Are separates on borrowed time?

They do, though Pete Thomas has also stated that active only makes sense at a certain price point, which is why the £2k + DB1S have a passive crossover.

do you know what his reasons are?  and what he thinks the price point is?

More than 2k, obv . Not sure where that came from, will have a dig later...

I read it in the Sound on Sound review.  Not direct quotes though.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may05/articles/pmcmonitors.htm

I think their cheapest active-crossover design is the AML2, which are £6.5k a pair.

Here's something that you may find interesting.

The Digidesign RM1 and RM2 active speakers which are made by PMC apparently sound better than the passive PMC DB1 and TB2 speakers which they're based on. The active versions were the same price as the passive/powered versions too.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct07/articles/digidesignrm2.htm

Quote from the Sound on Sound PMC TB2S AII review:

"The argument centres on the claim that it is better to use one good-quality amplifier coupled with a well-designed passive crossover than two cheaper, potentially less good amps and an active crossover"

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/pmctb2saii.htm

 

Where does it say that about the RM1s?

 

Yes and at prices like £6k a turn, I'd imagine he's not going to hit a few on this site.  The point is, he's put up some great posts, gives good insight into the development side and is a decent bloke.  I wouldn't say his presence on here is geared to sell his product, not least when he's probably doing pretty well in other markets elsewhere.

Quote from the article:

"The smaller RM1 uses a 5.5-inch mid/bass driver, while the larger RM2 uses a 6.75-inch model."

 

 

The RM1 wasn't reviewed but it does say that the active RM2 is better than the passive TB2.  Quote:

"I reached a point where the TB2s were sounding rather congested and veiled in comparison. The overall tonal character was very similar (bass and treble extension, smoothness through the mid band, and imaging) but the amount of detail and clarity, the articulation and presence of bass instruments from the RM2s, was quite astonishing. The image stability was also noticeably better, with bigger, deeper more believable sound stages on suitable material, and a wider sweet spot. Eventually, I had to take the TB2s down and move up to my much larger (and a lot more expensive) three-way PMC IB1s as a reference point instead, because the Digidesign speakers were revealing low-level details that simply weren't audible on the TB2s."

The active version of the Acoustic Energy AE22 is better than the passive version of the same identical speaker yet these only cost £850.

Passive AE22 review  http://www.whathifi.com/review/acoustic-energy-ae22

Active AE22 review http://www.whathifi.com/review/acoustic-energy-ae22-active

maybe the price pmc think actives are better at, is linked to letting bryston sort the electronics.  bryston are not exactly known for budget kit.  you could make the argument that they needn't use such an expensive company for the electronics.  i know what i think of the notion that a decent set of actives need to cost 6 and a half grand.

So where did your assertion about the DB1/RM1 come from?

 

Intetesting. 

 

I've asked the question before, but I'd still like to know whether anyone from the WHF test team has heard what they consider to be a better amplifier with their reference ATC SCM50s in passive mode compared to their own amplification in active mode. 

Yes your quite right, the SOS review doesn't mention any comparison between the sound quality of the DB1 and RM1. It only says that they use the same size drivers and are roughly equivalent sized speakers.

 

What I should have said is this:

"The Digidesign RM2 active speakers which are made by PMC sound better than the passive PMC TB2 speakers on which they're based."

Better is sooo subjective 

However, and IMO, no amplification could be better than the purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker, assuming it wasn't lacking in power. 

And an active speaker with adequate amplification will always suffer from less distortion than the exact same speaker in passive form, (no matter what amplification is being used to drive it) and less distortion makes for truer sound reproduction, which to me, means better.