Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?


I was just curious why more home systems don't utilize active monitors from hi-end manufacturers. Dynaudio, Focal, PMC and Genelec to name a few seem to have very high value offerings that, on the surface, appear taylor made for a simple system. Just add a cd player with volume and balanced outs or a hi-end dac connected to a music server. Pros and cons are appreciated. A home consumer version seems to have already made it to market in the NHT XDs system. I haven't heard the NHT system and would appreciate your comments.
ghasley
Post removed 
Post removed 
I agree with Bob...my comments should be taken as "technical Advantages" and not "Sonic Superiority Advantages"....what is sonically superior (i.e. sounds best) is so often a personal choice...so let's not go there!!!!
My goodness, Ghasley, I'm not a Luddite. As a mechanical engineer, I've been checking out and applying non-standard approaches to lots of things for many years. I just have not always liked what I've experienced with active monitors -- Tannoy, SLS, Paradigm, Genelec, Event, JBL, and Dynaudio. My experiences there will do you no good at all, for your preferences and systems and rooms. So you of course can determine what works for you by trying any or all active speakers. By the way, PMC uses the approach they call 'activated'. The Flying Moles and Brystons are just standard outboard powerpack amps, mounted directly to the speaker cabinet with a Speakon connection. And those amps are *mono*, so no active crossovers there.

My example of receivers is relevant in many cases. If you prefer, substitute the comparison of mixing board preamps versus standalone dedicated preamps. Or equalizers, compressors, converters, etc. Without specializing in designing and manufacturing a specific component, how can that component be superior? Those speaker companies (except for SLS, who bought the digital amplifier company whose products they were using) are typically not amp designers, and in many cases are just shopping on the street for something that will package and be cost effective for their profits -- opamps, switchers, whatever. Just because their marketing brochures say it is 'optimized' does not necessarily make it so.

It's almost always the same tradeoffs about convenience vs. specialization. I don't believe most of those prepacked amps cost that much in volume quantities, and I still prefer to choose quality separate components that I can inspect and compare, made by folks who are expert at making that particular thing.

Of course onboard DA has been done for many years, I did not say it was future technology. And JBL and others have builtin corrective DSP with a microphone included. Does absolutely no good of course, unless you happen to have both ears located in the same place on your head and never move an inch while listening.

I have RealTraps acoustic treatment, and as Bob said, that is where the action is in making *systems* perform somewhat predictably.

This is a regular subject in the recording business; although actives are ubiquitous due to common availability and convenience, the majority of studio engineers who have tried both are reporting the same thing I am. And mastering? Forget it, no ME I know of uses active speakers.

Steve
Forget it, no ME I know of uses active speakers.

Some Mastering engineer's have used Actives...Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg, Doug Sax, Gavin Lurssen, Frank Wolf, James Guthrie ...some of these guys have multiple Grammy's....or some kind of tech awards.

For example Brothers in Arms 20th Aniversary Edition won a Grammy for best surround sound and was both mixed and mastered on active speakers.

So although you may not know anyone who uses active speakers for mastering there are some that do. I would agree that many use conventional speakers (passive). just in the same way that most consumers use passive speakers....but it is not fair to imply that nobody uses them for mastering, as some industry heavy weights certainly do or have in the past.