Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?

Shadorne,

I hope you realize i was just giving you a hard time. i for one appreciate the time people like you take to educate all of us. Just like college, it is absorbed by some, not by others. There is so much snake oil in our hobby that is can be truly aggravating. Thanks for attaching some true science to what it is we are hearing.

As far as actives go, no one on this thread has been able shoot any valid holes in the science of why an active monitor is not a better solution. I have read some answers on this thread that basically refer to tone controls. In other words, if an active monitor of very high quality is inherently more accurate, with less distortion and more lifelike dynamics than a similarly priced seperates setup, then what would I get to change. Others appear to want to adjust the tone to suit their tastes. All of this is fine and well but then why not just get tone controls? Kind of humorous. I like tubes, I like solid state, I like digital and I like analog. But those who are certain their approach is absolute are absolutely wrong.

Ghasley,

I think the following quote explains a lot:

"During a recent trip to an audiophile club meeting in the Pacific Northwest, AVRev.com’s resident speaker setup guru Bob Hodas did a demo with Meyer's [active] X10 system that left many (if not all) of the audiophiles drooling and proclaiming it to produce the best sound they have ever heard. At the end of the night, one of the members who has the money and the system to easily purchase X10s asked, “If I bought a pair, could I use my own amps?” This is inherently the audiophile problem. To say something was the best you ever heard at the ultimate price point and then want to somehow change what makes its successful describes the definition of the sickness known as audiophilia."

i think active panel speakers might be interesting. there was an acoustat design years ago which was active, and perhaps a beveridge as well.

accuracy is an ideal which cannot be attained. one can speak of reducing inaccuracy, but then how do you measure inaccuracy. it is more than frequency response.

i mention this because so called "accurate" active monitors, may be more inaccurate than one believes.

it would be useful to arrive at al algorithm for measuring inaccuracy and then claims about active monitors would be more objective.

if one wants to stay in the realm of subjectivity, what about the concept of virtual accuracy, that is, an inability to observe coloration.

let some active monitor speaker be compared to another speaker with one's favorite amp.

at this point, the idea of active monitors being superior in any way is hypothetical.

i mention this because so called "accurate" active monitors, may be more inaccurate than one believes.

Absolutely! Active monitors and all speakers are almost always the least accurate component in most high end systems. Speaker accuracy is orders of magnitude worse than most electronics and digital sources. Electronic signals can travel through 100's of amps in mixing boards etc. and hundres of feet of wires on teh way to the end user and yet the accuracy can be very well preserved....speakers are simply not in the same league....good point!

Only headphones come close to the accuracy of modern electronics...but then the sound is inside your head and how realistic is that???