Your opinions please?

[Anonymous]

One thing to bare in mind is that most that have argued against the benefits of actives haven't owned any, some have never even heard any

You once said that your active speakers were 'miles better than JD's system'. I forget the exact phrase you used, and I can't look it up. Have you a) owned my system or b) heard it?

Come on JD, that was just silly banter and you know it

 

[Frank Harvey]

What if you have two pairs of speakers - one has less distortion than the other, but actually sounds more neutral? Do you choose by THD? Or go with your ears and choose the one that sounds more neutral?

Just curious....

 

[Paul.]

One thing to bare in mind is that most that have argued against the benefits of actives haven't owned any, some have never even heard any, but those that swear by them actually own them, having owned many passive systems on their way to getting them.

I beg to differ. I notice there's a few active owners that bang on about the superiority of active speakers who actually admit to never having heard any active speakers other than the pair they own.

Do I have to have owned something to reliably state that I didn't like it? Not liking something is a great reason to have never owned something.

 

[John Duncan]

Anyway, back to my manifesto. It's all or nothing, I'm afraid...

 

[Anonymous]

Anyway JD you've made a generally fair summation, IMO apart perhaps from the bit where you say accuracy isn't necessarily audible, it certainly is to many people that i've come across on Fora, that own good active speakers.

These are the two possible options, which are logically mutually exclusive. Which one do you agree with?

"a more accurate speaker may not necessarily be identifiable audibly"

"a more accurate speaker will always be identifiable audibly, for any given value of 'more'"

There's caveats to the first one, which logically, one would have to choose, just as there is with my original statement that you highlighted

I don't really care that much, really, i don't, i'm just cross from being constantly accused of saying things i haven't said..

 

[John Duncan]

I agree except for point 5.

The best active speakers are better than the best passive speakers.

Which ones are those?

 

[John Duncan]

There's caveats to the first one, which logically, one would have to choose

There are no caveats. The two options I have given you are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You must believe one or the other is true.

 

[Anonymous]

There's caveats to the first one, which logically, one would have to choose

There are no caveats. The two options I have given you are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You must believe one or the other is true.

It's an exclusivley loaded choice that isn't mutually beneficial, and that's the truth

 

[Frank Harvey]

Do I have to have owned something to reliably state that I didn't like it? Not liking something is a great reason to have never owned something.

I'm not sure if you mean that positively or negatively Paul. The point I was making was that some who swear by actives have only ever heard the pair they own. That doesn't make sense to me as that is presuming that all actives are as good as the pair they have subjectively chosen.

 

[John Duncan]

There's caveats to the first one, which logically, one would have to choose

There are no caveats. The two options I have given you are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You must believe one or the other is true.

It's an exclusivley loaded choice that isn't mutually beneficial, and that's the truth

This is not a trick question, nor is it a difficult one. What do you believe, Max?

 

[Anonymous]

There's caveats to the first one, which logically, one would have to choose

There are no caveats. The two options I have given you are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You must believe one or the other is true.

It's an exclusivley loaded choice that isn't mutually beneficial, and that's the truth

This is not a trick question, nor is it a difficult one. What do you believe, Max?

It's a not a question of what i believe, the only one of the two choices that makes sense is the first one.

 

[John Duncan]

I am going to cherish this moment.

 

[lindsayt]

I agree except for point 5.

The best active speakers are better than the best passive speakers.

So, what make and model are the best active speakers? If there's more than one, which of these best active speakers are the cheapest?

 

[John Duncan]

That's the same question I asked, but he has made a valid point. 5 and 6 cannot both be true, given a finite number of speakers. I need to rephrase...

 

[Anonymous]

5 and 6 are worded wrongly, what sounds better is down to taste, not fact. You could use measure better, but then 5 would probably still be wrong..

 

[steve_1979]

I agree except for point 5.

The best active speakers are better than the best passive speakers.

So, what make and model are the best active speakers? If there's more than one, which of these best active speakers are the cheapest?

Take your pick from any of the top active speakers from reputable manufactures such as Adam, ATC, AVI, Genelec or Quested to name but a few.

 

[steve_1979]

8. it is possible to find an amplifier that matches a passive speaker perfectly. It just takes longer.

Although I mostly agree with this one it's not quite as black and white as it sounds.

An amplifier that's driving speakers with two or more drivers can't possibly be a perfect match to all of the drivers. Having separate amplifers that are optimally matched to each individual driver is more effective.

 

[fr0g]

This House Believes:

1) an active crossover is, theoretically, technically superior to a passive one, producing less distortion.

Theoretically and demonstrably

2) improved accuracy is not necessarily audible (cf 16/44 vs 24/96).

True, but if that is a counter to 1) then it's a straw man. 24/96 is not audible as it only gives us frequencies which is proven that we cannot hear. Passive crossovers can introduce levels of distortion that are well within the realms of human hearing.

3) since very few speakers exist that are available in both passive and active versions, it is extremely difficult to make an objective comparison between just a crossover.

Yes to you and me unless you hunt one down that does exist.

4) many other variables exist in speaker manufacture.

Yes. But it does seem that this is a "biggee" and makes perfect sense if ultimate SQ is the intended aim.

5) for any given active speaker, there exists a passive speaker that sounds better than it.

6) for any given passive speaker, there exists an active speaker that sounds better than it.

They can't both be true. The answer is not realistically attainable.

7) active speakers have the potential to have their amplifiers built specifically to match drivers. However, whether all manufacturers do this is unclear.

True.

8) it is possible to find an amplifier that matches a passive speaker perfectly. It just takes longer.

True. You can get an amp that is the perfect match. So if you also have the same speaker with perfect matching amps on each driver with an active, rather than passive crossover, the active version will be a) cheaper, b) higher SQ

9) given two equivalent-sounding systems, the active one is probably cheaper than the passive one, since there are fewer boxes to manufacture.

True, but not only because of box count. Integrated amps must be over-engineered(more money) to suit a wide range of speaker loads, so the amps in an active design can be cheaper even if they are external

10) there are both active and passive systems which offer spectacular value.

True, but in the case of passive systems they exist only at the budget end of the market or on ebay if you compare to the value in actives. Whereas if you are willing to venture into pro-audio then there are bargains galore in the active case because of a combination of 9) and the fact that the profit margin in pro-audio is a lot lower.

11) there are both active and passive systems which are overpriced.

True

12) If we believe all the above to be true, one must conclude that none of: crossover, driver, cabinet, wiring, topology, whatever in isolation can define how good a speaker is.

True, so if you want best SQ possible you should follow best practice in each area. ergo use an active crossover.

and finally, just for kicks:

13) Every single hifi manufacturer on the planet - whether they be manufacturers of active or passive equipment - is trying to make as much money out of you, the consumer, as they possibly can. Anybody who tells you that they're not, but that everybody else is, is...mistaken.

Anybody in?

I would say "trying to make money out of you, the consumer". Some companies overcharge, some don't. Some companies products are overpriced, some aren't.

Also, your insistance that Max answer "Which one" is unfair. See 5,6.

 

[John Duncan]

Just a few points, since am on a train

- I'm not having 'demonstrably' in the first point, I try to address that elsewhere
- my 16/44-24/96 example was just that, an example.  Remove it if you like
- I acknowledged my error re 5 and 6.  Feel free to offer a rewording, since you presumably understand the point I'm getting at
- you can remove the bit about box count
- the budget end of the market is the only place anything can offer spectacular value for money.  Diminishing returns applies to both.  Does not refute the point.
- examples of relative margins in pro and domestic audio please.  Links to manufacturers' accounts are acceptable.
- the point I asked max to decide upon was completely fair, since only one can be true.  See note above re 5 and 6

There's more but referring back on a phone is a PITA...

 

[lindsayt]

I agree except for point 5.

The best active speakers are better than the best passive speakers.

So, what make and model are the best active speakers? If there's more than one, which of these best active speakers are the cheapest?

Take your pick from any of the top active speakers from reputable manufactures such as Adam, ATC, AVI, Genelec or Quested to name but a few.

Would you include the ATC ASL50's as one of the best sounding sounding active speakers or are you only including the 300 model?

Would you include the AVI 9's as one of the best sounding active speakers or are you only including the ADM40 model?

 

[fr0g]

[EDIT BY JD - Damn, I just edited your post instead of quoting it. And I can't get it back. Oops...]

 

[John Duncan]

Let me re-answer:

This House Believes:

1) an active crossover is, theoretically, technically superior to a passive one, producing less distortion.

Theoretically and demonstrably

I'm trying to make separate statements on each upon which we can both agree. We will therefore cover 'demonstrably' later. In that context, do you agree with 1) as stated?

2) improved accuracy is not necessarily audible (cf 16/44 vs 24/96).

True, but if that is a counter to 1) then it's a straw man. 24/96 is not audible as it only gives us frequencies which is proven that we cannot hear. Passive crossovers can introduce levels of distortion that are well within the realms of human hearing.

It's not a statement designed to 'counter' anything, and the 16/44 reference was an example. My point is that one cannot definitively state that in all cases improved (measured) accuracy is audible, unless you have references.

4) many other variables exist in speaker manufacture.

Yes. But it does seem that this is a "biggee" and makes perfect sense if ultimate SQ is the intended aim.

'Seem'.

5) for any given active speaker, there exists a passive speaker that sounds better than it.

6) for any given passive speaker, there exists an active speaker that sounds better than it.

They can't both be true. The answer is not realistically attainable.

Agreed. It needs rewording because it assumes an infinite number of speakers, but my point is that given one speaker, you can probably find one better of the other type. I don't like the word 'probably', so I may have to turn it into a negative - ie 'one cannot prove that there is no speaker better than X'

8) it is possible to find an amplifier that matches a passive speaker perfectly. It just takes longer.

True. You can get an amp that is the perfect match. So if you also have the same speaker with perfect matching amps on each driver with an active, rather than passive crossover, the active version will be a) cheaper, b) higher SQ

I try to make that point elsewhere.

10) there are both active and passive systems which offer spectacular value.

True, but in the case of passive systems they exist only at the budget end of the market or on ebay if you compare to the value in actives. Whereas if you are willing to venture into pro-audio then there are bargains galore in the active case because of a combination of 9) and the fact that the profit margin in pro-audio is a lot lower.

All systems stop offering 'spectacular' value past a given point. That point for me is about a grand. YMMV. Your point about profit margin is speculation.

12) If we believe all the above to be true, one must conclude that none of: crossover, driver, cabinet, wiring, topology, whatever in isolation can define how good a speaker is.

True, so if you want best SQ possible you should follow best practice in each area. ergo use an active crossover.

All speakers are a compromise, and best practice is not always economical, in the sense that it costs too much or doesn't sell.

and finally, just for kicks:

13) Every single hifi manufacturer on the planet - whether they be manufacturers of active or passive equipment - is trying to make as much money out of you, the consumer, as they possibly can. Anybody who tells you that they're not, but that everybody else is, is...mistaken.

I would say "trying to make money out of you, the consumer". Some companies overcharge, some don't. Some companies products are overpriced, some aren't.

Define 'overpriced'. In terms of margin. Show your working with reference to margins attained by said manufacturers. otherwise it's speculation, and it's wilder than mine.

Also, your insistance that Max answer "Which one" is unfair. See 5,6.

No it wasn't.

 

[John Duncan]

Sorry about that, was trying to say:

No but the question you are asking is not answerable.

I contend that it is. You either believe the statement:

"a more accurate speaker will always be identifiable audibly"

or you believe that the converse is true. If you wish to word the converse:

"a more accurate speaker will not always be identifiable audibly"

feel free.

 

[fr0g]

Sorry about that, was trying to say:

No but the question you are asking is not answerable.

I contend that it is. You either believe the statement:

"a more accurate speaker will always be identifiable audibly"

or you believe that the converse is true. If you wish to word the converse:

"a more accurate speaker will not always be identifiable audibly"

feel free.

Ok, in that case, I agree.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Is Max still to answer this, or has that moment passed?