Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

I want my system to do what I want it to do not some engineer wants it to do. I have been using digital signal processing since the late 90s and having experimented with hundreds of target curves. I know exactly what I want my system do to. 

The masses have always favored simple all in one systems. KLH made it's name doing that in the 60's. They were surprisingly good but I would have taken K horns and Marantz Model 9's. Not one state of the art system I have ever heard was composed of "active" components. 

Meyer? Give me a break! That is all marketing BS. Meyer is a modern day JBL. I suppose you could do worse.

@sokogear , I don’t disagree. I have speakers from the JBL Studio series (230) in my mancave matched with a Carver AV505 amp. I listened to the JBL LS306 studio monitors at Guitar Center that gets rave reviews. Both designs use trickle down tech from the flagship JBL M2 Monitors. I preferred the passive 230’s by a wide margin. Then you look at the price differential, the 230’s were $400, the speaker wires $200 and the amp $800=$1400 all in. The 306 were about $300 for the pair.

When I flipped it so it was equal ground, Paradigm Studio 20’s (passive) with the same amp and speaker wire vs the Active 20’s (cost of each setup about equal) the actives were better, no contest.

@mijostyn , if some people try targeting DSP curves they get a misfire. I admire your pursuit of perfection but I am way to lazy to do all that testing. If I can get 80% of the SQ with 20% of the time and budget I am good, YMMV.

@kota1  - you are by far in the minority of Audiogon people if you are happy with 80%.Most want 95+%....the next 2-3% is where the steep investment comes in. All acknowledge 100% is impossible. Probably not 99 or 98 either - It is an asymptote type curve of $$ vs. "perfect" (whatever that is) sound.

@donavabdear wrote:

... I don’t think this is controversial at all, I would say that an amp doesn’t have to be designed for the speaker inside the cabinet of the speaker its self but for the system to be it’s best the speaker and amp must be designed for each other. Who could disagree with this idea if the speaker has 5 drivers 2 drivers and the crossovers are passive, active or hybrid the amplifier may not be able to be all that it needs to be for that speaker, amps designed for LF are different than amps designed for HF.

While I’m somewhat in agreement here I’d like to tempt your position of the importance of amp-speaker matching. What exactly is entailed here from your point of view - are we speaking amps matched for very specific drivers in their respective passbands, or is it a more broadly laid out approach with importance of damping factor and high power for LF, less so for MF, quality of lower, less negative feedback wattages for HF and such? In any case an outboard active solution offers the opportunity to go about a variation of matching possibilities between amps and driver sections not only bound by an engineering approach, but one that can also challenge a typically accepted scenario or simply choosing any path one prefers with a wide range of quality outboard amps to whatever speakers may be used. In my own setup I prefer the lower DF (and better full-range) but still power heavy amp for the subs and the higher DF and even more power savvy amp for the midbass section vs. the revers config., just as an example, even though I only really use a fraction of the power available in both cases. The lower wattage class A amp stays on the top section, I might add..

Again, what is meant by amp-speaker matching? More crudely: from one perspective it could be a scenario where the respective inboard amp is designed to do only so much and not more from whatever is asked of it in its frequency span, and yet as best as possible for its task within a given budget. From another it’s an interaction with a specific driver that’s intricately tailored to do something more than if the very driver and its specs hadn’t been taken more closely into consideration in accordance with the amp. I’m inclined to the believe the former scenario is more prevalent while being one that’s still a preferred approach vs. a passive setup, and yet going with an outboard active solution the bar can be raised even further to accommodate each individual’s taste and specific acoustics, while not least being given the opportunity to use class A amps, etc. Certainly as it regards active configuration I don’t buy into the bundled, inboard approach necessarily having any inherent advantages compared to an outboard ditto. 

@sokogear , I was making a reference to the 80/20 rule. By focusing on the 20% of a system that gives you 80% of the results you are going to save time and money. I have active systems in my HT and my desktop and a passive system in the man cave. The active systems are more satisfying and required less effort and budget to setup for the equivalent result. I still like the man cave system though.

My desktop system is a good example of the 80/20 rule. It has a pair of Paradigm Shift A2 active speakers and a Paradigm PW Link preamp with ARC room correction. I have 0 room treatments in my office and no space for a subwoofer or a rack. It was easy to setup and not meant to be end game and doubt I could do better for the $600 investment. This is without room treatments in a less than ideal space for audio. The active speakers use dsp and ARC works really well with them for $600 I would say I got the 20% (the speaker, the amp, and the room) right.