@ghdprentice --
"There is an economic aspect of active speakers that has a big impact on the market. In general, creating the best system possible at say $25K, $50K, or $200K… typically speakers would be the most expensive investment. You start adding more functions to speakers like amplification, then they get even more expensive. Most audiophiles are not rich enough to just plunk down 50% of there final investment or more in speakers. But they work over time to get there. There is an economic advantage in being able to get the best speakers at any given time and upgrade the amp and other aspects as money becomes available.
So, for the time being this is a real headwind for companies creating active speakers. Less competition, higher cost… smaller niche… I can’t see anything changing this soon."
It’s not an apples to apples comparison factoring in all components here, and the accumulated price this leads to. Part of the advantage with an active design is that both amps and drivers will be given better conditions to work from with the omission of a passive cross-over. I’ve heard excellent active setups with amps so cheap you’d normally never associate with sound that good, and this also points to how amps matter less with active setups. An important reason why amps sound relatively different in passive constellations is to which degree they’re impervious to load, but with the negation of an often complex passive cross-over and amp-to-driver direct coupling the swings in amp performance are somewhat ameliorated, meaning cheaper amps can sound great here and the more expensive alternatives offer less of an uptick in performance - or at least one may not deem it worthwhile in light of the SQ level with cheaper amps. To boot the driver cones are better handled now that the dedicated amps sees them directly, often resulting in less smear and a more transiently clean and resolved sound.
What most don’t seem to realize, still, is that an active design isn’t defined by it being a bundled all-in-one speaker package with amps and all. Active means the filtering is done prior to amplification on signal level, not on the output side of the amp between that and the drivers as a passive network. Naturally an active design can be one where the amps, electronic cross-over/DSP and DAC(s) can be situated as separate components and externally to the speakers - a designer could fully opt for this with preset filter values and recommended components, if he wanted to! Most don’t, however, but that doesn’t mean such a solution can’t be pursued as a DIY approach where one can choose whatever separate components one prefers. Yes, you would have to do filter settings yourself, but why not take tweaking and customization to the next level?
Think about the freedom one is afforded once you get accustomed to handling filter setting by yourself; sitting in your listening position with your laptop or tablet you can make filter setting changes on the fly both getting to learn and further optimize the sound to where you want it to go. You can tailor your system to sound more to your specific liking and acoustics with an extra set of important tools here that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to with passive speakers, and this doesn’t exclude being able to choose every single piece of component in the chain, should you want to. I’m using a Class-A amp for the midrange (~600Hz) on up and Class-D variants for the range below that; quality of wattage where it matters most, and sheer brute force where it’s mostly in demand.
Active configuration as a solution of separates holds the possibility of having your cake and eat it too, it’s just a matter of having an open mind and knowing of that possibility, wanting to explore it, and get on with it.
