Why do passive speakers still exist?

[EJ3]

It's a question of two things: (1) the expense of high component-count passive crossovers, and (2) the linearity required of drivers in the first place. If equalisation is cheap, linearity needn't be as central a focus in driver design/selection.

And then there are the very few speakers with NO CROSSOVER AT ALL due to judicious driver selection, such as the:
Frazier Super Monte Carlo, An 8 inch mid/woofer with a Helmholtz tuned forward facing for a port & a Piezo tweeter using the natural roll off of each. 1 watt = 90+db. (maybe 93 db?: with 18 watts RMS in stereo I got 112 db in a 12X14 bedroom). Bass below 50 Hz? No. Treble above 16 KHz? No. But seemingly OK in between. No claim on +- db of the frequency response. Jack Frazier (from TEXAS & friend of Paul W. Klipsch) died in 1988 and all his speaker designs were only in his head. He did make a living building speakers. I will say that these sound OK, much better than you would expect for being designed to not have a crossover. This is in a secondary setup for background music for my mothers bedroom. I bought mine new (based on what my ears told me, fully subjective [In 1977 was starting to learn about better stereo equipment, still uninformed but I liked what I heard]) shortly after I bought my ADVENT 300 new. Good with low power, like the ADVENT 300's internal amp. I am curios and plan to stick them into my main system & hook up DSP to them in the upcoming year and see how bad or good they really are (and how good they can be made to be). I suspect that with NO CROSSOVER WHAT SO EVER the DSP will have a lot to do.

 

[srrxr71]

you can not easy plug existing active speaker to a receiver, or do remote control the volume and inputs. the kali lp6 i own produce noise when i connect them not symetrical and even more noise when i connect it with cinch. my surround receiver have no symetrical output and whats happen when connect it to speaker out which can reach for 100 watt 30 volts. i do not know. to go to active speakers first step to do is, produce surround receivers or amps that have a symetrical output for active speakers

I feel the same way. Most people buy a surround receiver and then pick speakers.

imho it will all go wireless active in about 5 years. Basically Samsung vs Apple vs Sonos.

 

[srrxr71]

It's a question of two things: (1) the expense of high component-count passive crossovers, and (2) the linearity required of drivers in the first place. If equalisation is cheap, linearity needn't be as central a focus in driver design/selection.

And then there are the very few speakers with NO CROSSOVER AT ALL due to judicious driver selection, such as the:
Frazier Super Monte Carlo, An 8 inch mid/woofer with a Helmholtz tuned forward facing for a port & a Piezo tweeter using the natural roll off of each. 1 watt = 90+db. (maybe 93 db?: with 18 watts RMS in stereo I got 112 db in a 12X14 bedroom). Bass below 50 Hz? No. Treble above 16 KHz? No. But seemingly OK in between. No claim on +- db of the frequency response. Jack Frazier (from TEXAS & friend of Paul W. Klipsch) died in 1988 and all his speaker designs were only in his head. He did make a living building speakers. I will say that these sound OK, much better than you would expect for being designed to not have a crossover. This is in a secondary setup for background music for my mothers bedroom. I bought mine new (based on what my ears told me, fully subjective [In 1977 was starting to learn about better stereo equipment, still uninformed but I liked what I heard]) shortly after I bought my ADVENT 300 new. Good with low power, like the ADVENT 300's internal amp. I am curios and plan to stick them into my main system & hook up DSP to them in the upcoming year and see how bad or good they really are (and how good they can be made to be). I suspect that with NO CROSSOVER WHAT SO EVER the DSP will have a lot to do.

Are you going to DSP in a sub and “super tweeter” of sorts?

 

[Morla]

Are these passives good? I mean I know me-geithain is respected in the field of.active monitors but those passives look nice

https://www.me-geithain.de/en/me-160.html

https://www.me-geithain.de/de/passiv-lautsprecher.html

Me 160 measurements (?)

https://www.me-geithain.de/en/assets/media/products/highend/ME160/en/ME160-Freifeld-eng.png

https://www.me-geithain.de/de/assets/media/products/highend/ME160/ME160-Klirrdiagramm.png

 

[EJ3]

Are you going to DSP in a sub and “super tweeter” of sorts?

I have subs in my main system that only go up to 80 Hz. My Main speakers go down to 26 Hz & up to 24 KHz +- 2 db (according to a test by a well know tester back when they were new. I have renewed the crossovers with better [very difficult to find in the original specs] caps). I am currently set up for that. The Frazier' will be run without the subs being involved just to see how they react to being DSPed. Perhaps after depending on results, I'll sub DSP them. No super tweeter, just see what I can make them do. (As a background music system, I am just curious). They are an odd ball speaker, designed with no crossover. I am interested in how close Jack Frazier came (they actually sound better than some other supposedly high end speakers I have heard [anything by Bose comes to mind, even the 901's properly set up] but that is a subjective opinion {even the Bose part, I just don't like the sound} that I may have because the Frazier's are mine). For me to set up the Frazier's & then reset up my mains would be an extraordinary endeavor because of the way I do it. Sub one gets done by itself first. Then sub two by itself. Then main spkr one. Then main spkr two. Then sub one + main spkr one. Then all together. So it is a process that would have to be gone through twice when changing mains and putting the subs on with the change. If I don't use the subs with the Frazier's it's only 25% the work. For something that I am not going to use in my main system anyway.

 

[bennybbbx]

I feel the same way. Most people buy a surround receiver and then pick speakers.

imho it will all go wireless active in about 5 years. Basically Samsung vs Apple vs Sonos.

yes this is possible. but i thought there are the current available studio speakers mean. currently the wireless versions are often lot overpriced as can see on KEF LS50 meta. cost 1200$. the wireless LS50 cost 2400$. there is also a new segment with the wireless soundbars

 

[srrxr71]

yes this is possible. but i thought there are the current available studio speakers mean. currently the wireless versions are often lot overpriced as can see on KEF LS50 meta. cost 1200$. the wireless LS50 cost 2400$. there is also a new segment with the wireless soundbars

I think professional studio monitors will stay wired but generally be active and deploy dsp as needed.

In the consumer space the market is dominated by passives because consumers buy the receiver first and speakers as an almost afterthought.

Yes Sonos has the arc with wireless surrounds. Apple will implement some multichannel atmos solution for homepods which self room dsp. Samsung/JBL/Harmon better have something like that. That should be where the market is going. When they can reliably do wireless 7.2.4 or something like that then they can just take over the receiver market. Over time of course. The convenience is another level. You just need a plug point or an extension cable. The costs will be lower due to tight part integration.

The LS50w price recently went up. At $2000 it was justifiable. I suppose the lack of competition in that space allows for it. It really is an old design at this point imho. Though I believe there are new active models that came out in the high end consumer space recently. Not necessarily wireless though.

 

[Ron Texas]

Looking at Genelec speakers I can't imagine what it cost to tool up those cast aluminum enclosures. It may be less labor intensive than wood or MDF, the shape likely prevents diffraction, but the investment had to be enormous.

 

[StefaanE]

In the consumer space the market is dominated by passives because consumers buy the receiver first and speakers as an almost afterthought.

Maybe the real problem is the relative absence of sound processors designed for active speakers. Ideally, they would decode the sound data to whatever channels it contains, and make this information available in both digital and analogue format (so the average user need not find a multi-channel DAC). The digital formats should include wired (e.g. S/PDIF over coax and Toslink, and USB), and wireless (WiSA) to allow active speakers to be connected without going through a gratuitous ADC in the speakers. The user should be able to mix and match outputs to channels, allowing a mix of wired and wireless, active and passive speakers to be used.

Current reasonably priced AVRs almost force their users to select passive speakers by including amplifiers that often cannot be disabled and analogue-only pre-outs (if they have them). If the absence of digital pre-outs is caused by licensing restrictions, I respectfully submit that people copying their CDs or SACDs in digital quality is no longer a problem; most music is streamed, or sold as hi-res files. If there are no licensing restrictions, then why on earth don’t AVR manufacturers include digital pre-outs...

 

[srrxr71]

Maybe the real problem is the relative absence of sound processors designed for active speakers. Ideally, they would decode the sound data to whatever channels it contains, and make this information available in both digital and analogue format (so the average user need not find a multi-channel DAC). The digital formats should include wired (e.g. S/PDIF over coax and Toslink, and USB), and wireless (WiSA) to allow active speakers to be connected without going through a gratuitous ADC in the speakers. The user should be able to mix and match outputs to channels, allowing a mix of wired and wireless, active and passive speakers to be used.

Current reasonably priced AVRs almost force their users to select passive speakers by including amplifiers that often cannot be disabled and analogue-only pre-outs (if they have them). If the absence of digital pre-outs is caused by licensing restrictions, I respectfully submit that people copying their CDs or SACDs in digital quality is no longer a problem; most music is streamed, or sold as hi-res files. If there are no licensing restrictions, then why on earth don’t AVR manufacturers include digital pre-outs...

i think they include the amps because they can sell the product for more. They know some people like pre outs but they reserve those for the most expensive models with ironically the most expensive amps in them. It’s their bid to stay relevant. It’s like saying you can have pre outs but only after you drop $3k with us first. In time people are going to just go for Sonos style wireless actives.

If you find something that is just a processor which offers digital outs it will be a niche product that costs $2k minimum. The average person just gets a $1200 receiver and $600 htib style speaker set. The average consumer doesn’t care about digital out or extra adc or anything like that.

actives will take over when a company can release at least 5.1 self powered at $1500 in a box. Probably sound bar plus rears. The sonos arc is the first salvo in this war. Homepods will be next once they get the software done. The likes of DM/Sony/Onkyo better wake up soon or their lunch will be eaten by the new players in the market.

 

[Katji]

Edifier S3000PRO has all that except networking. (+ analog RCA and XLR, and Bt aptX HD.) XMOS, DAC , DSP is in the box. I am very happy. My "end game", unless I win the Lotto and can get Kii or Avantgarde or Genelec. Now I need to sell speakers, just keep one set of passive speakers in case of a failure - all those potential points of failure, including wireless connection between the speakers.
So I have a 5m USB cable and no potential for fancy cables unless I upgrade the 2 mains power cables.

People tending to start by getting receiver...I think that is because of the AV context. So far I only do stereo.

Maybe the real problem is the relative absence of sound processors designed for active speakers. Ideally, they would decode the sound data to whatever channels it contains, and make this information available in both digital and analogue format (so the average user need not find a multi-channel DAC). The digital formats should include wired (e.g. S/PDIF over coax and Toslink, and USB), and wireless (WiSA) to allow active speakers to be connected without going through a gratuitous ADC in the speakers. The user should be able to mix and match outputs to channels, allowing a mix of wired and wireless, active and passive speakers to be used.

 

[RayDunzl]

Looking at Genelec speakers I can't imagine what it cost to tool up those cast aluminum enclosures. It may be less labor intensive than wood or MDF, the shape likely prevents diffraction, but the investment had to be enormous.

Casting?

Maybe not so terribly difficult.

Make one and copy it.

 

[Katji]

WAHHHH!

Thanks, RayDunzl. Made my day.

Very productive people.

 

[Ilkless]

Looking at Genelec speakers I can't imagine what it cost to tool up those cast aluminum enclosures. It may be less labor intensive than wood or MDF, the shape likely prevents diffraction, but the investment had to be enormous.

I think they have a significant market share in the pro audio sector, which is less fragmented than home audio. Yes, there are the cottage industry voodoo types in pro audio as well, but overall they seem to be less prevalent, and the mainstream in the sector is less fragmented. Which then gives them enough volume to amortise tooling over.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I think professional studio monitors will stay wired but generally be active and deploy dsp as needed.

In the consumer space the market is dominated by passives because consumers buy the receiver first and speakers as an almost afterthought.

Yes Sonos has the arc with wireless surrounds. Apple will implement some multichannel atmos solution for homepods which self room dsp. Samsung/JBL/Harmon better have something like that. That should be where the market is going. When they can reliably do wireless 7.2.4 or something like that then they can just take over the receiver market. Over time of course. The convenience is another level. You just need a plug point or an extension cable. The costs will be lower due to tight part integration.

The LS50w price recently went up. At $2000 it was justifiable. I suppose the lack of competition in that space allows for it. It really is an old design at this point imho. Though I believe there are new active models that came out in the high end consumer space recently. Not necessarily wireless though.

Surely AVRs are sold to people who think it will be better for watching films not listening to music???
I don't know anybody who has bought one for music listening.
I do know a small number of music lovers who have super expensive 5.1 systems for SACD and surround music listening but the vast majority of people I know looking for good quality sound in the home are not going to go near a home theatre type setup because it is hard enough to afford 2 good speakers so going for something like 7.2.4 will either cost more than their car or be of very low audio quality for music listening and, anyway, need a completely mock set of decoding to simulate signals to go to such a huge number of speakers when the original signal has 2 channels.

I would imagine the LS50 wireless is more expensive since it includes the amplifiers as well as the wireless and DSP electronics, none of which are included in the LS50. It doesn't seem much more to me.

Also multi channel analogue outputs add a LOT to the cost of an AVR, have you seen the price of the output connectors? I can't see them ever being fitted to inexpensive ones, and, at present, digital outputs are forbidden by licensing on multi channel devices.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Casting?

Maybe not so terribly difficult.

Make one and copy it.

Sand casting in small quantities is fine but labour intensive and limited to thick wall (⅜" minimum in practical reality) castings. Making thin wall castings without holes requires pressure die-casting and the dies for each segment will have cost hundreds of thousands each.
I would imagine the cost of the enclosures is very much more expensive than the drivers, with the possible exception of the small production drivers in the "Ones".

 

[Rmn]

Hi,
Already posted something similar on another thread but so far without a reply.
I'm trying to decide between active or passive speakers. One big question for me Is the ability of a class d active speaker playing hi res audio like a SACD. An entry level speaker like the adam t8v will "ruin" the audio signal with the digital to analog conversion? Is there any benefits on using a good dac if the signal is going to be converted again with a poor adc?
On the Personus eris e8 xt, a class AB speaker are any adc involved? Does anyone know some other good measuring entry level active speaker that would be good for this application?
Thanks to all

 

[Tangband]

Nope. As you stated adding a series resistor reduces SPL which destroys the FR. To restore the original FR you must increase the output voltage until the power dissipated in the tweeter is the same as without the resistor. This leads to the same thermal compression as before and you need an amplifier with more power and you dissipate the additional power as heat in the resistor. Not a good idea if you ask me.

If you go higher in frequency than the EMK controlled area, there is an optimal drive-resistance for the tweeter. High damping factor is irrelevant in this area. That means that the tweeter CAN sound better with for example a resistor in series about 4 Ohm. Or not. You have to try it and measure the results.

I have investigated those things in two years.

This is one of the few disadvantages with directly coupled amplifiers to the loudspeaker. But as I wrote, It can be easily cured.

Ofcourse you have to compensate for the slightly different frequency response you get while driving a tweeter with high resistance.
Its easy to do with a dsp.

 

[q3cpma]

Hi,
Already posted something similar on another thread but so far without a reply.
I'm trying to decide between active or passive speakers. One big question for me Is the ability of a class d active speaker playing hi res audio like a SACD. An entry level speaker like the adam t8v will "ruin" the audio signal with the digital to analog conversion? Is there any benefits on using a good dac if the signal is going to be converted again with a poor adc?
On the Personus eris e8 xt, a class AB speaker are any adc involved? Does anyone know some other good measuring entry level active speaker that would be good for this application?
Thanks to all

Hello, seeing your questions, I suggest you lurk more and begin by reading stuff curated in https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/master-review-index.11398/ and more particularly https://web.archive.org/web/20200417180912/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
The tl;dr is that High Resolution™ audio is snake oil.

On the subject of speaker choice and especially active monitors, there is no budget king without glaring compromises, I'd recommend Genelec/Neumann if you can muster the money but the mentioned Presonus Eris E8 XT looks quite nice when reading https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/presonus-eris-e8-xt/conclusion, a nice alternative to the LSR308p aka distorsion and hiss factory; the beefier and class AB amps ensure better behaviour at their limits.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Hi,
Already posted something similar on another thread but so far without a reply.
I'm trying to decide between active or passive speakers. One big question for me Is the ability of a class d active speaker playing hi res audio like a SACD. An entry level speaker like the adam t8v will "ruin" the audio signal with the digital to analog conversion? Is there any benefits on using a good dac if the signal is going to be converted again with a poor adc?
On the Personus eris e8 xt, a class AB speaker are any adc involved? Does anyone know some other good measuring entry level active speaker that would be good for this application?
Thanks to all

IME DACs have been transparent to multiple DAC > ADC > DAC>ADC conversions up to over 8x for several years so any concern about this is psychological not real I would say.

I would imagine there will be no problem here and doing what suits you for convenience and functionality would be the best thing to do, not worry about that. OTOH as a matter of engineering principle I would try to keep things as simple as possible.
The benefit of SACD is in multiple channels not superior audible quality.