Why do passive speakers still exist?

[Pearljam5000]

ATC SCM50
Active vs passive sound demo
Yeah not exactly scientific
But I doubt anyone would claim the passive sounds better

 

[AM88]

Problem is, either way, there aren't a ton of reviews of active vs passive versions of the same speakers. (That I'm aware of).

I noticed Darko recently compared Klipsch's Active stand mount speaker vs the passive stand mount speaker. He described the sound as smoother and less bright/lively than the passive speaker. The in room measurements he showed briefly for the active speaker seemed to indicate non-agressive highs.

But he found things to like about the Active (smooth, fatigue-free) and the passive (a little more energetic/lively sounding) depending on the music.

Doesn't sound implausible at all to me.

Apologies, I don’t I think I was clear enough. I didn’t mean the same speaker, with the option for different crossovers, though if that were possible ( I am not an expert, but I think both crossovers wouldn’t have the exact same frequency point or slopes etc..), I am sure would it end the debate for those undecided about which technology is superior. I meant any 2 speakers at the approximately same price point, one being active and one being passive. Personally I’d very much like to see a review/comparison of something like ascend acoustics’ sierra lx, a kllippel developed passive at approx USD1400 with a suitably good amp and an equivalently priced active, either studio monitor or hifi speaker (at the same combined price of the passive speaker and amp.) That’s the way I’ll go about it when the day comes for me to get new speakers.

 

[prestigetone]

ATC SCM50
Active vs passive sound demo
Yeah not exactly scientific
But I doubt anyone would claim the passive sounds better

I posted this in my comment before For me the passive sounds acoustic and the active sounds like a mic'ed performance. Vocals sound deflated with the passive and full and 3D with the active. To me no comparison. Actives-passive are like Tesla:ICE. The full bandwidth of power moves up with volume.

 

[Jon AA]

You said that. Then you were asked to supply links support your theory that actives have a dynamic range problem. Data to a thesis. I provided you with the KH420....and you created a discussion on UFOs.

Please click on your own link to the review of the KH420. Take off the blinders and notice the limiters kicking in at a mere 106 dB at 1m.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to admire the excellence of a well designed speaker and still acknowledge that the speaker may not be the best choice for every application there is. Or the most cost effective choice. That's what an objective analysis of pretty much any speaker, no matter how good will show. There is no perfect speaker or speaker type for every application, for every budget. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[DBA ndreas]

Please click on your own link to the review of the KH420. Take off the blinders and notice the limiters kicking in at a mere 106 dB at 1m.

The limiters would not kick in with any real music at that level, as there is not as much energy in the higher frequencies.

 

[DSJR]

They aren't even technically better - this is simply a discussion of whether housing everything in one box is better than housing it in multiple boxes with interconnecting cables. You want multi-amped passives (one amp per speaker driver) with active EQ between the amps - fine, there are examples in the market, and have been for years...

This whole debate is based on an assumption of what "active" means (a gross generalisation, as we can find plenty of actives in the marketplace that do no EQ, and are simply an amp and speaker in one box!), and another assumption about what "passive" means....
And both assumptions, appear to be obviously false - and easily proven as such.

In the late 70's, actives were a bit of a novelty. In the UK, Meridian had introduced the wedge shaped M1 which was funky but didn't sell and then the slim and attractive (tiny in your standards) M2 and M3 and the M2 was a good seller for UK rooms and threw a very impressive soundfield behind and between the speakers. Not loud enough for rock really, but I was younger then. Linn and Naim introduced the active 'PMS' Isobarik which today may be hideously coloured in terms of tonal balance, but a few sets of this initial 'tri-amp' system (loads of external boxes and load sof profit for the dealer and amp maker) could sound amazing, with an 'inner clarity' totally missing from passive systems (maybe tonal balance exaggerated perhaps?). We never sold them, but the John Bowers Active One was a nice sound as well.

By this time, the 'classic UK' larger speakers were being introduced, the KEF 105, B&W 801 (which by whatever means found its way into many pro mixing and mastering rooms) and the last IMF transmission line models and I can assure you that THESE NEEDED POWER to fully wake up and even begin to communicate the music as well as aforementioned actives. We were limited in US pro amps by this time having given up Crown (which kind of went off the rails for a while before abandoning the domestic side), BGW and Phase Linear, but we did borrow a Quatre (QMI?) Gain Cell and this was an eye as well as ear opener. We didn't take it on, but several hundred Watts into the passive Linn Isobariks (3.3 ohm load across the midrange) really did give them dynamic range they didn't have with the Naim 250 amp usually sold with them.

Dealers simply don't want an all-in-one solution unless it's Bang & Olufsen which sells at sky-high prices anyway through franchises not always versed in audio matters. Until said dealers wake up and smell the coffee and clients come in demanding less boxes in racks or set up like an audio shrine as many hobby audiophile and especially audiophool systems are.

I just want to hear the music better and *for me,* going active with decent speaker models is the only way to do it (single driver crossoverless speakers get you part way there, but the response of said drivers does need taming externally for most I feel)

 

[MattHooper]

Apologies, I don’t I think I was clear enough. I didn’t mean the same speaker, with the option for different crossovers, though if that were possible ( I am not an expert, but I think both crossovers wouldn’t have the exact same frequency point or slopes etc..), I am sure would it end the debate for those undecided about which technology is superior. I meant any 2 speakers at the approximately same price point, one being active and one being passive. Personally I’d very much like to see a review/comparison of something like ascend acoustics’ sierra lx, a kllippel developed passive at approx USD1400 with a suitably good amp and an equivalently priced active, either studio monitor or hifi speaker (at the same combined price of the passive speaker and amp.) That’s the way I’ll go about it when the day comes for me to get new speakers.

Ah. Yes that gets at the issue I (and others) raise about the actual selections available of passive speakers vs active, vs the purely theoretical advantage of actives. There are so many more passive designs available.

Everything else held constant perhaps the actives will tend to beat the passive. But things aren’t held constant so you may end up comparing a passive panel speaker or omni or whatever to an available active speaker and prefer the passive speaker presentation.

Along those lines I have indeed essentially compared actives to passives. For instance earlier in the thread I detailed my comparison in the same store of a passive Spendor stand mounted speaker vs the active Kii Audio 3 speaker and found, to my taste, I’d likely choose the passive. Likewise that same store sells the speakers I own (Joseph Audio Perspectives) which are comparable in price to the Kii 3, and I very much prefer the sound of the Joseph speakers.

That of course relates to my own tastes and goals, but I did demo the Kiis (numerous times) and that is how my choice came out.

 

[Killingbeans]

Ok then, for the experts here … GENERALLY speaking, what are the pros/cons of actives and passives? And go … (I am genuinely interested in the responses)

Do you mean if we only focus on performance? I think if we really look at it generally, convenience makes up the bulk of the pros and cons.

 

[MKR]

Do you mean if we only focus on performance? I think if we really look at it generally, convenience makes up the bulk of the pros and cons.

Yes, purely performance. Or to state differently, which design theoretically offers the most (audible) transparency to the source (recording), warts and all?

 

[fpitas]

Do you mean if we only focus on performance? I think if we really look at it generally, convenience makes up the bulk of the pros and cons.

You can do things with active like high order flat phase crossovers. But the improvement might be questionable.

 

[fpitas]

Active with DSP makes EQ very easy. But you can still do EQ with passive.

 

[Killingbeans]

Yes, purely performance. Or to state differently, which design theoretically offers the most (audible) transparency to the source (recording), warts and all?

I'm not an expert, but I think there's no doubt that active designs stomp all over passives in terms of purely objective performance. Or at least they have the potential to do so.

Whether or not those gains in performance are substantial enough to make them worth pursuing is a different question.

And then there's the predicament of people maybe not enjoying the "warts and all" being presented. For instance, in the ATC video above the actives make it much more clear that the dude isn't a very good singer *. I can totally understand if some people prefer the "romance filter" that the passives seem to be applying to the audio.

*Assuming that we aren't just hearing differences in room acoustics.

 

[fpitas]

I'm not an expert, but I think there's no doubt that active designs stomp all over passives in terms of purely objective performance. Or at least they have the potential to do so.

Whether or not those gains in performance are substantial enough to make them worth pursuing is a different question.

And then there's the predicament of people maybe not enjoying the "warts and all" being presented. For instance, in the ATC video above the actives make it much more clear that the dude isn't a very good singer. I can totally understand if some people prefer the "romance filter" that the passives seem to be applying to the audio.

Lol yes. A case of, "Be careful what you wish for". Active done right will be more like an actual studio monitor.

 

[gnarly]

Stupidly simple, stupidly tasty.

Excellent, thx ...something within my culinary (lack of) skill set !

View attachment 301305

Yes these purely passive klipschorns are clearly dynamic range and SPL limited...

Of course size wins out for SPL and dynamics. But what does that have to do with what's the optimal strategy?

case in point: I'm quite certain I can either increase the passive klipschorns SPL and dynamics by taking it active.
Either that, or I can make it cleaner and safer to run to run to up to the driver' sections' excursion capabilities.

This whole debate is based on an assumption of what "active" means (a gross generalisation, as we can find plenty of actives in the marketplace that do no EQ, and are simply an amp and speaker in one box!), and another assumption about what "passive" means....
And both assumptions, appear to be obviously false - and easily proven as such.

I don't think we get to self-define what "active" means.
It's widely accepted to mean xovers go before a multi-amp setup.
Whereas passive means xovers come after a single amp.

It's that simple at the root. And has nothing to do with whether or not analog of DSP is using for tone control etc.
It's only about where are the crossover(s) relative to the amp(s).

For instance, Bose 901's with their processor are still basically a passive design.

And of course active can be implemented either with xover processing and amps inside the speaker (self-powered has been the term for that in proaudio for decades).
Or with outboard xover processing and amps.
Distinction is more about needed logistics than anything else.

 

[Robh3606]

Active with DSP makes EQ very easy. But you can still do EQ with passive.

Your right but you are limited in comparison. It's really difficult if not impossible to create a passive network that can match the adjust-ability of a good DSP system. The EQ is limited only by the number of PEQ points available. You can do shelves, tilt, High Q notches and so on. Not getting into phase and time alignment which are questionable as far as the audibility vs a well designed passive network.

Rob

 

[fpitas]

Your right but you are limited in comparison. It's really difficult if not impossible to create a passive network that can match the adjust-ability of a good DSP system. The EQ is limited only by the number of PEQ points available. You can do shelves, tilt, High Q notches and so on. Not getting into phase and time alignment which are questionable as far as the audibility vs a well designed passive network.

Rob

Agreed. Note that my speakers are active. I don't plan to change that.

 

[prestigetone]

Please click on your own link to the review of the KH420. Take off the blinders and notice the limiters kicking in at a mere 106 dB at 1m.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to admire the excellence of a well designed speaker and still acknowledge that the speaker may not be the best choice for every application there is. Or the most cost effective choice. That's what an objective analysis of pretty much any speaker, no matter how good will show. There is no perfect speaker or speaker type for every application, for every budget. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

And here is the full paragraph from the review:

“I had to hold on for dear life as I sat some 7 feet away from the speaker despite having hearing protection! Strong breeze followed after the sweep finished courtesy of the front firing ports! Clipping indicator did turn red and as you see, the tweeter amplifier is limited to either protect it, the driver, or both. Fortunately your music rarely has such high level of energy at high frequencies so actual impact of that is very small to nil.”

I also stated my own experience with active designs. The clipping that I observed was at insanely high levels. Add a sub in there and it’s even less of a deterrent.

Have you had an active speaker in your room where the headroom was a big compromise?

 

[tmtomh]

Please click on your own link to the review of the KH420. Take off the blinders and notice the limiters kicking in at a mere 106 dB at 1m.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to admire the excellence of a well designed speaker and still acknowledge that the speaker may not be the best choice for every application there is. Or the most cost effective choice. That's what an objective analysis of pretty much any speaker, no matter how good will show. There is no perfect speaker or speaker type for every application, for every budget. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

That's limiting for the tweeter specifically, as noted above - and that SPL limit is for each speaker. When using two in a stereo pair, you get higher in-room SPL. So as a practical matter you're looking at around 109-112dB max SPL for frequencies 2kHz and above, which translates to roughly 100dB SPL even at 3 meters, and again that's not for bass frequencies where most of the energy is. And listening at those levels is super uncomfortable for most people - and damaging to one's hearing for everyone.

 

[Purité Audio]

And here is the full paragraph from the review:

“I had to hold on for dear life as I sat some 7 feet away from the speaker despite having hearing protection! Strong breeze followed after the sweep finished courtesy of the front firing ports! Clipping indicator did turn red and as you see, the tweeter amplifier is limited to either protect it, the driver, or both. Fortunately your music rarely has such high level of energy at high frequencies so actual impact of that is very small to nil.”

I also stated my own experience with active designs. The clipping that I observed was at insanely high levels. Add a sub in there and it’s even less of a deterrent.

Have you had an active speaker in your room where the headroom was a big compromise?

Very early PA I tried a pair of PSI A17’s here and unthinkingly set them up next to a pair of ATC 50s, listening distance was just too great, it was stupid and naive trying to compare two loudspeakers whose purpose was so different.
Keith

 

[Robh3606]

They aren't even technically better - this is simply a discussion of whether housing everything in one box is better than housing it in multiple boxes with interconnecting cables. You want multi-amped passives (one amp per speaker driver) with active EQ between the amps - fine, there are examples in the market, and have been for years...

This whole debate is based on an assumption of what "active" means (a gross generalisation, as we can find plenty of actives in the marketplace that do no EQ, and are simply an amp and speaker in one box!), and another assumption about what "passive" means....
And both assumptions, appear to be obviously false - and easily proven as such.

There is no question what an active crossover and passive crossover mean. It is completely clear cut. Be it Passive vs Analog or Digital.

There are compelling reasons why actives are superior in both digital and analog formats. So we agree to disagree.

The Bose 901's are a 9 speaker full range system. They use a simple EQ box to tailor the system response. They don't have a crossover.

That said I build passive speakers and design my own crossovers. I also build analog bi-amp systems with passive EQ on the drivers.

Rob