Monitor audio rx6 vs AVI ADM 9.1 vs Dynaudio X16

[BenLaw]

And of course David is frequently saying how sountracks are mastered on matching sub/sat systems, I'm aware of several people using 3 matching active speakers as fronts and centre.

Exactly ben. For AV I'd say this really is the best option, if it can be accommodated. One of our customers is using three active SCM50's in his system, which produces a far more homogenous soundstage than using a supposedly 'matching' centre that's been manufactured to fit in a rack or be pleasing to the eye.

Looks like we agree again

There's a number of people on ATC forums using exactly that setup. AFAIK none of them uses matching 50s at the rears, for fairly obvious reasons (I think someone has 20s). But there is this rather tasty pic of 5 SCM110As:

 

[The_Lhc]

Hardly worth the effort with that tiny little screen is it?

 

[AL13N]

The problem is market acceptance (Worldwide, not just UK)

Great post, thanks for taking the time. It's always interesting to hear from manufacturers.

I think another point is that AV far outsells Hi-Fi in the global market and active designs are less prevalent in AV than even Hi-Fi.

In the Pro-Audio market the superiority of active design is clear. Alesis, Acoustic Energy, Behringer, AVI, PMC, ATC, all produce both passive and active speakers. In all cases the active design is better.

Of course, in all cases the active design is more expensive too. However, factor in the cost of biamping the passives using four power amps and the actives actually look very good value for money.

Here's hoping the changes in the way we consume both music and movies will lead to a greater interest in active products.

 

[AL13N]

Hardly worth the effort with that tiny little screen is it?

Listening to the ultra realistic sound of a car speeding past on your right, whilst a tiny representation of the same blurred past in front of you, would be kind of weird.

 

[Anonymous]

The problem is market acceptance (Worldwide, not just UK)

Great post, thanks for taking the time. It's always interesting to hear from manufacturers.

I think another point is that AV far outsells Hi-Fi in the global market and active designs are less prevalent in AV than even Hi-Fi.

In the Pro-Audio market the superiority of active design is clear. Alesis, Acoustic Energy, Behringer, AVI, PMC, ATC, all produce both passive and active speakers. In all cases the active design is better.

Prove it.

 

[BenLaw]

Hardly worth the effort with that tiny little screen is it?

Clearly a projector would be more suitable but the speakers are so large it's tricky to work out the screen size. It's probably a 50" and the seat is fairly close. I'd take the setup any day.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Hardly worth the effort with that tiny little screen is it?

Clearly a projector would be more suitable but the speakers are so large it's tricky to work out the screen size. It's probably a 50" and the seat is fairly close. I'd take the setup any day.

Does the owner suffer from regular tinitus?

 

[AL13N]

Prove it.

For Subjectivists:

- The manufacturers themselves claim their active design to be better than their own passive one.

- The Pro-Audio magazine reviews of both the passive and active speakers in question.

For Objectivists:

- The technical data (measurements and graphs) provided by the manufacturers and reviewers.

- The white papers and reports published by manufacturers, the AES and other sources.

For the sake of clarity:

As I mentioned above, I believe passive speakers "can be implemented to achieve excellent results".

IMO beyond a certain price point passive design begins to make less sense in terms of high fidelity and Benefit Cost Ratio in comparison to well implemented active designs.

 

[CnoEvil]

As in all things hifi (re active vs passive), there isn't a right answer, only a right answer for the individual....but don't let me stop a good arguement. 😉 Cno

This was my first premonition.

My second is that Armageddon approaches.

🙂

 

[Anonymous]

Prove it.

For Subjectivists:

- The manufacturers themselves claim their active design to be better than their own passive one.

- The Pro-Audio magazine reviews of both the passive and active speakers in question.

For Objectivists:

- The technical data (measurements and graphs) provided by the manufacturers and reviewers.

- The white papers and reports published by manufacturers, the AES and other sources.

For the sake of clarity:

As I mentioned above, I believe passive speakers "can be implemented to achieve excellent results".

IMO beyond a certain price point passive design begins to make less sense in terms of high fidelity and Benefit Cost Ratio in comparison to well implemented active designs.

Prove it, as in provide links to backup your grand assertion

. One link does not cover your assertion. By the way, I don't necessarily disagree, just be interested to do some reading, that's all.

 

[AL13N]

Prove it, as in provide links to backup your grand assertion

. One link does not cover your assertion. By the way, I don't necessarily disagree, just be interested to do some reading, that's all.

First, not "assertion" but opinion (IMO stands for In My Opinion).

And second, no not "as in". Your statement "Prove it" applied to my previous post, specifically:

In the Pro-Audio market the superiority of active design is clear. Alesis, Acoustic Energy, Behringer, AVI, PMC, ATC, all produce both passive and active speakers. In all cases the active design is better.

That's not mine but the claim of those manufacturers of said products. For proof, contact the manufacturers listed above and (politely) ask them why they believe their active speakers are superior to their passive ones.

I did not just provide "One link" but the views, work and research of numerous individuals over decades. For "some reading" you can browse the vast archive of publications they have on offer.

The following might also interest you:

http://www.tagnz.co.nz/uploads/pdf/ATC_Engineering_Goals_and_Approaches.pdf

http://linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

http://avihifi.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-beginning.htmlhttp://www.ttid.co.uk/1/email-campaigns/prism-seminar-jun11.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Prove it, as in provide links to backup your grand assertion

. One link does not cover your assertion. By the way, I don't necessarily disagree, just be interested to do some reading, that's all.

First, not "assertion" but opinion (IMO stands for In My Opinion).

And second, no not "as in". Your statement "Prove it" applied to my previous post, specifically:

In the Pro-Audio market the superiority of active design is clear. Alesis, Acoustic Energy, Behringer, AVI, PMC, ATC, all produce both passive and active speakers. In all cases the active design is better.

That's not mine but the claim of those manufacturers of said products. For proof, contact the manufacturers listed above and (politely) ask them why they believe their active speakers are superior to their passive ones.

I did not just provide "One link" but the views, work and research of numerous individuals over decades. For "some reading" you can browse the vast archive of publications they have on offer.

The following might also interest you:

http://www.tagnz.co.nz/uploads/pdf/ATC_Engineering_Goals_and_Approaches.pdf

http://linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm

http://avihifi.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-beginning.htmlhttp://www.ttid.co.uk/1/email-campaigns/prism-seminar-jun11.htm

Well, if youre going to be picky, my use of assertion referred to your earlier post, and the assertion about the superiority of the active designs. Therefore my use of "as in" was also correct.

Yes, I could look at the manufacturer websites, but I assumed you had read independent research or technical papers to back up your assertion.

Anyway, it probably doesn't matter, so have a great day.

P.S. I am fully cognisant of the theoretical advantages of active crossovers, but thanks for the reference anyway.

 

[AL13N]

I am fully cognisant of the theoretical advantages of active crossovers

Then why make the statement "Prove it"? Unless you believe all the manufacturers, engineers, research and publications are lying or incorrect. In which case please do reveal the truth or correct them.

Perhaps you could ask AEJim to "Prove" his following comments or provide you with the results of "testing" for your perusal:

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!

To clarify and summarize; The point I was making is that (I agree) active design is superior. However, it is only one element of speaker design. An active crossover does not magically make a speaker great. There are many factors towards making a great speaker.

For example, are ATC active speakers better than their passives? Yes. On the other hand, can ATC passive speakers outperform other active designs? Yes.

Passive design is still a viable option and can produce excellent results. This doesn't change the fact that active design is superior.

Moving over now to my personal opinion, I think passive is viable upto a point, to quote:

IMO beyond a certain price point passive design begins to make less sense in terms of high fidelity and Benefit Cost Ratio in comparison to well implemented active designs.

And with that I'm out.

 

[Anonymous]

AVI ADM 9.1T it gonna be ,I have tried the more expensive B&W 805S and the Monitor Audio GS20 floorstander but still preferred the almost headphone type of sound, it is so extreme tight I tried a 2500 pounds Stax headphone set up and this was like the the AVI sound, ver very clean.

It is like living in a city and then move to the mountains in Austria or something, the air so fresh you first get a headache because you are not used to the fresh air but after a few days you love it.

 

[Anonymous]

AVI ADM 9.1T it gonna be ,I have tried the more expensive B&W 805S and the Monitor Audio GS20 floorstander but still preferred the almost headphone type of sound, it is so extreme tight I tried a 2500 pounds Stax headphone set up and this was like the the AVI sound, ver very clean.

It is like living in a city and then move to the mountains in Austria or something, the air so fresh you first get a headache because you are not used to the fresh air but after a few days you love it.

You are Ashley James and I claim my free set of ADM 9.1s

 

[chebby]

You are Ashley James and I claim my free set of ADM 9.1s

Impossible. The description was subjective and almost emotional, no-one was called an idiot, and Naim were not denigrated 🙂

With all the talk of the purity of Austrian mountain air it was more 'Julie Andrews' than Ashley James.

"I am already having to dress the children in old curtains, how can I possibly afford the matching sub?"

 

[Anonymous]

For Subjectivists:

- The manufacturers themselves claim their active design to be better than their own passive one.

- The Pro-Audio magazine reviews of both the passive and active speakers in question.

For Objectivists:

- The technical data (measurements and graphs) provided by the manufacturers and reviewers.

- The white papers and reports published by manufacturers, the AES and other sources.

To be very honest, i value your personal opinion more (as a fellow forum-er) on this matter rather than the ones you've quoted above.

The manufcturers claims in such matters hardly mean anything at all, and i doubt if anyone here would be willing to buy anything from the manufacturers (like statistics/measurements etc..) apart from their products. Simply because they clearly have a vested interest in something which they can sell for more $$$. I doubt any manufacturer would agree their cheaper product is better, unless they go bankrupt or stop that productline. Not that they'd lie, but highlight more profitable ones. No offense to any manufacturer here.

Magazines are a different story. I've seen an Arcam ad in WHF claiming that their product is 5-star review by another UK magazine while WHF themelves gave it only a 3-star rating...I thought that was hilarious at first, but then got used to it. 🙂

As in all things hifi (re active vs passive), there isn't a right answer, only a right answer for the individual.

I cannot agree more.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Impossible. The description was subjective and almost emotional, no-one was called an idiot, and Naim were not denigrated 🙂

:bigsmile:

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I was quite reluctant to write this reply. many days have passed already. but still I thought I would pass some more info to back up passive side of the discussion. I also would like to point out here that I'm not for or agains any fraction. I just want to write what I know is true.

there is such a thing as speaker crossover distortion. google 'martin grindrod crossover distortion' also http://www.bobsamerica.com/bozak-xoveranalysis.html

as for what's written on his web site. this speakers' passive crossover distortion would be phase shifting of signal reaching drivers in crossing over frequencies. that might have been an issue in the 60-ties, 70-ties, 80-ties or maybe even in the 90-ties. but introduction of computer assisted design programs helped to solve that problem a lot. there are manufacturers who specifically address this issue in product design. see info section at YG Acoustic's or Monopulse's web sites. I also think Dynaudio does a great deal of work in this direction with their complex crossovers. Their speakers imaging is preety good although I never red anything which explicitly says Dynaudio's crossovers are design to maintain frequency response linearity and and at the same time keep phase shifting to minimum. or you can also chose crossoverless speakers, like electrostats. but problem with them is that not everybody would enjoy the look of big panels in their room or even have space to accomodate them. plus electrostats suffer from not being as dynamic as moving coil designs.

i think the only real advantage [of active speakers] is the sound.

if validation of these words would be your mini review of Opal Events in another post: "the opals have deeper, more accurate bass. it's ridiculously easy to hear changes in bass notes and bass level, and also hear which is the kick drum and which is the bass. the mid is clean, clear and natural and as real as i've heard. treble seems very realistic to me. the imaging is great, with unbelievable depth." then I must say I can without any reservation apply your description to my passive set-up. I don't think it falls behind your actives in resolution, imaging, timbre and ambience retrieval. it will fall behind in dynamics capabilities if we listen on high volume levels though.

IMO there are 2 great advantages of active designs:

1. power distribution. in passive designs with crossover power has to be split between drivers and some power is also lost in crossover network. with active designs power amps are connected directly to drivers so there's no loss of power due to crossover. plus in some cases active set-up might be safer for your speakers. if power amp goes into clipping for extended period of time it might destroy tweeters in passive set-up. in active set-up it will not happen because bass-mid amp is not connected to tweeters.

2. VFM. you say your Ovals cost 2600 GBP. I never heard them but I'm quite sure I wouldn't find any passive set-up for this kind of money that sounds as good. and that's not open to debate. however, if someone has awful amounts of money to spend they can get great performance. plus they get chance to experiment with new technologies in amplification and speaker construction because it's the hi-fi which's trying to push boundaries of reproduction realism further, not pro market.

 

[Craig M.]

hi oldrich, all the info i have been able to find says that in correcting for phase shifts, etc. other problems are created, or made worse, that just wouldn't exist with an active crossover. i won't post links as some may fall foul of house rules, but basically googling 'are active speakers better then passive' brings up a lot of compelling evidence.

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.

see? even AEJim agrees with me!

the paragraph under the second of my quotes was in direct response to a question regarding some impressions in comparison to a specific setup, one thing i won't claim to be is a hifi reviewer - i really struggle for a way to put into words, sometimes. i'm not sure how you feel you can compare your setup to mine because, as you say, you haven't heard it. i've heard kit that probably matches the opals in certain areas (debatable, but i'm feeling generous), but never the bass quality and nothing that's had such a spread of talents.

 

[Frank Harvey]

One thing I would like to add, is that whether an active or passive is better is neither here nor there, because it all boils down to whether the individual likes the sound of that particular speaker or not.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

see? even AEJim agrees with me!

hmmm.. yes. don't want to be snide but isn't it the gentelman who can't distuinguish a 320kbps mp3 from a wav file played from a Uniti Cute through his speakers??? but jokes aside 🙂

in all honesty I admit I know little about problems with crossovers but this debate really made me dig into the problem to know what the story really is. first of all, having an active crossover doesn't necessarily mean your dirvers are time aligned. in this respect active xovers suffer the same limitations as passive ones but it's much easier to implement phase correction because active xovers don't depend on changing impedance of coil (which is usually greatly varies with relation to changing frequencies and temperature). active crossovers usually use steep slopes which is good because frequencies don't overlap too much. but the best think is yet to come. citation form another web site:

"if one were to obtain drivers whose frequency response and power handling allowed it, a first-order 6dB/octave crossover network is ideal - good transient response (the best of all filter types, in fact), freedom from phase aberrations, no polarity reversal of drivers - the list goes on."

now the think is; I guess every major and respectable manufacturer of passive speakers use simple first order crossovers. I never put any weight to this often seen statement but now I know why they use such. using higher order passive xovers is indeed pointles. but using first order xovers, I guess, has become available only recently. few decades ago you only had paper cone drivers and they weren't rigid enough to maintain frequency linearity beyond xover point, hence colourations and driver intermodulation distortion. but today you will rarely find a manufacturer of speakers who uses paper to build cones. so, to sum it all up. I still sustain my view that actives' advantages are better power distribution and VFM. when actives are definitely better than passives in large venues' sound systems they don't need to be completly ruled out from domestic use. we don't really need that high levels of volume at home. so for those who prefer having their amp and than connect speakers to it it's not all lost. but it definitely takes a lot more money to build good passive speaker. all those high tech drivers, impedance correction networks, high tolerance caps and resistors will definitely add to cost. in other words if building passive speakers was such a waste of time and money I guess all those well known cost-no-object, low volume manufacturers like Sonus Faber or Wilson Audio to name but few would long ago depart from making passive constructions. for them it's not market demand what counts (they will always have their customers) but ultimate sound reproduction and if they still making passives obviously it's still viable IMO.

regards

 

[the record spot]

see? even AEJim agrees with me!

hmmm.. yes. don't want to be snide but isn't it the gentelman who can't distuinguish a 320kbps mp3 from a wav file played from a Uniti Cute through his speakers??? but jokes aside 🙂

Me neither, though I note the OP didn't claim to be golden eared either. Just normal. Jokes aside, etc.

 

[BenLaw]

i've heard kit that probably matches the opals in certain areas (debatable, but i'm feeling generous), but never the bass quality and nothing that's had such a spread of talents.

Ah, but you've so far failed to get a listen to those active 100s, Craig

 

[Craig M.]

i know Ben! foiled by a finger.

oldrich, like you i didn't know much about crossovers until recently. it was researching actives with a mind to trying some, that led me to discover the advantages of a correctly designed active crossover - and there are a LOT. tnt audio has a very good piece and they cover the 1st order types, it would still seem that the advantages of the 1st order are negated by the actives amps damping factor and it's control over the drive unit, and the 1st orders disadvantage of a shallow crossover are not suffered by the active.

LINK REMOVED BY MODS - House Rules (but we think you knew that already)