Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?

Can we all agree at this point that active design is superior to passive all things being equal.

It seems to me that this would be very tough to argue.

Just to clarify somones post earlier, the pmc aml1 uses a 3B ST driving the woofer, a 2B ST to drive the tweeter, and a modified 10B providing driver integration. The amp/crossover module is custom made in England. This is not like their lower grade 'actives' that are indeed not active as stated and use a flying mole attached to them, and suffer all the problems an active is supposed to avoid. The pmc aml1 is not two bryston powerpac's slapped onto the back, which would be the next step up from flying mole, and much more preferable since the powerpac is a great a/b amp. The aml1 has a unique heatsink that takes up the entire back, with a hollow center for a chimney effect so they never get very hot. The aml1 has the amazing and huge 32mm soft dome made by audax, which is used in their MB1 and BB5 speakers that are amazingly expensive, and a smaller version of the carbon fiber/nomex woofer used in the IB1, with a 5.7 ft. transmission line packed into the tiny aml1. The woofer is incredibly stiff, very limited range and completely flat sounding (I am sold on transmission line speakers for life now). The aml1 compensates by using a tweeter that is crossed over at 1.4kz, is very large and very expensive. This tweeter is the reason people will tell you this speaker is bright, and indeed I use the hf at -5db to compensate, but I think it is super accurate, beyond compare. If it is a great recording I will creep the hf to -2.5db, but at close range, for home listening, there is just too many artifacts that show up in the tweeter. That's just because it is too well made, most tweeters are not this amazing. I noticed a fugly blue aml1 sold as a single for 1k recently, they are out there, just spraypaint the blue ones and get them twice as cheap. Also there is a pair of active paradigm reference 20's on audiogon right now, try out the o.g. active speaker for under 1k, probably the cheapest real active speaker out there right now, with the crossovers before the amp. Cheers.

Tuffgong,

Nice description. I agree with you that this kind of sound is not for everyone. I only recommend these kind of studio active designs for those who profess to want accuracy and faithful reproduction of the source. Of course, most people believe that this is what they want and your point about increased frustration over badly mastered recordings is one of the reasons "laid back sound"is actually a better choice for many (actually they are really looking for something that makes as much of their music collection sound sweet, warm and nice....syrup and no fatigue)

I had to look for half a year to find a used pair of pmc-aml1's. I found a pair on ebay for 3.5k, they had scratches, the grill on the bottom had a ding, but I did not care. They came from a studio, as they should have, and had studio wear. The aml1 has perfected transmission line bass, so those fat bass notes you heard on your platinum audio duo are now seen for what they are: alternating bass notes phased quickly to give you that phat effect, which was never discernable till you had the aml1. I tried listening to music with the dsp off (the aml1 does have tone controls), but transmission line bass does not have the 'presence' we have all grown up with, so I listen to them with the dsp set at -0 lf rolloff, you really don't need a sub with these unless you want hearing damage, lf set to +3 db and hf set to -5 db. With active speakers, most recordings are going to sound like what they are: poop. Mp3's will become annoying, being able to hear the smear perfectly and distortion clear as day. Most of your cd's made before '95 will have a noticable layer of hiss, and all your hip hop cd's will show every pop and tick from their samples, and you can tell immediately when they layer another sample on top, and exactly how much hiss each sample adds to the final product. Most people will call this sound 'bright', 'fatiguing' etc. I call it accurate, if you don't want to be in the mixing studio hearing all 24 tracks layered and to what degree, then you need to admit it and invest in some mullards. But after I lost $600 in mullards and an amp as well to a power outage, I had to reconsider my preferences. I also have the aml1's hooked up to a benchmark dac-1, it's like freebasing music, they are in your room, in your lap, in your head, it is intense. Some of your bootlegs will become less enjoyable unless you lucked out and it's a well preserved lossless source, but some of my old cassettes that I burned with my trusty hhb 800 are painful to listen to now, so be prepared to be a 'who mastered this' addict as seen in previous posts. OK so let's do the math for active vs. passive costs.
Cost of aml1's (you will need to look hard to match the 3.5k I paid) plus benchmark dac1 bought on audiogon plus verastarr silver signiature xlr's bought on audiogon: $4,900. The digital source for the benchmark is moot, so any cheapo source and digital cable will do. I still need stands for the aml1's which cost $700 from ron whitmore.
Items sold to pay for the aml1's: Sherwood Newcastle r-965: $600, platinum audio solo's w/stands: $850. Platinum audio duo's: $900. Verastarr jumpers and 10 ft. speaker cables: $700. Odds and sodds sitting in the closet leftover from audiophilitis: $1,000. Total: $5,000. It's a wash as far as cost. I'm sure with perseverance and a little ingenuity you can join the few of us in the recovery ward from audiophilitis. The reason the aml1 doesn't sell well outside of studios is because audiophiles don't want to be happy and content with what they have, unlike music engineers who do (I'm going to catch hell for that one).
P.S. My ears are super happy with me for stumbling into transmission line bass, there are no pressure bombs to ring my ears anymore.

I am curious about ATC though. I wonder how much improvement there is.

As with everything there is diminishing returns at the higher end, YMMV. The bigger active ATC's will certainly play louder and cleaner and that is for sure...the shock and awe and the "you are there" factor is amazing compared to anything else I have heard (it sounds completely effortless at any volume).

However, if you listen to light classical at modest volumes then many are totally content with the two way ATC SCM Active 20's (despite in theory that the biggest benefits of active tend to come in spades when you use a three way and separate that nasty power hungry woofer from the delicate mid range where your ear is so highly sensitive to IMD distortion).

So if you like music for its dynamics and shear exhilaration (as well as all the other audiophile qualities) then I would say the bigger active ATC's are worth it. If you live in an apartment or don't care for realistic live sound levels then forget it - like an F1 car in downtown traffic most of your investment will remain under exploited. If you check the client list and history you will see that bigger active ATC's got their success as big studio main monitors used to impress the socks off of clients (musicians)...

I have been using a pair of Dynaudio BM5A for about 1 year now. Bel Canto DAC3 with a DVD player as a transport. These speakers are amazing sound quality for the price. Clarity and details without harshness. Not much bass of course but I don't need it in a bedroom system.

I got mine from a pro shop (Guitar Center). Easily one of the best choice.

I am curious about ATC though. I wonder how much improvement there is.

Active "done right" would be an option to turn whatever passive speaker you like into an active version.
Any theoretical advantages of active mean nothing if you do not like the basic sound quality.

Hi Joel,
I agree completely with what you are saying when our aim is to compare methodologies or design philosophy (i.e. active vs. passive) against one another.

At the same time, I think it's important to note that we make larger decisions on an ultimate solution based on the overall presentation/effectiveness of the whole package - (i.e. Duntech Sovereigns vs. Quested HQ210-As, B&Ws vs. Von Schweikerts, or even Polks vs. Definitives) which, of course includes such sub-choices & evaluations as design philosophy & implementation.

Now, all that is just a fancy-schmancy way of saying there's no 'right' answer and in the end, we'll pick what sounds (and for some measures) the best to us for our application.

Cheers & Be Well,
C

Other things being equal, active speakers do have advantages. If designed properly, the amplifiers are optimized for the speakers and active crossovers have various advantages over passive crossovers: in particular better control over the woofer and superior dynamic range.

But other things are rarely equal; that is, there's not many models with the identical drivers and cabinets that come in active and passive versions. And that means when we compare active and passive speakers, we are rarely just judging the difference between active and passive; we're almost always also judging different drivers and cabinets as well.

Plus most active monitors only accept balanced inputs, which, again, restricts the types of preamp you can use with them; this alone reduces their attractiveness to listeners.

Having said that, I've got a pair of active Tannoy monitors (AMS-12A) with which I'm very satisfied: 12-inch dual concentric driver, electronic crossover and two 180 W rms amplifiers in each 70 L cabinet. They're certainly an order of magnitude better than the passive version (System 12 DMT II).

But, again, even in this case, the active version uses slightly different drivers and cabinets, so it's still, to some degree, a case of comparing apples and oranges.

The best way to do a fair comparison between active and passive speakers is to listen to a pair of speakers passively and actively biamped. But that has its own complications: few off-the-rack active crossovers, even expensive ones, offer the same topology as the manufacturer's passive crossovers.

Cheers,

Joel.

there is some basic psychology that is being overlooked.

people do not liked to be told what to do or have their options restricted. thus, someone may like a speaker but not the amp that comes with it. perhaps the designer supplies a ss amp and the buyer wants tubes.

i think manufacturers do not offer powered speakers because they may be speaker designers and realize that audiophiles already have amplifiers or do not want to restrict the performance of a speaker to what would be achieved by one amp.

the powered speakers are the exception for good reason.
it is rare to find a powered panel speaker.

Cgh1,

Thanks for the post and the inquiry. I still have the PMC AML-1 monitors connected and have been listening to them exclusively since my last post. I am torn whether to sell the Genelecs (only 100 hours or so) and take a hit on what I paid for them or simply to keep them and set up another system in another room. I will likely sell them as my experience with 2nd and 3rd systems indicates that I have to be kicked out of my main room to consider the other rooms.

I am also experimenting with different dacs right now which is why I have not followed up with this thread....sorry if I left anyone hanging.

The PMC monitors are simply amazing. Listen to them if you have the chance. They are fairly rare so you will have to do some searching but they are well worth the search. One bit of information for all of us is I am beginning to see some price increases on foreign made gear due to the extraordinarily low value of the US dollar. Anyone else? If AML1s end up exceeding $10,000 US per pair due to the exchange rate, that would really make them hard to find.

Good luck to all.

Ajahu,
You make a great point - In the pro gear market, discounting is not as readily expected or accepted as it is in the consumer market. The customers have entirely different agendas in mind and are usually at a different stage of 'system development' when purchasing. Since this is generally understood on both sides of the transaction, pro gear might (might) have a 30% markup to allow flexibility at time of sale, where traditional hi-end (and especially esoteric) consumer gear may have as much as 60-80% markup with a 40% mean being fairly customary across the consumer gear board.

The mindset is just very different.
Good call Ajahu!

Part of the reason that audiophil community does not aware of the benefits of active studio monitors that profirms are offering far less retail margin to their dealers as it is accustomed in the high end retail sector, at least this is my experience. High end retailers stuck to sell high-end priced boutique components with huge margin to make their living - which is, I think, a far act on their behalf.
There are so many high priced and highly coloured systems, which are providing nice, musical, wet, technicolor, etc sound. I think part of the problem, that very few people actually goes to concerts, and even more, that they accept the fact that at home impossible to reproduce accurate sound of live event-so they go for one coloration among many compromises.
What is fantastic in studio equipments, that they really designed to produce accurate sound as much as possible. I have a studio monitor, designed in the late seventies. It is so closer the sound of "raw" concert ( and I listen almost exclusively classical music) than the nice, polite,musical sound of my earlier more expensive system with audophile spekaers, amplifiers and bunch of highly expensive cables. Even my friends, who come to listen to blues and rock music are amezed that my relatively inexpensive system could provide such a dynamic and powerful sound with body and warm without giving compromise to transient speed. That is mostly due to the combination of three way model (including 30cm woofers) actively driven by 3 inbuilt amplifiers. There are many good solution around, but I think, the best and most effective way is to have active monitors.

The PMC AML1 and the larger three ways are fully active and not just "activated". The ATC active amps do let the side down a bit. The bryston amps and crossovers however do not and the PMCs are a much better bet because of it. Though they are much more expensive. I have the PMC MB2-XBD-Active.

Chuck,

What you say makes sense and matches my observations too. Active designs are a hard sell outside the pro world or outside of cheapo computer satellite speakers. People just don't understand the tremendous advantages in separating the audioband and reducing IMD distortion from hard to drive bass frequencies. Since a lot of the practices are based on long standing tradition it will take time to change.

The PF reference is to David Gilmour's Astoria studio and to James Guthrie's Tahoe Studio...if you read Sounds on Sound or Mix magazine then I am sure you can get info on the speakers they use...even a google will probably find these details.

First off, being a huge PF fan, I am surprised I missed something - your reference to the PF affect? Clue me in (I might just need a memory prod ;-)

Now for my perspective (for what that's worth...)
Focusing on Genelec as an example - just 'cause I've been following them for a while:
It seems to me that in the beginning, Genelec never intended to market to consumers, so they just didn't spend any time there. No dealer network was ever formed, no marketing, no nothing really...
It'same with most hi-end Pro mfgs - or even most Pro mfgs at all for that matter. With the exception of Manley (who's not very high-end but would like us to think otherwise), you don't see Grace, Avalon, Neumann, Apogee, Neve, SSL, etc. etc. etc. offering up any product to the high-end consumer. The market is simply perceived as too small. Which it probably is when you stop and think about it.

Next, as you made reference to, most pro speaker mfg's (certainly Genelec) are not so overly concerned with aesthetics. Coming from Finland, Genelec are bound to take a minimalist 'function over form' approach. So things like 'your choice in finish' just ain't gonna come from the Finnish. :-)

Lastly, at first glance Genelecs (like most high-end pro gear) are far from inexpensive. I think people not so in the know probably suffer some serious sticker shock when they see a 'pair of speakers' that are two-ways with a 10 inch woofer selling for $5-6K - not taking into account that it's actually a pair of monitors, amps and cables...

Genelec appears to have assumed that their true market would know and understand the application of their product. And it certainly seems to have worked for them over the years. The 1030 and 1031s quickly became the replacement defacto standard 'you gotta have a pair of these' small reference monitors that the Yamaha NS-10Ms and Rogers LS3-5As once were. Or, showing my age a bit, the not so small JBL 4311Bs.

In summary, I think the audiophile community simply got left out of the loop. And those in the community that found there way in front of a pair of Genelecs, etc. either got it, and became small footprint advocates, or didn't get it (or want to get it) and shunned the brand/concept as either 'too clinical' or elitist (ironic when you look at stuff like Wilsons, IRSs, and Plasmatronics (age again), etc.) Either way, the whole conversation above about the "nice", tinker, and social factors notwithstanding, they found themselves somewhere outside of the seemingly exclusive club of high-end pro audio, preferring to stay in the world of extremes in application, wild theory, debate, and aesthetic design.

To go on and just be wordy as heck again (I really have to get a grip on this run-on thing...)
In more recent years, Genelec did start to realize they were missing a whole market that could be a great source of revenue for them. They started selling 'Home Theater Packages' and even have in-wall speakers now. They seemed to me to market in the high-end demo's but never really explained their mission or concept, or research the target segment they were shooting for - so few fish bit. Think back to IBM's big mainframe days applying their existing marketing dept. to sell PC platform products... (read OS/2.)
So that untapped market remains mostly untapped still by continued in-the-box thinking / marketing strategy.
To argue the contrary, some friend of my next door neighbor apparently has an 8000 sqft home with dedicated theater, etc. etc. and supposedly, his whole house is like a Genelec theme park (along with Crestron Pro and others.) So evidently there's at least one HT/SmartHome design/construction company in the area that is placing the stuff.

I've gone on so much now, I don't even know - did I answer your implied question?
:-) or :-( if you're tired of my blather...

Peace!
C

Genelec 1032As and a 1094 Sub.

An awesome setup. Of the really high end pro studio monitors Genelec seems to have less crossover to audiophile market than ATC - not sure why. ATC, Quested and Genelec invaded the US starting some twenty five years ago and replaced many of the older horn systems as main monitors in the highest end studios (at last loud could also sound good - not just a PA speaker). Genelec also garnered a respected position early on for near fields in most studios.

Can't think why Genelec and Quested never made much of a dent in the audiophile market, as ATC has done. Perhaps it has something to do with "nice" and "accurate" simultaneously? Or the Pink Floyd affect? Or Genelec simply do not provide the requisite audiophile wood veneers?

I'd be interested in your perspective.

Pardon my long (long, really...) post - I'll make it a two parter.

Part 1.

Ghasley,
It's been about another month - just wondering what you finalized on, assuming you've completed your eval.

I just found this thread and read through it today and it has been an interesting discussion over months.

I went from a pair of Watkins WE-1A speakers paired with Mark Levinson 20.5 amps and an ML-26 pre (later upgraded to a 38S) that I thought sounded wonderful and pretty close to reference for home hi-fi (at least at the time) to a pair of Genelec 1032As and a 1094 Sub.

My reason for doing this was several fold but rooted in the fact that I am a recording engineer/producer. While I loved the Watkins/ML combo (still miss those Watkins!), I found them, like most great home-pointed hifi to sound really "nice."
Nice is great for enjoyment only but does not necessarily equal "accurate." As I had a need to bring mixes home and listen to them sans the musicians and anyone else who might be in the studio requesting they or someone they know be turned up/down, etc., "nice" wouldn't/won't cut it. Budget and physical space impaired having "nice" and "accurate" simultaneously.

So, I sold my Watkins & ML 20.5s to gain capital to get the Genelec system. I have been immensely pleased with the Genelecs over the years. I have also found myself pondering something different more recently, just for a change and to see where evolution of the species has taken us.

I heard some Genelecs in a studio in which I was working back when they were first being imported into the US. I was blown away by the accuracy, clarity, depth of presentation, and imaging. I put in some of my own CDs and literally heard things that I'd never heard before. I knew back then that I'd end up with some as they were the best thing I'd ever heard.

As does everything... the market's evolved. Many have followed into the active speaker market, and they're now available in almost every application.

I have not heard the PMCs so I am curious about your longer-term impressions on both speakers. Did you get rid of the Genelecs or relegate them to lesser duties? I know the 8050s are not 1032s but for the purpose of general reference, that is a great place to start.

----------------------------------------------------------

Part 2
As for the original discussion - For a very long time, even the highest end hifi'ers didn't even know about active monitors because they were marketed almost exclusively to the professional demographic. There's also the fact that most hi-end home gear is not designed to sound as accurate to the source as it is "pleasurable" to listen to - which is, of course extremely subjective (as is all audio.)
Besides, people in the general consumer market don't have, nor should even want access to the more controlled atmosphere of studios and professional listening experience. So the equipment for each has different design goals and purpose. Which can be seen as ironic since everything that happens on the backend is done to sell product to that general market... One of the reasons most studios have a "cheaper consumer grade" pair of speakers to check mixes on. This is not to say that all hifi gear is less capable - the high-end of the market produces some amazing results, especially in electronics(!), that often far surpasses what's available in the pro market. (Especially in the area of price, but that's another conversation (rant...))

Back to "accuracy" being generally acceptable/desirable, I too, back in the day asked the question (often) "Why are audiophiles not jumping on this high-end pro gear more often?" - especially in the realm of monitors/speakers. For many years, names like Fostex LS1,2 & 3s, Genelec, Quested, TAD, and others have all crossed my mind as to why consumers weren't finding/buying them.

Having been a long-time audiophile myself, and served on the board of an audiophile organization, I think I have reached two conclusions - one of which is mentioned at the beginning of this thread:

1. Audiophilia is as much about the pursuit of the gear itself and exploring the latest theories (no matter how far-fetched they may be) than it is the most accurate representation of the music possible. That's part of the fun!

2. Audiophilia is as much about the socialization as it is the gear or the music. The sharing of experiences (music and equipment), opinions, the debates, intellectual exploration, and a reason to get together to talk, listen, and/or brag about one's latest acquisition seems to be the spark that ignites and keeps it going. That's the other part of the fun!
Otherwise, we'd all be trapping ourselves alone in the basement with our system, waiting on the next meal to be slid under the door - never sharing our secrets with anyone... right!?! (tongue firmly in cheek)

When was the last time you went to an audiophile club meeting and everyone sat quietly in front of a 'reference' system for the duration until it was time to leave?
I can't imagine what would happen if suddenly a system of reproduction came about that EVERYONE agreed sounded as good as physics will allow possible. I'm not even sure that many people would own such a system...

Active or passive, the irony is that, by nature the most important piece of equipment in your reproduction system is also the least technically capable of producing "true" results. Even before all the subjectivity starts.

As for the pros/cons - many have already been stated here. Active =
The opportunity to design & implement the best matched electronics to their mechanical counter-components while moving spectrum splitting hardware, etc. to the optimal place in the circuit. All with simple connectivity and usually the benefit of a balanced signal path to as close to the mechanical piece as possible (read common mode rejection benefits.)

But(!) Most times, it's not as pretty to look at, you can't monkey with it (at least as readily and certainly not within warranty); you are forced to evolve in large wholesale steps instead of incrementally/piecemeal due to the nature of the beast; as well - you are left to trust that those who design the mechanical parts are just as adept at electronics design, and then there's the whole implementation part... Great design poorly implemented (or vice-versa) is still left to suffer its own lowest common denominator...; along with the fact that there's less to talk about because the components are all integrated.

It's also been my observation over time that few people actually know or even care (truly) if what comes out of the speakers is as close to the actual live performance as possible. I can tell you that there are many, many times that we as the listener DON'T want it to be! We want the added benefit of polishing and tweaking that happens before it gets to us, as well as the coloration that our own system adds to it - the "nice" part.
If you have difficulty wrapping your head around this, just imagine standing 10, 20, or even 75 feet away from an on-axis high note out of Randy Brecker's Harmon muted trumpet... (or even with no mute for that matter!) I can tell you from experience - you don't want that! :-)

Indeed, unless it is symphony/orchestral music, or straight-ahead jazz, or some exception, we don't even mix a performance to provide "the band is in my room" presentation. So the whole idea of "performance accuracy" goes out the window like a "Trout Fishing in America" song. Example: Last I checked, there's no such thing as reverb, delay, or any other form of "wetness" that comes out of an acoustic instrument in its native form. But wetness gets dumped all over those puppies in the production process - 'cause it sounds "nice" or it's thought to better express the artist's concept or idea.

With all that in mind, I've observed that many audiophiles don't really even like an "accurate" system (at the professional & measurable level) when they're in front of it. They use words like "clinical" or "sterile" to describe the experience. In theory, it's supposed to be all source, no vehicle, right?! Clinical and unaltering is what the reproduction system's supposed to be like! Referring to the means of this thread, most active speakers have been designed to play in the "clinical" space - lacking as much of the "niceness" as possible.
But again, that kinda kills the fun in the subjectivity and pursuit of it all, doesn't it?

My stance has always been this:
If you think it sounds good, shut-up and listen to it!
If you think it sounds great & it's worth the price - get it for yourself and ENJOY!
If you have to use it as a tool to make a living, make sure it does the best job at hand within your resources and leave the "nice" part for later.

I told ya this was going to be long.
I don't get out much - at least not on these kinds of things so when I do, I go kinda nuts. My apologies.

Cheers All & Happy Holidays,
Chuck

CDC, I am still evaluating the Genelec 8050A and the PMC AML1. The AML1 is absolutely amazing and the bass produced I am still unable to understand how they do it. Folks, these are small speakers, easy to place, image like crazy (I am seated about 8 feet utilizing the Cardas method for speaker placement) and are just very pleasing overall. The closest comparison I can make is to the Wilson Benesch curve however the AML1's seem to produce a little better bass. I know, you may doubt that these small boxes can achieve that but you just have to listen for yourself. The Genelecs are also quite good however the midrange balance and top end smoothness is not quite up to the AML1. The low bass produced by the Genelecs however is slightly better....very slight but additional kick is there. I have the AML1's hooked up to a Benchmark USB Dac which is connected to a new iMac using iTunes/Apple lossless.

I encourage you to listen the the AML1 if you get the chance. They are fun, very dynamic and very detailed and smooth across the frequencies. I may sell the Genelecs or I may set them up in another room. The actives don't take up much room and have really allowed me some lattitude with the wife re: placement. Good luck.

Ghasley, what did you end up with?

Ghastley, if you're going to spend $8,000 you should also consider these:
http://mixguides.com/studiomonitors/newproducts/klein-hummel-audio-monitors/

and these;
Klein + Hummel O500C digital active studio monitors

Ghastley, what are you using for a preamp?

Genelec 8050A and the PMC AML1

Excellent choices to audition, IMHO.

Incidently, I believe George Massenburg chose the Genelec 8050A for near field monitoring in perhaps one of the most amazing and "on the bleeding edge" studio projects I have ever come across. (I think I have some photos somewhere - it all looks rather impractical, impossible to clean but an amazing unique project nonetheless)

Hey no problem Ghasley. Yes, you are correct, I was referring to the smaller PMC models. From what I know of the AML1, it is a much more refined system (and *much* more $), so if that is your budget then certainly go with those.

Another potential candidate in that price range could be the new Barefoot monitors. I have not personally used those but have noted several respected recording engineers switching to them, with rave reviews. Might be harder to source for a demo though, and I'm sure you are still in the right ballpark with the two you mentioned.

Hope it works out for you.

Steve

Squeegybug, I have been doing a bit of research and demoing. Just to clarify a point regarding PMC speakers, the "activated" versions to which you refer above are likely the DB1S-a and the TB2S-a which are activated in the manner you describe. The best I can tell, these are entry level portables rather than the type of speaker I described in my original post.

The PMC AML1 is, in fact, an active, with an active digital crossover and each speaker is bi-amplified with Bryston designed amplification. I guess it is their cost no object approach to actives.

I have narrowed it down to the Genelec 8050A and the PMC AML1 and will have both in my home soon to test and play over an extended time. This was just a clarification of your earlier post and not meant to flame as you obviously know alot more about the studio than I ever will. Peace.

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to offer a lengthy reply. I agree with your comments about pro monitors - indeed they tend to be unforgiving, controlled accurate but limited bass extension, and harsh sounding with some playback material (especially hyper-compressed pop music, for example). Your comments are a fair assessment of potential drawbacks of pro monitor use in the home.

Apparently Dog Sax still uses his brother's designed tube EQ system!!! He listens to each track once or twice and then writes down the EQ settings he wants to use - then he goes through the whole thing one more time adjusting the EQ settings at the start of each track and makes a master. (He does not mess with EQ settings within the tracks) Essentially anything Doug does has gone to analog domain and then back to digital. He uses very little compression 1 or 1.5 db or so....which means most of what he produces retains the quality of the dynamics from the recording studio (now we know why his masters always sound good or at least natural). The tubes are probably used to sweeten the sound a bit....give the kick drum more punch for example.

A very good example of his work appears to be the re-masters of the first three Aerosmith albums...a HUGE improvement on what was previously issued.

This stuff really belongs to another thread, however, I thought I would share it. I have come to realize that you can only do so much with audio reproduction gear and you run into diminishing returns quite quickly.....at some point the quality coming out of the recording studio, mix and mastering becomes, by far, the biggest variable.

Indeed, I am astonished that audiophiles care so much about gear and yet seem to pay so very little attention to who is responsible in the studios for the sound production!!! I mean this is like building the most expensive chefs kitchen and then not caring where you buy your meat and vegetables!!!! Often a simple kitchen and simple recipe with great ingredients can suffice....

After selecting an artist or genre, the next thing I look for on a CD is the producer, mix engineer and the Mastering Engineer! If I don't like the crew I don't buy the CD!! Conversely, if I like the ME, such as Doug Sax, then I will be much more likely to buy a CD on a whim - even if I don't like the artist, at least it will have great sound!

Shadhorn said: Wow that is an awesome equipment list. I would be delighted/comfortable with almost any of the gear you listed.

It's pretty fun to hunt it down and see what all these legendary guys are working with. I learn a lot from listening to their material and trying to pay attention to what is effective.

My only point was that some Mastering Engineers do or have used Active speakers rather than none (as "forget it" sort of implied to me). I stated earlier that "I would agree that many [Mastering Engineers] use conventional speakers (passive). " , which you just proved with a long list of illustrious ME's with impressive passive speakers - so I think we are in both in agreement. This is great - we agree and no need for me to add many more Active speaker users to a list as you have done (on passives) as I am not trying to prove that everyone uses Actives...I agree that a great many do not.

And it was a good point, Shadhorne. I had not realized that Sax had switched over to ATC, and I probably should not make such blanket statements. Just that the studio circles I hang in typically also use mostly passive designs, so it influences my perpective. I'd be really curious to hear Sax' latest work on those, compared to his strong historical catalogue done on his old custom setups. That is always the 'proof' of how well the monitoring is doing.

My friend, I'd welcome any other information or lists you have about MEs using actives, I think it can only shed some light in the dark place that active designs have sort of had so far. I sure don't want to seem like a know-it-all, there is always plenty of room for me to keep learning.

I had to laugh, since Bob Olhsson uses DunTech Sovereigns ... I mean hardly an ordinary run-of-the-mill circuit city speaker.

Yeah, I think he was talking about mixing as well as mastering. Guess his point was that so many folks get caught up in the micro-details, and lose perpective of the *feel*. And they should learn to trust that really accurate equipment and just get-'er-done instead of jacking around with all the imperfections that naturally come with recordings.

And from what I know of John Dunlavy's designs and from the folks who use them, he was a master at creating realistic sounding speakers, never hyped or unnatural. I think some of that is missing in modern designs, from what I've been exposed to.

That quote got my interest because of my recent experiences with the very simple Druid design. I'd had enough of the trees, wanted to see the forest for a while. And to me, the art of music is in the realism, including the imperfections.

Well, I certainly don't run in the same circles as those particular famous folks either.... but sometimes I have the same kinds of equipment :) No guru, no teacher.... I am a music lover and performer who had set up a private studio to do some recording, and it has grown from there.

Ghasley wrote: Thanks for the list and I appreciate you taking the time to compile such a comprehensive sampling. This is a funny hobby isn't it? In examining the list the speakers on the list I have heard all have good attributes to some extent however....

You are welcome Ghasley, I enjoy talking and learning about audio systems too. And the active/passive topic is a good one.

There is so much to the room involvement in these applications. Many of those professional setups are custom designed around specific speakers, to function as a complete system. Then things like 20 dB noise floors, no nulls or peaks, no flutter echoes or modal ringing, etc. become possible.

I don't know Tetra. Do you have any experience with them? I'll check it out sometime.

in theory, the active crossover feeding a properly executed bi or tri-amped 2 or 3 way speaker seems to have a technical advantage over a passive speaker with a passive crossover with a random choice of speaker cable and a random choice of amplification. Do you see my point?
... open minded about searching for a solution that may even be wall mountable, hangable from the ceiling or something thereabouts that will yield excellent sound quality. Maybe I should have explained it better in the beginning but as close to a turn key solution is my quest and I will start with the speakers.
... not interested in building a shrine to audio reproduction ... I am interested in an excellent reproduction of the music. Any and all input is appreciated and yet, a blanket dismissal of a well executed active solution is of no use.

Sure, it's a valid point. I think many folks are like you, and I don't mean to shout down the idea. Just that the 'regular' models I tried didn't suit me. If I was to use a higher cost/class like the ATCs I might have a different opinion. But again, I've also changed directions away from the super-detailed reference monitor approach, and that seems to be all the rage for active speakers (and most passive as well, anymore).

I don't know what systems you are using now, or what your budget is. Maybe you can try some ATCs, or even something like the 'activated' models from PMC, or Lipinski with their 'powered stand' that houses their own custom amp, so no long speaker cable runs. And of course Genelec has been doing actives since their beginning, but I don't know their newer models. I think those four would be a good place to start for quality in that field. I'd definitely prefer 3-way if possible, to get some kind a midrange driver. Just be aware that the sound of many of those reference monitors can be pretty unforgiving, and might not always suit your ears for all playback material.

In places like that where you want simple *and* good, I'd just repeat that spending some money up front on acoustic treatments, in case you haven't yet, can really help all your systems perform to their capacity. Then you might find some nice speaker options that could work out. Otherwise it may be a lot more guessing.

Steve, how do you like the Hsu subs and which models do you have? I have never listened to them and was unaware they were considered musical.

I have a pair of the smallest model they make, STF-1. They are outstanding, for music or HT. They are ported, 8" drivers. Easy to move around but not flimsy. Smaller than a bulldozer which is nice for a change. And are definitely not one-noters, they are reasonably fast and can play along with the music.

Ideally, I would probably prefer sealed cabs to mate best with the Druids, but for no more than I run the subs it is not a huge issue. One STF-1 will play easily down to 28/30 Hz, at 105 dBSPL range. Two of them in a 2500 cu ft room is way plenty for me! I far prefer stereo subs, aligned properly with the speakers. So at less than $300 apiece it was a better choice for me than getting only one high-$ monster sub.

Keep them in mind (or some kind of subwoofers) if you do get some of the reference active speakers. There are experienced comments about many of those kinds of monitors having clean and usable bass, but very limited in extension. And, many pro owners have stated that some of those designs can sound very bright and harsh without balancing subwoofers covering the lower octaves.

Steve

a great speaker will sound better than a mediocre one. whether the amps are built in or not, first select the speaker, then worry about the amplification.

panels rule, don't be an acoustic suspension audio fool.

you can stack up all the cones in the world, a pair of quad esls will blow them awy.

Give me great sounding active speaker over a passive speaker with mega buck amps any day! The passive speaker will likely still lag seriously in the dynamics and dynamic transparancy/realism department, IME.
Otherwise, some of the simple crossover designs, which act more like active speakers, are also a strong consideration.
I think the NHT active system, which sells for like $8k wiht sub, er whatever, stomps on most any highfi setup out there, personally! That's my opinion, of course. But then they're not selling many of those systems, relatively. So there you are.
I still think speakers with little or no crossover are a much more viable option, if done right! You get the benefits of an active system, with more flexiblity, lower manufacturing cost, and greater marketability.
Would like to see more of that option, for sure!

Steve,

Thanks for the list and I appreciate you taking the time to compile such a comprehensive sampling. This is a funny hobby isn't it? In examining the list the speakers on the list I have heard all have good attributes to some extent however the dude that uses Nautilus 802s must only master mid range and boomy bass with a hump here and there (a joke ok). I heard somewhere that Hoffman had switched to Tetras but I may be confusing him...I just heard that there are a number of insiders that have made the switch to Tetra.

As you can see from some of my posts, I am just a hobbyist but in theory, the active crossover feeding a properly executed bi or tri-amped 2 or 3 way speaker seems to have a technical advantage over a passive speaker with a passive crossover with a random choice of speaker cable and a random choice of amplification. Do you see my point? Some people enjoy modifying the characteristics of their reproduction to suit their own tastes , which is cool, and I am looking for an integrated solution that suits my tastes. Maybe I will find it and maybe I won't but I am a bit tired of all of the electrical, cable and component variables inherent in, and to some extent nurtured by, our hobby. I would REALLY appreciate teams of designers to combine the best of class equipment, optimize it and put it out to market with the least amount of compromise and variability. A nice neutral and relatively "flattish" frequency response is what I am looking for.

I live in Southern California and we all know the price of real estate out here (its still crazy, don't let the media fool you). It's a funny exercise but I calculated the economic footprint of my systems (a dedicated room, a corner of another 2 rooms) and the dollar amount of the incremental real estate required for proper system setup is over $200,000 (approximately 400 total square feet) in my housing development. I will keep my dedicated room for now but I am open minded about searching for a solution that may even be wall mountable, hangable from the ceiling or something thereabouts that will yield excellent sound quality. Maybe I should have explained it better in the beginning but as close to a turn key solution is my quest and I will start with the speakers.

I am not interested in building a shrine to audio reproduction (as can be seen in SO many of the pictures people post of their systems....are you kidding me?) I am interested in an excellent reproduction of the music. Any and all input is appreciated and yet, a blanket dismissal of a well executed active solution is of no use. I am looking for open minds. If you prefer a passive setup and yet you heard XYZ active monitor at CES that was intriguing, that would be useful info! Mr Tennis, you seem to be pretty sold on panel speakers which is also cool however they do not tend to integrate well in a typical, well "balance" home....besides, flapping bass is not pleasing to me.

Steve, how do you like the Hsu subs and which models do you have? I have never listened to them and was unaware they were considered musical. Would appreciate your comments. Peace.

Steve,

Wow that is an awesome equipment list. I would be delighted/comfortable with almost any of the gear you listed.

My only point was that some Mastering Engineers do or have used Active speakers rather than none (as "forget it" sort of implied to me). I stated earlier that "I would agree that many [Mastering Engineers] use conventional speakers (passive). " , which you just proved with a long list of illustrious ME's with impressive passive speakers - so I think we are in both in agreement. This is great - we agree and no need for me to add many more Active speaker users to a list as you have done (on passives) as I am not trying to prove that everyone uses Actives...I agree that a great many do not.

As for

Quoting Bob Olhsson: "The right level of monitor resolution for the job is very important... ...you can go crazy with perfecting sound to the point that it gets in the way of the musical performance."

Well I had to laugh, since Bob Olhsson uses DunTech Sovereigns ... I mean hardly an ordinary run-of-the-mill circuit city speaker - I mean these are up there with some of the best speakers ever made!

Please share any other anecdotes you have from the pro world, as I really enjoyed reading about it and hope that others did to. (I am an ordinary consumer with no music industry affiliation and yes I get most of my limited knowledge from reading rags like Sound on Sound etc. , user lists etc., AES journal etc. I do not personally know any of the people I referenced.)

BTW: I finally found pics of your gear (Zu Druid setup) on another thread - that looks absolutely awesome too - wow! Like Ghasley, I am a little surprised to find the Zu's being used for this purpose but clearly you are aware of the limitations and use a sub when necessary and yours do not use standard tweeter networks. (No doubt you are a "Guru" at this stuff)

A quote from Andrew Lipinski: "Tests indicate that many amplifiers built into the back of a speaker produce up to 15 percent second- and third-harmonic distortion."

Ghasley: I notice you have Zu Druids and Bel Canto amps so you obviously enjoy a different type of reproduction than I do.

... if you are mastering on them then your recordings will likely be a touch hot on the frequency extremes since Zus are rolled off there.

Yes Ghasley, the Druids are fun speakers. However my studio pair are not currently using the standard tweeter networks. And I very occasionally use a pair of small Hsu subs to fill in the last octave, as needed. Bass trapping, diffusion, level calibration, positioning, etc. make real differences in the performance of the Druids (and any speaker) for these applications.

I like the Bel Canto/Zu combination for listening as well as for mix/master work -- a fast clean amp and fast clean speakers suit my needs. As for translation, the Druids are producing better mixes and masters for me than PMC, Paradigm, Dynaudio, Tannoy, Celestion, Infinity Ref, or SLS did.

Speakers with 'detailed' bright tweeters are very common and easy to find. Speed, dynamics, balance, and linear midrange, are not.

Quoting Bob Olhsson: "The right level of monitor resolution for the job is very important... ...you can go crazy with perfecting sound to the point that it gets in the way of the musical performance."

Shadhorne: Some Mastering engineer's have used Actives...Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg, Doug Sax, Gavin Lurssen, Frank Wolf, James Guthrie

For example Brothers in Arms 20th Aniversary Edition won a Grammy for best surround sound and was both mixed and mastered on active speakers.

Yep, you are right, all those except Ludwig are from the ATC client list. And of course Lurssen was connected to Sax through The Mastering Lab, where they both formerly long used Sax' own custom cabs/crossovers with Tannoy drivers, and his own custom amps.

I expect ATC is probably on top of the game as far as powered monitors go, for the $17,000/pair 3-way tri-amped SCM150A those particular four MEs are using.

Shadhorne, I'm curious about George Massenburg doing mastering? Of course he is a respected producer, recording/mixing engineer, and equipment designer (but no, he did not invent the parametric equalizer...). His quote I've seen was "My mastering engineer of choice is Doug Sax."

Also wondering where you heard that Ludwig used active monitors to master BIA/20th? I know he has long used EgglestonWorks and previously Duntech. And of course has done practically the entire Dire Straits/Knopfler catalog.

From a list I made up a while back, of equipment used by some of the most prolific and successful mastering engineers:

- Greg Calbi / Sterling ........ ProAc Response 4

- Bernie Grundman ........ Customized (vintage) Tannoy, Crown DC-300 amp

- Steve Hoffman ........ Escalante Juniper, Whatmough 202, Tannoy Lancaster Gold, Wavac SET and McIntosh MC402 amps

- Scott Hull / Masterdisk / Classic Sound / Hit Factory ........ Duntech Sovereign

- Ted Jensen / Sterling ........ B&W Nautilus 801

- Bob Katz ........ Reference 3A, Lipinski L-707, Pass X250 and Hafler amps

- Ken Love / Mastermix ........ Long CMF-100, Bryston amps

- Joe Lambert / Trutone ........ KEF Reference 4 and Reference 207, Bryston amps

- Emily Lazar / The Lodge ........ Duntech PCL-3 and PCL-5

- Bob Ludwig / Gateway ........ EgglestonWorks Ivy, Duntech Sovereign, Cello amps

- Stephen Marcussen ........ B&W Nautilus 802, Aragon amps

- Glenn Meadows / Masterfonics (now gone) ........ Hidley-Kinoshita custom soffit mount, Cello and FM Acoustics amps

- Bob Olhsson / Georgetown ........ Duntech Sovereign, Nova Evolution

- Denny Purcell (RIP) / Georgetown ........ Nova Applause and Evolution II, Pass Labs X-1000 amps

- Alan Silverman / Arf ........ Dunlavy Athena, Lipinski L-707, Bryston 5B-ST amps

- Paul Stubblebine ........ Alon Wolf custom

- Hank Williams / Mastermix ........ PMC BB-5 and MB-1, Bryston amps

Those are all passive speakers with standalone amplifiers.

Perhaps more of the audio production world will start to move to actives, but there is a lot of history in that business to stay with what has worked in the past, and to emulate successful MEs.

Well anyway, that is probably a detour from the original question of using actives in home audio environments. Just pointing to some other 'critical listening' situations that are pretty much committed to passive monitors over active.

Steve

isn't our hobby about sound? technology for its own sake without sonic improvement is less attractive than old technology with sonic improvement.

and yes, there will be disagreements as to what sounds better or worse. thus, the value of technology may be viewed as subjectively as what constitutes better sound.

by the way does anyone know of active (non hybrid) panel speakers ?

if not what might be the reason none exist ?

Niki, hello yourself. I had 2 systems going and am consolidating to one serious system and am going to set up wifi/imac systems in some other rooms. Thus the quest to examine some simple solutions:imac (itunes data on a NAS) to a dac to an active monitor possibly. I'm tired of the cable voodoo and just want to settle in to listen to some music in my other rooms.

Squeegybug, thank you for your comments and I am sure your experience with actives must have been dissatisfactory for you to feel as you do. I notice you have Zu Druids and Bel Canto amps so you obviously enjoy a different type of reproduction than I do, but to each his own. I owned some Zu Tones and some Zu Druids in tertiary systems some time back and they were fun. Real fun. Zu's cables are also a tremendous value.

BUT ZU'S ARE HARDLY THE BENCHMARK FOR NEUTRAL SOUND REPRODUCTION.

They are fun, they boogie and I may purchase another pair someday but if you are mastering on them then your recordings will likely be a touch hot on the frequency extremes since Zus are rolled off there. I understand the new Zu presence will alleviate the intentional rolloff (check their site) on the tweeter and the built in ACTIVE subwoofer should fill out the bottom.

Forget it, no ME I know of uses active speakers.

Some Mastering engineer's have used Actives...Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg, Doug Sax, Gavin Lurssen, Frank Wolf, James Guthrie ...some of these guys have multiple Grammy's....or some kind of tech awards.

For example Brothers in Arms 20th Aniversary Edition won a Grammy for best surround sound and was both mixed and mastered on active speakers.

So although you may not know anyone who uses active speakers for mastering there are some that do. I would agree that many use conventional speakers (passive). just in the same way that most consumers use passive speakers....but it is not fair to imply that nobody uses them for mastering, as some industry heavy weights certainly do or have in the past.

Hi,Ghasley! I just realized,that you started this thread.I,ve just finished my listening test of Genelec 8040 A. Very good monitors. My only concern, is the rear ports on them. As i,ve stated, my room is not ideal.It seems,that monitors with bigger than 6.5 woofers overpowers my room.Anyway... some very good thoughts on pros/cons of professional monitors .The issue of D/A converters in the monitors itself... 24/96 sounds good to me(and I,ll take Dan Lavry opinions on the subject).The notion of the amps used in the monitors, how they sound and translate the recording , is much more important to me.The professional field(and audiophiles alike) has moved toward 24/192 conversion, but one has to ask themselfs,what where we listening ,till yesterday...With the amps/converters in the monitors, you are limited in the upgrade path(there is allways something better)... or is it...I,ve posted my first hand experience with 4(3 of them in my room,with my system) of the active monitors.My thoughts were based purely ,on the price/performance ratio.Converters/room correction(in the monitors) I,ve never had those in my room,but based on the reports, there is advantage in these systems(JBL,Genelec 82XXX,Focal SM-8-11 employ them), but you may need different set up/digital preamp/computer... etc..Big YES
on the computer/as one source ...that is why my preamp(Arcam C-30) will be for sale later today/tomorrow.Digital age is moving forward,and products like Benchmark Dac-1,Tact audio/D/A /preamp,Stello DA-220,Audio Aero, are gonna get even more exposure...Back on the subject,thanks to Audiogon(or via personal sale/deal) , you can get some VERY good monitors/towers/amps deal... but I,ll try and listen to some of the active monitors I mentioned ... you,ll be suprised, how much you can gain/save. By the way,Ghasley, you are selling some very good components,whats up whith that? Check out Gearslutz.com.This is a forum for many mixing/mastering engeneers(moderators are TOTL people in the recording busyness in the world)We can learn a lot from them...Good luck.

I agree with Bob...my comments should be taken as "technical Advantages" and not "Sonic Superiority Advantages"....what is sonically superior (i.e. sounds best) is so often a personal choice...so let's not go there!!!!

My goodness, Ghasley, I'm not a Luddite. As a mechanical engineer, I've been checking out and applying non-standard approaches to lots of things for many years. I just have not always liked what I've experienced with active monitors -- Tannoy, SLS, Paradigm, Genelec, Event, JBL, and Dynaudio. My experiences there will do you no good at all, for your preferences and systems and rooms. So you of course can determine what works for you by trying any or all active speakers. By the way, PMC uses the approach they call 'activated'. The Flying Moles and Brystons are just standard outboard powerpack amps, mounted directly to the speaker cabinet with a Speakon connection. And those amps are *mono*, so no active crossovers there.

My example of receivers is relevant in many cases. If you prefer, substitute the comparison of mixing board preamps versus standalone dedicated preamps. Or equalizers, compressors, converters, etc. Without specializing in designing and manufacturing a specific component, how can that component be superior? Those speaker companies (except for SLS, who bought the digital amplifier company whose products they were using) are typically not amp designers, and in many cases are just shopping on the street for something that will package and be cost effective for their profits -- opamps, switchers, whatever. Just because their marketing brochures say it is 'optimized' does not necessarily make it so.

It's almost always the same tradeoffs about convenience vs. specialization. I don't believe most of those prepacked amps cost that much in volume quantities, and I still prefer to choose quality separate components that I can inspect and compare, made by folks who are expert at making that particular thing.

Of course onboard DA has been done for many years, I did not say it was future technology. And JBL and others have builtin corrective DSP with a microphone included. Does absolutely no good of course, unless you happen to have both ears located in the same place on your head and never move an inch while listening.

I have RealTraps acoustic treatment, and as Bob said, that is where the action is in making *systems* perform somewhat predictably.

This is a regular subject in the recording business; although actives are ubiquitous due to common availability and convenience, the majority of studio engineers who have tried both are reporting the same thing I am. And mastering? Forget it, no ME I know of uses active speakers.

Steve

Steve, I would never argue that you are right or wrong, the fun part of the hobby is the debate.

As far as the d/a converter being built into active monitors being the future.....well, the future must be here then. Dynaudio already has that in their Air monitor series...24 bit, 192 d/a conversion. Meridian has done it for years, Genelec has it. Meridian offers upgrades so in their case, you are actually provided an upgrade path. I haven't heard any of these other than Meridian and they were out of my price range at the time so I paid little attention.

Your example of receivers and your knowledge of "the little switching amps most use" is based on assumption. I'm not saying some manufacturers don't use poor quality amplification, that happens in every market where a price point is targeted but PMC uses Bryston at a certain price point and Flying Mole at their entry level. I haven't heard either so I will remain open minded. McIntosh made some pretty nice receivers in their day and their integrateds today are as well. ALOT of integrated amps are thrilling their owners every day and they require 1 less set of interconnects, 1 less power cable, etc. Bel Canto has gone completely to the switching amp camp and their d/a converter and integrated has a usb input.

I'm not saying any active monitor sounds better than any seperates. I am saying that I will be open minded and check them out because I love the music and thoroughly enjoy the quest. Many posters however would benefit from objectively considering that the possibility exists that there might be a different approach that could achieve a very pleasing audio experience. Please post the active speakers you have owned so I will not waste my time listening to those. I do not necessarily agree that a high quality active monitor/speaker is more expensive than seperates. I heard some that, although not of the level I would consider for my own setup, were $499 and just add a Red Wine Audio modded iPod would kick some serious backside for very little money.

There are MANY technologies that us audiophiles have collectively dismissed prior to truly evaluating the benefits. Professional audio tends to be more open minded as they require incremental sound improvements but, if it delivers, they will embrace it. Room treatments? Room correction? Compact D/A converters? Hard disk based music storage and playback? Gordon Rankin at Wavelength and Steve at Empirical have some pretty ingenious solutions that have closed the gap for computer based audio to meet and exceed cd based solutions. Take a look at the new iMac.....$1799 with 320 gig and a fabulous 24 inch screen, feed that into a high quality usb dac into a nice amplification/speaker chain and there you go. EXTREMELY low jitter digital playback. The earth is NOT flat and I believe we should always check out options to see if it offers a better alternative....it may or may not but to not look is surely an incorrect approach.

"As far as actives go, no one on this thread has been able shoot any valid holes in the science of why an active monitor is not a better solution."

It is not strictly about science or engineering, or humor.

Remember receivers? Another pre-packaged idea that supposedly would simplify and optimize the whole chain. Do they typically sound as good as separates? Are the parts as high of quality?

What is the next logical step for active speakers? Of course, package the DA inside the housing as well. Think those DAs are on the quality level of Lavry or Weiss? I know the little switching amps most use are not equivalent to Bel Canto or McIntosh, etc. from my experience.

Some studio microphones are heading this way as well. Integrated preamps and AD converters, so just plug it straight to a computer. Again, it is self limiting. Buy that stagnant system for a huge premium, and hope it can compete against the inevitable separate component advancements....

As I've already mentioned, to me the sound of the several active speakers I have owned and used *was not* an improvement over passive separates. And were considerably more expensive. What is the advantage in that?

Steve

the issue seems to be panels vs cones rather than active vs non active speakers.

Ah yes that could be a whole other thread. A two camp battle I suspect.

My comments are restricted to the advantages of active acoustic suspension speakers over conventional passive two way, three way and four way acoustic suspension designs or basically any system where the amp is working all the way from 20 to 20Khz to drive a transducer...that is all.

hi bob:

where is the evidence of the sonic superiority of active monitor speakers. if the speakers were electrostatic or planar magnetic, that would be a different case.

the issue seems to be panels vs cones rather than active vs non active speakers.

i mention this because so called "accurate" active monitors, may be more inaccurate than one believes.

Absolutely! Active monitors and all speakers are almost always the least accurate component in most high end systems. Speaker accuracy is orders of magnitude worse than most electronics and digital sources. Electronic signals can travel through 100's of amps in mixing boards etc. and hundres of feet of wires on teh way to the end user and yet the accuracy can be very well preserved....speakers are simply not in the same league....good point!

Only headphones come close to the accuracy of modern electronics...but then the sound is inside your head and how realistic is that???

i think active panel speakers might be interesting. there was an acoustat design years ago which was active, and perhaps a beveridge as well.

accuracy is an ideal which cannot be attained. one can speak of reducing inaccuracy, but then how do you measure inaccuracy. it is more than frequency response.

i mention this because so called "accurate" active monitors, may be more inaccurate than one believes.

it would be useful to arrive at al algorithm for measuring inaccuracy and then claims about active monitors would be more objective.

if one wants to stay in the realm of subjectivity, what about the concept of virtual accuracy, that is, an inability to observe coloration.

let some active monitor speaker be compared to another speaker with one's favorite amp.

at this point, the idea of active monitors being superior in any way is hypothetical.

Ghasley,

I think the following quote explains a lot:

"During a recent trip to an audiophile club meeting in the Pacific Northwest, AVRev.com’s resident speaker setup guru Bob Hodas did a demo with Meyer's [active] X10 system that left many (if not all) of the audiophiles drooling and proclaiming it to produce the best sound they have ever heard. At the end of the night, one of the members who has the money and the system to easily purchase X10s asked, “If I bought a pair, could I use my own amps?” This is inherently the audiophile problem. To say something was the best you ever heard at the ultimate price point and then want to somehow change what makes its successful describes the definition of the sickness known as audiophilia."

Shadorne,

I hope you realize i was just giving you a hard time. i for one appreciate the time people like you take to educate all of us. Just like college, it is absorbed by some, not by others. There is so much snake oil in our hobby that is can be truly aggravating. Thanks for attaching some true science to what it is we are hearing.

As far as actives go, no one on this thread has been able shoot any valid holes in the science of why an active monitor is not a better solution. I have read some answers on this thread that basically refer to tone controls. In other words, if an active monitor of very high quality is inherently more accurate, with less distortion and more lifelike dynamics than a similarly priced seperates setup, then what would I get to change. Others appear to want to adjust the tone to suit their tastes. All of this is fine and well but then why not just get tone controls? Kind of humorous. I like tubes, I like solid state, I like digital and I like analog. But those who are certain their approach is absolute are absolutely wrong.