Like Neil above I went from SL2's on a 500 (subsequently DR'd) to Titan 88's and thence, recently to Titan 707's.
When I was running my SL2's on a 300, I considered going active with another 300, or changing the 300 for a 500 - the two options costing almost exactly the same. The efficacy and sonic upgrade of the 500 over the 300 was easily demonstrated, so I stayed passive with a 500. A passive rig keeps the box-count and complexity down; and all loudspeaker options open.
Going as far as one can in passive mode made sonic sense to me. Now I just need that lottery win to order a set of Statement amps.
Good luck with your decision Martin. Keep us posted.
John.
Beautiful System, I often dream about your 707s, then I wake up!
Most would concur that a Passive 500 vs Passive 300/250, a no-brainer, 500 hands down.
Laurence Dickie, founder of Vivid Speakers, has always advocated the Active Speaker over the Passive Speaker.
However, the gap has narrowed with modern Speakers, due to computer technologies that contributes to passive crossover design.
A regulated 250 can easily be stressed, when forced to cover the the whole frequency range.
But in situations where it's duties are limited, the regulated 250, can shine with the best!
The following is a nice read, the heavy weights share their thought, on active Speakers.
Give it a read, in your spare time:
Active Loudspeaker Systems on the Rise: Peter Roth Talks With Andy Payor, Laurence Dickie, and Richard Vandersteen.
Details Written by Peter Roth Category: General Interest & Interviews
In short, the culprit is the Bass, and how irregular rooms and system details, can impact SQ!
The Active Speaker, combined with the external active XO, can shape the listening environment to ones liking!
Of course, that's my take, give it a read!
Enjoy Your Music!
Active or Passive!
Allante93!
PS. Older Speakers, Trash the XO, that resides in the magic box.
And Go Active.
On the other hand, if I spent 20K on a pair of Speakers, it would be hard for me to trash the XO, and Go Active!
JMHO!
