Why do passive speakers still exist?

[Purité Audio]

Both, but WAF which I used to think was just an old wives tale but is absolutely a thing!
I have had couples walk in and then literally turn on their heel and walk out when the partner has said, ‘you are not having those in our house’.
That was mostly horns to be fair, my last customer had to barter for some 8Cs with a new patio.
I remember my first 8Cs customer he asked his wife what she thought ( switching instantly between both speakers Harbeth and 8Cs) and she said quick as a flash, ‘ the 8Cs are clearer with better bass’ which absolutely said it all.
Later that same day we were discussing the customers Linn streamer which had a slight issue, I advised taking it back as something that cost that much, then mentioned the actual price, the partner was horrified Neil had obviously not told her the actual cost!
If only the ground could have swallowed me whole.
Keith

 

[Littletycoon]

I'm only allowed to connect these (another 2 behind the curtain "in storage") after i've arranged window shutters for the wife (but were basically still the only floor standers allowed into the house, that is after she had seen many speakers in the most beautiful speaker thread). How it sounds she does not care. Well, she has other advantages.

 

[Duke]

I don’t even have to watch that to know the result

Do you agree or disagree? His is arguably a uniquely well-qualified opinion, and his experience with using both active and passive versions of the same speaker, and using them both for years in the same locations in the same room, makes for about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as we're likely to find.

 

[MattHooper]

Earl Geddes on active versus passive versions of his top-of-the-line Summa, he uses the active version in his system. He is commenting as a highly competent designer who offers both versions (or did, until he retired). The clip is cued up to start at 32:39; the relevant part goes to about 34:55:

Interesting.

I certainly don't consider myself expert enough to comment on the technicalities. I get that they can solve some technical problems more easily (or maybe less easily, according to Geddes). But just anecdotally, I haven't had any "wow" moments with active speakers that felt like some paradigm change in sound. I've yet to find one I would prefer to some passive speakers I like.

 

[srrxr71]

Do you agree or disagree? His is arguably a uniquely well-qualified opinion, and his experience with using both active and passive versions of the same speaker, and using them both for years in the same locations in the same room, makes for about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as we're likely to find.

Sorry i’m listening to my actives

 

[NIN]

The fact that "top customers" with deep pockets favor huge passive tower speakers and lots of big boxes with electronics does not necessarily mean that such system has any superiority when it comes to sound quality. Often it just means that:

a) They want to flaunt their wealth.
and
b) They feel the need to compensate something (and we all know what that something is).

C) Or them (or some of them) prefer those huge passive tower speaker over small active monitor? How dare they think they can choose by themself without approval from the "active-speaker crowd"?...

 

[MKR]

C) Or them (or some of them) prefer those huge passive tower speaker over small active monitor? How dare they think they can choose by themself without approval from the "active-speaker crowd"?...

There are also large active floorstander designs that exist, not just small monitors … though for whatever reason (maybe because most common in pro audio) many indeed associate actives with smaller monitors

 

[NIN]

This psychological barrier mainstream audiophiles have with active speakers is very funny .
They can accept active subs and soundbars and whatever but can't accept active main speakers .

What do you base this nonsense on?
It is the manufacture of top performance speakers that choose passive filters. I believe that Revel know more about filters than keyboard warriors on a audio forum.

 

[Pearljam5000]

What do you base this nonsense on?
It is the manufacture of top performance speakers that choose passive filters. I believe that Revel know more about filters than keyboard warriors on a audio forum.

I base my "nonsense" on past failures of active audiophile speakers
And on the fact that most audiophiles would never dream to use a professional studio monitor as their "Hi fi" or instead of their main speakers even though most of the time they're superior to the the mainstream audiophile stuff and even cost less.

 

[NIN]

I base my "nonsense" on past failures of active audiophile speakers
And on the fact that most audiophiles would never dream to use a professional studio monitor as their "Hi fi" or instead of their main speakers even though most of the time they're superior to the the mainstream audiophile stuff and even cost less.

Past failure? Because of what?
Show me a study that prove what "audiophiles" think what you say.
What professional monitor are better than Revel Salon 2 and have at least the same SPL capacity?

 

[MKR]

What do you base this nonsense on?
It is the manufacture of top performance speakers that choose passive filters. I believe that Revel know more about filters than keyboard warriors on an audio forum.

And most of those passive designs do not measure well, Revel being in a minority of good measuring passives

 

[MKR]

Past failure? Because of what?
Show me a study that prove what "audiophiles" think what you say.
What professional monitor are better than Revel Saloon 2 and have at least the same SPL capacity?

Maybe not same SPL, but there are several active designs that measure as well or better than Salon 2 (probably my favorite passive floorstander by the way, too bad they are discontinued … the new Performa series is ugly and not to the same performance level as the Ultimate series … my opinion, others I am sure will disagree)

 

[Pearljam5000]

Past failure? Because of what?
Show me a study that prove what "audiophiles" think what you say.
What professional monitor are better than Revel Salon 2 and have at least the same SPL capacity?

I'm talking about most mainstream audiophiles that would never even consider a pro studio monitor as their main system /speakers
And that's a fact .
You can go to every audiophile forum on the planet(except ASR)and see that .

 

[NIN]

I'm talking about most mainstream audiophiles that would never even consider a pro studio monitor as their main system /speakers
And that's a fact .
You can go to every audiophile forum on the planet(except ASR)and see that .

Show me the study that back you up.
And what about the active monitor that as good or better than Salon2?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Show me the study that back you up.

There is no study
It's an axiom
Also go to every audio show and audio store on the planet and tell me how many actives are shown/sold there vs passives .
Are we living on different planets or something ?

 

[NIN]

There is no study
It's an axiom
Also go to every audio show and audio store on the planet and tell me how many actives are shown/sold there vs passives .
Are we living on different planets or something ?

So you are just talk?
The same with suggestion of a active monitor that is as good or better than Salon2.
And why is most of the best manufacture still doing passive speaker? Didn't they get the hallelujah memo?

 

[Pearljam5000]

So you are just talk?
The same with suggestion of a active monitor that is as good or better than Salon2.
And why is most of the best manufacture still doing passive speaker? Didn't they get the hallelujah memo?

You mention one speaker that's irrelevant to the discussion while I just proved you wrong with *facts * in every aspect possible , and I'm all talk .
Hilarious .
Why are they still doing passive speakers?
It's much more complicated to make actives so they don't need that headache
And it's worst for business , you sell much less DACs , amps and cables that way.

 

[mhardy6647]

Skimming through the last few pages of this inexplicably long thread, I think I have figured out why* passive loudspeakers are still around.
Here's what seems to me to be a valid and interesting question:

What is the added value in an active loudspeaker?

(e.g., to justify the $26.5k price tag of a recently discussed example)

• Built in amplification? Unless it's custom designed and made by (for) the "systems integrator" who builds the active loudspeaker, it's almost certainly available on the open market cheaper than the incremental cost it adds to the "active" product.
• "Tuning?" If modern DSP and measurement tools praised and endorsed by (a guess**) hundreds of threads on this forum alone are to believed, the tools are readily available for the end user to do this. If NOT... well... that's interesting indeed. ... but even if not, how much is doing the frequency sweep and setting the curve for each unit produced worth incrementally?

_____________
* besides the obvious, of course: long-term reliability of a big, more or less unventilated box with electronics inside it as well as the requisite transducers and stuffing.
** I was going to type zillions but realized I risked accusations of hyperbole.

 

[Bjorn]

Do you agree or disagree? His is arguably a uniquely well-qualified opinion, and his experience with using both active and passive versions of the same speaker, and using them both for years in the same locations in the same room, makes for about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as we're likely to find.

We can't generalize based on one design.
In his design, I would assume the tweeter and woofer were close to being time aligned physically. Which isn't the case with most speakers. Plus his speakers didn't suffer from thermal compression like most others do. That being said, I ran a passive Abbey through DEQX correction and heard an improvement, but unfortunately I didn't do a proper comparison back then.

What's very important with active besides signal alignment is that it opens the door to designs that wouldn't work well as passives. Plus most speakers benefit in terms of better dynamics and avoidance or less thermal compression with an amp to each driver.

 

[NIN]

You mention one speaker that's irrelevant to the discussion while I just proved you wrong with *facts * in every aspect possible , and I'm all talk .
Hilarious .
Why are they still doing passive speakers?
It's much more complicated to make actives so they don't need that headache
And it's worst for business , you sell much less DACs , amps and cables that way.

Firstly, Salon2 is not irrelevant. It is by many praised as a very very good speaker. So if active is so much better, where is the speaker that is as least as good as Salon2? Why is it than so hard to find a active speaker that outdo Salon2?

Secondly, in what way is active speakers more complicated? All I read from the active drowd is how easier they are to do.

Thirdly, worst for business? How? Why would the top manufacture care if their speakers would do that brand Z are selling a few amplifier less? If they think a active design would benifit the sound.

Fourtly, I have nothing against active speakers, or tube amplifiers, or anything else. I do have problem with people who behave religiously about something. "Only analog can sound real", "subwoofers are only for home theater" or "active speakers are better than passive". That is not science, that is a belif. There are times when X is better and other times Z is better. It simply depends on what you need to achieve the specific goal you have at the moment.