Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

@mijostyn 

Advantages of Powered speakers

1. Each driver is optimized by t’s own amp
2. Better transient response
3. No speaker cables
4. No crossovers after the amp
5. No speaker level crossover design problems
6. Amps designed for impedance of the driver
7. Amps designed for proper power handling of driver
8. Amps are more efficient designed for a smaller power window
9.  
10. Amp is directly connected to the driver
11. Amp dampens the voice coil perfectly
12. Amps can be up to ½ the power (lest cost more reliability)
13. No loss between amp and driver
14. Better size vs. output ratio
15. Speakers are tuned by the designer
16. More accurate than random amp / driver combos
17. Better frequency response
18. Better phase response

These are just what I can think of off the top of my head, arguing against powered speakers is saying a random amp and speaker can sound better than a synergisticly designed amp driver system.

Powered speakers used at concerts.

Meyer Sound (first hand experience with them, great)

JBL (great, but not as good as Meyer)

QSC (have always been good)

Again I’m talking about best practices not cheep speakers.

@mijostyn Thank you for the wonderful piano music. Oscar Peterson is of course on of my favorites and I liked the recording, the Maurizio Pollini recording is as you said as if you were in the concert hall from a further distance. Like modern music I guess I prefer close mixing this is because of the multitrack recorder and close miking with proximity effect, I do prefer that sound. The Oscar Peterson recording kept making me think of George Winston so I played GW after I listened to Oscar and the miking technique was nearly the same. December is the biggest solo piano album ever and the imaging is harder to pin down because GW keeps his foot on the sustain peddle so much but the time. The left side sounds farther than the right side just like the Oscar Peterson recording. Oscars recording was from the perspective of the player the panning was 180 degrees. Oscar is the most effortless player ever in my mind, I really enjoyed the deep listen. Thank you.

Wow! The topic has seen more threads than a vintage Singer sewing machine.

You picked a good subject @donavabdear

The subject of active vs passive also involves manufacturing efficiencies and economics. It reminds me of the old days when, as a dealer, we were asked why separates cost more than a receiver. Putting aside the fact that there were usually better parts inside, there are also factors involved in producing 3 pieces instead of one.

- 3 chassis instead of 1

- 3 faceplates

- 3 on/off switches

- 3 shipping cartons

- 3 sets of packing materials

- 3 sets of service literature

- 3 sets of promotional materials

- 3 cartons shipped instead of 1

And, it goes on and on.

So, ALL things being equal (driver quality, amplifier, cabinet integrity, etc.), an active system would cost much less than separates. Or, theoritically, produce a better result at the same price point.

However, taking the cost, form factor, weight and other constrains out of the equation, the question becomes if a stellar amplifier coupled with superb raw drivers can overcome the added inefficiencies and distortions caused by exotic passive crossover components? And, that is the real question in my humble opinion.

@waytoomuchstuff

So, ALL things being equal (driver quality, amplifier, cabinet integrity, etc.), an active system would cost much less than separates. Or, theoritically, produce a better result at the same price point.

+1, I would add a better result than a passive setup at even a higher price point for all the reasons you stated. This is confirmed by designer Andrew Jones in one of my previous posts in this thread. If you only have two speakers, maybe not such a big deal to splash the extra cash. When you have a HT of 5 or more speakers that splash of cash can become a tsunami that you could have used on better source components, room treatments, preamp, etc.