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

I am shocked, shocked there’s misinformation from Steve Guttenburg. How could anyone with such great taste in attire possibly misinform?

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.

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.

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.   :)

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.