• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Your opinions please?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
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

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
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.

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2010
663
0
18,890
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
ooh.. said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
ooh.. said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
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

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Paul Hobbs said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
ooh.. said:
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
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?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
John Duncan said:
ooh.. said:
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.
 

lindsayt

New member
Apr 8, 2011
16
2
0
steve_1979 said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
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...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
lindsayt said:
steve_1979 said:
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

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
7
18,795
John Duncan said:
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

New member
Jan 7, 2008
446
0
0
John Duncan said:
This House Believes:

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

John Duncan said:
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.

John Duncan said:
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.

John Duncan said:
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.

John Duncan said:
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.

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

John Duncan said:
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

John Duncan said:
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

John Duncan said:
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.

John Duncan said:
11) there are both active and passive systems which are overpriced.
True

John Duncan said:
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.

John Duncan said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
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

New member
Apr 8, 2011
16
2
0
steve_1979 said:
lindsayt said:
steve_1979 said:
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

New member
Jan 7, 2008
446
0
0
[EDIT BY JD - Damn, I just edited your post instead of quoting it. And I can't get it back. Oops...]
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
Let me re-answer:

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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?

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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.

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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'.

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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'

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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.

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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.

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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.

fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
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.

fr0g said:
Also, your insistance that Max answer "Which one" is unfair. See 5,6.
No it wasn't.
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
Sorry about that, was trying to say:

fr0g said:
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

New member
Jan 7, 2008
446
0
0
John Duncan said:
Sorry about that, was trying to say:

fr0g said:
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts