Pros and Cons of built-in amps?

I tend to agree with Shadorne on this one. Two members of my family were crack studio musicians (you would know their name and I wish to remain anomimous in this site) and I grew up around all the great studios of the world. Rarely do I see most "touted" reference consumer electronic products (Wilsons, Quads,...)--I do see a lot of ATC gear, both amped internally or externally. Studio engineering requires precise feedback from the listening experience, from individual passages up to the entire track.

Dave,

So you don't like ATC. I hear you loud and clear and you are quite entitled to even go as far as to hate them.

WOW! You actually don't read do you. Here's what I said.

I am not, by the way, trying to belittle ATC speakers because they are quite good (I've listened to them on numerous occasions). They also make some good drivers, my ProAc Response Five's use the ATC midrange dome. But, there are many more high res and capable systems out there.

Dave,

So you don't like ATC. I hear you loud and clear and you are quite entitled to even go as far as to hate them. That is fine - and it is OK with me - many people don't like this kind of sound. A forward sound that can "make your ears bleed", as some people have described on other threads - to each his own. However this thread was about active speakers (those with built in amps).

So just because others (like Bob Woods or David Gilmour or George Massenburg) disagree with you (and happen to like active speakers) does not necessarily make them hindered by misguided beliefs or inexperienced.

They prefer something else to what you prefer. If you could understand this fact (people differ in what they like) then you could become a much better audio dealer. Instead of forcing your dogma on your customers, you might learn to acknowledge their preferences. You could probably sell more products and have happier customers...just a thought - it might not be too late to learn listening skills and to learn that what is the best is often in the eye of the beholder...

I think CDC has the right idea...studios value different things from home audiophiles and his point is an excellent one...."horses for courses" is what I understand CDC is saying.

However, your idea that studios want a colored sound with greater prescience or other gimmicks added to the playback chain could not be further from the mark.

Actually I was told this by the Tannoy factory rep on their pro monitors vs. home speakers.

Well you can read on line what people say about active speakers - Telarc Here is an excerpt: "We feel like we're finally hearing the detail of our work for the first time," says Telarc president Bob Woods of the installed ATC monitor system. "As a professional studio product we've never encountered anything quite like it.

All that comment speaks to is Bob Woods' lack of experience with better systems. It means that whatever their previous system was (?) was much worse than their new ATC system.

Had Bob Woods or Shadorne experienced lots of other state of the art systems, they would have a different reference point from which to judge the ATC active speakers.

I am not, by the way, trying to belittle ATC speakers because they are quite good (I've listened to them on numerous occasions). They also make some good drivers, my ProAc Response Five's use the ATC midrange dome. But, there are many more high res and capable systems out there.

A limitation: The amplifiers built in to the ATC speakers are not in the same league as amps from Chord (and many others). I would hope that even Shadorne would admit that. A company like ATC would have to literally team up with a company like Chord in order to start to compete with the very best. And even then, I don't thing going active at midrange and high frequencies would be able to equal the best passive systems.

It's also not true that the active systems are necessarily more revealing and accurate. A passive system with the right speakers and Chord electronics will be very neutral.

While the primary posters know this some readers may believe this debate includes all active or crossover less speakers. This is a specific discussion on speakers with built in amplification. You can run speakers in active mode with any amp or preamp you like. Tube or SS. It can be done with crossovers just before the amp. Built in, well with crossover cards, as Linn and others do or with outboard crossovers such as Marchand, Behringer, ect. You can drive woofers with SS and mids/highs with tubes or pick your poison. You could use a speaker with a built in amp for the bass driver while using an outboard crossover and a tube amp. So for someone trying to learn, as I guess the original poster was, well its not all black and white. Now as to whether or not adding another component and cables degrades the signal, well hopefully removing the crossover results in a net gain. Now Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Anybody who does not hear diffrences between a SET amp (any one) and any class A or AB solid-state amp is either

Well the only reason that you may hear a difference is that one has distortion or coloration that the other does not (for example at higher output levels or under certain loads) or alternatively you "perceive" a difference when you know what you are listening too. Fundamentally there is absolutely no reason why the two should not sound the same (given the right designs). I don't doubt that you may have come to believe you can hear a difference, after all a typical high quality tube amp output transformer will behave like an EQ when connected to a variable load such as a speaker and this change in coloration is indeed audible (it is like a mild form of tone control which follows the impedance curve of the speaker - very slight and in no way detracts from the sound - but certainly audible in most cases).

BTW - I have nothing - absolutely nothing against tubes - they can and do sound fantastic - they are awesome and hands down beat SS amps for producing a warm sound to music which is rich in even harmonics and the way they clip makes them absolutely essential for guitar amps and some microphone applications.

However, claims that any old tube amp is better than ALL SS amps is just wishful thinking. I commend your enthusiasm - tubes rock - it is nice to have total conviction - it simplifies your choices and allows you to snear at anyone so stupid as to use solid state amps!

Chord makes some of the best solid state gear I have ever heard. (I am not a Chord dealer)

Your point about Chord is a good one - I have recommended these amps in other threads. I am glad to see you finally came up with what I would say is a fair statement - it took you a long time though!

Are we sure that studio use active speaker for sound quality reasons? Maybe it's for convenience or something else.

Well you can read on line what people say about active speakers - Telarc Here is an excerpt: "We feel like we're finally hearing the detail of our work for the first time," says Telarc president Bob Woods of the installed ATC monitor system. "As a professional studio product we've never encountered anything quite like it. You want something that's accurate, but to have a system that can handle all types of musical programming equally well is downright remarkable. We do as much popular music these days as we do classical and jazz, especially through our new label partner, Heads Up. The ATC system handles it all without flinching."

You are correct in assuming that studios have a different goal in mind with active speakers - obviously they don't buy the "sound" - they actually by "no sound" - basically the goal is to have a system that does not impose any coloration on the recording at all. So many of the things you mention are important. They must not "compress" the sound at extremely high volumes, they must be precisely linear at all volume levels (no limited sweetspot in volume level where the drivers integrate their best), and they must be extremely reliable. However, your idea that studios want a colored sound with greater prescience or other gimmicks added to the playback chain could not be further from the mark.

Thanks Dave, here are the links:

Pass Labs XA30.5 Studio Amplifier

Chord SPA 1424 Mono Power Amplifier

Cdc mentions that a pro audio review site really likes Chord and Pass Labs amplifiers. That's encouraging as they are both excellent examples of how good solid state amps can sound.

But it also points to a limitation with active speakers like those from ATC and Meridian. As good as both of those are, they are limited by the quality of their built-in amplifiers. In Meridian's case, which I would argue has the better amplification of the two, they are not at the same level as the Chord amplifiers. I know this because I used to be a Meridian dealer and have recently spent a fair amount of time with Chord electronics. Chord makes some of the best solid state gear I have ever heard. (I am not a Chord dealer)

Are we sure that studio use active speaker for sound quality reasons? Maybe it's for convenience or something else.

Try proaudioreview.com (?) and they commonly rave about the sound quality of passive speakers running Chord or Pass amps.
I prefer active speakers, but don't really think "sound quality" as audiofiles define it is what studios have in mind. More like:
1) Mixes that will sound good on a variety of stereos.
2) Elevated presence region to better hear faults in the recordings.
3) Ability to play super loud. Like 110-120dB all day.
4) Reliability: play at 110++dB ALL day without a breakdown.

Things like:
1)"truth of timbre".
2) grain-free sound
3) not bright highs
4) dynamic range
5) attack and decay
6) "air and space"
7) "fleshed out" sound

are important for home listening but less so in the studio.

03-25-08: Bob_reynolds
In the system I was talking about I've had a tube SET amp and two different solid state amps. I heard no difference (except on some days the tubes made audible noise).

That statement summarizes everything that one needs to know about you Bob. You might make that quote your tag line. You bring nothing of value to this discussion.

Anybody who does not hear diffrences between a SET amp (any one) and any class A or AB solid-state amp is either:

1) Listening to a very unresolving system.

2) Using the SET on inappropriate speakers (in which case it should still sound different, but bad).

3) Listening to very poorly recorded music.

4) Not listening carefully.

5) Does indeed have poor hearing or at least is poorly acquainted with the sound of live, unamplified acoustic music/vocals.

6) More than one of the above.

I will go far enough as to say this is a statement of fact. It certainly isn't intended to be inflammatory or personally degrading to anyone.

I would also say that the quality of the SET here is not too paramount as the poor quality ones will have problems - like rolled-off extremes or noise - that should still be *audible*, and will still have much or most of the characteristic single-ended tube sound.

I have listened to some push-pull tube amps *with moderate feedback* that do sound A LOT like a typical push-pull solid-state amp, but single-ended tubes with little to no feedback are quite another thing.

I'm glad Mr. Gilmore has learned enough about high end audio to have gotten that far. I doubt however that he is an expert in this area like he is in making music and playing guitar.

Well I'm glad that you treat me, Bob, Ryder and David Gilmour of Pink Floyd fame and many other audio professionals in the same condescending way (people hindered by misguided beliefs or simply inexperienced).

Perhaps David Gilmour and his guitar tech (who built most of the Astoria studio setup using reputed acoustic engineers and contractors) can one day hope to reach your wisdom - as for me, I fear there is no hope and I shall remain an amateur at these audio things.

FYI: I am glad that you are pleased there are tubes in the Astoria studio. These are all in a separate room - away from the direct sound of the monitors because, as even the inexperienced know, tubes are microphonic, which is a form of distortion.

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.

I would have nothing but kind words for you Ryder had you not stated that something I said was "dubious" or "exagerated". So let's be fair about who made any crude remarks.

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.

Here's the problem Bob. On another current thread you respond to a question where the OP asks about tubes vs. transistors. Your response:

03-24-08: Bob_reynolds
I also could not get around the tubes being noisy on some days and quiet on others. I didn't notice any sonic differences, so I chose solid state for convenience.

You couldn't hear or haven't ever heard "any sonic differences" between tubes and transistors?!?! You either have virtually no listening experience with the gear in question, or there is something very wrong with your hearing.

So why are you involved in a discussion with me about whether vacuum tube amplifiers and passive loudspeakers SOUND better than active speakers with built-in solid state amps? You don't have any experience to base a position on.

To a certain extent these comments apply to Shadorne, who in various threads has also indicated a serious lack of exposure to high end listening- especially of vacuum tube amplifiers, cables, analog vinyl, high end digital playback and I'm sure plenty more. Bob and Shadorne are not experienced listeners and I have made a point of chiming in and contradicting their incorrect and experience-less positions when possible.

In other threads, where the topic is of interest to other people like me who actually listen and have lots of experience with all of the gear in question, they have been quieted pretty quickly. But in threads like this one that appeal to them (b/c they both believe in active speakers) where others don't bother to read, they give out at limited if not flat out false advice.

Sorry, but someone has to present the other side.

03-24-08: Bob_reynolds
Dave, do you work as an audio dealer or salesman or reviewer?

As I have stated in dozens of posts, I am an audio dealer. I am also an enthusiast and music lover just like many other people on this form.

03-25-08: Ryder
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!~

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?

Many of my responses here have been to questions about ARC gear, an area in which I have a lot of experience. So I do constantly get emails from Agon members asking about sonic differences, equipment matches, etc...

Pink Floyd use David Gilmour's studio "Astoria"....it has plenty of tubes and several miles of Van den hul (audiophile) cables as well as Shunyata. They even have different wiring to the woofers and mid range on their active speakers.

Great, so I guess Shadorne, David Gilmore and I all agree in the superiority of tubes and the value in exotic high end cables!

I'm glad Mr. Gilmore has learned enough about high end audio to have gotten that far. I doubt however that he is an expert in this area like he is in making music and playing guitar.

This discussion should be helpful and fun rather than descend into a heated debate between the members of The Flat Earth Society and National Geographic!

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.

Examples of things that these studios don't or won't consider are vacuum tube amplifiers and exotic audio cables. They are also often hindered by a misguided belief in the superiority of digital and DSP.

Well it is a shame that these professionals are so hindered by their misguided beliefs. Pink Floyd use David Gilmour's studio "Astoria"....it has plenty of tubes and several miles of Van den hul (audiophile) cables as well as Shunyata. They even have different wiring to the woofers and mid range on their active speakers. So at the high end the lines do blur IMHO...both audiophiles and prestigious studios are seeking perfection in sound. Pink Floyd's sound engineer James Guthrie also uses active speakers along with EMMLABS gear (no tubes in the playback chain - but plenty of tubes in his studio of course).

So while we agree it is not about saving money as Pink Floyd have plenty of money... but I am not sure I would agree that Pink Floyd are hindered by misguided beliefs about active speakers driven by solid state power amps... David Gilmour Studio

hi usarm:

i am looking for a speaker at the moment.

if i listen to a speaker and don't like what i hear, i would want to to audition it with another amplifier.

since i have a specific preference for sound, most amplifiers won't be satisfactory. there are only about 3 or 4 speakers in production today that i would want to earn.

your conditions do nopt apply to me, since my taste is so narrow.

i find it interestiung that there are no full range active panel speakers. there are some hybrids which have a dedicated amp for the bass, which is usually a cone.

the point is, a speaker designer is not a mind reader. he can't select an amp and assume that everyone will like the combination of speaker and an amp chosen by the speaker designer.

Dave, it should be clear by now, that I have no disagreement with any of your subjective opinions whether it concerns Meridian active speakers or vacuum tube amps. Your subjective opinions (or anyone else's) simply don't matter to me so on what is there to disagree.

I do disagree with you (or anyone else) making statements as absolute truths without providing evidence. If you can't provide evidence, then an IMO preface seems warranted.

Well that's where we disagree. Again, according to your view, the vast majority of posts on this site shouldn't exist. Furthermore, all subjective review publications which review audio, music, cars, wine, etc... are totally pointless.

I find subjective comments useful even when I disagree with them. One of the reviewers in the Penguin Jazz guide has polar opposite taste from mine, and reading his review of a particular jazz record tells me nearly as much as does a reviewer I agree with. I always recommend that people read a review or opinion but rely on their own ears, eyes, or palate to make a decision.

Judging by the number of emails I get daily asking me to describe the sonic differences between products X and Y, it seems many don't share your point of view on this matter.

Shadorne said:

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.

You misquoted me and completely misunderstood my point. Their use of what I consider to be less than the very best is not at all due to financial considerations. It is instead a combination of efficiency/practicality and an "measurements are everything" point of view that disbelieves all of the things that are necessary to achieve the very best results. Examples of things that these studios don't or won't consider are vacuum tube amplifiers and exotic audio cables. They are also often hindered by a misguided belief in the superiority of digital and DSP.

I would hope that there are a few exceptions to this in the studio world where vacuum tube amplifiers and superior cables are used for the main monitoring system. I have also seen pictures of the Massenberg studio in Nashville and the room is incredible. That, however, doesn't mean that their use of active studio monitors is as good as what could be achieved by separate vacuum tube amplifiers and passive loudspeakers. Again, it has nothing to do with cutting corners or saving money.

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.

Professional studios already reap these benefits and in exchange give up the ultimate sound quality for something that is good enough and revealing enough to get the job done. Whether active speakers can ever rise to challenge the state of the art remains to be seen. Perhaps someday.

and

Those who don't accept the superiority of vacuum tubes are probably not going to "get" this one either, but it happens to be true.

and

On paper, active systems seem to have many advantages, but in practice and in the real world, they have failed to live up to those claims.

What Dave says is actually true of many small home studios and local smalltown outfits for TV and radio and making CD's for local talent. Like Hi-Fi - studios are tiered - for many "good enough" is indeed enough and many do everything as absolutely cheaply as they can.

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"?

03-23-08: Bob_reynolds
I'm always impressed with the way Dave presents his opinions as absolute truths.

Readers can look at our comments and decide for themselves. It's also not just my opinion. While there can never be consensus about what the best loudspeakers are, there is some general agreement by magazine reviewers and experienced audiophiles about the companies who make gear that often gets put in the top tier and none of the active studio speakers that you and shadorn constantly praise are regulars on those lists. Of course you are free to pose your theory about the meaninglessness of subjective reviews (professional or consumer) and I am free to disagree with you.

How is one speaker "better" than another? How is one "best"? Without defining the metrics, the terms have no meaning. If measured frequency response is the test and "flatness" is the metric, then better and best have meaning within that context. Likewise, if Dave's perception of good sound is the metric, then better and best have meaning within that context.

I'm sorry that you don't believe in the concept of something being better sounding or more musical than something else. Your obsession with measurements and total disinterest in discussing actual listening is puzzling to say the least. If that leaves you regurgitating specs and measurements in response to various questions, I don't see what value that brings to the table.

High end audio and forums like this one are entirely based on the idea of people exchanging their subjective opinions on gear and how well they believe each piece of equipment serves the music. Is there room for measurements too? Sure, but in your case it's the only thing you seem to be able to refer to. Remember, the whole purpose of this equipment is to bring you (the listener) closer to the intended emotional effect of the music. This makes discussions of how well the gear succeeds at that goal inextricably tied to listening and sujectivity- much like discussions about the music itself. I get the feeling that you would want to discuss Coltrane by pointing to charts and graphs.

If you disagree with my assertion that Meridian makes the best examples of active loudspeakers you are of course welcome to disagree. I would be curious to hear what you think sounds better. Have you spent much time listening to the Meridians?

How about my belief that the very best amplifiers are vacuum tube amps? I'm sure you and others disagree with that assertion also, but if you do, please tell us that you have actually had some real listening experience with the best tube amplifiers from ARC, VTL, CJ, Atma-sphere, etc... To often, I find that people on the other side of this agrument have not.

Everyone on Audiogon expresses their opinions about the sound of gear, and it's not necessary to preface each comment with "IMO" when we all know that nearly everything here is just that.

For Bob Reynolds: I like the way you think. I am intolerant of those who condemn an entire design on belief and prejudice exclusively and not on research and experience. Ultimately, sound appeals to taste but many circuitry implementations are nothing more than glorified and expensive tone controls. Worship often excludes truth, accuracy and adherence to an objective standard.

Dave thinks vacuum tubes make the best amplifier designs. Two of the greatest enemies of the longevity of electronics are heat and dust. What do we have with tube circuitry we do not have with solid state designs: heat, dust, microphonics, phase shifts from the output transformers, weight, degradation of the tubes which will continue to deteriorate everytime they are powered never sounding the same way twice, tubes acting as RF antennas, tube replacement cost, bias adjustments, a rise of ambient heat in the room, poor damping factor because of those same transformers, limited high frequency response, questionable resale value due to a very limited market, among other things. Yes, it is too bad tube circuitry cannot be incorporated into an active design! I guess active designs must be inferior and poor value. I wish my computer had tubes. I have an empty room i could use to contain it.

Mr Tennis: When you are about to purchase a loudspeaker do you try every amplifier in the market to test its compatability with it? Or, when you buy an amplifier do you do the same with every loudspeaker manufactured? If not, how do you know you are making the best use of your monetary resources? Maybe there is still a better amp or speaker out there you haven't tried and would sound even better in your system than the component you settled on. I assume the designer of the active system is a degreed and experienced engineer who wants to maximize the potential of his design and has taken the strengths and deficiencies of both the electronics and drivers he has chosen into account before that system is put on the market. Your freedom of choice is limited by geography, cost and experience.

Audiophiles just will not give an active speaker system a chance. Could it be that it is not about the music, as they are fond of saying, but the new equipment of the month that they are so passionate about?

I think there are certainly audiophiles that are guilty of exactly what you describe, but there are also plenty of us that are purely after the best sonic results possible- no matter how they are achieved.

The simple fact is that the best speakers and amplifiers to date have not been active. This has come up several times in various threads and the answer is still the same. On paper, active systems seem to have many advantages, but in practice and in the real world, they have failed to live up to those claims.

Don't get me wrong, they can be quite good as has been demonstrated by some of the Meridian active speaker systems, but few would argue that the Meridian cannot be beat by many combinations of separate amps and passive loudspeakers.

Much of this is common sense. The designers that have the most talent and expertise in loudspeaker design are not as good at designing electronics and visa versa. Perhaps more importantly, if you believe that the best amplifiers on earth are all vacuum tube designs (as I and many others do) then active speakers with their built-in solid state amps are at a huge disadvantage from the start.

In practice, active crossovers have also not been able to achieve the transparency of the highest quality passive crossovers using today's best film capacitors and air core inductors. Those who don't accept the superiority of vacuum tubes are probably not going to "get" this one either, but it happens to be true.

Active speakers, especially with good DSP, are going to bring very good (not the best) sound to many people at more affordable prices in the coming years. These speakers will be easier to set up and less finicky about room issues for people who aren't obsessed audiophiles looking to extract every last molecule of sound quality. Professional studios already reap these benefits and in exchange give up the ultimate sound quality for something that is good enough and revealing enough to get the job done.

Whether active speakers can ever rise to challenge the state of the art remains to be seen. Perhaps someday.

the obvious disadvatage is removing freedom of choice. i don't a manufacturer dictating what amp i should use.
it is a foolish marketing strategy.

Usarrn,

The thing is those vibration sources can be and typically are taken care of. That's why we spend money on good racks and isolation platforms.

You certainly are not going to "detect" obvious things like doppler distortion or obvious effects of vibration, but they are going to be there, as anybody who's ever experimented with vibration control will tell you. It tends to affect about everything.

Inside the speaker itself is going to be the worst source of vibration. Even moving the crossover outside of the speaker pays dividends, which is why some manufacturers do it, and now we're just talking about a few caps and coils.

There's nothing at all wrong with active speakers, but the point is they come with trade-offs, like most things in audio. They're not, IMO, a stroke of genius and not the wave of the future. All of this also assumes that you buy into the mantra that digital amps are "just fine" and amplifiers don't really having any bearing on sound quality.

If you happen to be into open baffles, it's not so easy to make them active anyway. :) Well, there's duck tape...

To Paul: What about soundwaves traveling through air or floor hitting the tubes in free standing amplifiers? I do not detect any evidence of "shaking" electronics, Doppler distortion or distortion of any kind in the PMC AML-1's. I would assume any design requires proper implementation to succeed. Audiophiles just will not give an active speaker system a chance. Could it be that it is not about the music, as they are fond of saying, but the new equipment of the month that they are so passionate about? Find a PMC dealer. Listen to a properly broken in pair. Then fairly criticize if you can.

You know, you can get all the benefits and none of the downsides of active speakers in other ways - either an active crossover or no crossover.

The big problem with active speakers is that any one that has decent bass response is going to be shaking the crap out of its amps. That is, you know, real bad for sonics.

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.

Hello again Ryder! I should qualify the previous post. I measure to 30 Hz in my room at about 2 db down. The Eidolons ($25,000 with the Walnut Burl upgrade) measured 1 db down and 3 db down at 28 Hz in the same room. Now, you know the size of the AML-1's. They use a flat piston instead of a cone for the low frequencies. The motor assembly is about the size of the piston. This is feeding into a 5 1/2 foot transmission line from the rear of the piston. You cannot visually detect the piston moving at loud listening levels! The Eidolons weighed 150 lbs, were a 3 way with an 11" woofer and a vertical port with a very complex passive crossover network and a costly cabinet. I think the AML-1's are now about $10,000 due to the falling dollar. In this context however, they are still a bargain considering you get the amplifiers, electronic crossovers, equalizers and do not need to pay for the glorified fixed frequency tone controls called speaker cable. Plus, I feel the overall performance is improved. As a bonus, my friends need not fear a hernia whenever I decide to re-arrange the listening room where I now have more square footage left over!

Hi Ryder: No subwoofer, not necessary. I am hearing all i need to without complicating the system. Frankly, the bass is equivalent in depth to the Eidolon's, minus about 2db. I have a dedicated listening room conducive to lower frequencies. Perfect bass integration with dissimilar cabinets and drivers can be quite illusive! I must note I listen primarily to Classical & Jazz.

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?