As the music is mainly stored in digital domain, it makes sense to keep it digital as long as possible in the playback chain, so that only one domain transformation is needed. I understand the comments about possible repair costs and hassle in case of speaker-integrated amplifier failure, but I see no reason why the amplifiers could not be made as easily removable units that could be swapped by users. Ditto for digital electronics.
Of course, for those who love separate boxes for maximum flexibility, we could have systems consisting of the following components: A streamer - a DSP (for accoustis correction) - Second DSP(for speaker specific crossovers) - DACs for each driver - Amplifiers for each driver - Speakers(basically just drivers in boxes).
That’s a thing a complete Meridian home theater was this . DSP crossover in each speaker , room correction in the controller for all those speakers. A true 24/96 digital path to 7.1 speakers.
But it’s proprietary and they have fallen behind, they don’t have the latest formats in their own AVP , even if they are horrible expensive. So that’s whats happens if you have a proprietary closed system with only one expensive brand.
And acoustics, sadly I don’t think their speakers are up to what designers with more acoustical knowledge can do.
Even if they are filled with alll the rigth stuff , implementation is still everything.
Yes I would take a well implemented passive speaker over an DSP5200 for example .
I think the acoustics of a given speaker and the drivers are such big factors that you in the end should judge each complete. Implementation on its own merits active or passive.
Even if I in principle thinks that active should be better, but the actual product that fits your needs best may in practice be a passive speaker ?
You can wish that the revel salon was an active design but it’s not , as an example . If I make sense ?