Are separates on borrowed time?

[John Duncan]

Where does it say that about the RM1s?

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."

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

 

[BenLaw]

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.

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

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.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[steve_1979]

Here's a very interesting interview with Peter Thomas of PMC. At the end he says that soon PMC are going to be releasing 2 new small active speakers (5.5" and 7") that have built in DAC's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_cPz4EStY

 

[steve_1979]

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

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."

 

[Alec]

Here's a very interesting interview with Peter Thomas of PMC. At the end he says that soon PMC are going to be releasing 2 new small active speakers (5.5" and 7") that have built in DAC's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_cPz4EStY

Presumably at 6K plus though.

Damn.

EDIT I mean 2K. So it may not be that bad...

 

[Craig M.]

thanks for posting Steve. i'd guess that 6k limit is about to fall.

 

[chebby]

Here's a very interesting interview with Peter Thomas of PMC. At the end he says that soon PMC are going to be releasing 2 new small active speakers (5.5" and 7") that have built in DAC's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_cPz4EStY

Being the sad g#t that I am, I watched (and enjoyed) the whole two parts of that interview. Thanks for the link.

Fascinating.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Here's a very interesting interview with Peter Thomas of PMC. At the end he says that soon PMC are going to be releasing 2 new small active speakers (5.5" and 7") that have built in DAC's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_cPz4EStY

uuuuh, that is interesting.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Separates sometimes mean too many boxes and lack of integration in functionality and control and duplication of functionality.

For example (see WHF news story today) the new T+A dac: great spec, looks, functionality seems great too, a dosen of inputs, volume control... But - where is an anlog input? it does not have any. Why? They want me to add another box just to add a dac functionality? (becasue external dacs are the flavour of the day?) And they do not want me to integrate my existing boxes? or HT? This kills it for me.

if there was an analog input or two (with ht bypass) I could then not add but replace boxes with it and integrate the rest of hifi or ht with it. if it had a learning remote I could integrate the control aspect too. but no, the opportunity is not there.

that's (the wrong kind of) separates for you. the ones that only add boxes, not replace them...

 

[John Duncan]

Here's a very interesting interview with Peter Thomas of PMC. At the end he says that soon PMC are going to be releasing 2 new small active speakers (5.5" and 7") that have built in DAC's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_cPz4EStY

Being the sad g#t that I am, I watched (and enjoyed) the whole two parts of that interview. Thanks for the link.

Fascinating.

I haven't got time to watch right now. Does it mention whether he's tertiary qualified?

 

[Alec]

thanks for posting Steve. i'd guess that 6k limit is about to fall.

So I did mean 6K? I'm confused. Meh.

 

[Craig M.]

yes, you were right first time. the cheaper "actives" are powered passives.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

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.

so ooh../ Max tell me. what specific engineering makes "purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker" any different from any other amp? I just don't get this statement. are there any hidden, magical technical qualities of such amps that are inaccessible for full range power amps? or what is it? please elaborate.

 

[Craig M.]

that is not what he is saying, oldric.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

so, what is he sying then?

 

[Craig M.]

are there any hidden, magical technical qualities of such amps that are inaccessible for full range power amps? or what is it? please elaborate.

he isn't saying this. he appears, without wishing to speak on his behalf, to be saying the amps in an active speaker needn't be any better or worse than a traditional full range amp.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

so ooh../ Max tell me. what specific engineering makes "purpose built amplification designed for a specific active speaker" any different from any other amp? I just don't get this statement. are there any hidden, magical technical qualities of such amps that are inaccessible for full range power amps? or what is it? please elaborate.

I think you've misunderstood my point, Oldric. It's the active crossover that's key, the active version of a speaker will always distort less than the passive version of the same speaker. And one would assume that the makers of an active speaker like the ATC's, would give the amplification sufficient power. So how could the passive version sound *better with any form of external amplification?

*If what's best is quantified by what distorts less...

 

[Frank Harvey]

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.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

 

[MUSICRAFT]

ATC - The benefits of Active over Passive loudspeaker systems

http://www.atcloudspeakers.co.uk/downloads/CompanyProfile.pdf (page 9)

Thanks

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

Nonsense..

I explained what i meant, quite clearly.

And i'm right...

 

[Alec]

Cheers Craig.

 

[Craig M.]

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.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

Nonsense..

I explained what i meant, quite clearly.

And i'm right...

max, some people will read what they want into your comments.

 

[fr0g]

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.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

Nonsense..

I explained what i meant, quite clearly.

And i'm right...

I agree you explained it perfectly, and I agree that Oldric was barking up an odd tree, but I don't actually "quite" agree.

I think maybe if you said "should" rather than "could" it would be spot on. I imagine there are many actives that are not as good as they could be because the amplification is not as good as it could be, even if it has plenty of power. In such a case, it is conceivable that the active version of said speaker could be outgunned by its passive brother with superior amplification...

But I agree with the sentiment.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Max, that IS what you said, and that's what you meant. Oldric is right in what he pointed out. Now you're just backtracking and changing what you said to suit you.

Nonsense..

I explained what i meant, quite clearly.

And i'm right...

I agree you explained it perfectly, and I agree that Oldric was barking up an odd tree, but I don't actually "quite" agree.

I think maybe if you said "should" rather than "could" it would be spot on. I imagine there are many actives that are not as good as they could be because the amplification is not as good as it could be, even if it has plenty of power. In such a case, it is conceivable that the active version of said speaker could be outgunned by its passive brother with superior amplification...

But I agree with the sentiment.

If the amplification of a given active speaker isn't lacking in power (which is what i said), and is thus driving said speaker to it's maximum designed potential, how could it be outgunned or beaten, by the passive version of the same speaker?

And what does outgunned or beaten mean? How does one quantify what better is when comparing an active and passive version of the same speaker if not by levels of distortion? And if the speaker with the least distortion is better, it'll be the active version every time (as i said, once it wasn't handicapped by a lack of power)

You could connect the passive ATCs mentioned to a nuclear power station but they'll still distort more than their active counterpart, because they're passive.