market research.. yay or nay?

[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...

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?

hmmm, i'm learning as i go here, pp.

but, as i understand it, based on explanations given by craig, and others, an active crossover means less distortion, and less distortion means a truer sound (in relation to the source), which i assume in turn means the speaker can utilise the amplification more.

as for stuffing the speaker full of "gizmos" , well, i presume the makers of such speakers stuff them in in a way that doesn't negatively affect performance..

i guess

 

[Olli1324]

A key thing about the crossovers is that you take away the the inductors etc in the passive crossovers between the amp and the drivers. This is a good thing. Also, active crossovers are a lot more accurate at splitting up the frequencies than their passive alternatives.

And of course, the designers take into account the placement of the electronics at the design stage so that they do not impede airflow. If they didn't, then surely it would stand to reason that the passive crossovers would get in the way as well?

 

[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?

hmmm, i'm learning as i go here, pp.

but, as i understand it, based on explanations given by craig, and others, an active crossover means less distortion, and less distortion means a truer sound (in relation to the source), which i assume in turn means the speaker can utilise the amplification more.

as for stuffing the speaker full of "gizmos" , well, i presume the makers of such speakers stuff them in in a way that doesn't negatively affect performance..

i guess

I never get involved too heavily with what makes "this" work etc etc. If it sounds good I buy it - I don't want to turn a hobby or something I use for entertainment into a scientific thesis or research. When I put music on I want to chill...

 

[noogle]

...or get rid of the active crossovers entirely and do all the filtering in the DACs. Meridian DSP8000s anyone?

 

[matthewpiano]

The insistence of certain people that they are right and everyone else is wrong is starting to grate and it is one of the reasons why I'm not around these parts as often these days. The science and engineering brigade are welcome to their 'scopes and white coats, but for me (like PP) that isn't what hi-fi is about.

I'm a musician and I work in the musical instrument trade. I know only too well from my work with a range of different instrument makers that technical perfection is only part of the story and that the human ear is a key part of making and preparing top quality musical instruments.

I've heard active set-ups and in my experience they have the same range of performance as anything else. The best system I ever heard was a Unison Research turntable through a UR valve amp and a pair of passive Opera floorstanders. That system recreated the character of instruments and voices beautifully, as well as a sense of the space in which the music was recorded. Most importantly it was involving, pulling you into the music and making it a wonderful experience.

To me, that is what hi-fi is all about and I am not going to be told that such a system is somehow inferior because it utilises passive speaker technology.

 

[The_Lhc]

The insistence of certain people that they are right and everyone else is wrong is starting to grate and it is one of the reasons why I'm not around these parts as often these days.

Having not taken any part in this conversation until now I'd say both sides of the argument are equally as guilty of this standpoint.

Most importantly it was involving, pulling you into the music and making it a wonderful experience.

To me, that is what hi-fi is all about and I am not going to be told that such a system is somehow inferior because it utilises passive speaker technology.

That's odd because reading your past experiences here I thought the point of hi-fi for you was to constantly change every component you own and never being happy with the end result for more than a week, especially if you say "this is it, no more changes!", which seems to be a sure sign that the whole lot will be ditched the following week. No offence meant there but I've often wondered why you bother with hi-fi at all as you never seem to be satisfied with your system, which makes me wonder how you can enjoy anything you're listening to (obviously if you been happy with your current system for the last few months then I guess the above doesn't apply).

Disclaimer: I've never heard an active speaker and have no opinion on them one way or the other.

 

[John Duncan]

Here's a little experiment. One of these recordings is 'accurate', one is not. Can you tell me which one is which and which one you prefer? Warning: may contain me singing.

http://www.getwaxed.co.uk/one.mp3

http://www.getwaxed.co.uk/two.mp3

Just a bit of fun...

 

[chebby]

I would like to have had more opportunity to find out how active speakers sound. However, our local dealer has never stocked any (and nor do most others).

AEJim has already speculated on why dealers are not keen to stock active speakers (market not mature enough yet, dealer/customer ignorance etc.) but most tellingly, he mentioned that their own experiment with 'activating' a modest pair of speakers resulted in a better sound than the passive version driven by a SuperNait!

I guess the most significant comment (and one that probably sums up the market) is from PP...

I've been pretty consistant in that if an active monitor is better, I still would not change from my traditional set-up.

So there you have it. It doesn't matter how much better performance (or value) active speakers represent, and it doesn't even matter if they are demonstrably better. The traditional market will not buy. It can't 'tinker' with actives (except to get other active speakers), cable swapping becomes redundant and the personal pride in having achieved 'your own sound' is threatened.

I could understand all that if people still built their own hifis, but they don't. What seems to be threatened is just the exercise of a form of advanced consumer choosing. It's not a skill. (Unless visiting shops, sitting on couches, watching other people connecting things, listening to music and drinking bad instant coffee is now a skill!)

The more different elements (from different manufacturers) in a seperates system, the more 'skill' the owner can claim if it sounds ok when it gets home. Fine-tuning (buying different wires/stands/spikes/mains products etc.) gives the owner even more claim to the notion that he 'built' the system somehow.

Active speakers threaten a substantial part of that process and computer/network/streaming audio sources are threatening the other end of the traditional system builder's core skill (choosing a CD player).

 

[John Duncan]

I could understand all that if people still built their own hifis, but they don't. What seems to be threatened is just the exercise of a form of advanced consumer choosing. It's not a skill. (Unless visiting shops, sitting on couches, watching other people connecting things, listening to music and drinking bad instant coffee is now a skill!)

The more different elements (from different manufacturers) in a seperates system, the more 'skill' the owner can claim if it sounds ok when it gets home. Fine-tuning (buying different wires/stands/spikes/mains products etc.) gives the owner even more claim to the notion that he 'built' the system somehow.

Active speakers threaten a substantial part of that process and computer/network/streaming audio sources are threatening the other end of the traditional system builder's core skill (choosing a CD player).

So is owning a hifi about one's own personal vanity? Serious question.

 

[Craig M.]

The insistence of certain people that they are right and everyone else is wrong is starting to grate and it is one of the reasons why I'm not around these parts as often these days.

Having not taken any part in this conversation until now I'd say both sides of the argument are equally as guilty of this standpoint.

although one side can back up what they say with fact. in the quote by AEJim i posted earlier, there was a post by Clare that said that whf were suprised that actives weren't more popular. maybe they would like to try and change this by presenting the advantages, and what they mean for sound quality, as some will only believe what they read in the hifi press. how about it whf? a chance to educate your readers?

 

[matthewpiano]

Firstly, I am not insisting that I am right and there is no other way. I have never done so in all my time on this forum and I'm not about to start now. Diversity is what makes this fun. I just think there needs to be a little bit less of the absolute. I have no particular allegiance to any technology and have nothing against the active approach. I just don't understand why its supposed superiority has to be rammed down our throats with such force.

Secondly, my turns of dissatisfaction have been part of a voyage of discovery about what I like, what works well in my room, what works well together and the sort of sound that enables me to really enjoy the music. It has nothing to do with the active/passive debate but more to do with system synergy and the relationship between hi-fi, music, the listener, and the room in which the equipment is being used. These are the key factors as far as I'm concerned, no matter what technology is being employed to produce the end results.

The Unison Research/Opera system which I refer to above, is not one which I own or have ever owned. Neither am I likely to own it because unless something miraculous happens I will never be able to justify the spend relative to life's other financial demands. The same applies for the 2nd best set-up I've heard - Sugden Masterclass with Sugden speakers. The 3rd place system - Sugden Mystro CD and amp with Focal speakers - is more of an eventual reality, but I'd have to be convinced it would be a big enough step up from my present system, particularly the amp as experience suggests that the Creek competes with anything below £1k. Maybe if I eventually find a good pre-owned Sugden A21a or a well-priced used Unison Research, I might be persuaded to take a step up. Yes, I am happy with my current set-up and the electronics have been stable for some time now. In fact, since I got the Creek, I haven't swapped it out once. Its taken me a while to find the best speaker match but I feel like I've done that now. Other might hear any of the systems to which I refer and hate what they do but that really doesn't bother me in the slightest because listening to music is such a personal thing and totally subjective.

I bother with hi-fi because I love music. Having real instruments around me all day every day makes me particularly fussy about getting good portrayal of timbre, dynamics, detail etc. and that is why having the right set-up is important to me. A good deal of affordable hi-fi out there isn't as good as it is reputed to be and it says a lot that I've ended up with a CD player which is approximately 15/16 years old and a 10-year old amp. Actually, the CD63SE has been the biggest constant throughout the last 12-18 months and building a system around it has largely been the key to success. I haven't heard a current affordable CD player (under £500) that is as musically persuasive.

I have persevered because of the end goal of getting the best out of the music at home. Music is that important to me.

 

[John Duncan]

maybe they would like to try and change this by presenting the advantages, and what they mean for sound quality, as some will only believe what they read in the hifi press. how about it whf? a chance to educate your readers?

http://www.whathifi.com/review/avi-adm91

Apparently this review didn't elicit one enquiry to the manufacturer. So maybe chebby has a point that it's the consumer that's the problem?

 

[The_Lhc]

maybe they would like to try and change this by presenting the advantages, and what they mean for sound quality, as some will only believe what they read in the hifi press. how about it whf? a chance to educate your readers?

http://www.whathifi.com/review/avi-adm91

Apparently this review didn't elicit one enquiry to the manufacturer.

I bet it did but Hewhomustnotbenamed would never admit to it.

 

[John Duncan]

although one side can back up what they say with fact.

There's an interesting debate over on dpreview about the measurements of Sony sensors being better than that of Canon sensors. All of it is backed up with scientific 'stuff'. The difference in measurements cited is not insignificant.

But when placed side by side, both sensors produce spectacular results and I'd be happy owning either.

 

[The_Lhc]

Here's a little experiment. One of these recordings is 'accurate', one is not. Can you tell me which one is which and which one you prefer? Warning: may contain me singing.

http://www.getwaxed.co.uk/one.mp3

http://www.getwaxed.co.uk/two.mp3

Just a bit of fun...

Errm, I think I'm missing something here, I couldn't tell the difference.

Oh and you rock. Or something.

 

[Craig M.]

maybe they would like to try and change this by presenting the advantages, and what they mean for sound quality, as some will only believe what they read in the hifi press. how about it whf? a chance to educate your readers?

http://www.whathifi.com/review/avi-adm91

Apparently this review didn't elicit one enquiry to the manufacturer. So maybe chebby has a point that it's the consumer that's the problem?

my cousin bought some and that review contributed to his decision. i think the best way to change consumer opinion, would be if the biggest selling hifi mag helped to change it.

 

[matthewpiano]

Why should it be WHF's job to change consumer opinion? If the magazine had such an agenda I wouldn't be interested in reading it. The magazine's job is to review a range of components and technologies to provide the reader with a starting point for their own explorations.

Most intelligent consumers are capable of making their own mind up.

 

[John Duncan]

Why should it be WHF's job to change consumer opinion?

Whether or not it's their job, would you agree that they do change consumer opinion?

 

[John Duncan]

my cousin bought some and that review contributed to his decision.

i think the best way to change consumer opinion, would be if the biggest selling hifi mag helped to change it.

Agreed. How would you suggest they do that? Go out and buy a pair of ADMs in order to review them, for example?

Let me ask you another question: the Boxee Box thing won the group test of media streamers ahead of the Apple TV, by (subjectively) quite some margin. Do you think that the Boxee Box will now achieve similar sales to that of the Apple TV?

 

[The_Lhc]

Firstly, I am not insisting that I am right and there is no other way. I have never done so in all my time on this forum and I'm not about to start now. Diversity is what makes this fun. I just think there needs to be a little bit less of the absolute. I have no particular allegiance to any technology and have nothing against the active approach. I just don't understand why its supposed superiority has to be rammed down our throats with such force.

I'll repeat I don't know much about actives, I've never heard them, I have no side to take in this, but I haven't seen anyone ramming their opinion down anyone's throats. I've seen people explain that active speakers have technical advantages over a passive setup and I've seen people give links explaining why that is. I've also seen someone dismiss the whole concept of actives just because he doesn't like the idea of them, which, frankly, seems the more bizarre viewpoint of the two...

As a disinterested reader, if this was a high school debate, I'd have the active camp ahead by a couple of points by now.

 

[John Duncan]

Errm, I think I'm missing something here, I couldn't tell the difference.

OK, ladies and gentlemen, we have one vote for "can't tell the difference"! Any more for any more?!?!?

EDIT - there is a difference by the way, the song is by Whitesnake, not Placebo.

 

[The_Lhc]

Most intelligent consumers are capable of making their own mind up.

Good. What about the rest of them?

 

[matthewpiano]

Firstly, I am not insisting that I am right and there is no other way. I have never done so in all my time on this forum and I'm not about to start now. Diversity is what makes this fun. I just think there needs to be a little bit less of the absolute. I have no particular allegiance to any technology and have nothing against the active approach. I just don't understand why its supposed superiority has to be rammed down our throats with such force.

I'll repeat I don't know much about actives, I've never heard them, I have no side to take in this, but I haven't seen anyone ramming their opinion down anyone's throats. I've seen people explain that active speakers have technical advantages over a passive setup and I've seen people give links explaining why that is. I've also seen someone dismiss the whole concept of actives just because he doesn't like the idea of them, which, frankly, seems the more bizarre viewpoint of the two...

As a disinterested reader, if this was a high school debate, I'd have the active camp ahead by a couple of points by now.

'Technical advantages' aren't the be-all and end-all, and that is what I am trying to get across. Look at what Roy Gandy said about developing the Rega Brio 3 amp. He said technically the final design didn't measure that well, but that it was successful musically.

You can have all the technical accomplishment in the world but the ultimate test is in the listening through human ears. The technical arguments don't interest me that much and I'm not denying that there are technical advantages to an active design. Whether those translate into musical advantages (the ones that really matter to me) is much more open for debate.

Regarding PP, I don't think he is dismissing active speakers as a general concept. What he is saying is that they aren't for him, and he is being quite honest about his reasons for that.

Oh, and I'd like to think we are all a bit too grown up to be having a high school debate.

 

[matthewpiano]

Why should it be WHF's job to change consumer opinion?

Whether or not it's their job, would you agree that they do change consumer opinion?

To a certain extent, yes, but the retailers play a major part in supporting that by largely buying in the items that get lots of press coverage and not making other things available for demonstration. A really good dealer would be able to combine the recommended items with less promoted product which they have a personal belief in and find buyers across the product range by encouraging them to listen with an open mind.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Monstrous and PP are perfect examples as to why the active market will never take over. Many people like what they have, and enjoy the journey getting there. Others feel the amplifier choice is made for them, and want that choice to make for themselves. It matters not if active IS better or not - it's down to personal preference. Many people will more than likely hear an active version of what they have and not like it.

why's that david?

There are many people out there that don't like accuracy. You may find that hard to believe, but it's true. Many years ago, a friend was after a new hi-fi amp, and he asked my opinion between two particular ones. I said that one was quite clearly better than the other in many ways. So, he went to his local dealer, had a listen, and bought the other one. His reasons were that the better amp, which he agreed was better, didn't sound right to him as all the intruments had their own space, and everything sounded seperated - this he didn't like. He preferred to listen to the lesser sounding amplifier because it all sounded like 'a single performance'.

I think PP, Monstrous, and matthewpiano has pretty much said all that needs to be said about the argument. They're people who know what they like. Even though accuracy to what's been mixed is the goal, it's not necessarily what everyone wants.

We sell quite a few speakers around the £3-6k price point. Adding amplification to that, some would be pushing £10k. For that, a pair of active ATC's can be purchased. So why aren't people buying the active option? Most people nowadays want a speaker that is visually pleasing as well as aurally - myself, I don't care, I'll have the biggest, ugliest ones I can get in the pursuit of audio excellence - the majority of people will not, for various reasons. No doubt there might be one or two people who would buy some £10k actives if we had them in store, but the majority of people would take one look at them and dismiss them instantly - most people won't give hi-fi the space they used to.