ATC active vs. passive

Perhaps poster @lonemountain can chime in. He has extensive knowledge of and experience with ATC speakers. 

@arion wrote:

... my experiences strongly suggest that active systems usually perform better if properly designed.

+1

Our active speaker systems are different than the ATC active systems in that you can use any amplification you choose ...

Which simply implies that your speaker systems are outboard actively configured, whereas the ATC’s are bundled active speakers (with the exception of the SCM300’s). I find it’s commendable that you’re working from an outboard active platform (like I do myself, and which any DIY’er/audio entrepreneur can pursue) that grants the user the freedom of choice with regard to amplification, and essentially any other aspect (and I’m aware much more than outboard active config. alone is part of your product concept).

Moreover: this way the dichotomy between active and passively configured speakers systems can be diminished, as most see it as - in effect - a bundled vs. separate component distinction and solution, and not as something that per definition comes down to where and how the crossover function is applied, and that both of these approaches can be attempted as separate component solutions.

@erik_squires wrote:

If I were at ATC, and they asked me to "activate" an existing passive speaker it would be just incredibly tempting to enhance it’s performance when transitioning.

Exactly, because that’s what active config. offers. Which is to say: it’s not about "fairness" of comparison vs. passive, but what active qua active can offer.

So, point is, no idea of the ATC speakers attempt the same driver crossovers, polarity, etc. so hard to use them as a judge. In fact, it’s just super hard to do a real apples to apples comparison of any active vs. passive speaker.

ATC isn’t going for an altogether different "voicing" passively, but rather will aim for the crossover option that best accommodates the design passively. Conversely the active iteration will take advantage of the design options given here, like amp-to-driver direct connections, shorter cable runs, precise phase settings for each driver, amp-load independent driver sections, (line level) crossover values being impervious to load (read: heat), different i.e.: steeper slopes, etc.

So, the point isn’t really an apples to apples comparison between the passive and active iteration - in fact it’s not necessarily desirable nor possible - but rather what each design route facilitates and is inherently limited by or has an advantage through.

That being the case - with the same drivers, speaker housing and product sound philosophy - you don’t get much closer to a bearing on the overall capabilities and characteristics offered by active vs. passive here. Even with different amps over the passive iteration you will get the general idea vs. active.