Why have PR's gone out of style?

Refefer

I was listening to my SDA's a couple of minutes ago and decided to play some heavy hitting music ala The Crystal Method. Now, my tastes are quite eclectic and I was coming off some of James Taylor's Hourglass so the addition of deep bass was somewhat impressive over the acoustic strums of a nice guitar. Anyways, I was sitting back musing about how well my speakers accurately articulate the lower regiment bass (sub 40) of a couple of their songs and I got to pondering why Passive Radiator's have mostly gone the way of the dinosaurs: I mean, it makes no real sense to me, all things considered.

First off, most speaker designs are ported to achieve xmax early and to control bass roll off at adequate points. From what I understand from my (limited) speaker designing is that tuning a speaker with a passive radiator is similar to tuning a bass reflex speaker in terms of frequency roll of the functioning drivers while maintaining the same benefits of sensitivity and xmax. However, the advantage of a PR is that it further enhances the productivity of lower bass as well, making it very useful to hit notes deeper than the original drivers would normally allow. How else could SDA's still produce subsonics under 20hz with their much smaller midranges?

A lot of the original Polk monitor series was outfitted with passive radiators, as well as many of the very good vintage Klipsch speakers.

So, why have they fallen out of style if they were so beneficial?

F1nut

Good question.

schwarcw

I am going to guess that it has something to do with cabinet size. Small boxes are a must for today's HT in a box consumer.

Dennis Gardner

Ports are cheaper and smaller.

Refefer

I'm not saying that entry level gear should contain them (except perhaps some monitors), but why not just have them side loaded similar to the way the LSi's have their subs? Sure, it increases their depth a bit, and sure it's marginally more expensive, but surely in HT setups additional bass augmentation would be a great selling point over competitors?

There are certainly enough consumers out there who prefer floor-standers instead of the monitors found in htibs.

dorokusai

You Polkies might check out DT's new 5.1 line as they utilize a PR....notice they don't call it "fluid coupled" but "pressure coupled".

It's actually kinda funny beings Sandy is a Polk pioneer....lucky Polk has a patent on that phrase huh? You may also recall the Polk Audio Model 9. It might not be a Polk thing per se but the dipole/bipole array idea was pretty cool for that era and not common.

http://www.definitivetech.com/loudspeakers/procinema/procinema.html

RuSsMaN

Dennis Gardner wrote:

Ports are cheaper and smaller.

....and Bingo was his name-o....

A lot of high end speakers still use PR's, but real estate is the name of the game now with joe-6-pack low and mid fi. As close to, or preferrably less than 1 sq ft of floorspace is the order of the day.

Refefer

dorokusai wrote:

You Polkies might check out DT's new 5.1 line as they utilize a PR....notice they don't call it "fluid coupled" but "pressure coupled".

It's actually kinda funny beings Sandy is a Polk pioneer....lucky Polk has a patent on that phrase huh? You may also recall the Polk Audio Model 9. It might not be a Polk thing per se but the dipole/bipole array idea was pretty cool for that era and not common.

http://www.definitivetech.com/loudspeakers/procinema/procinema.html

Great link.

And this is exactly my point. Those tiny monitors have their F3 listed at 47 hz, which is pretty impressive bass for a monitor, while maintaining a small size.

cfrizz

Real Estate is the real reason Russ. Todays apartments simply are not designed with huge speakers in mind.

Could I buy some SDA's or other huge speakers? Sure. But I have absolutely NO room for them anywhere in my apt! And I don't know if I will ever be able to buy a house with lots of space to play with.

I think it's too much of a generalization to put it on "joe-6-pack low and mid fi"

RuSsMaN wrote:

....and Bingo was his name-o....

A lot of high end speakers still use PR's, but real estate is the name of the game now with joe-6-pack low and mid fi. As close to, or preferrably less than 1 sq ft of floorspace is the order of the day.

Polk65

My first thought to your question was that it is cheaper... then easier... then cheaper. A huge speaker is not the issue. Vintage Monitor 5's have a PR and have nearly a small enough footprint to be acceptable as a HTIB front surround.

Shizelbs

PR = big footprint = low WAF

audiobliss

I've wondered this very thing several times myself. I haven't compared speakers with PR's to those without, consciously thinking of the PR, but have to admit PR's are pretty awesome.

disneyjoe7

Shizelbs wrote:

PR = big footprint = low WAF

Think you nailed it... Low WAF

If females have a such car buying say, don't they have a speaker buying say also?

Refefer

I was looking at the pics of the Polk Mini-monitors in the Vintage Section, and it uses a 5" PR if I recall.

I'd hardly call that large, and those monitors are dinky while still providing audible bass.

MillerLiteScott

As I sit hear listening to the punch of two Passive radiators in my RTA 11t's that have a smaller foot print than RTi10's I am am surprised no speaker company still does not use them. I think the thing I like the most about passive radiators is the way they reproduce a drum. The drums just sound right with a PR.

I am also love the way these 6.5 mid woofers and RDO 194 tweeters reproduce a slightly overdriven tube guitar amp sound.

heiney9

MillerLiteScott wrote: »

As I sit hear listening to the punch of two Passive radiators in my RTA 11t's that have a smaller foot print than RTi10's I am am surprised no speaker company still does not use them. I think the thing I like the most about passive radiators is the way they reproduce a drum. The drums just sound right with a PR.

I am also love the way these 6.5 mid woofers and RDO 194 tweeters reproduce a slightly overdriven tube guitar amp sound.

I believe in general PR's provide a more organic natural bass sound for many instruments in that octave. I believe most of the Polks that use PR's have phenominally low bass distoriton as well. It's been stated that the SDA SRS's and SDA 1C's have the lowest bass distortion they (Stereo Review) had measured at the time by a long shot.

PR's have always sounded more organic to me. I admit after listening to the LSi 9's that the lower midbass hump they have can become very addictive. That's where the so called "punch" comes from but it still somehow sounds unnatural compared to my 5b's and SDA 1C's. What really shows on my 5b's and SDA 1C's are recordings that are thin on bass. With the 9's even bass shy recordings have more "uummpphh" and sound a bit more balanced. But I'd rather have the PR and play better recordings.

H9

dorokusai

DefTech Mythos ST. The racetrack woofer and PR reminds me of what KEF did 25+ years ago.

http://www.definitivetech.com/loudspeakers/mythos/mythos_st_supertower.html

TroyD

With a port, the perception is that you get more bass. The reality is a little different but a ported speaker is more appealing for the masses.

Plus, PR's were never what I would call really popular.

BDT

hoosier21

cfrizz wrote: »

Todays apartments simply are not designed with huge speakers in mind.

Everyone knows in the mid 60s till the late 70s apartment developers designed around one thing, floor standing speakers :rolleyes:

goingganzo

it all depends on wat you want i went with sealed to get a sweet rool foo to blend in with my sub

VR3

Definitive and VMPS are two of many companies that utilize PRs.

FWIW

Serendipity

Definitive's powered towers sound very good with their PRs.

Interesting how the man who started up Definitive was also a key player at Polk...

Systems

A PR works essential like a port but it's tuning point is determined by the weight of the diaphram instead of length and diameter.One advantage it has over a port is that there is no chuffing or wind noises created when reproducing bass at hi levels.