Why aren't component active XOs more popular?

Suits me: Have you ever seen serious test results from most "audiophile" speakers? The mass majority aren't nearly as well designed or integrated as one might think. "Audiophile grade" loudspeakers are one of the highest profit margins out there ( outside of cabling ) with the least design integrity behind them. That's why DIY speakers and forums discussing such things are so ripe for the picking with useable information. As such, experimentation in this area can typically result in steps forward in both sound and one's sonic education. So long as any "modification" is easily reversed, there's really nothing to lose here other than pre-conceived notions and an education about modifications that many consider to be "taboo". Sean
>

Sure, a lot of manufactured speakers are junk. So's a lot of diy stuff.

Anyway, here's the last two lines of my post:

>In terms of sound quality, it makes no sense whatever to with entry level, non diy electronics or speakers. In terms of being able to play around...maybe it makes sense.

What I meant and thought I said was, "It makes no sense whatever to with entry level, non diy electronics or [non diy] speakers." I thought the second "non diy" was implicit, and I could say why, but perhaps it's ambiguous.

Suits me: I've recently been talking to a couple people that are attempting to run active crossovers on commercially built passive speakers. The more that they dig into it, the more that they realize that this is going to be a lot of work. As such, i agree that most multi-way designs with complex crossovers are best either left alone OR simply upgrading the passive circuitry that's already there with higher grade parts. Sean
>

Well, first, answering that active crossovers are superior does not address the question posed: Why aren't they more common?

And active crossovers are not the best solution for every budget or speaker or circumstance, particularly if not included in the design from the ground up, a distinction the thread has already touched on. Actively driven speakers have never done that well with consumers for these and other reasons despite their many technical advantages over passively driven ones, all other things being equal, to take a near cousin example.

>Of course if you open up your speaker and find an overly complex
xover you know one thing for sure: The drivers are not really suitable to run
together! If you know the optimal operating range you already know
the necessary slopes and crossoverpoints.

This will come as news to Thiel, Vandersteen, many of the Joseph Audio models over the years, North Creek Acoustics, Clements and I'm going to go out on a limb and opine also to Apogee, DeVore and old Snell Type A. So, they're all junk. I'm sure we could all go on.

I'm in the prosess of going to an active system. But will be fall time before I get it all together as I will also be rebuilding and modding my Maggies MG III . I just got a sweet deal on a Marchand MX-44 X-over, I Almost stole it. They are for sale in kit form if one has the need. But my was built by Phil Marchand. I'm learning by the ones that have gone before me with similar equipment, so it is much easier for me as they have their systems dialed in already so I pretty much copy with a little bit of fine tunning to dial it in. Suits-me I don't know if you have heard the same speaker in passive then active but I have and there is no contest the active is far superior and the passive that used to be in was a tweeked out one. I think it is not more common because because there is more work involed and some what of a learning curve and the process can to some seem intimidateing. It is not part of the plug + play world that seems so popular these days.