Let me reiterate the “wondered” part. Thinking out loud, if you will. And note that nearly all speakers could be lumped under that statement, sans a few.
That's fair, not trying to put words in your mouth. The debate was renewed in the Neuman 420 thread and listed as a potential benefit and since I'm getting a pair of the monitors and a 3 channel amplifier it felt like a good way to dip my toes into active speakers and test the hypothesis (since it's already known good cabinet design, speaker choice, etc it's changing fewer variables). I noticed Perlstein made a big deal of it in their S series with the step back.
I never understood that comment. There's no evidence we can here any advantage to transient perfect designs, and there are only a handful of them out there.
Which is why I was wondering if a modification would be in order because I'm not going to buy a whole new set of (very expensive) speakers to test what might be a null result in the end
The other benefit of having direct active control of the individual speakers is to also control the impulse response I think, but I don't know enough about that to say it can be done with just active control of the + signal and not the - to control the coil excursion in both directions.
For anyone who is wondering there is no need to defeat the passive crossover but use an FIR filter to remove the passive filters excess group delay and get a perfect anechoic step response. If you do prepare to be underwhelmed
I thought the cross over region in a passive design would make it difficult to time delay for individual speakers since the signal is not cleanly broken unlike an active cross over?
