Stop it!

[John Duncan]

as with passives, there's good and bad.

True, however, all other things being equal, an active will perform significantly better.

I look forward to seeing the ABX tests that prove this.

no ABX test needed, design calculations and/or measurements would be enough to convince (a technicla person)

Ah, no ABX test needed...

1,000 times less audible than inaudible is...what?

 

[The_Lhc]

Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, and what is technically correct and what isn't, personal preference rules the roost - people will choose what they prefer the sound of.

Provided personal preference is based also on technically correct performance information.

Surely in terms of speakers personal preference is based solely on what you like the sound of? Whether the "performance information" (whatever the **** that is) is technically correct or not has no bearing on whether someone likes the sound of something.

of cause personal preference can be for whatever, what I mean is - better when preference is formed not only on 'oh, this sounds impressive!' but also on understaning of what that sound is made up - e.g. are you hearing a smily face EQ curve, DSP-controlled speaker, ruler-flat studio monitor etc.

No, sorry, I don't think that matters at all! If someone walks into a shop, listens to a bunch of speakers and says "I like these speakers more than those speakers" then that's the ONLY thing that matters to that person.

 

[chebby]

as with passives, there's good and bad.

True, however, all other things being equal, an active will perform significantly better.

I look forward to seeing the ABX tests that prove this.

no ABX test needed, design calculations and/or measurements would be enough to convince (a technicla person)

Are you aware that the vast majority of the hi-fi / audio buying public are not 'technical' by education or occupation? Are you also aware that they have no contact with technically literate opinion formers? (And would, quite sensibly, run a mile to avoid contact with one in the process of purchase.)

A small number will pick up a magazine to assist their decision. An even smaller number will encounter a hi-fi salesman in a specialist shop, but most will have no idea of this debate and will, at best, decide on the basis of price, looks and a shelf demo in a large store or (far more likely) make an online purchase.

You can 'educate' all you like. No-one, in any numbers that will make a difference, will hear you.

Price, looks, market forces, national advertising, a friend's system, lifestyle pressures and compatibilty with existing kit like computers, phones and tablets will determine what gets bought. The customer doesn't give a #### whether it's active, 'powered' , passive or dancing on the table singing 'Paddy McGinty's Goat'.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Thing is, guys, the evangelists are on a loser here. Unfortunately we've got ears, not measuring devices linked to our brains. All the scientific theory in the world isn't going to make perfect speakers, so this education approach is a complete waste of time. Given you're all members of another tiny forum, discuss this highly important stuff there and let the rest of us go out, use our ears and buy something we like.

 

[Alec]

I'm more likely to give someone who's posted nearly 700 times more credence than someone who's posted 13 times who uses terms like "silly post"!

You're obviously a quantity over quality kinda guy.

Brilliant!

 

[Alec]

Thing is, guys, the evangelists are on a loser here. Unfortunately we've got ears, not measuring devices linked to our brains. All the scientific theory in the world isn't going to make perfect speakers, so this education approach is a complete waste of time. Given you're all members of another tiny forum, discuss this highly important stuff there and let the rest of us go out, use our ears and buy something we like.

Nobody's stopping you. I keep hoping you'll go out.

 

[Mr. Iceman]

FWIW, I have both 'types' of systems at home and enjoy listening to them all, in different rooms and on different occasions and can't care less about the fact that one is active and the others passive. They are all different and I like what I hear, and that's what matters to me.

 

[professorhat]

or dancing on the table singing 'Paddy McGinty's Goat'.

 

[Alec]

Provided personal preference is based also on technically correct performance information.

Why? Just buy what you want and enjoy.

 

[Alec]

Recently I have noticed in a few threads regarding sound quality a few members keep dropping the Active Speaker bomb into the discussion as if they'll give a noteable imrpovement in sound quality over passive speakers, stop it.

There is no decernable difference between the two types of speaker - outside of the convininece and flexability passive speakers offer - given a straight blind test I doubt anyone could tell passive from active anyway. So please - there is enough confusion in this hobby already.

Thank you.

What's an active speaker?

Shhh, I'm asking Thom specifically...

 

[Escapism]

Thing is, guys, the evangelists are on a loser here. Unfortunately we've got ears, not measuring devices linked to our brains. All the scientific theory in the world isn't going to make perfect speakers, so this education approach is a complete waste of time. Given you're all members of another tiny forum, discuss this highly important stuff there and let the rest of us go out, use our ears and buy something we like.

Nobody's stopping you. I keep hoping you'll go out.

...and don't come back until your ears are completely satisfied.

 

[Escapism]

Recently I have noticed in a few threads regarding sound quality a few members keep dropping the Active Speaker bomb into the discussion as if they'll give a noteable imrpovement in sound quality over passive speakers, stop it.

There is no decernable difference between the two types of speaker - outside of the convininece and flexability passive speakers offer - given a straight blind test I doubt anyone could tell passive from active anyway. So please - there is enough confusion in this hobby already.

Thank you.

What's an active speaker?

Shhh, I'm asking Thom specifically...

Is it a bomb.??

 

[Alec]

To my mind the problem has been that the majority of discussions - surrounding active speaker technology and products - on this forum have been centred around one very small, specialist manufacturer of audiophile active speakers.

A handful of it's most determined followers have set the agenda. This has been happening every week (sometimes every day) for years and has resulted in an automatic association of any active speaker product being discussed with this company.

This is disproportionate, especially now that active technology products are being made by B&W, KEF, Focal, Quad, Linn, AE, Cambridge Audio (and a whole lot of other companies traditionally associated with the domestic hi-i scene).

I understand Thompsonuxb's frustration.

But he is not right and the post is rather redolent of King Canute demonstrating his powerlessness to reverse the tide by command. (Only without Canute's knowledge that he couldn't.)

100% true. What never, ever happens, is people on the other side getting very snidey and even aggressive at the first hint of a contribution from the people you are refering to.

Oh, hang on...

 

[Alec]

Recently I have noticed in a few threads regarding sound quality a few members keep dropping the Active Speaker bomb into the discussion as if they'll give a noteable imrpovement in sound quality over passive speakers, stop it.

There is no decernable difference between the two types of speaker - outside of the convininece and flexability passive speakers offer - given a straight blind test I doubt anyone could tell passive from active anyway. So please - there is enough confusion in this hobby already.

Thank you.

What's an active speaker?

Shhh, I'm asking Thom specifically...

Is it a bomb.??

Could be, I guess...

 

[Alec]

Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, and what is technically correct and what isn't, personal preference rules the roost - people will choose what they prefer the sound of.

Provided personal preference is based also on technically correct performance information.

Surely in terms of speakers personal preference is based solely on what you like the sound of? Whether the "performance information" (whatever the **** that is) is technically correct or not has no bearing on whether someone likes the sound of something.

of cause personal preference can be for whatever, what I mean is - better when preference is formed not only on 'oh, this sounds impressive!' but also on understaning of what that sound is made up - e.g. are you hearing a smily face EQ curve, DSP-controlled speaker, ruler-flat studio monitor etc.

None of which matters in the least to many, even some with active speakers.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Is it a bomb.??

What speakers do you own, escapism?

 

[TrevC]

Recently I have noticed in a few threads regarding sound quality a few members keep dropping the Active Speaker bomb into the discussion as if they'll give a noteable imrpovement in sound quality over passive speakers, stop it.

There is no decernable difference between the two types of speaker - outside of the convininece and flexability passive speakers offer - given a straight blind test I doubt anyone could tell passive from active anyway. So please - there is enough confusion in this hobby already.

Thank you.

Erm, nope. Whilst bi-wiring, different interconnects, different mains cables (or anything else on the mains), passive bi amping and bi-wiring make no difference whatsoever active speakers are vastly better.

 

[professorhat]

Vastly?

Wow.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

as with passives, there's good and bad.

True, however, all other things being equal, an active will perform significantly better.

I look forward to seeing the ABX tests that prove this.

no ABX test needed, design calculations and/or measurements would be enough to convince (a technicla person)

Are you aware that the vast majority of the hi-fi / audio buying public are not 'technical' by education or occupation? Are you also aware that they have no contact with technically literate opinion formers? (And would, quite sensibly, run a mile to avoid contact with one in the process of purchase.)

A small number will pick up a magazine to assist their decision. An even smaller number will encounter a hi-fi salesman in a specialist shop, but most will have no idea of this debate and will, at best, decide on the basis of price, looks and a shelf demo in a large store or (far more likely) make an online purchase.

You can 'educate' all you like. No-one, in any numbers that will make a difference, will hear you.

Price, looks, market forces, national advertising, a friend's system, lifestyle pressures and compatibilty with existing kit like computers, phones and tablets will determine what gets bought. The customer doesn't give a #### whether it's active, 'powered' , passive or dancing on the table singing 'Paddy McGinty's Goat'.

Thsi is of cause true. But this (type of) forum has people who are more interested in this stuff compared to those who are not on this forum. Soem of these people, I hope, would explore, read, try, educate themsleves etc.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Regardless of who is right or who is wrong, and what is technically correct and what isn't, personal preference rules the roost - people will choose what they prefer the sound of.

Provided personal preference is based also on technically correct performance information.

Surely in terms of speakers personal preference is based solely on what you like the sound of? Whether the "performance information" (whatever the **** that is) is technically correct or not has no bearing on whether someone likes the sound of something.

of cause personal preference can be for whatever, what I mean is - better when preference is formed not only on 'oh, this sounds impressive!' but also on understaning of what that sound is made up - e.g. are you hearing a smily face EQ curve, DSP-controlled speaker, ruler-flat studio monitor etc.

No, sorry, I don't think that matters at all! If someone walks into a shop, listens to a bunch of speakers and says "I like these speakers more than those speakers" then that's the ONLY thing that matters to that person.

however, this person may realise later that what he liked then was actually a heavily distorted sound and there are better performing options there. Tastes differ. they also change, evolve. Somebody who was eating junk food (and enjoyed it) may later switch to healthire options - and enjoy them equally, with the added benefit of reducing risks to his health.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Thing is, guys, the evangelists are on a loser here. Unfortunately we've got ears, not measuring devices linked to our brains. All the scientific theory in the world isn't going to make perfect speakers, so this education approach is a complete waste of time. Given you're all members of another tiny forum, discuss this highly important stuff there and let the rest of us go out, use our ears and buy something we like.

I cannot agree. see post re tastes and food analogy above.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Provided personal preference is based also on technically correct performance information.

Why? Just buy what you want and enjoy.

see food analogy - you don't want to eat too much fatty food, however enjoyable it is. Make it healthy AND not less likeable. So, make it active (as in high performance, = healthy) and sounding to your liking. this is what I mean when I advocate actives. Quality. Which is inherent with the active design, other things being equal.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Thing is, guys, the evangelists are on a loser here. Unfortunately we've got ears, not measuring devices linked to our brains. All the scientific theory in the world isn't going to make perfect speakers, so this education approach is a complete waste of time. Given you're all members of another tiny forum, discuss this highly important stuff there and let the rest of us go out, use our ears and buy something we like.

I cannot agree. see post re tastes and food analogy above.

Not a good analogy, I'm afraid. Speakers aren't harmful to your health, so whether you like Focal, Maggies or Monitor Audio, it don't matter a sh***

Why do you want to educate people, mate, when there's nothing to educate? People aren't oscilloscopes, FFRs mean nothing if they like what they hear. You've got to remember too most HiFi speaker manufacturers, including AVI if I remember correctly, end up tuning by ear - how unscientific is that?

 

[Alec]

Provided personal preference is based also on technically correct performance information.

Why? Just buy what you want and enjoy.

see food analogy - you don't want to eat too much fatty food, however enjoyable it is. Make it healthy AND not less likeable. So, make it active (as in high performance, = healthy) and sounding to your liking. this is what I men when I advocate actives. Quality. Which is inherent with the active design, other things being equal.

Sorry, this holds no merit on any count. Firstly, your nutritional assumptions are almost certainly wrong. Secondly, What we eat is a matter of genuine importance and can hardly be compared to all this nonsense at all. It will not damage my health one bit to listen to whatever speakers I want, active or otherwise.

Actually, I find this sanctimonious drivel quite offensive.

 

[cheeseboy]

in fairness, turn the volume up too much and speakers may well be damaging to ones health