Active vs passive crossover

@erik_squires wrote:

Wow, you so misread me it’s sad. I’ve never disagreed with this approach nor have I dodged it. When comparing a specific implementation this is the right approach. That’s not what the OP asked though, and you keep trying to answer the wrong question, and seem to be policing me for not answering YOUR version of the OP’s question. That’s not going to work.

Some leeway from original topics is acceptable, you know that, yet it's obviously more convenient to admin-police yourself instead of addressing my remarks.

My approach is simply disagreeing with your take on why active has less in store for it, with your reference to complexity and the A/D to D/A conversion step. While replying to this thread and more precisely addressing the OP should be trying to answer on behalf of the companies that generally avoid going the active route, it's clearly your own views you're expressing and your (or another audiophile's) reservations going active, and that's totally OK to me. As such I'm merely addressing them. So, in all fairness I believe we're both a bit off-topic here. 

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

Your answer is just as absolute, don't you see it? Hypothetically, why wouldn't active be better, or passive for that matter? Why this staunch adherence to "there is no better" when there could very well be a better part of the two in vital aspects of sound reproduction? 

I have a long history of using active and passive speakers.  The active setups I've used, configured or built involved both digital and analog crossovers in home and professional setups, but you keep trying to school the wrong schoolmaster. Maybe you can stop policing my answers now, @phusis because at the end of the day it just seems you want to be contrarian for no particular reason.

I'm not a contrarian, I simply disagree on your views expressed to far, with the arguments laid out by me already. 

Your answer is just as absolute, don’t you see it? Hypothetically, why wouldn’t active be better, or passive for that matter? Why this staunch adherence to "there is no better" when there could very well be a better part of the two in vital aspects of sound reproduction?

You want to walk around in a circle.  You argue against my statement that there's no better because there's no specific, then you argue I should use specific examples, and then you say  either view is an absolute and should not be used.

Have fun running in circles, @phusis

@erik_squires wrote:

You want to walk around in a circle. You argue against my statement that there’s no better because there’s no specific, then you argue I should use specific examples, and then you say either view is an absolute and should not be used.

Have fun running in circles, @phusis

More like a self-induced vertigo on your part. At several junctures I sought to have you have elaborate on your stance when faced with my views, but all you care to do is call me in the wrong as having misunderstood you or not replying to what the OP inquires about.

As your wrote:

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

Strictly speaking, how’s your reply above an answer to the OP’s actual question (which btw. is not "hypothetical," but refers to a factual matter) "why the vast majority of companies in this industry still chooses the passive route"? Instead you hone in on the OP’s claim (the claim that spurs on the OP’s above question to begin with) about the active DSP route generally being considered the best sounding. That’s what I chose to respond to as well, though not the OP’s claim but rather your opposing take that "There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications." Alright?

If your takeaway from the fact that most companies still chooses the passive route is that there’s no absolute better between passive and active (so why bother with active?), then I disagree. That choice, to my mind, mostly boils down to convenience and convention, and adhering to the market that’s still most pronounced.

As it is, buying bundled, active speakers is really reducing complexity compared to a passive setup, whereas the active-as-separates solution with preset filter values in an included DSP is more akin to putting together a passive system. Such manufacturers could either be selling amps for the speakers they find the right partners (like Sanders Sound), or they could recommend amps for buyers to consider.

The real complexity part (and this is where I would agree with you) is setting up an active-as-separates system by yourself, that is to say first and foremost setting up filter values on your own, and to a lesser degree choosing the amps and active XO - be that a DSP solution or other analogue electronic XO.

What’s really the most complex part is finding the right filter values in conjunction with measurements, speaker placement and acoustic implementation, as you may know, whereas the rest is not much different from choosing components to your passive setup. If anything amp-speaker matching is actually easier with an active setup, it just requires more amps.

To sum up, and even an admission: yes, my "blanket statement" - which is not to speak on behave of others (other than several audio-friends of mine) but merely to express my own experience in a specific context - is that a carefully implemented active-as-separates system handily beats a passive ditto, period (and I have the experience with a range of setups comprising the same speakers being converted from passive to active, to back that up). Everything can be tailored to the specific environment and driver segments with the amps that feed them, and the DSP filter settings can accommodate much more elaborately and not least more precisely a range of aspects that passive filters can only dream of.

Take it or leave it, Erik; blanket statements to some are just fully formed assessments to others that don’t mind calling things for what they are, be that better or worse. Why is that so provocative to you? :)

@erik_squires ​​@phusis , there needs to be no additional adc/dac conversion if one chooses his front end gear wisely, i.e., keep it digital --> high quality dac+dsp+crossovers processor all in one device. A couple of minidsp devices come close, but have poor quality control...some units are defective.

Two stereo amps (boxes), 1 lower power class A for mf+hf, 1 high power stereo amp for bass drivers.....one 4 channel amp or 1 additional low power stereo amp if going 3 way, i.e., number of extra boxes can be kept low (it is not an issue as compared to purist passive systems).

The elephant in the room is having competent speaker measurements and the ability to understand them to accurately implement an active system. For guys lacking the technical prowess to do the latter, an active system is dead. Hence, passive systems remain popular.

For multichannel guys who’ve gone through the rigor of setting up prepros and so on, this isn’t complicated, it falls in the general wheelhouse. If a guy is used to purist plug n play devices, it could get complicated until he goes through the learning curve.

@deep_333 wrote:

there needs to be no additional adc/dac conversion if one chooses his front end gear wisely, i.e., keep it digital --> high quality dac+dsp+crossovers processor all in one device. A couple of minidsp devices come close, but have poor quality control...some units are defective.

The digital-input DSP isn’t necessarily better. I use a Xilica unit with an analogue input (and so an A/D to D/A conversion), and it’s a great DSP - meaning it’s sonically quite transparent. Many however seem to believe avoiding the A/D conversion step is paramount, but as a single parameter it’s really moot in the greater scheme of things.

Two stereo amps (boxes), 1 lower power class A for mf+hf, 1 high power stereo amp for bass drivers.....one 4 channel amp or 1 additional low power stereo amp if going 3 way, i.e., number of extra boxes can be kept low (it is not an issue as compared to purist passive systems).

Oh, haven’t I been there, experimenting with different power amps in my outboard active 3-way setup (incl. subs). It was my initial route as well, going with a high-end, lower wattage class A amp (Belles) for the mids/tweeter compression driver-driven horn, and 2 high power, different class D variants (Crown and LabGruppen) for the mid bass and subs respectively. It sounded very, very good, but once I got 3 virtually similar class A/B power amps from MC² Audio for the entire frequency range, things really started to fall into place. I tried all permutations with a range of power amps, and one of the real eye openers was adding the same amp as the ones used for the top section and mid bass to the subs; a vital part of the tonality imprinting rests in the subs region, but few seem to realize this and instead resort to using cheaper, typically class D variants (that are different amps compared to those used in the frequency span above) for the lower octaves, with all that implies. The thing is, you don’t find out the significance of this unless you try swapping amps and trust your ears as the final judges here. That’s one of the beauties of outboard active, and as implemented with subs as well gives you a range of amps to experiment with here, instead of whatever is used preassembled in the SVS, REL, JL Audio sub or other.

The challenge of using similar amps top to (subs) bottom is finding a high quality, high power amp that does it all, but once you get your head around it quite a few options lend themselves for this purpose, and actively you only harness a bigger potential of a given amp. 

The elephant in the room is having competent speaker measurements and the ability to understand them to accurately implement an active system. For guys lacking the technical prowess to do the latter, an active system is dead. Hence, passive systems remain popular.

Sure, it’s not the easy plug-and-play.