@texbychoice wrote:
Passive crossover or all active can result in a system that measures well. Measurements do not tell the entire story. For those of us that have over the years tried many of the latest bright shiny audio gizmos or idea we know that fact all too well.
Nothing new here (either).
Separate amps for each driver is nothing new and revolutionary. There are trade-offs for any approach.
Right; active config. is nothing new nor revolutionary (nor is passive bi-, tri- or more-amping over speakers with existing passive crossovers, albeit a more well-known approach among audiophiles), but you could say that of other design choices that, while advantageous, are not generally implemented. Practically speaking the only trade-off with active is a higher electrical bill from the multitude of amps.
Claiming an all active system to be superior is a broad generalization, not a universal truth.
True, but with a proviso: there aren’t that many opportunities to make an apples-to-apples comparison between actively and passively configured speakers, because it’s about assessing a typically bundled active speaker design of one particular brand (usually with built-in Class D amps and a consideration for minimizing cost here) with a passive speaker design of another brand with a wildly varying combination of amp choices. Basically you’re left with buying into comparing completely different scenarios that aren’t that easily comparable coming down to a single aspect alone.
To really assess the potential of active config. take the same speakers, strip them of their passive crossovers, add the required amp channels using a similar amp as the one used passively as a basis, add a high quality DSP, and have fully optimized filter settings implemented, aided by measurements and completed by ears from your preferred listening position. Then you’ll have a more true bearing, and in each of these cases and specific context where I’ve heard this happen, the active approach - not only to my ears - won by a mile, hands down. And what do I mean by "won by a mile"? A much better resolved, more dynamically astute, more transparent, more transiently clean/less smeared, more effortless, and tonally a more accurate and authentic presentation.
Besides: my main intention was to point at the amp to driver interfacing, and how active wins out every day here. This is not debatable - indeed it’s a damn fact. With any design however there are many choices to be made, and the totality of those will determine the outcome. My advocacy is for outboard active configuration, because this way you can go about it more or less as you see fit - like you would passively. If however a preassembled and -designed bundled active speaker fits your bill and hits a home run, then you may have come by your solution all that much easier.
Previously noted potential problems cannot be explained away by opinion. Parts count increased by dozens and more interconnections decrease overall reliability and introduce new variables. That is engineering fact that can be calculated.
Come on. Let’s say you buy two more power amps similar to the one you already own for a 3-way active setup, add a high quality DSP (while stripping the passive crossover) and some extra IC’s and power cables - you mean to tell me you’d now have trouble sleeping because of reliability issues? Well, if you insist on placing obstacles in front of you to avoid going active or otherwise adding a few components (or just to be willful), by all means. But essentially the same could be leveled at those who’re buying a turntable with all that involves, a separate preamp, mono block amps or other. Like you said, measurements don’t reveal everything, and the same way holding a rigid stance on component count and how it pertains to sound quality and reliability can’t ever be the whole story.
