Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

@donavabdear ,

You use monitors that are accurate. Cinemas are professionally set up so there is some level of consistency from cinema to cinema in term of frequency response. You can't assume that with consumers. You are working from a flat response so the only deviation in perception would be your own ears. The customers system may not be flat or accurate but the deviation is only from the flatness of your system and your ears.

If you were to mix and master with a system that was pleasant to your but not accurate, wouldn't that compound the deviation a customer would experience? And that's just you. If someone else doing the same job had a different preference of setup and tuned their working environment system differently couldn't the end result at the customer be a complete swing in tone?  That sounds like a formula for added variability when the customer is looking.

Wouldn't that contribute to why some albums sounds great and others do not, but someone else may have a completely different view?

@thespeakerdude A few things, 1. flat is not useful or preferred. We like a little low bump and high end cut, assuming a pivot at 1k. Flat responses leaves people with no way of working except fear based perfectionism, which is antithetical to great music recording. 2. Translation is the job of mastering, and it’s a skillset ... again see: 1. If everything was about flat response a robot could beat a great mastering job. Doesn’t happen. You are living in polarity: pleasing vs. accurate, and that is a false paradigm. You are imagining, from your own concern aka fear (as stated above) that human emotions and preferences are getting in the way of great recordings, and that is backwards, they are ESSENTIAL to great recordings. We can be passionate and technical at the same time. Both at once is mastery.

@donavabdear This statement is from idealism and perfectionism which are fear based, and this statement is false. "ultimately sound being recorded as accurately as possible rather than sounding better subjectively is best practice." You’re trying to take human emotion and individuality OUT of the process of music, Music is about connecting humans, and that happens when humans are emotionally engaged and the sounds represent that. Music making USES science but music making is NOT A SCIENCE PROJECT. You and @thespeakerdude are both missing the point of music making and music playback. It’s a balance of both subjective and objective. The balance is our choice, and the skill and taste of the chooser is #1 in music recording.  

@thespeakerdude That's why groups like the AES exists to set up standards and practices so the music industry and the film industry will be sustainable. it really is amazing how consistent music and films actually are. To audiophiles with expensive systems it's amazing any music sounds good at all. In a perfect world the studios would use perfect equipment with perfectly consistent practices but we all know that is impossible. Studios do spend millions on equipment and hopefully will keep quality as high as possible and that will translate all the way down to us. There is nothing creative about standard practices but both can live together.

@thespeakerdude ​wrote:

Careless? Not at all. Crude only in a comparative sense. I don’t think you are understanding the variables that are available though for active speaker implementation.

I know enough to be able to get a great sounding outboard active system with nothing imposed with regard to physical restrictions of speakers. Yours is a business venture with all that entails.

I don’t expect a hobby implementation to compete with a large R&D budget so don’t take offense.

Please let me know about the basic outlay of your (possible range of) speakers, and then we’ll take it from there. Or is that a secret as well? Sounds more like hiding to me, as well as some hollow flaunting a prowess that’s really about trying to make up for what’s likely a physically restricted package and make it appear as if you’re holding the holy grail of audio reproduction - not an atypical position coming from a MFR.

@fred60 wrote:

Ask ATC how much it costs to repair and/or replace the internal amp in a speaker. Or any brand. My Paradigm (great brand btw) subwoofer internal amp died after a decade. It was in auto/on mode for most of its short life. I paid $2500 for it. Paradigm wanted $1750 to replace/repair the internal amp in the sub. I laughed at that. Going to replace it with a REL HT-1205 for $699. My Audio Engine desktop speakers also died after a decade of service. I paid $250 for them, they offered me a 30% discount on buying the next pair. Instead I bought an inexpensive pair of PreSonus speakers, which sound great.

My guess is that ATC would charge quite a bit of cash to repair a blown amp in one of their speakers. Why take the chance that this happens at all? I’d be petrified that one day I wake up to find that one of the speakers isn’t working. Passives you never have that problem, unless you mistakenly blow out a tweeter. I’ve never had that happen over decades of listening. BTW--I’m not against the idea of active speakers, just my take. I have a pair of JL Audio’s for my main rig. Cheers.

ATC speakers are as bomb proof as they come, as well as being the overall best bundled active speakers I’ve heard (certainly the largest models). It’s not a fair comparison with the other brands you mention - to ATC, that is. Indeed I’d feel more secure using active ATC speakers that most any passive setup, and if any issue should occur with the ATC speakers you’d be given a great treatment and service that’s also a very reasonable reflection price-wise relative to the product at hand.