What is "boom, tizz"?
PP , have you managed to listen to Leemas Xone (stupid name) floorstander with your pulserama ?. This thread has been going so long I ....
A. Cant remember and B. Cant be fagged to trawl through it all. Reason I ask is if you have heard them and liked them , but too pricey at the time , there are a pair of ex demeraras on thiefbay at the min Acton-Gate-Audio is the sellist.
No - I know says I need to... given WHFI's all-in-one review from 3 years ago, they had the Pulse, Stream and Xero speakers and they concluded it was too in ya face, okay for short listening. I know the Xones floorstanders but if they mirror the same character as the Xeros, I'd rather look elsewhere.
Cheers for heads up.
Twas just a thought, I know nowt about them but saw them today whilst trawling.
Craig set you some homework a while back. Have you done it yet?
Well, no. He linked something to do with actives. Quite frankly, because he kept on about it I didn't bother. I was never interested in buying actives, something I made crystal clear at the time, just wanted more info on the format.
Which is what I provided you with after you made a song and dance about it. I knew when I posted it you wouldn't read it as you had made a similar request a while back, and I provided you with the exact same info that time too. Nothing to do with me keeping on about it, more to do with you trolling for attention. If you don't want to know about something, don't ask people to go out of their way to provide you with information about it. And as to your point above, it was constructive, at the very low levels you say you listen at, emphasised bass and treble are probably what you want due to way our ears work at low volume. I also told you what opaque meant.
I didn't make a song and dance about it. Yes, I did ask about what makes the actives so special, given you say they sound better than anything you've heard. If you were so sure I wouldn't read it, why put the link up? No I'm not trolling - there are many things I DON'T know about hi-fi (certain brands, formats etc.).
In literature I know what opaque means, but if you read that post I did say wouldn't be sure, if it is opaque, whether I would recognise it or not. So in a different context, like hi-fi, these are terms I've never heard of before.
Twas just a thought, I know nowt about them but saw them today whilst trawling.
I'll have a look...
I didn't make a song and dance about it... If you were so sure I wouldn't read it, why put the link up?
You either made or repeated a request for info about 4 or 5 times in one thread, that is making a song and dance about it to me. So I provided you with it. Again. Then over the course of the next week I asked you whether you had read it and what your thoughts were about 4 or 5 times, according to you this was me going 'on about it'. Do you not see the inconsistency there? And that is the reason you didn't read it, although at the time you stated you hadn't had time to read the links, which one is it? You'd managed to find the time to post several times on here over the same period.
Why did I post the links? To prove a point, namely that you wouldn't read them. And I was right. Why was I so sure you wouldn't read them? Because the last time you asked not only did I and others provide the info you wanted on here, but I also provided the exact same links. And you clearly didn't read it or them that time either. You might wonder why I'm labouring the point now? Because I thought it was rude and ignorant behaviour. If I'd pestered people for something, if they provided me with it, I'd make a point of reading it, I wouldn't get involved in multiple unrelated threads and then lie about why I hadn't followed it up.
I didn't make a song and dance about it... If you were so sure I wouldn't read it, why put the link up?
You either made or repeated a request for info about 4 or 5 times in one thread, that is making a song and dance about it to me. So I provided you with it. Again. Then over the course of the next week I asked you whether you had read it and what your thoughts were about 4 or 5 times, according to you this was me going 'on about it'. Do you not see the inconsistency there? And that is the reason you didn't read it, although at the time you stated you hadn't had time to read the links, which one is it? You'd managed to find the time to post several times on here over the same period.
Why did I post the links? To prove a point, namely that you wouldn't read them. And I was right. Why was I so sure you wouldn't read them? Because the last time you asked not only did I and others provide the info you wanted on here, but I also provided the exact same links. And you clearly didn't read it or them that time either. You might wonder why I'm labouring the point now? Because I thought it was rude and ignorant behaviour. If I'd pestered people for something, if they provided me with it, I'd make a point of reading it, I wouldn't get involved in multiple unrelated threads and then lie about why I hadn't followed it up.
If you think I'm winding people up or not reading links, then refuse. No-one is press ganging you into it.
FWIW, when you posted that link I had just taken a day off work to take my sibling to Wiltshire to a rehab centre for alcohol problems. For several days we had family confabs - or in other words, there are far more important things than hi-fi, regardless of format.
Yes the following day I was on here as a distraction, not interested in deep meaningful posts about the pros and cons of actives or passives.
If you want to continue about the 'rights' and 'wrongs' it can be used in the active thread.
I didn't make a song and dance about it... If you were so sure I wouldn't read it, why put the link up?
You either made or repeated a request for info about 4 or 5 times in one thread, that is making a song and dance about it to me. So I provided you with it. Again. Then over the course of the next week I asked you whether you had read it and what your thoughts were about 4 or 5 times, according to you this was me going 'on about it'. Do you not see the inconsistency there? And that is the reason you didn't read it, although at the time you stated you hadn't had time to read the links, which one is it? You'd managed to find the time to post several times on here over the same period.
Why did I post the links? To prove a point, namely that you wouldn't read them. And I was right. Why was I so sure you wouldn't read them? Because the last time you asked not only did I and others provide the info you wanted on here, but I also provided the exact same links. And you clearly didn't read it or them that time either. You might wonder why I'm labouring the point now? Because I thought it was rude and ignorant behaviour. If I'd pestered people for something, if they provided me with it, I'd make a point of reading it, I wouldn't get involved in multiple unrelated threads and then lie about why I hadn't followed it up.
All plastic penguin does is attack others. Did the same to myself on another thread. Plastic does not have to argree with the active is better than passive disscussion. May be its the fact!! Its nothing personal. Boy, he/she must have had a fight with active speakers in another life.
Easy chappies , this is all moving into serious thread crapping territory. 
Ooh ... crepes ...
I didn't make a song and dance about it... If you were so sure I wouldn't read it, why put the link up?
You either made or repeated a request for info about 4 or 5 times in one thread, that is making a song and dance about it to me. So I provided you with it. Again. Then over the course of the next week I asked you whether you had read it and what your thoughts were about 4 or 5 times, according to you this was me going 'on about it'. Do you not see the inconsistency there? And that is the reason you didn't read it, although at the time you stated you hadn't had time to read the links, which one is it? You'd managed to find the time to post several times on here over the same period.
Why did I post the links? To prove a point, namely that you wouldn't read them. And I was right. Why was I so sure you wouldn't read them? Because the last time you asked not only did I and others provide the info you wanted on here, but I also provided the exact same links. And you clearly didn't read it or them that time either. You might wonder why I'm labouring the point now? Because I thought it was rude and ignorant behaviour. If I'd pestered people for something, if they provided me with it, I'd make a point of reading it, I wouldn't get involved in multiple unrelated threads and then lie about why I hadn't followed it up.
All plastic penguin does is attack others. Did the same to myself on another thread. Plastic does not have to argree with the active is better than passive disscussion. May be its the fact!! Its nothing personal. Boy, he/she must have had a fight with active speakers in another life.
When was this? Genuinely can't remember. If I have given anyone a hard time and I've been out of order then I apologise.
I've never been unfair or slagged actives off. How could I when I've never heard them. I have no intention, either. Repeating was I said on the other thread was it doesn't matter about whether actives are better than price compatible passives, more important you can cultivate your own sound. That isn't having a pop at actives, just stating that they aren't for me and numerous others on here.
BTW, I'm a 'he'.
Plastic p, its all good
Have made a mental shortlist of speakers to dem:
PMC GB1i
Kef R300
ProAc Response D2
Totems (not sure what model yet)
Good list! 
Do the Kef R300 come with optional grilles?
R300 come with optional grilles?
Dunno....if they do, I wasn't aware of it!
R300 come with optional grilles?
Dunno....if they do, I wasn't aware of it!
- Login to post comments
Craig set you some homework a while back. Have you done it yet?
Well, no. He linked something to do with actives. Quite frankly, because he kept on about it I didn't bother. I was never interested in buying actives, something I made crystal clear at the time, just wanted more info on the format.
Which is what I provided you with after you made a song and dance about it. I knew when I posted it you wouldn't read it as you had made a similar request a while back, and I provided you with the exact same info that time too. Nothing to do with me keeping on about it, more to do with you trolling for attention. If you don't want to know about something, don't ask people to go out of their way to provide you with information about it. And as to your point above, it was constructive, at the very low levels you say you listen at, emphasised bass and treble are probably what you want due to way our ears work at low volume. I also told you what opaque meant.
Synology NAS + Audio Station - ATV2 - Benchmark DAC1 HDR - Event Opal
http://nwavguy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/what-we-hear.html