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

Why are you telling me what I already know? I never mentioned "powered speakers" I was talking about active speakers with digital active crossovers. Active speakers can have digital and analog inputs and not necessarily be class d but class AB, G or H. With a properly designed active the front end components are not really much of a concern. If you want to see a properly designed modern active look at the Genelec Ones , ATC is still in the dark ages.

DJones51, its difficult to judge your posts when you say "front end components are not really much of a concern on a properly designed active".  Increase resolution at the speaker (via active technology) and resolution of the front end won't matter?  
Brad

I was referring to this. An active speaker with DSP I'm not sure what you mean? 
I've had different active speakers using very different sources I never noticed much difference , I noticed a difference between speakers not what fed them. 

With a properly designed active the differences in the front end are far more dramatic than ever before, yielding just as much fun in experimenting with cartridges, tonearms, DACs, etc. So from my experience, active enables even greater insight into the minute details of recordings and all the associated gear

.

That is not true in my experience. 

I don't think whether its DSP or Analog would affect the outcome either, unless its a low quality (DAC or analog) design masking information.  I guess its certainly possible to hear no difference. 

My preference is not to have a DAC in my speaker, as these designs change constantly. No matter the DAC loaded speaker, the entire package will be obsolete in a year as a new DAC arrives to market that replaces the previous one.  Id prefer to use my own DAC and change that as I see fit.  So analog inputs work for me in light of a sea of constant DAC upgrades.   

Many pro customers have commented to me over the years that not all "active" speakers are very revealing of details.  One can see significant engineering investment into the designers concept of what the "problem to solve" is.  This is of course is fair enough, room acoustics are indeed a huge issue.  High end DSP electronics mated to lower cost OEM drivers may be great at room correction and low on resolution.  While the speaker sounds good in the room it may be poor at revealing the subtle information that many seek.  To my customers way of thinking, this is not good enough.  They want an all out effort in both electronics AND drivers. They will deal with the room as a separate acoustical problem but please please PLEASE make the most revealing speaker possible.

Brad  .        

Back in 1999 I got the idea to build for myself a pair of fully horn loaded speakers with folded corner horns back in the room corners and mid range and tweeter horns out in the room where they would image better.  Because of the time difference caused the distance separation between the woofers and mid range drivers I knew this could only work through the use of DSP.  I eventually settled on a DEQX DSP for time correction, phase correction, speaker correction, room correction and crossovers..  The speakers are triamplified with a channel of amplification for each driver. After building the horns I spent years programming and reprogramming the DEQX and even hired professional help from a DEQXpert before I was fully satisfied.  I initially used all tube amplification before changing to a Pass Labs amp on the woofers and a pair of First Watt stereo amps on the mids and highs.  I also changed bass horns, woofers and midrange (actually wide range) drivers.  My speakers are an active system.  I defy anyone to convince me otherwise.  I could never have made changes I made if everything was stuffed inside the box.