I Was Considering Active, Then I Watched This ...

Full disclosure:  I have never heard powered speakers.My only hesitancy about powered speakers is the hassle of return or repair if something goes wrong with the amps.  My current integrated is a McIntosh MA7900.  It is my second MA7900.  The first had a faulty DAC (not a problem with the amp itself but still...) and I returned it.  That was enough hassle, I can't imagine dealing with the return of an ATC tower speaker because of a problem with the electronics.  If you live close to your dealer, not too much of a concern.  But if, like me, you live in an audio desert or buy used, it is something to think about.

Phusis I will just leave this here as it shows to those who know something about actual loudspeaker drivers that you hit your knowledge limit quite early. You just don't get it and I don't think you have the knowledge to get it. There are things we have known since the 70s about loudspeaker driving that clearly you don't. Good day. Love to have a discussion with you but you don't seem interested in learning but may want to learn about more complex drive methods for loudspeakers all beyond your simple implementation.

As an outset IT IS about simply getting that quality digital XO hooked up and extra amps and cables all connected,

Getting rid of the cross-over on the power side of an amplifier and instead letting the amps see their respective drivers directly is in itself of significant importance, both in regard to letting the amps work at their fuller potential (effectively minimizing the need for amp prowess here)

There's a couple pair of meridian dsp's listed. The 5200 for under $4k and the dsp 7200 which has a pretty heroic cabinet build for under $9k. The meridians are british and are on the polite side of neutral regarding the top end, but bass is full and mids are rich. I wouldn't recommend them at new list prices as there's a lot of competition out there but used are hard to beat for the money. They go about getting high resolution by controlling cabinet vibration and distortion, not by dialing up the tweeter so they take a little while to adapt to, but then they get ya. 
 

@audio2design --

Time I picked up on this:

Why are you going on about something that 99.9% of audiophiles have no interest in doing, and 9/10 of the remaining 0.1% are going to screw up?

To begin with most audiophiles seem to have no concept of active-as-separates as an option for hi-fi use, let alone the sonic results produced here (unless you assume all of the 99.9% supposed disinterested audiophiles know what they’re turning their back on and that’s the basis of their claimed disinterest?), so an introduction into its existence and possibility of successful use seems prudent - not least coming from someone with several very positive experiences of this solution that trumps most passive and (bundled) active set-ups that have been auditioned, regardless of price.

On the face of it your stance here sounds more like wanting to instill discouragement (and protecting your own business) than a level-headed assessment on the interest in and potential of active-as-separates as a DIY approach. 1-2/10 mayn’t achieve greater results, but if a higher percentage instead of those 0.1% that remain interested would break the mold of their hi-fi dogma, unawareness, prejudice, or other and invest some time into active-as-separates, then we’d see a wider and very different playing field that would seriously challenge the established norms of passive configuration and the existing bundled active approach, and one that would as well bring with it even more tweaking possibilities than the passive set-up - not to mention the all-in-on active package.

I am very cognizant of the DIY speaker community. There is some great craftsmanship, and some very good mid-level speakers, but at the top end, I can’t say I have heard much.

The best active-as-separates systems I’ve auditioned distanced themselves from most of the best passive set-ups I’ve heard as being a cleaner, less smeared, more resolved, transparent, coherent, and dynamically uninhibited sounding package.

That you keep repeating "Digital Cross-over" like it is the be all and end all shows how large the gap is between the average DIYer / probably most DIYers and truly professional designers working on advanced active speakers. It is not simply a matter of getting some amps, even expensive ones, and a DSP and playing with digital crossover implementations, and no, I don’t care how long you listen to it, you will never achieve a very good design without complementing that with a lot of measurements, and again, most DIYers have fairly basic measurement capability for advanced speaker design. I know ... pretty much the same techniques, but better S/W than what I was using to DIY 20+ years ago.

Most "truly professional designers" work to create bundled, all-in-one active speakers, and while I’ve auditioned a few excellent sounding iterations here, ATC and Grimm Audio being perhaps the most noteworthy examples, I haven’t found them to better, or even fully approach the best DIY active-as-separates systems I’ve heard, likely for other reasons than their specific active configuration. I couldn’t care less about the work, dedication and claimed sophistication that went into these bundled, preassembled and -developed actives by said professionals when what I’ve actually heard hasn’t convinced me of their supposed merits, except named examples.

As an outset IT IS about simply getting that quality digital XO hooked up and extra amps and cables all connected, preferable on a smaller secondary 2-way speaker set-up to experiment with, and then work one’s way around the basics. I didn’t take me long (i.e.: mere minutes) to figure out the potential of active-as-separates and how it would come to eclipse its passive iteration, even with initial filter settings, and from then on it’s about fine tuning with the aid of measurements, hours of listening with the input and help from friends and a lot of trial and error/exploration with filter settings and their influence on the sound. Getting rid of the cross-over on the power side of an amplifier and instead letting the amps see their respective drivers directly is in itself of significant importance, both in regard to letting the amps work at their fuller potential (effectively minimizing the need for amp prowess here) and bypassing the sonic bottleneck a passive cross-over, not least a more complex one, is, for a sonically less degradable XO option prior to amplification.

The implementation of a design I was involved in required a custom amplifier topology that you cannot buy off the shelf. The techniques implemented go beyond simple digital cross-over design and are beyond almost all DIYers as it would be rare to find that cross disciplinary expertise. That is not even getting into things like finite element analysis to optimize bracing or complex acoustic field simulation to optimize the lenses. The drivers were not off the shelf, but optimized for our drive/control methodology. Again, not available to the DIY community.

Conversely I’d level at you: you stress the implementation of non off-the-shelf items "not available to to the DIY community" as if to signal exclusivity and something we as DIY’ers can only dream of attaining - unless of course we indulge in your narrative and buy your product. Haven’t we heard that song before. It’s a trait claimed by other manufacturers out there, and by and large - as heard in-the-flesh - it hasn’t made me appreciate the sound of those products more than others. Too many factors of implementation are at play to single out that one contribution as anything of outright significance.

The DIY’er into active-as-separates has the option to optimize and go tweak galore on all product category fronts, and as well go all-in with regard to accommodate physics and a pre-existing, passive speaker package - not to mention what can be learned in the process.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some great DIY designs out there, but as you move into active designs, the complexity of what is possible just went well beyond "DIY". Its a lot more than just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)

You’re evading an important point: with the complexity chosen in the active-as-separates set-ups I’ve heard, an outset that could as well be favorably chosen by others, the results are great - not to say among the best I’ve ever heard. They better their passive iteration (if they were such to begin with) by a noticeable margin, and in general outperform a range of much more expensive set-ups I’ve heard - mostly passives, because all-in-one active set-ups are relatively far and few between. Whichever way you want to bend it we’ve gone beyond "... just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)" and in doing so created impressive sounding set-ups, so we get the gist.

Which is to say: DIY’ers/audiophiles can certainly tackle an active-as-separates approach if they set their minds on it, and in the process produce great results. Whether that complies with your methods and ultimately to your liking is another matter, and not really relevant it would seem.

musicaddict19 posts12-19-2020 4:30am

 to me it seems that active speakers with DSP have to be the wave of the future for many people for great reasons.

I think you are right.
If I was starting again active speakers with DSP like the Dutch & Dutch 8C and Kii 3 would be top of my list.

musicaddict 

What active speakers are you using?

russbutton understands active speaker tech much like what I have read and understand. I think there certainly is a place for both passive and active speakers however to me it seems that active speakers with DSP have to be the wave of the future for many people for great reasons.
A well-designed active speaker with DSP should be easily the most cost effective way to get great sound at a certain price point as well as fix issues in the listening environment.

Even when ideally set up without using any DSP there is no comparison when playing my listening area's passive speakers. Turn off the DSP unit I'm using and you'd be stunned at the bass boom as well as other anomalies. No one who enjoys music would prefer it; the hump is part of the speaker and NOT room fixable, at least without trashing the environment.
The half dozen 14kft peaks viewable from where I sit and listen are now snow-covered and I'm not giving up that view. The DSP yields a wonderfully flat response down to 30 with an REL. Now my wife and I can enjoy our primary living space with great sounding music.

I think audiophiles have been using active tech for a long time many use subwoofers most are powered active types. I have active systems passive systems outboard crossover actives. I do think when it comes to amplification if class d or ab designs are not what you're looking for then outboard active or passive are your choices nothing wrong with any of it. But many seem to have strong biases and limited knowledge that in itself is what audiophiles are mostly about. 

Oh ya, it was about Steve, not about Buchardt’s, that was another post, I forgot!

More coffee!!!

One word: "Phase"

Of all the advantages/disadvantages/qualities/ a phase-coherent active speaker can, "get you there" hearing into the recording, providing spaciousness and accurate sound-staging...kind of magically. In other words crossovers cause phase shifts that active speakers can avoid. Game changer!

Put another way...when listening to live music, it's ALWAYS phase-coherent so transients, echos exist in all their glory. 

I see no problem embracing the technology. Steve's wrong. 

I think this is a great post from the Audiophiliac.  I personally love powered speakers and have many but they are in my secondary system. They are great for that.  Steve is right though a real audiophile should have separates.  If you are into the "hobby" of being an audiophile and discovering what the differences different components can make then all in one takes a lot of the fun out of it.  Now if your friend just want some good sound and wants to enjoy music then all in one is the best bang for the buck I think.  

My Uncle had a "DUI" once...

I think my thread has been hijacked?

Do you guys have any thoughts on the Buchardt A700’s?

Did you see my room?

phusis,

Why are you going on about something that 99.9% of audiophiles have no interest in doing, and 9/10 of the remaining 0.1% are going to screw up?

I am very cognizant of the DIY speaker community. There is some great craftsmanship, and some very good mid-level speakers, but at the top end, I can't say I have heard much.

That you keep repeating "Digital Cross-over" like it is the be all and end all shows how large the gap is between the average DIYer / probably most DIYers and truly professional designers working on advanced active speakers. It is not simply a matter of getting some amps, even expensive ones, and a DSP and playing with digital crossover implementations, and no, I don't care how long you listen to it, you will never achieve a very good design without complementing that with a lot of measurements, and again, most DIYers have fairly basic measurement capability for advanced speaker design. I know ... pretty much the same techniques, but better S/W than what I was using to DIY 20+ years ago.

The implementation of a design I was involved in required a custom amplifier topology that you cannot buy off the shelf. The techniques implemented go beyond simple digital cross-over design and are beyond almost all DIYers as it would be rare to find that cross disciplinary expertise. That is not even getting into things like finite element analysis to optimize bracing or complex acoustic field simulation to optimize the lenses.  The drivers were not off the shelf, but optimized for our drive/control methodology. Again, not available to the DIY community.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great DIY designs out there, but as you move into active designs, the complexity of what is possible just went well beyond "DIY". Its a lot more than just a digital crossover and amps (and drivers, and box, and ...)

Do you have any measurements of these home made active speakers?

@audio2design --

Unfortunately phusis, your view towards active speakers is simple, just the replacement of passive crossover to active crossover. There is far more possible in terms of active speaker development that cannot be implemented in this piece-wise fashion. Not to mention very few have the tools, knowledge, or space to develop their own crossovers effectively. It is not something that can be done by ear, and done well, requires either a large space for effective gated measurement and/or an anechoic chamber. The goal is not "okay" it is great.

Or maybe you read what I write: simplistically. Do you develop your own active speakers - as a brand, that is? What you point to sounds like a well-known narrative leveled at DIY'ers, that what they're about to embark on can only scratch the surface of what manufacturers can achieve with all of their tools and (self-)proclaimed knowledge. Of course those manufacturers are only trying to protect their business with said (repetitive) narrative, not that I can't understand that, but with the digital tools offered today the individual has far more options into creating the sound of their speakers on their own, and much easier at that. The more they learn the greater it will sound. 

I don't like repeating myself, but what you address is all there in my earlier post; I'm not about to neglect the effort and what's there to be learned about setting up a cross-over digitally by oneself, and when you look into the different technical aspects where audiophiles already invest their time, brain capacity and money implementing their own set-ups, it would seem no further stretch to ask of them to look into digital cross-overs as well. It's a freeing process once you get around the technicalities of using a digital XO, and one where you learn about setting up a cross-over with all the parameters that can be involved, digitally. Forums are there to help if you're stuck, maybe someone you know can help - make the jump and try it out. 

What do you know about the results my friends and I have achieved setting up our active-as-separates set-ups? Nothing. You would assume "okay" only, and yet the speaker systems I've heard here compare and in many areas exceed most everything else I've heard in vital areas in their reproduction. In other words: these set-ups sound great. No need for anechoic chambers than what our listening rooms offered. Measurements, yes, and lots of trial error and listening countless hours.

Yes, predominantly it can and must be done by ear, and the good thing is it needn't sound great anywhere else than in your very own listening room and to your own ears. Manufacturers need to please many ears, have a business to consider, are fiscally restricted and so on, and you don't think that involves severe compromises? Give me a break. 

Just an update on the Buchardt as they now offering mastertunings  for
the A700. They even have amastertuning which the A500 does not. Being a 3.5 way speaker the A700 does not need as many variations of the mastertuning programs according to Buchardt. They will be releasing a new app that has an advanced EQ so you can create your own sound profiles for them. When this is released they would also delete many of the balance mastertunings for the A500. The mastertunings are meant to do dramatic design changes such as 2.5 way or 3 way design on the A500, Cardioid or standard on the A700. From there the rest can be done via the app much faster and easier.
Sounds intriguing...

celtic66

Honestly, I was moved by your post. Thank you for sharing.
I didn’t realize the there was so much passion regarding this subject. Obviously, more than I imagined.
I thank you all for contributions. A lot of the technical jargon is over my head, but I am just happy that my post has generated so much interest and discussions. I really look forward to reading more of all your thoughts on this subject and learning from the more vested.

Russbutton, you present like a savant.  These posts wander and I find the lyrics “frequently wrong, but never in doubt” apropos.

My ATCs came by way of a deal struck with a high end shop showing interest in the line.  I committed the finances for a deal cut with an agreement to leave them in the store for two months before taking possession.

In those two months they scared customers with all of the positive attributes of active.  Every one loved them...no one ordered a pair.  A confusing outcome for the owner and sales people.

The true listening test is simply within one’s own space, not at a show.  Those of us in the active camp are simply trying to share our excitement of conversion.  After all, rare is it that someone has lived in the world of true quality active and then changes teams.

Further, so now it’s being said that you can have an "active" speaker without the amps in the box! 

The JBL M2 doesn't have the amps in the speaker. GGNTKT builds active speakers with all the DSP, amplification,  DAC in an external box. 

Unfortunately phusis, your view towards active speakers is simple, just the replacement of passive crossover to active crossover. There is far more possible in terms of active speaker development that cannot be implemented in this piece-wise fashion.  Not to mention very few have the tools, knowledge, or space to develop their own crossovers effectively. It is not something that can be done by ear, and done well, requires either a large space for effective gated measurement and/or an anechoic chamber. The goal is not "okay" it is great.

@douglas_schroeder --

Further, so now it’s being said that you can have an "active" speaker without the amps in the box! Well, isn’t THAT a revelation! I always thought that was designated a speaker with an active x-over. That opens up questions, doesn’t it? So, you apparently, according to some, do not need the amps in the box to have an active speaker. Huh, I thought the amp right there without cables was supposed to be a huge boon to the result. Apparently in the minds of some, that’s not so important; we can just screw around with the build and no problem, "active" is still better! Of course, no actual comparisons are necessary, as is typical when someone makes conclusions based on mind experiments rather than actual system building. Do we see a pattern here? Of course; the same pattern that plagues the entire hobby and this site.

Yes, an active speaker should have (at least) build-in amps and DSP/electronic cross-over to be called exactly that. However, when pointed out the negatives of not being able to choose your own amps, DSP/elec. XO or even DAC in such a bundled constellation, it implicitly begs: what if we could choose our own electronic devices as a solution of separates that’s so urgently desired, and uphold it as an active set-up? Well, sure we can!

Ask yourself: why be limited to an active speaker as one of a bundled package (that can still be a great one), typically pre-assembled and -configured, when an active configuration is defined through the cross-over being placed prior to amplification on signal level? Yes, cables are likely to be longer with active-as-separates, certainly IC’s depending on the physical config., but you still get the essential benefit of active, and you can get to choose the components YOU prefer - like you would with a passive set-up. Of course: it involves your part to set it up, and so is not one thought out for you - mostly, at least.

I can’t speak for others, but drawing comparisons on passive vs. active would of course entail the active solution having being done to full completion from scratch and to more than hold its own vs. the passive counterpart. More on that below.

I don’t understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active crossover and your choice of amps.

Um, kind of sort of, but not fully. There are a couple of things you are missing:

1 - Crossovers are more than Hz and slope. They also have EQ features and level matching.
2 - You have to remove the internal crossover to achieve all the benefits of an active speaker system, especially higher efficiency.

Consider for instance that most tweeters are padded down because they tend to have a higher sensitivity than their mid/woofer counter parts. That is, there are resistors in there which are converting power to heat. If you remove them, then there’s no such waste.

Next, your external crossover is additive, not in place of the existing crossover and slope, so things get complicated. Now instead of 1 high-pass filter, and 1 low pass filter you have 2 of each.

So, if you do remove the internal crossover, you will also have to make up for any EQ that was built in.

I mean, it’s not a completely useless idea to use an external crossover on a speaker designed to be bi-wired or bi-amped, but it’s also not the same as a fully active system.

Yes it is; filtration prior to amplification on signal level, sans any passive filters between the amp(s) and drivers, is a fully active configuration - be that as a bundled package or one of separates. As separates it isn’t an ’active speaker’ per se, but it’s still fully actively configured.

The speaker set-ups I’ve heard where comparisons between passive and active could be "investigated," were passive speaker set-ups converted to active dittos by wholly extracting the passive cross-over(s), and then adding an external digital XO and more amp channels (plus extra cables). New filter settings were then implemented digitally from scratch, and in some cases with waveguide designs with non-linear acoustic amplification that’s no easy task. My own horns amplify linearly, so that was somewhat easier.

Doing the filter settings by yourself, sans passive filters, involves everything - be that from gain matching between drivers and to the subs, choosing XO frequencies, filter slope type and steepness, delay, PEQ with q-values and their frequency settings and gain, measurements, etc. An arduous task for sure, but it’s a steep learning curve well rewarded, and moreover setting up the cross-over digitally can be done on-the-fly, from the listening position with your laptop/tablet. Once you get a hang of it it’s actually quite freeing.

So, active-as-separates IS fully active when configured as outlined above. Where it potentially involves a lot is on the part of setting up the cross-over digitally by oneself. An intimidating thought for many, as it was for me, but get your head around it and the effort will be rewarded.

Tsunami coming

Active can be better because there is no power lost, nor frequency perversions, from having to use more massive crossovers from amps, versus pre-amps.  This does not mean that the active speakers available are not going to be compromised by manufacturing costs.  Saying that the builder does not do such is naivety in the extreme.

aberyclark :-)

McIntosh could pull it off. I could see a Mac tower speaker with a built in, specially designed amp. Complete with a blue meter below the woofer somewhere. That would get people's attention at lease

Great discussion, but most of the actives you speak to are north of $10 grand, even the PSI Audio if you add their recommended sub. I was trying to keep the whole system to $10K. 

Did someone say active Moabs?

dave_b2,710 posts12-13-2020 2:41pm
So it’s a pissing match...and why?  Buy what you want and enjoy.  But passive is more fun!  Active is deterministic.

Indeed - I'm sure I could live happily with your JBL monitors.
Enough said. 

So it’s a pissing match...and why?  Buy what you want and enjoy.  But passive is more fun!  Active is deterministic.

12-13-2020 dctom86 posts
Thanks douglas_schroeder
HiFi Critic, a respected UK mag, did a comparison between the standard passive ATC 50 and the standard active 50 version.

Worth noting that Martin Colloms appears to have done this 'comparison' based on memory/notes of the previously tested passive version - where he used amplifier/cables that doubled the cost of the active setup.
 
In Neil Gader's TAS review of the ATC SCM50aslt he substitutes the ATC passive crossover + ATC stereo amp for the active tri-amp pack and comments on the differences.
Neil preferred the active version (and bought it).
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/atc-scm50-aslt-loudspeaker/
Anecdotally, I can't recall reading in any forum where an actual consumer compared the ATC active and passive models and preferred the latter, but I guess there must be some(?).

This is of course not to say that a particular passive setup can't outperform some other active one, or be preferred for some personal reason - that would be a ridiculous claim. 
However in an apples to apples comparison active speakers offer many real world performance advantages that make it difficult for  a passive counterpart to compete. 

Studio professional *know* sound, both live and reproduced,


They might know sound but they also gave us the loudness wars. I think a lot of recording engineer's try to change the sound and call it art. I have heard recordings from the 50's that sound better than a lot of the recordings made today, why is that?

Should also point out that we are doing a lot of this when we add an active subwoofer with crossover, but in this case most speakers dont' have a high pass filter (YG being one very weird exception) at the crossover slope.

I don’t understand why you need a speaker manufacturer to build an active speaker, when you can make a lot of speakers active with an active crossover and your choice of amps.

Um, kind of sort of, but not fully. There are a couple of things you are missing:

1 - Crossovers are more than Hz and slope. They also have EQ features and level matching.
2 - You have to remove the internal crossover to achieve all the benefits of an active speaker system, especially higher efficiency.

Consider for instance that most tweeters are padded down because they tend to have a higher sensitivity than their mid/woofer counter parts. That is, there are resistors in there which are converting power to heat. If you remove them, then there’s no such waste.

Next, your external crossover is additive, not in place of the existing crossover and slope, so things get complicated. Now instead of 1 high-pass filter, and 1 low pass filter you have 2 of each.

So, if you do remove the internal crossover, you will also have to make up for any EQ that was built in.

I mean, it’s not a completely useless idea to use an external crossover on a speaker designed to be bi-wired or bi-amped, but it’s also not the same as a fully active system.

Thanks douglas_schroeder
HiFi Critic, a respected UK mag, did a comparison between the standard passive ATC 50 and the standard active 50 version.

http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ATC_SCM50ASL_Review_Hi-Fi_Critic_Sept_19.pdf

M Colloms slightly preferred the timing of the passive version driven by a £20k naim power amp. However the discrete anniversary amp pack is a significant improvement over the standard one used in the review.

No one talks about ABx for speakers because the sonic character is generally enough to easily match x to A or B. Of course AB speaker comparison is very difficult due to movement and positioning issues and accurate volume matching in room without suitable tools or experience. It's almost silly bringing up.

Also silly is to use Legacy as an example, not the most accurate speakers at the best of time and no guarantee that the passive or the active versions are optimum and doubtful Legacy had the knowledge or experience to optimize an active crossover or if DSP, the ADC to be transparent.

The best would be to compare equal priced speakers considered state of the art in both genres and then compare the sound to very neutral headphones as the goal is not to determine what you "like" but what is most accurate. We are not judging flavor here but accuracy.

When I was looking at the tunnings it mentioned do not use on the A500. 

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1J1boZfO10SZ-86ECkn-At338n6xXiz1X

djones51 -  the A500 the A700 are different you can't interchange them

Gee, I didn't pick-up on that, thanks for pointing it out.

Even with actives it's good to get the best FR , to me that's the flattest, with placement and acoustic treatment before using room correction. My room isn't that bad I've only used a few filters below 200hz on passives and actives I've had. 

That links the A500 the A700 are different you can't interchange them.  I've been researching them and the Genelec 8351b. The Buchardt are more consumer friendly which might influence some people, it doesn't really matter to me I'm looking for the best sounding and easiest to integrate within a certain price range. Genelec has their own room correction with the GLM add on. If I had unlimited funds and a larger room I'd look at the Kii3 with BXT. 

djones51 - That would great, please keep me posted.
Are you aware that Buchardt has software available that can change the configuration (and sound) of their active speakers. It's called "Mastertunings" Basically plug & Play.
Here’s the link:

A500 Mastertunings — Buchardt Audio

I also know you are a big proponent of actives, anything else up your sleeve?

High-amp  I've been reading about the Buchardt A700 you mentioned. Not a lot on it but sure looks interesting. I might order a pair they have a 45 day return policy. If I do I'll post some room measurements of them. 

I'm not interested in what speaker was replaced or any other subjective argument. I'll look at the measurements, technology used and the science behind it. I'm not interested in a shrine of equipment amassed in a room. Those days are dying and none to soon. Adios, farewell, bye bye. 

lp2cd - zenproaudio.com - interesting site.

Thanks to all for your on going thoughts on this subject. A great read!

Hmm.....If you go onto YouTube and search 'Guttenberg active speakers'. You'll find he's made three almost identical video rants against active speakers in the past 2 years.
Maybe he's sponsored by the amp and speaker companies? - gotta maintain that status quo.

dctom, nice post; I had not seen your post prior to putting up my thoughts. I think your reply represents the kind of comparison that would be helpful to discuss. :) 

BTW, you discuss the quality of the bass in particular. If there is one area that I feel active could excel, it's in the bass. 

In what follows, my intent is not to get on the bad side of persons in the Pro side of audio. I know some of them in the industry, and have good relationships with them. So, my comments to follow do not reflect universally my opinion of all Pro oriented individuals. 

We have a problem here that is rearing its head, as it does in many sectors of discussion of equipment. Namely, the problem is what I will call "claimed authority". IWO, someone does NOT have experience, but claims authority to make a conclusion as though they had. 

Our post from Ip2cd is a good example. Plenty of denouncement of anyone who thinks otherwise, but then admits he uses passive speakers and seemingly has not done any comparison in his room at home. This kind of claimed authority without actual experience/comparison is perpetuated continuously, and if I am correct, there is quite a bit of it here in this thread. 

I defend Steve in this particular thread, not because I am a fan of his (I do applaud his positive demeanor and friendliness in his videos, and I am not impressed by people who would assault him for his attire, etc., as if that impacts actual system building.), but because having a similar, but independent, experience I concluded the same, that in head to head comparison with the identical form of speaker, the active wasn't impressive. Now, he didn't say it in those words; that's my take on his comment that the active did some things better. It certainly wasn't a rave over the active. 

How about our Pro friends answer this: Just how does comparison to a different speaker entirely settle the question of whether active vs. passive is better? These are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL sound people, and they seemingly can't figure out that the ONLY way to conduct a proper comparison is with the identical speaker active/passive! Instead, they make the same mistake as these others, who BTW notoriously fail to even mention brand and model of passive speaker replaced. 

Hmmm. just a thought. Could it be that the passive speaker replaced simply wasn't that good to begin with? Audiophiles do tend to upgrade, not downgrade. So, how is that variable factored into a claim that active speaker X beat passive speaker Y? How many things screwed up do we want to include in the nebulous claims of superiority? Don't answer; it's not worth my time to point them all out here, but could we possibly say BIAS is a factor in it? No! Couldn't be! 

Notice how none of these active speaker fans are calling for ABX? Huh, one might think that if this was so important, then ABX should be employed to prove active is better. What if... the horror scenario happened, where listeners to a blind comparison were split on preference. You bet it could happen, and I will tell you why. Some would likely in blind listening feel the active had too much detail, was too harsh. 
Now, as a reviewer, I will follow proper procedure and say I do not know the answer, because I have not done the testing. That would be quite professional, you know. It's something our Pro friends here could learn from. You see, we still need reviewers to keep the public honest. 

Further, so now it's being said that you can have an "active" speaker without the amps in the box! Well, isn't THAT a revelation! I always thought that was designated a speaker with an active x-over. That opens up questions, doesn't it? So, you apparently, according to some, do not need the amps in the box to have an active speaker. Huh, I thought the amp right there without cables was supposed to be a huge boon to the result. Apparently in the minds of some, that's not so important; we can just screw around with the build and no problem, "active" is still better! Of course, no actual comparisons are necessary, as is typical when someone makes conclusions based on mind experiments rather than actual system building. Do we see a pattern here? Of course; the same pattern that plagues the entire hobby and this site. 

So, if the X-over is really the big deal, then I refer the community back to my work with the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW, wherein I did extensive comparison of this same speaker (literally the same; it has capacity to operate in active x-over, and has passive x-over built in!) in both active/passive modes and guess which mode was universal superior. Our fans of active speakers would intone, "Well, of course, the active!" Wrong. It was entirely dependent upon the selection of ancillary gear. I could make either the active or the passive outperform. Some common sense might conclude that, but it's tough to have common sense prevail in emotional discussions. Well, now, that was precisely the result that was found by Steve and myself in direct comparison of active speaker to passive speaker. Are we seeing a pattern here? 

Here's the fun part. I will be revisiting the active/passive x-over comparisons again with the Whisper DSW Clarity Edition speakers. I have a new amplification scheme that will bring a wealth of comparisons, insights, etc. One of the planned outcomes is to revisit my prior article, "Audiophile Law: Thou Shalt Not Overemphasize Burn In", wherein I compared new/not warmed up identical components to "burned in/broken in and warmed up components. It was conducted out of curiosity, but has become a direct assault on the hubris that plagues this community. I plan on seeing whether it is upheld, this time with isolation devices in the mix! Trust me, I have fun with these things! I wish to learn, rather than just flap my jaw.  :)

I find it intriguing that our isolation fanatics are quiet. Not a peep from those peeps. They are rabid about the critical nature of isolation, and how one can't begin to optimize a system when there are vibrations. Now look, not a word from them about Steve's observation about vibrations in the cabinet that could affect the electronics! Note that both of these groups, the active fans and the isolation fans, often portray themselves as the "scientific" ones, even going to the point of intentionally using faith illustrations negatively. Yet, imo they are wretchedly unscientific in their method of drawing conclusions. It's the audiophile sin of pride, wherein, when I think I'm right, I don't need to actually test it. Then, the arrogant and ignorant argue over it! How fantastic! What advancement of the hobby and industry! No wonder so many don't take audiophiles seriously. If they operate that way in life, they would be ignored. Here, we have a collection of such individuals all jockeying for importance of their opinions based on nothing more than their expectations. Perhaps you can see why, as a reviewer, I'm not impressed.   :(

If anyone in favor of active speakers would like to address this extended argument by actually showing/discussing the active/passive speakers that were compared in your room, or passive speakers that were replaced by active, it would be appreciated. While it is still not imo an appropriate test to consider active/passive, it may shed light on what is really going on with the claims, i.e. what caliber of passive speakers have been replaced, and by what active speakers. It is at least interesting, a LOT more interesting than one sided declarations without any reference to actual passive speakers replaced! Why do I suspect that won't happen? Perhaps because it would show how weak the arguments of the active fans are. Claimed Authority always seems more impressive when you don't have to show your evidence.  

So, there, I have argued my position on the goings on here. Do you wish to ridicule me, disdain me? Then, of course, we will have the ignorant comments about, "They are selling...," or "They're paid to say that..."I am not paid to write my articles; I have done countless hours of work on them for the love of audio and of course, to get my hands on the gear to build systems. It should not be surprising that is a motivator. I have done my comparisons on these matters voluntarily, as pure personal curiosity, because I like finding out the truth about building audio systems.   :)

Having various passive speakers for around 30 yrs I always remember being impressed by a casual listening experience with ATC 100s active. I was not getting the imaging and three dimensional projection, I had heard from the ATCs, with my own Isobariks and TDL speakers.
I now use ATC 100s with the anniversary amp pack (Ben Lilly from ATC told me these amp packs are as good as their P6 amp). I have a dedicated listening room with an ATC C6 sub and a 18in IB manifold built into the ceiling. This produces the best imaging, lowest, cleanest bass I have heard via hifi, the music sounds real. A saxophonist friend played my alto along with an Art Pepper track - the tonal quality was indistinguishable, only the dynamic quality on loud passages was less.
Over the last few years I went out of my way to listen to some high end speakers at dealers and shows. The pinnacle being Magico M6 driven by constellation monos, tech das TT, ARC phono etc. I felt I was missing little or nothing in terms of detail or dynamics and I had better bass and imaging at home.
Obviously we all have bias and preferences, an audiophile friend does not like the sound of my system. He has travelled far and wide listening to exotic and incredibly expensive systems so has a much wider listening experience. There again, I have listened to a system he does like and heard nothing that made me want to change my own.
Actives are definitely a more cost effective route - it was a way for me to spend more on the front end. I guess if you have unlimited funds you could experiment with endless amp and speaker combinations to obtain the ultimate result.
Like all things in hifi you have to hear it with your own ears to decide.

Both audio2design and tobes are exactly on the money, and that Guttenberg fellow, whoever he is, is just full of both it and himself. When it comes to quality active speakers, Guttenberg is talking nonsense or worse.

Moreover, anyone who trashes a speaker for being a studio monitor is likewise deluding themselves and others. Studio professional *know* sound, both live and reproduced, and with some few exceptions know what tells the truth to them in their studio monitors. And these days, most often that’s an active speaker for all the reasons that others have explained. As a rule, they’re more accurate, a better value for the money, and they simply sound significantly better.

So fine if one’s hobby is listening to gear and EQing one’s system by other means, but I and others are into listening to the music and frankly don’t want the "hear the gear" getting in the way. At any reasonable price point, and by that I mean at least several thousand $, active speakers will deliver significantly more coherent, transparent, and accurate sound.

BTW, PSI makes a svelte floor-standing pure analog active monitor that I would expect would fit ideally into high-amp’s room, the A215-M. https://www.zenproaudio.com/psi-audio-a215-m If I ever find I need to replace my "living room system" (Thiel 2 2 speakers, Classé CA-200 amp, McCormick pre-amp, actively crossed Mirage sub, balanced interconnects & Kimber speaker cables, balanced AC), I’m certain those PSI A215-Ms along with a proper sub would easily match or exceed my current system.