Can anyone explain why the norm in home audio is to have passive speakers instead of active speakers? Is it not inherently more efficient and accurate to use active crossovers and separate amplifiers for each driver?
Just curious if this is largely a matter of tradition or what.
Of course, in professional audio the norm is the opposite. Just curious why home audio decided to stick with passive.
Point taken, but you can get fantastic sounding active studio monitors for $150 each that outperform probably 95% of home market equivalent bookshelf speakers that don’t even include amps. I’m not entirely convinced its economics, particularly how insanely expensive “audiophile” amps are. Yes the plugs are a consideration, but you can just plug them into a power strip, so I’m not entirely convinced that’s the explanation either.
Do you think it might just be some kind of slightly snobbish tradition? “There’s no way a built-in amp could ever be as good as my Krell” (regardless of actual performance measurements or double-blind testing) kinda thing?
Well, I was thinking KRK Rokit 5. But I am sure there are others. They’re $150 each with pretty much flat frequency response and including amp (of course).
I have a mixture of active (actively biamped) speakers and passive speakers.
I probably have more than $1,000 alone just in bare (no terminations) wire in the walls (Mogami) Then, because I bought terminated wall plates (custom made) I had to pay for those....
Then there is the hardware. In my case, since I actively biamp, I need three stereo amps for my front mains & sub, then another 2-channel amp for my rears...
My wife rolls her eyes at all the outlets & plugs I created.
If you can't adjust things, you might have 2-3 outlets. Start adding up all the plugs (or load) you might need....
When I had stuff upstairs (prior to doing all you just read which is located in the basement)
I had something like 12-14 different things plugged into several power strips that were daisy chained to each other, then went into a single outlet.
I swore when I did the basement, I would NEVER subject myself to that again so I ran four (4) 20 amp circuits for the entire system and have something like 40 plugs througout the room dedicated to only HT things.
All that or just plug in a HT unit to your various passive speakers...... you decide.
I can see that the plugs are a consideration. But then when I look at monitors like the Genelec 8351a (https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/genelec-8351a), I think to myself “That’s how speakers SHOULD be.” And I imagine how elegant and beautiful-sounding a surround system made up of all just those, a preamp, a source, and a subwoofer (or two) would be.
Monitors are generally made for near-field listening so there are design considerations. And professional sound reinforcement is a completely different application with different needs.
Most folk do not have outlets near every speaker and do not want cords everywhere.
Ground loops, anyone?
Price and reliability is a consideration as previously mentioned. Separate amplifiers everywhere will also in general consume more power than multichannel amplifiers.
Upgrades -- not just the marketing aspect, but what if you move or change rooms and the amplifiers and/or speakers are inadequate for the new place? And of course many people upgrade over time as they save more, tastes change, or what have you, and upgrading an active design is more expensive.
Of course, if the $150 active matches much more expensive speakers, then no worries. I have never heard the KRKs you cited. Those Genelecs are about $4000 each (e.g. https://www.sweetwater.com/store/de...U8BjYRZJYV-9i4FE8qg8Tyy9tbkUebFxoCz2oQAvD_BwE) so that does not seem like a fair comparison. I can buy some pretty durn good passive speakers and an amp or AVR to drive them for that kind of money.
And so forth... There are some great active designs these days but most of them carry a significant price premium over unpowered designs.
There are 3 main reasons passive is more common in the home market. 1. Cost 2. Ease of wiring 3. uniformed consumers.
Electronics have gotten considerably less expensive especially with DSP and Class D amps to make active speakers more competitive in price to passive then in the past. Although a passive speaker is still less expensive the difference just isn't as great. I think some of the wiring could be solved with wireless solutions and active speakers. I think in many situations it would be easier to get power to a speaker then to get speaker wire but that would vary depending on the situation. But, currently for an active speaker you need power and a signal cable which makes set up not as easy. I believe Aperion? tried a wireless solution with its own receiver and active speakers but I don't think it sold well and they discontinued it. But, if there was some type of standard so you could mix speakers and processors it would be a nice system. Active does add a lot of acoustic advantages over passive that can easily be measured like reduced distortion and shorter attack time, never mind more precise crossovers, DSP and speaker protection.
Active does add a lot of acoustic advantages over passive that can easily be measured like reduced distortion and shorter attack time, never mind more precise crossovers, DSP and speaker protection.
That depends upon the active and passive systems under consideration... Not sure about "shorter attack time", but there are plenty of examples of actives better than passives and passives better than actives for distortion, not sure I would generalize quite that much. And protection depends upon the amp; I have certainly had active monitor amps take out drivers. Crossover and other control is nice to have, natch.
Smaller active monitors are usually nearfield but larger ones are not (e.g. https://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/8260a-sam-studio-monitor). I would almost be willing to bet that those Genelecs are the best sounding speakers in the world for its price. Audacious claim? Maybe but don't be too sure. Read that review and look at the technology.
Ok I understand that they are less modular. But isn't there really just about one optimal amp rating for each speaker? Do we really need that flexibility? Active monitors just put the optimal amp in there from the get go and its integrated so fewer cables, fewer electronics, and lower space consumption. Audiophiles commonly use speaker cables that there are two of, each larger than the power cable to an active monitor, and additionally in need of running all the way back to the amplifier. The signal cable is of course much smaller.
I would almost be willing to bet that those Genelecs are the best sounding speakers in the world for its price. Audacious claim? Maybe but don't be too sure. Read that review and look at the technology.
Ok I understand that they are less modular. But isn't there really just about one optimal amp rating for each speaker? Do we really need that flexibility? Active monitors just put the optimal amp in there from the get go and its integrated so fewer cables, fewer electronics, and lower space consumption. Audiophiles commonly use speaker cables that there are two of, each larger than the power cable to an active monitor, and additionally in need of running all the way back to the amplifier. The signal cable is of course much smaller.
You're making a lot of assumptions that just don't add up here. Yeah in an ideal world studio monitors would be more accurate than the majority of passive speakers "designed" for home theater use, but it doesn't work that way. There are just as many amateur music producers/recording engineers that don't know accurate sound if it hit them over the head as there are undiscerning home theater enthusiasts. When you cram amplification into individual speakers it's going to add to the cost, and you will still need to buy a processor either way to do everything else an avr does (processing the signal). I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't think it's any sort of golden solution to cut costs. If you look a little more into the science of amplification and driver matching I think you'll find that what you are suggesting (an amplifier per driver/bi amped config) would add significantly to the cost of the design for minimal benefit over traditional crossovers, and isn't technology that is employed in anything other than very high end/expensive studio monitors.
I had a long response but lost it in the ether... Decided not worth trying to recreate since the OP asked a question, but has already decided the answer, so really not much point in a one-sided debate. I have used Genelecs for mixing but will stick with my old outdated passive "audiophile" speakers for home.
There is no difference between "near field" active speakers and most passive speakers. The only thing that helps a near field speaker to be used a little closer than normal is the use of a wave guide which matches the dispersion of the woofer/midrange and tweeter at the crossover frequency. It does not make it sound worse at the mid or far field. But if you sit very close it is needed to have the speakers placed close to the listener. If you are mating a larger woofer and midrange/tweeter you need more distance before you get coherent sound. Many good passive speakers use wave guides as well to match dispersion, the ones that don't you can usually see this in the off axis measurements as they typically don't do as well further off axis. Another qualification of near/mid/far field is about SPL levels.
Whether a speaker is active or passive it can have a signature sound. And while research has shown most people prefer accurate sound it does not mean everyone. Plus research has also shown that dispersion of a speaker and the room is very important in sound quality. Some speakers that might not be as accurate but have better off axis response might be preferred especially in more live environments.
The cost to run the outlets so you don't have power strips dangling randomly throughout the room is going to stack up pretty damned quick . Dedicated lines to the theater? What is the power requirement for the speakers you want , can you run 3 of them on a single 15a or 20a circuit , 4 of them , all? Whats the access from the panel and distance , is there a crawl space or attic ? How much drywall repair are you going to be looking at once it's done ?
I thought about active speakers because of some of the benefits I've heard about , but decided that the labor was not worth whatever advantage active might have , and I've been an electrician for 18 years with no WAF to consider taking on such a project so the cost would be pretty much zero for me to do it , but running speaker wire was much faster and easier , to allow me more time to enjoy my toys , and I think most people have the same opinion .
I could see doing it with new construction or a to the bones remodel , but the vast majority of people aren't going to want to spend the time , money and inconvenience , so that's why the "norm" is passive speakers
Being intimately familiar with plenty of active studio monitors and passive hi-fi speakers, I have a few thoughts.
1. With passive speakers, you “get” to buy an amp. Buddies, chicks, everybody thinks amps are cool.
2. Wiring your home with 120v electrical service everywhere you will put a speaker is much more involved than fishing a few speaker cables.
3. Dealers don’t sell or recommend active speakers. The only people who even know what powered speakers are hang out on forums like these. To make it worse, many times even hi-fi dealers are just as clueless about active speakers as regular folks are.
4. Pro audio gear will ALWAYS be a better value than consumer gear. After being in both worlds for over 20 years, I still have no idea why this is true, but it is. You just get more for your money with pro gear.
5. Studio monitors CAN sound great, but they are not designed to sound pleasant. They are tools, and are especially brutal with revealing compression artifacts. They all have “murder tweeters” as I like to call them. Hi-fi speakers are just easier to listen to.
Slew rate is usually used in amplifiers and op amps while transient response time is often used for speaker qualities. You will often see speaker designers talk about transient response between different crossover types like first order types typically have better transient response. Attack refers to the sound we hear as every sound has an attack time and attack time affects timbre and transient response can also effect localization and how a speaker handles these can determine its characteristics. A power of 10 means most of these times are 10 times slower with a passive speaker over active.
Wiring will definitely depend on situation and if we were to use a 5.1 system as an example with speakers on stands, IF the system was wireless it might be a lot easier to wire for active speakers. And for wall mounting it is often easier to extend an outlet up then to get speaker wire across a room. Again, this is all VERY situation dependent and moot as active speakers also need signal cable. It is only theory if they were wireless. Active speakers currently need both power and signal so it is lot more complex then passive.
Studio monitors are often (not always) designed to be accurate, it is not about pleasant or not pleasant. If one want to reproduce the material how it was intended why wouldn't you use studio monitors at home? it is a lot more likely your material was mixed on products like JBL, Mackie, Genelec, Neumann, etc. then on Paradigm, Kef, Q acoustics, SVS, ascend, etc. Just food for thought
Studio monitors are often (not always) designed to be accurate, it is not about pleasant or not pleasant. If one want to reproduce the material how it was intended why wouldn't you use studio monitors at home? it is a lot more likely your material was mixed on products like JBL, Mackie, Genelec, Neumann, etc. then on Paradigm, Kef, Q acoustics, SVS, ascend, etc. Just food for thought
You would literally have to wear monitors as headphones to remove the 'room' from what you actually hear, a combination of direct sound and an integration of the reflections.
Why not use studio monitors at home? Simple, they can not reproduce sound at the required levels for even a modest small room. Period.
Food for thought? How much excursion is required for one acoustic watt of output power at just 80 hz for a 6" bass driver?
Wouldn't the effects of running long interconnects (lower voltage/current) be more detrimental to overall sound quality than running speakers wires? The wire is smaller meaning more resistance/ft changing the original signal. The interconnects are also more susceptible to noise with it being of a larger proportion to the original signal. Unless, of course you use the balanced input option. I have nothing against active speakers. We use Adam A7Xs/Adam A5Xs in all of our digitizing studios, so I'm very familiar with their performance, but still prefer passive.
Only if there is a noise problem, which can be solved other ways (like balanced circuit and runs as you said). The output impedance of the preamp may be 100 ohms or less, and the input impedance of the amplifier 10,000~100,000 ohms or more. Very little signal loss or change with such high impedances. Very long (more properly, too high in impedance) speaker wires reduce the amplitude, wasting power, and increase the effective source (driving) impedance from the amplifier to the speaker. That last is usually the sticky point as it can alter the frequency response. Crossovers usually assume a low-impedance amp driving them, and some speakers have very wide impedance variations, thus are somewhat sensitive to the amplifier's output impedance. And speakers are generators in reverse, so can generate reverse-EMF (electromotive force) or "kickback" that can cause distortion if the amplifier's output impedance is not low enough to absorb that "kick". I think the latter is overplayed but is a factor. In any event, I would always choose long interconnects and the shortest possible speaker wires given a choice. A choice I don't usually have, natch, especially for speakers on the other side of the room from the equipment.
The electrical connection issue is typically only a problem with surround sound. Those who primarily listen to music with 2.0, 2.1 and even 3.1 systems will have far less difficulty with nearby outlets for powered speakers. My home for example has electrical outlets all over the place and I could easily accomodate a 3.1 powered speaker system with short electrical connection runs. So practicality will vary widely depending on the number of speakers and availability of power outlets. While most powered speakers today are pro and studio monitors that's not to say that powered speakers more optimized for home audio use might not be developed in the future as DSP and D class amp technology advances and prices continue to come down. Watch for any future mergers of companies that specialize in home audio electronics and home audio speakers.
Andrew Jones (seated to the left of Keven Voecks) also seems to agree that active speakers are better, and the new generation of audiophiles will be more open to accepting the benefits.
There is no doubt that if you need louder levels you need larger speakers. Larger speakers are available in both active and passive forms. Here is one that would work well to reach the levels you desire in an average HT room. Cross it over and baffle mount it and it will go louder than its spec. https://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/1236a-sam-studio-monitor
Can anyone explain why the norm in home audio is to have passive speakers instead of active speakers? Is it not inherently more efficient and accurate to use active crossovers and separate amplifiers for each driver?
Just curious if this is largely a matter of tradition or what.
Of course, in professional audio the norm is the opposite. Just curious why home audio decided to stick with passive.
For me it's the ability to remotely control their volume.
I'd already have JBL's lsr305 active speakers if my tv or receiver had variable pre outs, but it'll likely have to be their passive studio 230's or equivalent, just so I can use a remote to control them without having to buy more equipment, new receiver, preamp or something.
But yeah I like the idea of actives for all the reasons you mention, especially with stereo only & at a very close distance. Just can't be getting up to reach behind two speakers all the time, and don't particularly want a knob on a wire.
edit- also, reading the discussion on not being able to reach "required levels", I'm sure that has a specific meaning in a technical sense, & is not just a matter of how loud one desires/requires their sound, but I never listen very loud, so another advantage in my situation for actives. My only roadblock is remote volume control.
Crutchfield says 5 1/4 inch woofer, ML's webpage says 6".
Audio review.com calls it 5 1/4"
Given the benefit of the doubt, we will call it 6".
To produce the required 117 db peak at 80 hz will require more excursion than is physically possible, and a voltage drive that it would not be happy with, even in the short term.
When you set sound levels 85db is reference with 20db of headroom for peaks meaning the system needs to capable of 105db at the listening position. Take your receiver test tones and set the SPL levels to 85, then play your system. Many home users, will find this level too loud for their listening comfort. So if the volume is lowered to 75db, the speakers only need to reach 95db at the listening position for that 20db of head room. Reference for subs is 115db and would be 105db if the volume is turned down. I've seen some of these small sound bars not be able to reach 70db at 10 feet away never mind 20db of headroom. The reality is you need your system to play at the level you desire, not everyone listens at 85db reference or needs a system capable of reference levels or even 20db of headroom. if you are trying to make a reference room then you need speakers and equipment to reach that level and if your seating is 15 feet away then a normal bookshelf will not do it. There are both active and passive speakers that can reach those levels if one desires.
Sound bars have their place in the world and many sound bars would not exist if the sound in many of these newer, thinner TVs wasn't so poor. Personally, I use a nice pair of bookshelves in either stereo or 2.1 configuration with a few of the TV systems in my home. I find that beats any sound bar for sound quality. But, that is a different topic.
When talking active vs. passive speakers, are we talking about powered vs. not powered speakers? As in does the speaker take line-in and has a power cable for its amps. Or are we taking active vs. passive crossover with speakers that don’t necessarily have their own amps? The latter gives, IMO, the most flexibility and control over everything.
Although sometimes the term active and powered are used interchangeably they are not. Powered is a passive speaker with a passive crossover and an amp in it. This doesn't have any benefit over a passive speaker and an external amplifier except the amp might be ideally matched for it. An active speaker takes the line in and uses an electronic crossover not passive powered by the amplifier) and then has a separate power amp for each speaker driver. So in a two way speaker there is a separate amp for the tweeter and one for the woofer. This has acoustic advantages mentioned earlier and why one would want to convert a passive speaker to active like in the article you referenced.
There are a few logical pitfalls in this thread, like:
"People complain that it's too loud and they turn it down." Was the decibel level too loud? or rather were the speakers poor-performing at that level? Distortion goes up dramatically in amplifiers and speakers. AVS is filled with folk saying "After upgrade of speakers, my significant other now wants to turn it up louder!"
Picking an expensive active monitor as an example of a speaker people are ignoring for their home theaters kind of illustrates the point: it's a more obscure brand among consumers that charges a lot for those speakers. The other examples like KRK were for near-field. A few like JBL Pro, QSC, Adam Audio, Pro Audio Tech would do the job for less money. QSC K8, K10, K12 can do the job and stay at or under $1,000, while (and here's the important part!) staying within their amps' limits.
Look where 150 pascals would put you... between the Jet engine at 100 yards, and an extremely loud rock band. The same pressure on your eardrum while driving with HVAC on, or a Jet at 100 yards. The difference? Spectral content.
People pretty much everywhere in the world close their car doors, and no one is going deaf from that. While higher frequencies can cause permanent damage at levels above 90 db, the duration and spectral content of the sound matters.
Those shows even compromise on building science itself. I've seen poor practices in HVAC, insulation, vapor management, sound deadening, and engineering that all contribute to a safe, long - lasting, quiet, comfortable and efficient home.
Those don't have anything to do with in-house hobby use cases like garage design, fine cooking, home theater, etc.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!