild, interesting stuff out there and I love it!

 

[jhaider]

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...
Keith

I'd say it's the other way around. Anyone with a router can take drivers and DSP plate amp, dial in some rudimentary filters in a few minutes, and get sound that's probably not completely wretched. Passives require a lot more work.

However, a good active or passive speaker takes a lot more knowledge and skill. Both can be done by a single individual. Actives can be iterated faster because typing in filter parameters is a lot less effort than sourcing caps/chokes/resistors and soldering them together.

 

[Keith_W]

The folks building/owning these systems look like they are having so much fun. There's just a lot of wild, interesting stuff out there and I love it!

I totally get where you are coming from. A lot of high end audio also has "fun" sound, i.e. sound that technically deviates from what most of us would consider acceptable. Strange coloration, strange frequency response, distortion, and so on. However, having "fun" sound or technical flaws does not mean that the system is not enjoyable. I have heard all sorts of "fun" sounding systems, more than I can remember.

 

[jhaider]

Active floorstanders are rare and expensive. Long RCA/XLR cables will pick hum, wifi will introduce latency.

So, as @gnarly stated, keep the amps in a central rack outside the box.

Hmm but there you are treading a fine line calling them "active"...

There have been external crossovers, and biamp (or more than Bi potentially) designs to go with them, for decades!
(just as there have been Active speakers for decades - I remember the Revox Agora B's from the 1980's quite well!)

They aren't "active" unless the amps and crossover (the latter of which could be via DSP, but need not) are internal to the speaker box(es)

JBL M2 isn't an "active" speaker?

Neumann KH 420 goes from "active" to ???? when the amplifier is unbolted from the cabinet and remotely located?

They aren't exactly common on the consumer market though, are they? I think the M2 is the only such speaker that Erin has reviewed and I think the Grimani in-wall is the only one Amir has reviewed (and that's out of a lot of speakers). Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine solution but it seems pretty limited in availability beyond high-end home theaters (Grimani, Hales, etc).

JBL 705i/708i. GGNTKT M1.

the signal will always be converted to digital, fully losing the point of an LP to begin with.

That is a virtue, not a vice. Furthermore, DSP provides much more flexibility for phono pre-amplification as well. Look at, e.g. the Parks Audio Puffin or some of the RME tutorials on using an ADI-2 as phono pre. I would never go back to some pathetic loser analog phono pre again.

 

[MattHooper]

I would never go back to some pathetic loser analog phono pre again.

LOL. “Shots fired”.

 

[MarkS]

After the MoFi scandal, I think those shots have hit the "analogue seulment pour moi" crowd pretty hard ...

But we know what they'll say:

 

[Purité Audio]

I totally get where you are coming from. A lot of high end audio also has "fun" sound, i.e. sound that technically deviates from what most of us would consider acceptable. Strange coloration, strange frequency response, distortion, and so on. However, having "fun" sound or technical flaws does not mean that the system is not enjoyable. I have heard all sorts of "fun" sounding systems, more than I can remember.

Spending a great deal of money for a really coloured sound isn’t my idea of ‘fun’ just buy some really cheap kit or would that not be ‘fun’?
Keith

 

[Bjorn]

Since there is a very narrow set of criteria by which Amir and many ASR folk judge the quality of loudspeakers, I did a thread a while back asking ASR members if their ideal was that all speakers end up sounding mostly the same. Because if you are evaluating speakers on a narrow criteria (e.g. the Harman curve) then the implication is all speakers should essentially sound "like that." The general trend was basically, yes, many were ok with the idea of the eventual commodification of audio, towards a standard.

Whereas I appreciate the wild west nature of high end audio. I don't necessarily need to see yet another monkey coffin...whether it contains an amplifier or not.

When I see extreme or wild looking systems like this, I immediately feel I would LOVE to hear what they sound like!

The folks building/owning these systems look like they are having so much fun. There's just a lot of wild, interesting stuff out there and I love it!

The "narrow criterias" are exactly what they are. And as I mentioned in another thread, the "estimated response" from Spinorama is quite misleading since it's based on anechoic mesurements and doesn't take into account bourdary intereference effect. You can have a speaker that would score lower in a Spinorame vs another but actually end up measuring much more even in a room.

So the fact is there are consiederable deviations between speakers, and even between speakers that will end up having a fairly similar response when placed in a room. So there's still a lot of fun to experience. Not to mention acoustics and different types of design principals where you can alter the sound greatly in many ways.

 

[Killingbeans]

Spending a great deal of money for a really coloured sound isn’t my idea of ‘fun’ just buy some really cheap kit or would that not be ‘fun’?
Keith

To be fair, there's a whole subscene of DIY audio, that is all about buying ultra cheap Class-D PCBs and other kit on eBay/Alibaba, and then raving about their "giant killer" abilities. A lot of that praise probably comes from blatant oversights in the designs giving heaps of coloration, which is then put on a pedestal as "personality".

The audio hobby grabs any and all excuses it can find to throw logic out the window.

 

[Keith_W]

Spending a great deal of money for a really coloured sound isn’t my idea of ‘fun’ just buy some really cheap kit or would that not be ‘fun’?
Keith

I don't know how many hobbies you have, but "having fun by spending on overpriced kit" manifests itself in all the hobbies I indulge in. Here are some examples:

Cooking: countless kitchen gadgets. Even expensive gadgets like Thermomix (almost a religion in the cooking world, those guys who own Thermomixes are a bit like Mac and Tesla owners). And then there's the up and coming Thermomix-like cult - Instant Pot.

Golf: expensive golf clubs. I golf with cheap steel shaft clubs which are more forgiving than those lightweight and stiff carbon fibre clubs. But among golfing enthusiasts, steel shaft clubs are a bit pedestrian. I like them because I am not a good golfer, so for me, consistency is more important than distance. In fact, I think for most golfers consistency is more important than distance, but that is another story.

Mechanical watches: go to a watch meet. Nobody is going to look at your interesting and historic 1930's Soviet watch if someone brings a Lange or Patek along.

Photography: among some enthusiasts there is a preference for lenses and gear that give you "character" rather than outright technical performance.

Woodworking: gear fetish is well and alive in this community.

 

[Purité Audio]

I am not keen on analogies but buying a coloured loudspeaker would be like using a blunt knife, loudspeakers are after all ( meant to be) transducers.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

Spending a great deal of money for a really coloured sound isn’t my idea of ‘fun’ just buy some really cheap kit or would that not be ‘fun’?
Keith

Fortunately the loudspeaker world does not conform to one single person’s idea of fun. How boring.

Riding motorcycles is not my idea of fun, but I’m glad that option exists for those who get a kick out of it. (And that many types of motorcycles are available to suit the variety of goals and tastes of motorcycle enthusiasts).

 

[prerich]

Probably just marketplace momentum as much as anything. And there are some minuses to actives with DSP that Doodski mentioned in reverse.

An active with amps and built in DSP can make for a great speaker. OTOH, if any part of that goes bad, your whole speaker is bad. Could be a DSP chip gets zapped by voltage spikes, could be an amp let go, or anything. Any one part ruins the whole and people don't like that.

Oh, and XLR's just never took over. I wish they finally would for actives and passives. I don't think it will ever happen however.

Spot on.