Active Studio Monitors VS Traditional Hi fi.

[admin_exported]

Ok so an interesting one this. First of all I think we must put aesthetics aside as it's quite clear that in general traditional Hi fi speakers are on the whole meant to be visualy appealing, fit in with decor e.t.c...... So it's a straight shoot out pound for pound.

Let's compare a traditional mid budget system for cost.

Marantz 6003 amp £250, Marantz 6003 CDP £250, B and W 685 £365, Speaker Cable £20, Interconnect £20. Total £905

against

Behringer B2031A Truth Active Monitors £255, Marantz 6003 CDP £250, Studio Pro Phono lead £20 Total £525

a saving of £370.

That seems to be quite a big gap cost wise,

Now studio monitors are designed to produce a balanced flat sound with no colouration, where possible, which makes sence so we can listen to music as it was intended to sound. From personal experence I find this far more appealing.

Traditional Hi Fi speakers(mainly in the budget end) usually have some kind of colouration in a particular part of their frequency range. Which I guess is ok when listerning to pop, rock, funk and the like, however, for electronic and classical is that really ideal? Do traditional maufacturers tune their speakers to sound appealing to the ear? If so I find this appeal soon goes! Some people are of course content with this !

, I would like my music system to produce the music faithfully, which the active monitors get close to and the previous Hi Fi I've owned hasn't. So it appears in my biased non scientific comparison studio monitors win for sound quality and value for money but not for looks! .............but then again I would say that woudn't I. []

May be a good comparison for a future feature in the Mag........? hint hint

 

[northernsoul]

EDITED BY MODS - House Rules

 

[Frank Harvey]

Regardless of how much better active might be, it is down to personal preference. Many people don't like the 'warts and all' approach - some people want to relax to music.

 

[Anonymous]

ok I agree,,,,,but I personally find the active speakers very relaxing.....

 

[Anonymous]

and you only tend to hear warts when listening to badly recorded music

 

[SteveR750]

FrankHarveyHiFi:
the 'warts and all' approach

Like ATC SCMs??

 

[Anonymous]

the ATC SCM's cost £800 +...............you can get an absolutly hoofing pair of active studio monitors for £800

 

[MUSICRAFT]

brittondave:
Ok so an interesting one this. First of all I think we must put aesthetics aside as it's quite clear that in general traditional Hi fi speakers are on the whole meant to be visualy appealing, fit in with decor e.t.c...... So it's a straight shoot out pound for pound.

Let's compare a traditional mid budget system for cost.

Marantz 6003 amp £250, Marantz 6003 CDP £250, B and W 685 £365, Speaker Cable £20, Interconnect £20. Total £905

against

Behringer B2031A Truth Active Monitors £255, Marantz 6003 CDP £250, Studio Pro Phono lead £20 Total £525

a saving of £370.

That seems to be quite a big gap cost wise,

Now studio monitors are designed to produce a balanced flat sound with no colouration, where possible, which makes sence so we can listen to music as it was intended to sound. From personal experence I find this far more appealing.

Traditional Hi Fi speakers(mainly in the budget end) usually have some kind of colouration in a particular part of their frequency range. Which I guess is ok when listerning to pop, rock, funk and the like, however, for electronic and classical is that really ideal? Do traditional maufacturers tune their speakers to sound appealing to the ear? If so I find this appeal soon goes! Some people are of course content with this !

, I would like my music system to produce the music faithfully, which the active monitors get close to and the previous Hi Fi I've owned hasn't. So it appears in my biased non scientific comparison studio monitors win for sound quality and value for money but not for looks! .............but then again I would say that woudn't I.

May be a good comparison for a future feature in the Mag........? hint hint





Hi brittondave

Yes i agree studio monitors are supposed to offer a flat and uncoloured presentation whereas many hi-fi speakers can add colouration to varying degrees. I suppose partly because of this some speakers can favour pop, dance, rock whereas other designs will have their strenghts with classical, jazz, folk.

I too like my music and movie soundtracks to be reproduced as accurately as possible and active studio monitors (provided they have been designed effectiely) are really the only choice. In this respect I favour ATC ASL Professional monitors as they are it for me. I've recently installed the SCM100ASL Profesional monitors in the shop. I believe these monitors look and sound menacing. I had a customer visit earlier in the week who has been buying specialist hi-fi components (mostly high end) for nearly thirty years. For the last twenty years he has only owned valve amps and electrostatic speakers. Within a few moments of hearing these Professional monitors some of the things he said was that he had never heard such transparency, naturalness and power. This is also mostly the general feedback i have been receiving with some customers coming back again and others also wanting to listen again at the earliest opportunity.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[chebby]

Domestically/aesthetically acceptable 'true' active speakers like the Dynaudio Focus 110A have already demonstrated their cost effectiveness when you consider the level and expense of the kind of seperate power amps that would be needed to partner their passive Focus 110 siblings.

There is something like a £600 difference in price between them. That is far less than the cost of the type of power amp(s) that would be needed to do full justice to the 110s.

And on the question of 'warmth', the WHF reviews of both active/passive 110s suggests the active versions are the warmer sounding of the two variants. So "active = raw & unforgiving" and "passive = warm" is not necessarily a given in every comparison.

 

[Frank Harvey]

brittondave: and you only tend to hear warts when listening to badly recorded music

Understood, but much of my favourite music isn't perfectly recorded intentionally - regardless of how this sounds, I want to hear it as it is, but many people might not.

 

[northernsoul]

If you are looking at living room friendly active speakers then obviously the Dynaudio, ADM and Quad offerings are a must hear!

I guess a lot of users on this forum are box collectors as well which puts them off the active route. There is an immense sense of pride when you have everything stacked neatly in a rack and it becomes more about the romantic notion of having carefully partnered your equipment than what offers are true representation of what was recorded. Both are good but for true critical listening active has the upper hand.

 

[davemartin01]

FrankHarveyHiFi:
Regardless of how much better active might be, it is down to personal preference. Many people don't like the 'warts and all' approach - some people want to relax to music.

Are you suggesting you can't relax to music being played through an active system?

 

[Anonymous]

Most studio monitors are also designed to be at their best near to midfield. Therefore, many won't the average domestic living space.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I prefer my music to be reproduced with a decent amount of bite to it - I certainly don't want to relax to a majority of it, except maybe the downtempo stuff I listen to.

 

[Anonymous]

Tarquinh:Most studio monitors are also designed to be at their best near to midfield. Therefore, many won't the average domestic living space.

not quite true,,,,,some do the job perfectly if not better

 

[northernsoul]

I want the music to be presented to me as the artist recorded it, nothing added or taken away!

 

[MUSICRAFT]

northernsoul:I want the music to be presented to me as the artist recorded it, nothing added or taken away!

Hi northernsoul

Ultimately for myself also. Btw, good post.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[the record spot]

I heard some Genelec active speakers in London a month or so back and was extremely impressed. There's a pro-audio retailer I've since found up here (Red Dog Music in Edinburgh) which I might pop in and see.

I can see the attraction in terms of design, construction, simplified signal paths plus - and by far and away not the least - the sound from the Genelecs I heard was stunning. No other word for it. the music was as pure and clear as you could ask for and with a huge soundstage, which is all more impressive for a box less about a foot high. It blew away many other speakers I've heard and I'd be looking at actives first and foremost come the next change in the hifi. Not practical for me to do so right now, or probably for the next few years, but one day, for sure.

Tarquinh made the comment around these being nearfield monitors and true, they are often marketed with recording or home studios in mind, but that doesn't reduce their applicability in the home at all. By the same token, many small passive boxes don't cut it in larger rooms either, so a pair of Wharfedale Diamonds or Dali Lektor 1s are wasted in larger room settings - it cuts both ways.

If anything, I'd reckon the actives would have the edge. The Genelecs have a massive stereo image, we shifted position a lot in the shop and they held up well; there's no fretting over a "sweet spot", the design of that speaker takes care of throwing out a wide stereo image.

Cost-wise, actives can be serious money and you need to watch out when buying that the price quoted is for a pair - many are priced per single speaker, so your £450 purchase might net you one box only. Caveat emptor!

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:I heard some Genelec active speakers in London a month or so back and was extremely impressed. There's a pro-audio retailer I've since found up here (Red Dog Music in Edinburgh) which I might pop in and see. I can see the attraction in terms of design, construction, simplified signal paths plus - and by far and away not the least - the sound from the Genelecs I heard was stunning. No other word for it. the music was as pure and clear as you could ask for and with a huge soundstage, which is all more impressive for a box less about a foot high. It blew away many other speakers I've heard and I'd be looking at actives first and foremost come the next change in the hifi. Not practical for me to do so right now, or probably for the next few years, but one day, for sure. Tarquinh made the comment around these being nearfield monitors and true, they are often marketed with recording or home studios in mind, but that doesn't reduce their applicability in the home at all. By the same token, many small passive boxes don't cut it in larger rooms either, so a pair of Wharfedale Diamonds or Dali Lektor 1s are wasted in larger room settings - it cuts both ways. If anything, I'd reckon the actives would have the edge. The Genelecs have a massive stereo image, we shifted position a lot in the shop and they held up well; there's no fretting over a "sweet spot", the design of that speaker takes care of throwing out a wide stereo image. Cost-wise, actives can be serious money and you need to watch out when buying that the price quoted is for a pair - many are priced per single speaker, so your £450 purchase might net you one box only. Caveat emptor!

I too have found the stereo " sweet spot" far larger than previous hi fi speakers. I have also found they fill the room with sound far more effectively.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder in the future if we will start seeing HiFI retailers start to stock the likes of Genelec, Beheringer, KRK and the like.....?

 

[Anonymous]

brittondave:
Tarquinh:Most studio monitors are also designed to be at their best near to midfield. Therefore, many won't the average domestic living space.

not quite true,,,,,some do the job perfectly if not better

That's quite a generalisation, and, in my opinion, simply not true. Also, pedantry forces me to say it is impossible to improve upon perfection.

I'm not denying that some studio monitors may work well within the domestic environment, but it is horses for courses. There's a vast difference between listening in studios and listening in the comfort of your home, and it's this that dictates the design of the speaker, not some vague idea that you can rip domestic users off more easily. It's why some speakers, like the Yamahas which were once ubiquitous, were unlistenable outside the studio and, to be honest, within it unless it happened to be part of your job.

 

[SteveR750]

Tarquinh:Most studio monitors are also designed to be at their best near to midfield. Therefore, many won't the average domestic living space.

So by implication non studio monitors are not designed this way? If so, then how would they be voiced? Room acoustics are so variable and have such a big influence on tonal balance that it would seem only practical to design a speaker in a constant near field situation to eliminate such variables, otherwise you would risk a very expensive R&D mistake.

 

[MattSPL]

I agree that a well designed active monitor will perform better than its passive equivalent, thats what im currently moving towards, but in the first post with the 2 system comparisons, are we not missing a pre amp for the active monitors? Or am i missing something?

 

[Anonymous]

Tarquinh:brittondave:

Tarquinh:Most studio monitors are also designed to be at their best near to midfield. Therefore, many won't the average domestic living space.

not quite true,,,,,some do the job perfectly if not better

That's quite a generalisation, and, in my opinion, simply not true. Also, pedantry forces me to say it is impossible to improve upon perfection.

I'm not denying that some studio monitors may work well within the domestic environment, but it is horses for courses. There's a vast difference between listening in studios and listening in the comfort of your home, and it's this that dictates the design of the speaker, not some vague idea that you can rip domestic users off more easily. It's why some speakers, like the Yamahas which were once ubiquitous, were unlistenable outside the studio and, to be honest, within it unless it happened to be part of your job.

Aren't we just listening to music in either type of environment................where's the vast difference...................I have spent countless hours in studio's and home listening environment........the studio isn't some mystical place where music changes as soon as you step outside.

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:I agree that a well designed active monitor will perform better than its passive equivalent, thats what im currently moving towards, but in the first post with the 2 system comparisons, are we not missing a pre amp for the active monitors? Or am i missing something?

I included a CD player which would mean the volume would be controlled on the speakers themselves......but the cdp could quite easily be a DAC with volume knob