Active vs Passive - A differnet view~~!

krolikgena

New member
Jun 15, 2011
31
0
0
Visit site
http://usht.ru/articles/add-on/monitors_today/en

here is just one paragraph from the article:

"Who is guilty of fall down of the modern analogue audio systems? I would say that everyone is guilty, both manufacturers and customers. In the early nineties studio activity began to move from large professional studios who could afford exquisite professional equipment, to a homes of musicians and other collectives. That is how the term domestic or home studio emerged. Do you compose your own music at home? Are you willing to spend 10-15 thousand Euros for a monitor? What about good quality amplifier? The answer is obvious. Are quality and expensive products really necessary although only few people buys that equipment not just because of price but that type of quality is not needed for majority of home studios that exist today. Why should companies keep their drive units empty, paying salaries to workers and engineers and suffer direct losses from that? Because, when they cover all the expenses that products will cost a fortune and only a few dozen studios or small group of audiophiles can afford buying it during the year? And what do you prefer to buy? Passive, unknown two- line Kinoshita monitors for 40 000 euro or active three-line Genelec speakers from the advertisement for 12 000 euro? Of course you will choose the second option. If you see the more expensive option before the other one, you will not probably notice it. But the better option would certainly be the first monitor no matter that it is passive and two-line! It looks quite paradoxal, doesn’t it? That shows us that it has come to degradation not only of modern audio technique but also of our view to it."

So please, not again those categorically opinions about superiority of active systems.

Best regards!
 

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
krolikgena said:
http://usht.ru/articles/add-on/monitors_today/en

here is just one paragraph from the article:

"Who is guilty of fall down of the modern analogue audio systems? I would say that everyone is guilty, both manufacturers and customers. In the early nineties studio activity began to move from large professional studios who could afford exquisite professional equipment, to a homes of musicians and other collectives. That is how the term domestic or home studio emerged. Do you compose your own music at home? Are you willing to spend 10-15 thousand Euros for a monitor? What about good quality amplifier? The answer is obvious. Are quality and expensive products really necessary although only few people buys that equipment not just because of price but that type of quality is not needed for majority of home studios that exist today. Why should companies keep their drive units empty, paying salaries to workers and engineers and suffer direct losses from that? Because, when they cover all the expenses that products will cost a fortune and only a few dozen studios or small group of audiophiles can afford buying it during the year? And what do you prefer to buy? Passive, unknown two- line Kinoshita monitors for 40 000 euro or active three-line Genelec speakers from the advertisement for 12 000 euro? Of course you will choose the second option. If you see the more expensive option before the other one, you will not probably notice it. But the better option would certainly be the first monitor no matter that it is passive and two-line! It looks quite paradoxal, doesn’t it? That shows us that it has come to degradation not only of modern audio technique but also of our view to it."

So please, not again those categorically opinions about superiority of active systems.

Best regards!

I'm not altogether sure what your point is.
 

krolikgena

New member
Jun 15, 2011
31
0
0
Visit site
My point is that active doesn't always means better. if active technology is best (especially at the top end, as many say) why would some one produce a 40.000 euro passive 2-way system and a proper amplification for it? and it is not made for some mega rich audiophiles, but for proffesionals for whom it is a tool for daily work.
 

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
krolikgena said:
My point is that active doesn't always means better. if active technology is best (especially at the top end, as many say) why would some one produce a 40.000 euro passive 2-way system and a proper amplification for it? and it is not made for some mega rich audiophiles, but for proffesionals for whom it is a tool for daily work.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts