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
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.
Hi,Ghasley! I just realized,that you started this thread.I,ve just finished my listening test of Genelec 8040 A. Very good monitors. My only concern, is the rear ports on them. As i,ve stated, my room is not ideal.It seems,that monitors with bigger than 6.5 woofers overpowers my room.Anyway... some very good thoughts on pros/cons of professional monitors .The issue of D/A converters in the monitors itself... 24/96 sounds good to me(and I,ll take Dan Lavry opinions on the subject).The notion of the amps used in the monitors, how they sound and translate the recording , is much more important to me.The professional field(and audiophiles alike) has moved toward 24/192 conversion, but one has to ask themselfs,what where we listening ,till yesterday...With the amps/converters in the monitors, you are limited in the upgrade path(there is allways something better)... or is it...I,ve posted my first hand experience with 4(3 of them in my room,with my system) of the active monitors.My thoughts were based purely ,on the price/performance ratio.Converters/room correction(in the monitors) I,ve never had those in my room,but based on the reports, there is advantage in these systems(JBL,Genelec 82XXX,Focal SM-8-11 employ them), but you may need different set up/digital preamp/computer... etc..Big YES
on the computer/as one source ...that is why my preamp(Arcam C-30) will be for sale later today/tomorrow.Digital age is moving forward,and products like Benchmark Dac-1,Tact audio/D/A /preamp,Stello DA-220,Audio Aero, are gonna get even more exposure...Back on the subject,thanks to Audiogon(or via personal sale/deal) , you can get some VERY good monitors/towers/amps deal... but I,ll try and listen to some of the active monitors I mentioned ... you,ll be suprised, how much you can gain/save. By the way,Ghasley, you are selling some very good components,whats up whith that? Check out Gearslutz.com.This is a forum for many mixing/mastering engeneers(moderators are TOTL people in the recording busyness in the world)We can learn a lot from them...Good luck.
Niki, hello yourself. I had 2 systems going and am consolidating to one serious system and am going to set up wifi/imac systems in some other rooms. Thus the quest to examine some simple solutions:imac (itunes data on a NAS) to a dac to an active monitor possibly. I'm tired of the cable voodoo and just want to settle in to listen to some music in my other rooms.

Squeegybug, thank you for your comments and I am sure your experience with actives must have been dissatisfactory for you to feel as you do. I notice you have Zu Druids and Bel Canto amps so you obviously enjoy a different type of reproduction than I do, but to each his own. I owned some Zu Tones and some Zu Druids in tertiary systems some time back and they were fun. Real fun. Zu's cables are also a tremendous value.

BUT ZU'S ARE HARDLY THE BENCHMARK FOR NEUTRAL SOUND REPRODUCTION.

They are fun, they boogie and I may purchase another pair someday but if you are mastering on them then your recordings will likely be a touch hot on the frequency extremes since Zus are rolled off there. I understand the new Zu presence will alleviate the intentional rolloff (check their site) on the tweeter and the built in ACTIVE subwoofer should fill out the bottom.
isn't our hobby about sound? technology for its own sake without sonic improvement is less attractive than old technology with sonic improvement.

and yes, there will be disagreements as to what sounds better or worse. thus, the value of technology may be viewed as subjectively as what constitutes better sound.

by the way does anyone know of active (non hybrid) panel speakers ?

if not what might be the reason none exist ?