No, not always.
When mimicking the speech or sounds made by another person, yes, you gain advantage on your Charisma (Deception) check. You could benefit when you mimic the speech of an Dwarf, or the war cry of an Orc.
When mimicking the sounds made by by "other creatures," no, you do not gain advantage on your Charisma (Deception) check. You could not benefit when you mimic a horse, bird, or the roar of a hydra.
Ultimately it's going to come down to what your table decides a "person" is in the context of the feat. It may be "any creature of type humanoid" (borrowing the implicit definition from hold person, though no rule says it should or should not apply) or it might be "any intelligent creature" such as an Ogre, Fiend, Celestial, Dragon, or other creature with human-like intelligence.
My interpretation would be that it applies only when mimicking humanoids or the speech-like sounds of intelligent creatures. So, you could benefit if you mimic the serpentine lisp of a blue dragon while speaking, but not the earth shattering roar of that same dragon no matter how hard you tried. (Not that you couldn't attempt it, merely that you would get no advantage due to the feat.)
Still another interpretation is that you'd be required to be trying to pass yourself as a specific individual to benefit from advantage. So mimicking the noise an Orc makes when he bellows wouldn't benefit, but mimicking the Orc guard from three weeks ago who bellowed when you stuck him with your sword would gain a benefit. That's an awful narrow reading, however.
There's many potential interpretations here, and none of them are necessarily more or less "right" than anything else.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter as long as you're consistent.
Anyone can attempt to do that
Anyone can attempt to do anything, whether they have the feat to do it or not (even try to recall everything accurately, as in Keen Mind). It doesn't mean they will always succeed, but it also doesn't mean they need the feat to make an attempt.
This is an example of bad wording, for a feat
The way this feat is framed implies that only characters with this feat can succeed. Drawing on the wisdom from the Unearthed Arcana: Feats, specifically on the "bad feat" (as identified in the article) named "Warhammer Master," we learn the following:
The ability to knock aside an opponent's shield is nifty -- but that's something any character should be able to attempt. Locking that down into a feat threatens to limit the game's flexibility. You could argue that anyone could still try that trick, but the way the feat frames the ability makes it sound like only characters with this feat can succeed. This option is an area that I'd want DMs to adjudicate on their own, rather than bloating the game with fiddly rules.
This is in response to this part of the Warhammer Master feat:
In addition, you can use your warhammer to knock away a foe's shield. If you hit a creature that’s using a shield, you can have the attack deal no damage and force the creature to drop its shield.
The design goal, as far as Mike Mearls was concerned, was to write feats in such a way that they did not limit the game's flexibility. The way this part of the Actor feat is written implies you need to have the Actor feat to even attempt to mimic someone's speech.
How do non Actors do it without stepping on the feat?
I believe the non-obvious but valid intent, which will still grant this ability to everyone else without necessarily needing to step on this feat's toes, was to imply that the Actor is so good, they can mimic anyone after one minute's worth of study. Everyone else has to take at least a few hours before they can even try properly.
Listen to a chirping bird for a minute, or a bubbling brook, and try to mimic that sound. You might be able to, but you probably can't; but, someone in the world probably could (out of the 7B people on Earth, chances are pretty high, right?)
This feat makes your character so good, they will find that person is themselves, for any sound or speech pattern.
What do they roll?
The Actor feat gives us the guidance for what skill to use:
A successful Wisdom (Insight) check contested by your Charisma (Deception) check allows a listener to determine that the effect is faked.
This makes sense as you are trying to deceive someone that you are what you are not. Based on this feat, then in most cases, you should roll Deception vs Insight. However, for non-Actors, you could use different skills as you see fit.
A Charisma (Performance) check could replace Deception, if you interpret this particular check as a test of how masterfully they can mimic another sound. Perhaps they are openly mimicking robins singing to an audience of children.
A Charisma (Stealth) check could replace Deception, if they are trying to hide by creating noise that makes them blend into the environment.
If interpreted this way, then for the Actors, the predictability of what skill to use means they know where to put their proficiency and Expertise, should they acquire them. This makes this feat even more useful, because for Actors, they always know which skill to use.
Best Answer
The rules expect the DM to decide on a case-by-case basis
First and foremost, there are no skill checks in 5e anymore. Things like "Wisdom (Insight) check" are ability checks, and they differ from skill checks as they were in previous editions.
Moreover, "passive check" is a game term which has a special meaning in 5e:
What you're asking about is probably a regular ability check made by a DM's call, not a passive check. Keeping in mind that all ability checks are made by a DM's call, the real question is: does the DM have to wait for a specific question from a player before asking for an ability check?
And the answer is — no, the DM does not have to wait for a specific question. The 5e ruleset is a toolbox the DM is free to use at their own discretion. It does not set any hard limits on the DM anymore, especially when we're talking about ability checks.
It was the 3.x thing to explicitly frame the process. 5e left the prescriptive paradigm regarding ability checks. Now the game expects the DM to decide, what checks would be better for the story. This is also known as the "rulings over rules" principle.
So it's up to the DM if she thinks it'd be better to wait for a specific question before asking for an ability check in each case. What I want to suggest is two things: avoid no-brainers and don't expect specific "right words" from the players.
Avoid no-brainers
If players get a chance to learn additional information only when they say "I want to listen/look closer", they will be saying this every time, getting zero results most of the time. It is a no-brainer and no-brainers are bad design — they waste real time and make games less exciting. Instead, assume the characters are always aware and asks for a check only when the outcome is uncertain.
Don't expect specific "right words"
Don't expect the players to do only specific things you had in mind when you was preparing the adventure. This is also true regarding puzzles. If you allow a dice roll only if the player says "I want to check if it's an imitation", they probably never get any dice rolls. Instead, treat any examination effort as a potential revealing of an imitation.
Know your players
DMG p.236 allows a playstyle when players do not roll dice at all (unless it's a combat, but combat is a different story). Some players just like rolling dice and enjoy randomness, some prefer more predictable approach. The DM's job is to decide what would be better for the table. The DM can still use passive score for the information PCs are able to get intrinsically and/or ask for a check. Both options are "correct" from the rules perspective.
Putting this in a nutshell:
How would this work in-game:
or