Active or passive?

@ctsooner very interesting... have you heard any active ATC models?

@wolf_garcia  it's the same for me; although I'm running D class at the moment, I'll be switching to tube very soon...

I must saying  that @soix is correct here:

You need not have DSP involved in an active speaker.

My bad. Given recent discussions I misinterpreted the OP, as wanting to convert existing speakers.  And while again, this can be done in the analog domain, replicating a crossover with EQ features is far more than the average audiophile would do in the analog domain. 

Yes, you can build line-level active, analog crossovers of any complexity, but really only the pros and EE geeks would want to.  For everyone else, there is DSP. :) 

Best,

E

Infection, Yes I've heard many of their models over the years.  They are intriguing speakers, but not my cup of tea. 

George, what I meant is that there are some active speakers I"ve listened to that I didn't like the voicing. Even in passive mode it wouldn't have mattered.  (there was a German pro speaker that also make home audio and they had fully active as well as passive).  I just didn't like the speakers, but in active mode, they sounded so much better and it was more than just the bass, but I get what you are saying. :) 

Neither way is right or wrong and that's the fun of audio.

George, what I meant is that there are some active speakers I"ve listened to that I didn’t like the voicing. Even in passive mode it wouldn’t have mattered.

I’ve done a lot of this with very reviling ESL’s >150hz with dynamic bass drivers <150hz, for me in active mode for mids and highs you’ve suddenly added two hand fulls of "active components opamps ect", compared to just half a dozen passive components in passive mode, "active sterilizes" mids and highs compared to "passive". But for bass the active is better.

Cheers George