Single way or multiway

@bache 

The whole point of the Tang Band 8" is to use them as full range speakers.  They do measure with an up tilt in frequency response so probably best listened to flat against the wall instead of toed in. 

Still, we all hear differently. 

I'm not familiar with your specific listening standards, but to avoid harshness in the high frequencies, I found it necessary to remove the whizzer cone. The whizzer tends to exaggerate the treble, especially when paired with certain tweeters.

In this setup, I integrated a Fostex tweeter for better high-frequency performance. Using an RTA program with measurement microphone, I confirmed that the whizzer cone was introducing too much energy in the upper range, which negatively affected the tonal balance. Removing it resulted in a much smoother response.

@bache We're on the same page with whizzer cones! They are far more likely to have breakups of their own. I tried to find a version of the driver that didn't have one but as you know, to no avail. I don't play those speakers very loud and my crossover rolls the highs out of the Tangband (to help keep a nice impedance curve) but I've not had the guts to go after the whizzer. How do you do it? That strikes me as very easy to make a mess of it! 

@atmasphere 

My first version of the Tribeca used the Tang Band W8-1808 driver. However, I had issues achieving a flat frequency response after cutting the whizzer cone, and visually it didn’t look great either.

Later, I switched to the W8-2145, which gave me a much better sound overall. I also added a dust cap to cover the imperfections and improve appearance.

You can check my website to see how it looks now.

@sns wrote:

I suppose most don’t fret about their passive crossovers since the loudspeakers they’ve chosen provide contentment. The importance of knowing the specs of one’s speakers and providing sympathetic amplification mitigates most issues.

I’ve not seen empirical evidence that provides universal superiority of minimalist passive or active crossovers vs more complex crossovers. Speaker designers  are pretty sophisticated these days, have many drivers, crossover components to choose from, based on listeners experience I trust they know what they’re doing. If what you propose is clearly superior don’t you think they’d go down this path?

Issues that to some are deemed mostly "mitigated" with a passively configured speaker scenario and its amplifier partnering, to others - like knowing the difference active configuration can make - is a potentially flawed approach. Of course to compare the active vs. passive speaker scenario in any way meaningful one should ideally use the same speakers in the same listening environment and overall gear; typically passively configured speakers to begin with that are stripped of their crossovers, extra outboard amp channels added to feed each driver section of the speakers (preferably the same amps as the one already used in the passive context, as an outset simply to serve the purpose and experiment to get a clearer bearing on the sonic differences between the two types of configuration to more effectively isolate the one thing that’s investigated here), a quality DSP/digital crossover or analogue electronic ditto, and then a filter preset ideally made by the original designer of the speakers (in, ideally, the specific listening room and at the listening position) that draws on the opportunities and advantages that an active crossover offers. Speaker re-positioning and acoustics tweaking may be needed to best accommodate filter setting changes compared to the passive version.

Now we’ll be able to better assess the difference active configuration can make, and in each of these instances and under the conditions just described above (except from setting the filter values actively that weren’t done by the speaker designers themselves, though in the specific listening room at the LP) where I’ve heard this conversion from passive to active the latter has won - hands down. Truly, to me and the other attendees it was no contest. 

Some may balk at the need for more amplifier channels, like tripling the amp count for a 3-way setup, but that’s simply what active configuration necessitates; one dedicated amplifier channel directly connected to each driver section with no passive crossover parts in between, meddling with the interface. Of course you don’t need to multiply the number of the same amp(s) you’re using already for an active setup, but could instead apply a power differentiated approach from top to bottom with less individually powerful amps that accumulates into a power capacity that’s suitable. It’s worth noting though that an amp’s power capacity and overall performance is much better utilized actively, and so overall you may need less power (and even general quality) overall.  

Bundled, active speakers don’t always appeal to audiophiles, who like to make their own choices with amplifiers, DAC’s and cables, not to mention that many don’t feel built-in amps and DAC’s comply with their quality standards - be it conjecture or not, and irrespective of the advantages an active package may offer. Outboard actively you can do whatever you please with the choice of components and even filter settings, but in most such cases you’re left to dealing with setting filter values by yourself or with the help of others, which to many if not most is a deal breaker. Few speaker manufacturers offer outboard active solutions with preset filter values, and from their chair demand is likely(?) still limited.

Paradoxically it seems many feel amp matching with speakers outboard actively is a problematic and/or complex issue, but from a certain perspective it’s actually the other way ’round; passively amp matching is much more critical, whereas actively you are offered many more options and opportunities to specifically tailor your amp to driver choices. Potentially more complex, yes, but you’re always better off pairing an amplifier to a speaker actively with the negation of the passive crossover between the amp and speakers.

The actual frame of reference of active speaker configuration to go by for the consumer and how to assess its potential vs. a passive speaker scenario from a more practical/pragmatic perspective is fairly diffuse, to put it mildly, and in light of that it’s understandable why many may not feel convinced about the merits of active, if they even care to navigate in this field to make a proper assessment (and so, and this is important: it falls back on the audiophile him or herself to be willing to investigate and put some effort into active configuration and its intricacies to realize its potential). If people are happy with their passively configured speakers, then that’s all that matters. If however curiosity into an outboard active speaker scenario gets the better of you, go explore and find out what it can offer. Indeed: from my chair it appears quite a few audiophiles have an entrepreneurial spirit, so why not invest some energy into this area?

"Some may balk at the need for more amplifier channels, like tripling the amp count for a 3-way setup, but that’s simply what active configuration necessitates; one dedicated amplifier channel directly connected to each driver section with no passive crossover parts in between, meddling with the interface."

You can have an active crossover and still use passive components between the amp and speaker to "meddle with the interface" to improve the results by "fixing" flaws in the original.