market research.. yay or nay?

[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.

'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.

I'm aware of all that but it still doesn't mean that actives can't give people what they want, which is what you and PP seem to be saying.

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.

But his reason, from what I can see, appear to be simply because they're active. And that's no reason at all.

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

Funny, I was thinking completely the opposite, most of the debates I went to at school were of much higher quality than most of what we have on here (including this one).

 

[John Duncan]

Which comes back to my point about camera sensors - there are some that have a scientifically provable advantage in one way or another (CMOS Vs Foveon for example), but in practice this is not borne out. I have no doubt that in practice active speakers are superior in some applications (higher volume being one example) but in others they are much of a muchness so see room for both.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

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...

1/ 1
2/ 2

 

[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...

1/ 1 2/ 2

Excellent, thanks. Now - what does that mean?

 

[Frank Harvey]

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...

I'm only listening on some B&W MM1's, but I'd say the second one is the accurate one. Would be nice to hear it on a hi-fi system!

 

[John Duncan]

Would be nice to hear it on a hi-fi system!

Do you not have any to hand?

 

[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.

I'm aware of all that but it still doesn't mean that actives can't give people what they want, which is what you and PP seem to be saying.

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.

But his reason, from what I can see, appear to be simply because they're active. And that's no reason at all.

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

Funny, I was thinking completely the opposite, most of the debates I went to at school were of much higher quality than most of what we have on here (including this one).

No, I'm not saying active speakers can't give people what they want. Clearly they can, or some of their staunch advocates within this thread wouldn't be quite so staunch. You are distorting my argument somewhat there.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

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...

1/ 1 2/ 2

Excellent, thanks. Now - what does that mean?

Q1 Which one is accurate Answer 1 link 1
Q2 Which do you prefer. Answer 2 link 2

 

[John Duncan]

Gotcha, ta. Why do you prefer (2)?

 

[John Duncan]

Maybe I should move this questionnaire to a separate thread...

 

[Frank Harvey]

Would be nice to hear it on a hi-fi system!

Do you not have any to hand?

Not from where I am - our main PC's are on a seperate feed to our wireless system for security reasons.

 

[John Duncan]

I hereby grant you non-exclusive non-commercial rights to burn them to a CD...

 

[The_Lhc]

No, I'm not saying active speakers can't give people what they want. Clearly they can, or some of their staunch advocates within this thread wouldn't be quite so staunch. You are distorting my argument somewhat there.

Ok, they can't give YOU what you want, which, unless you've heard every active system available, is an unsupportable viewpoint.

 

[marou]

"well, there's alot of differing opinions in hifi, but one thing has struck me, almost everyone on here that has listened to a decent set of actives, and posted their opinion, has been very impressed.

not just hifi novices like me either, craig, the RS, igglebert, etc, guys that have heard many setups over the years, as i'm sure many others that have been so impressed with actives have too.

has anyone actually listened to a decent pair of active speakers and not been impressed?"

I listened to AVI actives at a well-known London Hifi store in comparison with a range of speakers in the £600 to £1200 range (Spendor, Dynaudio, PMC as I remember). The AVI actives were comfortably out-performed by the passive speakers so I didn't buy them.

 

[Anonymous]

well i love the sound of my speakers, they work well in my room, and they didn't sound very different with either of the 3 amps i've used with them, subtle differences that i'm not too sure i would notice in a blind test.

if they were ever offered in active version (including a dac and preamp, and if i had the funds), i'd most probably buy them, because they "should" sound even better, i could lose my amp, wouldn't need to buy a new dac (currently using my AEX, but that's only good for spotify), and i like the idea of less boxes.

 

[matthewpiano]

No, I'm not saying active speakers can't give people what they want. Clearly they can, or some of their staunch advocates within this thread wouldn't be quite so staunch. You are distorting my argument somewhat there.

Ok, they can't give YOU what you want, which, unless you've heard every active system available, is an unsupportable viewpoint.

Wrong again. Still not properly understanding what I'm saying!

I've not even said they can't give me what I want. I'm merely making the point that the technical superiority doesn't guarantee they will give me what I want. I am also making the completely valid point that passive speakers are capable of giving me what I want - that although an active set-up may well give me what I want, it isn't the only way of cracking the egg.

 

[The_Lhc]

No, I'm not saying active speakers can't give people what they want. Clearly they can, or some of their staunch advocates within this thread wouldn't be quite so staunch. You are distorting my argument somewhat there.

Ok, they can't give YOU what you want, which, unless you've heard every active system available, is an unsupportable viewpoint.

Wrong again. Still not properly understanding what I'm saying!

I've not even said they can't give me what I want. I'm merely making the point that the technical superiority doesn't guarantee they will give me what I want. I am also making the completely valid point that passive speakers are capable of giving me what I want - that although an active set-up may well give me what I want, it isn't the only way of cracking the egg.

Right. But all the other lot are saying is that active speakers can also deliver an enjoyable experience with one less box to worry about and yet you do a convincing impression of someone violently opposed to that idea. Or at least that's the impression I got from your somewhat negative reaction to the comments of the active brigade.

You certainly didn't give the impression that active components appealed to you, you certainly don't seem willing to try them, which, given the amount of kit you have tried, is a little puzzling.

If that isn't the impression you intended to give then all I can say is you aren't explaining yourself very well, because so far I'm clearly missing your point.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

but if we're talking about the same speaker, in both active and passive form (as i was in the op), and seeing as they will look almost identical (apart from the rear, which nobody will see), then surely at least from an asthetic/space saving point of view the actives are more suitable?

 

[Anonymous]

"well, there's alot of differing opinions in hifi, but one thing has struck me, almost everyone on here that has listened to a decent set of actives, and posted their opinion, has been very impressed.

not just hifi novices like me either, craig, the RS, igglebert, etc, guys that have heard many setups over the years, as i'm sure many others that have been so impressed with actives have too.

has anyone actually listened to a decent pair of active speakers and not been impressed?"

I listened to AVI actives at a well-known London Hifi store in comparison with a range of speakers in the £600 to £1200 range (Spendor, Dynaudio, PMC as I remember). The AVI actives were comfortably out-performed by the passive speakers so I didn't buy them.

cheers for that, i think it's the first time ive heard such a comment on here

 

[John Duncan]

although an active set-up may well give me what I want, it isn't the only way of cracking the egg.

+1

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

'Better' is subjective.

And having just read this thread through completely, I'd wager there was enough evidence to say that "fact" is subjective too.

 

[matthewpiano]

No, I'm not saying active speakers can't give people what they want. Clearly they can, or some of their staunch advocates within this thread wouldn't be quite so staunch. You are distorting my argument somewhat there.

Ok, they can't give YOU what you want, which, unless you've heard every active system available, is an unsupportable viewpoint.

Wrong again. Still not properly understanding what I'm saying!

I've not even said they can't give me what I want. I'm merely making the point that the technical superiority doesn't guarantee they will give me what I want. I am also making the completely valid point that passive speakers are capable of giving me what I want - that although an active set-up may well give me what I want, it isn't the only way of cracking the egg.

Right. But all the other lot are saying is that active speakers can also deliver an enjoyable experience with one less box to worry about and yet you do a convincing impression of someone violently opposed to that idea. Or at least that's the impression I got from your somewhat negative reaction to the comments of the active brigade.

You certainly didn't give the impression that active components appealed to you, you certainly don't seem willing to try them, which, given the amount of kit you have tried, is a little puzzling.

If that isn't the impression you intended to give then all I can say is you aren't explaining yourself very well, because so far I'm clearly missing your point.

I think there is plenty of clarity in what I've said.

I can't be bothered going round in circles with you so let's leave it there.

 

[plastic penguin]

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.

I'm aware of all that but it still doesn't mean that actives can't give people what they want, which is what you and PP seem to be saying.

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.

But his reason, from what I can see, appear to be simply because they're active. And that's no reason at all.

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

Funny, I was thinking completely the opposite, most of the debates I went to at school were of much higher quality than most of what we have on here (including this one).

As I've mentioned several times on this thread, I've no conceptual issues with actives. And yes THE_LHC i did give a reason, but clearly you pick-up any old post and quote it. I like "boxes", and on another post I called myself "old wrinklies". Reason enough. Jeeze I've been out all day and come back in drenched to find people have been having a 'pop'.

Edit - message to THE_LHC: Go and bake some bread, while I'm listening to my "active bashing" set-up...

 

[Andrew Everard]

Can we all wind the attitude down a couple of notches, please.

 

[Frank Harvey]

but if we're talking about the same speaker, in both active and passive form (as i was in the op), and seeing as they will look almost identical (apart from the rear, which nobody will see), then surely at least from an asthetic/space saving point of view the actives are more suitable?

I suppose it depends which actives we're talking about, as the likes of PMC's with the amp packs fastened to the back will be more acceptable to many than some 'dedicated' active speakers which are, to some people, as big as their garden shed. If someone has a pair of OB1i's, it'll be easier to convert them to an active user by adding amp packs than it would be to convert someone with a pair of ProAc D28's to change to a pair of SCM100's.
As all will know, I'm one for driving speakers properly, which going active takes that issue out of the equation. You know that when you're listening to an active speaker, that is how it should sound, and it's not being 'influenced' by the power amplifier. On the flip side, I think people looking at some huge active speakers aren't really too worried about saving the space that one box takes up.