Your thoughts on active loudspeakers

Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive.  Cheap class D are not going to cut it.  Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with.

@andy2 --

Active has some good advantages, but the complexity and the inflexibility make them not worth the trouble. That’s why a majority of speakers are and will still be passive.

Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?  

Whether or not going active, be that bundled/preset or as separates/DIY, is "worth the trouble" is up to each to decide, but I'd wager active being less popular is very much due to conjecture, habitual use and conservativism rather than assessing it, openly, on its own merits and the basis of sound quality. 

Cheap class D are not going to cut it. Full blown active that are any good are just a pain in the a$$ to put up with.

Active configuration renders amplification less vital, meaning cheaper amps in particular will perform somewhat better (and closer to their über-priced brethren) in active config's being given better conditions not looking into a passive cross-over, with all that entails. That doesn't mean you have to go cheap, but conversely going very expensive here won't bring the same potential advantages compared to a passively configured context. The resolving capabilities of active however more clearly exposes changes on the side of the front end, cabling, wall power and such.

Maybe an issue with active config, from the perspective of certain amp manufacturers, is that amps matter less here, but it may also present an issue to those costumers who buys with their expectations and wallets rather than with their ears and assimilating to the proper (active) context. 

Actives as bundled packages aren't complex, on the contrary. The complexity comes into play when you set out to go with a separate component solution with non-preset filter values, which isn't really that complex until filter settings are to be chosen. This route is indeed very flexible, typically more so than your passive counterpart being that the whole chain of components can be selected per individual wishes, with different amps and cables (if so decided) to each driver segment, not to mention that you have carte blanche with regard to optimizing filter settings according to your acoustic environment, components chosen, atmospheric conditions, taste, etc. If any of these parameters change you can do something about it with filter settings; that's a flexibility passive can't touch, albeit at the "expense" of getting to learn of this process. And holding inflexibility against bundled active speakers, from a certain perspective, doesn't seem entirely fair; if one fancies the totality of their sound, why would you want for them to be flexible?  

It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.

With passive, there's nothing to setup.  You just hook to the amp and that's about it.

@andy2 --

It seems pretty complicated the way you described it.

With passive, there’s nothing to setup. You just hook to the amp and that’s about it.

You're asking for conflicting things here:

The way most would approach active, i.e.: as a bundled product, it’s even less complicated as there’s not even amps or possibly a DAC + associated cables to connect and setup. Obviously this robs flexibility.

If you want flexibility from an active setup you’d approach it as a separate component solution, with non-preset filter values if none are available, but this adds complexity per above.

Seems to me it’s about making up one’s mind and stop placing unwinnable roadblocks in your way; if ease of setup and plug-and-play is desired it’s bundled active speakers for you. Conversely if flexibility is sought it’s rolling up one’s sleeves a bit and go the route of separates and prepare to learn about filter settings.

As I said complexity mostly comes into play when setting up filter values. The addition of extra amps and an active cross-over is really the least of it.

The only active speaker I heard that I really liked was the MBL101s. In second place, the Legacy Aeris. I have listened to Avant-garde and active Klipschorns previously, but they did not make me want to jump into the active speaker lifestyle. Note, I stated that the Legacy Aeris and MBL101 were the best active I heard, but not the “BEST” I heard. That testament goes to my recently acquired non active Classic Audio Loudspeakers T1.5 reference. While looking for my next big speaker splurge, and with a substantial budget to help, I listened to everything. To my ears, the T1.5 reference brought to my attention, the immediacy, delicate voice, and instantaneous snap of drums that to my ears, made music sound more realistic and live. To my ears, I could sense the artifact of DSP used with the Legacy Aeris and it just seemed to me that it needed more work and tweaking to get the sound right. This was with the Wavelet DSP device.

Like all things in this hobby, such as tube rolling, subwoofer integration, cartridge and tonearm matching, it takes some work to optimize your system. Going active may have its merits, but it also requires a certain amount of work to get it right. Some people may feel more comfortable at measuring each driver for latency and delay, roll off, phase etc., while others not. Simply powering each driver in a speaker without actually measuring the in-room response could cause other problems. So, it does take more time and effort initially to get active setup in a way that would overcome room speaker artifacts as described above. But, one must do the same with non active speakers as well.
I don’t know if spending time going active, researching amps and/DSPs, measuring each change is worth my time and effort when I have such really great satisfying results with my non active speakers. Granted, I have measured in room response and treated frequency anomalies with appropriate diffusers or absorption material as needed. I would suggest anyone serious about this hobby to at least take the time to measure the room to identity problem frequencies. My room is also built to soundproof specs which also increases my listening pleasure.
At the end of the day, I can’t say that I would disagree with anyone wanting to go active, it would be different in other ways. If it works for you, go for it. It’s not for me, for the reasons stated above, I am out.