Your thoughts on active loudspeakers

Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?  

It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.

With passive, there's nothing to setup.  You just hook to the amp and that's about it.

@andy2 --

It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.

With passive, there’s nothing to setup. You just hook to the amp and that’s about it.

You're asking for conflicting things here:

The way most would approach active, i.e.: as a bundled product, it’s even less complicated as there’s not even amps or possibly a DAC + associated cables to connect and setup. Obviously this robs flexibility.

If you want flexibility from an active setup you’d approach it as a separate component solution, with non-preset filter values if none are available, but this adds complexity per above.

Seems to me it’s about making up one’s mind and stop placing unwinnable roadblocks in your way; if ease of setup and plug-and-play is desired it’s bundled active speakers for you. Conversely if flexibility is sought it’s rolling up one’s sleeves a bit and go the route of separates and prepare to learn about filter settings.

As I said complexity mostly comes into play when setting up filter values. The addition of extra amps and an active cross-over is really the least of it.

The only active speaker I heard that I really liked was the MBL101s. In second place, the Legacy Aeris. I have listened to Avant-garde and active Klipschorns previously, but they did not make me want to jump into the active speaker lifestyle. Note, I stated that the Legacy Aeris and MBL101 were the best active I heard, but not the “BEST” I heard. That testament goes to my recently acquired non active Classic Audio Loudspeakers T1.5 reference. While looking for my next big speaker splurge, and with a substantial budget to help, I listened to everything. To my ears, the T1.5 reference brought to my attention, the immediacy, delicate voice, and instantaneous snap of drums that to my ears, made music sound more realistic and live. To my ears, I could sense the artifact of DSP used with the Legacy Aeris and it just seemed to me that it needed more work and tweaking to get the sound right. This was with the Wavelet DSP device.

Like all things in this hobby, such as tube rolling, subwoofer integration, cartridge and tonearm matching, it takes some work to optimize your system. Going active may have its merits, but it also requires a certain amount of work to get it right. Some people may feel more comfortable at measuring each driver for latency and delay, roll off, phase etc., while others not. Simply powering each driver in a speaker without actually measuring the in-room response could cause other problems. So, it does take more time and effort initially to get active setup in a way that would overcome room speaker artifacts as described above. But, one must do the same with non active speakers as well.
I don’t know if spending time going active, researching amps and/DSPs, measuring each change is worth my time and effort when I have such really great satisfying results with my non active speakers. Granted, I have measured in room response and treated frequency anomalies with appropriate diffusers or absorption material as needed. I would suggest anyone serious about this hobby to at least take the time to measure the room to identity problem frequencies. My room is also built to soundproof specs which also increases my listening pleasure.
At the end of the day, I can’t say that I would disagree with anyone wanting to go active, it would be different in other ways. If it works for you, go for it. It’s not for me, for the reasons stated above, I am out.

@audioquest4life --

I don’t know if spending time going active, researching amps and/DSPs, measuring each change is worth my time and effort when I have such really great satisfying results with my non active speakers. Granted, I have measured in room response and treated frequency anomalies with appropriate diffusers or absorption material as needed. I would suggest anyone serious about this hobby to at least take the time to measure the room to identity problem frequencies. My room is also built to soundproof specs which also increases my listening pleasure.
At the end of the day, I can’t say that I would disagree with anyone wanting to go active, it would be different in other ways. If it works for you, go for it. It’s not for me, for the reasons stated above, I am out.

I wouldn't want to come across claiming that every serious home audio reproduction "adventurer," for him/her to actually be serious, should pursue active as the one and only route achieving great sound. Mostly what it comes down to, to me, is letting people know that active configuration, one way or the other, holds great and different potential, and that in the face of many audiophiles effectively dismissing active for reasons that seem.. shall we say, questionable. 

In your specific context I can only imagine the T1.5 Reference model from Classic Audio Loudspeakers (with associated equipment + acoustics) to be extremely well-sounding and versatile - I've certainly always been intrigued by their range of speakers and endeavor at large. Being as happy with their sound as you appear to be I wouldn't change anything, let alone convert them into active config. Not that it wouldn't be interesting to explore their performance envelope this way, but as is in their current passive state I'm sure they've been optimized into a very capable package. 

@phusis 

”I wouldn't want to come across claiming that every serious home audio reproduction "adventurer," for him/her to actually be serious, should pursue active as the one and only route achieving great sound. Mostly what it comes down to, to me, is letting people know that active configuration, one way or the other, holds great and different potential, and that in the face of many audiophiles effectively dismissing active for reasons that seem.. shall we say, questionable.”

I agree…it is when things that are not understood, such as not knowing the vast capabilities of active speakers which causes or propagates the idealism that active is hard and challenging…it is different and one needs to use the proper tools like other aspects in this hobby to achieve optimal results.

Here is my analogy with a robust active setup using advanced DSP and measurement equipment; like sports car tuning, where you map each rpm with the air/fuel mixture to maintain steady air/fuel flow across the rpm range as it increases…I would envision a properly setup active solution would incorporate a relatively good frequency plot in the room as the volume levels increase. Most room measuring is done at a static loudness reference point of about 80db and that’s fine and dandy for a measured and tuned response at that level. But, when volume goes up, room modes get excited or exacerbated more, and the static tune, let’s say for subs only, will have to deal with an increase in output levels which will skew the tuned plot at anything above 80db. A property tuned active speaker solution should be able to ameliorate this affect as volume goes up by accounting for the volume level increasing and it’s effect on the frequencies in room mode excitation because measured bass response in the room is not the same at 95db vs 75db…it’s just physics. As the output level increases so does the amplitude of any and all frequencies. This is where I think active makes it money. 
The above remark about MAP tuning in cars is still fresh in my mind. Had a laptop plugged into the OBD connector with a customizable tune and a buddy sitting in the passenger seat of my Corvette Z06 with said laptop as he monitored me go from 75mph to 185 mph as he filled in the variables for each rpm to maintain correct air/fuel while driving on the Autobahn. That was so analog, now, you can get a real dyno tune with live feedback of HP at RPM. 

Thanks by the way, and yes, no issues with the T1.5s providing exceptional sound. Since I am a hobbyist, I also spent time and money to ensure that the environment, room, had the least amount of frequency smearing anomalies as measured at 80db (probably should measure at 90db😀), at the listening position. They are field coil speakers with exceptional speed and dynamics. Unfortunately, many folks don’t take the time to understand or don’t know that in order to maximize your listening experience, it’s going to take some work either way. A true plug and play solution exists for those who don’t know, don’t care, or are happy with as is. Either way, one can find great pleasure in either speaker solution as long as it is optimized properly within their listening environment.