Pros and Cons of built-in amps?

Ussarn,

Have you managed to compare the AML-1 active to the TB2S-A? I have noticed a few comments by AML-1 users and those who have heard these speakers and the larger active ones. According to them, once we listen to active speakers, it will be extremely difficult to go back to any passive speakers. Reasons cited were greater dynamics and more resolution. Maybe the removal of the passive crossover in passive speakers have got something to do with the sound improvement.

Thanks for the tip Usarrn. Actually, I have toyed around the idea of transforming my PMC LB1 Signatures into active speakers a while back as one of the forummers in Audiocircle suggested that it might work by removing the passive crossover in the speakers and getting the Bryston 10B into the mix. The use of ETF software and balanced mic are needed to measure post installation. I figured out this move is not viable as a pro is needed to perform this task. Furthermore, James Tanner of Bryston has advised against this move due to careful considerations that need to be taken into account in taking a passive design and turning it into an active system. Hence, I have scrapped the whole idea.

Since you have replaced the formidable full-range Avalon Eidolon's ($20,000 retail) with these small little actives, that shows a lot. Just out of curiousity, are you using any subwoofer with the AML-1's?

Hi Usarrn, I concur in that the AML-1's can be considered as a bargain for their price in that we are getting so many things in one box and still able to save money on exotic speaker cables. This can be said for other good active speakers such as ATC. The only thing that amazes me is the 6.5" flat piston woofer constructed from carbon fibre/Nomex honeycomb that enables large linear excursions down to 33Hz from those rather small boxes. And I'm surprised you managed to get 30Hz-2db! James Tanner had previously measured the response of two units of his TLE1 subwoofer in his room and he also got about 30Hz. Considering each TLE1's have dual 6.5" woofers, I think there is something special going on in that flat piston woofer of the AML-1.

Anyhow, there is the SB100 subwoofer to match the AML-1 for surround monitoring. I am using the TLE1 subwoofer for my LB1's with great effect. It's good to note that you are getting excellent bass response from the AML-1 without the employment of a subwoofer.

However the idea that the Best or most Prestigious Studios in the World with extremely wealthy clients would use something "just good enough to get the job done" is surely laughable...many of these places have millions invested in just microphones (and they use plenty of tubes too)! They try to attract extremely wealthy clients (who are hard to impress) and suprise surprise quite a few of them use custom designed studios with main monitors that are active. George Massenburg, a legendary designer of equipment, uses actives for near-field and for far-field. Here is a pic of the studio he designed in Nashville Studio C. Do you think he cut corners on the sound - so that it was "just good enough"?

To further add to the above, these are just a few prestigious recording studios and monitoring suites that use active speakers :-

BBC Maida Vales, UK uses PMC BB5XBD Active

BBC London, UK uses PMC MB2S-Active

BBC Radio Theatre, London, UK uses PMC MB2-Active

Asphodel Studios, San Francisco uses PMC MB2-XBD Active

Archer Records, Memphis uses IB2S-A Active

James Newton Howard Studio, LA California uses PMC Active

SoundMasters International, London uses PMC BB5 XBD Active

I do agree with Shadorne in that some of these studios may not have invested in a huge sum of money in equipment and active speakers just to "get the job done". These studios need to provide mastering services to companies looking for the highest quality mastering at a modest budget.

Judging by the number of emails I get daily asking me to describe the sonic differences between products X and Y

Not wanting to get involved in the bantering here, I find this statement to be pretty dubious although it may be exaggerated. I get an average of 2 emails a year(not daily) and it's getting pretty quiet lately. I guess Paul must be quite a knowledgable and renowned audio enthusiast having such good reception!~

Well, at the end of the day it doesn't matter whether state of the art passive-based systems will be better than active systems or vice versa. The most important is as long as any particular system brings enjoyment to the listener that truly matters. Furthermore, it is to my opinion that there is no rule of thumb to create a supposition in that the best systems today are passive speakers driven by tube amplification although all matters related to audio are entirely governed by subjectivity.

Let's not get too carried away with some responses here fuelled by contradictory ideas and opinions.

There seem to be a few dealer haters here and people who make stupid statements like the one Ryder makes above. "Dubious"? How would you have any idea how many emails I get from Agon members on a daily basis? And what does your level of email traffic have to do with mine? And who in the hell is Paul?

To put things straight, I mistook you as "Paulfolbrecht" Davemitchell. And Dave, I didn't have the impression that you were an audio dealer all the while, so my assumption of the emails you are getting on daily basis. Also, please note that I am not a "dealer hater" as suggested in your post, and I have bought from quite a number of dealers here, although not from you. I did not expect your rather crude remarks, more so coming off from a dealer like yourself.