FOH guys attitude toward active splitters

[Roland]

Transformered splits are by far the "popular" choice, in so much as they provide ground isolation and there is less chance for something to go wrong. Active splits are good, however, they are expensive and like any other electronic device, they provide another potential point of failure.

All the above being said, I see mostly passive splits, cheap, easy to make, and most of the time they work fine, the only drawback from a technical, recording point of view is that they don't offer isolation, mind you, if something is going wrong, isolation or not you probably have a problem anyway.

[TinderArts]

Many touring guys prefer passives because their digital console preset gain staging remains fairly consistent. Many also prefer the sound of an iso split to an active one.

[Richard Crowley]

An active splitter where the house feed is simply passed-through (and the active part "samples" the signal and feeds it to recording) would be far more palatable to your random FOH guy than something that puts active circuitry in the house path.

Even a passive, tranformer-iso splitter (the least "invasive" possible) is not necessarily welcome everywhere. I suppose it depends a lot on where you are using it and your working relationship/reputation with the various FOH people.