Active Speakers - good, bad or just different?

While not in the same price bracket that a lot of you guys play in, I just set up these ATC SCM40A active speakers for a good customer yesterday. I think you'd have to spend quite a bit more on speakers and amplification to beat what these actives are providing. Now, that's based on my impression with limited time. I imagine they'll be quite incredible after thorough break-in. The Melco N1A and T+A DAC 8 DSD seem to be an excellent pairing with them. In my system, I listen to the SCM40's, but I'd have no problem going without an amp and having these SCM40A's.
attachment.php
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Keith ATC 6-small.jpg
    Keith ATC 6-small.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 146
  • Keith ATC 7-small.jpg
    Keith ATC 7-small.jpg
    885.3 KB · Views: 163
bump; I personally swapped amps out due to necessity. adding a bass amp because 1 amp fell short or the speakers were so much brighter once home I had to try different amps to tone things down, etc. When I got the chance to buy a pair of dsp8000's I jumped and while it's only been about 20 hrs I'm very tempted to keep them.Bass below 80 hz has been a problem in my room and I have no tolerance for subs in my main system and these speakers have dug deeper than the salon 2 and my previous fave Usher BE-20 DMD's. The downside to these and speakers other active speakers is if a single part fails the whole system is down.
 
Wow, forgot this thread.

steve59 said:
When I got the chance to buy a pair of dsp8000's I jumped
The downside to these and speakers other active speakers is if a single part fails the whole system is down.
Click to expand...

Well, unless one has "spare" amps, preamps, etc, that's somewhat true for traditional separates systems too.
I do note the DSP8000s were intro'd circa 2001? So...

cheers,

AJ
 
In general, actives tend to be either nearfields or midfields. So, for smallish rooms. Of course, you could run a pair of Mackie hr 824s (for example) in a larger space, and they would, for many folks, be sufficient.

But for really demanding (big band, orchestra, etc.) stuff, where you need volume, then you might find them underpowering. PMC makes "farfield" monitors (active and passive) for big material in larger spaces, but they're really pricey. Needless to say, the big, ugly PMCs are fantastic speakers.
 
I do tend to have 'extra' components sitting around maybe being used in another system, maybe just sitting but another pair of dsp speakers stuffed in a corner not likely. The dsp8000 went on the market in 2001 so? I also wonder if there were any updates, software or hardware along the way to justify the $65k price in 2010? or did meridian consider the product that far ahead of the curve? My favorite brands are the ones that stick with a model until they can make significant upgrades for sound quality vs marketing spin. Dynaudio and revel are a couple and since I only do the upgrade once every 25 years an 8 year old pair of speakers were brand new when I started pining for them.
 
Welcome to the forum, thank you for joining.

john grant said:
In general, actives tend to be either nearfields or midfields. So, for smallish rooms. Of course, you could run a pair of Mackie hr 824s (for example) in a larger space, and they would, for many folks, be sufficient.

But for really demanding (big band, orchestra, etc.) stuff, where you need volume, then you might find them underpowering. PMC makes "farfield" monitors (active and passive) for big material in larger spaces, but they're really pricey. Needless to say, the big, ugly PMCs are fantastic speakers.
Click to expand...
 
steve59 said:
The dsp8000 went on the market in 2001 so?
Click to expand...
*If* yours are from that era, it's one data point indicating actives can be 18 yr reliable. As with separates, will come down to individual manufacturers and robust engineering.

They will obviously not be for everyone, but a few might have needs for what passives cannot do. YMMV

cheers,

AJ
 
joeinid said:
Welcome to the forum, thank you for joining.
Click to expand...

Only just discovered this site. I'm in the throes, once again, of updating my equipment. That's what got me here.

A lot of old stuff (ProAcs, Kefs, Maggies, etc....) lying around the house. I've been using Neumann 310s in my office (updated version of the old KH 310s... active monitors), but as accurate as they are, they're not going to work in a large livingroom. I demoed IB2S-AII PMCs, which I thought would have worked well. But just too ugly. Buddy of mine pushing me towards Salons, but they're passive of course, and obviously there's no way I can put the Salons up against the PMCs, to make a direct comparison. At least, I don't think there is.

In an imaginary world, I'd like to hear the really old Kef 107s (with the cube, nostalgia trip) up against the Salons, the PMCs, and maybe even up against newer stuff, like the Paradigm 9H. Vastly different designs, prices, and historical periods. Has that much changed since the 107s?

I digress.
 
asiufy said:
Hi!

Interesting question, never thought much about it! We have the Kiis set up in an open space in the front of the store, and we can easily switch to two other systems, and while I've always been impressed with the Kii, I never found it particularly similar to any of the other speakers we have/had here.

I see it a sort of hybrid. It images like the best bookshelves, does tight bass like the best sealed cabinet speakers, and has a very good, natural presentation, like the best traditional wood-enclosure designs.

But at the end of the day, any of the "big boy" systems here in the store will better it here and there. Of course, price (and complexity/number of boxes and cables) also go up considerably. At the new price points, the Kii stuff is killer value!
Click to expand...

I've owned the Kii three now for 4 months. its a great system that has exceeded my expectations and continues to tickle my fancy which is what this game is all about. I don't think a 'big' system is comparable when you consider the overall SQ of the Kii vis-à-vis its compactness and simplicity. Im running my phonostage directly into the analog balanced inputs on the speaker and the Kii remote for everything else.
 
john grant said:
there's no way I can put the Salons up against the PMCs, to make a direct comparison
Click to expand...
Actually, Harman allows one to do just that, in a trust ears/just listening environment...though it may be impractical without some travel and a nice return policy :)
 
john grant said:
Only just discovered this site. I'm in the throes, once again, of updating my equipment. That's what got me here.

A lot of old stuff (ProAcs, Kefs, Maggies, etc....) lying around the house. I've been using Neumann 310s in my office (updated version of the old KH 310s... active monitors), but as accurate as they are, they're not going to work in a large livingroom. I demoed IB2S-AII PMCs, which I thought would have worked well. But just too ugly. Buddy of mine pushing me towards Salons, but they're passive of course, and obviously there's no way I can put the Salons up against the PMCs, to make a direct comparison. At least, I don't think there is.

In an imaginary world, I'd like to hear the really old Kef 107s (with the cube, nostalgia trip) up against the Salons, the PMCs, and maybe even up against newer stuff, like the Paradigm 9H. Vastly different designs, prices, and historical periods. Has that much changed since the 107s?

I digress.
Click to expand...
I remember finally getting my fist used r107/2's and being shockingly disappointed at how they sounded compared to some newer stuff I had. They are from an era when British speakers sounded British and it takes a few songs to let the ears adjust and appreciate whats going on. There's a forum audio kharma that has some strong support for those speakers and good step by step instructions on cleaning up the tweeters, refoaming the woofers, etc. There's still a group that believe loudspeaker advancement could have stopped with the r107.
 
Where I live (Toronto), you can't directly compare active and passive speakers. Active speakers, most of them, have been the domain of sound engineering. So you'll only find "actives" in music shops that specialize in "audio monitors," the best which might set you back 50k, or so. Generally, however, actives are less expensive than passives. It used to be the case that up to, say, 3 grand, you'd get Adams, Dynaudios, Mackies, etc., that really were much better than most passive speakers in that price range. The main reason for this, I think, was that you weren't paying for "pretty" with these inexpensive actives, you were paying for engineering.

Case in point, about 1999, I purchased a set of ProAc Response 1SCs (approx 2k US), and not long after I also bought a pair of the original (made in USA) Mackie HR 824s, actives--so you're not paying for the amp. Both speakers were, and still are, well-known. The HRs are now manufactured in China (not a good thing), and the Response 1SCs are out of production. The Mackies were much cheaper, because amplification was unnecessary.

Some folks still swear by the little SC 1s: very nice over 1000 hz (female soprano, approx); but requiring expensive amplification to get decent sound. Still, the much cheaper Mackie HR 824 were, I think, just as good in their own way: They were very flat down to 30 hz, and in the right setting, they were a reasonably good "full-range" speaker that could be used in the average living room. So, in that very narrow set of circumstances, I can see some listeners opting for "Actives" over "Passives."

But once you cross the $10k US (approx) barrier, I'm not sure actives are necessarily more bang-for-the-buck. PMC makes many transmission line actives that are well over $10k. You get Bryston amplification with that money, but I'm betting there are plenty of passives on the market that are competive at that price, even when good amplification is thrown in to the bargain.
 
Just like everything else hifi, a personal choice. I like not having to worry that after shelling out a small fortune for a pair of speakers my amps wont be a good match, being on a budget and hifi don't really mix and with actives wysiwyg.
 
steve59 said:
Just like everything else hifi, a personal choice. I like not having to worry that after shelling out a small fortune for a pair of speakers my amps wont be a good match, being on a budget and hifi don't really mix and with actives wysiwyg.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
john grant said:
I also bought a pair of the original (made in USA) Mackie HR 824s, actives

But once you cross the $10k US (approx) barrier, I'm not sure actives are necessarily more bang-for-the-buck.
Click to expand...
You seem to be considering only traditional active speakers which are essentially the same as passives, but with amps.
There are "active" speakers that can do things either very difficult...or impossible to do passive. Beamforming, steering, LF pattern control, etc.
An example would be Puroagaves speakers, which would be near impossible passive, never mind size constraints. There, it becomes less of a bang for buck/value proposition, but rather whether feasible at all. Ultimately, it's the sound to the beholder that matters the most...and of course, cost/affordability, etc.

cheers,

AJ
 
steve59 said:
Do all active speakers use amplification after the xover?
Click to expand...
With the exception of some computer desktop and inexpensive PA speakers, etc., yes.
One of the main benefits of active is direct coupling of amp > driver and not feeding a reactive, variable with signal level, hysteresis, etc, etc passive network. The amp can then be custom tailored to the individual driver, vs capable of driving every complete speaker load on the planet...and the associated dartboard drama that follows. Tis one reason they may never be appealing to some.

cheers,

AJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top