Active studio monitors. Nobody has them. Why?

I'm referring to mainly GENELEC studio monitors, the world leader in today's recording studios. I don't see anything here about them. Why?

They're good enough for 80 to 90 percent of the world's top/major studios yet not good enough for us audiophiles? Do recording engineers/musicians and audiophiles have THAT varying degree of tastes? Why do you think?

After all, these are what the artists and engineers choose to CREATE the music as a reference. I would think they'd want us to hear their artistic INTENT? So why the huge gap between the music creators and the listeners?

Please help answer this burning question.

Thank you.
It's already expensive enough to upgade, don't make it more expensive. Anyways, I don't think a constantly vibrating enviroment is ideal.
i use active studio monitors. i think you'll find that ATC monitors are getting more popular with the audio crowd. i haven't heard genelec, but i've never heard a better speaker in my life that ATCs.
A few reasons -- not an exhaustive list:
* Genelecs response curve designed for mastering, not for musical enjoyment
* Nearfield or sattelite application
* For full-range operation most models need equivalent, matching bass+low bass spkrs
* Active: many audiophiles prefer passive, most home spkrs sold are passive

Overall, "mastering" a recording is NOT identical to listening to the end product (i.e. the music s/ware we use at home). So the "tools" including speakers, are designed differently. For the sake of it, one exception may be the Griffin speakers (
Don't forget, that as audiophiles, this is a hobby. One that we all like to explore. It's tough to switch out amplifiers when your speakers are active...
Many studios mix with B&W, Acoustic Energy, Celestion, ATC, and Roy at Green Mountain said that there's been a great studio demand for their Europa speakers, so I think it's a stretch to say 90% of studios master with genelecs.
Absolute Sound reviewed a pair of the more expensive (with ribbon tweeter if I remember correctly) Genelec speakers some time ago and thought they were wonderful. They too asked why such speakers are not used more often by audiophiles.
Totaly agree "Lazarus28" 10~fold. Do your home work boys !!!
example of misconception:
Genelecs response curve designed for mastering, not for musical enjoyment

active monitor's curve can be adjusted in most cases.

some of active studio monitors may perfectly suit the audiophile demands on the wise budget.
I recently hooked my $1500 Mackie 824's up to my Naim source components, and was very surprised at the overall rich sound quality when a high-quality front-end was involved. I was using the famous NAP 250 power amp into the semi-famous SBL speakers, and the Mackies did a lot of things better than this combo that originally sold for $9,000!

I'm also of the opinion that anything in the ATC line including and above the Active 50 is serious VFM vs. the sound quality. I've heard two systems with 100's and one with 50's that have seriously redefined my definition of high-end audio.

Why don't more companies make active monitors? Well, it could have something to do with the fact that most speaker engineers don't also dabble in amplifier or active crossover electronics. One (idiot) salesman in a high-end store in Denver argued with me earlier this year that passive crossovers are better than active, else why would JM Labs have used passive in their $85,000 model? No other argument than that - just that they're so expensive they must be perfect.

Another factor might be that in the price-tight market these days, they don't want to fight the active vs. passive battle when most consumers go into stores with a set budget in mind. Would you really want to have to train salespeople to upsell a "$2500 customer" on an equivalent $3500 pair with amps built in, or a lesser speaker with amps at the same target price? It gets messy, except within the high-end niche that ATC seems to be doing very well in.

"...One (idiot) salesman in a high-end store in Denver argued with me earlier this year that passive crossovers are better than active,..."
I agree that the above is the most absurd thing I've ever heard! Passive crossovers have SEVERE LIMITATIONS! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a well design passive shouldn't stomp all over the rather unefficient and limiting passive networks!
I've been asking similar questions for years regarding active speaker options, and "why don't more speaker makers build them?"
My old Electa Amators used almost no passive crossover whatsoever! It was basically as simple as a resistor and such...or whatever. Anyway, MUCH BETTER DYNAMICS AND CONTROL OVER THE DRIVERS!...and accordingly, the speakers rocked compared to most any monitors(non-active) I've heard in their category! Basically, active speakers offer much better dyanamic potential and transparancy, all things equal.
I see NHT has a new Active/DSP/Sub and Sat combo for a few grand. Not sure of driver quality, but I'm sure dynamics are LEAPS AND BOUNDS BEYOND ANY OTHER MINI-MONITOR THEY MADE FOR THE HOME MARKET PREVIOUSLY!!!!...GARANTEED.
Speaker makers should really consider making more comprehensive designs like these, as the only step up is going to be going ACTIVE!...I promise.
Other than radically more efficient (yet practical...unlike some horns which have their problems) speaker design tech's on the horizon, I see no other growth potential in the future. Active is the future of home audio IMO.
After spending time listening to the Genelecs. I am amazed at what an active speaker can do compared to the passive ones. The difference in sound quality is day and night! Everything sounded better. After comparing them to speaker makers like the Theil and Dynaudio speakers hooked up to 10k and 15k amplifiers in the same room. I wouldn't think twice about going active. In the end you save money and space without those extra amplifiers.