Stop it!

[Al ears]

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.

+1, and decidedly boring.

 

[John Duncan]

...this is what I mean when I advocate actives. Quality. Which is inherent with the active design, other things being equal.

24/96 is inherently, technically, measurably better than 16/44, other things being equal.

Which sounds better?

 

[cj_random]

This thread is amusing me on a boring day at work.

Thanks for the technical links with regard to the active designs. Ive had a read and its very intersting. As a technical person (although not in the electronics field) I now understand the benefits that such designs present.

A significant downside to this is the reason we all choose to own hifi 'separates'. They give flexibility in approach. I can upgrade my amplifier without loosing speakers with a sonic signature I already enjoy and vice versa.

Being in the market for new speakers, actives are something I will now look into and maybe trial but I think the market as is demonstates that separating these components is beneficial with regard to flexibility and something the domestic consumer values more.

 

[spiny norman]

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?

Not too sure about your inclusion there: didn't the Salesman-in-Chief raise some eyebrows a while back when he said that the speaker designer was pleasantly surprised when he heard a pair of their speakers after they went into production, as he hadn't actually listened to them during the design process?

I lose track of which model it was, so rapid is that company's constant upgraditis and badgering owners to dump whatever they just bought and get the new model. Suffice it to say it was the one apparently at least an order of magnitude better than the one before it, and several orders better than anything else on the market. Or something.

 

[chebby]

Too many active speaker systems still rely on external 'boxes' to make a complete system. (Pre-amps or DAC/pre-amps + sources both traditional and otherwise, wireless and wired.)

This can make a nonsense of the biggest perceived benefit of active speakers (compactness, neatness, reduction of cables and clutter). Even AVI have gone back to making a 'bare bones' active speaker without any such built-in functionality (ADM5s) which was a bit bizarre given how cool a smaller, cheaper version of the ADM9s might have been.

A pre-amp usually costs more than an integrated amp (from the same company) because it will come from higher up the manufacturer's range. Good DAC pre-amps (with some analogue provision, a volume control and a remote) are also, typically, quite expensive.

The way forward has already proved to be active systems that are competely integrated, whether it's a B&W A7 or Sonos Play / Cambridge Audio Minx type of device or B&O and Meridian and Linn active systems at the other end of the budget scale.

There are others filling in the gaps between (Quad 9AS, Dynaudio Xeo, KEF 300a as a few 'for instances').

Pro shops don't really get much foot traffic from the domestic market (with it's insistence on kit that doesn't look like a refugee from a teenager's bedroom 'studio').

It is not the active nature of some of this 'new wave' equipment (for want of a better term) that sells it. Indeed a lot of these integrated systems are passive 'powered' devices. It is their completely integrated nature, compactness, good design and domestic compatibility that sells them. A tiny percentage of customers will care whether axctive technology was responsible for them sounding good.

The market (and not education) will determine what succeeds. B&W are succeeding with their A7, A5, Zeps and Z series systems in spite of the technology within and not because of it. No-one cares.

Ruark's success (with their mini systems and radios) is because they sound good, look good and they were well marketed in lifestyle mags and national newspapers and because they sell in the sort of places (and websites) that people actually go shopping in (and not predominately male oriented, pokey little hi-fi garrets in the lowest rent area of town, but places like John Lewis branches for example). Whether they are active or passive is, again, meaningless.

Even I would want to run away from some goon trying to evangalise active vs passive to me (and I understand the difference). No-one needs that c##p on a Saturday morning. Show me what's within my budget, tell me if it'll work with my other stuff (TV, iPhone, iPad, laptop or whatever) and let me listen. If my wife hasn't thown up on the shop floor at the sight of it, threatened divorce at the price of it (and it sounds good) then i'll have some of it please. That's how it works.

 

[nara]

This is of cause true.

Of course it is.

(sorry, no offence intended, but that must be the third time.)

 

[Alec]

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?

Not too sure about your inclusion there: didn't the Salesman-in-Chief raise some eyebrows a while back when he said that the speaker designer was pleasantly surprised when he heard a pair of their speakers after they went into production, as he hadn't actually listened to them during the design process?

I lose track of which model it was, so rapid is that company's constant upgraditis and badgering owners to dump whatever they just bought and get the new model. Suffice it to say it was the one apparently at least an order of magnitude better than the one before it, and several orders better than anything else on the market. Or something.

But I think he's also on record s saying that they don't leave the factory without being listened to by some specially chosen, golden-eared acquaintance(es?) or other.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Too many active speaker systems still rely on external 'boxes' to make a complete system. (Pre-amps or DAC/pre-amps + sources both traditional and otherwise, wireless and wired.)

This can make a nonsense of the biggest perceived benefit of active speakers (compactness, neatness, reduction of cables and clutter). Even AVI have gone back to making a 'bare bones' active speaker without any such built-in functionality (ADM5s) which was a bit bizarre given how cool a smaller, cheaper version of the ADM9s might have been.

A pre-amp usually costs more than an integrated amp (from the same company) because it will come from higher up the manufacturer's range. Good DAC pre-amps (with some analogue provision, a volume control and a remote) are also, typically, quite expensive.

The way forward has already proved to be active systems that are competely integrated, whether it's a B&W A7 or Sonos Play / Cambridge Audio Minx type of device or B&O and Meridian and Linn active systems at the other end of the budget scale.

There are others filling in the gaps between (Quad 9AS, Dynaudio Xeo, KEF 300a as a few 'for instances').

Pro shops don't really get much foot traffic from the domestic market (with it's insistence on kit that doesn't look like a refugee from a teenager's bedroom 'studio').

It is not the active nature of some of this 'new wave' equipment (for want of a better term) that sells it. Indeed a lot of these integrated systems are passive 'powered' devices. It is their completely integrated nature, compactness, good design and domestic compatibility that sells them. A tiny percentage of customers will care whether axctive technology was responsible for them sounding good.

The market (and not education) will determine what succeeds. B&W are succeeding with their A7, A5, Zeps and Z series systems in spite of the technology within and not because of it. No-one cares.

Ruark's success (with their mini systems and radios) is because they sound good, look good and they were well marketed in lifestyle mags and national newspapers and because they sell in the sort of places (and websites) that people actually go shopping in (and not predominately male oriented, pokey little hi-fi garrets in the lowest rent area of town, but places like John Lewis branches for example). Whether they are active or passive is, again, meaningless.

Even I would want to run away from some goon trying to evangalise active vs passive to me (and I understand the difference). No-one needs that c##p on a Saturday morning. Show me what's within my budget, tell me if it'll work with my other stuff (TV, iPhone, iPad, laptop or whatever) and let me listen. If my wife hasn't thown up on the shop floor at the sight of it, threatened divorce at the price of it (and it sounds good) then i'll have some of it please. That's how it works.

Fully agree.

 

[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 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.

No offence intended. Food analogy is not exact of cause, only to illustrate that you chose things not only becuse you like them but also because you know they are 'better', and that tastes evolve with time.

 

[proffski]

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.

Hi Thompson, nice to speak to you, haven't done so in quite a while.

Pleased to see that you are continuing your tradition of making posts about things you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of.

As far back as the mid '70's I was demonstrating the advantages of active speakers to people who really knew what they were doing and what they were talking about.

Personally I had my first pair (of actives) about '77 and although the hi-fi world has spent most of the last 30 years making 'the active option' as difficult as possible they are, just slowly, beginning to catch up. Another 30 years and your good self may even be on board.

+1

Ditto! When I Tri-Amped my TLs made many years ago the improvements were dramatic.

Then I changed from the passive crossovers (Energy storage devices if you look at the physics) to correctly designed electronic crossover the ensuing improvements were huge. Wider dynamic range and dynamic contrast, superior articulation and focus. Above all the clarity of the bass was immeasurably superior. I have applied this to other cabinet configurations with similar success. Synergy and symbiosis spring to mind! And obviously personal preferences are a puerile arguement, the transducer either sounds like the real thing or it does not...

 

[nima]

b o r i n g . . .

 

[Crocodile]

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but do you seriously think you can stifle debate with a silly post?

Never stopped him trying before...

 

[busb]

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!

I thought it was rather priceless personally.

On the subject of actives, I'm yet to hear a system in any Hi Fi shop - I'd have more luck playing songs from my phone in most shops I've visited, let alone hearing such a system! Although a good passive system will sound better than a poor active one, the technical reasons why an active system will be better are insurmountable, IMO. The idea of filtering for differing drive units at high currents is plain nuts. A four to six channel amp based around class D (or class A/B for that matter) preceded by line level X over just has to be a better solution. You could even design a system where the amp needn't be from the same manufacturer - just download the correct profile for your speaker. Too much bass for the intended room? Use a slightly different profile instead. I'd put my money on it happening sooner or later if there's a Hi Fi instrustry still around.

I'm very much interested in hearing a decent active system, might even consider one at some point but I will never, ever buy one from AVI on principle 'cos I just not the religious type!

I do actually own a small mono active system in the shape of a Dali Kubik Free I use in my kitchen, for what it is, it isn't that bad but due to the use it gets, it's not going to be fully run in for a few months yet (it sounded pretty dreadful right out of the box but is slowly getting better & better - less harsh).

 

[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!

I thought it was rather priceless personally.

Me too, I wasn't being sarcastic.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

@Busb The only advantage an active has is the crossover, mate. Box, driver, ports, all the same weaknesses of any speaker apply.

Why not do yourself a favour and listen to panel speakers like Magnepan, Quad, ML etc? To use Ashley speak they're lightyears ahead of the best active or conventional passive. If you like classical, there's nothing better, the orchestra is in the room with you. Only minor weakness is some require a sub, but then, so does any bookshelf speaker.

 

[busb]

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?

?!?!

Science, engineering & technology are merely tools or useful aids, nothing more. Seems pretty logical to design something using both knowledge & experience than check the results by ear. Doing so will also inform how good any modelling was. For what ever degree of techology used, I & no doubt you, listen with our ears.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Mate, you seem a clever bloke, how could you miss such a simple point? Anyway, go listen to some panels if you want to hear what quality speakers can do.

 

[matt49]

@Busb The only advantage an active has is the crossover, mate. Box, driver, ports, all the same weaknesses of any speaker apply.

Why not do yourself a favour and listen to panel speakers like Magnepan, Quad, ML etc? To use Ashley speak they're lightyears ahead of the best active or conventional passive. If you like classical, there's nothing better, the orchestra is in the room with you. Only minor weakness is some require a sub, but then, so does any bookshelf speaker.

I have some MLs on home dem at the moment. What you say about the orchestra being in the room is exactly right. I haven't heard any dynamic speakers, active or passive, that come close.

Matt

 

[JZC]

On the subject of actives, I'm yet to hear a system in any Hi Fi shop - I'd have more luck playing songs from my phone in most shops I've visited, let alone hearing such a system! Although a good passive system will sound better than a poor active one, the technical reasons why an active system will be better are insurmountable, IMO. The idea of filtering for differing drive units at high currents is plain nuts. A four to six channel amp based around class D (or class A/B for that matter) preceded by line level X over just has to be a better solution. You could even design a system where the amp needn't be from the same manufacturer - just download the correct profile for your speaker. Too much bass for the intended room? Use a slightly different profile instead. I'd put my money on it happening sooner or later if there's a Hi Fi instrustry still around.

I'm very much interested in hearing a decent active system, might even consider one at some point but I will never, ever buy one from AVI on principle 'cos I just not the religious type!

I do actually own a small mono active system in the shape of a Dali Kubik Free I use in my kitchen, for what it is, it isn't that bad but due to the use it gets, it's not going to be fully run in for a few months yet (it sounded pretty dreadful right out of the box but is slowly getting better & better - less harsh).

Maybe you need this : http://www.linn.co.uk/systems/see-the-range/klimax

I heard one recently at a Linn event. I didn't know beforehand what system they were going to use but it turned out to be the Exakt and they quoted a total price of around £60,000 so I had high hopes it would sound astonishing. Maybe the problem was I then expected too much but I was seriously underwhelmed by it. It didn't sound bad but I much preferred my 30 year old sub £1000 system.

Of course I would expect most here would prefer the Linn and technically it will be far superior, it's just that it didn't do anything for me. The trouble is that I'm so used to my existing system that I'll probably have difficulty in finding something new that I can live with regardless at how much better the specs of current sytems are on paper. I would probably need to try a new system at home for some time to get accustomed to it and be able to appreciate any improvements.

 

[JZC]

On the subject of actives, I'm yet to hear a system in any Hi Fi shop - I'd have more luck playing songs from my phone in most shops I've visited, let alone hearing such a system! Although a good passive system will sound better than a poor active one, the technical reasons why an active system will be better are insurmountable, IMO. The idea of filtering for differing drive units at high currents is plain nuts. A four to six channel amp based around class D (or class A/B for that matter) preceded by line level X over just has to be a better solution. You could even design a system where the amp needn't be from the same manufacturer - just download the correct profile for your speaker. Too much bass for the intended room? Use a slightly different profile instead. I'd put my money on it happening sooner or later if there's a Hi Fi instrustry still around.

I'm very much interested in hearing a decent active system, might even consider one at some point but I will never, ever buy one from AVI on principle 'cos I just not the religious type!

I do actually own a small mono active system in the shape of a Dali Kubik Free I use in my kitchen, for what it is, it isn't that bad but due to the use it gets, it's not going to be fully run in for a few months yet (it sounded pretty dreadful right out of the box but is slowly getting better & better - less harsh).

Maybe you need this : http://www.linn.co.uk/systems/see-the-range/klimax

I heard one recently at a Linn event. I didn't know beforehand what system they were going to use but it turned out to be the Exakt and they quoted a total price of around £60,000 so I had high hopes it would sound astonishing. Maybe the problem was I then expected too much but I was seriously underwhelmed by it. It didn't sound bad but I much preferred my 30 year old sub £1000 system.

Of course I would expect most here would prefer the Linn and technically it will be far superior, it's just that it didn't do anything for me. The trouble is that I'm so used to my existing system that I'll probably have difficulty in finding something new that I can live with regardless at how much better the specs of current sytems are on paper. I would probably need to try a new system at home for some time to get accustomed to it and be able to appreciate any improvements.

 

[busb]

@Busb The only advantage an active has is the crossover, mate. Box, driver, ports, all the same weaknesses of any speaker apply.

Why not do yourself a favour and listen to panel speakers like Magnepan, Quad, ML etc? To use Ashley speak they're lightyears ahead of the best active or conventional passive. If you like classical, there's nothing better, the orchestra is in the room with you. Only minor weakness is some require a sub, but then, so does any bookshelf speaker.

I was enjoying Quad ESLs forty years ago. They certainly have their strengths such as beautiful integration across the frequency range they cover - which highlights their weakness - bass & HFs are not amongst their best points which is why the ML's use a traditional piston bass driver below the panel on several models. Nearly all speaker technology has certain strengths such as horn or transmission line loading, unported enclosures, open baffle designs, ribbon tweeters, BMRs & some whacky tweeters using HT that produce ozone!

The X-over in speakers is a major weakness as are cabinets but IMO, active Xover do at least solve some of the compromises as does careful cabinet design. I must give the ML's a listen!

 

[the record spot]

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'.

Great post - so true!

 

[busb]

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!

I thought it was rather priceless personally.

Me too, I wasn't being sarcastic.

I didn't think you were being so.

He's probably been sent off to bed by his mum by now.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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.

Hi Thompson, nice to speak to you, haven't done so in quite a while.

Pleased to see that you are continuing your tradition of making posts about things you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of.

As far back as the mid '70's I was demonstrating the advantages of active speakers to people who really knew what they were doing and what they were talking about.

Personally I had my first pair (of actives) about '77 and although the hi-fi world has spent most of the last 30 years making 'the active option' as difficult as possible they are, just slowly, beginning to catch up. Another 30 years and your good self may even be on board.

Ahhh Davedotco, yep its been awhile, see your pompus snobbery is still present and correct, why would you think I know nothing about active speakers?.... I mean seriously without too much waffling what can a pair of decent actives do that an equally decent pair of passives cannot. This is not a trick question.

the active option is not being made difficult its in many cases not practical in the real world,

And why so many of you being so hostile anyway, do I owe some of you money or something?...someone even called me a troll....lol....I swear some of you guys.

Lets be honest to those looking for advise on the forum - the truth is it is about type of system solid state or data/software based. the constant suggestion that active is so much better is a myth - maybe a future WHF group test thing could decide.

And to anyone pointing 'facts'...prrft or figures.... fthhh at me pls refer to David@frankharveys post ...pls. he sums it up just righ, on page one.

 

[the record spot]

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.

"Vastly"...I'd dispute the chosen adjective. Technically preferable maybe, but having heard many actives over the years from Genelec, Mackie, Pioneer, Yamaha, KRK, to name a few, their audio capabilities to my ears while good, aren't of the "night and day" variety. I'd have bought a pair years ago, but don't feel I'm losing out with the various setups I've had over the years. As it happens, I'm not.