Why no Harbeth review on WHF?

[BigH]

That would be the new Kefs, but they're too cheap, the Dynaudio XEOS, again cheap but allow you to use your own DAC/CD player/turntable etc, the new Genelecs with DSP - might be more, don't know the price, the B&W desktops, and those speakers from an obscure company somewhere in Gloucestershire

Is that Acoustic Energy?

 

[steve_1979]

That would be the new Kefs, but they're too cheap, the Dynaudio XEOS, again cheap but allow you to use your own DAC/CD player/turntable etc, the new Genelecs with DSP - might be more, don't know the price, the B&W desktops, and those speakers from an obscure company somewhere in Gloucestershire

Is that Acoustic Energy?

I think he might be referring to Quested.

 

[relocated]

Sospri wrote:

my main complaint is that a number of posters will rant on about AVI mainly as soon as any kind of passive speaker mentioned,

The people who talk about AVI are normally owners of their products. They are exceptionally pleased with the performance and VFM and share their experience with others who may also benefit from the information/experience.

Until the hifi press and dealers get themselves into the current century, that is 21st - no longer the 20th, there is little opportunity for people to learn about or have active systems recommended to them. It is only passing on ownership and experience of a better way of listening, it isn't a plot to bring down the free world.

You are happy with what you have, apparantly, so why do you fear a little contrary opinion from getting some air-time?

 

[Sospri]

It seems to me that the manufactuer / CEO or whatever he is was banned from this forum.

So the mantra taken up by the puppets who drone on and continue to hijack genuine members who are posting various questions about speakers to me very suspicious.

As I have posted before I think my system is brilliant, but I don't keep banging on about it....................

 

[BenLaw]

So the mantra taken up by the puppets who drone on and continue to hijack genuine members who are posting various questions about speakers to me very suspicious.

I've posted on this thread and appreciate the advantages of actives, am I a puppet? Is my behaviour suspicious?

 

[Macspur]

I'm wondering how a thread about Harbeths not being featured in WHF has morphed into an actives vs passives debate. :quest: :?

I know... quite frankly it's becoming boring.

Mac

Not so boring that you couldn't resist reading or posting about it though.

I think you'll find I posted about the original subject then skipped through all the dross till I read Singslingers comments.

The active pasiv subject has been done to death. At the end of the day there's no better or worse, it's whatever floats your boat.

Mac

 

[relocated]

Macspur wrote, The active pasiv subject has been done to death. At the end of the day there's no better or worse, it's whatever floats your boat.

Surely this just can't be that difficult? The thing is Mac, that there is a better and a worse. Active speakers are better than passive speakers when on an equal build quality footing. Boat floating has got nothing to do with absolute quality. Various manufacturers do the best they can from a flawed system but passives in direct competition are not as good as actives.

Many people, you included, prefer your passive sound but that does not negate the FACT that actives, properly built, are better than properly built passives. You like a flawed way, you are not alone but I and others think it only fair that other people are made aware that there is a better way. That better way is active.

Now only you and your brethren will ensure that this subject goes on. It's up to you whether you continue to peddle a flawed argument.

 

[Overdose]

I'm wondering how a thread about Harbeths not being featured in WHF has morphed into an actives vs passives debate. :quest: :?

I know... quite frankly it's becoming boring.

Mac

Not so boring that you couldn't resist reading or posting about it though.

I think you'll find I posted about the original subject then skipped through all the dross till I read Singslingers comments.

The active pasiv subject has been done to death. At the end of the day there's no better or worse, it's whatever floats your boat.

Mac

.

 

[chebby]

How do you want this thread to end Relocated?

Is it some dream scenario where everyone (currently using passive loudspeakers) promises to do their very best to buy actives in the near future and post photos to prove it to your satisfaction?

Of course it isn't ! You and I both know that isn't going to happen, so there has to be some alternative end to threads like this.

We've had the bit where the original question is answered.

We've had the bit where people like yourself have promoted the virtues of active systems (as users) and provided links to the experts.

We've had the bit where everyone gets into a bit of an argument.

Now, as our transatlantic cousins like to say, "we need closure". How do you see that happening from your point of view? Do we all have to apologise for liking our systems or something?

By all means keep taking tit-for-tat/eye-for-eye chunks out of each other, but - on the essential point of active technology vs passive technology - can't we take our lead from PMC? (As they featured so admirably as the main technical reference in this thread).

They are happy to make the best of both approaches. So can't we all do the same?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Macspur wrote, The active pasiv subject has been done to death. At the end of the day there's no better or worse, it's whatever floats your boat.

Surely this just can't be that difficult? The thing is Mac, that there is a better and a worse. Active speakers are better than passive speakers when on an equal build quality footing. Boat floating has got nothing to do with absolute quality. Various manufacturers do the best they can from a flawed system but passives in direct competition are not as good as actives.

Many people, you included, prefer your passive sound but that does not negate the FACT that actives, properly built, are better than properly built passives. You like a flawed way, you are not alone but I and others think it only fair that other people are made aware that there is a better way. That better way is active.

Now only you and your brethren will ensure that this subject goes on. It's up to you whether you continue to peddle a flawed argument.

Build quality? Surely that isn't the sole priority is it? Do you think, by the way, that all active speakers sound the same, that voicing, that quality of components, including amplification, has nothing to do with it?

At present, there are not enough active speakers to provide a real alternative at prices people can afford, and what there are are restricted to HiFi. I wouldn't see that changing in the near future.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm not getting into any arguments here, but I am surprised as to why actives aren't more popular. I can understand people nowadays want a solution that involves less boxes. In fact, the likes of soundbars, iPod docks, and mini systems proves that. As someone has already mentioned though, I doubt very much conventional hi-fi systems are going to die out, contrary to the beliefs of the few that do their best to promote actives. Actives (albeit in their more basic form) have been around for many decades, but for domestic use, passive was the chosen route at sme point for the majority, and still is. There are plenty of powered speakers on the market that are quite popular with students and youngsters nowadays, and if they grow up and look for an easy transition, they may well be looking at something like the products AVI are producing, but they need to be in a large number of dealers around the country. You need widespread coverage in order for people to see the product, play with the product, and buy it. Some of the most successful brands in audio and AV today have relied heavily on marketing to get the brand and product across, and they've been ready to grow with that steady increase for demand. Waiting for conventional separates and dealers to die out isn't the way to gain market share - promotion, promotion, promotion. And not the kind we see on forums.

Having said that, when Ken Kreisel designed the first active subwoofer in the early 70's. He wasn't to know that it would come into its own in the 90's for home theatre use. This is what AVI needs - but I can't see that happening for stereo speakers.

The other issue AVI may have is that now more manufacturers are starting to come onboard with active speakers, their market share might be eaten into as people who start looking at active speakers will "go with what they know". But who knows? Maybe one day soon the active thing will just suddenly explode. The future for electronics is unpredictable.

I did have a structure for this post, but I want to settle down and watch Donnie Darko, so I've rushed it a little and it has become messy. Hopefully a few points got across though

 

[pauln]

My prediction - twenty years from now, maybe less, the number of people using separate amp and speakers - let alone pre/power and speakers - will be about the same, probably less, as those using turntables now. It'll have nothing to do with quality of sound and everything to do with ease of use, convenience and of course price. The speakers of the future will invariably come with DAC and digital amp built in and will connect wirelessly to each and every device you own. In fact, why wouldn't they also be the source; capable of downloading content from wherever and storing it on a 2 terrabyte micro SD card?

Wives and girlfriends will be over the moon; men who like to search endlessly for "nirvana" will have to find something else to obsess about - or maybe just get out more!

Anyway, IMHO, traditional makers of hi-end hifi are on a slippery slope and they need to do something soon before Apple come out with the ispeaker and do what they did to Sony and Nokia with the ipod and the iphone.

BTW, have been reading a lot of AS on the HUG - he is the god of common sense! I'll be off to Doug Brady to audition some P3ESR's soon as.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'll be off to Doug Brady to audition some P3ESR's soon as.

Now that's something worth reading about. :cheer:

 

[Macspur]

Macspur wrote, The active pasiv subject has been done to death. At the end of the day there's no better or worse, it's whatever floats your boat.

Surely this just can't be that difficult? The thing is Mac, that there is a better and a worse. Active speakers are better than passive speakers when on an equal build quality footing. Boat floating has got nothing to do with absolute quality. Various manufacturers do the best they can from a flawed system but passives in direct competition are not as good as actives.

Many people, you included, prefer your passive sound but that does not negate the FACT that actives, properly built, are better than properly built passives. You like a flawed way, you are not alone but I and others think it only fair that other people are made aware that there is a better way. That better way is active.

Now only you and your brethren will ensure that this subject goes on. It's up to you whether you continue to peddle a flawed argument.

I'm finding you quite offensive now... I have no arguement re this rediculous debate, only other than it is BORING.

 

[pauln]

I'll be off to Doug Brady to audition some P3ESR's soon as.

Now that's something worth reading about. :cheer:

...soon as I can convince my wife that I should spend £1500 on new speakers when there's still sound coming out of the nearly 20 year old Linn's.:doh:

 

[Frank Harvey]

My prediction - twenty years from now, maybe less, the number of people using separate amp and speakers - let alone pre/power and speakers - will be about the same, probably less, as those using turntables now. It'll have nothing to do with quality of sound and everything to do with ease of use, convenience and of course price. The speakers of the future will invariably come with DAC and digital amp built in and will connect wirelessly to each and every device you own. In fact, why wouldn't they also be the source; capable of downloading content from wherever and storing it on a 2 terrabyte micro SD card?

Wives and girlfriends will be over the moon; men who like to search endlessly for "nirvana" will have to find something else to obsess about - or maybe just get out more!

Anyway, IMHO, traditional makers of hi-end hifi are on a slippery slope and they need to do something soon before Apple come out with the ispeaker and do what they did to Sony and Nokia with the ipod and the iphone.

The LP has been with us for 65 years now, outlasting every other physical format that has appeared during its time. Many people will say that CD's are on their way out too. Obviously, any format that has already peaked is on its way out, but in the case of the LP, that probably peaked in the 80's - thirty years later it is still here. The girlfriend is nagging me to buy her a turntable, so not all wives and girlfriends are looking for simple solutions.

You might be surprised at how many turntables of all price ranges are still being purchased. Diverse Vinyl reckoned they were busier than ever at the Bristol Show. Whenever we hold an open day here with Diverse Vinyl, many people come to purchase. The Bristol Show had rather a lot of vinyl sources this year too. There's demand out there, so much so we're looking into stocking vinyl in the near future. Those that despise vinyl might keep on predicting its death, but I can't see any proof at the moment that it is going away.

Thats not so much a prediction, just my thoughts

 

[Bodfish]

I'll be off to Doug Brady to audition some P3ESR's soon as.

Now that's something worth reading about. :cheer:

...soon as I can convince my wife that I should spend £1500 on new speakers when there's still sound coming out of the nearly 20 year old Linn's.:doh:

I think once you've heard them the Linn's will suffer a sudden and...cough...catastrophic failure... :cheers:

 

[Rimse]

Ok,thinking abaut passive vs active ,searching web and reading this thread,to my mind poped an idea-ACTIVE CROSSOVER.The Basic idea is- make active speakers from passive ones just adding active crossover and power amp to excisting system,dissconnecting passive crossover from drivers and connecting to it power amps which is connected to active crossover,crossover connected to preamp .Like in this picture.The other idea:if you have lower range speaker,by adding high quality twetter and bass driver and damping cabinet like high end speakers.Results will be improved sound quality . Has anybody tried this or this bad idea?

 

[relocated]

Macspur wrote, The active pasiv subject has been done to death. At the end of the day there's no better or worse, it's whatever floats your boat.

Surely this just can't be that difficult? The thing is Mac, that there is a better and a worse. Active speakers are better than passive speakers when on an equal build quality footing. Boat floating has got nothing to do with absolute quality. Various manufacturers do the best they can from a flawed system but passives in direct competition are not as good as actives.

Many people, you included, prefer your passive sound but that does not negate the FACT that actives, properly built, are better than properly built passives. You like a flawed way, you are not alone but I and others think it only fair that other people are made aware that there is a better way. That better way is active.

Now only you and your brethren will ensure that this subject goes on. It's up to you whether you continue to peddle a flawed argument.

Build quality? Surely that isn't the sole priority is it? Do you think, by the way, that all active speakers sound the same, that voicing, that quality of components, including amplification, has nothing to do with it?

At present, there are not enough active speakers to provide a real alternative at prices people can afford, and what there are are restricted to HiFi. I wouldn't see that changing in the near future.

Using the term 'build quality' was a hamfisted [vocabulary failure] attempt to ensure that someone else didn't grab on to the 'a badly implemented active speaker will be beaten by a well implemented passive speaker' or thereabouts. Unfortunately when people are fighting the truth they they grab hold of any word or phrase to keep their flawed ideas alive.

Your question regarding speakers sounding the same is laughable and I won't waste my time answering it.

There are insufficient actives in the market at the moment but momentum will build I'm sure. You 100% correct that an active 5.1 would move things along. As to the price of actives, well people can afford them if they are coming new to hifi, they just have to weigh all the seperate costs of passive versus the single cost of actives [yes they do need a source, Xeos? aside] and the better sound for money they will get from the actives.

 

[relocated]

Now, as our transatlantic cousins like to say, "we need closure". How do you see that happening from your point of view? Do we all have to apologise for liking our systems or something?

By all means keep taking tit-for-tat/eye-for-eye chunks out of each other, but - on the essential point of active technology vs passive technology - can't we take our lead from PMC? (As they featured so admirably as the main technical reference in this thread).

They are happy to make the best of both approaches. So can't we all do the same?

________________________________________________________

Chebby, your posts are always worth my time to read and yet you go and ruin things with preposterous questions. However I will say again what I have already said here and elsewhere. IF PEOPLE ARE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE, THEN I AM AS HAPPY AS THEY ARE. No-one need apologise for liking what they like.

I am not "tit-for-tat"ing, when I challenge people who persist with flawed arguments that confuse people who may not understand things as well as you and I. I thought taking the lead from PMC would indeed stop the argument about absolute quality being better in the active domain, but it didn't. That isn't my fault, but I will not let things go unchallenged when they are factually incorrect.

I trust that what I have repeated here gives you a better understanding of where I am coming from. I am not on a mission to change everyone to active, I merely offer the alternative that many people are unaware of and to counter fault where fault lies.

 

[relocated]

Ok,thinking abaut passive vs active ,searching web and reading this thread,to my mind poped an idea-ACTIVE CROSSOVER.The Basic idea is- make active speakers from passive ones just adding active crossover and power amp to excisting system,dissconnecting passive crossover from drivers and connecting to it power amps which is connected to active crossover,crossover connected to preamp .Like in this picture.The other idea:if you have lower range speaker,by adding high quality twetter and bass driver and damping cabinet like high end speakers.Results will be improved sound quality . Has anybody tried this or this bad idea?

Rimse, this is what an Active speaker is. Some active speakers have all the active crossover and amps in the speaker cabinet and some have the active crossover and amps externally. You will have seen people refer to 'powered speakers', these are not 'active' in the true sense of the word because they are passive speakers with amps in the speaker enclosure. The important bit is the 'active crossover' in whatever form it takes.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Not quite. It is also having the best amplifier for the drivers, as in one suited to the tweeter and another to the woofer/midrange. Cabinet design and build, bracing and, of course, driver quality are just as important as they are for passive systems.

I asked the question re active speakers sounding the same because it seems to me the AVI brigade (can't think of a better word) seem to forget that, in fact, they can sound as different as passive ones do and only ever recommend one brand.

 

[Craig M.]

Ok,thinking abaut passive vs active ,searching web and reading this thread,to my mind poped an idea-ACTIVE CROSSOVER.The Basic idea is- make active speakers from passive ones just adding active crossover and power amp to excisting system,dissconnecting passive crossover from drivers and connecting to it power amps which is connected to active crossover,crossover connected to preamp .Like in this picture.

There is a very detailed description of converting passive B&W 801 speakers to active HERE. I've heard these speakers and thought they were excellent.

 

[Overdose]

I asked the question re active speakers sounding the same because it seems to me the AVI brigade (can't think of a better word) seem to forget that, in fact, they can sound as different as passive ones do and only ever recommend one brand.

Active speakers will differ in sound. Of course they will, as speakers are the single most difficult part of the sound reproduction chain to get right, however differences will be less pronounced between monitors, as in general, they have all been engineered to be neutral, so the variations between such speakers will not be so pronounced as speakers that are designed to have colouration, ie hifi speakers in general. Some hifi speakers are designed to be neutral, as I suppose are the Kef LS50 (and I'm sure they're just fine BTW). Thus it can be said that monitors (ADM9s included) are generally neutral, or close too.

Again, AVI ADM9s are recommended so much because of the lack of anything else like them, as responses to my earlier question highlight. I would actually imagine that the LS50s would be quite a good alternative to the ADMs, but I've never heard them. The caveat with the LS50s would be that they would seem to need a fairly capable amplifier.

 

[chebby]

Harbeth has been reviewed by What Hi-fi?

In their Russian edition.

(Page 75, January 2013)