# Active Speakers/Monitors:  Dispelling the ignorance, confusion and myths



## Mauricio

This thread is dedicated to dispelling the widespread ignorance, confusion and myths that surround active speakers/monitors.
   
  Start by watching this video by Meridian's Bob Stuart.


----------



## Mauricio

The Case for Active Speakers


----------



## Mauricio

What are the fundamental differences between active and passive speakers?
   
*The Crossover*:  Active speaker crossovers are powered circuits consisting of transistors and modern, solid-state electronics.  A passive speaker crossover, on the other hand, consists of unpowered capacitors, inductors and resistors _sans_ transistors and electronics.  An active crossover that utlizes electronic components can be designed to be significantly more accurate and neutral than a passive one.  An electronic crossover also allows for adjusting the signal in ways that are nearly impossible or impractical in passive crossovers.
   
*The Amplifier*:  Active systems have one amplifier for each driver.  Each amplifier is designed to match its associated driver, taking into account the driver's impedance characteristics, efficiency and frequency response.  Amps are optimized for their drivers.  A passive design consists of a single amplifier powering all drivers, designed for a wide range of impedances and frequencies, but optimized for none.  It is primarily for this reason--the need to be the Jack of All Trades, but Master of None--that outboard amplifiers need to be over-built.  Active designs, on the other hand, allow for the design of amps that deliver more precise power to its associated driver.  Intermodulation distortion--distortion created by the need to handle vastly different frequencies at the same time--is isolated and vastly reduced in passive designs.
   
*The Sequence of System Stages*:  In a passive system, the signal travels from the (outboard) amplifier to the crossover to the driver like so:
SIGNAL >>> Amplifier >> ||Crossover > Drivers||​   
  In an active system, the sequence of system stages is different.  The signal travels from the crossover to the amplifier to the driver like so:
SIGNAL >>> || Crossover > Amplifier > Driver ||​   
  In this sequence of stages the crossover acts on line-level signals which, coupled with the used of powered transistorized circuits, allows for a significantly more neutral and precise crossover.  An electronic crossover operating on line-level signal voltages allows for smaller, less expensive yet more precise and efficient splitting of the signal into its treble/mid-range/bass bands.
   
  In addition, because there is nothing standing between the amp and the driver, the amplifier can more precisely control and damp the driver.  The amp is literally hard-wired to the driver, providing seamless integration and vastly improved transient and decay characteristics.  Nothing, including long runs of speaker cable, stand in the way between the amp and the driver.  Power delivery is immediate, precise and controlled.
   
   
  Active systems allow for a significantly superior integration and optimization of system stages and components.  Many of those optimizations are simply impossible in a passive system.  Active speakers are not a fringe, esoteric technology for eccentrics with questionable technical merits or benefits.  Quite the opposite, active designs are squarely in the mainstream of professional music making.  Active speakers are what most professionals and semi-professionals purchase as a capital expenditure to be used as a tool for commercial, profit-making endeavors.  In comparison, passive speakers are largely the purview of hobbyists or "audiophiles" who purchase the speaker as entertainment based on discretionary surplus income.  In addition to technological superiority, these market forces are also aligned with active designs in producting high(er) quality equipment and sound.  Active monitors are designed to be operated round the clock, and therefore must be built to higher standards.


----------



## Mauricio

The Benefits of an Active Speaker
_*[size=medium][size=large]"ACTIVE IS BETTER!!!"[/size][/size]*_


----------



## Mauricio

Active Versus Passive Loudspeakers
   
_"The performance benefits of active over passive loudspeakers is substantial. Even a system, which incorporates the best available stand-alone power amplifier, will never achieve the performance of a similar active system…It is simply the fact that an active loudspeaker is an optimized coupling between amplifier and loudspeaker driver, and is the best solution, and an upgrade in the longer term is unlikely to be necessary. Thus an active system will always provide a superior result than its separate counterparts. Dollar for Dollar, in performance and value for money, there is no contest._
_…_
_The demands of the recording industry were for highly accurate, ruggedly built speakers, capable of reproducing the dynamics and subtleties of the original performance, and frequently capable of being used on location as well as in the studio.  The only solution to meet this need was to design and build the amplifiers and drive units as a single close matching entity in one enclosure. Hence, Active loudspeakers are today used by virtually every recording company, every major recording studio, and every major film studio."_


----------



## Mauricio

Sounding Passive?
_"Conclusions_
_Apart from cost and the vested interest of manufacturers to keep persuading enthusiasts to buy a new amplifier then to buy a new pair of speakers, then to buy a new amplifier then to buy a new pair of speakers, then to buy a new amplifier then to buy a new pair of speakers... ad infinitum, I cannot think of any reason why domestic audio remains committed to this clumsy [passive] technology._
   
_Even with modest sized speakers and modest amplifiers my experience has been that the same amount of money is better spent on an active set-up. As soon as a system reaches separate pre-amplifier and power-amplifier, whether it is solid-state, class D, push-pull valve or single-ended triode, the next step ought to be an active crossover to suit that technology and an extra stereo power amplifier."_
   
   
Sounding Passive (part II)
   
_"Conclusions_
_I cannot think of any reason why the upgrade path ever stops short of active loudspeaker operation, except for the vested interest of manufacturers in keeping all their components universal so that separates buyers remain on the upgrading treadmill at one-componant-at-a-time.  It may simply be a failure of imagination by manufacturers, or retailers, but it is just as likely to be the innate coinservatism of audio buyers.…It is very hard to accept any passive system as being any more than "good for a passive", once listenners have experienced an active system at a similar quality point."_


----------



## Hellbishop

Thanks Maurico for the time and further info about the advantages of Actives vs Passives. Great links especially about taking apart a passive and turning it into an active. Best wishes on truth guiding you to your destination and us benefiting from it as well. Cheers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  And yes its getting mighty tempting to purchase an active system just to hear the difference


----------



## Mauricio

*FAQ:  Active Speakers*
  
 *1.  How do you control volume with an active speaker?*
 The same way you control volume on a passive speaker:  With the volume knob in your pre-amp.
  
 *2.  How do you control signal equalization with an active speaker?*
 The same way you control equalization on a passive speaker:  With your signal processor or equalizer.
  
 *3.  Can active speakers with their limited enclosure space really match the power levels of an outboard amplifier with a passive speaker?*
 At the outset, it is essential to understand that the primary, if not sole reason that outboard amplifiers are built with massive power supplies and heatsinks is that the amplifier has to be over-built in order to be able to tackle the different system design and inherent inefficiencies in a passive system.  Said another way, passive systems require large amplifiers and a lot of watts primarily due to the inherent inefficiency of passive system design.  Outboard amplifiers need to be huge and over-engineered so that they can power an unknown impedance range across the entire band of audible frequencies to all drivers.  It is a non-optimal, one-box-drives-all solution.  An amp in an passive system delivers its power to the crossover.
  
 Active designs are not hobbled or constrained by the poor system design of passive speakers.  In an active speaker, each amplifier supplies power directly to its driver--and its driver only--without the crossover getting in the way, matched precisely to the driver's efficiency and impedance range.  This optimized approach unlocks a tremendous increase in efficiency.  Active designs require only a fraction of the power, typically one half of the power of passive designs in order to achieve comparable sound levels and quality.   An active speaker with, say, 100 watts of total amplification will be roughly as powerful as a passive speaker with 200 watts of outboard amplification.  Active designs dispense with the brutish, might-makes-right design philosophy of outboard amplifiers and passive speakers.  An amp in a active design delivers its power to the driver.
  
 Ultimately what matters is not the nominal power delivered by the amp to the speaker terminals, but rather the dynamic power delivered by the amp to and at the driver.   Turning the question on its head, the more pertinent question is:  Can passive designs meet the power levels and power delivery quality to and at the driver possible with an active design?
  
 *4.  Don't active speakers require complex cabling and connections which make them unsuitable for home use?*
 Common perceptions about the complexity of the cabling and connections required by active speakers are largely informed by ignorance and resistance to change.  A passive speaker requires one input, the signal.  The active speaker requires two inputs, the signal and A/C power.  Nothing more than that is required.  In fact, active speakers have the advantage of allowing connection via balanced XLR inputs which provide increased resistance to noise and interference, making them more appropriate for long cable extensions.  Most active speakers come with both XLR and TRS line input.  A quality, gold-plated RCA-to-TRS adapter costs about $3.  What's the problem, really?  Why, in the electronics age, in the 21st century, do people living in a world of modern electronic convenience still resist the notion of providing electric power to their speakers as they do to the rest of their audio equipment?
  
 *5.  What other possibilities out of reach for passive designs do active designs offer?*
 An active design allows for the crossover to be implemented in the digital domain, with the advantages that that offers.  One day, hopefully not too long into the future when the masses discard the primitive notion of passive designs, the primary input to affordable, quality speakers will be a digital signal.  The speaker will split the signal into its driver frequency bands,and correct for phase and room-induced distortion both in the digital domain.  It will then perform the Digital-to-Analog conversion as the last stage before delivering the signal to the amplifier.   When that moment comes, the crude and archaic array of power capacitors and inductors that serves as the crossover in a passive design, as well as the active analog crossovers of active designs, will be replaced by a digital signal processor.  A continued fixation with passive designs only delays that moment.
  
 *6.  What is one to make of the claims that a well-designed passive system will sound better than a poorly-designed active design?*
 In the world of math, this statement would be akin to a trivial solution.  For example, the number 6 is divisible by one and by itself.  Yeah, tell me something I didn't know already.  Yes, it is true that a well-designed passive system can better reproduce sound than a poorly designed active design.  But then you can say that of most all types of competing systems and components in the world.  Yes, a well-designed carburated engine will run better than a badly-designed fuel injected engine.  Yes, a well-designed propeller engine is better than a poorly-designed jet engine.  Speakers are no different.
  
 This type of statement also fails to take into account the information asymmetries and market incentives that distinguish the markets for passive and active systems.  Information symmetry and market incentives will conspire against a poorly designed active speaker aimed at the professional, for-profit sectors remaining in the market for too long.  Not so for the passive system aimed at the hobbyist or entertainment sector.  Between an equally well-designed active and passive system, at comparable price points, the active system will always reproduce sound more accurately and efficiently.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





hellbishop said:


> Thanks Maurico for the time and further info about the advantages of Actives vs Passives. Great links especially about taking apart a passive and turning it into an active. Best wishes on truth guiding you to your destination and us benefiting from it as well. Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 "It is error only, and not truth, the shrinks from inquiry"
  - Thomas Paine
   
  Cheers!


----------



## Rainbow Randy

Are not active speakers often prone to being overly active to a fault--over-active? But passive speakers tend to be more mellow, less aggressive?


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





rainbow randy said:


> Are not active speakers often prone to being overly active to a fault--over-active? But passive speakers tend to be more mellow, less aggressive?


 
   
  The foregoing discussion has gone to show the myriad of ways in which active speakers can result in a more accurate reproduction of the sound signal.  You question is non-sensical.  "Active" describes a system design topology, not the timbre or dynamics of the sound.
   
  I take no stand on that purely subjective issue.  You'll have to listen to them for yourself.


----------



## Mauricio

Mackie on Active vs. Passive


----------



## JRG1990

*Can active speakers with their limited enclosure space really match the power levels of an outboard amplifier with a passive speaker* , it doesn't answer the question of enclosure space.
  Also amps don't have to be massive what about the t-amps?. Also you shouldn't really use balanced to unbalanced connections as there is signal loss but most monitors will accept TS connections in the TRS socket there are passive amps avaible with balanced inputs aswell.
  Most importantly do active and passive speakers sound that different I know krk have the active rp6 and passive rp6 you can compare and behringer has the active and passives b2030 b2031 , tannoy have the reveal 601 active and passives, if you get a chance compare the active and passive versions they will sound exactly the same or very very close.


----------



## Mauricio

The criticism that active speakers cannot fit sufficient amplification in their enclosures (or, stating the criticism in another way, that their cabinets are not big enough) rests on a key, but flawed assumption.  That assumption is that an active design needs as big an amp as a passive design in order to achieve comparable sound levels and quality.  As I have explained, that assumption is simply flawed, and must be discarded when analyzing active designs.  An active design can achieve comparable sound levels and sound quality with typically one-fourth of the power required by an active design.  You think that a big amp is a good amp only because of the inherent inefficiency of passive system design.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

How about low level hiss?  Premature failure from locked in heat?


----------



## JRG1990

It's that the amplification decreases the avaible air space for the drivers, they only really overheat when there pushed it depends on the amp class and cooling class ab generates more heat than class d.


----------



## Lenni

seriously, I'll consider active speakers once the manufactures offer custom internal wiring.
   
  give me one good reason (other than - commercial endeavors; don't know any better, or that's how we're used to... yadda-yadda) why the majority or speakers are passive designed, if active is so much better.
   
  perhaps those manufactures who build both active & passive would have some thoughts on it, but I'm not that interested to ask them.
   
  good info though, thanks, I'm going to read it eventually.


----------



## JRG1990

Custom internal wiring LOL , you can't even see the wiring so whats the point thats the most stupid reason against active speakers i've ever heard.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Lenni* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> seriously, I'll consider active speakers once the manufactures offer custom internal wiring.


 

 So would it be safe to conclude that you only buy passive loudspeakers from loudspeaker manufacturers that offer custom internal wiring? Or separate amplifiers only from amplifier manufacturers that offer custom internal wiring?
   
  se


----------



## JRG1990

Do you also re wind the voice coil in your custom cable?.


----------



## mcmalden

Interessting read though the video by the meridian salesman is rubbish. He claims you need more power for a passive speaker because the energie get's seperated:O. As if the passive crossover runs at 200 degrees celcius or whateverXD. Moreover: "our speakers sound the same at any volume", take a look at this:

   
  A lineair spreaker sounds different at higher volumes due the response of the human ear.
   
  Passive crossovers cause distortion but in +- 80 years of enginering they must be pretty good by now. If you make good drivers you can use a simple crossover because the drivers are designed to produce a specific range anyhow. With active speakers they to overcome the shortcomings of drivers by differing the phase of certain frequencies and equalizing resulting in more distortion. In my eyes the 'active speakers theory'  kind of claims that for instance the ipod buds could sound like the HD800's just by squeeze the driver in the right position. Personnaly I find the philosophy of a DAC --> energy producer --> electricity to sound converter(to put it in basic terms) more appealing to me than a DAC --> sound recreator(the black box). In the end it's all about the sound but with seperates the manufacturer has got to take care in producing good drivers and amps and with actives the manufacturer can tweak the crap out of them to make them sound good anyhow. If I had a blind check I am 99% certain I would buy seperates.


----------



## liamstrain

When you are dealing with bookshelf size speakers in nearfield monitoring applications, I agree with 90% of what has been shared here. 
   
  Outside of that realm, things are not so simple, and the word "better" becomes a lot fuzzier.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> So would it be safe to conclude that you only buy passive loudspeakers from loudspeaker manufacturers that offer custom internal wiring? Or separate amplifiers only from amplifier manufacturers that offer custom internal wiring?
> 
> se


 

 obviously not. main reason I don't have the fund for those expensive speakers/amps- but if I did I probably would. for example, Nola by Accent uses Nordost's to wire the internals of some of their speakers. if there was a manufacturer of active speakers that offered that option is something that personally would consider more.
   
  you know, when I wrote that I already knew someone was gonna asking that kind of question...


----------



## JRG1990

So the most important part of a speaker is the wiring screw the drivers / enclosure it's all about the wiring lol.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> How about low level hiss?  Premature failure from locked in heat?


 


  Any mediocre amp--whether it's the amp inside an active speaker, or an outboard unit--will hiss.  Signal-to-noise ratios in a good active speaker will be negligible.
   
  Premature failure?  Active speakers are designed and marketed mainly to the professional market where reliabilty and durability are important.  My present active setup is going on six years, and it has not suffered from your fabled "premature failure from locked in heat".  If an active monitor suffers from reliability problems, it will be quickly weeded out of the market due to the market incentive structure.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





lenni said:


> seriously, I'll consider active speakers once the manufactures offer custom internal wiring.
> 
> give me one good reason (other than - commercial endeavors; don't know any better, or that's how we're used to... yadda-yadda) why the majority or speakers are passive designed, if active is so much better.


 

 Custom internal wiring, ha?  Yes, obviously you have identified the system components that truly matter for the efficient reproduction of accurate sound from a speaker.  Maybe you also want Intel to offer custom layout of the etching of the transistor pattern on the silicon substrate of their CPUs?
   
  One reason passive designs are more widespread is the widespread ignorance--such as that displayed by your obsession with custom internal wiring--of active speakers, and the fact that the average consumer is a lot less informed about speaker design and performance than professionals for whom a speaker is a tool, not a toy.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> Passive crossovers cause distortion but in +- 80 years of enginering they must be pretty good by now. If you make good drivers you can use a simple crossover because the drivers are designed to produce a specific range anyhow.


 

  Oh yeah?  Please tell me the specific advances of the 80 years that have done away with the fundamental disadvantages of passive RLC (Resistor, Inductor, Capacitor) circuits.  This is a rather upside-down statement.  What you are asking us to take at your word is that in the last 80 years, active transistorized circuits have been displaced by passive RLC circuits.  In fact, it is the opposite that has happened since the invention of the transistor and the miniaturization of solid-state electronics.
   
  Also, please explain how a good driver allows for a simple crossover.  I get a sense that your understanding of how a passive crossover works is rather tenuous.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> When you are dealing with bookshelf size speakers in nearfield monitoring applications, I agree with 90% of what has been shared here.
> 
> Outside of that realm, things are not so simple, and the word "better" becomes a lot fuzzier.


 

 Please explain how and why the technological superiorty and advantages of active system design disappear or are reduced as you scale up the system.  In other words, why do the laws of physics and electric and electronic circuit theory vary with the size of the speaker enclosure?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Please explain how and why the technological superiorty and advantages of active system design disappear or are reduced as you scale up the system.  In other words, why do the laws of physics and electric and electronic circuit theory vary with the size of the speaker enclosure?


 


  They don't, per se. What varies is what is available, at what price, and whether the percentage of difference made by using an active system remains constant as those things change. I think at the nearfield, monitor category, those benefits are huge when overcoming the limitations of small box/small driver issues. But once you have room to build the box to the required sizes/geometries, and can invest in seriously good crossover circuits (or none at all), and the right drivers (with room for them) those benefits become less of the overall picture.
   
  I do not, for instance, know of very many active full size speakers, certainly none that fill the niches that maggies and ESL's fill... or once you have stepped into the mid-fi range (~10k) of the Thiel 3.7, and lower level Wilson Audio (Sophia tier), you start to get into some very very good speakers. So good, that I think you would be hard pressed to find actives to match them (Linkwitz Orion's being the only one I can think of). At these levels, the amount of improvement an active offers over the passive system represents a smaller and smaller overall change.
   
  The ultra high end is entirely dominated by passives. This may be for any number of reasons, but I do not think that it is because they are inherently worse. You seem very defensive about this issue... relax, enjoy the music.


----------



## JRG1990

With the small speakers the amp takes up space that could be used for airflow in a passive speaker the active speaker of the same size has less airflow space for the drivers, theres not really an advantage to either 1.
  linkwitz orion maybe the behringers lol http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what.html .


----------



## liamstrain

Well that's interesting - though totally at odds with my impression of the Behringer monitors. I'll have to read through the test methodology.


----------



## Rainbow Randy

As a pacifist and a conscientious objector, I feel that passive speakers jive better with my outlook on life. I'm also not into exercise, so active speakers are out for me.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> With the small speakers the amp takes up space that could be used for airflow in a passive speaker the active speaker of the same size has less airflow space for the drivers, theres not really an advantage to either 1.
> linkwitz orion maybe the behringers lol http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what.html .


 


  Why couldn't the designer of the active speaker simply increase the cabinet size accordingly?  I mean, where--besides in your imagination--is the precise dimensions of the cabinet fixed or limited?  You are bringing a problem for which the solution is the easiest:  simply enlarge the cabinet.  Is that your most potent criticism of actives?


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> ...At these levels, the amount of improvement an active offers over the passive system represents a smaller and smaller overall change.


 


  Ok, let's assume for argument's sake that you are right.  Now, please present the technical reasons for why this is so.  Also, as price and size goes up, why are better components available to passive, but not to active designs?  What exactly are these magical components that only designers of passive speakers can get their hands on.  Please present a mechanism that would make this plausible.


----------



## Mauricio

[Reserved]


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Why couldn't the designer of the active speaker simply increase the cabinet size accordingly?  I mean, where--besides in your imagination--is the precise dimensions of the cabinet fixed or limited?


 

 Where is the precise dimensions of the cabinet fixed or limited?
   
  In the home of most every married man on the planet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





> The ultra high end is entirely dominated by passives.


 

  Is the "ultra-high end" segment defined by price and/or perceived sound quality?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Is the "ultra-high end" segment defined by price and/or perceived sound quality?


 


  Yes. 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Ok, let's assume for argument's sake that you are right.  Now, please present the technical reasons for why this is so.  Also, as price and size goes up, why are better components available to passive, but not to active designs?


 
   
   
  1. in small box/small driver systems, actives can be used to overcome the limitations in sq presented by the lack of space and the frequency range the small (usually under 5") single drivers + tweeter, are asked to present. In a larger box, you often have several drivers in the mids, a large woofer for lows, and the tweeter - there is less need for that one 5" driver to perform miracles. You can use active components in the bigger box, but the need for it in order to get great sound, is reduced. By the same token, since the larger speaker needs to overcome fewer hurdles and compromises in the first place, the improvement an active system provides over a simpler passive system, is reduced. 
   
  2. Those same components are available to both passive and active designers. The need for them (and the added cost they represent) is reduced (or eliminated).


----------



## Mauricio

That's rather odd.  On this thread alone, we have one who criticizes actives for not having enough enclosure space, and another who says that they are superior when enclosure space is limited.  In fact, the differences between the two systems and the advantages of one over another have fundamentally little to do with enclosure size.  Your "logic" would only be true if enclosure size were a limiting factor in performance of passives.  As I have explained, that is not where their faults lie.  An enclosure the size of an aircraft carrier does nothing to change the basic nature of passive RLC circuits and the fundamental differences in system design.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> That's rather odd.  On this thread alone, we have one who criticizes actives for not having enough enclosure space, and another who says that they are superior when enclosure space is limited.  In fact, the differences between the two systems and the advantages of one over another have fundamentally little to do with enclosure size.  Your "logic" would only be true if enclosure size were a limiting factor in performance of passives.  As I have explained, that is not where their faults lie.  An enclosure the size of an aircraft carrier does nothing to change the basic nature of passive RLC circuits and the fundamental differences in system design.


 


  Enclosure space and geometry affects the performance of any speaker driver (regardless of active/passive). You need the *right* size, not just bigger or smaller. When that size is not ideal - and rarely is a small space ideal if you want full range and bass... you need more compensation from other parts of the system (crossover/eq/amplification) to mitigate the performance flaws. So when those are factors (small drivers in small enclosures) an active gives you some advantages over passives. 
   
  But my point was more that with full size passives you frequently have more and bigger drivers, and those are better paired to the job required of them, which means the crossovers and eq, etc. have less hard work to do - the larger enclosure with bigger dedicated drivers to their frequency ranges, does the heavy lifting of the sound quality. You can certainly use active systems with these, but the NEED to from a performance standpoint, is significantly reduced. 
   
  I don't know of anyone (aside from Linkwitz) that makes full size actives. I would be curious to hear side by sides. (Ooo! thanks Lenni)


----------



## Lenni

maybe a few examples here....... check some of those prices!
   
also...


----------



## liamstrain

Thanks Lenni - good to see some of those. Prices are more or less in-line with mid and high end passives, no surprises there really. I would definitely be curious to hear them. The Orion/Pluto are the only ones I've actually heard myself (I have the Adam ARTist 5's, but have not heard the 6's). Good to see a ML in there too, I didn't think there were any stat's in this category at all.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> full size actives.


 


  The plethora of so-called "full-size" actives should clue you in, once again, that this issue of enclosure dimensions is a red-herring.  The "problem" with passives is not that their drivers are small, or that their enclosures are small or have the wrong dimensions.  The inherent problems of passives are listed in post no. 3, and have little if anything to do with drive or enclosure dimensions.  But even if the "logic" is true, the benefits of large drivers and enclosures would benefit not only passives, but also actives.  An enclosure or drivers the size of  the Empire State Building will do nothing to change that.


----------



## El_Doug

Actives take out all the fun of buying and swapping gear to impress your friends, therefore they are inferior


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> But even if the "logic" is true, the benefits of large drivers and enclosures would benefit not only passives, but also actives.  An enclosure or drivers the size of  the Empire State Building will do nothing to change that.


 


  Yes. I clearly, repeatedly already stated that - I agree with you. What I do not agree with is that the advantages of an active system, once we are into the full size are as significant as they are when in the compact size. That is to say, the handicap the passives have, is reduced as a percentage of overall sound quality (the importance of the amplifier, differences between active and passive crossover, etc) is smaller once you have the right drivers for the right job in the right size enclosure. 
   
   
  Quote: 





> The plethora of so-called "full-size" actives should clue you in, once again, that this issue of enclosure dimensions is a red-herring.


 
   
   
  I already thanked Lemmi for sharing the listing he did, and stated that I was unaware of most of these. I am happy to have been corrected, and look forward to listening to some of them at the nearest opportunity. However, I do NOT believe for one instant, that I have said anything above in any of my posts, if you choose to actually look at what I wrote (not what you think I said), that will be proven to be wrong.


----------



## Mauricio

Ok.
   
  How are those Adam ARTist 5, by the way?


----------



## liamstrain

They are pretty nice. Very well balanced, neutral response. Some people have reported them to be a bit bass shy, and they might be a bit, but I have not found that to be the major problem at my mixing station (doing mostly voice work though, I don't usually have to dig deep). And I did spend some time on room acoustics, which helps. 
   
  I have an older set of Yamaha actives (MSP5), and some KRK Rokit 5's that I've got at other stations, and the ARTist 5's are just heads and tails above them in resolution and balance. The difference between the ARTist 5 and the Adam A5X is not quite as noticeable though. If I were doing it again though, I'd probably get the Adam A7x, and get better bass response for a general mixing station.


----------



## Chris J

Just thought that I would point that 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 Watt sound sytem you hear at concerts is virtually _always_ a fully active system.
   
   For all you tube lovers out there, here is a link to a three way active system with soild state woofer amps and vacuum tube midrange and tweeter power amps:
http://www.aurumacoustics.com/integris_300B.html
  
  Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Actives take out all the fun of buying and swapping gear to impress your friends, therefore they are inferior


 

 I suspect that is the main reason why Actives do not dominate the High End!
  
  Quote: 





rainbow randy said:


> As a pacifist and a conscientious objector, I feel that passive speakers jive better with my outlook on life. I'm also not into exercise, so active speakers are out for me.


 

 Now that is funny!
  Thanks for making my day!


----------



## Mauricio

Do those suffer from frequent failures?  I mean, did The Who at Leeds have to stop playing because the actives overheated?  Did Bob Geldof have to take a break in the middle of BandAid so that the blasted actives could cool down?  Did Led Zepp pause in the middle of Dazed and Confused cuz their speakers were about to go the way of the Hindenburg?
   
_"Sorry Jimmy, you're gonna have to turn down the volume cuz those speakers are about to melt"._

   
   
   
   

  
  Quote: 





chris j said:


> Just thought that I would point that 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 Watt sound sytem you hear at concerts is virtually _always_ a fully active system.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Do those suffer from frequent failures?  I mean, did The Who at Leeds have to stop playing because the actives overheated?  Did Bob Geldof have to take a break in the middle of BandAid so that the blasted actives could cool down?  Did Led Zepp pause in the middle of Dazed and Confused cuz their speakers were about to go the way of the Hindenburg?
> 
> _"Sorry Jimmy, you're gonna have to turn down the volume cuz those speakers are about to melt"._


 

 A friend of mine used to own a recording studio.
  The monitors were a pair of *very large* JBL cabinets.
  Each cabinet had two 15" woofers in a ported enclosure, a horn loaded midrange and a horn loaded tweeter.
  The system was actively bi-amped. 
   
  This was in the early 80's.
  This type and brand of monitoring system was very prevalent back then.


----------



## liamstrain

Yah - the big JBL horns were great (some still easily hit 10K on the used market)... the (Altec) VOTT A7's were amazing too. I would love to have enough space to build out a mixing room with a couple A7s.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Yah - the big JBL horns were great (some still easily hit 10K on the used market)... the Advent VOTT A7's were amazing too. I would love to have enough space to build out a mixing room with a couple A7s.


 


 I gotta be honest, those JBL monitors sounded brutal. But they were incredibly dynamic!
   
  Not to be a nit picker, but I think you mean Altec Lansing VOTT A7s. Sorry.......!
  I used to see a lot of bands who used VOTT for their sound system way back in the 70s.


----------



## liamstrain

Whoop! Right you are. Altec. Not Advent. 
   
  Been a long day.


----------



## Mauricio

*7.  What is the difference between an active and a powered speaker/monitor?*
  Remember the key characteristics of active designs:

 one separate dedicated amplifier unit for each driver,
 the amplifier is situated after the crossover and is literally hard-wired to the driver, and
 the crossover is an active device consisting of transistor-based electronics.
   
  A powered monitor/speaker, on the other hand, has only one general amplifier for all drivers in each channel.  The amplifier is connected in the first instance to the passive crossover, thereby isolating it from a direct connection with the driver.  Also, the crossover of a powered speaker is passive.  From a systems design standpoint, a powered speaker has more in common with a passive speaker than with an active one.  The only difference between a powered speaker and a passive speaker is the where the amplifier is located.  In the former, the amplifier is inside the speaker cabinet, while in the latter, it is located outside the speaker cabinet.  The only similarities between a powered and an active design is that they both require connection to electricity mains and they both reproduce sound.


----------



## Mauricio

Interesting reading and insights on active designs:  6Moons Audio review of the PMC AML1.


----------



## pyramid6

Lets say I believe you and actives do sound better than passive.  There does not seem to be a lot good active speakers for Hi-Fi.  Most of them are monitors for studio use.  
  I found these, but they are too expensive.  http://www.adam-audio.com/en/home-audio/products. There seems to be more choice with passives.


----------



## Mauricio

If the objective of a speaker/monitor is to reproduce the input signal precisely and accurately, these dichotomies of studio/home, professional/hi-fi are specious and false.  Presumably you want the speaker to reproduce as faithfully as possible, the signal that you fed it, right?  What exactly is a "hi-fi" speaker?  One whose inherent objective is to colour the sound?  If so, yeah, stay away from active studio monitors for they are quite the opposite of a "hi-fi" speaker.
   
  What's your budget?


----------



## pyramid6

I would say "Hi-Fi" equals musical, as opposed to analytical. It's all subjective.  Say I had $1500, what active "Hi-Fi" speakers could I get (not powered speakers).  From my research they do not sell well, so few companies make them.  The ones I've found, are expensive.  I'm not being pedantic, I am really curious if I missed something.
   
  I would have agreed that you want a faithful reproduction, but I heard the W3000ANV.  I want to find speakers that sound like them.


----------



## Mauricio

For around $1, 500/pair my top two personal suggestions are:
   
*Focal CMS 65*

   
   
*Neumann KH120*

   
  You could also look to the *Adam A7X*, *Genelec 8030A* and the *JBL LSR4328P*.  There, five choices.  I am fairly confident in saying that--due to the technologies employed and different target audience--for about $1,500 (amp included) you won't get as precise, accurate and detailed audio reproduction from a passive "hi-fi" unit.  You'd be remiss not to audition the detail coming out of your "high-end" DAC through one of these units.  These may well pierce the _passives veil_ to which you've become accustomed.


----------



## pyramid6

Those are all fine monitors, but they are not what I'm looking for.
   
  I want this
  http://www.klipsch.com/rf-7-ii-floorstanding-speaker
  or this
  http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Home_Audio/600_Series/683.html
  with amps built-in.
   
  Something like this
 http://www.adam-audio.com/en/home-audio/products
  ,but cheaper.


----------



## Mauricio

Ah, you're looking for flash and bulk.  Yeah, stick to "hi-fi".  As parting words of advice, you ought to resist giving in to the specious thinking that bigger or more drivers is better.  It'll look impressive on the show-room floor, but an increased number of drivers and a larger enclosure volume introduce other effects that can compromise SQ.  The only area where large cabinet volumes are superior is SPLevels.  KISS:  Keep it simple, sucka'!
   
  Here's an informative video by Andrew Munroe, formerly an acoustic designer with Dynaudio, that sheds light on speaker design trade-offs.  A point that he makes is that bigger is not necessarily better.  In fact, there are a few reasons where bigger is actually worse.


----------



## pyramid6

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Ah, you're looking for flash and bulk.  Yeah, stick to "hi-fi".


 

 I think your missing the point.  Not everyone wants monitors all the time, sometimes music is more enjoyable when there are flavors or color to it.
   
  Anyway, thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## liamstrain

nevermind... covered.


----------



## Mauricio

If you are seeking a colored or warmed over sound, the most direct way to get it is with an equalizer. That way you can color it and soup it up to your heart's content, rather than being stuck with the one coloration inherent in a set of passive speakers.  An equalizer will give you more flexibility and control over sound coloration than any set of passive "hi-fi" speaker ever will.
   
  Dismissing a speaker for being too accurate or neutral while opting for a passive "hi-fi" design with the intent of getting a colored sound is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The philosophy of this thread--indeed of active studio monitors--is that the speaker should provide as precise, as accurate and as detailed a reproduction of the input signal as possible.


----------



## Audiophile1811

I don't think I've learned more from a thread than this one,
  Thank you.


----------



## Chris J

Here you go.............
   
http://www.aurumacoustics.com/integris_300B.html
   
  an active speaker WITH the colouration and warmth of tube amps!


----------



## Mauricio

That link's System Design section also provides a fairly comprehensive description of the range of technical advantages afforded by active designs.  As I've said before, no technology or benefit of passive designs is beyond the reach of or unavailable to active designs.  An active design can even have large outboard class-A amplifiers for the physical location of the amplifier inside the cabinet enclosure is not a defining characteristic of active designs.


----------



## Migou67

I'm feeding my active monitors through a LD MKIII and enjoying a lot the sound, I have also passif speaker (payed much more without the amp) in my lounge, but I must admit that I prefer listening on the cheaper Behringer monitors for accurate sessions and on the passif for relaxed moments.

 Anyway for me the prefered choice for a desk/computer is without a doubt active monitor !

 I juste ordered and installed/configured  an Ibasso D7 USB DAC with active monitors Behringer B3030A and Foobar/ASIO for a friend last week, with this configuration for less than 500$ the sound is just amazing !


----------



## Mauricio

Indeed.  It is hard to beat the simplicity, practicality and potential sound quality of a computer-to-active-monitor-via-USB-DAC setup.
   
  My own dream transportable _audiophile_ active set-up looks like this:
   
​  ​  ​


----------



## Chromako

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Actives take out all the fun of buying and swapping gear to impress your friends, therefore they are inferior


 
   
  This.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Audiophiles (non-professional), generally, despite all the arguments about fidelity, are also in it for the fun. It's a hobby of sorts. Picking and matching, and shopping, is fun. Buying one box (okay, maybe three then- 2x actives+digital source) is a bit of a downer. Then you have to tell yourself "okay, I'm done. huh. I guess that's it, then. The engineers thought of everything."
   
  Going with passives, you get to choose and match also separate amps, pre-amps, cabling, and such. That's fun. Then you can chase the "best sound." You can then say "How can I make it better? I want to do it myself."
   
  Actives can be objectively better, if you take out your oscilloscopes, but subjectively, passive setups are more "yours." YOU did the work. You are more invested in it. Psychologically (there's plenty of peer-reviewed studies about this), you will feel it's better. And that's, in the end, how much YOU enjoy it, is what matters.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





chromako said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  LOL!
  Maybe the Aurum Acoustics Integris Active 300B system is the audiophile active system!
  Audiophiles can still roll tubes and swap cables and use their favourite pre-amp!
  I'm only half joking but I am also half serious!


----------



## Headzone

Quote: 





> There does not seem to be a lot good active speakers for Hi-Fi.  Most of them are monitors for studio use.


 
  http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul02/articles/monitors2.asp
   
  That's really interesting read of the subject, hi-fi speakers vs monitors. The Hi-Fi B&W speaker actually had flatter frequency response than the KRK studio monitor. However I didn't read it thoroughly to remember what the other differences were lol.
   
  They said that the Hi-Fi speakers could work in a home studio. Thus why not use studio monitors for hifi?


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Oh yeah?  Please tell me the specific advances of the 80 years that have done away with the fundamental disadvantages of passive RLC (Resistor, Inductor, Capacitor) circuits.  This is a rather upside-down statement.  What you are asking us to take at your word is that in the last 80 years, active transistorized circuits have been displaced by passive RLC circuits.  In fact, it is the opposite that has happened since the invention of the transistor and the miniaturization of solid-state electronics.
> 
> Also, please explain how a good driver allows for a simple crossover.  I get a sense that your understanding of how a passive crossover works is rather tenuous.


 
   
  Let me rephrase: it's my personal believe that manufacturers have improved their crossovers in the past 80 years to match their drivers and preferences and have the least amount of distortion. 

 In my personal believe, equalizing or tweaking is not the key to the 'perfect' sound, to quote [size=small]Bernard Salabert,[/size] _[size=small]"About good drive units in general, it's really very simple. Physics tell us that we must have very light moving mass since mass operates as the square of the inertial position (in fact square + 1) so you can never compensate by magnetic field strength or amplifier power.[/size]_
   
_[size=small]from: [/size]_http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/phy/phy.html
   
  Simply , F=m*a, v=1/2mv^2 and to reproduce a steep signal you would neem unlimited power. Conclusion, the driver needs to be very light in order to stay in phase with the signal. Measurements taken from drivers are often made with single sine waves. Any flaws in these measurement can be easily compensated by equalizing and phase changing. Though what will happen if you play 25 sines at once? The driver is only as good as the way it's build and that's what important.

  In theory it's possible to measure a speaker or some headphones and compare that to the original signal and give it a score based on that. Why would we write reviews if you can have a computer judge the speaker objectively? Simply because in practise, it's almost impossible to forecast the way a speaker wil behave when playing music(complex tones) and people want colouration. Have you ever heared the difference between cables? You might say placebo and the difference is probably impossible to measure, though I believe it's there. Meaning: I question the possibilities of equalizing and phase changing. 
   
  I think it's rather obvious why a good driver requires a less steep cross-over filter than a bad one. Let's say a (extremely) bad midrange driver produces 20% distortion @ 12kHz instead of 0,5% a good driver should at max. Let's say this driver is supposed to cover anything up to 9kHz. You'll need a crossover with a steepness of at least 24dB/octave to cover up the massive distortion in the higher frequency ranges.  While 6dB/octave should be sufficient using a good driver. Moreover, a good midrange driver should have a smooth roll-off after a certain point. So it does a bit of the work for you. I'll quote:_ "een groot frequentiebereik en lineariteit van de units is een vereiste bij Dynaudio omdat zij filteren met een steilheid van 6 dB/octaaf. Met een matige filtering zijn de fase problemen namelijk het kleinste."

 Translation: "A large frequency response and lineairity are a requirement for the drivers made by Dynaudio while they filter with a steepness of 6 dB/octave. this because mediocre filters are accompanied by the least of phase problems"_

Lees meer : http://www.hifi.nl/recensies/2999/Dynaudio_Contour_S1.4.html#ixzz1uwEFtxxN
   
I can't remember saying this btw:"What you are asking us to take at your word is that in the last 80 years, active transistorized circuits have been displaced by passive RLC circuits"
   
In theory the best speaker would feature a single fullrange driver. You'll have no cross-riple distortion and no need for a crossover. Unfortunatelly there is hardly any research conserning full-range drivers. What they can do with headphones seems to be impossible to achieve with Speakers and they are full of compromises. An active-crossover is undoubtly less compromising than a passive one(why would we use active pre-amps). And ofcourse, a digital one would be even better. I simply doubt the quality of active speakers while the manufacturer can tweak the electronics to make it sound good. I believe tweaking is bad. I do believe a digital cross-over before the amps and drivers would be a lot better but that doesn't mean al the electronics should be within the cabinet. Choosing your own amps to your preferences can be very satisfying.
   
The last thing I would like to state is that hifi is and remains a subjective case. Why would your 'perfect' system not feature tubes or vinyl? the scientific approach isn't necessarily the best one. Again: it's impossible to forecast what happens when playing 1000sines at ones. Now I agree, comparing a passive-crossover to tubes or vinyl is a bit pretentious. But it isn't certain the 'problems' introduced by a high quality passive-crossover are perceived as problems or imperfections. There even is a theory your brains can add bass using the harmonics of the music. Going all digital, having the best measuremens won't give most people the most satisfaction. Digital amps for instance are hardly used. I have heard systems with very happy owners which sounded very bad to my ears. Personnaly I would embrase digital cross-overs when I had a blind-check, but with separate, analog, amps.
   
You might question my believes, and that's fine, but contrary to your believes: I am not completely dumb. A bit conservative at most. I hope this clears some of the fog concerning my opinion.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> Let me rephrase: it's my personal believe that manufacturers have improved their crossovers in the past 80 years to match their drivers and preferences and have the least amount of distortion.
> 
> In my personal believe, equalizing or tweaking is not the key to the 'perfect' sound, to quote [size=small]Bernard Salabert,[/size] _[size=small]"About good drive units in general, it's really very simple. Physics tell us that we must have very light moving mass since mass operates as the square of the inertial position (in fact square + 1) so you can never compensate by magnetic field strength or amplifier power.[/size]_
> 
> ...


 
   
  I may be completely misunderstanding you, but here goes:
   
  It is an unfortunate characteristic of inductors that they are rather lossy, they all have some unwanted DC resistance, you can't get rid of it.
  They also have losses called "Eddy Current Losses" due to imperfections in the material used to create the magnetic core. Again, unfortunately, you can't easily get rid of them. There are ways, but they lead to other problems.
  In addition, the efficiency of the woofer is usually lower than the efficiency of the midrange and tweeter. Hence, you typically have to add resistors between the amp and the tweeter and midrange to reduce the amount of voltage applied to the tweeter and midrange.
  So you have losses in a passive speaker from the inductors and resistors.
  In addition, inductors are not known for having tight tolerances.
   
  You are more or less correct when you say that you need "unlimited power" to reproduce a steep waveform, but more accurately you need infinite power to reproduce a perfect square wave as a perfect square wave would have an infinitesimal (instantanteous) rise time.  You would also need infinite bandwidth to reproduce the infinite harmonics of a perfect square wave.


----------



## El_Doug

infinitely SMALL rise time  
   
  Quote: 





chris j said:


> You are more or less correct when you say that you need "unlimited power" to reproduce a steep waveform, but more accurately you need infinite power to reproduce a perfect square wave because a perfect square wave would have an* infinite rise time*.


----------



## Mauricio

If you know something about signal theory you'll know that the reason for the square wave test has nothing to do with testing a component's response to a signal that does not exist in music, but rather to derive information about its frequency response characteristics.  Remember that a square wave is an infinite summation of sine waves, and that any real-world music signal can be represented as a summation of sine wave harmonics.  If a component reproduces a square wave imperfectly, that is an indirect indication that the component is not able to reproduce some sine wave harmonics, thereby suggesting frequency response anomalies (which may or may not be audible to humans).  The utility of the square wave test is not in the time domain, but rather in the frequency domain.


----------



## Chris J

el_doug said:


> infinitely SMALL rise time



Ouch!
Yes, you're correct, thanks for pointing that out.

I will edit my post to read:
"You are more or less correct when you say that you need "unlimited power" to reproduce a steep waveform, but more accurately you need infinite power to reproduce a perfect square wave as a perfect square wave would have an infinitesimal (instantanteous) rise time. You would also need infinite bandwidth to reproduce the infinite harmonics of a perfect square wave."


----------



## Audiophile1811

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> If you know something about signal theory you'll know that the reason for the square wave test has nothing to do with testing a component's response to a signal that does not exist in music, but rather to derive information about its frequency response characteristics.  Remember that a square wave is an infinite summation of sine waves, and that any real-world music signal can be represented as a summation of sine wave harmonics.  If a component reproduces a square wave imperfectly, that is an indirect indication that the component is not able to reproduce some sine wave harmonics, thereby suggesting frequency response anomalies (which may or may not be audible to humans).  The utility of the square wave test is not in the time domain, but rather in the frequency domain.


 
  So how, when I read a Square Wave response graph, do I know that the component tested does not reproduce a square wave imperfectly? I have seen some SW response graphs but can never discern whether the headphone or speaker reproduces square waves badly or accurately. How would you describe them to someone trying to understand the technical side of audio reproduction?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> If you know something about signal theory you'll know that the reason for the square wave test has nothing to do with testing a component's response to a signal that does not exist in music, but rather to derive information about its frequency response characteristics.  Remember that a square wave is an infinite summation of sine waves, and that any real-world music signal can be represented as a summation of sine wave harmonics.  If a component reproduces a square wave imperfectly, that is an indirect indication that the component is not able to reproduce some sine wave harmonics, thereby suggesting frequency response anomalies (which may or may not be audible to humans).  The utility of the square wave test is not in the time domain, but rather in the frequency domain.


 
  You can determine information WRT the systems amplitude, phase and response WRT time.


----------



## 188479

Thanks very much for a great thread!  Here is a question I have not seen answered.  I'm pretty sure I will be buying a pair of active speakers at some point.  I will soon be running a turntable and a DAC through a Woo WA6SE.  So my question is if I had a pair of active speakers with RCA inputs, an I better off unhooking the RCA's from the WOO and going directly to the speakers or could I use the more convenient 1/4 headphone jack to RCA cable and then use the volume knob of the WOO to control volume to the speakers (and not have to disconnect any sources).  It seems the second way would be better, but I'm sure that I'm missing some sonic reason not to do it!


----------



## Audiophile1811

Since the Woo WA6SE is a headphone amplifier and you intend on using it for a pair of active monitors then it would probably be best to just feed the RCAs from your DAC into them, instead of having the Woo amplify the monitors. Anybody else?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





188479 said:


> Thanks very much for a great thread!  Here is a question I have not seen answered.  I'm pretty sure I will be buying a pair of active speakers at some point.  I will soon be running a turntable and a DAC through a Woo WA6SE.  So my question is if I had a pair of active speakers with RCA inputs, am I better off unhooking the RCAs from the WOO and going directly to the speakers or could I use the more convenient 1/4 headphone jack to RCA cable and then use the volume knob of the WOO to control volume to the speakers (and not have to disconnect any sources).  It seems the second way would be better, but I'm sure that I'm missing some sonic reason not to do it!


 
  Try it both ways and see which one you prefer.
  The Woo has a reputation for being a fairly colourless, transparent headphone amp, so using the Woo may be a great sounding, convenient way to do things.
  I don't think that DAC has a volume control? 
  How convenient and accessible is the volume control on the active speakers?


----------



## Mauricio

Active monitors should be fed line level signals directly from the source.  They should not be fed amplified/amplifier signals, and for optimal sound quality neither should they be fed a headphone signal.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Active monitors should be fed line level signals directly from the source.  They should not be fed amplified/amplifier signals, and for optimal sound quality neither should they be fed a headphone signal.


 
   
  Why Not?
  You have to give some reasonable explanation instead of presenting a statement like that as if it is a stone cold fact.


----------



## Mauricio

At the risk of stating the obvious, you should not feed an amplifier an amplified signal because--to use a technical term--you will blow da thing, cause it to pop a fuse or at least drive it to some serious distortion.
   
  Would you drive a 600Ohm headphone from the headphone jack of an Ipod?  Sure, you can, but are you gonna get any appreciable volume and SQ?  Crank up the volume, and you're gonna tax its tiny amplifier into distortion and noise.  Now imagine driving a monitor that typically has input impedance of 47,000 Ohms (unbalanced RCA) from a headphone jack.  But don't take it from me.  Try comparing feeding a monitor a line signal and headphone signal.  The difference and the inferior SQ of the latter will be immediately obvious, particularly in revealing speakers like monitors.   Avoid hacks and work-arounds.  Do it right.  Presumably you are seeking to improve SQ, right?
   
  Search the forum.  I started a thread dedicated to DACs with variable line output (aka "preamp" function) several months ago.  You can find a USB DAC with a volume knob controlling the RCA output to monitors for as low as $99.


----------



## pyramid6

Quote: 





188479 said:


> Thanks very much for a great thread!  Here is a question I have not seen answered.  I'm pretty sure I will be buying a pair of active speakers at some point.  I will soon be running a turntable and a DAC through a Woo WA6SE.  So my question is if I had a pair of active speakers with RCA inputs, an I better off unhooking the RCA's from the WOO and going directly to the speakers or could I use the more convenient 1/4 headphone jack to RCA cable and then use the volume knob of the WOO to control volume to the speakers (and not have to disconnect any sources).  It seems the second way would be better, but I'm sure that I'm missing some sonic reason not to do it!


 
  Unless you have a specific need or desire for a certain sound, you are probably going to be better off bypassing the WA6SE.  You will just wind up amplifying noise and distortion.  If your speakers do not have a volume control, then you will need some sort of pre-amp (if your DAC doesn't have volume control).  The WA6 could do it. That is the only reason I would put it in the chain.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> At the risk of stating the obvious, you should not feed an amplifier an amplified signal because--to use a technical term--you will blow da thing, cause it to pop a fuse or at least drive it to some serious distortion.
> 
> Would you drive a 600Ohm headphone from the headphone jack of an Ipod?  Sure, you can, but are you gonna get any appreciable volume and SQ?  Crank up the volume, and you're gonna tax its tiny amplifier into distortion and noise.  Now imagine driving a monitor that typically has input impedance of 47,000 Ohms (unbalanced RCA) from a headphone jack.  But don't take it from me.  Try comparing feeding a monitor a line signal and headphone signal.  The difference and the inferior SQ of the latter will be immediately obvious, particularly in revealing speakers like monitors.   Avoid hacks and work-arounds.  Do it right.  Presumably you are seeking to improve SQ, right?
> 
> Search the forum.  I started a thread dedicated to DACs with variable line output (aka "preamp" function) several months ago.  You can find a USB DAC with a volume knob controlling the RCA output to monitors for as low as $99.


 
   
  Sure, no problem.
  The question really wasn't for me, it was really for Kev.
   
  There was a review of a headphone amplifier used as a Pre-Amp in HI FI + magazine a few months back.
  This was a very high quality head phone amp (I think it was Musical Fidelity M1HPA).
  The reviewer raved about what a great sounding pre amp the M1 made. 
   
  The only point that I was trying to make was to try it and see.
  A high quality headphone amp should not have any difficulty driving a 47,000 ohm load.
  The output voltage is basically same as a line level voltage.
   
  But you do raise a good point, since the Woo WA6 and WA6SE have output transformers, they would not be my first choice as a headphone amp re-purposed as a pre amp.
  So you have a good point.
  Sounds like he has a problem, unless he gets a DAC with a volume control and at least ONE analog input, like the Benchmark DAC1 HDR.
  An OTL Woo like the WA2 won't get along with his Grado 225s.


----------



## 188479

Quote: 





> Sounds like he has a problem, unless he gets a DAC with a volume control and at least ONE analog input, like the Benchmark DAC1 HDR.
> An OTL Woo like the WA2 won't get along with his Grado 225s.


 
  Well not really...I will just use the volume control on the speakers and feed directly from the source.  Not a huge problem, as I use speakers only about 10% of the time...I was pretty sure I would have to do it that way, but wanted to ask.  Now I just have to make sure I buy a pair of speakers with volume control!  Thanks everybody for your help.


----------



## burgunder

I bought a pair of audioengine A5+ for my daughter but they are a bit bigger than I imagined, so I guees she will need to wall mount them, is it possible to find some wallmounts that will make use of the 1/4 threded insert in the buttom of the speakers? I have been searching a bit, but it seems difficult.


----------



## Mauricio

Just a point of clarification for the thread.  The Audioengine range of speakers are not active.


----------



## Chris J

Huh?
  Then where's the engine?
   
  This is an outrage!
  Someone should do something about this!
  Why do they call it Audioengine if there is no engine!
  Call the proper authorities immediately!
  Doesn't anyone look under the hood before they buy this stuff?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I am so mad right now!


----------



## kwal

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Just a point of clarification for the thread.  The Audioengine range of speakers are not active.


 
   
  I believe you mean the Audioengine range of speakers are not this *TYPE* of active speaker. Since in the simplest form an active speaker is any speaker with the amplifier built in.
   
  What you are talking about is an active crossover Bi-amp/Tri-amp system without a passive crossover in the speaker. The only real reason why you mostly see this type of system used in active monitors is it becomes too complex for the average user to use. The benefits you have brought up are the same if it is one unit or multiple units.
   
  In live sound systems you do see active crossover Bi-amp/Tri-amp systems a lot because the engineers generally know what they are doing and because of the benefits you have stated.


----------



## pyramid6

Quote: 





kwal said:


> I believe you mean the Audioengine range of speakers are not this *TYPE* of active speaker. Since in the simplest form an active speaker is any speaker with the amplifier built in.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I thought they were called powered.  Like most words though, the meaning gets changed over time.
   
  I don't think it matters all that much as long as people understand what they are actually buying.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





pyramid6 said:


> I don't think it matters all that much as long as people understand what they are actually buying.


 
   
  Are they?
   
  I started this thread to dispel the ignorance the prevails over speaker/monitor system designs.  Ninety posts into this thread, and people still confuse powered with active.  No, I don't think very many "people understand what they are actually buying".


----------



## Chris J

mauricio said:


> Are they?
> 
> I started this thread to dispel the ignorance the prevails over speaker/monitor system designs.  Ninety posts into this thread, and people still confuse powered with active.  No, I don't think very many "people understand what they are actually buying".





Despite all my jokes and stuff, personally I am very sympathetic to the layman and newbie.
Understanding this active/ powered/ passive speaker stuff ain't easy.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Understanding this active/ powered/ passive speaker stuff ain't easy.


 
   
  It's all there on this thread for s/he who wishes to read and learn.  And, of course, none of this is rocket science or brain surgery.


----------



## firev1

Hmmm just to ask, can the layman enjoy a good pair of Actives under $1k or even under $500? I liked my experience with a good pair of ADAMs while I was in China(their service is great too!) but   they are way too much for a working student like myself. That being said, going surround, I rather use passives then actives not because of technicals or cost, because actives are a pain in the butt to wire surround.


----------



## burgunder

Noone ever expects the active inquistition
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  So noone knows of a wallmount for the Audioengine A5+ active powered og whatever.


----------



## Matt head 777

I built active speakers and the amps and the sound is great. Really helps the tweeter to power on strong without distortion. Agreed it's a pain to have surround with active speakers because you need a signal volume control for 5.1. Most people would use passive amp systems for surround. Are there many active surround systems available commercially?


----------



## firev1

Quote: 





matt head 777 said:


> I built active speakers and the amps and the sound is great. Really helps the tweeter to power on strong without distortion. Agreed it's a pain to have surround with active speakers because you need a signal volume control for 5.1. Most people would use passive amp systems for surround. Are there many active surround systems available commercially?


 
  I remember a 5.1 based on the 6010a/5040a from Genelec and their subwoofers should have volume control. The main problem is that mains wiring for my apartment is not ideal at all and hacking the room is not an option.
   
  If a 5.1 system should be used for actives, the room has to be built surround from the start or drive multiple extension plugs all over. In other words, its extremely messy compared to multi-channel passive unless you have a 3 channel active system.


----------



## pyramid6

Quote: 





firev1 said:


> I remember a 5.1 based on the 6010a/5040a from Genelec and their subwoofers should have volume control. The main problem is that mains wiring for my apartment is not ideal at all and hacking the room is not an option.
> 
> If a 5.1 system should be used for actives, the room has to be built surround from the start or drive multiple extension plugs all over. In other words, its extremely messy compared to multi-channel passive unless you have a 3 channel active system.


 
  http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=AVSeparates&SubCatId=0&ProductId=AV7005 can be used with actives.  You just need a receiver that can be hooked up to some amps, like amps in the speakers.


----------



## kixxit

Quote: 





chromako said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  In all seriousness, wouldn't it be more fun and possible less expensive buying/trading/comparing active speakers?  Or is there the fear that the differences in sound/coloration or what have you would no longer be worth the trouble?  I'm glad I found this thread.  After purchasing a DAC/Amp combo for my cans, it finally dawned on me that with active speakers, I can concern myself with spend all that money I would've wasted on more gear on cd's instead.  I have one more pair of passive speakers I want to buy, but only because I've already got the rest of the setup.  Afterwards, I'm thinking about nothing but active. 
   
  Thanks for the thread!


----------



## Mauricio

You're welcome.


----------



## kixxit

Do most active monitors have good off-axis dispersion?  I was always under the impression that they were fairly focused due to use in near field applications. 
   
  I did watch the posted vid on the SE Electronics Egg 150 monitors, but their setup isn't much different than passive monitors - although I'm sure their amp is built specifically for the Eggs. I am wondering how scalable their setup is - 5.1, etc.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





kixxit said:


> Do most active monitors have good off-axis dispersion?  I was always under the impression that they were fairly focused due to use in near field applications.
> 
> I did watch the posted vid on the SE Electronics Egg 150 monitors, but their setup isn't much different than passive monitors - although I'm sure their amp is built specifically for the Eggs. I am wondering how scalable their setup is - 5.1, etc.


 
   
  Do you want a speaker to spread sound in all unwanted and unintended directions thereby creating spurious reflections and destroying the stereo soundfield?


----------



## kixxit

What I want are monitors for my living room that might sound decent beyong a 1sqf "sweet spot", that may just so happen to be active.


----------



## Mauricio

The term "nearfield" has a technical definition of sorts.  It is the distance from the speaker/monitor beyond which reflections exceed the direct sound from the speaker/monitor.  As you can see from the definition, the radius of the "nearfield" is largely a function of the listening room.  Keep in mind that nothing is free, and everything is a matter of tradeoffs, whether you are talking about passive speakers or active monitors.  If you want wide dispersion, the "nearfield" will have to be reduced in order to maintain the stereo soundstage.  Alternatively, the narrower the dispersion, the longer the "nearfield" can be potentially.  There still ain't no free lunch, passive speaker hype and misinformation and consumer ignorance notwithstanding.
   
  Below is the horizontal directivity plot of a well-regarded, small two-way active monitor that sells at $1,500/pair:


----------



## Chris J

kixxit said:


> Do most active monitors have good off-axis dispersion?  I was always under the impression that they were fairly focused due to use in near field applications.
> 
> I did watch the posted vid on the SE Electronics Egg 150 monitors, but their setup isn't much different than passive monitors - although I'm sure their amp is built specifically for the Eggs. I am wondering how scalable their setup is - 5.1, etc.




Passive, active or powered has nothing to do with crearing a good off-axis response.
Not every active speaker was designed for use as a near field monitor.


----------



## kixxit

Any recommendations, or am i going to have to dredge thru spec sheets?  I'll probably do it anyway of course - just looking for a good place to start.


----------



## Chris J

kixxit said:


> Any recommendations, or am i going to have to dredge thru spec sheets?  I'll probably do it anyway of course - just looking for a good place to start.




The most important thing is to listen to the speaker before you buy it.
Sifting thru spec sheets helps, but ultimately, listen before you buy..........assuming that is possible?


----------



## kixxit

Music stores such as Guitar Center are great for auditioning.  They usually have all monitors set up in the same room and since you don't have to worry about separate amps etc, they're easy to compare.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I love GC for just this reason. I actually recently bought (after auditioning) a pair of QSC K12s from them.
   
  Something I would definitely suggest though is calling first to make sure they have what you want to hear. There are 3 GC in my town and only 1 of them actually carried all the speakers I wanted to hear.
   
  Depending on the size and foot traffic each store sees they might not carry what you're looking for.
   
  For instance. I wanted to listen to the QSC K series along side the KW series (the next 'step up') the store closest to me only carried the K series so I had to drive about 30 minutes to hear the KW series.
   
  Quote: 





kixxit said:


> Music stores such as Guitar Center are great for auditioning.  They usually have all monitors set up in the same room and since you don't have to worry about separate amps etc, they're easy to compare.


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Do you want a speaker to spread sound in all unwanted and unintended directions thereby creating spurious reflections and destroying the stereo soundfield?


 
   
  It has always been my believe that wide dispertion is a positive thing. Moreover, manufactures take great effort to achieve this. Having reflections is one of the main advantages speakers have over headphones. In other words: 'the band' is playing in _your _room. With bad off-axis response the reflections are actually different from the reflections a 'singer' or 'guitar' would create, messing op the imaging and the use of room-acoustics. Therefore speakers with good despertions have a wider and more precise stereo-image. And ofcourse you will have less of a  'sweet spot' nor trouble with turn-in. 
   
   
   


> What I want are monitors for my living room that might sound decent beyong a 1sqf "sweet spot", that may just so happen to be active.


 
   
  Band-tweeters, or membrane-tweeters, often have very good despertion characteristic. Active speakers with such a tweeter probably won't have much placing issues. That's a bit of a wild guess. ELAC has released a new active monitor which should be very suitable for music. I am bit of an ELAC fan myself so you should take that into consideration;P.


----------



## kixxit

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> It has always been my believe that wide dispertion is a positive thing. Moreover, manufactures take great effort to achieve this. Having reflections is one of the main advantages speakers have over headphones. In other words: 'the band' is playing in _your _room. With bad off-axis response the reflections are actually different from the reflections a 'singer' or 'guitar' would create, messing op the imaging and the use of room-acoustics. Therefore speakers with good despertions have a wider and more precise stereo-image. And ofcourse you will have less of a  'sweet spot' nor trouble with turn-in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I really appreciate the input.  One of the great things about a stereo setup is the ability to share the music, and move around a bit while doing so.  I already have a HT setup - Deftech Mythos STS/Ten (center)/GemXL (surround) but no dedicated room  so the actives will be for 2 channel listening only. Hitting the ELAC website now....
   
  Ok...do you really need that many product lines?  Time to do so me research!


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





kixxit said:


> I really appreciate the input.  One of the great things about a stereo setup is the ability to share the music, and move around a bit while doing so.  I already have a HT setup - Deftech Mythos STS/Ten (center)/GemXL (surround) but no dedicated room  so the actives will be for 2 channel listening only. Hitting the ELAC website now....
> 
> Ok...do you really need that many product lines?  Time to do so me research!


 
   
  There is a link in ''a new active monitor'' from my original post. My bad, should have said that. It's the AM180. ELAC is one of the biggest manufacturers I believe, so I guess they indead have many product lines.
   
  I would choose stereo over surround anytime. The dept of a good stereo setup is more than enough for me. My dad's reciever sounds like crap, it's one of those new Yamaha's. Even with movies I wasn't very much impressed using my new and old speakers. Since sound is a wave, front and rear speakers will actually work against each other.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> Since sound is a wave, front and rear speakers will actually work against each other.


 
   
  Huh?
   
  That's like saying the front left and front right are working against each other.


----------



## liamstrain

Depending on placement, timing, etc - opposed drivers FACING each other, could act like a push/pull system, and do some odd things. But that typically wouldn't be an issue across a room, and even 1 degree of toe in would eliminate any problems from that interaction entirely.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Depending on placement, timing, etc - opposed drivers FACING each other, could act like a push/pull system, and do some odd things. But that typically wouldn't be an issue across a room, and even 1 degree of toe in would eliminate any problems from that interaction entirely.


 
   
  In other words, *read the manual* and set your surround sound system up properly. Position and angle the speakers as shown in the manual.
   
  OTOH, my friend has a Yamaha surround sound receiver and Bose speakers.
  It really sounds like dog excrement and someone really needs to poop and scoop his sound system into the dumpster.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Most surround sound set ups I've seen (set up guides anyway) tell you to have the back speakers actually above you and pointing down a bit if possible.


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Huh?
> 
> That's like saying the front left and front right are working against each other.


 
   
  The same way active noise cancellation works. This problem also occures in a stereo setup. Though speakers facing each other interact more. 
   

   
  This is 90% of the reason headphones show more detail than speakers. Moreover the fuss about the 'nearfield' has got everything to do with this. In the nearfield you'll get some of the detail which is lost at greater distances.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> The same way active noise cancellation works. This problem also occures in a stereo setup. Though speakers facing each other interact more.
> 
> 
> 
> This is 90% of the reason headphones show more detail than speakers. Moreover the fuss about the 'nearfield' has got everything to do with this. In the nearfield you'll get some of the detail which is lost at greater distances.


 
   
  And?
  I'm not sure what your point is.
  You get a similar effect when listening to headphones, your brain will do the work for you.
  Two speakers, when arranged properly, will be louder than one, if they both have the same signal.
   
  Then explain why you can hear soundstage from a pair of speakers, but not from a pair of 'phones.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> You get a similar effect when listening to headphones, your brain will do the work for you.
> Two speakers, when arranged properly, will be louder than one, if they both have the same signal.
> 
> Then explain why you can hear soundstage from a pair of speakers, but not from a pair of 'phones.


 
   
  1. You can hear soundstage through 'phones - though it does differ slightly. A crossfeed plugin or other mechanism can help.
   
  2. With speakers, some of the sound from the left channel gets to your right ear (very slightly delayed, and off axis, so that affects the presentation), and visa versa - that added to room reflections and resonances getting to both ears with their own delays = a better presentation of soundstage.


----------



## qusp

wow really, no ATC in this whole thread? no fullsize active hifi speakers? I kept flicking the pages thinking I would see it on the next page. these guys are at the heart of just about any decent high end British and worldwide recording studio or nightclub, as well as making some superb hifi based on the same drivers and tech. dont let the pics fool you, these things are huge
   








   
  heres a classic british monitor you may have seen in the background in recording sessions. man that mid driver, I so do want that 3" dome mid, talk about dispersion, if you have the room for it. that dome mid is a big part of the ATC legendary sound. dont mind me, I posted these 2 bottom pics the other day in a thread too when someone added a zero to how can I make a 100W class A amp so had them handy
   
   




   
  heres a better pic to illustrate the size of these things, this is the P4, a 4 channel 850W power amp you need 2 of these 40KG monsters and it will stay in class A for 2/3 of that 850W, those who know electronics will know how insane that is. it has built in discrete analogue active crossover. its not 1 x 850W its
   
  HF: 100 Watts into 6 ohms
 MF: 200 Watts into 16 ohms
 LF: 275 Watts x 2 into 8 ohms
   




   
  and is built to drive
   
  these
  haha
   




   
   
  soffit mounts anyone?
   
  check out the drivers. exactly the same
   




  I have to crash, i'll cover some non ATC digital/software active crossover stuff in the next few days, didnt really even see it mentioned much other than the beringer and sorry, but thats yesterday's news IMO


----------



## kixxit

Keep it coming!  The more info the better!


----------



## liamstrain

I want that recording studio. Or even just access to it.  
   
  Jeebus.


----------



## Chris J

liamstrain said:


> 1. You can hear soundstage through 'phones - though it does differ slightly. A crossfeed plugin or other mechanism can help.
> 
> 2. With speakers, some of the sound from the left channel gets to your right ear (very slightly delayed, and off axis, so that affects the presentation), and visa versa - that added to room reflections and resonances getting to both ears with their own delays = a better presentation of soundstage.




That was a question for McMalden, not you.


----------



## MorbidToaster

chris j said:


> That was a question for McMalden, not you.




I'd take it to PM if you're going to get bent out of shape when aomeone else answers your questions.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> I'd take it to PM if you're going to get bent out of shape when ws omeone else answers your questions.


 
   
  You are reading too much into this. I am aware this is an open forum.
   
  I disagree with McMalden, but in the great scheme of things, if the guy doesn't like surround sound that's OK with me.
  You could always argue that better to spend (for example) $1000 on stereo than $1000 on surround.......or he doesn't watch movies..... or whatever.......


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





chris j said:


> And?
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> You get a similar effect when listening to headphones, your brain will do the work for you.
> Two speakers, when arranged properly, will be louder than one, if they both have the same signal.
> ...


 
   
  I think I made my point pretty clear: Speakers move air in the same space, therefore the same air and therefore work against each other to some degree. This is called interference.This effect is therefore not present with headphones and your brain won't do this for you. This is simple physics.
   

  This is an image of two speakers producing the same signal... although in dutch it most me understandable. Between the speakers you see a lot of standing waves: this is the reason why I think stereo is preferable to surround. See the picture below. I hope I made my point now, otherwise just ignore it. For the record: I am a physics student.
   

   
  I do watch movies and I have listened to both stereo and surround in my room with my speakers. So I think I can justify my opnion. Soundstage is another topic and so is the stereo/surround question relating to the the passive/active question. 
   
   
   


> man that mid driver, I so do want that 3" dome mid, talk about dispersion, if you have the room for it.


 
   
  My speakers actually have a (+-1,5") softdome mid driver with waveguide, talking about dispersion. Though those speakers look really impressive!


----------



## qusp

Quote: 





kixxit said:


> Keep it coming!  The more info the better!


 

 OK will do, i'll add some stuff during the week. I actually need to start setting up my own digital XO so might be able to take some screen snaps to illustrate. otherwise i'll just cover what i'm doing with my setup and how it differs from passive XO and analogue active XO
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I want that recording studio. Or even just access to it.
> 
> Jeebus.


 
  oh yes, that would be something else alright, you should see the closeup on the instruments, the guitars are gorgeous and I can only imagine what that control room sounds like with live music playback


----------



## Audiophile1811

Quote: 





qusp said:


> OK will do, i'll add some stuff during the week. I actually need to start setting up my own digital XO so might be able to take some screen snaps to illustrate. otherwise i'll just cover what i'm doing with my setup and how it differs from passive XO and analogue active XO


 
  I'd love to see your setup. I hope you share it all.


----------



## Chris J

mcmalden said:


> The same way active noise cancellation works. This problem also occures in a stereo setup. Though speakers facing each other interact more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your taking this diagram out of context.
The bottom speaker is out of phase with the top speaker, of course you get cancellation.
But if they are in phase with each other, you get reinforcement.

Obviously, the point of a surround sound system is NOT to output the same signal from all 5 full range drivers with one half being out of phase withthe other half, and generate some measure of cancellation, the point is for the majority of the sound to be up front, and use the rear channels to add some ambience. So different speakers output different signals.
As I said earlier, if you take the time to read the manual, set up and align the loudspeakers and ensure all levels are calibrated, then a well set up surround sound system can sound quite good. If you don't, it can sound awful.


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Your taking this diagram out of context.
> The bottom speaker is out of phase with the top speaker, of course you get cancellation.
> But if they are in phase with each other, you get reinforcement.
> Obviously, the point of a surround sound system is NOT to output the same signal from all 5 full range drivers with one half being out of phase withthe other half, and generate some measure of cancellation, the point is for the majority of the sound to be up front, and use the rear channels to add some ambience. So different speakers output different signals.
> As I said earlier, if you take the time to read the manual, set up and align the loudspeakers and ensure all levels are calibrated, then a well set up surround sound system can sound quite good. If you don't, it can sound awful.


 
   
  Infact the anti noise diagram is not out of context and it's an example. If you choose to ignore my other post that's your choice. 
   
  So tell me: what is the use of a center speaker? And why do you need rear speakers for ambience if you have a rear wall reflection?


----------



## Audiophile1811

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> So tell me: what is the use of a center speaker? And why do you need rear speakers for ambience if you have a rear wall reflection?


 
  Wouldn't rear speakers be used to help create the feeling that sound or sounds actually "surrounds" you unlike a stereo system which relies on its soundstage, imaging, room acoustics, etc. to create, or rather, recreate surrounding sounds? As far as I know sound engineers setup the direction of music and sounds to specific channels in a 5.1 Surround Sound mix. So at least rear speakers serve some purpose since they don't reproduce the exact same sound every other speaker does, in a 5.1 mix that is. However, I am inclined to believe that a 5.1  or 7.1 system would be pointless for only stereo recordings.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> Infact the anti noise diagram is not out of context and it's an example. If you choose to ignore my other post that's your choice.
> 
> So tell me: what is the use of a center speaker? And why do you need rear speakers for ambience if you have a rear wall reflection?


 
   
  I'm not ignoring your other posts. I've read them.
   
  What is the use of a centre channel?
  Virtually all dialogue will be assigned (i.e. mixed) to the centre channel.  Actors may walk in and out of a scene and you may hear them pan from left to centre (or right to centre) as they enter a scene.
  Centre channel is obviously mounted either above or below your TV.
  Basically, to lock the apparent source of the dialogue to the TV, dialogue is normally assigned to the centre channel, so if you are sitting at the far end of the couch in your living room the dialogue will still appear to come from the TV and not the front speaker closest to you.
   
  So why have more channels?
  See Audiophile1811 comments:
   
  Quote: 





audiophile1811 said:


> Wouldn't rear speakers be used to help create the feeling that sound or sounds actually "surrounds" you unlike a stereo system which relies on its soundstage, imaging, room acoustics, etc. to create, or rather, recreate surrounding sounds? As far as I know sound engineers setup the direction of music and sounds to specific channels in a 5.1 Surround Sound mix. So at least rear speakers serve some purpose since they don't reproduce the exact same sound every other speaker does, in a 5.1 mix that is. However, I am inclined to believe that a 5.1  or 7.1 system would be pointless for only stereo recordings.


 
   
  If a scene is set in a large room (for example), then if you disconnect the centre channel, then you will probably hear a reverberant soundfield in the remaining speakers (front and rear) to give the illusion of the dialogue being created in a large room, assuming that is how the movie was mixed.
  If a scene is set in the jungle (for example) then you may hear different jungle sounds coming from all 5 speakers to simulate the sound of being in the jungle. The 5 channels may all have some variety of jungle sound, but the 5 channels will all have a slightly different perspective. Since they are all slightly different they will not cancel each other out. When you are in a forest, obviously you can hear sound all around you, no?
  Admittedly, there are A LOT of movie soundtracks with little or nothing in the rear channels.
  Apparently some directors do not like surround sound (they feel it is too distracting) and like virtually all the sound to come front the front 3 speakers only.
   
  Personally, for stereo signals, when listening to music on my surround sound system, I very rarely try to use the surround sound algorithms (Dolby Music, DTS Music, etc.) to generate fake surround sound. Normally, I listen to music in plain old stereo. Fake surround sound does seem to help some poorly mixed pop music by adding a fake sense of space.
   
  If you don't like surround sound, I don't have problem with that. Personally, I prefer it for movies and music mixed in surround only
   
  FWIW, I have mixed live and recorded music, and I've been practicing Electrical Engineering for approx. 25 years.


----------



## kixxit

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I'm not ignoring your other posts. I've read them.
> 
> 
> FWIW, I have mixed live and recorded music, and I've been practicing Electrical Engineering for approx. 25 years.


 
   
  Thank you for your patience in answering these questions.


----------



## mcmalden

Quote: 





chris j said:


> If a scene is set in the jungle (for example) then you may hear different jungle sounds coming from all 5 speakers to simulate the sound of being in the jungle. The 5 channels may all have some variety of jungle sound, but the 5 channels will all have a slightly different perspective. Since they are all slightly different they will not cancel each other out. When you are in a forest, obviously you can hear sound all around you, no?


 
   
  The rear speaker does make sense to me. Although the sound from the different speakers will effect each other nonetheless(you don't need the exact same frequency for interference). But in a same way the sounds in 'the jungle' would effect each other so this would make up for natural 'jungle sound'.
   
  It also makes sense a centre speaker would define the middle of the soundfield, or dialoges. However, in my experience, speakers recreate the soundfield of the recording rather than 'sound' themselves. In my setup voices tend to disappear behind the screen even when positioned away from the middle of the speakers. Maybe not exactly centred I feel a centre would do more worse(destroy the imaging of the fronts) than good. But I am no expert concerning centre speakers. Thanks for the insight.
   
   
   


> Apparently some directors do not like surround sound (they feel it is too distracting) and like virtually all the sound to come front the front 3 speakers only.


 
   
  I agree with those directors and find myself in that philosophy.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





kixxit said:


> Thank you for your patience in answering these questions.


 
   
  Hey, thanks!
   
  Quote: 





mcmalden said:


> The rear speaker does make sense to me. Although the sound from the different speakers will effect each other nonetheless(you don't need the exact same frequency for interference). But in a same way the sounds in 'the jungle' would effect each other so this would make up for natural 'jungle sound'.
> 
> It also makes sense a centre speaker would define the middle of the soundfield, or dialoges. However, in my experience, speakers recreate the soundfield of the recording rather than 'sound' themselves. In my setup voices tend to disappear behind the screen even when positioned away from the middle of the speakers. Maybe not exactly centred I feel a centre would do more worse(destroy the imaging of the fronts) than good. But I am no expert concerning centre speakers. Thanks for the insight.
> 
> I agree with those directors and find myself in that philosophy.


 
   
  This is probably very obvious to everyone reading this stuff, but keep in mind surround sound movies are mixed in mixing studios with 5.1 monitors.
   
  Another thing:
  Like most surround sound systems, my speakers are all the same brand and all part of the same model line.
  However, like most surround sound systems...............the speakers are not all the same:
  The front left and right are full range, with (1) 8" woofer each,
  The centre must be crossed over at 80 Hz (it is not full range) and it has two 5.25" woofers,
  The rears use (1) 6.5" woofer each and must be crossed over at 80 Hz,
  And the mid/tweeters are all slightly different.
  So, in reality it is hard to create a truly coherent soundfield from 3 different speakers.
   
  Here's director who really doesn't like surrund sound:
  Apparently Woody Allen mixes all his movies into MONO.  LOL!


----------



## scalar vortices

The active route also benefits minimalists, those who prefer efficiency of function and form-factor.  Elac has some ribbon monitors with digital input (including optical/toslink) and channel selection.  Take a look at the AM 180 (38-50k hz).
   
  elac.com/en/products/Active/AM_180/index.php


----------



## SwanSong

scalar vortices said:


> The active route also benefits minimalists, those who prefer efficiency of function and form-factor.  Elac has some ribbon monitors with digital input (including optical/toslink) and channel selection.  Take a look at the AM 180 (38-50k hz).
> 
> elac.com/en/products/Active/AM_180/index.php




I'm loving the sound and minimalist setup it allows me to focus on the upstream digital signal. 
My tube preamp dac has transformed the neutral monitor sound nicely. The 
biggest diff I think is at low volume where passives needed big amplification to have that low volume sweetness. My old audiophile rig I used bi-amp towers to achieve that low vol fullness. I agree that actives will always be my speakers for the future.


----------

