Originally Posted by mastermaybe
I'd love to side by side the powered and competently powered passive cap and witness the results. As I've already stated, their are numerous owners who seem to be beyond satisfied with their passive model, but of course an immediate context against the powered version would prove to be very useful for obvious reasons. I for one would welcome the comparo...I am fortunate to have both the space and time to do so.
Since the rest of your post is insulting nonsense, I won't bother commenting.
The part I am quoting is what I've tried to explain to readers of this thread. You have the comparison right in front of you. All you have to do is stop playing subwoofer statistics and cost analysis expert and interpret the data available.
Here is a graph that has 4 traces scaled and overlaid:
1) JP's posted response of the powered Cap.
2) The resulting in-room FR of that Cap in the G2G room.
3) JP's posted response of a passive Cap.
4) The extrapolated resulting response of that passive Cap in the same room with the same placement/mic position.
The facts should be obvious. In order to bring the passive version to equality with the powered version, the top end must be pulled down, then the entire BW boosted by +6-7dB. JP can feel free to help me out here if I'm missing something.
Now, it's your stated opinion that a "capable amplifier", HPF and outboard EQ will result in a $1000 difference between the powered and passive versions and that the performances differences can be summed in one word... compromise.
The popular choice is the Behringer EP4k. If one chooses to use such a budget amp, the specs on the JTR site for the Cap fly out the window.
The fact is that the differences are rather significant. This would have been reflected in the results of the G2G, both subjectively and objectively.
It will take 2 of the passive Caps, Berry EP4ks, fan mods, cables and the Mic 2200 to have the same performance level as a single powered Cap. The difference being that with the powered version there is no required user-response mod or fan mod. You also get dead quiet operation, a single warranty source, extra rack space and a single power cord/single cable connection scheme, not to mention a much more predictably well behaved system.
So, you save $1000 and you get 1/2 the subwoofer performance, none of the advantages mentioned and possible warranty conflicts. Certainly, you're right about the compromises, but where does the savings part kick in? Of course, that's all irrelevant to me and up to any potential buyer to weigh. My only point in this thread regarding the 2 versions (and I only posted it at all because of requests from interested folks) is that the passive choice (the $1000 cheaper version you keep alluding to) would have faired notably worse at the G2G and that potential buyers should be made aware of the differences.
And, for the record, 1 of not's "gigantic boxes" and 1 of his amplifiers (a "one box solution for under $3000") cost him less than a powered cap and would have completely dominated the G2G. Yes, right.