Aktiv in system hierarchy

[Sondek]

Linn says: "The performance improvement (passive -> aktiv) is so great that it is arguably more significant than upgrading to higher performance loudspeakers in passive configuration."

This means:

1. Upgrading power amps is more important than aktiv.
2. Aktiv is more important than better speakers.

Incorporating this into the system hierarchy means:

1. Source
2. Pre
3. Power-amp
4. Aktiv
5. Speakers

Does that mean aktiv 104's are better than passive 242's (on the same amps)? Any thoughts?

[rowlandhills]

My thought on this one is that speakers are probably the area which is most subject to personal taste. Some people love the improved timing and "live feel" of aktiv speakers, more than improved clarity or deeper bass which might result from "better" speakers.

[Music Lover]

rowlandhills Wrote:My thought on this one is that speakers are probably the area which is most subject to personal taste. Some people love the improved timing and "live feel" of aktiv speakers, more than improved clarity or deeper bass which might result from "better" speakers.

Good summary.
Given same system cost, some people prefer an active system, some prefer a passive.

Strictly following tune dem, one alternative is best but sometimes personal taste in "sound" can be more important.
Akurate is thin/anemic sounding and cant produce the same SLAM/dynamics as Keltik&Isobarik. Is the better tune in Akurate or SLAM in Keltik most important? Again, it's personal.


Active is not more important than the speaker!
It was in the past but recently Linn released speakers that changed the "old rule"
1/ Akurate passive is more musical than any older generation speakers despite running them active.

2/ Komri passive is more musical than active Akurate.

[Sondek]

Music Lover Wrote:Active is not more important than the speaker!
It was in the past but recently Linn released speakers that changed the "old rule"
1/ Akurate passive is more musical than any older generation speakers despite running them active.

2/ Komri passive is more musical than active Akurate.

I was surprised about that statement by Linn as well. So the question is "better power-amps or aktiv?" rather than "aktiv or better speakers?".

[Music Lover]

sondek Wrote:So the question is "better power-amps or aktiv?" rather than "aktiv or better speakers?".

Yes and that is a LONG but VERY interesting debate

My vote; active

[FanaticalLinnie]

Aktiv

[Sondek]

I think it it impossible to cast your vote simply for "aktiv" or "passive", but that you have to specify the amps.
Or does anyone suggest aktiv on LK100's is better than passive on Solos?

[FanaticalLinnie]

When comaparing the same quality amplification, let's say Majik 140 aktiv on 2x M4100 power amps vs. Majik 4100 passive on A242, I'll bet the first set would have better tune-dem.

[Sondek]

FanaticalLinnie Wrote:When comaparing the same quality amplification, let's say Majik 140 aktiv on 2x M4100 power amps vs. Majik 4100 passive on A242, I'll bet the first set would have better tune-dem.

One M4100 is not enough for 242's. What about Majik 140 aktiv on two 4200's vs. Akurate 242 passive on 1 4200?

[rowlandhills]

sondek Wrote:

FanaticalLinnie Wrote:When comaparing the same quality amplification, let's say Majik 140 aktiv on 2x M4100 power amps vs. Majik 4100 passive on A242, I'll bet the first set would have better tune-dem.

One M4100 is not enough for 242's. What about Majik 140 aktiv on two 4200's vs. Akurate 242 passive on 1 4200?

But then that's probably a key point to be aware of! I'm not quite sure what you mean by "One M4100 is not enough for 242's".

It sounds like you're saying:

With 2x4200:
Akurate 242 Passive > better than > Majik 140 Active

With 2x4100:
Majik 140 Active > better than > Akurate 242 Passive
(because a 4100 is not powerful enough to drive 242's)

Is that right?