Are active speakers worth it now?

Kind of adjacent to this, I've seen JBL publish the "transfer function" of the crossovers they use in the high end models.  This would allow anyone to recreate the crossovers in an active domain. 

So powered subwoofers are also a bad design?  The same arguments apply to them as to full range loudspeakers.

@erik_squires wrote:

...

That question is literal.  Admittedly these speakers have amps built in so that is one less component and cables to buy, but ahem, those prices leave me unimpressed.  I’m just one minor voice though, so I ask you, A’goners, if you’ve been thinking of going fully active like me and what do you think of the price/performance of the marketplace, both in the pro arena and residential high-end?  Do these prices say "bargain" to you or "simplicity for a price?" 

...

To be clear, I’m not asking if active speakers sound good. 

I’m asking if they are worth the markup to you, and what you felt it compares to that makes it worthwhile. 

To me active configuration isn’t about convenience nor is it a consideration of price, at least as an outset; the thing with active config. I’m looking for mostly is the particular sonic traits that are offered and the overall gain in sound quality active config. can facilitate - be that as an outboard or bundled solution. 

I find it’s misconstrued if the incentive behind choosing active config./speakers is thought mainly to 1) come down to the wish for simplicity or convenience, 2) as a way to cut down cost for a given performance level, or 3) being earmarked exclusively for pro segment audio (with the implication it’s not suitable for "Hi-Fi," to address another post in this thread). From my chair that’s cutting active short. I guess it also depends on one’s entrance to or introduction to active, not to mention being open-minded.

My interest in active was initially piqued when I heard the outcome of a pair of passively configured high quality speakers (that I knew very well in this specific context) being converted to active ditto; i.e.: stripping the passive (and rather massive) XO’s and instead using an outboard digital XO/DSP and ditto amp channels. Supposedly this is about the worst way to assess the fuller potential of active config. being the speaker system wasn’t intended that way from the outset (?), and yet the maneuver turned out advantageous to the ears of all involved. 

To answer your question more specifically: in my go-to segment of actively configured speakers, the pro sector, it’s definitely about having found a quality level that screams ’bargain’ - not least as used items - and so in that regard, yes, price becomes a factor, albeit not as a primary incentive. I’d estimate that a main speaker solution like the one I’m using now with built-in class A/B amps and analogue active filters (bought used) would set me back at least 10x as much with a new, passively configured speaker + amps combination that would even attempt similar traits sonically. 

@inna wrote:

Active speakers is a completely nonsense concept outside pro audio. Isn’t it clear ? You can’t choose your amp. Cost is irrelevant.

Active isn’t defined by being a bundled solution. It can be realized as an outboard active approach as well, and this way you have carte blanche wrt. the choice of components. The tricky part for many with this approach is setting filter values, if they aren’t preset by a manufacturer. 

Active hasn’t ’Pro usage exclusively’ written into it. It’s simply a way to configure speakers differently, a way that holds inherent advantages if done properly - in one segment and the other. 

ATC are pro speakers not audiophile speakers.

Quite a few would question that. What is "audiophile" anyway? Surely not the same to everyone, although from my chair ruling out pro active speakers as being serious candidates for great sound reproduction in a home environment is simply a preconceived stance. 

@ditusa wrote:

I love active speakers. As long as all amplifiers and active crossovers are external of the speakers. 

In my opinion, amps inside speakers are not a good idea because the amps are subject to all the vibrations and air pressure and stray electromagnetic fields from the drivers inside the speaker cabinet. Plus the freedom to change the amps of my choosing. 😎

Mike

Having tried both I find the general claim or blanket statement of built-in amps in a speaker being a disadvantage for named reasons to be speculative at best, and in any case it would depend on the specific implementation. I’m all for outboard actively configured speakers, as you no doubt know by now, but if one’s real goal is sound optimization and there’s the actual experience of having tried both outboard actively and bundled solutions in high quality varieties, then I doubt one would be able to point to the bundled iteration as being inherently at a disadvantage - certainly if it was about singling out the amps as being built-in as the course of this.

As for the opportunity to make filter corrections with an outboard active DSP/electronic crossover (as opposed to a built-in filter with fixed settings) and the advantage this holds in a given acoustic environment, then that’s a valid argument in favor of an external component with accessible filter settings. 

HERE IS THE QUESTION:  What percentage of Active speakers have amp failures vs percentage of separates that have amp failures?

Yes subs have amplifiers, but always outboard with heat fins, and easily replaceable.

How many of us have changed amps several times?  hmmm.... I did. Classe > PS Audio (Stellar and BHK)  > Parasound (Halo and JC1+) > Mola Mola (Makuas) > Audionet (Max monos) . Audionet (Heisenbergs).  Tough to make this journey with actives.  NONE of these amps ever failed; Most never got a chance :).

One factor is that active speakers can have much more complex crossovers that not only perform the crossover function between drivers  but also can compensate for irregularities in the driver response.