17 of 23 speakers in my studio and home theater systems are internally powered. My studio system is all Genelec and sounds very accurate. I know the best new concert and studio speakers are internally powered there are great technical reasons to design a speaker and an amp synergistically, this concept is much more important to sound quality than the vibration systems we often buy. How can an audiophile justify a vibration system of any sort with this in mind.
Fact is @brianlucey, that your MMThree Exact is an active speaker, and you don't seem to understand this. The woofer section is powered, and shapes the frequency response of the amplifier to enable a very low -3db point. Your primary monitoring speaker is an active speaker. That seems to negate your views on active speakers.
For the Trinnov processor, one of its primary functions is to measure and correct the speaker response. It injects test signals and measures from its output through your amplifier, through the speaker, to its measurement microphone. It then corrects frequency errors, and phase errors of the combined system. It does this independently of the room correction function and surround decoding. A similar process is an aspect of a fully active speaker, but the manufacturer can do it more accurately as they don't have environmental interference in their measurement, worry of component drift, i.e. from a tube amplifier, and then can directly control each driver, not just the system as a whole.
@donavabdear Small minds see the world as dogma or polarity. Both accurate and musical is what mastering studios are about. Both. Mixers can use your speakers. My room would blow your mind. Mixers still use Auratones or NS-10. I’m not a mixer. What’s your name and credit list ? Naive and overconfident trolling from beginners or worse failed pros is what this looks like. My system is both accurate and beautiful. Top tier globally. Every room is one persons opinion. It’s a bias. We use science but music engineering is not a science experiment. It’s a humanity exercise. Connection. Not perfection. Yes I knew beautiful Al. And it’s spelled Capitol. I use Al’s personal dCS Bartok here every day ... for my headphone amp. Sits next to his memoir. Loved Al. Don’t evoke the name of the dead to make your ignorant point. That’s manipulative and wrong. Bricasti M1 SE is true high end. The Allnic A-6000 is better than the best solid state. Evolution Acoustics MM3 Exact and MMMicros are both accurate and beautiful. Acoustic Zen cables are levels above what’s in any self powered monitor. You’re who again ? Nameless troll? Fact is self powered speakers have zero intrinsic benefits. Except cost and convenience. Some are better than others but it’s just another imperfect approach in a world of imperfect compromises. Name and credits list please. What’s your equipment history ? Again sir, it’s about our personal EVOLUTION with monitoring. What you think you know today will change. Or you stopped thinking. Dogma is for fools. Come visit me anytime. Apple. Capitol Studios. Dolby. They've all been here.
brianlucey Maybe no one is on your sound journey, maybe you use the greatest equipment in the world and we are all simply lucky to hear your musings on equipment. If you were half half the engineer you think you are you would understand that if a studio uses the greatest, warmest, most orgasmic equipment ever it's not a very good studio, Why because studios are not supposed to sound good they are supposed to mix music that will sound good on the most systems. You mentioned MS-10s bad speakers that are the industry standard, why because they sound not so great. One of the oldest tricks in the book is before the mix is finished you go out with the producer and put the track in your car that's where most people listen to music.
Audiophiles often have much better systems than studios, this is the audiophiles place in the sound world, not the studios.
I have been in sessions with perhaps the greatest mixer ever Al Schmidt at Capital records he used his own monitors that honestly didn't sound very good at all but it didn't matter he knew what to expect from them that's what counts. Your song and dance equipment wise doesn't hold any weight supporting your arrogance. Good luck.
@hollykumi, what a great post, I agree that I have moved my focus to the front end because the speaker/amp/room in my system is cohesive. One amazing thing I added recently was the iFi SPDIF iPurifier. About $200 and benefitted everything in terms or reducing jitter and increasing clarity. I'll have to look into the Schit Freya pre, thx.
@mijostyn, great post but I did catch something that reveals that there is some confusion out there, you said. :
They are forced to use Class D amps for this reason and I have yet to hear a Class D amp I would purchase. Even Class AB amps if run hard are going to generate enough heat to make an active speaker very uncomfortable.
Kef LS60 amps-
The LS60 Wireless also has power in abundance, with a highly optimised mixture of bespoke Class AB and Class D amplification delivering a combined 1400 Watts of audiophile-grade power, with amplifiers dedicated to high, medium and low frequencies within each speaker.
Hey @mijostyn - I guess you're one of those guys who say an athlete can give 110%. Perfect is 100. You can't get better than that.
The 80/20 reasoning makes no sense as any system is only as good as its weakest link, and for a stereo system the source is the most important. Each step after that can only distort further. So if the 80/20 chooses 80 toward the end of the signal, he will have a very distorted sound. Even 80 at the front makes no sense. Why wouldn't you want to match the components synergistically to get the best sound possible within your pricing restraints? The point isn't "quick and easy".
I have an active system in my garage too. It's called a Bose Wave radio I listen to when I am washing my car, and one in my hand called an iPhone. For maximum convenience, sure, and maybe for home theater (notice how there is no mention of audio there) with lots of speakers it makes sense, but not my cup of tea for 2 channel high quality stereo systems (I don't use separate sub woofer boxes nor know much about them....perhaps it makes sense for them to be active?).
secretguy you say silly premise, I'm assuming that you're talking about my statement that audiophiles are confused. If you have read a few other posts don't you agree there is a lot of disagreement. Designing speakers with amps and driver frequencies in mind is basic it's the bedrock of logical electronic design. Many people here don't even agree, smart people, we aren't dealing with fact here were dealing with emotions and subjective bias. Do you agree?
thespeakerdude Hear hear!
I can make objective remarks about the best practice for a speaker and an amp to sound best with regard to best practices is for them to be designed to work together in the same cabinet or apart. If someone doesn’t believe that they are not understanding the statement.
You can have the best amp in the world and connect it to a speaker that it is not designed for that amp and you will not get the performance potential that you could have if it were. Influences against this idea are not based on logic but religious dogma. What I’m saying here doesn’t have anything to do with how anything sounds it is apart from listening it is a purely a logical equation.
The fact that many on this discussion forum can’t understand this is a statement that audiophiles are confused, it was not a put down or rude just honest.
Hi all, my two cents. I’m a 40ish year audiophile. For those of us on a budget. Say less than $5K total? Quality active studio monitors are a VERY strong value proposition.
Although this is a hobby, most people do not have the money or time on a limited budget to mix and match / buy and sell speaker and amp combos endlessly to get lucky and find that perfect match of synergy. Further problematic that we only have three seconds of solid audio memory (true for color memory as well). So unless you have the funds to keep multiple sets of amps/speakers in front of you so that you can A/B test within the three-second window (That what Harmon Kardon lab does, Schiit as well in a recent user invitational test of the different versions of Yggy). The differences in the combos will only be memories of impressions, not accurate to the actual sound.
To me playing around with speaker amp combos (I have done quite a bit of it) has been fun but expensive fools folly.
So my pass. Yes in theory class D boards inside the cabinet might do something bad from vibrations? I personally have not experienced that. And thousands of professional studios making their living on the accuracy of sound, that insist on near-perfect accuracy have not experienced that theoretical issue either.
I’ll list my setup at the end. So in the audiophile world, bi-amping is a big deal. Benefits from greater dynamic range, due to splitting into two more powerful amps, maybe skipping crossovers, etc etc. In my 3 way studio monitors. Each speaker has it’s own individual 300 watt hyperion amp. For spec junkies, the hyperions measure near perfect. Each speaker is tri-amped. Not quite true, but this is in spitting distance to saying I am running six monoblocks. Yeah that’s some pretty audiophile mojo. In addition, since the crossovers are handled right before the amps at XLR voltages, the crossovers have less of an impact on the sound.
So here we go. A close to perfectly matched three speakers per cabinet, three amps per cabinet. Analog all the way, no DSP. No muss no fuss, allowing me to focus on other parts of the system.
To the colors of sound. OK, first up everyone’s room is different, and coloring about 60% of what you hear. So now you have the trifecta of hobby swirl. Matching speakers, to amps, to your rooms sound? Man that’s a ton of expensive variables to chase.
The variables that I enjoy chasing are DACs and Preamps. Since I know my actives are stone accurate. Then I can get really nuanced in my perceptions of DACs and Preamps.
So what is my come from presenting these opinions.
My listening environment is a small professional Audio/Visual studio. 12" * 14" with 14" wooden ceilings. The floor is carpeted, with additional thick rugs. The walls and, to a degree, the ceilings are treated with 38 sound blankets. The room is not quite deader than a doornail, but very close. My goal is/was to completely remove the room variable from my critical listening experince.
The speakers are supported by a set of Isoaccoutics feet, and each speaker is placed upon about 200lbs of concrete cinderblock stands. Yes it does make a difference. :-)
The audio gear stack gets it’s own 200lb stack, placed well behind the speakers, and each piece of gear also get’s it’s own Isoaccoutic feet. Blaspheme! That really made an audible difference.
Punchline is I can really hear the gear for what it is and isn’t, no imagination. The gear cannot hide from me.
------
My current rig:
$1,600 Hedd Type 2 studio monitors. (Purchased literally beat to living crap from a touring band.)
$1,800 Schiit Yggy OG (Love that thing, been through many DAC’s)
$500 Shitt Freya S (Hot rodded with an upgraded TI Opamp, truly amazing)
$800 Schiit Freya + (With added cooling fins. And some wicked, I’m not gonna tell rare tubes)
$400 Tubes (Where I settled after a lot of buy and sell tube rolling experiments.)
$900 HSU 15" sealed sub. (Carefully placed 4’ above the floor, shooting down one of the walls. Each room want’s something different from sub placement to get accurate.)
$6,000 in my room at the moment.
Oddball geek note blaspheme. I do run my preamps through each other in many combos. You would be surprised what you get in a revealing system. These two preamps give me I think a total of seven combinations of signal path color that I can run? Effectively behaving like owning seven preamps that can all be A/B switched within the 3-second window.
mijostyn I'm surprised you said a good sound system can sound like a real musician in the room. Have you ever done that? Even in the best recording studios in the world the sound in the control room doesn't sound like the sound in the studio. I play saxophone in the same room I listen to music and it's really not even close, my system isn't great but my wife knows when I'm playing saxophone with a backing track (but I do kinda suck, even after 45 years of playing). I'm not talking about live sound through a PA but real musicians playing acoustic instruments?
@phusis, I am inclined to agree entirely. The best amps I have ever heard have all been Class A at least up to a certain output. These amps can not be put into an active speaker because of the heat they generate. They are forced to use Class D amps for this reason and I have yet to hear a Class D amp I would purchase. Even Class AB amps if run hard are going to generate enough heat to make an active speaker very uncomfortable. "Activeness" can be applied to any system just by the addition of the right processor like the new DEQX units or the Trinnov Amethyst. Then you have the ultimate control over what your system is doing. The DEQX Pre8 has a full two channel 4 way crossover. It will individually control 8 amplifier channels and apply room control to all 8 channels.
80%, 95% baloney! I want 110%, I want 200%. A home system can easily outperform most concert systems. The best systems are quite capable of fooling you into thinking the instrument is in the room with the right recording. Is this 100%? If you have a fine stereo image and a comfortably realistic volume level on the recording of a stadium concert is that 200%. At the venue what you get is an extremely distorted mono sound at a volume level that hurts.
A system that approaches Harry Pearson's absolute sound is wonderfully comfortable to listen to. There is no distortion, noise or sibilance. People never realize how loud the system is playing. Images of voices and instruments float in space with black spaces in between. The music is palpably real, you feel the venue breath. You feel each individual low bass note. Your eyes actually blur with a pipe organ's low C. Cymbals shimmer but are not too bright. People listen and their eyes always widen. In my 69 years I have heard exactly three systems that perform at this level and I made a living for 5 years installing very expensive systems in the houses of very wealthy people in Coral Gables Florida. I sold Beverages, Dunlavys Magneplanar Tympanies and Acoustats. Powered by Krell, Levinson and Accuphase. Not one of these systems approached the absolute sound primarily because décor was always more important then acoustics. I was never given an optimal situation and at the time probably would not have known one even if it hit me in the face. For 30 years I chased the absolute sound trying to figure out how to make a system reliably perform at that level. The three system's that did did so out of shear luck.
@kota1I do not want to speak for someone else, but my interpretation of the analog is that it is part of the process flow for mixing, as opposed to the now ubiquitous digital workstation. That would imply at least one additional digital to analog and analog to digital step in the process.
I am hesitant to talk too much about what the Trinnov does as this does not appear to be a receptive crowd. A quick summary. Trinnov comes from the studio world. Their product corrects the speaker response, and the room. It is two separate functions. Their integrated units adding the function of ATMOS and other formats, decoding and processing. It is used for playback. As it corrects the speaker, there are some obvious implications, I think, for the audio system that was described.
@thespeakerdude, welcome to the forum +1 on your first post. I didn’t notice this was an active speaker, I looked at the micro-ones and didn’t check these, good catch. I did notice an incongruity that Brian has an all analog system that is integrated by DSP using the Trinnov. That is a head scratcher, and it seems that DIGITAL signal processing is an essential component of an all ANALOG system.
Now, I can’t argue the point because I don’t have any experience with Trinnov but it does seem that it isn’t true analog, is that what you were referring to?
It did have me checking prices on Trinnov processors though as well as Evolution micro-ones, it brings this setup within the grasp of a consumer if they want to go that route. Trinnov piece around $20K and Evolution Micro-Ones around $5K a pair. I have no idea what Allnic amps cost though. So I can't say this would be an all analog Home Theater but I guess it is about as close as you can get to a similar setup.
@steakster, I agree, but confusion is a close second :)
Please don't shoot the messenger on his first post. I appreciate Brian's music, but there is a glaring incongruity in his position that I am surprised all the experts here have not noticed.
The MMThree / MMThree Exact is an active speaker. It has a built in 1000W amplifier to drive the woofers. The more astute will take note of the -3db point. 10Hz. The only way to do that with a box that small, small for 10Hz, is with an active system that increases the drive to the woofer as the frequency drops like many subwoofers do. Frequency correction is active speaker basics.
There is another incongruity that is pretty obvious, but this crowd is harsh, so I will let them figure it out on their own.
This topic of active speakers and confusion is not new, maybe that's why I wasn't offended by it. This is not the first thread to discuss this "perceived" confusion and it won't be the last I am sure. For example, ten pages of posts on same over at headfi:
Due to incipient and clearly evil air born vibrations of all sorts, it's important to remember to never play music through any gear near any speakers. Further, it's also important to avoid the use of any speakers in the first place to listen to music as the internal wiring will be subject to the aforementioned vibrations and, seriously, who wants that? Only listen to acoustic instruments played by yourself or solo musicians nearby, and avoid any live groups of musicians as, clearly, their vibrations will be having an effect on each other while they play...yuck! Get springs for your shoes to help you to not vibrate, and never under any circumstances go outdoors as, man...there are vibrations everywhere.
50 years ago when I was a little pup, half of the cost of an audio system went into the amplification stage (transistor or tube amplifier). Also, the main sound sources (radio, records) were VERY large (we had a roof antenna in our attic that was 10’ long!)
Today a good amplifier on an IC with decent power transistors can cost $3 and fits on a 2" x 2" circuit board! So under these circumstances, where the power amplifier is basically free & tiny, a speaker is more flexible if it has its own amplifier. Meanwhile the sources are mobile devices like smartphones which don’t produce enough power to driver speakers adequately. Or the sources are things all over the house (remote TVs, computers, virtual assistants) where requiring an outboard amp would be a terrific hassle!
Under these circumstances, shifting the power amplifier from the source to the speaker makes perfect sense!
Ever since 1995 I have felt it was wonderful to be able to buy a $40 AM/FM SONY Walkman + $80 high-end computer speakers and have a $120 home stereo that beats anything less than $450 at the time. The ability to make such mongrel systems is the greatest thing about self-contained audio where only the signal (and not the power) is passed between devices ...
@kota1you have to understand that the world I’m in is even beyond studio high end globally. Studios are on a price / performance budget. Many use the DAD converters in the AVID MTRX. Awful DA. Compromise in commercial rooms is normal. This format is barely embraced, they’re just getting their feet wet. I’m in the audiophile world of 1%, so to me, everything else is downstream, no judgment. Come listen for yourself and decide as Apple and Dolby and studio engineers have done. I needed all the qualities of MM3 exact (great speakers) with Bricasti M1SE (3rd best DA ever made) and Allnic Audio A-6000 (best amp I’ve ever heard) x 12 plus Cohesion at the highest level. So when I look at someone saying something as absurd as a dogmatic argument for self powered speakers as superior and I mean any self powered speakers (they are all made to be cheap not best), I just have to speak up, that’s completely ridiculous. Anyone saying that is simply trying to sell you powered speakers or defend what they own. The most newbie approach is "my current speakers are the best" especially when they clearly have not done the work of AB all options for decades. This OP is a joke. Clueless. Rude. Your arguments about these Genis? Not very evolved thinking. They’re "sufficient" if done right ... not high end. Even as a stereo pair. Again you need to compare 2 speakers in atmos to 2 stereo high end speakers to get to the bottom of an atmos system. For me it’s a headphone format. Speakers are a bonus. I have a mastering grade system. Mixers or casual listeners will be impressed with less. I couldn’t use those Genis for anything. Ever. It’s a process of evolution. Enjoy the ride ! If you’re happy then listen. Don’t argue. Remember we are in the beginning years of commercial music in atmos vs 7 decades of stereo. It’s all evolving. As will you.
"audiophiles are confused" is rude. Flaming rude and stupid. Everything is DA, cable, amp, crossover, speaker parts. Quality and synergy and cohesion at all combos matters. No dogma. It's a cocktail. There is nothing else to say.
@brianlucey, well I can’t argue with your results and I really appreciate your response. You took the time to curate each piece of gear you use to create a chain, like many members here. I would hope your setup would be a good example of the proper way to do atmos,that is why I asked for pics, Like you said, certainty lies in principles and process. if you don’t feel the need to post them I understand. As for the other studios I posted the point is not that they are better or worse. it is that they all use the same "principles and process" of the Dolby specs for Atmos.
I disagree that the OP's assertion is rude. If you go through this thread there absolutely is confusion about active/powered speakers, YMMV.
@kota1i came here only to refute this absurd thread. Not here to post pictures. None of the rooms you posted have the cohesion plus dynamics plus resolution plus DA/amp/cable quality here. Photos are PR ... means nothing. Atmos done right is 12 or more speakers where any pair would be an excellent stereo system. Cohesion is always DSP related. Could be external or internal. More or less depends on the system. Quality of DSP is huge. I use trinnov with passive speakers because ? It’s better. I use Trinnov in part to make my room sound like Evolution MM3 Exact x 12. Everything is about positive compromise. So many moving parts. Any dogma is foolish. The OP is lost. And rude. This thread is based on a rude assertion. Beware of those who are certain about hardware. Only certainty lies in our principles and process.
@brianlucey, would really appreciate some pics of your atmos setup either in your virtual system for your profile or in that other thread re: atmos music.
@sokogear, I was making a reference to the 80/20 rule. By focusing on the 20% of a system that gives you 80% of the results you are going to save time and money. I have active systems in my HT and my desktop and a passive system in the man cave. The active systems are more satisfying and required less effort and budget to setup for the equivalent result. I still like the man cave system though.
My desktop system is a good example of the 80/20 rule. It has a pair of Paradigm Shift A2 active speakers and a Paradigm PW Link preamp with ARC room correction. I have 0 room treatments in my office and no space for a subwoofer or a rack. It was easy to setup and not meant to be end game and doubt I could do better for the $600 investment. This is without room treatments in a less than ideal space for audio. The active speakers use dsp and ARC works really well with them for $600 I would say I got the 20% (the speaker, the amp, and the room) right.
... I don’t think this is controversial at all, I would say that an amp doesn’t have to be designed for the speaker inside the cabinet of the speaker its self but for the system to be it’s best the speaker and amp must be designed for each other. Who could disagree with this idea if the speaker has 5 drivers 2 drivers and the crossovers are passive, active or hybrid the amplifier may not be able to be all that it needs to be for that speaker, amps designed for LF are different than amps designed for HF.
While I’m somewhat in agreement here I’d like to tempt your position of the importance of amp-speaker matching. What exactly is entailed here from your point of view - are we speaking amps matched for very specific drivers in their respective passbands, or is it a more broadly laid out approach with importance of damping factor and high power for LF, less so for MF, quality of lower, less negative feedback wattages for HF and such? In any case an outboard active solution offers the opportunity to go about a variation of matching possibilities between amps and driver sections not only bound by an engineering approach, but one that can also challenge a typically accepted scenario or simply choosing any path one prefers with a wide range of quality outboard amps to whatever speakers may be used. In my own setup I prefer the lower DF (and better full-range) but still power heavy amp for the subs and the higher DF and even more power savvy amp for the midbass section vs. the revers config., just as an example, even though I only really use a fraction of the power available in both cases. The lower wattage class A amp stays on the top section, I might add..
Again, what is meant by amp-speaker matching? More crudely: from one perspective it could be a scenario where the respective inboard amp is designed to do only so much and not more from whatever is asked of it in its frequency span, and yet as best as possible for its task within a given budget. From another it’s an interaction with a specific driver that’s intricately tailored to do something more than if the very driver and its specs hadn’t been taken more closely into consideration in accordance with the amp. I’m inclined to the believe the former scenario is more prevalent while being one that’s still a preferred approach vs. a passive setup, and yet going with an outboard active solution the bar can be raised even further to accommodate each individual’s taste and specific acoustics, while not least being given the opportunity to use class A amps, etc. Certainly as it regards active configuration I don’t buy into the bundled, inboard approach necessarily having any inherent advantages compared to an outboard ditto.
@kota1 - you are by far in the minority of Audiogon people if you are happy with 80%.Most want 95+%....the next 2-3% is where the steep investment comes in. All acknowledge 100% is impossible. Probably not 99 or 98 either - It is an asymptote type curve of $$ vs. "perfect" (whatever that is) sound.
@sokogear, I don’t disagree. I have speakers from the JBL Studio series (230) in my mancave matched with a Carver AV505 amp. I listened to the JBL LS306 studio monitors at Guitar Center that gets rave reviews. Both designs use trickle down tech from the flagship JBL M2 Monitors. I preferred the passive 230’s by a wide margin. Then you look at the price differential, the 230’s were $400, the speaker wires $200 and the amp $800=$1400 all in. The 306 were about $300 for the pair.
When I flipped it so it was equal ground, Paradigm Studio 20’s (passive) with the same amp and speaker wire vs the Active 20’s (cost of each setup about equal) the actives were better, no contest.
@mijostyn, if some people try targeting DSP curves they get a misfire. I admire your pursuit of perfection but I am way to lazy to do all that testing. If I can get 80% of the SQ with 20% of the time and budget I am good, YMMV.
I want my system to do what I want it to do not some engineer wants it to do. I have been using digital signal processing since the late 90s and having experimented with hundreds of target curves. I know exactly what I want my system do to.
The masses have always favored simple all in one systems. KLH made it's name doing that in the 60's. They were surprisingly good but I would have taken K horns and Marantz Model 9's. Not one state of the art system I have ever heard was composed of "active" components.
Meyer? Give me a break! That is all marketing BS. Meyer is a modern day JBL. I suppose you could do worse.
Another ridiculous trolling argument. Of course it is possible for an all in one speaker to sound as good as some speakers with a separate amp. Can an integrated amp sound better than a separate preamp and amp separates? Sure, although typically within a give manufacturer, the separates will be higher end/better sounding and more $$.
If some company theoretically sold separate amps and speakers, I would be willing to bet that the non-integrated option would sound better and cost more.
For some people the convenience outweighs sound quality. An iPhone is an integrated system....
I was posting about specs and @brianluceymade an astute observation about cohesion needed in atmos. I was saying how a benefit of active is making the amp/speaker chain more cohesive. A consumer doesn’t need to reinvent anything re: speaker/amp/cable matching when you go active and place them by just follow the dolby specs. I posted roughly 4 setups using the same specs the OP and I use earlier in this thread and then I see another SOA setup using those specs and an active speaker I am sure is near and dear to your heart. Any comments about Blackbird Studio C you would like to share?
fisher_400 The principle is the amplifier and speaker should match in a very intimate way. If the amplifier designer has no idea what speaker is eventually going to be used for the music I would say that designer is throwing darts. I don't think this is controversial at all, I would say that an amp doesn't have to be designed for the speaker inside the cabinet of the speaker its self but for the system to be it's best the speaker and amp must be designed for each other. Who could disagree with this idea if the speaker has 5 drivers 2 drivers and the crossovers are passive, active or hybrid the amplifier may not be able to be all that it needs to be for that speaker, amps designed for LF are different than amps designed for HF. I actually never got to my planned point in this discussion because so many people couldn't even understand the obvious premise of the starting point. It's been a little frustrating. Also Im not talking about cheap D amps stuffed into any old speaker I'm talking about best practices.
First, a speaker company is not an expert at amps. Most active speakers likely use Class D amps. Most Class A amps and all tubes amp outperform the speaker amps. No such thing as tuning an amp to a speaker either. It that active speakers can sound very good, but there is better with discrete components. Over at Steve Hoffman forum the active speakers owners stated nothing for any amount of money can outperform an expensive active speaker and I am 10 years behind the times. I dropped Steve Hoffman forums and will not ever post there again- ignorant bunch of fools.
I was the Sound Mixer on the show Roadies produced by Cameron Crow. The show was about a stadium rock band and the roadies that helped make the show. I didn't do the first two episodes but when I came in I found out they made deals with the live sound companies to show their gear as advertisement. Wow did we have some nice gear, some of it was still in beta. The live sound guys would set up an entire stadium sound system in the stages at Manhattan Beach Studios or wherever we were shooting that episode. I was amazed how good a concert system could sound, when you get the very best equipment for concerts, Showco, Meyer, etc. the fidelity can be amazing. All the equipment was networked and active, I would say it sounded like a $millionbucks but the systems were much more $ than that.
Self-powered loudspeakers offer several advantages over their passive counterparts when it comes to fidelity, reliability, and simplicity. The great part is, you’ll start to reap the benefits of a self-powered system before you even power up.
Ease of deployment: System set-up is so much easier when you have fewer components and fewer cables to worry about being miswired. Since self-powered loudspeakers incorporate amplification, you’ll never have to deal with matching speakers to amplifiers or connecting components. You don’t have to worry about calibration of gain and crossover setting which means more time focusing on the show. Eliminating amp racks doesn’t just streamline system deployment, it streamlines your inventory whether you’re a rental house or a road warrior. And when you consider that the average amp rack weighs nearly 300 pounds and takes up four feet of truck space, the efficiencies get even clearer. Let alone when you want to fly the amplifier racks to get closer to the speakers, often requiring more rigging points and more motors.
Predictable, reliable operation: Internal amplification is closely matched to drivers. Because individual components have been optimized during manufacturing, you can expect consistent sound from show to show. Built-in, factory-optimized protection circuitry provides extra assurance without degrading signal quality. And, when you have less equipment, you have less risk of failure.
Better frequency and phase response: Because self-powered loudspeakers incorporate sophisticated processing, they are calibrated to exhibit optimal response curves in key performance parameters. Active crossovers are more precise, sophisticated designs, and bi-amped systems are time aligned, eliminating phase issues. The result? Accurate sound throughout the speaker’s range, at any volume level.
Unparalleled clarity: In powered monitors, internal amplifiers are precision-matched to drivers, delivering optimal power at all times for cleaner sound. And because amps are built into loudspeaker cabinets, there’s no need for long lengths of connecting cable, which can become prone to distortion and signal loss.
Tighter transients: Since self-powered loudspeakers have very short internal cables, amps inside can more effectively dampen driver mechanical motion, which leads to better sonic accuracy and tighter, crisper transients. (And, there’s none of the loss in levels and signal quality inherent over long cable distances.)
Certified Safe: Nothing matters more than the safety of your staff and customers. Because self-powered loudspeakers incorporate amplification, they must undergo rigorous testing by Underwriters Laboratories and other international organizations to ensure they operate safely and guard against the risk of fire, electric shock, and inadequate structural design. Enjoy peace of mind knowing Meyer Sound powered products are certified by FCC, UL, CSA, CE, and CEE the most stringent agencies in the business.
The Problems with Passive
What about passive loudspeakers? At first glance, passive systems may seem like a bargain. But we already know that passive systems require more components and accessories than powered systems. Sonically, they exhibit potential for signal loss over distances, and it is very hard to ensure consistent, optimal sound and volume as amplifiers have many variables to consider when being matched to loudspeakers, such as cable lengths and gauge as well as the number of speakers connected to the amplifier.
Passive systems are often touted as easy to service. But because powered loudspeakers are so complex to design and build, self-powered loudspeakers usually represent the top innovations from leading manufacturers. Better quality translates to better reliability, which means fewer maintenance issues in the long run.
At face value, passive systems might seem less expensive and easier to maintain. But once you start adding in amps, cables, and other components not to mention increased transport and labor costs you’ll find that those savings just don’t add up to a better value.
@m-db, OMG I was just on Meyers website before posting this...fate!
Good question about the analog signal path. I have two options.
One is to use the Marantz "Pure Direct" pass through on my processor. Is it "pure" analog? No, but it is another option if I am using an analog input on the processor. According to Marantz:
The Pure Direct Mode is passed through the tone circuit/AD Converter/DA converter/DSP include Audyssey processing for Analog input.
In addition, stop the video and the display.
Now my second option is to run a separate preamp. The active speakers I use have both XLR and RCA inputs on the back with a toggle switch. I have tried using a separate Parasound all analog preamp (Zpre) I have connected to the RCA inputs. I liked it but it wasn’t necessarily better.
@donavabdearinteresting how this takes us right back to the topic of this thread, active speakers and confusion. In @brianluceyvideo he states that his entire mastering system is a chain. Change one thing, you change the entire chain. For professionals with budget and trained hearing, that’s fine. For consumers, that’s expensive, possibly real expensive to put a good, cohesive "chain" together as each mismatch needs to be traded, swapped, or sold.
With an active speaker you trade off the ability to "tune" the speakers with variables like the amp and speaker cables. In return, you get a coherent, cohesive "chain" that is portable and replicable. It takes a LOT of the variables that make up the chain out of the hands of a consumer and puts them in the hands of the engineer who spent HIS budget and time putting together a cohesive "chain" (cabinet, amps, crossover, drivers, even the connections on the plate amp in the back of the speaker).
If I want to "tune" my active speakers because of how I place them in the room I have contour knobs, a volume knob, and a high pass filter on the back (see the pic of the controls on the back in my system page). That is common in an active speaker, you don’t get it in a passive speaker and I can dial those contour knobs to the exact degree I want them and they are FREE to fiddle with, unlike swapping out speaker cables.
I saw an interview of recording engineer John Traunwieser where he traded out his B&W monitors for Meyers because the B&W’s sounded too good. They made every mix sound good BECAUSE of the speakers strengths but that didn’t always translate to different speakers. To your point if device (amp/speaker) etc colors the sound in such a way it might not translate the same on another system.
In a way its fortunate that the straight forward path on this journey is laid out with published specs. Specs for a relatively flat speaker, dolby specs on where to place them, specs for treating and calibrating your room, even specs for reference volume levels. As long as you don’t stray too far from the path the specs lay out you can get a good result for decent money.
BTW, if anyone reading this wants the specs for setting up a room and system for Atmos come visit my thread here:
brianlucey
You are confused, it doesn’t matter how many records you have worked on. My position is not that I have great speakers in my Atmos system it's that they are accurate and industry standard I don’t want them to sound amazing as you have said. You are also confused in that I’m criticizing audiophiles in terms of my Genelec speakers audiophiles and Genelecs are all together different they don’t run in my 2 channel system.
As for now audiophiles don’t think multi speaker systems like Atmos are actually audiophile this will probably change in the future but not yet. You have a successful room but you are full of it, you don’t even have matched speakers you mix tube amps and SS then you have several AD transitions to Protools even though you say you are all analog, Impressive to a 25 year old producer who loves to see your super cool main speakers but has more money than technical chops. I know I’ve been there, I’ve done that and finished the game ahead, nothing wrong with it but don’t try to fool people who have already been around the block.
Kota1
Ok I really don't want to be blunt but I will be. As you probably already know I think tube amps, and microphones, sound better more musical and all that just not in a accurate way but in an effect way because of the natural characteristics of the tubes. We both know that tube amps start to degrade from the first moment you put in new tubes, I've have my BHK 300s and BHK Preamp for about 4 years and have spent 1000s on tubes trying to get the super sexy ones that BHK didn't even have in mind when he designed the units (silly). But in a mastering studio you can't have the slow degradation of tubes to evaluate the recording and mixing of other engineers for the master. Doesn't that sort of put up a red flag? Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I'm to analytical and not cool enough.
@steakster@jerryg123Good spot! In only four posts, this must be a record spotting Cin Dyment entering Audiogon yet another time. However the list is missing a few most recent names. Here is the full list:
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
