AVI ADM9s: breakthrough or too much hype?

[Phileas]

so let's get a pair of ADM9's together with a pair of high efficiency monster speakers.

Or shall we get a pair of comparably sized speakers, to make the test more relevant?

Let's feed them a signal that has large transient peaks followed by much smaller signals. Let's get a sound pressure metre and let's volume match them and then see if one pair of speakers has less contrast between the loud bits and the quiet bits.

Yes this is sort of what I mean by verifying empirically, although I think you need to specify the amplifiers you intend to use with the passive speakers.

 

[moon]

For me, the big attraction of actives, especially the ADMs, is the sheer simplicity AND tremendous sound quality. Like one or two others here, I'm now free from tweaking, swapping and upgrading components and my living room no longer looks like a hifi shop. It's probably worth noting that many active speakers are not the prettiest for a domestic setting, but the ADMs look respectable and are not hugely critical of placement so long as one is sensible. Revolutionary? Not quite, but AVI spotted a gap in the market and have plugged it.

I now spend much more time listening to music and feel a little bit 'liberated' from what was previously an addiction that consumed me and drove my wife nuts (although I did enjoy that part as well! )

I just don't understand why it takes buying a pair of Avi's to stop the constant changing of equipment. It's just plain weird

 

[the record spot]

Moon, it doesn't; some who bought the original ADM9s have now gone through to the current Red Spot versions, so that's ADM9, 9.1, 9.1T, 9.1 Red Spot. At around £1200-1300 a pair, that's not bad going. When you add in trying out different DACs, various Apple products, various other actives....so no, I don't buy into that concept at all. Some do, but then so do many people who have bought traditional separates and have stuck with the same setup for years.

 

[Alec]

You know there's a DAC in the speakers don't you, Mr Spot?

 

[Bialykot]

Hi moon, I made the decision to stop upgrading before I bought the ADMs. The ADMs help though, since they have inbuilt pre and power amps, DACs and ADC, look smart and are relatively compact. Many actives are not pretty but these are more than acceptable for domestic use. AVI saw a gap in the market and plugged it.

Most importantly, the ADMs sound terrific to boot (and contrary to what others are suggesting here are very dynamic, like most true actives). For the money (and this is where you have to compare apples with apples) I think they are good value given the results.

 

[Anonymous]

This thread really needs an input of sense.

i haven't listened to actives, I put my kit together over time to produce a sound that I'm happy with.

That doesn't mean it's better or worse than anything else, it means that I'm happy, which is all that counts.

The original question posed whether there's too much hype concerning a certain product. Often new or different products are hyped simply because they are new/different, there's only one way to decide if the hype is justified- listen, make your own mind up or ignore.

 

[Bialykot]

Apart from the hype, the original question was:

Previously, I had been thinking of getting all Rega components, but the ADM9s (not the catchiest name) would seem to do the same, while taking up less space at slightly less cost. Question is: would they sound as good?I know the manufacturers of these speakers are very vocal in pointing to their virtues but I'd love to hear -- in one place -- music-lovers' experiences, especially of the latest models. I ask this partly because of the difficulty of demo-ing a pair.

So to try and answer:

1) Firstly - try and listen yourself, no-one else's opinion counts ultimately... but ...

2) I personally think the ADMs are excellent (and dynamic) like most actives

3) The hype is that they are actives, have pre and power amps built in as well as DACs and ADC plus sound great and look good in a domestic setting

4) Not compared to equivalent Rega passive system but have against a top flight Meridian pre-power and B&W Nautilus and they sound as good to my ears. Could live with both ....

5) Good solution if you're wanting to declutter equipment and go wireless.

 

[fr0g]

Moon, it doesn't; some who bought the original ADM9s have now gone through to the current Red Spot versions, so that's ADM9, 9.1, 9.1T, 9.1 Red Spot. At around £1200-1300 a pair, that's not bad going. When you add in trying out different DACs, various Apple products, various other actives....so no, I don't buy into that concept at all. Some do, but then so do many people who have bought traditional separates and have stuck with the same setup for years.

Up to a point I agree with you. I personally was never a "box-swapper" with my passive setups. What I was though, was a cable fiddler. That disappears.

The main advantage in my mind is the performance/price differential.

I would say the ADMs with a sub (in my case, originally a £300 MJ Acoustics pro 50) are as good overall as my old Dali/Lyngdorf/Harmony DAC setup which came to nearly £3000 with cables. They are better in some ways too.

There is a clear SQ advantage in taking the active route.

And the home market is beginning to show it(the pro market had it sussed a while ago). The Dynaudio Xeo range, the little Morgans at a bargain £499, and of course Avi.

I'm very soon going to be in the position to upgrade my Dali Ikon 6...and their replacements will almost certainly be active. Possibly Xeo 5, but I'm hoping between now and then, some more options become available.

 

[relocated]

I have no idea where this "hype" comes from.

Active positive comments and recommendations on here come from owners of AVI ADM speakers and other active speakers or people who have at least heard them. In the case of AVI, letting other people know about a fantastic sounding, excellent value for money, well finished, GB manufactured product isn't hype it is just passing on informed opinion that may just help others to spend less whilst getting more.

It amazes me that the most vociferous nay sayers have never even heard actives, let alone a specific manufacturers actives. As is always the case, there is none so blind as those that will not see[ or in this case hear].

:doh:

 

[Alec]

I was never really a swapper or fiddler of any kind; I hadn't been into this stuff for long when I got my current speakers, as an upgrade from a second hand budget set-up (well, the DAC was brand new) worth, originally, £400-odd, excluding the DAC. I had a (by now, I think) relatively early Beresford DAC. I must find out what model number it was...

 

[fr0g]

I was never really a swapper or fiddler of any kind; I hadn't been into this stuff for long when I got my current speakers, as an upgrade from a second hand budget set-up (well, the DAC was brand new) worth, originally, £400-odd, excluding the DAC. I had a (by now, I think) relatively early Beresford DAC. I must find out what model number it was...

It was a 7510.

And indeed.

Although to be fair. It's one of many things that people claim in active's favour. It doesn't mean that everyone who uses passives is a box-swapper.

Something that has irritated me quite a bit recently. Claim that people are doing something because of something and everyone that does something thinks they are being lumped in with those that are doing something because of something.

It's called English. And before people(not yourself Alec) react, they should think "Does this necessarily apply to me?"

M'kay.

 

[lindsayt]

so let's get a pair of ADM9's together with a pair of high efficiency monster speakers.

Or shall we get a pair of comparably sized speakers, to make the test more relevant?

Let's feed them a signal that has large transient peaks followed by much smaller signals. Let's get a sound pressure metre and let's volume match them and then see if one pair of speakers has less contrast between the loud bits and the quiet bits.

Yes this is sort of what I mean by verifying empirically, although I think you need to specify the amplifiers you intend to use with the passive speakers.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's a very high chance that whatever other comparibly sized speakers we got would also suffer from noticeable amounts of dynamic compression. IE they'd be no better and quite possibly worse than the AVI ADM 9's in this respect. That still doesn't alter the fact that the AVI's suffer from a bit of dynamic compression when compared to either a live performance or high efficiency monster speakers.

If we were using my amps for such a test, to keep costs down, I'd use my £150 2nd hand Urei 6290 amp.

 

[Phileas]

No, no, no, no, no, no.

No need for this.

Two wrongs don't make a right. There's a very high chance that whatever other comparibly sized speakers we got would also suffer from noticeable amounts of dynamic compression.

This is not the point. Most people don't have or want "monster speakers" so they're not really relevant. The context of your original criticism implied "normal" speakers.

 

[richardw42]

What are Monster speakers ?

if as I think they're a generic term for something massive/huge, how is that a comparison of any worth.

 

[steve_1979]

Something that has irritated me quite a bit recently. Claim that people are doing something because of something and everyone that does something thinks they are being lumped in with those that are doing something because of something.

Eh?

I've read through this paragraph several times and can't for the life of me decipher what it's supposed to mean. :?

 

[steve_1979]

What are Monster speakers ?

 

[Phileas]

Something that has irritated me quite a bit recently. Claim that people are doing something because of something and everyone that does something thinks they are being lumped in with those that are doing something because of something.

Eh?

I've read through this paragraph several times and can't for the life of me decipher what it's supposed to mean. :?

It is a bit Rumsfeldesque (although I think I know what he means).

 

[Alec]

A known unknown is what it is is what it is.

 

[Craig M.]

No, no, no, no, no, no.

No need for this.

Two wrongs don't make a right. There's a very high chance that whatever other comparibly sized speakers we got would also suffer from noticeable amounts of dynamic compression.

This is not the point. Most people don't have or want "monster speakers" so they're not really relevant. The context of your original criticism implied "normal" speakers.

Given how often Lindsay points out the inadequecies of modern day small speakers against the qualities of monstrously large speakers, I simply cannot believe that manufacturers don't stop making standmounts and small floorstanders in favour of fridge freezer sized behemoths. Surely it couldn't be that 99.9% of people simply do not care to have such things in their livingrooms, and that comparing anything to them is almost completely and utterly pointless and irrelevant? :?

 

[Craig M.]

Something that has irritated me quite a bit recently. Claim that people are doing something because of something and everyone that does something thinks they are being lumped in with those that are doing something because of something.

Eh?

I've read through this paragraph several times and can't for the life of me decipher what it's supposed to mean. :?

It is crystal clear to me. I have been sniffing glue* for the last 4 hours though... :bounce:

*I haven't.

 

[moon]

" Look's like I chose the wrong week to quit amphetamines"

 

[Phileas]

Given how often Lindsay points out the inadequecies of modern day small speakers against the qualities of monstrously large speakers

Oh I see, there's history!

 

[fr0g]

Something that has irritated me quite a bit recently. Claim that people are doing something because of something and everyone that does something thinks they are being lumped in with those that are doing something because of something.

Eh?

I've read through this paragraph several times and can't for the life of me decipher what it's supposed to mean. :?

It'squite simple, but a mouthful Read it slowly.

Basically, if someone says "Sales of trendy Apricot branded armchairs are through the roof, even though they are more expensive and less advanced than the opposition, does NOT mean that every buyer of said Apricot armchair is buying because of the name, just that many are"

It's like saying "The highest risk profession for drug abuse is doctors...therefore my doctor is a junkie"...ie complete nonsense

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

No, no, no, no, no, no.

No need for this.

Two wrongs don't make a right. There's a very high chance that whatever other comparibly sized speakers we got would also suffer from noticeable amounts of dynamic compression.

This is not the point. Most people don't have or want "monster speakers" so they're not really relevant. The context of your original criticism implied "normal" speakers.

Given how often Lindsay points out the inadequecies of modern day small speakers against the qualities of monstrously large speakers, I simply cannot believe that manufacturers don't stop making standmounts and small floorstanders in favour of fridge freezer sized behemoths. Surely it couldn't be that 99.9% of people simply do not care to have such things in their livingrooms, and that comparing anything to them is almost completely and utterly pointless and irrelevant? :?

but still, the matter of fact is what Lind-says-it regardless if 99.9% of consumers prefer small bookshelf speakers.

BTW dynamic does not mean able to play loud. that can do every hi-fi'ish speaker on the market. dynamic means to be able to play whisper quiet and then overwhelmingly loud and then whisper quite again, and all that on a dime. small speakers will struggle at that because in order to reach certain volume level at certain frequency cone must travel more. and more travel means more necessary time needed to accelerate and decelerate. and that means poorer timing (not even mentioning higher harmonic distortion product). large diaphragms are easier to control because they don't need to travel that much to reach given spls. simples and that is empirically verifiable .

 

[steve_1979]

It'squite simple, but a mouthful Read it slowly.

Basically, if someone says "Sales of trendy Apricot branded armchairs are through the roof, even though they are more expensive and less advanced than the opposition, does NOT mean that every buyer of said Apricot armchair is buying because of the name, just that many are"

...as in "poeple only buy iPhones because it has a picture of an apple on it".

Ahhh. I gedit.