advertisement


Active speakers or not?

Gervais Cote said:
I'm old school but prefer by far separate units to active speakers for versatility and ease of upgrade if ever suited...
Click to expand...
That's understandable but I think you're possibly missing a nuance: the sound quality of a decent pair of actives so far passes the sound quality of amp+passives at the same price point that upgrades are irrelevant; you're already "locked in" several dozen steps up the ladder. Been there, done that, it's a no brainer when you compare based on SQ and value. Of course if hifi upgrades are your hobby and being restless is a lifestyle choice then that's your call!

I do realise this is a sweeping statement but hope it gives food for thought regardless.
 
Alex S said:
All ATCs I’ve heard are half asleep at low level so congratulations finding the exception. You don’t know what valve sound is, haven’t had one. Try listening to something like the Leben/Falcon system in another thread. At least then, your endless ‘get ATCs’ will have a better frame of reference.
Click to expand...

Were these active ATC's or passives? I can see why people enjoy the passives but for me that would depend on the right sort of amplification. The passives and actives might use the same drivers and cabinets but if anyone talks about "ATCs" without specifying active or passive then they're, if I may point out respectfully sir, usually talking from zero experience of the actives which perform several leagues/divisions above. If the ATC-generalisers had heard both, they would no longer generalise at the brand level. My active SCM40A's half-asleep? Not even at low volumes!
 
TheFlash said:
That's understandable but I think you're possibly missing a nuance: the sound quality of a decent pair of actives so far passes the sound quality of amp+passives at the same price point that upgrades are irrelevant; you're already "locked in" several dozen steps up the ladder. Been there, done that, it's a no brainer when you compare based on SQ and value. Of course if hifi upgrades are your hobby and being restless is a lifestyle choice then that's your call!

I do realise this is a sweeping statement but hope it gives food for thought regardless.
Click to expand...
Price point is something I didn’t pay attention to..........might be worth to reevaluate..........
 
TheFlash said:
Were these active ATC's or passives? I can see why people enjoy the passives but for me that would depend on the right sort of amplification. The passives and actives might use the same drivers and cabinets but if anyone talks about "ATCs" without specifying active or passive then they're, if I may point out respectfully sir, usually talking from zero experience of the actives which perform several leagues/divisions above. If the ATC-generalisers had heard both, they would no longer generalise at the brand level. My active SCM40A's half-asleep? Not even at low volumes!
Click to expand...
Actives. Everything is relative. Yes, passives are worse in this respect. What do you call 'low volume'? Most active ATC owners I know would define that as 95dB :)
 
I probably listen to a max of 70-80 decibels. As I’ve said before, the temptation to up the volume is always there as they sound so clean.
 
I’m with Alex on this. I too found my ATC100 active towers to be a bit lifeless at the lower levels (say ~75dB) I often listen at. Crank them and they were magnificent but rather ordinary otherwise. In that regard I found the Adam Audio Compact Classic Active a better speaker.
 
Properly designed loudspeakers produce the same FR at any given level, the variable is almost certainly not the speaker but yours ears are far less sensitive to bass, modern designs ( speakers and dacs) have the ability to bass the lower frequencies as the SPL drops.
Keith
 
Anyway, the important thing is to enjoy what you have, but since this is 'Active speakers, or not?' and not 'Active ATCs or not?' it is with exploring other brands: Geithain, Genelec, Adam, Dutch and Dutch and so on.
 
Aware of this, but this is also true of the Adam actives, which just sounded more alive at lower volumes. In any case the ATCs were just a bit too much speaker for my purposes, but having bought them new for about half retail, I sold them on after a couple of years at no loss so it was a free experiment :)
 
I had ATC Active 10s for a while. They were extremely average unless you turned them up a lot, and then they were merely slightly average.
 
I'm deeply tempted to try replacing my Harbeth P3ESRs with a pair of the Genelec 8030 in the raw finish. My Solidsteel stands are in raw finish and it'd look quite good, the 8030s are basically the same size as my P3s (so will fit the stands perfectly I think), plus it would open up the option of splitting my main system into two separate systems, given that I could then use the Harbs in the other room (or vice versa).

The only thing that holds me back is that I really don't need two systems. And I'm not sure I really want to move away from my delicious big class A/P3 sound...
 
TheFlash said:
How big is your room? How big is your wallet? My room is "modest" and positioning is sub-optimal (my wife insists on referring to my listening room as "our lounge" :)) but SCM40As work superbly - certainly far better than any passives I've had here (mainly ProAcs of which I'm a fanboy). With patience and tenacity, a mint pair should be possible at £5,500ish I would have thought. It's a lot for a pair of speakers but not a lot for a pair of speakers including 6 amps, and a fraction of what you'd pay for the privilege of this sound quality from an an amp and passives. IMHO, natch.

I'm in NE Leicestershire and have a kettle. PM me if you want a listen. Experienced analogue-only audiophile and complete hifi novice blown away in last few days by what this can do from a decent digital source.

Sorry, can't help with the wallet!
Click to expand...

Probably 10 x 10, never actually measured it, to be honest, but postage stamp....ish. I have heard them before on the end of a Linn system in the days when I was a Linn believer (no more) and would agree they are effortlessly superb. Probably the best I have ever heard if truth be told. Really appreciate your offer of a brew and a listen and if I am ever over that way I'll take you up on it.

Though your 'offer' of not helping with the wallet is a slight disincentive. :)
 
My 10p, there are no absolutes — it all starts with do you like the speakers with the amp in question, whether that amp be in the speakers or in a separate box. I tend to agree that actives are better (and/or better value) "in theory" — but as with everything else in audio, it's the technical implementation combined with the listener's taste that matters in the end.

For folks after a minimalist system, it makes sense to look at actives first.

Personally I'd like to try (analogue) actives, although it wouldn't save a box as I'd just be swapping an integrated for a pre (and I'd also need new cables).
 
Alex S said:
Actives. Everything is relative. Yes, passives are worse in this respect. What do you call 'low volume'? Most active ATC owners I know would define that as 95dB :)
Click to expand...
I listen mainly at modest (by anyone's standards) volumes and my active 40's sound fab. Lots of ear/taste/room interaction possibilities here of course...
 
Actives are bit borring for enthusiast. Cannot try in system another amplifier, another speaker. Even another source unless there is dedicated volume control already in system.
Cannot bring to and mix amp, speakers, source with friends system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top