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

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?

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. 

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

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.