Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Actives?

I'm sure there is several threads on this and maybe someone can point me to them.

Why are the 1100 actives so much more money and why aren't smaller versions available? 660 actives?

Are actives for the guys that have more money than the average bear?

The actives compete with speakers eight times their price.

Each set of drivers (5 sets total) is driven by its own DSP and amplifier channel. A 660 would require the same number of channels as an 1100. Not much cost saving there.

Actives are for folks who want it LOUD and accurate.You'd want them for parties, if you sit 18 feet away or more or because you want the most accurate presentation at any volume level.

I summarized my thoughts with this review:

The M5s, M100s and active LFR1100s are skillfully-crafted, high fidelity sonic holography engines that carve out a 3D space and sculpt acoustic images within. The active LFR1100s are considerably more refined than the passives and offer greater stage width and depth (right out my bow window), improved image placement precision, higher image spatial and acoustic resolution including more "black space" between the images, improved quantity and quality of bass and mids which must be heard to be believed (they sound better than my passive system with three Axiom sealed subs), improved macro and micro dynamics and an enhanced ability to acoustically disappear particularly with high quality recordings. The active LFR1100s add up to a more emotionally satisfying experience than passives at not only high SPLs but also lower SPLs where passives only start to perform. It really is nearly impossible to go back to traditional speakers after listening to the active omnis. The technical differences between the passives and active omnis are transparently revealed in the frequency response curves on Axiom's product pages. As one moves up the line of products, the listening window and sound power curves extend further across the audible spectrum, are more linear, and closer aligned. The active LFR1100s offer a textbook example of aligned listening window and sound power curves that decline at 3dB per decade and are free of acoustic resonances. Such a speaker response is impossible to realize with the inherent limitations of passive cross-overs used in traditional speakers. Use of digital filters enables bespoke roll-offs to optimize driver integration and linearize mid-band response. Unlike traditional passive speakers, the filters are located upstream of the amplifier resulting in higher speaker sensitivity, improved stability in the response at higher power levels, lower thermal noise and improved control of the drivers. The result of this implementation is a speaker system that "plugs into a room and plays" with no EQ required and effortlessly renders the performance the sound engineer intended.

It's probably a wash to a couple of hundred dollars difference between the build cost of a LFR1100 active and a LFR1100 passive. What your paying for is:

1) the time and expense to develop it and
2) the market it is trying to competing in (as Mojo mentioned) the actives are actually a value play in the high end market. It's a market catering to the few who are willing to spend a lot of money.

I just receive a pair of Actives which were damaged in transit. So I'll have to exchange them. In the mean time, since the damage is only cosmetic, I'm giving them a listen. So far, I'm fairly impressed with what I've gotten. Are they worth a 50% premium over the passives (not to mention the amp channels)? Since I've never heard the passives I can't say.

Now, people I trust tell me the passives are extremely good and there is only so much room to do better than extremely good ... I expect most of the gain to be in enlarging the sweet spot.

I can tell you that if I had to choose between passives with 4 channels of great amps or actives with 10 channels of weak amps ... I'd go passive ... the constant and dynamic power makes a very big difference.

As for the speakers themselves, the actives are probably a bit cheaper to build because they lack the passive cross-overs.

The passives have a single DSP box with 4 DSP cards. The actives have dual DSP boxes with 7 cards each for a total of 14 cards - 10 cards more. There's your price difference.

The M100v4 were far better than my M80v2 in all respects. More and tighter bass, mid-bass slam that my M80v2 lacked, better mids and highs, better soundstage and imaging - and this was at all volume levels. They sounded more like the real thing. However, they still needed equalization. And in my living room, the bass was unbearable and I couldn't manage it with just a bass control. Port plugs actually destroyed the sound. I fully expect you'd have the same problem but with your Yammie, you could equalize them.

Enter the actives and all the good in the M100 became even better with no drawbacks and no need for EQ in any of my rooms. And they go louder and cleaner.

But how could anyone appreciate the actives unless they've heard the lower models? This is why I recommend newbies start more humble (not saying you are a newbie). They'll better appreciate future upgrades.

Keep in mind no matter how good the actives were in my living room, the M2OW integrate even better. No the M2OW are not more accurate than the actives but the actives got in the way of themselves and that affected soundstage width. Width and depth are very important to me.

Your right — two DSP boxes. Seven in each sounds like a lot of DSPs are you sure ...
in any case need to add that cost in.

I'm quite sure there's 7.

5 for the speaker and 2 for the sub out.

I think there are separate ADCs as well. The ADCs aren't integrated into the DSPs.

BTW Rich, you have to experiment with placement in your room. Placement makes a big difference in spatial resolution. I hear the same images from my M2OW as the actives but the images with the actives are crystal clear. That clarity, while very cool, fatigues me because my brain forces me to listen analytically. Not so with the M2 bookshelf or on-wall. I can listen to them all day.

Movies are an entirely different experience with the actives compared to any passive I've heard. Worth the price for movie lovers. Those who've watched movies at my place, and know nothing about speakers or sound, commented they've never heard anything like it in any theater. The subs sure help in that experience but the actives render clear, large and dynamic images across an expansive soundstage like no passive I've heard can. Having a large room certainly helps with that effect.

I'll also say that no one here should feel like they're missing out from owning any passive v4. The M2 and M50 are at the top of my passive list. They both integrate well into any room, are very linear across the entire audio band and are really nice to listen to.

Rebuix asked for my initial impression ... guess I should share it ...

Was listening to them today ... playing with placement and the DSP settings to dial in the image and seeing if I could widen the sweet spot. It's one of those things where you get a great image and then lose it as you play.

Anyway, I'm impressed so far ... the clarity is amazing. I've never heard singers and instruments so there. This is partially because I'm driving them with a pair of ADA1500-5 (one for each speaker) and partially because the speaker is reproducing what it's given so cleanly. These guys go pretty low ... they just don't need a sub for most music (maybe low organ but I haven't tried that yet) ... the Trinity sessions was reproduced with out a flaw ... from her vocals to the stand up bass ... every instrument was clear as day and placed where the recording engineer put them.

I am really taken with the imaging ... for example on Pink Floyd's Dark side of the Moon I could place voices/sounds from directly in front (0 deg) to about 75-80 deg to either side (the speakers are at 30 degs on either side from center). Poorer recordings which sounded fine before now really show their flaws ... for example some instruments sound unnaturally wide ... I know it's the recording since well recorded stuff was reproducing with pin-point accuracy and realism.

I haven't yet gotten the sweet spot to work more then a few seats wide yet ... need to play more.
I also found that I don't get as good results standing as sitting. That maybe because I'm listening in a very live room with nothing on the walls, ceiling or floor. Currently these are setup on the long wall about 11 to 12' apart in a room that's 21' by 16' (I think). Most setups are on the short wall ... I'll try that next after doing a few more tests relating more to surrounds then the actives ...

So, after a few hours of evaluation ... I can say I'm happy I purchased them ...

Hope that helps.

The pic below is a bit distorted because I had to take it as a pano and didn't bother to correct it.

My comments in the previous post are running the actives alone ... ie. subs off. The surrounds are not connected yet. I'll post more of my experience over time.

Rereading the review above I said Trinity Sessions when I meant Holy Cole - Temptation
Now it probably makes sense ..