Active vs passive crossover

@erik_squires wrote:

You missed WHY I was so detailed.

My point was to explain why it is impossible to make blanket statements about the superiority of passive or active speakers. While evaluating a complete system is relatively simple, explaining why there’s no single element here that automatically and undeniably makes one speaker type superior required explanation.

Your first reply to this thread went:

Complexity and the desire to avoid an extra A/D, D/A conversion step are important negatives. If I am the type to want to go out and buy a fancy DAC and amplifier I don’t necessarily want to have the sound quality interfered with by another component I wont’ be able to evaluate as thoroughly.

The problem is your premise: claimed complexity and an extra A/D to D/A conversion representing "important negatives." I tried to explain at least the A/D conversion can be avoided with a digital input, so an A/D conversion step is not necessarily a prerequisite of a DSP. Concerning the "other components," well, the DSP replaces a passive filter situated pre-amplification, so just a substitute here, and extra amps are just that; go with similar ones and it’s just duplication like bi-amping, or mono blocks. I don’t see how that constitutes complexity per se.

And what’re the extra components here that "interferes" - more amps? There are just more amp channels, each of which now feeds its dedicated driver segment without a passive filter in between. Any which way you want to bend this, that’s a big benefit. The passive filter in itself on the other hand is one heck of an interference, as it keeps the amp from "seeing" the driver directly and controlling it optimally. The DSP here gets out of the output way and functions on signal level instead.

So how does the DSP itself interfere sonically? You mention A/D to D/A conversion as a negative, and I’m saying that as taking over the place of a passive cross-over it’s the least of your problems. Forest for the trees, as they say.

While evaluating a complete system is relatively simple ...

Then why not keep it at that? It seems to me your dodging this simple approach is because you’re stuck with theorizing instead of actually trying out active configuration in your own primary setup, and this is where the real element of complexity may arise: setting filter values by yourself in the digital domain. If however you can deal with DIY speakers and passive cross-over using your ears is the final "tool," you sure as hell are able to take on a DSP and make filter settings on the fly in your listening position.

Active configuration is new to many if not most, but the real hurdle seems to be getting started in the first place and break down those presumptions.

Then why not keep it at that? It seems to me your dodging this simple approach is because you’re stuck with theorizing instead of actually trying out active configuration in your own primary setup,

Wow, you so misread me it’s sad. I’ve never disagreed with this approach nor have I dodged it. When comparing a specific implementation this is the right approach. That’s not what the OP asked though, and you keep trying to answer the wrong question, and seem to be policing me for not answering YOUR version of the OP’s question. That’s not going to work.

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

I have a long history of using active and passive speakers.  The active setups I've used, configured or built involved both digital and analog crossovers in home and professional setups, but you keep trying to school the wrong schoolmaster. Maybe you can stop policing my answers now, @phusis because at the end of the day it just seems you want to be contrarian for no particular reason.

@erik_squires wrote:

Wow, you so misread me it’s sad. I’ve never disagreed with this approach nor have I dodged it. When comparing a specific implementation this is the right approach. That’s not what the OP asked though, and you keep trying to answer the wrong question, and seem to be policing me for not answering YOUR version of the OP’s question. That’s not going to work.

Some leeway from original topics is acceptable, you know that, yet it's obviously more convenient to admin-police yourself instead of addressing my remarks.

My approach is simply disagreeing with your take on why active has less in store for it, with your reference to complexity and the A/D to D/A conversion step. While replying to this thread and more precisely addressing the OP should be trying to answer on behalf of the companies that generally avoid going the active route, it's clearly your own views you're expressing and your (or another audiophile's) reservations going active, and that's totally OK to me. As such I'm merely addressing them. So, in all fairness I believe we're both a bit off-topic here. 

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

Your answer is just as absolute, don't you see it? Hypothetically, why wouldn't active be better, or passive for that matter? Why this staunch adherence to "there is no better" when there could very well be a better part of the two in vital aspects of sound reproduction? 

I have a long history of using active and passive speakers.  The active setups I've used, configured or built involved both digital and analog crossovers in home and professional setups, but you keep trying to school the wrong schoolmaster. Maybe you can stop policing my answers now, @phusis because at the end of the day it just seems you want to be contrarian for no particular reason.

I'm not a contrarian, I simply disagree on your views expressed to far, with the arguments laid out by me already. 

Your answer is just as absolute, don’t you see it? Hypothetically, why wouldn’t active be better, or passive for that matter? Why this staunch adherence to "there is no better" when there could very well be a better part of the two in vital aspects of sound reproduction?

You want to walk around in a circle.  You argue against my statement that there's no better because there's no specific, then you argue I should use specific examples, and then you say  either view is an absolute and should not be used.

Have fun running in circles, @phusis

@erik_squires wrote:

You want to walk around in a circle. You argue against my statement that there’s no better because there’s no specific, then you argue I should use specific examples, and then you say either view is an absolute and should not be used.

Have fun running in circles, @phusis

More like a self-induced vertigo on your part. At several junctures I sought to have you have elaborate on your stance when faced with my views, but all you care to do is call me in the wrong as having misunderstood you or not replying to what the OP inquires about.

As your wrote:

The OP asked a hypothetical and my nuanced answer is to explain why a an absolute answer is not possible. There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications.

Strictly speaking, how’s your reply above an answer to the OP’s actual question (which btw. is not "hypothetical," but refers to a factual matter) "why the vast majority of companies in this industry still chooses the passive route"? Instead you hone in on the OP’s claim (the claim that spurs on the OP’s above question to begin with) about the active DSP route generally being considered the best sounding. That’s what I chose to respond to as well, though not the OP’s claim but rather your opposing take that "There is no absolute "better" for active or passive in home applications." Alright?

If your takeaway from the fact that most companies still chooses the passive route is that there’s no absolute better between passive and active (so why bother with active?), then I disagree. That choice, to my mind, mostly boils down to convenience and convention, and adhering to the market that’s still most pronounced.

As it is, buying bundled, active speakers is really reducing complexity compared to a passive setup, whereas the active-as-separates solution with preset filter values in an included DSP is more akin to putting together a passive system. Such manufacturers could either be selling amps for the speakers they find the right partners (like Sanders Sound), or they could recommend amps for buyers to consider.

The real complexity part (and this is where I would agree with you) is setting up an active-as-separates system by yourself, that is to say first and foremost setting up filter values on your own, and to a lesser degree choosing the amps and active XO - be that a DSP solution or other analogue electronic XO.

What’s really the most complex part is finding the right filter values in conjunction with measurements, speaker placement and acoustic implementation, as you may know, whereas the rest is not much different from choosing components to your passive setup. If anything amp-speaker matching is actually easier with an active setup, it just requires more amps.

To sum up, and even an admission: yes, my "blanket statement" - which is not to speak on behave of others (other than several audio-friends of mine) but merely to express my own experience in a specific context - is that a carefully implemented active-as-separates system handily beats a passive ditto, period (and I have the experience with a range of setups comprising the same speakers being converted from passive to active, to back that up). Everything can be tailored to the specific environment and driver segments with the amps that feed them, and the DSP filter settings can accommodate much more elaborately and not least more precisely a range of aspects that passive filters can only dream of.

Take it or leave it, Erik; blanket statements to some are just fully formed assessments to others that don’t mind calling things for what they are, be that better or worse. Why is that so provocative to you? :)