Spannko wrote:I say “blinkered” because the conversation is more about what has been (and why things work, or don’t) rather than what could be.
Ok, you prefer to look forward. I like that, but it's more speculative, don't you think? In general we have to try things to get an idea of how far a route can take us.
Spannko wrote:Would you say that it’s impossible to:
A) design a musical active crossover
B) design a musical power amplifier optimised to drive a hf unit
C) design a musical power amplifier optimised to drive a lf unit
that would outperform the best passive system available?
A: Of course not. To design one with zero negative impact on the music is impossible, but to design a musical one is very possible.
B and C: So far I have not found it possible to make an amplifier better for a certain frequency range that doesn't also make it better in other frequency ranges. Same thing with cables and connectors and crimped/soldered joints - if A has a more musical bass than B, it also has a more musical midrange and treble. So my answer at the moment is that it's impossible. I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong on this, as it's a very important question.
To the final summary, that A, B and C would outperform the best passive system available, my answer is: I'm sure it's possible! I don't claim that passive is inherently better than aktiv. Every design can be improved upon and you never know how far you can travel along each path.
What to do in reality, when spending a limited amount of money to build a system, perhaps also with additional limitations (physical space, shelve space, aesthetics, etc), is of course a whole other discussion.