Any thoughts on passive v. active speakers?

There should be no doubt that active systems allow lower levels of IM distortion. It is also fair to say "So what?"....if you believe that IM distortion isn't particularly important. The advantage is still real, tho it will - like most things audio - vary in importance to a given listener. BTW, small active desktop systems can be strikingly good values, for, I believe, just this reason. Obviously, the bandwidth and spl limitations limit their utility.

The biggest problem with active systems in my book is that the selection is limited. Further, the limited # of choices is further narrowed by the fact that most are designed for pro use and are designed to meet those specific needs. Other than the Linkwitz designs, it's hard to find an active system that is dipolar. I don't know of any that are omnidirectional.

I currently use omnis with subs (a hybrid set-up where the mid to bass x-over is active, but the mid to tweeter x-over is passive) in my main system. The passive x-over sits at a highish frequency, so there's no passive x-over directly in the mids. It's a formula that works for me.

In the past, I've gone with fully active systems and fully passive systemsin my listening room. Each has its advantages and - at the moment - I've settled on a compromise. However.....

I also use Sonos for distributed music throughout my home. Five of my Sonos zones use active monitors because I like their "bang for the buck". My own view is that active systems offer compelling value at lower price points. If you're price constrained and are happy with conventional dispersion, active systems definitely deserve a hard look, IMO.

As you spend more and your options expand, personal preference starts to muddy the decision process.

As always....Pick your poison.

Martykl, I like your hybrid crossover set up. Are you all solid state?

If you had a tube amp on the passive crossover and a solid state on the active crossover, do you think the mid/bass frequencies (or wherever the crossovers meet) would blend well?

I'm considering a speaker with passive crossovers & Digital Signal Processing. It's very popular on Audiogon right now and it has an open baffle design.

I'm very interested in these, but I'm concerned that I might loose some of the sonic qualities I like about tube sound.

Is that a valid concern or should I not worry about it?

I'm keeping my tube amp & pre-amp, but I would consider an active speaker for a second system or perhaps as a compliment to my tubes.

I have had a pair of dynaudio bm5 II about 10 years ago... They were alright even though they sounded a bit boxy, and limited in dynamics when played louder than normal conversation level. I would have preferred the equivalent hifi version with a beefy nad integrated.

The speakers I'm considering have no box and the DSP is supposed to optimize your room.

They are bi-ampable so I could use my Krell there and keep my Cary & Atma-sphere up top.

Sounds good on paper, but how are they in the real world? Probably a lightyear ahead of where I am now.

Rogerstillman, does the no box loudspeaker w/ DSP that you are considering have a model name and manufacturer?

Zd, to say that engineering expertise and technical resources is irrelevant is an extreme statement. If high fidelity sound reproduction is the goal, then the manufacturer and the consumer just can't be that far apart.

From an engineering perspective how does R. Vandersteen justify the powered woofers in his upmarket loudspeakers? Wouldn't the same rationale apply to the midrange and treble drivers? From a marketing perspective it could be sales suicide since audiophiles basically reject fully powered loudspeaker systems. I'm just saying that the rejection is not based upon sound quality, but upon the perceived lack of upgradeability.