AVI DM5

[Escapism]

I've had my old ADM9.1's for years now. They're now used as a second system, but for the first 5 years they were used daily, often 15 hours a day - it keeps the dogs happy

Surely if they were poorly designed I would have noticed by now? In fact I'm not aware of anyone that has experienced a failure (I'm sure there is the odd one though, just like any product)

On the flip-side, my old Musical Fidelity A5 amp went up in smoke!

Shadders - out of all the actives you mention, which are your favourites?

 

[WinterRacer]

The comparison/difference I'm referring to is an amp designed to deliver high instantaneous power for short periods vs. an amp designed for high continuous power. Which (BTW) is my interpretation of AVI's design goals. Of course, this might not work for people who like to listen to white noise, aka thrash metal

Personally, I think AVI have a very good design, it's just the marketing that irriates some people. The design is bourne out in practice by a system that (to my ears) sounds really good and has plenty of headroom for long and loud listening sessions. More so than any previous passive system I've had.

You have an issue with the specifications published by AVI and you might have a point, but suggest you'll get more direct answers from the AVI forum. BTW, I haven't seen AVI publish the 500w figure you refer to, so possibly just a misquote?

 

[shadders]

I've had my old ADM9.1's for years now. They're now used as a second system, but for the first 5 years they were used daily, often 15 hours a day - it keeps the dogs happy

Surely if they were poorly designed I would have noticed by now? In fact I'm not aware of anyone that has experienced a failure (I'm sure there is the odd one though, just like any product)

On the flip-side, my old Musical Fidelity A5 amp went up in smoke!

Shadders - out of all the actives you mention, which are your favourites?

Hi,

I never stated that AVI speakers were badly designed. I responded to the technical points made by WinterRacer. Whether WinterRacer's statements reflect the actual design of AVI products is unknown to me.

I have never heard any of the actives i have mentioned. I am not discussing subjective experience. I am discussing the technical and engineering aspects of designs, and this should not be confused with any subjective experience.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

The comparison/difference I'm referring to is an amp designed to deliver high instantaneous power for short periods vs. an amp designed for high continuous power. Which (BTW) is my interpretation of AVI's design goals. Of course, this might not work for people who like to listen to white noise, aka thrash metal

Personally, I think AVI have a very good design, it's just the marketing that irriates some people. The design is bourne out in practice by a system that (to my ears) sounds really good and has plenty of headroom for long and loud listening sessions. More so than any previous passive system I've had.

You have an issue with the specifications published by AVI and you might have a point, but suggest you'll get more direct answers from the AVI forum. BTW, I haven't seen AVI publish the 500w figure you refer to, so possibly just a misquote?

Hi,

Yes - i know you were referring to the instantaneous power - short periods only - and this should be stated.

I am responding here to people discussing the general aspects, and i have commented on other designs, not just actives specifically - i enjoy the engineering side of the area. Some people have loudspeaker driver experience, and i have learnt from them in those areas too (recently forum user hg).

As per my post - this thread comment 118 for the 500w specification.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Escapism]

I've had my old ADM9.1's for years now. They're now used as a second system, but for the first 5 years they were used daily, often 15 hours a day - it keeps the dogs happy

Surely if they were poorly designed I would have noticed by now? In fact I'm not aware of anyone that has experienced a failure (I'm sure there is the odd one though, just like any product)

On the flip-side, my old Musical Fidelity A5 amp went up in smoke!

Shadders - out of all the actives you mention, which are your favourites?

I have never heard any of the actives i have mentioned. I am not discussing subjective experience.

Shame, I was hoping we could all change the subject

 

[WinterRacer]

Hi,

Yes - i know you were referring to the instantaneous power - short periods only - and this should be stated.

I am responding here to people discussing the general aspects, and i have commented on other designs, not just actives specifically - i enjoy the engineering side of the area. Some people have loudspeaker driver experience, and i have learnt from them in those areas too (recently forum user hg).

As per my post - this thread comment 118 for the 500w specification.

Regards,

Shadders.

I meant the person in post 118 misquoting, not you. I haven't seen AVI make those claims.

So, ignoring the marketing and concentrating on the engineering side of things, what do you think of AVI's power-amp design?

 

[davedotco]

I've had my old ADM9.1's for years now. They're now used as a second system, but for the first 5 years they were used daily, often 15 hours a day - it keeps the dogs happy

Surely if they were poorly designed I would have noticed by now? In fact I'm not aware of anyone that has experienced a failure (I'm sure there is the odd one though, just like any product)

On the flip-side, my old Musical Fidelity A5 amp went up in smoke!

Shadders - out of all the actives you mention, which are your favourites?

Shadders is really only arguing one point and one point only. He mentions other unsubstantiated AVI claims in passing but this is really about the power.

Ie: That the 250 + 75watt rating is not correct as the system does not have the power supply and heatsinking to sustain continuous power at this level.

He is 100% correct on this. It is unarguable, he has won the argument right there. All this guff about 'industry standard' measurements is just nonsense, there is no standard as anyone with a passing knowledge of amplifier specs will know.

The fact that it is irrelevant to the quality and performance of the speaker system does not matter in this instance.

However it is a realistic figure in that it relates, quite closely I think, to the subjective performance of the speakers. For a compact design the power and lack of dynamic compression is very impressive, it sounds like a very powerful system so from a descriptive point of view, I think the ratings are 'realistic'.

On a separate but related point, it also explains why the ADMs would be of very limited use in a studio situation. They simply would not go loud enough for long enough, simple as that. There are some ADMs and DM5s used professionally, but the applications are specific and they are usually the personal speakers of the engineer in question, a very different proposition from regular 'studio for hire' type of recording work.

 

[shadders]

I've had my old ADM9.1's for years now. They're now used as a second system, but for the first 5 years they were used daily, often 15 hours a day - it keeps the dogs happy

Surely if they were poorly designed I would have noticed by now? In fact I'm not aware of anyone that has experienced a failure (I'm sure there is the odd one though, just like any product)

On the flip-side, my old Musical Fidelity A5 amp went up in smoke!

Shadders - out of all the actives you mention, which are your favourites?

I have never heard any of the actives i have mentioned. I am not discussing subjective experience.

Shame, I was hoping we could all change the subject

Hi,

Sorry...

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[avole]

Shadders is really only arguing one point and one point only. He mentions other unsubstantiated AVI claims in passing but this is really about the power.

Ie: That the 250 + 75watt rating is not correct as the system does not have the power supply and heatsinking to sustain continuous power at this level.

He is 100% correct on this. It is unarguable, he has won the argument right there. All this guff about 'industry standard' measurements is just nonsense, there is no standard as anyone with a passing knowledge of amplifier specs will know.

The fact that it is irrelevant to the quality and performance of the speaker system does not matter in this instance.

However it is a realistic figure in that it relates, quite closely I think, to the subjective performance of the speakers. For a compact design the power and lack of dynamic compression is very impressive, it sounds like a very powerful system so from a descriptive point of view, I think the ratings are 'realistic'.

On a separate but related point, it also explains why the ADMs would be of very limited use in a studio situation. They simply would not go loud enough for long enough, simple as that. There are some ADMs and DM5s used professionally, but the applications are specific and they are usually the personal speakers of the engineer in question, a very different proposition from regular 'studio for hire' type of recording work.

You're not a technical person are you? This post is a little muddled.

 

[hg]

Given that all manufacturers i have examined (and this includes separate amplifiers) state the continuous power, or instantaneous etc., by AVI not stating this, people assume continuous. This is misleading. People will assume they are defined as per others, where not stated to be different.

Is this true? AVI is not selling to the professional market or to the more technically interested of the home market. They are selling to a part of the home audio market that is prepared to pay audiophile prices and wants a Bose/Sonos-type product but with audiophile credentials. For such people the 250W on the spec sheet adds value because it is a nice big number associated with the product. And that is why it is put on the spec sheet to add value and not to be a dry, neutral piece of technical information. AV receivers/amplifiers tend to do somthing similar with their specs although there is usually an asterix and tiny writing at the bottom of page or in the manual saying something like "10% distortion, 1 channel driven, 6 ohm load, 1 kHz signal" to explain how something advertised as "7 x 150W" can have only a 450W power supply and deliver only about 7 x 15W cleanly into an 8 ohm load, 20-20kHz, with <0.1% distortion.

Now AVI opting to market in this way will put off consumers from the professional market and the more techically literate from the home audio market but so what these are not potential customers anyway. As you have been told at length by AVI customers they believe in the integrity of the 250W to the extent they are prepared to defend it at length. They have no interest in technically based reasoning about why it should be smaller because that is not how they reason about their hi-fi. On the other hand, they do seem to have an interest in gathering technical sounding verbage that would support it or even double it although I don't know where that 500W came from having checked the spec on the website which states 250W without an asterix.

 

[Escapism]

And the award for most patronising post, goes to...

*blum3*

 

[shadders]

Hi,

Yes - i know you were referring to the instantaneous power - short periods only - and this should be stated.

I am responding here to people discussing the general aspects, and i have commented on other designs, not just actives specifically - i enjoy the engineering side of the area. Some people have loudspeaker driver experience, and i have learnt from them in those areas too (recently forum user hg).

As per my post - this thread comment 118 for the 500w specification.

Regards,

Shadders.

I meant the person in post 118 misquoting, not you. I haven't seen AVI make those claims.

So, ignoring the marketing and concentrating on the engineering side of things, what do you think of AVI's power-amp design?

Hi,

I do not have the power amp design - so could not tell you the input stage transconductance, VAS stage design, or output stage capability, or whether the amplifier has significant THD for higher loads etc. I have never made comments regarding the actual amplifier design of the AVI system (such as output current capability, linearity etc). These figures have been provided by AVI owners.

My comments have always been that the power stated is not continuous, and by not stating that it is peak, and people read specifications for amplifiers being continuous unless stated otherwise, that this statement needs to be examined.

If you want to compare active speakers on a technical approach with one another, then you need a level playing field, such as rated amplifier output which is continuous. Else, 250watts would indicate a substantially more robust system compared to a manufacturer who quotes continuous power at 40watts, yet they have the same dynamic capability. If the dynamic capability is used to positively state how better one system is compared to another, where only the contiuous capability is available for one system, then this is knowingly misleading

There has been no technical discussion on amplifier design apart from those statements you have made which i have responded to. *biggrin*

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[luckylion100]

And the award for most patronising post, goes to...

*blum3*

http://www.whathifi.com/comment/reply/134927/1002185?quote=1#comment-form

Quite staggering actually.

Btw the reference to the 500W peaks for the DM10's came from AJ on the AVI forum. Perhaps those people that take issue with this should engage in debate over there, perhaps you'll find the answers you seek... I'll watch from the sidelines.

http://hddaudio.net/bb/viewtopic.php?id=10885

 

[shadders]

Given that all manufacturers i have examined (and this includes separate amplifiers) state the continuous power, or instantaneous etc., by AVI not stating this, people assume continuous. This is misleading. People will assume they are defined as per others, where not stated to be different.

Is this true? AVI is not selling to the professional market or to the more technically interested of the home market. They are selling to a part of the home audio market that is prepared to pay audiophile prices and wants a Bose/Sonos-type product but with audiophile credentials. For such people the 250W on the spec sheet adds value because it is a nice big number associated with the product. And that is why it is put on the spec sheet to add value and not to be a dry, neutral piece of technical information. AV receivers/amplifiers tend to do somthing similar with their specs although there is usually an asterix and tiny writing at the bottom of page or in the manual saying something like "10% distortion, 1 channel driven, 6 ohm load, 1 kHz signal" to explain how something advertised as "7 x 150W" can have only a 450W power supply and deliver only about 7 x 15W cleanly into an 8 ohm load, 20-20kHz, with <0.1% distortion.

Now AVI opting to market in this way will put off consumers from the professional market and the more techically literate from the home audio market but so what these are not potential customers anyway. As you have been told at length by AVI customers they believe in the integrity of the 250W to the extent they are prepared to defend it at length. They have no interest in technically based reasoning about why it should be smaller because that is not how they reason about their hi-fi. On the other hand, they do seem to have an interest in gathering technical sounding verbage that would support it or even double it although I don't know where that 500W came from having checked the spec on the website which states 250W without an asterix.

Hi,

I am not certain i stated professional market - all amplifiers i have examined are home use, and actives - i have selected the home use based ones where possible. So to all - i have only examined home use where possible.

The 500watts comes from this thread, comment 118.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Escapism]

Hi,

Yes - i know you were referring to the instantaneous power - short periods only - and this should be stated.

I am responding here to people discussing the general aspects, and i have commented on other designs, not just actives specifically - i enjoy the engineering side of the area. Some people have loudspeaker driver experience, and i have learnt from them in those areas too (recently forum user hg).

As per my post - this thread comment 118 for the 500w specification.

Regards,

Shadders.

I meant the person in post 118 misquoting, not you. I haven't seen AVI make those claims.

So, ignoring the marketing and concentrating on the engineering side of things, what do you think of AVI's power-amp design?

Hi,

I do not have the power amp design - so could not tell you the input stage transconductance, VAS stage design, or output stage capability, or whether the amplifier has significant THD for higher loads etc. I have never made comments regarding the actual amplifier design of the AVI system (such as output current capability, linearity etc). These figures have been provided by AVI owners.

My comments have always been that the power stated is not continuous, and by not stating that it is peak, and people read specifications for amplifiers being continuous unless stated otherwise, that this statement needs to be examined.

If you want to compare active speakers on a technical approach with one another, then you need a level playing field, such as rated amplifier output which is continuous. Else, 250watts would indicate a substantially more robust system compared to a manufacturer who quotes continuous power at 40watts, yet they have the same dynamic capability. If the dynamic capability is used to positively state how better one system is compared to another, where only the contiuous capability is available for one system, then this is knowingly misleading

There has been no technical discussion on amplifier design apart from those statements you have made which i have responded to. *biggrin*

Regards,

Shadders.

Hi,

I'm starting to suspect you believe the stated measurements could be misleading. I understand that, you may not be alone. Others have not been mislead, and some don't give a rats bottom.

What I don't understand is why it's still being 'discussed'?!

 

[shadders]

Hi,

Yes - i know you were referring to the instantaneous power - short periods only - and this should be stated.

I am responding here to people discussing the general aspects, and i have commented on other designs, not just actives specifically - i enjoy the engineering side of the area. Some people have loudspeaker driver experience, and i have learnt from them in those areas too (recently forum user hg).

As per my post - this thread comment 118 for the 500w specification.

Regards,

Shadders.

I meant the person in post 118 misquoting, not you. I haven't seen AVI make those claims.

So, ignoring the marketing and concentrating on the engineering side of things, what do you think of AVI's power-amp design?

Hi,

I do not have the power amp design - so could not tell you the input stage transconductance, VAS stage design, or output stage capability, or whether the amplifier has significant THD for higher loads etc. I have never made comments regarding the actual amplifier design of the AVI system (such as output current capability, linearity etc). These figures have been provided by AVI owners.

My comments have always been that the power stated is not continuous, and by not stating that it is peak, and people read specifications for amplifiers being continuous unless stated otherwise, that this statement needs to be examined.

If you want to compare active speakers on a technical approach with one another, then you need a level playing field, such as rated amplifier output which is continuous. Else, 250watts would indicate a substantially more robust system compared to a manufacturer who quotes continuous power at 40watts, yet they have the same dynamic capability. If the dynamic capability is used to positively state how better one system is compared to another, where only the contiuous capability is available for one system, then this is knowingly misleading

There has been no technical discussion on amplifier design apart from those statements you have made which i have responded to. *biggrin*

Regards,

Shadders.

Hi,

I'm starting to suspect you believe the stated measurements could be misleading. I understand that, you may not be alone. Others have not been mislead, and some don't give a rats bottom.

What I don't understand is why it's still being 'discussed'?!

Hi,

No - i am not stating the stated measurement is misleading.

I am stating that the measurement has not been defined as peak in the literature, and when people use the value 250watts amplifier as a positive aspect of the AVI speaker, knowing that it is peak, and all other designs compared to are continuous, then this is a misleading statement on behalf of the AVI owners.

If you examine the Genelec thread - this has examples of where there are disagreements.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/genelec-804050b-or-avi-dm10s-my-dilema

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Escapism]

Ahh that topic, ok not read it all sorry. Looking forward to that bake-off thingy though - looks like one member has SF Cremona M's. I was just about to buy these when I came across AVI so will be interested in their optinion.

 

[shadders]

Ahh that topic, ok not read it all sorry. Looking forward to that bake-off thingy though - looks like one member has SF Cremona M's. I was just about to buy these when I came across AVI so will be interested in their optinion.

Hi,

I found this thread - seems it has all been asked before.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/avi-adm-woofer-power-amp-rated-250w-bs-or-not

I have not stated anything with regards to the amplifier design of AVI, only questioned the stated parameters/measurements, but the thread above has had comments made on the output stage. Comment 75.

Comment 96 has the same analogy in some regards to my analogy.

Why AVI don't just state the continuous power to stop all the arguments is unknown.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Escapism]

Ahh that topic, ok not read it all sorry. Looking forward to that bake-off thingy though - looks like one member has SF Cremona M's. I was just about to buy these when I came across AVI so will be interested in their optinion.

Hi,

I found this thread - seems it has all been asked before.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/avi-adm-woofer-power-amp-rated-250w-...

I have not stated anything with regards to the amplifier design of AVI, only questioned the stated parameters/measurements, but the thread above has had comments made on the output stage. Comment 75.

Comment 96 has the same analogy in some regards to my analogy.

Why AVI don't just state the continuous power to stop all the arguments is unknown.

Regards,

Shadders.

That Oldear_knoboff was like a dog with a bone!

 

[davedotco]

Shadders is really only arguing one point and one point only. He mentions other unsubstantiated AVI claims in passing but this is really about the power.

Ie: That the 250 + 75watt rating is not correct as the system does not have the power supply and heatsinking to sustain continuous power at this level.

He is 100% correct on this. It is unarguable, he has won the argument right there. All this guff about 'industry standard' measurements is just nonsense, there is no standard as anyone with a passing knowledge of amplifier specs will know.

The fact that it is irrelevant to the quality and performance of the speaker system does not matter in this instance.

However it is a realistic figure in that it relates, quite closely I think, to the subjective performance of the speakers. For a compact design the power and lack of dynamic compression is very impressive, it sounds like a very powerful system so from a descriptive point of view, I think the ratings are 'realistic'.

On a separate but related point, it also explains why the ADMs would be of very limited use in a studio situation. They simply would not go loud enough for long enough, simple as that. There are some ADMs and DM5s used professionally, but the applications are specific and they are usually the personal speakers of the engineer in question, a very different proposition from regular 'studio for hire' type of recording work.

You're not a technical person are you? This post is a little muddled.

Sorry about that. I thought I was pretty clear.

Tell me what you do not understand and I will try and explain.

 

[lindsayt]

Shadders is really only arguing one point and one point only. He mentions other unsubstantiated AVI claims in passing but this is really about the power.

Ie: That the 250 + 75watt rating is not correct as the system does not have the power supply and heatsinking to sustain continuous power at this level.

He is 100% correct on this. It is unarguable, he has won the argument right there. All this guff about 'industry standard' measurements is just nonsense, there is no standard as anyone with a passing knowledge of amplifier specs will know.

The fact that it is irrelevant to the quality and performance of the speaker system does not matter in this instance.

However it is a realistic figure in that it relates, quite closely I think, to the subjective performance of the speakers. For a compact design the power and lack of dynamic compression is very impressive, it sounds like a very powerful system so from a descriptive point of view, I think the ratings are 'realistic'.

On a separate but related point, it also explains why the ADMs would be of very limited use in a studio situation. They simply would not go loud enough for long enough, simple as that. There are some ADMs and DM5s used professionally, but the applications are specific and they are usually the personal speakers of the engineer in question, a very different proposition from regular 'studio for hire' type of recording work.

davedotco, I wasn't aware that you'd actually heard AVI DM10's.

Have you actually heard them? Have you actually heard them in a comprative A/B demo?

Or were your comments on the subjective performance of the speakers based on hearsay?

 

[Escapism]

Shadders is really only arguing one point and one point only. He mentions other unsubstantiated AVI claims in passing but this is really about the power.

Ie: That the 250 + 75watt rating is not correct as the system does not have the power supply and heatsinking to sustain continuous power at this level.

He is 100% correct on this. It is unarguable, he has won the argument right there. All this guff about 'industry standard' measurements is just nonsense, there is no standard as anyone with a passing knowledge of amplifier specs will know.

The fact that it is irrelevant to the quality and performance of the speaker system does not matter in this instance.

However it is a realistic figure in that it relates, quite closely I think, to the subjective performance of the speakers. For a compact design the power and lack of dynamic compression is very impressive, it sounds like a very powerful system so from a descriptive point of view, I think the ratings are 'realistic'.

On a separate but related point, it also explains why the ADMs would be of very limited use in a studio situation. They simply would not go loud enough for long enough, simple as that. There are some ADMs and DM5s used professionally, but the applications are specific and they are usually the personal speakers of the engineer in question, a very different proposition from regular 'studio for hire' type of recording work.

davedotco, I wasn't aware that you'd actually heard AVI DM10's.

Have you actually heard them? Have you actually heard them in a comprative A/B demo?

Or were your comments on the subjective performance of the speakers based on hearsay?

not to worry, most others commenting haven't either.

 

[shadders]

If I was in the market for some speakers, and if AVI stated, for example, 50w into 8 ohms, I would feel cheated, because there's no 8 ohms in it! What would you suggest for this shadders? You cannot compare passives with actives this way at all. If people compare performance between actives and passives this way, they need education as to how to compare specs, not follow their wrong path to satisfy what they're looking for.

Hi,

Quoting against 8 ohms or the actual impedance is the industry standard. That is how you can compare actives with other actives, and see if you are obtaining value for money. I never stated compare passive to actives.

Regards,

Shadders.

Is it the industry standard? Any links to support that?

Hi,

Yes - after checking the wiki - the following IEC standard specifies the characteristics of the amplifier that should be specified and how they should be specified.

https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/1220

IEC 60268-3:2013.

The above standard relates specifically to power amplifiers, and has been updated for Class D amplifiers aswell. If you search for it - the abstract which you can download, has the contents page where you can see all specifications that should be provided.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[drummerman]

This is making me want to collect stamps instead.

 

[nopiano]

This is making me want to collect stamps instead.

We should just stop reading this silly thread. Strangely compelling to see people make fools of themselves in public - like lots of TV these days!