Why do passive speakers still exist?

[amarsicola]

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

If you want a freestanding speaker, usually capable of better bass performance thanks to larger cabinets, you have very few options of active loudspeakers.
And also esthetics play a role, few/none active speakers are really beautiful.
The day when a good looking floorstanding active speaker comes out at a reasonable price, the whole hi-fi industry will be turned around

 

[carewser]

And also esthetics play a role, few/none active speakers are really beautiful. The day when a good looking floorstanding active speaker comes out at a reasonable price, the whole hi-fi industry will be turned around

While they aren't floorstanders I think the Kanto Tuk's are neat looking:

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

While they aren't floorstanders I think the Kanto Tuk's are neat looking:

Sorry, I couldn't resist......

 

[Blaspheme]

Sorry, I couldn't resist......

View attachment 139676

Yeah, I do prefer the clean design of the washer/dryer carewser posted.

 

[jevenator]

I had troubling finding active speakers that would be good in a living room environment that would pair well with 50/50 use for music and movies. Most active monitors I’ve found are advertised as near field and quality degrades after a certain distance.

the only recent thing I’ve found is the new Kali Audio in-8 for $400 each Which even then from what I’ve read is ideal for mid field listening max. But what about 9-12 ft away from the tv?

I was able to get jbl studio 530s for $250, $250 da9 amp and have the flexibility to get any other passive speaker to try down the road. Can I get a better package for $500? I haven’t found any.

 

[EJ3]

The problem with the "oh it's better to have them separate for reliability" is that you can't do the same thing as an active (i.e. active crossovers) without spending way, way, way more money. Just for the sake of it... KH310s are $4600 a pair. To get similar performance with everything separate I'd be spending pots of money on amps (6 amps per pair), plus standalone crossovers (some kind of DSP box from e.g. MiniDSP or similar). Or, I'd need to compromise and use a passive crossover, which loses a lot of the advantages of actives (namely, much better sensitivity because crossovers dissipate quite a bit of power before it reaches the voice coils, and easier loads for an amp to drive because of the lack of impedance curve strangeness from the crossovers interacting with the voice coils).

Lets see: Since I already have (since 1990) Dahlquist M 905's (2 pair), which have been tested to be +-2db from 26Hz-20KHz with the factory passive crossover rebuilt with modern components but to original factory spec (by Peter Williams of QuirkAudio) and a set of triplet NAD 2200's (resto-modded by Peter Williams of QuirkAudio, one of which was tested on this site by Amirm) [one of these triplet NAD's is in operation running bridged mono at 4 ohms for each of the 2 stereo channels and one is running in stereo at 2 Ohms for the pair of homebuilt subs to handle 15Hz-80Hz [crossed over with an external passive crossover]. At this point, I see no reason to buy any active speaker. I am not against active speakers (but, I prefer separates: particularly because that is what I happen to have) or against any particular class of amps, I am just running what I happen to have on hand. However, I am planning on buying DSP for this system to (potentially) integrate the subs better with the mains and perhaps do some room correction.
My application is definitely NOT near field.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Yeah, I do prefer the clean design of the washer/dryer carewser posted.

The thing is, with HiFi components of earlier decades such as the 60s, 70s and 80s, I wouldn't be able to so easily find examples of household appliances which have the same strong styling cues. I don't know what this says about current HiFi styling trends for better or worse. JBL was pretty leading edge with the styling of their electronic components in the 60s, but I still think it would be next to impossible to find a household appliance which looks similar. I'd be interested to be proven wrong.

 

[KantoLiving]

Sorry, I couldn't resist......

View attachment 139676

I am deeply offended...

 

[Blaspheme]

The thing is, with HiFi components of earlier decades such as the 60s, 70s and 80s, I wouldn't be able to so easily find examples of household appliances which have the same strong styling cues. I don't know what this says about current HiFi styling trends for better or worse. JBL was pretty leading edge with the styling of their electronic components in the 60s, but I still think it would be next to impossible to find a household appliance which looks similar. I'd be interested to be proven wrong.

Yes, some of them are iconic 'speaker' not to be mistaken for anything else.

I have some nostalgia for classic JBL, and rather like their recent L100 and L82 remakes. Especially with the grilles on. Otoh I can't abide the look of the 4349 with its plastic waveguide, clunky proportions and detailing only an engineer could love. I'm sure many people enjoy those precise things. I like the modern inverted/blended dustcover look—seen on the Tuk. Also seen on the otherwise messy uber-Revel and on Yamaha's NS-5000 which I think is pretty elegant for a classically proportioned box. By contrast, the dated detailing on the original NS-1000 models gives me the same kind of temporal trypophobia as the 4349 (somewhat ironic as the former was well ahead of it's time with 80s design in the 70s). So weird how visual aesthetics work.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Yes, some of them are iconic 'speaker' not to be mistaken for anything else.

I have some nostalgia for classic JBL, and rather like their recent L100 and L82 remakes. Especially with the grilles on. Otoh I can't abide the look of the 4349 with its plastic waveguide, clunky proportions and detailing only an engineer could love. I'm sure many people enjoy those precise things. I like the modern inverted/blended dustcover look—seen on the Tuk. Also seen on the otherwise messy uber-Revel and on Yamaha's NS-5000 which I think is pretty elegant for a classically proportioned box. By contrast, the dated detailing on the original NS-1000 models gives me the same kind of temporal trypophobia as the 4349 (somewhat ironic as the former was well ahead of it's time with 80s design in the 70s). So weird how visual aesthetics work.

You' might like the looks of the JBL Ranger-Paragon

 

[EJ3]

The thing is, with HiFi components of earlier decades such as the 60s, 70s and 80s, I wouldn't be able to so easily find examples of household appliances which have the same strong styling cues. I don't know what this says about current HiFi styling trends for better or worse. JBL was pretty leading edge with the styling of their electronic components in the 60s, but I still think it would be next to impossible to find a household appliance which looks similar. I'd be interested to be proven wrong.

For me (& that is just how I do it) there are no household appliances in my listening area (which would be the living/dining room area). Yes, aesthetics is an area of concern for many people.

 

[Ron Texas]

The title of this thread strikes me as a statement that active speakers are vastly superior to passive speakers. This appears to be derived from DSP active speakers which are EQ'ed to be flat thereby producing high preference scores. Any passive speaker can be similarly EQ'ed. I guess it's the Genelec squad telling the rest of us how to live.

 

[crappypanther]

because you can use normal amplifier, not a cheap crap which is in active speakers (most often)

 

[Blumlein 88]

because you can use normal amplifier, not a cheap crap which is in active speakers (most often)

This is the most dissappointing thing. They could well match amps to speakers, and maximize the benefit of DSP line level crossovers etc. etc. Instead too many hiss at the tweeter, and have limited output capability. Many limit or compress near max sound level. I'd like if a few models for a reasonable upgrade price let you spec an active speaker with additional power and/or amps that have low distortion instead of just marginally okay.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

This is the most dissappointing thing. They could well match amps to speakers, and maximize the benefit of DSP line level crossovers etc. etc. Instead too many hiss at the tweeter, and have limited output capability. Many limit or compress near max sound level. I'd like if a few models for a reasonable upgrade price let you spec an active speaker with additional power and/or amps that have low distortion instead of just marginally okay.

I suspect that EQ and DSP are being used as a sort of crutch in order to drive cost to the very minimum, rather than going for better performance, even if it adds a bit of cost. Unfortunately it ends up being a false economy but that's how a lot of consumer electronics works.

 

[Frgirard]

A dsp : a box or a card, X enters. X outputs and a software. No weldings. No component.
https://m.thomann.de/fr/the_t.racks_dsp_4x4_mini.htm
T racks 85 euro.

What is the brand dsp in kii, Dutch...

 

[dfuller]

This is the most dissappointing thing. They could well match amps to speakers, and maximize the benefit of DSP line level crossovers etc. etc. Instead too many hiss at the tweeter, and have limited output capability. Many limit or compress near max sound level. I'd like if a few models for a reasonable upgrade price let you spec an active speaker with additional power and/or amps that have low distortion instead of just marginally okay.

Except for the most expensive, active speakers tend to use commodity chip amps, which I agree is something of a failing. This isn't to say that they're bad, but it does seem that at $10,000 a pair you should get better than TDA7293s in something like KH420s. Other brands (ATC, Barefoot, Dynaudio, and Focal come to mind, specifically) use good quality internal amps (at least at the higher end ones for Focal and Dynaudio) - be they in-house designs or modules from well-regarded companies like Hypex or Pascal.

 

[krabapple]

This is the most dissappointing thing. They could well match amps to speakers, and maximize the benefit of DSP line level crossovers etc. etc. Instead too many hiss at the tweeter, and have limited output capability. Many limit or compress near max sound level. I'd like if a few models for a reasonable upgrade price let you spec an active speaker with additional power and/or amps that have low distortion instead of just marginally okay.

Is there evidence that the active speakers Amir has reviewed with high approval ratings would audibly benefit from better internal amplifiers?

I'm guessing the answer relates to use cases. Are these speakers being used in a large room? Are they routinely driven to 'max sound level'? Are they part of two channel or surround system? Are they being used with subwoofer?

For me that answers would virtually always be : no, no, surround, always.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is there evidence that the active speakers Amir has reviewed with high approval ratings would audibly benefit from better internal amplifiers?

I'm guessing the answer relates to use cases. Are these speakers being used in a large room? Are they routinely driven to 'max sound level'? Are they part of two channel or surround system? Are they being used with subwoofer?

For me that answers would virtually always be : no, no, surround, always.

Many are monitors. Used as a near field monitor 2 to 3 feet from me as I mix music one shouldn't hear hiss. That is audible. Used mid-field for music listening hiss isn't a problem, but other than small rooms yes the limited power amps in some designs limit or compress. Right next to a larger speaker you can hear how it clouds up and dirties up the sound during some peaks.

Now if I had 200 watt amps on each driver rather than the typcial 40-60 watts would it make much difference? Probably not more than 3 or 4 db. After all you can only get so much from 4 or 5 or 6 inch woofers. I do find even with a subwoofer you run into the compression a bit much for my tastes. And I am not one to play at headbanger levels though I do play things beyond gentle chamber music. Maybe they perfectly match when the compression kicks in when the small woofers would be over-extended so it really doesn't matter.

So yes, as an interim after moving I did for awhile use some monitors with subs in a large room, and the amps were a limiting factor. And as a result yes they were too close to max level too often in that ill-advised use of them. Yes, once I finished moving and had big speakers in place they moved to surround duty where they are fine. And again yes with a subwoofer was the use. So yes they could benefit from better amplifiers.

 

[RobS]

Nearly all active plateamps are junk and will fail a lot sooner than a standalone power amplifier. DSP and other trickery is an excuse for lazy manufacturers to implement poor drivers. I'd rather have great drivers than "correcting" them thru artificial means. I also don't like that my analog signal has to go through another AD conversion inside an active speaker. Active crossovers might be theoretically better but passive crossovers can be just as good.