Kef ls50 or avi adm9rs or other?

[moon]

perhaps the AVi's are too niche a product for the average pc user. Pioneer have included a usb in put on the top ot the range AV amp.

I think most companies do, offer USB that is, in their DACs and usually in their AV amps where applicable.

Most AV receivers now have them including budget ones, as well as mini-systems like the Denon DM39 (£200), and many CD players from £150.

sorry talking about USB b input

 

[Frank Harvey]

sorry talking about USB b input

Apologies. Yes, Pioneer also have one on their A70 amp (a plus point then to my previously mentioned A70/LS50 system?), and Cyrus use them too. I believe the KEF X300 active monitors have one, as they're designed for PC users.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Every speaker technology is flawed somehow, even electrostatics.

really? how? tell me.

 

[Overdose]

...why not put in your own counter argument about how passive speakers are not bettered by actives in the way mentioned in this post and others. Would that not lend you more credence to your position?

Mine: not necessarily practical and can require additional adapters to facilitate CD (or other) connectivity (e.g. if XLR or unbalanced 1/4" only available), appearance, inflexible, need to choose carefully to avoid a "sound" that doesn't suit the listener (e.g. too flat and better off in a recording studio for mastering purposes), can need a pre-amp if one not built-in...horses for courses.

Some good points, but also some non issues as well.

Connectivity for any speakers is well catered for and whoever sells the speakers should also sell the cables required to connect them.

The 'sound' of actives, ie being flat is as relevant as passive being too warm or too bright, etc. This is just down to personal taste and nearly all speaker units need some form of amplification. Aesthetics of monitors is probably the main issue that you raise, but my point was not that of highlighting any perceived shortcomings in general, but to counter a supposed inaccurate statement about the shorcomings of passives or the benefits of actives.

The ADMs and the Dyn Xeo speakers to my mind remain the only complete packages at the £1200-£1500 price range and therefore I would always recommend considering these as an alternative to more traditional HiFi, because there is nothing else. I tend to forget about the Xeos, because for me they are a sideways move over my system.

 

[drummerman]

Every speaker technology is flawed somehow, even electrostatics.

really? how? tell me.

Phileas certainly has a point.

regards

 

[hoopsontoast]

Every speaker technology is flawed somehow, even electrostatics.

really? how? tell me.

I can only think of two. Need reasonable space around them (mainly behind) and can be fussy over amplification.

Apart from that, Panel/Ribbon speakers like Magnepan and Apogee and Electrostatics like the Quad 57/63 are some of the best speakers I have heard. They give you something no box speaker can give, but with the compromises listed above. If I had the room, I would make that compromise.

Every speaker is a compromise, out of Size, Bass Depth and Efficiency (SPL) and pick two unless you like wardrobes :rofl:

Back on topic, I can only compare the LS50's in a surround setup and the original ADM9.1's and honestly I would pick neither, I think there are better speakers out there for similar money, and thats just my honest opinion.

 

[BenLaw]

Every speaker technology is flawed somehow, even electrostatics.

really? how? tell me.

Comb filtering.

 

[hoopsontoast]

Every speaker technology is flawed somehow, even electrostatics.

really? how? tell me.

Comb filtering.

Comb Filtering / Poor Vertical Dispersion is one I forgot, only audible away from the sweet spot, if that matters to you.

 

[Alec]

Mind you, Mr Spot, the AVIs get round the looks issue. Indeed, I wish other brands did, whilst also sporting DACs.

 

[Frank Harvey]

But DACs change.

 

[the record spot]

Alec: good they may be, looks are a matter of taste and I prefer what Tannoy do in that regard. Much cleaner in my eyes.

 

[richardw42]

Grilles on or off ?

 

[Overdose]

But DACs change.

Erm, and?

All components change and in a lot of cases, unless there is a desire to change there is usually no need. Once you reach the level of good enough or audibly transparent, then change is only for changes sake. I'm sure you'd like people to change components all the time, but then your job depends upon it.

 

[Alec]

Fair dos, but im talking about actives.

 

[the record spot]

Grilles on or off ?

Off, Richard, with grilles on, they have the same coverage across the fascia of both speakers. Unremarkable to my eyes in both cases.

 

[Ajani]

Now as far as arguments go, the argy bargy usually begins once the ADMs have been advised and then someone chips in with a snippy comment against the ADMs and the 'blue touch paper' is lit.

I disagree. It all usually starts when those who recommend ADM's compare them (always crossover) and talk (in infamous Ash fashion) negatively about passive speakers. There's never any mention of cabinet or drive units, just 'the crossover".

I'm sure if passive crossovers are as nasty and hideous as Ash makes out, all passive speakers would sound worse than a Brian May guitar solo. Not the case though, is it.

I think the reason for all these heated discussions in HiFi is due to a general lack of diplomacy on HiFi forums (much like in real life). Put it this way: If I posted a thread looking for suggestions for a great system under $1.5K, am I more likely to get response A or B?

Response A: XYZ Active speakers is the BEST option in your price range, you'll have to spend triple that to get anything comparable.

Respone B: XYZ Active speakers is a good option in your price range.

You can substitute XYZ active speakers with various brands of planar speakers, passive speakers, tube amps, TT, CDP, DAC, whatever...

The problem with response A is that once you make a claim like that, you are bound to create conflict. Anyone who disagrees with that claim will want to jump in and do so, then you need to defend your claim and hence get into an argument about technical specifications, etc. etc. I think it's best to just make suggestions of good options, and let the OP for the thread decide which option is best.

 

[moon]

Now as far as arguments go, the argy bargy usually begins once the ADMs have been advised and then someone chips in with a snippy comment against the ADMs and the 'blue touch paper' is lit.

I disagree. It all usually starts when those who recommend ADM's compare them (always crossover) and talk (in infamous Ash fashion) negatively about passive speakers. There's never any mention of cabinet or drive units, just 'the crossover".

I'm sure if passive crossovers are as nasty and hideous as Ash makes out, all passive speakers would sound worse than a Brian May guitar solo. Not the case though, is it.

I think the reason for all these heated discussions in HiFi is due to a general lack of diplomacy on HiFi forums (much like in real life). Put it this way: If I posted a thread looking for suggestions for a great system under $1.5K, am I more likely to get response A or B?

Response A: XYZ Active speakers is the BEST option in your price range, you'll have to spend triple that to get anything comparable.

Respone B: XYZ Active speakers is a good option in your price range.

You can substitute XYZ active speakers with various brands of planar speakers, passive speakers, tube amps, TT, CDP, DAC, whatever...

The problem with response A is that once you make a claim like that, you are bound to create conflict. Anyone who disagrees with that claim will want to jump in and do so, then you need to defend your claim and hence get into an argument about technical specifications, etc. etc. I think it's best to just make suggestions of good options, and let the OP for the thread decide which option is best.

hoora ..... finally

 

[richardw42]

RS. I've yet to own or even see a pair of speakers I'd want to keep looking at with grilles off.

Think they all look messy.

The recent Tannoys are about the least offensive though

 

[Frank Harvey]

But DACs change.

Erm, and?

All components change and in a lot of cases, unless there is a desire to change there is usually no need.

Speakers, and in particular amplification, don't really change. The biggest change we've had recently is the move to Class D by some manufacturers, but it's not like its a new era of unreached perfection, even if it is more neutral and more efficient.

Once you reach the level of good enough or audibly transparent, then change is only for changes sake. I'm sure you'd like people to change components all the time, but then your job depends upon it.

I disagree. "Good" is about mid level. Although we all have a different idea of what 'good' is. And there are many degrees of "audibly transparent" - its not a case of something is 100% transparent or it isn't at all.

 

[Overdose]

But DACs change.

Erm, and?

All components change and in a lot of cases, unless there is a desire to change there is usually no need.

Speakers, and in particular amplification, don't really change. The biggest change we've had recently is the move to Class D by some manufacturers, but it's not like its a new era of unreached perfection, even if it is more neutral and more efficient.

Once you reach the level of good enough or audibly transparent, then change is only for changes sake. I'm sure you'd like people to change components all the time, but then your job depends upon it.

I disagree. "Good" is about mid level. Although we all have a different idea of what 'good' is. And there are many degrees of "audibly transparent" - its not a case of something is 100% transparent or it isn't at all.

I can't believe that you've just written all that with a straight keyboard.

Audibly transparent means that you can't hear the unwanted artifacts, so if you can't hear them, you needn't worry about them. I'm not really sure what your point is anyway.

 

[JMacMan]

But DACs change.

Erm, and?

All components change and in a lot of cases, unless there is a desire to change there is usually no need.

Speakers, and in particular amplification, don't really change. The biggest change we've had recently is the move to Class D by some manufacturers, but it's not like its a new era of unreached perfection, even if it is more neutral and more efficient.

Once you reach the level of good enough or audibly transparent, then change is only for changes sake. I'm sure you'd like people to change components all the time, but then your job depends upon it.

I disagree. "Good" is about mid level. Although we all have a different idea of what 'good' is. And there are many degrees of "audibly transparent" - its not a case of something is 100% transparent or it isn't at all.

I can't believe that you've just written all that with a straight keyboard.

Audibly transparent means that you can't hear the unwanted artifacts, so if you can't hear them, you needn't worry about them. I'm not really sure what your point is anyway.

I'm reminded of the time when I was a teenager, and in charge of my high schools P.A. system. The school bought a HiFi stereo system for the music room, and I was there when it was installed. The two men who bought it all in to the school and set it up, wore white dust coats. We all thought they were either scientists or audio 'experts' going by the way they were dressed, when in fact they were in reality, merely expert salesmen.

John...

 

[Frank Harvey]

Accuse all you like. I'll leave the character references to those who actually know me.

Audibly transparent will be down to many things, including cabinet design - if the cabinet isn't up to scratch it will be drawing attnetion to the speaker, hence affecting its ability to sound transparent.

 

[Phileas]

Audibly transparent will be down to many things, including cabinet design

Is that the cabinet containiing the electronics?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think we may be talking about two different things.

 

[L00k_C]

I currently use a 5.1 setup with five of them, and they're currently driven by a Rotel RMB1575. Since I replaced my dedicated AV speakers about 2 years ago, I've never felt the need to use a sub for music. The LS50's have sufficient bass extension for general full range music listening.

David, I would like to add that I have heard L50's with Unison Research. They were amazing.... However with R700 I got more 'FULL BODY' sound (for my tastes at least)....