Why do passive speakers still exist?

[MattHooper]

According to a friend who owns an MBL, the crossover is very difficult to get at. I don't think it's impossible, but a lot of disassembly of difficult to reassemble components is required.

Oh man, you'd have to have some crazy DIY skills to go messing around taking MBLs apart!

 

[dlaloum]

Why equate 'active' as necessarily having amps in the speakers (and needing AC to the speakers.)

I've come to strongly prefer having DSP and amps physically separate from 'active' multi-way speakers.
Which like with passives, only takes a speaker cable to go to the speakers.

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)

 

[dlaloum]

Well, Class D can be really good but afaik there is no class D that have as low THD at 10kHz and 20kHz as the best AB.
View attachment 299299

What are the distortion levels of the drivers alone.... (typically an order of magnitude higher than this !?)
And what is the threshold of audibility of THD.... (circa 1% ?)

Does it matter? (other than academicallly?)

 

[Galliardist]

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)

Whet determines whether a speaker system is active or passive is the principle, not the location, of the crossover.

If the speaker has a passive crossover external to the speaker box, is it “treading a fine line” to call it passive? Thought not.

 

[Keith_W]

Whet determines whether a speaker system is active or passive is the principle, not the location, of the crossover.

If the speaker has a passive crossover external to the speaker box, is it “treading a fine line” to call it passive? Thought not.

Exactly. It is the principle, or the electrical design of a speaker, that makes it "active". Not the physical location of the amplifier. As far as I am concerned, if the amp is connected directly to the driver with no passive XO in between, it is "active".

 

[YSDR]

if the amp is connected directly to the driver with no passive XO in between, it is "active"

So a crossoverless single driver speaker is an active design? I think, no.
Active speaker is that if the crossover is before the amps, solved with active, line-level electronics (can be DSP), passive if the crossover (which consists of passive electrical components) is after the amp(s).
Of course there are "hybrid" solutions (like the JBL M2 for example), where there is crossover before and after the amps but I would call those active.

 

[Jon AA]

I've come to strongly prefer having DSP and amps physically separate from 'active' multi-way speakers.
Which like with passives, only takes a speaker cable to go to the speakers.

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).

 

[Keith_W]

So a crossoverless single driver speaker is an active design? I think, no.

I consider a crossoverless single speaker to be active. Why not, it has none of the downsides of inserting a crossover between the amp and the driver. Just because you have connected an inferior driver to the amp does not make it any less active than if you used a good driver.

 

[YSDR]

I consider a crossoverless single speaker to be active. Why not

Because the "active" and "passive" markers refers to crossover solutions and a single-driver speaker don't have crossover.

 

[Bjorn]

I think the reason why "active" have given a negative connotation to many audiophiles is because they automatically think of studio monitors with built electronics where both the speaker and the electronics often have obvious weaknesses. Especially when you also place these on a stand with a severe floor bounce and at distances which requires much more SPL.

But active can of course imply external electronics with suberp quality and better speaker designs. I see only drawbacks with passive crossovers in regards to sound quality.

 

[YSDR]

I see only drawbacks with passive crossovers in regards to sound quality.

Maybe you see it that way but the reality may differs. There are objective sound quality improving things you can't do with active filtering/crossovers, just with passive filtering only.

 

[Keith_W]

Maybe you see it that way but the reality may differs. There are objective sound quality improving things you can't do with active filtering/crossovers, just with passive filtering only.

Could you name some, please?

There are things I can do with my DSP crossovers that passive crossovers can only dream about

 

[sigbergaudio]

Maybe you see it that way but the reality may differs. There are objective sound quality improving things you can't do with active filtering/crossovers, just with passive filtering only.

I'm curious as well. What can you do with an analog filter that you can't do with a DSP?

 

[Bjorn]

Well, Class D can be really good but afaik there is no class D that have as low THD at 10kHz and 20kHz as the best AB.
View attachment 299299

If we stick with the audible bandwidth of 20 kHz it can.

I can't show with 40V at the moment as that would require a measurement in bridged mode, but I can show you in stereo mode up to 31.8V. Take note the measurement gear is a bottleneck here and that the distortion numbers are in fact even lower.

First with 10W:

And 31.8V or 250W:

While the distortion increases in some parts, its still expectionally low above 10 kHz and in practice lower when measured with better gear.

If we look at frequencies outside the human audibility, the best AB is however better. Class D would require GaN or SID with faster switching to improve here.

 

[Bjorn]

Maybe you see it that way but the reality may differs. There are objective sound quality improving things you can't do with active filtering/crossovers, just with passive filtering only.

No, there aren't. There's nothing a passive can do that an active can't do.

You can even add second harmonic distortion with active if you wanted to. Something that obviously isn't high fidelity and shouldn't be considered an objective improvement.

 

[YSDR]

No, there aren't. There's nothing a passive can do that an active can't do.

There is. For example there is a cone break-up induced 3rd harmonic distortion rise in almost every mid(woofer), that you can't reduce as much with active filters than with proper passive filtering.
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...for-rigid-cone-mid-woofers.43253/post-1533172

 

[Ron Texas]

You get called out for disrespecting your audience (by refusing to share your list of disadvantages of active speakers because you say readers won’t behave well enough) and your response is to double down by this time making it personal? I am detecting a trend.

Let’s keep ASR open and transparent, which means robust objective discussion is a cornerstone, not withheld and replaced by taunting the audience about its presumed immaturity. That was my whole point, my only point. Asking you to respect your audience enough to share your information is not meant to be as personal as you took it.

cheers

This is your second undeserved personal attack on me. The question was answered by someone else and I adopted his answer making this completely unnecessary. All I was trying to do was avoid offending those who are fans of active speakers. That's politeness, not disrespect, taunting an audience, presuming its immaturity or taking your pushy question personally. You have no right to judge me or anyone else.

 

[KSTR]

There is. For example there is a cone break-up induced 3rd harmonic distortion rise in almost every mid(woofer), that you can't reduce as much with active filters than with proper passive filtering.

True, but only if you don't understand the distortion mechanism and use plain old voltage drive for amplification. Innovative active speaker design incorporates the amplifiers and you can shape the output impedance (even vs. frequency) to whatever the driver needs to be happy.

 

[Berlin]

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).
What are the benefits of a passive speaker vs an active one?

Because hifi is all about marketing... The advantages of an active loudspeaker over a passive loudspeaker are that you save a lot of money...

 

[Bjorn]

There is. For example there is a cone break-up induced 3rd harmonic distortion rise in almost every mid(woofer), that you can't reduce as much with active filters than with proper passive filtering.
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...for-rigid-cone-mid-woofers.43253/post-1533172

What you're dealing with here is a weakness in the driver and where a physical component is reducing the coil current. In a sense, this isn't really about the crossover at all.

Obviously it's better to avoid such a driver issue from the start. But a steep FIR crossover could also avoid such a problem and with several benefits that a passive crossover can't achieve.