Active Fans

[jonathanRD]

What a load of bull poop.

This thread, has turned to ratshit......

It's clear you are continually trying to provoke posters, and I find it quite funny that the chief bull pooper is you.

But on a serious note, my perception is that you are a grown man acting in a rather silly and immature way. Hopefully, you will get tired of this soon and wander off to wherever you came from *smile*

 

[davedotco]

Rather a lot on the kind of hi-fi enthusiast you are.

Some love the whole 'box swapping', 'upgrade' cycle, others simply want something good to play their music on. That is more a psychological issue rather than a hi-fi one.

However the biggest downside is, for me, the lack of affordable (sub £1k), domestic friendly, actives systems. We have the AVI, a Quad that no one buys and that is about it, for many users the 'industrial' style of studio type speakers is not really acceptable.

There are few, if any active options, in mainstream retailers so the punter has no real choice. The pricing policy of hi-fi specialists (Linn, Naim, Meridian etc) puts them out of reach of many users so generally they are ignored by dealers and punters alike.

Hi

Yes, it depends on what you want. Reading here and other suggestions.

1. The difference between active and passive systems is not night and day.

2. You may prefer the active or passive sound compared to the other.

3. Active systems in their current form are not upgradeable.

4. If you are "into" cables, there is the possibility to change cables to the speakers for passive, or modularised active, which is not possible with the one box active solution.

5. A passive system or modularised active system has much more potential to change to components to refine your perceived sound for your enjoyment, rather than being stuck with a one box solution.

Regards,

Shadders.

1) Where identical active/passive versions of the same speaker are available, you are correct. The advantage with actives is that you can build an integrated system, matched in a way that no passive combination can be, at anything resembling sensible prices.

2) Subjective choice, no argument.

3) Correct at this time, there are some pro monitors that are, but they are not really relevant. The increasing use of DSP in integrated systems may change that though.

4) By implication you are saying that the ability to fine tune your system with cables is lost, however integrated active systems can easily incorporate 'tuning' devices (coventionally or in DSP) that give far greater tuning options.

5) This is correct but at a price that would put them out of reach for many users.

To my mind the big advantage with actives is the cost saving. You save a fortune on casework for the amplifier, can use amps optimised for the application, can use the electronic crossover to optimise the response and even implement speaker and room eq at modest cost.

Hi,

I disupte the casework aspect. Casework can be very cheap for large runs.

When you state use amplifiers optimised for the application - what do you think the difference is between a standard amplifier and an amplifier used in an active speaker? There are small diferences, such as output relay may be removed, no output inductor and resistor, no zobel network. You may reduce the output stage transistor count, but you still need two amplifiers as a minimum per speaker (hence 4 amplifiers for one active pair), instead of just one stereo amplifier (hence 2 amplifiers). Casework for an active speaker is required for correct heatsinking and construction, so reduction in costs are not as vast as one would expect.

The reduction in component count since the amplifier is directly connected to the speaker is "probably" countered by the requirement for two amplifiers per speaker.

A modularised design may be more expensive, but it will not be an onerous or excessive cost as one might initially expect. It does offer you flexibility, where a one box design does not.

Regards,

Shadders.

I have some experience in hi-fi manufacturing and find casework to be very expensive, in the case of hi-end components it is often more expensive than everything else combined.

The other advantage of purpose built amplifiers is that you know precisely what you have to drive, you do not have to worry about speakers with difficult impedances etc.

Your posts are usually quite informative, but I think you are quite wrong on this one. For affordable systems, I think the integrated approach has pretty much all the advantages.

 

[andyjm]

Imagine buying a new car with no engine or gearbox. Then having to select the engine and gearbox from another manufacturer and having to adapt the engine and gearbox to fit - laughable.

..which is no different to buying speakers without an amplifier.

 

[shadders]

Rather a lot on the kind of hi-fi enthusiast you are.

Some love the whole 'box swapping', 'upgrade' cycle, others simply want something good to play their music on. That is more a psychological issue rather than a hi-fi one.

However the biggest downside is, for me, the lack of affordable (sub £1k), domestic friendly, actives systems. We have the AVI, a Quad that no one buys and that is about it, for many users the 'industrial' style of studio type speakers is not really acceptable.

There are few, if any active options, in mainstream retailers so the punter has no real choice. The pricing policy of hi-fi specialists (Linn, Naim, Meridian etc) puts them out of reach of many users so generally they are ignored by dealers and punters alike.

Hi

Yes, it depends on what you want. Reading here and other suggestions.

1. The difference between active and passive systems is not night and day.

2. You may prefer the active or passive sound compared to the other.

3. Active systems in their current form are not upgradeable.

4. If you are "into" cables, there is the possibility to change cables to the speakers for passive, or modularised active, which is not possible with the one box active solution.

5. A passive system or modularised active system has much more potential to change to components to refine your perceived sound for your enjoyment, rather than being stuck with a one box solution.

Regards,

Shadders.

1) Where identical active/passive versions of the same speaker are available, you are correct. The advantage with actives is that you can build an integrated system, matched in a way that no passive combination can be, at anything resembling sensible prices.

2) Subjective choice, no argument.

3) Correct at this time, there are some pro monitors that are, but they are not really relevant. The increasing use of DSP in integrated systems may change that though.

4) By implication you are saying that the ability to fine tune your system with cables is lost, however integrated active systems can easily incorporate 'tuning' devices (coventionally or in DSP) that give far greater tuning options.

5) This is correct but at a price that would put them out of reach for many users.

To my mind the big advantage with actives is the cost saving. You save a fortune on casework for the amplifier, can use amps optimised for the application, can use the electronic crossover to optimise the response and even implement speaker and room eq at modest cost.

Hi,

I disupte the casework aspect. Casework can be very cheap for large runs.

When you state use amplifiers optimised for the application - what do you think the difference is between a standard amplifier and an amplifier used in an active speaker? There are small diferences, such as output relay may be removed, no output inductor and resistor, no zobel network. You may reduce the output stage transistor count, but you still need two amplifiers as a minimum per speaker (hence 4 amplifiers for one active pair), instead of just one stereo amplifier (hence 2 amplifiers). Casework for an active speaker is required for correct heatsinking and construction, so reduction in costs are not as vast as one would expect.

The reduction in component count since the amplifier is directly connected to the speaker is "probably" countered by the requirement for two amplifiers per speaker.

A modularised design may be more expensive, but it will not be an onerous or excessive cost as one might initially expect. It does offer you flexibility, where a one box design does not.

Regards,

Shadders.

I have some experience in hi-fi manufacturing and find casework to be very expensive, in the case of hi-end components it is often more expensive than everything else combined.

The other advantage of purpose built amplifiers is that you know precisely what you have to drive, you do not have to worry about speakers with difficult impedances etc.

Your posts are usually quite informative, but I think you are quite wrong on this one. For affordable systems, I think the integrated approach has pretty much all the advantages.

Hi,

I have only had casework quotations, and they were for large runs approximately £100 and components were £300 neglecting heatsinks. So case work is a fair proportion, but not excessive. The highest cost is labour. So, wrong would not be a fair statement, as it depends on the design.

As I have alluded to - what do you think the differences are in regards to the amplifier? Knowing the speaker impedance only really reduces component count, for a given THD etc., and power output. You still need two amplifiers, and if discrete, will be input stage, VAS stage, and output stage. You will also need protection, albeit it can be reduced in design or component count. So, youmare effectively doubling up your amplifier component count for a two way system.

So, there are gains in reduction of components since you know the speaker load, but you need two amplifiers per speaker.

An active speaker still needs casework, and if you examine the ATC offering, there is substantial metal work on the rear of the speaker, same with other actives that have their components hidden within the speaker cabinet. Just because you cannot see the amplifier, does not mean casework does not exist.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[abacus]

Separate crossovers, amplifiers and drive units have been out since the 50s, however they have never really caught on, (Manufactures do try again every so often) as it is not possible to tightly integrate the crossover, amplifier & drive unit, plus it takes up way too much space in the Rack.

Studio speakers are designed to be as accurate as possible so that the engineer can hear every detail, and actives make this easier, however in a domestic environment they usually look ugly and because they go for accuracy, if it’s a bad recording it sounds like a bad recording, (There is plenty of software available to re-master it to your liking though) whereas Hi-Fi speakers are usually designed to look and sound nice and to work well at low volumes.

For my computer and keyboards, it is actives all the way, however for my home cinema (Which is in the lounge) I use passive.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[shadders]

Imagine buying a new car with no engine or gearbox. Then having to select the engine and gearbox from another manufacturer and having to adapt the engine and gearbox to fit - laughable.

..which is no different to buying speakers without an amplifier.

Hi,

Not really. People biwire, so are open to multiple cable runs. For a two way system, it will be the same number of cables. The only difference will be the amplifier box may include the filters etc., or an external processor could be used with a 4 channel amplifier to power the speaker pairs with no passive crossovers.

As long as the amplifier specification is given such that you know what other speakers can be attached, and the processor can be modified to change the crossover frequencies (easily done with DSP), then biwire system is very similar to a modularised active system.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Mammy Nun]

What a load of bull poop.

This thread, has turned to ratshit......

It's clear you are continually trying to provoke posters, and I find it quite funny that the chief bull pooper is you.

But on a serious note, my perception is that you are a grown man acting in a rather silly and immature way. Hopefully, you will get tired of this soon and wander off to wherever you came from *smile*

Well Jono....imho, you are a silly little mong.......Cheer's.

 

[bluedroog]

While there is no rule to suggest actives are better than passives full-stop, in most cases with all other variables because equal an active version of a passive equivilent will sound better because they have design advantages.

The reason passives dominate the Hi-Fi market is the box swapping element and that favours the the industry. Also at the entry level end of the market a cheap amp and speakers tend to make more sense rather than four amp channels and people tend to stick to what they know upgrading a componenet at a time.

 

[shadders]

While there is no rule to suggest actives are better than passives full-stop, in most cases with all other variables because equal an active version of a passive equivilent will sound better because they have design advantages.

The reason passives dominate the Hi-Fi market is the box swapping element and that favours the the industry. Also at the entry level end of the market a cheap amp and speakers tend to make more sense rather than four amp channels and people tend to stick to what they know upgrading a componenet at a time.

Hi,

Yes, the box swapping apect is the most common occurrence, which then shows you that each component has its unique subjective sound. So a modularised active system will provide the benefits of active (if that is a persons preference), with the benefits of box swapping.

As long as the specifications are given for both amplifier and speaker, matching should not be too much of an issue.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[bluedroog]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

 

[shadders]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[davedotco]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

Sorry shadders, but there are clear advantages, casework, power supplies, heatsinks can all be optimised at lower cost than a component amplifier and I can't see a downside. I am sure that you wil refute this, but I feel it is self evident.

Putting these differing view points in a thread may be of help to some coming to actives for the first time so hopefully it has been of some use.

Be interesting to see what the OP thinks.

 

[abacus]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

Biggest problem with passives is the passive crossover, which can cause nasty impedance swings, (Not forgetting the losses through the heat generated) thus adding a barrier between the drive units and amplifier.

Actives have no such problems, as the crossover is low power electronic and the amplifiers are directly coupled to the drive units, thus there are no barriers to get in the way.

NOTE: You can get badly designed actives just like you can passives, however as actives are normally designed for studio use, (Where accuracy is paramount) you tend to get less bad actives than passives.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[shadders]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

Sorry shadders, but there are clear advantages, casework, power supplies, heatsinks can all be optimised at lower cost than a component amplifier and I can't see a downside. I am sure that you wil refute this, but I feel it is self evident.

Putting these differing view points in a thread may be of help to some coming to actives for the first time so hopefully it has been of some use.

Be interesting to see what the OP thinks.

Hi,

It depends on the design. My Cambridge Audio 650 has four components for the case, top, bottom, front and rear panels. The Kef LS50 wireless has what seems to be a bespoke cast heatsink and backpanel. Another active speaker - cannot recall the make, had a cast chassis with a recess for the electronics, with heatsink. So, I would infer that the bespoke case designs for active are quite costly, compared to pressed steel of my Cambridge Audio.

I don't think one can state actives will always be lower cost case wise, we need to assess on a case by case basis....

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[davedotco]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

Sorry shadders, but there are clear advantages, casework, power supplies, heatsinks can all be optimised at lower cost than a component amplifier and I can't see a downside. I am sure that you wil refute this, but I feel it is self evident.

Putting these differing view points in a thread may be of help to some coming to actives for the first time so hopefully it has been of some use.

Be interesting to see what the OP thinks.

Hi,

It depends on the design. My Cambridge Audio 650 has four components for the case, top, bottom, front and rear panels. The Kef LS50 wireless has what seems to be a bespoke cast heatsink and backpanel. Another active speaker - cannot recall the make, had a cast chassis with a recess for the electronics, with heatsink. So, I would infer that the bespoke case designs for active are quite costly, compared to pressed steel of my Cambridge Audio.

I don't think one can state actives will always be lower cost case wise, we need to assess on a case by case basis....

Regards,

Shadders.

Very droll...*ROFL*

One of my favourite cheap speakers is the Equator D5.

A 5 inch dual concentric model, modest 50 watt (peak) amplifiers and sophisticated dsp produces a fine compact louspeaker, ideal for modest sized rooms. Peak output capability is in excess of 100dB and the bass is particularly clean and punchy, very controlled too, making adding a sub easier to get right than many speaker setups. Mid range clarity is of a very high order, exceptional to my ears.

So a 5 inch dual concentric driver, dsp optimisation, twin 50 watt amplifiers and a sensational performance, just £399pr, far too cheap to be taken seriously.

 

[Mammy Nun]

Gosh.....I must say, I thought "Mr Darius Dukwit" (lpv) would have popped up yet again, with his usual AVI are the finest loudspeakers in he world routine......

Ash must be beasting the little incommer......

 

[shadders]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

Sorry shadders, but there are clear advantages, casework, power supplies, heatsinks can all be optimised at lower cost than a component amplifier and I can't see a downside. I am sure that you wil refute this, but I feel it is self evident.

Putting these differing view points in a thread may be of help to some coming to actives for the first time so hopefully it has been of some use.

Be interesting to see what the OP thinks.

Hi,

It depends on the design. My Cambridge Audio 650 has four components for the case, top, bottom, front and rear panels. The Kef LS50 wireless has what seems to be a bespoke cast heatsink and backpanel. Another active speaker - cannot recall the make, had a cast chassis with a recess for the electronics, with heatsink. So, I would infer that the bespoke case designs for active are quite costly, compared to pressed steel of my Cambridge Audio.

I don't think one can state actives will always be lower cost case wise, we need to assess on a case by case basis....

Regards,

Shadders.

Very droll...*ROFL*

One of my favourite cheap speakers is the Equator D5.

A 5 inch dual concentric model, modest 50 watt (peak) amplifiers and sophisticated dsp produces a fine compact louspeaker, ideal for modest sized rooms. Peak output capability is in excess of 100dB and the bass is particularly clean and punchy, very controlled too, making adding a sub easier to get right than many speaker setups. Mid range clarity is of a very high order, exceptional to my ears.

So a 5 inch dual concentric driver, dsp optimisation, twin 50 watt amplifiers and a sensational performance, just £399pr, far too cheap to be taken seriously.

Hi,

Yes, I do try to add the odd pun here and there....

The speakers do seem exceptional value. You stated cheap, or are they good value, and others are over priced for the components that you receive. Possible that they have misjudged the market and cut their margins too low.

For reasonable listening levels, they are probably all that everyone needs. The low power suggests they potentially implement a single IC solution for each power amplifier (class A/B or D), which will reduce costs.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[davedotco]

Yes, of course there is no rule to say the amps must be part of the speakers as is ususally the case. For example the massive PMCs have rack amps but are still configured as actives. You'd hope most compeentivly engineered actives would have the ideal amp matching already, I'd be curious to hear what changes could be had though.

Hi,

Yes, it seems to be the usual marketing statement that actives benefit from an amplifier designed specifically for the drivers where separates have to deal with any load (within reason), but...... What exactly are the changes to this optimised design???

It is like an urban myth, no one has stated specifically what those changes are. A manufacturer of an active design states that they don't band limit the amplifier controlling the mid/woofer driver. So the changes will be the power rating of the amplifier, so as not to exceed the power handling of the driver. Thats it. No changes in circuit topology.

We shouldn't let marketing hype lead us to believe something different, that is, the amplifier in an active system is the same design (in general) to an amplifier within an integrated unit, apart from reduced protection (possibly), and some removal of passive components on the output for the integrated version.

Regards,

Shadders.

Sorry shadders, but there are clear advantages, casework, power supplies, heatsinks can all be optimised at lower cost than a component amplifier and I can't see a downside. I am sure that you wil refute this, but I feel it is self evident.

Putting these differing view points in a thread may be of help to some coming to actives for the first time so hopefully it has been of some use.

Be interesting to see what the OP thinks.

Hi,

It depends on the design. My Cambridge Audio 650 has four components for the case, top, bottom, front and rear panels. The Kef LS50 wireless has what seems to be a bespoke cast heatsink and backpanel. Another active speaker - cannot recall the make, had a cast chassis with a recess for the electronics, with heatsink. So, I would infer that the bespoke case designs for active are quite costly, compared to pressed steel of my Cambridge Audio.

I don't think one can state actives will always be lower cost case wise, we need to assess on a case by case basis....

Regards,

Shadders.

Very droll...*ROFL*

One of my favourite cheap speakers is the Equator D5.

A 5 inch dual concentric model, modest 50 watt (peak) amplifiers and sophisticated dsp produces a fine compact louspeaker, ideal for modest sized rooms. Peak output capability is in excess of 100dB and the bass is particularly clean and punchy, very controlled too, making adding a sub easier to get right than many speaker setups. Mid range clarity is of a very high order, exceptional to my ears.

So a 5 inch dual concentric driver, dsp optimisation, twin 50 watt amplifiers and a sensational performance, just £399pr, far too cheap to be taken seriously.

Hi,

Yes, I do try to add the odd pun here and there....

The speakers do seem exceptional value. You stated cheap, or are they good value, and others are over priced for the components that you receive. Possible that they have misjudged the market and cut their margins too low.

For reasonable listening levels, they are probably all that everyone needs. The low power suggests they potentially implement a single IC solution for each power amplifier, which will reduce costs.

Regards,

Shadders.

I know nothing about the company other than what is generally available on the net. They sell direct at $399pr in the US, so the current £399 uk price is exceptional value.

Whether the product is commercially viable at this price I could not say, the people behind them are the old team from Event Audio, so they have been around the block a time or two. I am really only going on what I hear, they are comfortably the most revealing speakers (that I have heard) anywhere near that price but I could imagine them being too 'clean' for many hi-fi users.

I would buy a pair at that price if I had any need whatsoever for another pair of speakers, sadly I really don't.

 

[Mammy Nun]

The speakers are **** mate........

Please dont try and con the gullible punters (Goldstream) 0

on this forum.......

All you talk...is very bad advise........Try honesty.

BUNT.........

 

[steve_1979]

Active speakers are just silly.

What a load of bull poop.

This thread, has turned to ratshit......

Well Jono....imho, you are a silly little mong.......Cheer's.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Lots of posts ago by dave.
The reason many hifi men dont want to like actives is psychological.

Its like people feel threatened that everything they love will be taken away from them. Thats why these posts normally entise and angry emotional responce from posters.

People that go active normally feel better or free once they made the leap.

Its funny to me as active and passive do the exact same job... play music

Only difference one has performance advantages over the other one.

Any speaker manufactuer that makes active and passive will very openly tell you which one HAS THE BETTER Performance of the 2 designs.

I have a very nice sounding passive system and it gives me great pleasure but if i could rewind a couple of years id have gone actives

 

[shadders]

Lots of posts ago by dave. The reason many hifi men dont want to like actives is psychological.

Its like people feel threatened that everything they love will be taken away from them. Thats why these posts normally entise and angry emotional responce from posters.

People that go active normally feel better or free once they made the leap.

Its funny to me as active and passive do the exact same job... play music

Only difference one has performance advantages over the other one.

Any speaker manufactuer that makes active and passive will very openly tell you which one HAS THE BETTER Performance of the 2 designs.

I have a very nice sounding passive system and it gives me great pleasure but if i could rewind a couple of years id have gone actives

Hi,

I don't see angry responses because active speakers are proposed, but maybe the approach, mine is better than yours, or, denigration of other systems to promote actives? Someone commented on this forum previously that the difference in not night and day.

There does seem to be two general manufacturer groups, amplifiers, CD players, and other electronic apparatus, and the other group - speaker manufacturers. (not exclusive). These separate groups allow for a much greater diversity of products, and offer the customer/enthusiast more choice (combinations). If it was all active speakers, then you may not get the speakers you desire, such as high powered transmission lines, or sealed enclosure. Separates can allow the gradual system upgrades, rather than a large initial investment.

With regards to better performance, this has always been known, and never disputed. What I find unusual is that it is claimed that actives are better due to this performance, yet when you want to explore the technical aspects which are NOT related to the active crossover, then this information is not forthcoming or available.

If don't think there is an industry resistance to the promotion of actives, it is just that people are happy with what they have got.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ID.]

Active speakers are just silly.

What a load of bull poop.

This thread, has turned to ratshit......

Well Jono....imho, you are a silly little mong.......Cheer's.

LOL. And to think there used to be some quality trolling on this site.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Lots of posts ago by dave. The reason many hifi men dont want to like actives is psychological.

Its like people feel threatened that everything they love will be taken away from them. Thats why these posts normally entise and angry emotional responce from posters.

People that go active normally feel better or free once they made the leap.

Its funny to me as active and passive do the exact same job... play music

Only difference one has performance advantages over the other one.

Any speaker manufactuer that makes active and passive will very openly tell you which one HAS THE BETTER Performance of the 2 designs.

I have a very nice sounding passive system and it gives me great pleasure but if i could rewind a couple of years id have gone actives

Hi,

I don't see angry responses because active speakers are proposed, but maybe the approach, mine is better than yours, or, denigration of other systems to promote actives? Someone commented on this forum previously that the difference in not night and day.

There does seem to be two general manufacturer groups, amplifiers, CD players, and other electronic apparatus, and the other group - speaker manufacturers.  (not exclusive). These separate groups allow for a much greater diversity of products, and offer the customer/enthusiast more choice (combinations). If it was all active speakers, then you may not get the speakers you desire, such as high powered transmission lines, or sealed enclosure. Separates can allow the gradual system upgrades, rather than a large initial investment.

With regards to better performance, this has always been known, and never disputed. What I find unusual is that it is claimed that actives are better due to this performance, yet when you want to explore the technical aspects which are NOT related to the active crossover, then this information is not forthcoming or available.

If don't think there is an industry resistance to the promotion of actives, it is just that people are happy with what they have got.

Regards,

Shadders.

There is definitely a 'them' and 'us' on the forum and there should not be its just 2 designs of music production

Maybe not on this post but in others and im not talking about avi etc im talking about members with many posts when actives are just mentioned start the distaste.

But yes pros and cons for both sides and its a hobbie and people like to upgrade and change etc and passive is much better for that

 

[steve_1979]

LOL. And to think there used to be some quality trolling on this site.

Yeah, we just don't get the same caliber of trolling that we used to.

I miss the days when a talented troll could stir up arguments that would last for weeks at a time with post counts running into the hundreds.