I have a live music venue with music every night. I bought four of these monitors four years ago and in that time I've only had all four working for about two weeks and that was in the beginning. One of them arrived damaged and had to be repaired straight away and they've all had to be repaired more than once for various reasons. Now only one remains in good working order and the other clips frequently and will soon fail completely. The other two monitors we've canabalised for spare drivers and preamps. The power amps seem to be the weak link, they're not big enough for the task required of them and clip frequently and fail often.
I was advised before buying these active monitors that it would be better to buy passive monitors with a separate amp because equipment failures would be less likely and less expensive and I can see that this was good advice now. It's great to be able to have separate channels/mixes for each monitor, but if you only have one or two working monitors what's the point? Might as well buy some passive monitors and an amp and send the same mix to all the monitors and save a bunch of headaches.
The sound quality is quite good, plenty of bass, but they can't achieve sufficient volume to be heard over an enthusiastic drummer. The feedback filter we never use.
Anyway, I guess that's what happens when you choose cheap and fancy over expensive and solid. It's better to have two high quality monitors you can depend on than four low quality ones that will certainly let you down. If you just want them for practicing with your band mates they might be ok, but I wouldn't recommend them for a professional setting like a live music venue, in my experience.
