Why no Harbeth review on WHF?

[Overdose]

A bit off topic but here is PMC's take on active and passive speakers .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3A4UMh1AOHw

A very concise bit of info there!

 

[relocated]

A bit off topic but here is PMC's take on active and passive speakers .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3A4UMh1AOHw

A very concise bit of info there!

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive. This NOT coming from AVI or 'coven members' [JJ] but from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

Rethink anyone?

 

[John Duncan]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive. This NOT coming from AVI or 'coven members' [JJ] but from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

Rethink anyone?

Um, no.

"It's worth remembering that a well-designed passive system will sound better than a poorly-designed active system."

This from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

 

[chebby]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive.

There has never been much doubt about that and I have rarely seen anyone 'upset' about it.

The key point is that PMC (like some other companies with active products*) make both passive and active options so that people can choose.

The 'upset' has most often resulted from dogmatism and 'cornering' of people who enjoy the sort of choice that PMC offer by choosing a passive loudspeaker/seperates route. They are not idiots/phools/refusniks/deniers of science/superstitious or any of the other bizarre (and quasi religious) things they are often accused of being.

Just exercising a choice that suits them despite whatever compromise (in ultimate technical/performance terms) that entails. Many people opt for different choices of system with full understanding of the compromises involved and are very happy to do so.

There is at least one person on this forum who enjoys - equally - their ADM9s and a passive seperates system. Such 'pluralism' is something we are supposed to celebrate in our society.

 

[Singslinger]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive.

There has never been much doubt about that and I have rarely seen anyone 'upset' about it.

The key point is that PMC (like some other companies with active products*) make both passive and active options so that people can choose.

The 'upset' has most often resulted from dogmatism and 'cornering' of people who enjoy the sort of choice that PMC offer by choosing a passive loudspeaker/seperates route. They are not idiots/phools/refusniks/deniers of science/superstitious or any of the other bizarre (and quasi religious) things they are often accused of being.

Just exercising a choice that suits them despite whatever compromise (in ultimate technical/performance terms) that entails. Many people opt for different choices of system with full understanding of the compromises involved and are very happy to do so.

There is at least one person on this forum who enjoys - equally - their ADM9s and a passive seperates system. Such 'pluralism' is something we are supposed to celebrate in our society.

+1 :cheers:

 

[Bodfish]

The 'upset' has most often resulted from dogmatism and 'cornering' of people who enjoy the sort of choice that PMC offer by choosing a passive loudspeaker/seperates route. They are not idiots/phools/refusniks/deniers of science/superstitious or any of the other bizarre (and quasi religious) things they are often accused of being.

Just exercising a choice that suits them despite whatever compromise (in ultimate technical/performance terms) that entails. Many people opt for different choices of system with full understanding of the compromises involved and are very happy to do so.

This.

 

[CnoEvil]

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive.

Rethink anyone?

It is worth remembering, that what happens in practice, means that "better" is in the mind (and wallet) of the person making the decision......so the Active route is just one of several viable options.

The only thing that matters, is that people get what is most suitable for their needs and taste......so I agree with Chebby in that it's about choice.

 

[char_lotte]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive.

There has never been much doubt about that and I have rarely seen anyone 'upset' about it.

The key point is that PMC (like some other companies with active products*) make both passive and active options so that people can choose.

The 'upset' has most often resulted from dogmatism and 'cornering' of people who enjoy the sort of choice that PMC offer by choosing a passive loudspeaker/seperates route. They are not idiots/phools/refusniks/deniers of science/superstitious or any of the other bizarre (and quasi religious) things they are often accused of being.

Just exercising a choice that suits them despite whatever compromise (in ultimate technical/performance terms) that entails. Many people opt for different choices of system with full understanding of the compromises involved and are very happy to do so.

There is at least one person on this forum who enjoys - equally - their ADM9s and a passive seperates system. Such 'pluralism' is something we are supposed to celebrate in our society.

Absolutely brilliant post.

 

[BigH]

[/quote]

My comment was nothing more than highlighting the difficulty of defining neutral, as there are so many variables, which includes subjectivity. It's such a nebulous thing to grasp, that it is easier imo, to concentrate on whether you like the sound, or not.

[/quote]

That is true the PMCs I did not like at all, the KEFs were better but still not musical to me but maybe that was the room? They are not suitable for me as I tend to listen at lower volumes and the Kefs did not seem to work well at low volumes.

 

[relocated]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive. This NOT coming from AVI or 'coven members' [JJ] but from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

Rethink anyone?

Um, no.

"It's worth remembering that a well-designed passive system will sound better than a poorly-designed active system."

This from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

Well that is one person that has grabbed hold of a certainty banner. Come on there must be others out there.

 

[BenLaw]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive. This NOT coming from AVI or 'coven members' [JJ] but from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

Rethink anyone?

Um, no.

"It's worth remembering that a well-designed passive system will sound better than a poorly-designed active system."

This from a company that does both. And that is highly rated by many on here.

relocated has kind of beaten me to it, but a reply is still IMO worthwhile. I've never seen anyone argue to the contrary to the sentence you have quoted; it would confound commone sense to do so.

It is important tho to put that quote in context, especially for anyone who doesn't take the time to watch the video:

A well designed passive will sound better than a poorly designed active system. Active isn't a guarantee of quality, as poor quality amplifiers are sometimes used. But implemented properly it does provide a much better performance than a passive speaker ever could.'

(Emphasis added.)

 

[BenLaw]

PMC set out the advantages of active speakers:

With well designed active systems the power amplifiers are chosen for their specific roles. For example, a high current amplifier would be used on the bass driver. Direct coupling the amplifiers to the drive units also provides superior control of the units and helps damp unwanted resonances, improving transient performance, reducing colouration, increasing resolution and detail and lowering distortion.

 

[relocated]

Oh deary, deary me; that is going to upset quite a few on here.

So active, properly implimented , is much better than passive.

There has never been much doubt about that and I have rarely seen anyone 'upset' about it.

The key point is that PMC (like some other companies with active products*) make both passive and active options so that people can choose.

The 'upset' has most often resulted from dogmatism and 'cornering' of people who enjoy the sort of choice that PMC offer by choosing a passive loudspeaker/seperates route. They are not idiots/phools/refusniks/deniers of science/superstitious or any of the other bizarre (and quasi religious) things they are often accused of being.

Just exercising a choice that suits them despite whatever compromise (in ultimate technical/performance terms) that entails. Many people opt for different choices of system with full understanding of the compromises involved and are very happy to do so.

There is at least one person on this forum who enjoys - equally - their ADM9s and a passive seperates system.

How things have changed on this fine forum. An excellent thing, but let us not get amnesia about how much nay-saying there used to be on here and the absolute refusal of some to accept the FACT that, engineering quality being equal, active is superior.

Personal choice is wonderful and if someone is happier with passive, or anything else, then that is fine by me. Now it seems that people have a better chance of making an 'informed' opinion or even to know that there is a better way at all, because it wasn't always thus on here.

"Such 'pluralism' is something we are supposed to celebrate in our society." Now your post has been hailed Chebby, but this is a little OTT, particularly when we are talking about hifi. Walk down the street under this banner and see how many rush to join you.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Any idea how much the PMC Actives cost?

 

[BenLaw]

Personal choice is wonderful and if someone is happier with passive, or anything else, then that is fine by me. Now it seems that people have a better chance of making an 'informed' opinion or even to know that there is a better way at all, because it wasn't always thus on here.

I think this is the point. Personal choice is great, but it is preferable for the individual making the choice that it be an informed choice. If your average punter buys a random issue of WHF it will probably not even mention active speakers, despite their engineering advantages. If they post a thread on here and PP, Cno and David @ FrankH reply to it, they'll probably only hear about passive options. They may demo a few speakers and pick the ones they prefer (and may post again in 6 months time thinking of upgrading their amp / cables / black ravioli because the system is too bright or boomy or whatever). They would have exercised personal choice, but it might be that they had they been informed of the active choice they would have found a product that was even better for them than their passive choice.

This certainly isn't a go at chebby, because I've seen him being extremely balanced in recent threads where an alternative active option has been put forward. But equally I've recently seen an active speaker proposed that was price comparable to a proposed speaker and amp upgrade and PP say 'why have we constantly got to hear actives being mentioned'. Well the answer is because they assist posters in reaching an informed choice, which is right for them. To suggest that actives are always better or that they are a one size fits all takes it too far. But they are frequently a viable alternative consideration, which is often not well known about by OPs.

 

[BenLaw]

Any idea how much the PMC Actives cost?

Obviously, different prices for different speakers.

Passive DB1S+ costing £747: http://www.production-room.com/pmc-speakers/pmc-db1s-plus/

Active DB1S £2190: http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/pmc-pmc-db1s-a-mkii-pair-active-studio-monitors--68372

Of course, the passive one requires some amplification. You could do this for less than the £1400 difference, although bear in mind the natural partner is Bryston, which might set you back £3k + new. And you would still have the engineering disadvantages that PMC mention in their video.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Have a look at the video again.

 

[Craig M.]

How things have changed on this fine forum. An excellent thing, but let us not get amnesia about how much nay-saying there used to be on here and the absolute refusal of some to accept the FACT that, engineering quality being equal, active is superior.

Personal choice is wonderful and if someone is happier with passive, or anything else, then that is fine by me. Now it seems that people have a better chance of making an 'informed' opinion or even to know that there is a better way at all, because it wasn't always thus on here.

:clap:

I think this is the point. Personal choice is great, but it is preferable for the individual making the choice that it be an informed choice. If your average punter buys a random issue of WHF it will probably not even mention active speakers, despite their engineering advantages. If they post a thread on here and PP, Cno and David @ FrankH reply to it, they'll probably only hear about passive options. They may demo a few speakers and pick the ones they prefer (and may post again in 6 months time thinking of upgrading their amp / cables / black ravioli because the system is too bright or boomy or whatever). They would have exercised personal choice, but it might be that they had they been informed of the active choice they would have found a product that was even better for them than their passive choice.

This certainly isn't a go at chebby, because I've seen him being extremely balanced in recent threads where an alternative active option has been put forward. But equally I've recently seen an active speaker proposed that was price comparable to a proposed speaker and amp upgrade and PP say 'why have we constantly got to hear actives being mentioned'. Well the answer is because they assist posters in reaching an informed choice, which is right for them. To suggest that actives are always better or that they are a one size fits all takes it too far. But they are frequently a viable alternative consideration, which is often not well known about by OPs.

:clap:

 

[Craig M.]

Any idea how much the PMC Actives cost?

Lots! In fact you could say too much! They'd probably be cheaper if PMC made their own electronics.

Makes no difference though, the message is still correct.

 

[Craig M.]

Any idea how much the PMC Actives cost?

Active DB1S £2190: http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/pmc-pmc-db1s-a-mkii-pair-active-studio-monitors--68372

These, from memory, are powered passives.

 

[relocated]

Personal choice is wonderful and if someone is happier with passive, or anything else, then that is fine by me. Now it seems that people have a better chance of making an 'informed' opinion or even to know that there is a better way at all, because it wasn't always thus on here.

I think this is the point. Personal choice is great, but it is preferable for the individual making the choice that it be an informed choice. If your average punter buys a random issue of WHF it will probably not even mention active speakers, despite their engineering advantages. If they post a thread on here and PP, Cno and David @ FrankH reply to it, they'll probably only hear about passive options. They may demo a few speakers and pick the ones they prefer (and may post again in 6 months time thinking of upgrading their amp / cables / black ravioli because the system is too bright or boomy or whatever). They would have exercised personal choice, but it might be that they had they been informed of the active choice they would have found a product that was even better for them than their passive choice.

This certainly isn't a go at chebby, because I've seen him being extremely balanced in recent threads where an alternative active option has been put forward. But equally I've recently seen an active speaker proposed that was price comparable to a proposed speaker and amp upgrade and PP say 'why have we constantly got to hear actives being mentioned'. Well the answer is because they assist posters in reaching an informed choice, which is right for them. To suggest that actives are always better or that they are a one size fits all takes it too far. But they are frequently a viable alternative consideration, which is often not well known about by OPs.

Well done Ben, you have put that better than I am able today [ever?].

I hope Chebby doesn't feel that he is being attacked, but there is at least a reasonable amount of amnesia going on. When I first started reading here and later joining, a year or so ago if you spoke of Active there was outright hostility. That has changed, not least because a number of 'rated' contributors went active and posted about it on here.

It is an indicator of the past when the 'badly implemented active is not as good as passive' gets highlighted in a piece that tells everyone just why active is better.

Active is the way forward for so many if they only knew about it and in this digital literate, streaming world, the mags and dealers need to get up to date and show people the active way.

 

[BenLaw]

Any idea how much the PMC Actives cost?

Active DB1S £2190: http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/pmc-pmc-db1s-a-mkii-pair-active-studio-monitors--68372

These, from memory, are powered passives.

Apologies if so, I only carried out a quick google to find two matching PMC products described as active and passive. Assuming I'd found a proper example ( ) the point remains that if you factor in amplification of equivalent quality, the active speaker is probably no more expensive. If you factor in 2 or 3 amplifiers for 2 way or 3 way actives the passive option quickly spirals in expense. That is before taking into account that cheaper amplifiers can in fact be used in the active option because they do not incur the losses caused by a passive crossover.

 

[spiny norman]

Any idea how much the PMC Actives cost?

And how much are these Harbeth Actives evryone's talking about here?

Oh I see, It's yet another

 

[CnoEvil]

I think this is the point. Personal choice is great, but it is preferable for the individual making the choice that it be an informed choice. If your average punter buys a random issue of WHF it will probably not even mention active speakers, despite their engineering advantages. If they post a thread on here and PP, Cno and David @ FrankH reply to it, they'll probably only hear about passive options. They may demo a few speakers and pick the ones they prefer (and may post again in 6 months time thinking of upgrading their amp / cables / black ravioli because the system is too bright or boomy or whatever). They would have exercised personal choice, but it might be that they had they been informed of the active choice they would have found a product that was even better for them than their passive choice.

I think that is reasonably fair.

I tend to talk about what I know about., as the only active speakers that I've heard have been very expensive ones from Linn and Meridian. The "passive brigade" seldom get the thread to themselves, which is fine by me......as my only goal is for the person looking for help to get the best possible solution.

I think your comment about "informed choice" is very relevent, so the advice given by either side, needs to be fair, respectful, accurate, unbiased and free of dogma.

 

[BenLaw]

I think that is reasonably fair.

I tend to talk about what I know about., as the only active speakers that I've heard have been very expensive ones from Linn and Meridian. The "passive brigade" seldom get the thread to themselves, which is fine by me......as my only goal is for the person looking for help to get the best possible solution.

I think your comment about "informed choice" is very relevent, so the advice given by either side, needs to be fair, respectful, accurate, unbiased and free of dogma.

I agree with that Your mention wasn't intended as a pop at you, simply because you are one of the most frequent posters and you proffer a lot of reasonable (passive) choices. Unlike PP, I don't think I've seen you have an ideological anti-active reaction when a reasonable active alternative is being suggested.