MF vs ADM upgrade path?

[chebby]

[UNPUBLISHED by JD]

I don't know what tragedy has made you so bitter towards things, but I hope that some time in the future you will manage to come to terms with it. Then perhaps your posts will be constructive and benefit the OPs and not be a continuous sniping exercise.

Actually quite sick.

 

[John Duncan]

Other members' offence is noted. relocated, may I suggest you read the house rules again...

 

[JMacMan]

Unfortunately, you can't audition the ADMs because they're made to order, and you can't compare with your own speakers unless an owner is willing to let you bring in and set up your own gear in their house.

You might be better off looking at other alternatives if you want actives - ATC spring to mind, as do the new Dynaudios. To be honest, the difference isn't as much as the self-styled experts here say, because the speakers are still restricted by the box. If you want a change of sound, have a listen to Magnepan and Martin Logan. They re-define transparency in speakers.

You make a couple of very good points, if I may say so...

When most people do an A/B, they're often making comparison between the sound of their reference - usually their own or previous system, and how the two items being compared, hold up to that reference, as well as how they compare to each other re pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses etc. They're also very much relying upon memory - known to be quite fallible, and non of us are exempt.

As such, without an actual live music reference, the most that can be hoped for is that one gets to compare several items of interest, and make a personal choice re a preference in sound from that item A to item B, A/B comparison.

However, that's likely to be fairer and more balanced an assessment than simply being only able to listen to one option. To be fair, this often happens in HiFi shopping anyway, where all the kit one is interested in is not stocked by the same dealer, thus making it very difficult to cross shop/compare.

In the case of the ADM40's they are relatively cheap for the quality of drivers and so on, on offer, and as such I think a single speaker dem is probably quite fair in terms of the price being asked - you can hear them, and choose to either like or not like.

I also agree that within reason, the differences between say two active speakers with good quality drivers, and using otherwise conventional MDF/wood venered and ported wooden boxes will be quite similar, due the design limitations of the box. In that regards, cabinets made from other materials such as resins etc, can be moulded to a much more ideal sonic shape as regards standing waves and overall system distortion, and of course we can then look at open baffle diopoles, which is another realm of difference again as regards the sound presentation.

Kind regards

JB 8)

 

[JMacMan]

Given that the tenor of the thread has got somewhat heated, I'd simply like to make a couple of observations, directed at no-one in particular.

AVI speakers are undoubtedly very, very good.

However, I could not honestly on technical grounds make a case for them as being the best HiFi speaker available, regardless of cost, which is a very biased claim I have read several times elsewhere, and certainly inferred here by innuendo, if not directly.

Corresondingly, being very familar with Maggies, Apogees, Quad Electrostatics etc, I could not make a case on technical grounds such as to claim them to be the worlds best loudspeaker either.

Indeed, nor would I, or have I, on any forum anywhere, made such claims for my own B&O Beolab 9's.

I have yet to hear the worlds best loudspeaker system, but I am pretty sure it would likely be in the realm of something like a Steinway Lyngdorf reference system, MBL Radialstrahler's, or similar - i.e. price no object, highly technical esoterica - the HiFi equivalent of something like a Pagini Zonda perhaps.

As such, the sorts of kit we are discussing on this thread, don't really match up on technical and of course cost terms.

But above all, petty and obsessive arguments about different brands of HiFi are just that - petty and obsessive.

At the end of the day, we all do the best we can to hear the kit we are interested in, through either recommendation, or reading etc, and if we hear it and like it, and can afford it, we usually buy it. To then go on to infer either directly or by innuendo that OUR choices are the ONLY choices for everyone else is just rude and arrogant to be honest.

Unfortunately, the AVI marketing machine started out with this sort of dismissal of others consumer buying, HiFi choices, and unfortunately it tends to come back and bite them on the bottom from time to time, as if you poke someone long enough with a sharp stick, you're liable to get a reaction you're not necessarily going to like very much.

To my mind, there is 'error' if I could call it that, on both sides.

There is no doubt, and I do mean NO doubt, that all other variables in a speaker design being equal, active is technically superior to passive - science and measurement says it is so, in hard, irrefutable FACT.

Does that make all active speakers automatically better than all passive speakers?

No, of course not. There's good and bad actives, just as there are good and bad passive speakers about.

Does the active approach automatically render the hobby of mixing and matching for those interested in tinkering with sound, as a home hobby etc, null and void?

No, of course it doesn't - for some the active solution is just too closed, and for those who like to tinker with kit, not really a viable option.

I would suggest that the mix and match approach is going to be the ideal solution re system building for someone for whom HiFi is in itself a hobby.

I would also suggest that an active system is likely to be the best solution for someone who is interested in kit, but not really into mixing and matching, but just wants a plug and play, hi quality, and finished music or AV system for home entertainment.

Getting up on ones hobby horse and shouting at others, or throwing out ones lego bricks at another forum from the heights of ones imagined ivory tower, is pretty insensitive behaviour in my view.

The middle ground as always, is where ideals met reality; Actives do have an technical edge, all other things being equal, but are not for everyone. A really well sorted passive system may provide a huge amount of pleasure for a HiFi enthusiast, re the mix and match, tweak approach etc, of the kit as a hobby, as well as providing musical satisfaction.

If the passive fans stopped slagging off the active boys, and the active/AVI fans stopped touting AVI's as being the only optimal solution to every buyers needs, we'd probably all get along a great deal better, and have no need to keep throwing the toys out of the pram.

Live and let live as they say...

Peace and love etc....

JB.. :cheers:

 

[the record spot]

Great post JB. You're a welcome addition to the forum.

 

[relocated]

Other members' offence is noted. relocated, may I suggest you read the house rules again...

JD, I have read the House Rules again just to be sure but I cannot remember anything that I wrote in the moderated post that breaches said rules.

As I do not have a direct line to you, that other members seem to have, perhaps you would let me know here, how I breached the rules and I will gladly ensure that I am not a transgressor again.

Thank you in anticipation.

 

[Overdose]

I personally have no problem ignoring most threads about KEF speakers, or most other passive speakers for that matter, because I have no interest. If people have no interest in AVI ADM speakers then common sense would dictate that they do the same, no?

So the next time someone starts a post asking about putting together a passive system with - for instance - some KEF LS50s and an amp and a DAC, we won't see you in there promoting AVI ADM9s instead because you'll be ignoring it, yes?

That depends. If the OP has a budget for a system that the ADMs fit and the OP is asking for a system recommendation then no, I would not ignore, I would make a suggestion. If the OP already has new speakers, then no, I wouldn't bother.

But at any rate any recomendation made is not automatically ADM9s, but certainly my preference would be for active and having heard active and passive systems in home environment and studio, so far the ADMs seem the most suitable recommendation for a wide range of suggestions.

 

[relocated]

It's not an active/passive feud. This is more about AVI marketing - you are probably aware that they have used forums in the past to push their products, and a lot of this seems to be related to that. Honorable exceptions, Alec obviously, amongst others.

Maybe it's just some of us have had an overdose of AVI and need to relocate

There is no feud as far as I am concerned. I do not engage in 'marketing' and what others are alleged to have done in the past is nothing to do with me/my posts. Other peoples need to live in the past is similarly nothing to do with me.

You will notice, in my posts, that when I speak of AVI ADMs it is my experience that I relate. I do not bag out other equipment, unlike many on here, I just pass on my experience given that I have 40 odd years of hifi experience. This thread is about MF and AVI ADMs, so even the most partisan nay-sayer cannot expect silence about either or both manufacturers products. Unless of course we have slipped into a totalitarian parallel universe.

Your closing sentence is very good. I was most amused.

 

[John Duncan]

Other members' offence is noted. relocated, may I suggest you read the house rules again...

JD, I have read the House Rules again just to be sure but I cannot remember anything that I wrote in the moderated post that breaches said rules.

As I do not have a direct line to you, that other members seem to have, perhaps you would let me know here, how I breached the rules and I will gladly ensure that I am not a transgressor again.

Thank you in anticipation.

"1. Members must not post libellous, racist, aggressive or otherwise insulting or abusive remarks about any individual, company or organisation."

You may not have seen the reactions to your post as I unpublished them after modding yours, but one member described your post directed at another member as 'sick'.

Anyone has a direct line to me, it's in my signature for that very purpose. You should know this because you have used it in the past.

 

[relocated]

Other members' offence is noted. relocated, may I suggest you read the house rules again...

JD, I have read the House Rules again just to be sure but I cannot remember anything that I wrote in the moderated post that breaches said rules.

As I do not have a direct line to you, that other members seem to have, perhaps you would let me know here, how I breached the rules and I will gladly ensure that I am not a transgressor again.

Thank you in anticipation.

"1. Members must not post libellous, racist, aggressive or otherwise insulting or abusive remarks about any individual, company or organisation." You may not have seen the reactions to your post as I unpublished them after modding yours, but one member described your post directed at another member as 'sick'. Anyone has a direct line to me, it's in my signature for that very purpose. You should know this because you have used it in the past.

As you will now know from my email, I made no attempt to insult or abuse anyone. I expressed a genuine concern and hope; but, as that has been interpreted as insulting then I unreservedly apologise. I still hope though that there can be more constructive dialogue here rather than destructive.

Edit: I was unaware of the direct line to you, my mistake. You and I have had an email conversation a year or more ago but I didn't have your email on this computer.