Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

@mijostyn , the bottle neck in your system is two fold. The TACT is like from the prior century and why not take advantage of Moores Law? (Look it up). The other problem is your subs are too big for your system, they bounce around (unacceptable) and can integrate better with your speakers. This is a good resource:

@mijostyn , you have two people @donavabdear and me, who work professionally in the field, both apparently with physics backgrounds. As well I (and apparently @donavabdear) have worked with other physicists, acoustic experts (often physicists) and engineers who also have significant expertise. I provided you with some links that explain, at as basic a level as I could, that what you think is happening and what is happening, are not the same. You can do with that as you wish. You can try to increase your knowledge, or not. Your choice. People often minimize the complexity of things they do not understand. I am sure you experience that in your own career.

@thespeakerdude 

As well I (and apparently @donavabdear) have worked with other physicists, acoustic experts

Please, you are an interesting member, I like your posts but you have to put up some kind of proof if you want to start boasting about your creds. @donavabdear posted his creds, I never claimed to have any creds so at least posted my system to show I can walk the talk of what I am claiming as experience. You have done neither and that is just not going to fly if you want to claim your brilliance here.  So, you either gotta post some creds and post your system so we know you just aren't making it up as you go. Please, don't start dragging other members into your personal diatribe with @mijostyn , the mud splatters OK?

@lonemountain wrote:

A very interesting mix of perspectives in this thread! I agree with you Phusis, a lot of ways to "get there". It does baffle me why audiophiles disike amps inside the speaker, as though this is somehow more detrimental to sound than the massive hunk of copper hung on the amplifier’s outputs, completely hiding the speaker.

(some of following is a rant not aimed at you) As compared to a passively configured speaker here, yes, I fully agree with you. For my own part, in principle, I don’t dislike when amps are built inside active speakers, it’s the claims of amp-driver matching via bundled solutions I find can be taken out of context for what it really is, and what could as well, fundamentally, be accommodated in an outboard active setup, if you even had to.

I mean, one may have way more than enough power from the amp connected to the HF section in a active outboard setup, but it sounds great so why "match" the HF section with a less power savvy amp - does it actually make a difference for the better in perceived sound? Maybe the added headroom could in fact be the better bi-product of something that is "more than enough."

Whereas in a bundled solution a MFR wouldn’t want to shell out more dough than necessary on the amps used, and so amp-driver "matching" not least comes down to power differentiation to the different driver sections, also to save space inside the speaker in addition to thermal considerations which may dictate more efficient amp principles for those reasons alone.

Amp-driver matching as claimed here is often very dubious, because what does it entail? "Oh, we can’t tell you being it’s a business secret." Bollocks. What’s ’fundamental’ with active config. is getting rid of the passive cross-over for amp-driver direct control; THAT in itself is the main takeaway to savor and apparently too straight forward a boon to speak of, and so additional matching parameters, by some, are esoterically flaunted and heralded as core aspects that supposedly make the real difference.

Give me a break, and not least some perspective. Those of us choosing an outboard active solution mayn’t have the R&D capacity of a MFR, however we aren’t bound by a business model that adheres to a bottom line and that has to take size restrictions and market specifics into consideration - not to mention convenience. Most importantly we get the fundamentals of active configuration whilst having free reigns to choose whatever components we prefer in further matching actions, from whatever brand in whatever size, design principle, shape and price we see fit to our own ears; you still get the core and most important benefits of active, yet on a potentially unlimited physical canvas to paint on.

Something tells me a primary reason why active ATC speaker models are so coherent and well sounding is due the consistency of their excellent, in-house and carefully manufactured drive units being coupled to what’s essentially the same, quality class A/B amp sections, just scaled in accordance to the driver sections they’re feeding. That’s how it’s been for years - decades even - fairly unchanged and with no crass PR efforts or claimed "cutting edge" new tech nor dubious matching parameters to sell their product. They may be old school in that respect, but to hell with that: to this individual’s ears they’re still among the very best out there of the bundled solutions (along with Meyer Sound).