Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ivan Beaver" data-source="post: 50239" data-attributes="member: 30">Re: 3x12+2&quot;wNL8&#039;s&amp;4Xti4000&#039;sMy post was in error-and I left out the NOT in the first sentance (I would NOT automatically assume----------)In what way do you think that the amps &quot;see&quot; the signal and how do they &quot;react&quot; to them?&nbsp; Unless the load is highly inductive or capacitive (which most loudspeakers are not) the amp &quot;should not care&quot;.If caps and coils were so &#039;bad sounding&quot;, then how come historically a large majority of the &quot;best sounding&quot; speakers have been passive?Passive has it place-as does active.&nbsp; But a lot of people &quot;automatically&quot; assume that active is better than passive.&nbsp; I would argue that either is bad-if poorly done.&nbsp; Properly done-they each can work well (depending on the design limitations of the design (such as signal arrival&nbsp; (time of flight) of the various passbands).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ivan Beaver, post: 50239, member: 30"] Re: 3x12+2"wNL8's&4Xti4000's My post was in error-and I left out the NOT in the first sentance (I would NOT automatically assume----------) In what way do you think that the amps "see" the signal and how do they "react" to them? Unless the load is highly inductive or capacitive (which most loudspeakers are not) the amp "should not care". If caps and coils were so 'bad sounding", then how come historically a large majority of the "best sounding" speakers have been passive? Passive has it place-as does active. But a lot of people "automatically" assume that active is better than passive. I would argue that either is bad-if poorly done. Properly done-they each can work well (depending on the design limitations of the design (such as signal arrival (time of flight) of the various passbands). [/QUOTE]

Verification