Why do passive speakers still exist?

[Kal Rubinson]

An active speaker is one where the crossover is substantively line level and there is a power amp for each drive unit.

Yes and the crossover itself can be active (i.e., powered) or passive as long as it precedes the power amp(s).

 

[dfuller]

Putting everything before the amps is building a time bomb - one turn on/turn off thump and you could lose a tweeter.

This is extremely common with studio monitors, fwiw - even high end ones. Sometimes they'll have zeners connected in parallel to ground to protect the driver from thumps like that, but not always.

Some use relays to delay connections to the drivers until the amplifiers stabilize, but this is fairly uncommon as relays introduce another point of failure.

 

[Robh3606]

This is extremely common with studio monitors, fwiw - even high end ones. Sometimes they'll have zeners connected in parallel to ground to protect the driver from thumps like that, but not always.

Some use relays to delay connections to the drivers until the amplifiers stabilize, but this is fairly uncommon as relays introduce another point of failure.

In almost all cases the vintage monitors or active systems would just use a single series protection capacitor to keep DC or thumps from damaging HF drivers. If you go through the older crossover manuals there are suggested values vs crossover frequency.

Rob

 

[gnarly]

I'v routinely used >1kW amps on compression drivers for years, without a protection cap. Comfortably so.
That said, amps are proaudio which stay muted until self-checked /initialized, and then mute instantly on turn-off.
And i do set both voltage limiters, both rms and peak.

With regards to testing with swept sine etc, unless the tests are high-power, like checking compression or distortion thresholds, I don't even bother with a high-pass.
A few watts never killed anything lol

 

[Robh3606]

I'v routinely used >1kW amps on compression drivers for years, without a protection cap. Comfortably so.
That said, amps are proaudio which stay muted until self-checked /initialized, and then mute instantly on turn-off.
And i do set both voltage limiters, both rms and peak.

With regards to testing with swept sine etc, unless the tests are high-power, like checking compression or distortion thresholds, I don't even bother with a high-pass.
A few watts never killed anything lol

That's your choice. Depending on the rarity and cost of replacement diaphragms, if available, it doesn't hurt to have them in place just in case. I would hate to cook a Be driver or diaphragm as the cost is crazy compared to the cost of the capacitor. It's belt and suspenders as far as home pro use anything can happen.

Why would you use a 1K amp on a compression driver??

As far as testing I don't use high pass either just limit sweep range and power.

Rob

 

[gnarly]

That's your choice. Depending on the rarity and cost of replacement diaphragms, if available, it doesn't hurt to have them in place just in case. I would hate to cook a Be driver or diaphragm as the cost is crazy compared to the cost of the capacitor. It's belt and suspenders as far as home pro use anything can happen.

Why would you use a 1K amp on a compression driver??

I use standard coaxial compression drivers, bms and b&c Nothing super exotic.
Amps are 4ch, all with same watts per channel rating. Easiest just to run a NL8 from them, to a 4-way (counting the coaxial CD as two-ways)
(So I guess than means I put >2kW on a CD ...lol)

I find it very, very easy to setup speakers for exemplary response with linear phase...so i think a cap is just a fly in the ointment, when limiters are correct.

 

[Ron Texas]

• As for SPL levels, these are marketed as a near/mid-field speaker (recommended listening distance from 0.50 to 2.50 meters). At this distance, there is no real concern with dynamic range capability. From 76dB to 96dB at 1 meter the lower bass and midrange linearity decreases by about 1dB. Above this output level, though, you can expect more limiting of the speaker to protect it, especially in the bass region. A pair of speakers would put you at around 102dB with respectable linearity. However, as with nearly every other monitor type speaker I have reviewed thus far, the output isn’t there for farfield + high-output listening. In other words, don’t expect to use these as main speakers where you are sitting 12 feet away and wanting to listen at 90dB average. These are not designed for that and Kali’s suggested listening distance is backed up by this data.

From this review: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-6v2/ emphasis added

I see this kind of comment about limited volume from active speakers scattered around here and other review sites. Some around here were ready to lynch me for calling attention to this problem. In some cases relatively expensive actives like the smaller Genelec's are like this. Actives which are able to play loud are available at various price points but the low end is around $4k for a pair for the JBL 708P which doesn't have a superlative preference score. With today's cheap Class D amplifiers that leaves room for some decent passive towers like the Revel F206. As the prices go higher as with large Genelec and Neumann actives, so does the ability to put together a great system with passive speakers.

For me this answers the question about why passive speakers still exist. It is silly to say that the reason is audiophiles want to mix and match or that many actives don't go with home décor. The price to performance ratio is there for most. What I see is some around here have become mesmerized by preference scores to the extent that nothing else matters. Furthermore, they forget many speakers can show a large improvement through EQ while the actives already have the EQ built in.

Please direct all hate mail somewhere else.

 

[tmtomh]

• As for SPL levels, these are marketed as a near/mid-field speaker (recommended listening distance from 0.50 to 2.50 meters). At this distance, there is no real concern with dynamic range capability. From 76dB to 96dB at 1 meter the lower bass and midrange linearity decreases by about 1dB. Above this output level, though, you can expect more limiting of the speaker to protect it, especially in the bass region. A pair of speakers would put you at around 102dB with respectable linearity. However, as with nearly every other monitor type speaker I have reviewed thus far, the output isn’t there for farfield + high-output listening. In other words, don’t expect to use these as main speakers where you are sitting 12 feet away and wanting to listen at 90dB average. These are not designed for that and Kali’s suggested listening distance is backed up by this data.

From this review: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-6v2/ emphasis added

I see this kind of comment about limited volume from active speakers scattered around here and other review sites. Some around here were ready to lynch me for calling attention to this problem. In some cases relatively expensive actives like the smaller Genelec's are like this. Actives which are able to play loud are available at various price points but the low end is around $4k for a pair for the JBL 708P which doesn't have a superlative preference score. With today's cheap Class D amplifiers that leaves room for some decent passive towers like the Revel F206. As the prices go higher as with large Genelec and Neumann actives, so does the ability to put together a great system with passive speakers.

For me this answers the question about why passive speakers still exist. It is silly to say that the reason is audiophiles want to mix and match or that many actives don't go with home décor. The price to performance ratio is there for most. What I see is some around here have become mesmerized by preference scores to the extent that nothing else matters. Furthermore, they forget many speakers can show a large improvement through EQ while the actives already have the EQ built in.

Please direct all hate mail somewhere else.

I have to note, and disagree with, some of your more dramatic asides ("Some around here were ready to lynch me"; "some around here have become mesmerized by preference scores") - but I think you make a lot of good points here.

I absolutely agree that one can put together amp+EQ+passive speaker combos that equal or surpass active speakers that cost the same money or even more money.

I also agree that some actives are output/SPL-limited for far-field listening, and since that tends to be smaller units with less built-in amplification, that does tend to create a somewhat expensive price threshold for far-field actives capable of high SPL without significant limiting of one kind or another.

Finally, I think you make a good, sometimes-overlooked point about the aesthetics of active/powered speakers in living rooms and such: it's not (just) the speakers themselves. It's often the cabling: a power cord for each speaker, plus an interconnect from the source to each speaker and/or some kind of umbilical cord between the two speakers, and so on. And if you have Genelecs and want to keep GLM connected (to be able to turn them on and off remotely, for example - something a lot of folks will want for a far-field situation), then you've also got an ethernet cable running from the GLM module to one speaker, and another ethernet cable running from that speaker to the other one - all in addition to the power cords and digital or analogue interconnects.

All that said, I would make a couple of small qualifications to what you've written.

One reason smaller actives are SPL limited is because they often have fairly deep bass extension for their size. So yes, passives can be improved with outboard EQ while actives are already EQ'd - but good luck finding a pair of sub-$1500 passive stand mounts that don't need significant EQ to provide equivalent bass extension to a similar size, or even smaller, active - and if you boost a passive's bass like that, then it's going to have SPL limitations, distortion problems, and compression issues of its own. Erin provides compression graphs with most of his speaker reviews, and even just out of the box with no EQ, a lot of passives come with their own compression problems at higher SPLs. Actives might mute entirely because they have amps and electronics to go into protection, but if your passive compresses significantly, that's not really any better - the actives just give you a clearer sign than passives do that you're playing louder than the speaker can properly perform at.

So I think to really kick the crap out of actives price/value-wise, you have to go to passive floor-standers or a subwoofer, and there you're talking about extra expense compared to just a pair of very good stand mounts.

Finally, I feel like the whole SPL limitation issue, while real, is overblown, because a lot of the figures we see thrown around are for a single speaker. With a stereo pair, my understanding is that in-room SPL will be about 6dB higher, which is not insignificant given that a lot of the "seriously SPL limited" speakers we've seen around here can play close to or at the safe limit for hearing even just with one speaker.

 

[jhaider]

JBL 708P which doesn't have a superlative preference score.

Query - if Harman
A) releases a studio monitor that does not have a sky high Harman preference score well after the release of the score research, and
B) the actual developer of said preference score uses said monitors in his own listening lab

What does that say about the preference score?

Note further that the preference score is not the measured performance of the loudspeaker.

 

[Ron Texas]

Query - if Harman
A) releases a studio monitor that does not have a sky high Harman preference score well after the release of the score research, and
B) the actual developer of said preference score uses said monitors in his own listening lab

What does that say about the preference score?

Note further that the preference score is not the measured performance of the loudspeaker.

The 708P comes with several presets. I always wondered why they did not include a maximum preference score preset. You may note that our host was very enthusiastic in his review of the 708P. Preference scores are scientifically derived, but they aren't everything.

 

[jhaider]

The 708P comes with several presets. I always wondered why they did not include a maximum preference score preset. You may note that our host was very enthusiastic in his review of the 708P. Preference scores are scientifically derived, but they aren't everything.

Well, 705/708 are screwed preference score wise because they have such wide constant treble dispersion. But I don't think the P models have "presets" per se, just user adjustable EQ. I don't know for sure; I have the i models that use separate processing/amplification.

I don't pay any attention to preference scores. My quick-and-dirty evaluation of loudspeaker measurements is basically to evaluate the listening window and the horizontal polar. If the LW is smooth and flattish and the horizontal polar is smooth with no major dispersion disruptions...I've yet to hear a speaker meeting those criteria that weren't "good" within their output limits - which doesn't mean their specific coverage pattern is right for every listener or every room, but tonally they would be more-or-less "right" for my tastes.

I can't speak for our host, but I will say I heard 705i and 708i when they came out, and they "broke my fever" for coaxes. As in, I had wanted and bought nothing but coaxes (KEF, Tannoy, Pioneer EX) for foreground listening from 1997 until 2016 or something like that. Then I had a chance to hear these, and done. Haven't looked back since.

 

[Newman]

Query - if Harman
A) releases a studio monitor that does not have a sky high Harman preference score well after the release of the score research, and
B) the actual developer of said preference score uses said monitors in his own listening lab
What does that say about the preference score?
Note further that the preference score is not the measured performance of the loudspeaker.

Perhaps it says exactly what the inventor of the preference score says it says: you shouldn't focus on it exclusively. It's a starting point, not an end point. Only the naive would treat it as their sole guide in choosing speakers.

However it does not say "it's useless", which some here want to push. For example, there are plenty of technically naive buyers of speakers. They might have zero interest in reading a spinorama, nor ability, nor interest in learning how. They might be picking speakers from Consumer Reports who use a single rating number that was entirely based on sound power. These people would be far better off relying entirely on the preference score than on the Consumer Reports score, or on salespeople.

But for us, in here, with our level of interest...it was never intended for us to use that way.

 

[NIN]

Wel

I'm not the fact at all
The comments in this thread are
And most of them agree actives are better

And that is just you. No proof that top of the line speaker manufacturer are thinking the same. Just some conspiracy theory why not more are doing that.

 

[NIN]

What excellence? And why is it "smug" to be excited about the potential performance benefits you can get from an active speaker design?

Smug because some people here do really think that they are smarter and know better than top of the line manufacturer.
This thread is classic audiophile cult reasoning. "Only 300B tube amplifier give the best middlerange.", "X is the best way to build speakers", etcetc.
So I leave this thread as it is completely pointless.

 

[jhaider]

Perhaps it says exactly what the inventor of the preference score says it says: you shouldn't focus on it exclusively. It's a starting point, not an end point. Only the naive would treat it as their sole guide in choosing speakers.

However it does not say "it's useless", which some here want to push.

But that's not actually what Dr. Olive wrote in the post you cited. He didn't include the word-of-weasel "exclusively" that you did. Here's what he wrote, with emphasis added:

"You shouldn't focus on preference scores. It was only intended to help naive people...Look for flat, smooth on-axis well maintained off-axis and smooth directivity [and adequate output capability]..."

Personally, I'm in the "damn near useless" camp, both on first principles (PIR does not reflect how people actually perceive sound from a loudspeaker above a room's transition frequency, yet more than a third of the preference score comes from PIR) and in practice (see, e.g. this review of a speaker that gets a high preference score despite poor response and directivity, because they're gamed such that the PIR is what the model wants to see, and subjectively poor impressions of their sound quality).

 

[Newman]

Yep, no important difference between what I wrote and what he wrote. I guarantee you, from wider context reading of many things written by both Dr Olive and Dr Toole, that I correctly relayed the meaning of his communication.

You are creating a wrong impression if you think he means anything other than one should not focus on it exclusively. But you do earn a Pedant Award Point.

Sometimes I wonder....

 

[AdamG]

Looks like tempers are flaring and maybe getting on each others nerves. It’s Friday, go out in the sunshine and enjoy some outside activities. Or just take a break from this. It’s just a forum and is never that important to get frustrated about. Communication between humans is 70% unspoken visual cues. A smile, a gathered brow, a deep breath all add to the messages we send and convey. We are stuck with just the written word and that leaves a large gap in information. Take extra care with your words and try to give the benefit of the doubt to others as you would hope that they will give you. We are all humans and have different perspectives about just about everything. It takes hard work to be completely understood with the written word alone. Keep this in mind.

Happy Friday everyone!

 

[Killingbeans]

It’s Friday, go out in the sunshine and enjoy some outside activities. Or just take a break from this.

It's been raining nearly non-stop for a month around here. I'll just settle for a break

 

[Doodski]

It's been raining nearly non-stop for a month around here. I'll just settle for a break

Wow... We are in a drought in Alberta, Canada. The farmers are very concerned about feeding the livestock never mind outputting product for consumption by humans.

 

[Killingbeans]

We had a serious drought in June, but then July delivered with interest. Not a big fan of this kind of bipolar weather.