Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?

there is some basic psychology that is being overlooked.

people do not liked to be told what to do or have their options restricted. thus, someone may like a speaker but not the amp that comes with it. perhaps the designer supplies a ss amp and the buyer wants tubes.

i think manufacturers do not offer powered speakers because they may be speaker designers and realize that audiophiles already have amplifiers or do not want to restrict the performance of a speaker to what would be achieved by one amp.

the powered speakers are the exception for good reason.
it is rare to find a powered panel speaker.

Other things being equal, active speakers do have advantages. If designed properly, the amplifiers are optimized for the speakers and active crossovers have various advantages over passive crossovers: in particular better control over the woofer and superior dynamic range.

But other things are rarely equal; that is, there's not many models with the identical drivers and cabinets that come in active and passive versions. And that means when we compare active and passive speakers, we are rarely just judging the difference between active and passive; we're almost always also judging different drivers and cabinets as well.

Plus most active monitors only accept balanced inputs, which, again, restricts the types of preamp you can use with them; this alone reduces their attractiveness to listeners.

Having said that, I've got a pair of active Tannoy monitors (AMS-12A) with which I'm very satisfied: 12-inch dual concentric driver, electronic crossover and two 180 W rms amplifiers in each 70 L cabinet. They're certainly an order of magnitude better than the passive version (System 12 DMT II).

But, again, even in this case, the active version uses slightly different drivers and cabinets, so it's still, to some degree, a case of comparing apples and oranges.

The best way to do a fair comparison between active and passive speakers is to listen to a pair of speakers passively and actively biamped. But that has its own complications: few off-the-rack active crossovers, even expensive ones, offer the same topology as the manufacturer's passive crossovers.

Cheers,

Joel.

Hi Joel,
I agree completely with what you are saying when our aim is to compare methodologies or design philosophy (i.e. active vs. passive) against one another.

At the same time, I think it's important to note that we make larger decisions on an ultimate solution based on the overall presentation/effectiveness of the whole package - (i.e. Duntech Sovereigns vs. Quested HQ210-As, B&Ws vs. Von Schweikerts, or even Polks vs. Definitives) which, of course includes such sub-choices & evaluations as design philosophy & implementation.

Now, all that is just a fancy-schmancy way of saying there's no 'right' answer and in the end, we'll pick what sounds (and for some measures) the best to us for our application.

Cheers & Be Well,
C

Active "done right" would be an option to turn whatever passive speaker you like into an active version.
Any theoretical advantages of active mean nothing if you do not like the basic sound quality.

I have been using a pair of Dynaudio BM5A for about 1 year now. Bel Canto DAC3 with a DVD player as a transport. These speakers are amazing sound quality for the price. Clarity and details without harshness. Not much bass of course but I don't need it in a bedroom system.

I got mine from a pro shop (Guitar Center). Easily one of the best choice.

I am curious about ATC though. I wonder how much improvement there is.