market research.. yay or nay?

[matthewpiano]

'Reproducing the signal as faithfully as possible' can only mean being accurate to the recording. This is completely different to being accurate to the original musical performance and experience.

 

[plastic penguin]

'Better' is subjective.

not really - not if you think a hifi speaker should do as good a job as it can replaying the signal as faithfully as possible. if you want to hear the speaker distorting the signal, that is a different matter. that is a preference.

here, AEJim makes a pretty startling comment about an active version of their speakers compared to the passive ones on a supernait. at a 1/5th of the price.

We were just having a discussion about active speakers in the office. We're bemused why more manufacturers aren't offering them as an option - and I mean living-room friendly designs (like the AVIs), rather than more tweaky, pro-audio models.

We're trying to put together a test, and are struggling to find enough (relatively) mainstream options to add! (Eg widely available to demo/buy).

As a manufacturer we'd love to make more active speakers - it takes some of the variables of system matching out of the chain as well as the design being superior (if done correctly) to the conventional passive crossover/amplification route. In the current climate of growing usage of MP3 player sources it makes more sense than ever.

The problem is market acceptance (Worldwide, not just UK), it seems many members of the general public simply don't "get it". This isn't a criticism but more a case of active speakers being very new to people used to having a traditional stacking Hi-Fi system.

We had planned an active version of the new Compact 1 model (due in June) and in testing it sounds better than the passive version on the end of our Naim Supernait amplifier! The cost would rise from around £150 for the passive to nearer £400-500 for the active pair, while being a considerable saving over using even a very high quality amplifier it seems a large psychological jump.

What has put the project on hold for us, bearing in mind considerable developement time and cost is involved, is that in talking to various dealers who sell other active models it seems they don't really sell in any quantity. This could be down to the dealers not pushing and educating customers, that those models simply aren't that great, too expensive or indeed something else altogether. Either way that feedback mixed with the need to source and test many new components that we don't produce ourselves leaves a fair amount of risk involved.

It's something I'd certainly like to do but we'll need more demand and market maturity in that area before we can really go full-steam ahead. We do have the active Pro products because they are the norm in that market, the domestic Hi-Fi market has always been a little slower to embrace new things though... Not that active speakers are particularly new! This of course means some companies need to lead the way but we already tried that with Bluetooth speakers and WiFi Internet Radios, while they sold well enough they never set the world alight and we don't have the marketing budgets of a Bose or Sony to really do that!

It's a shame because I think the active Compact 1 prototypes we have are pretty special little speakers, it's a little bit of a chicken/egg situation I guess - manufacturers need press and dealers help to promote these kinds of technologies but you guys also need us to be making them to do so!

What a load of rubbish - who would realistically run a £2,500 amp with a £150 speaker? If you had a £2,000 + speaker with a SuperNait, I'd be surprised if a £400-£500 active would outperform that.

 

[plastic penguin]

'Reproducing the signal as faithfully as possible' can only mean being accurate to the recording. This is completely different to being accurate to the original musical performance and experience.

This was the point I made earlier. You're bang on...

 

[Anonymous]

'Reproducing the signal as faithfully as possible' can only mean being accurate to the recording. This is completely different to being accurate to the original musical performance and experience.

how can a speaker be accurate to anything other than the recording/source it's being fed? no speaker can be accurate to the original musical performance and experience, unless the recording/source is accurate to it :~

 

[Anonymous]

'Better' is subjective.

not really - not if you think a hifi speaker should do as good a job as it can replaying the signal as faithfully as possible. if you want to hear the speaker distorting the signal, that is a different matter. that is a preference.

here, AEJim makes a pretty startling comment about an active version of their speakers compared to the passive ones on a supernait. at a 1/5th of the price.

We were just having a discussion about active speakers in the office. We're bemused why more manufacturers aren't offering them as an option - and I mean living-room friendly designs (like the AVIs), rather than more tweaky, pro-audio models.

We're trying to put together a test, and are struggling to find enough (relatively) mainstream options to add! (Eg widely available to demo/buy).

As a manufacturer we'd love to make more active speakers - it takes some of the variables of system matching out of the chain as well as the design being superior (if done correctly) to the conventional passive crossover/amplification route. In the current climate of growing usage of MP3 player sources it makes more sense than ever.

The problem is market acceptance (Worldwide, not just UK), it seems many members of the general public simply don't "get it". This isn't a criticism but more a case of active speakers being very new to people used to having a traditional stacking Hi-Fi system.

We had planned an active version of the new Compact 1 model (due in June) and in testing it sounds better than the passive version on the end of our Naim Supernait amplifier! The cost would rise from around £150 for the passive to nearer £400-500 for the active pair, while being a considerable saving over using even a very high quality amplifier it seems a large psychological jump.

What has put the project on hold for us, bearing in mind considerable developement time and cost is involved, is that in talking to various dealers who sell other active models it seems they don't really sell in any quantity. This could be down to the dealers not pushing and educating customers, that those models simply aren't that great, too expensive or indeed something else altogether. Either way that feedback mixed with the need to source and test many new components that we don't produce ourselves leaves a fair amount of risk involved.

It's something I'd certainly like to do but we'll need more demand and market maturity in that area before we can really go full-steam ahead. We do have the active Pro products because they are the norm in that market, the domestic Hi-Fi market has always been a little slower to embrace new things though... Not that active speakers are particularly new! This of course means some companies need to lead the way but we already tried that with Bluetooth speakers and WiFi Internet Radios, while they sold well enough they never set the world alight and we don't have the marketing budgets of a Bose or Sony to really do that!

It's a shame because I think the active Compact 1 prototypes we have are pretty special little speakers, it's a little bit of a chicken/egg situation I guess - manufacturers need press and dealers help to promote these kinds of technologies but you guys also need us to be making them to do so!

What a load of rubbish - who would realistically run a £2,500 amp with a £150 speaker? If you had a £2,000 + speaker with a SuperNait, I'd be surprised if a £400-£500 active would outperform that.

surely the point is,pp, that the active version of the same speaker is so good, it sounds better than the passive version "even though" it was connected to such a high end amp?

 

[Craig M.]

what? and there exists a speaker that can do what you say across all genres, studio and live? nonsense. if the "original musical performance and experience." is on the recording, then you stand a better chance of hearing it through something accurate and revealing. otherwise your just talking about distortion that is applied to everything, whether you want it or not.

you really should make the effort to gain some knowledge about how a passive crossover distorts the signal and hinders the amplifier. google is your friend and it can be an eye opener.

pp, using your comment about the passive ae's and the supernait, can you imagine what some actives at the same price as the supernait and equivalantly priced speakers would sound like? i suspect not. AEJims point was to illustrate the superiority of the active crossover, he states that it sounds better even with a supposedly inferior amp, when compared to a passive crossover. it's not nonsense, it's not opinion, it's fact. engineering fact, the same stuff they hopefully use when designing hifi components.

 

[matthewpiano]

That is the fallacy behind all these accuracy claims. It comes down to whether you want a system that is accurate to (often inadequate) recordings, or whether your primary aim is to enjoy listening to the music, even if that means some colouration to bring those recordings to life.

 

[plastic penguin]

'Better' is subjective.

not really - not if you think a hifi speaker should do as good a job as it can replaying the signal as faithfully as possible. if you want to hear the speaker distorting the signal, that is a different matter. that is a preference.

here, AEJim makes a pretty startling comment about an active version of their speakers compared to the passive ones on a supernait. at a 1/5th of the price.

We were just having a discussion about active speakers in the office. We're bemused why more manufacturers aren't offering them as an option - and I mean living-room friendly designs (like the AVIs), rather than more tweaky, pro-audio models.

We're trying to put together a test, and are struggling to find enough (relatively) mainstream options to add! (Eg widely available to demo/buy).

As a manufacturer we'd love to make more active speakers - it takes some of the variables of system matching out of the chain as well as the design being superior (if done correctly) to the conventional passive crossover/amplification route. In the current climate of growing usage of MP3 player sources it makes more sense than ever.

The problem is market acceptance (Worldwide, not just UK), it seems many members of the general public simply don't "get it". This isn't a criticism but more a case of active speakers being very new to people used to having a traditional stacking Hi-Fi system.

We had planned an active version of the new Compact 1 model (due in June) and in testing it sounds better than the passive version on the end of our Naim Supernait amplifier! The cost would rise from around £150 for the passive to nearer £400-500 for the active pair, while being a considerable saving over using even a very high quality amplifier it seems a large psychological jump.

What has put the project on hold for us, bearing in mind considerable developement time and cost is involved, is that in talking to various dealers who sell other active models it seems they don't really sell in any quantity. This could be down to the dealers not pushing and educating customers, that those models simply aren't that great, too expensive or indeed something else altogether. Either way that feedback mixed with the need to source and test many new components that we don't produce ourselves leaves a fair amount of risk involved.

It's something I'd certainly like to do but we'll need more demand and market maturity in that area before we can really go full-steam ahead. We do have the active Pro products because they are the norm in that market, the domestic Hi-Fi market has always been a little slower to embrace new things though... Not that active speakers are particularly new! This of course means some companies need to lead the way but we already tried that with Bluetooth speakers and WiFi Internet Radios, while they sold well enough they never set the world alight and we don't have the marketing budgets of a Bose or Sony to really do that!

It's a shame because I think the active Compact 1 prototypes we have are pretty special little speakers, it's a little bit of a chicken/egg situation I guess - manufacturers need press and dealers help to promote these kinds of technologies but you guys also need us to be making them to do so!

What a load of rubbish - who would realistically run a £2,500 amp with a £150 speaker? If you had a £2,000 + speaker with a SuperNait, I'd be surprised if a £400-£500 active would outperform that.

surely the point is,pp, that the active version of the same speaker is so good, it sounds better than the passive version "even though" it was connected to such a high end amp?

You know this from personal experience do you, Max?

 

[plastic penguin]

what? and there exists a speaker that can do what you say across all genres, studio and live? nonsense. if the "original musical performance and experience." is on the recording, then you stand a better chance of hearing it through something accurate and revealing. otherwise your just talking about distortion that is applied to everything, whether you want it or not.

you really should make the effort to gain some knowledge about how a passive crossover distorts the signal and hinders the amplifier. google is your friend and it can be an eye opener.

pp, using your comment about the passive ae's and the supernait, can you imagine what some actives at the same price as the supernait and equivalantly priced speakers would sound like? i suspect not. AEJims point was to illustrate the superiority of the active crossover, he states that it sounds better even with a supposedly inferior amp, when compared to a passive crossover. it's not nonsense, it's not opinion, it's fact. engineering fact, the same stuff they hopefully use when designing hifi components.

I am surprised, Craig, given you're defending one pro yet totally dismiss the views of another.

 

[Anonymous]

of course not, pp. but i get the point that craig was making, you seem to be having another "oversight"..

 

[Craig M.]

I am surprised, Craig, given you're defending one pro yet totally dismiss the views of another.

i'm not sure i know who you are referring to.

 

[Anonymous]

I have owned Audiolab the original 8000c + two 8000m's with Monitor Audio studio 20's, also owned Cyrus full system then moved to a passive ATC Pre & two power amp's along with the full IMO brilliant entry level up to scm40's & as amazing as it could be even with all the tweaks imaginable if you could afford them...the difference between any of these set-ups & ATC scm50asl is limitless, the gap being so wide that I wish I had made the active decision many years ago,

 

[plastic penguin]

I am surprised, Craig, given you're defending one pro yet totally dismiss the views of another.

i'm not sure i know who you are referring to.

AEJIM being one and the "other" was deleted. I've been pretty consistant in that if an active monitor is better, I still would not change from my traditional set-up.

As always, though, those who have active monitors scream it's the best thing since sliced bread, while the old wrinklies (me) say the same about a standard set-up.

Nothing will ever be gained, but this worm isn't for turning.

 

[Craig M.]

That is the fallacy behind all these accuracy claims. It comes down to whether you want a system that is accurate to (often inadequate) recordings, or whether your primary aim is to enjoy listening to the music, even if that means some colouration to bring those recordings to life.

have you done any research on active crossovers? i don't see how you wouldn't want those benefits. in the majority of cases you could have better dynamics, far more natural midrange, better imaging, better bass, less fatiguing treble...

anyway, i'm not arguing, if it's not for you that's no skin off my nose. but other people read this forum and they should have the facts and potential advantages of actives as many are in the dark about them.

 

[plastic penguin]

of course not, pp. but i get the point that craig was making, you seem to be having another "oversight"..

You "get" the point...

I get the point but it doesn't mean I agree with it. To reiterate earlier sentiments, I've no problem with ACTIVE concept, but I'm not willing to be converted.

 

[Anonymous]

of course not, pp. but i get the point that craig was making, you seem to be having another "oversight"..

You "get" the point... I get the point but it doesn't mean I agree with it. To reiterate earlier sentiments, I've no problem with ACTIVE concept, but I'm not willing to be converted.

so you think AEjim was mistaken?

 

[Craig M.]

ah, understood pp. i think AEJims views carry slightly more weight though...

as i said to Matthew, my aim isn't to turn you, simply to provide information that others can use, or not.

 

[Anonymous]

max, you can lead a horse to water...

i is sayin nuttin

 

[Craig M.]

max, you can lead a horse to water...

 

[plastic penguin]

That is the fallacy behind all these accuracy claims. It comes down to whether you want a system that is accurate to (often inadequate) recordings, or whether your primary aim is to enjoy listening to the music, even if that means some colouration to bring those recordings to life.

have you done any research on active crossovers? i don't see how you wouldn't want those benefits. in the majority of cases you could have better dynamics, far more natural midrange, better imaging, better bass, less fatiguing treble...

anyway, i'm not arguing, if it's not for you that's no skin off my nose. but other people read this forum and they should have the facts and potential advantages of actives as many are in the dark about them.

In short, like MP, facts or technical properganda doesn't always translate. If these "facts" say you achieve better clarity and/or accuracy that doesn't pull weight with me: I like a little colour to my music. When I've heard 'neutral' systems they sound dry, and over a period, boring. I prefer mine to be FUN even if accuracy or neutrality is sacrificed.

 

[plastic penguin]

of course not, pp. but i get the point that craig was making, you seem to be having another "oversight"..

You "get" the point... I get the point but it doesn't mean I agree with it. To reiterate earlier sentiments, I've no problem with ACTIVE concept, but I'm not willing to be converted.

so you think AEjim was mistaken?

Let's just say "over optimistic". Based on my own personal experience his examples were'nt good. This is why: I've heard Wharfedale 9.1 with £600 Rotel RA-06. The improvement is noticable and very pleasant. I've also heard the same speakers on the end of a Bryston amp (approx. £2,000) and the improvement over the Rotel was neglagible. You can only push a budget speaker so far. Or every component has its limit.

 

[Olli1324]

Such a sound could still be achieved by active speakers. Either by the amplification of choice (which relies on the designer liking the same sound characteristics) or by fiddling with the source and/or preamp (assuming the preamp isnt built in)

 

[Anonymous]

yes, but as i understand it, pp. isn't the active crossover the key difference? it's not just the custom made amplification that's said to give actives their (alleged ) edge...

 

[bigboss]

of course not, pp. but i get the point that craig was making, you seem to be having another "oversight"..

You "get" the point... I get the point but it doesn't mean I agree with it. To reiterate earlier sentiments, I've no problem with ACTIVE concept, but I'm not willing to be converted.

so you think AEjim was mistaken?

Let's just say "over optimistic". Based on my own personal experience his examples were'nt good. This is why: I've heard Wharfedale 9.1 with £600 Rotel RA-06. The improvement is noticable and very pleasant. I've also heard the same speakers on the end of a Bryston amp (approx. £2,000) and the improvement over the Rotel was neglagible. You can only push a budget speaker so far. Or every component has its limit.

I think the point AEJim made was: one can assume that the expensive amplifier bought the best out of the speakers (not the other way round). So you shouldn't really be hearing any better than this combination with the same speakers. Yet, the active version of the same speakers sounded better.

As you've said, "You can only push a budget speaker so far. Or every component has its limit.". AEJim stated that the same speakers in active form were pushed further in performance.

 

[plastic penguin]

yes, but as i understand it, pp. isn't the active crossover the key difference? it's not just the custom made amplification that's said to give actives their (alleged ) edge...

Dunno about crossovers etc. - one thing I do know is that the vast majority of speakers are ported in some way, to let the air move the drivers which gives it flexibility of sound. How does that work with an active when it's stuffed full of gizmos?