Active Studio Monitors VS Traditional Hi fi.

[SteveR750]

brittondave: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.

and don't most of us try to set up our listening rooms such that they end up in near-ish positions with speakers firing straight at us? My speakers are about than 2m from my sofa, and about 2m apart, which is dictated by room shape and cable lengths. I'll be surprised if the majority of home set ups are of similar dimensions.

 

[Anonymous]

brittondave: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.

I have also been in many studio's which were far more comfortable than listening to music at my own home..........but I am working on that.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Near to midfield means you are positioned closer, often much closer, to the speaker than you would be at home, as in 3 to 5 ft, and the speakers are optimised to perform at their best at this distance. Speaker voicing is some thing different again, and is about how the designer perceives the speaker should be balanced, i.e voiced for purity of midrange, bass extension and so forth.

In other words, it would be a marketing disaster if manufacturers assumed average consumer listening distance was 3 ft and designed their speakers accordingly, which is why they don't.

 

[Anonymous]

SteveR750:brittondave: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.

and don't most of us try to set up our listening rooms such that they end up in near-ish positions with speakers firing straight at us? My speakers are about than 2m from my sofa, and about 2m apart, which is dictated by room shape and cable lengths. I'll be surprised if the majority of home set ups are of similar dimensions.

and we are encouraged to do this in the speakers instruction manual

 

[MattSPL]

brittondave:
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

Ok cheers, i didnt realise you could adjust actual volume on the monitors, i thought there were just adjustments for 0db gain then maybe -3db and +3db of gain.

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:brittondave:

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

Ok cheers, i didnt realise you could adjust actual volume on the monitors, i thought there were just adjustments for 0db gain then maybe -3db and +3db of gain.

sorry didn't mean to mislead you ...yes most have a db gain control mine have +6, -6 so the better option is to have somesort of preamp......i.e dac,,,,headphone pre amp......etc

 

[Anonymous]

brittondave:SteveR750:brittondave: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.

and don't most of us try to set up our listening rooms such that they end up in near-ish positions with speakers firing straight at us? My speakers are about than 2m from my sofa, and about 2m apart, which is dictated by room shape and cable lengths. I'll be surprised if the majority of home set ups are of similar dimensions.

and we are encouraged to do this in the speakers instruction manual

Whew, thanks for proving my point!

Frankly there is no right or wrong in this, from the musician through the producer the recording engineer to the consumer. Everyone has a take on what a given piece should sound like, so what is accurate is unlistenable to one person and far too rich to someone else. If you like the sound of the Studio monitors, fine ... although, now I come to think of it, there are vast differences in how they sound, too, and many are not exactly cheap....

 

[Anonymous]

.....all I was trying to do was to see if there was a comparison to be made betwen the two and if the studio monitor could be a very realistic alternative to traditional Hifi as there are now some very very affordable active monitors out there.

 

[the record spot]

The short answer Dave, is "yes", and you could easily add "often" and "with better results" on top of that!

 

[MattSPL]

brittondave:MattSPL:brittondave:
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

Ok cheers, i didnt realise you could adjust actual volume on the monitors, i thought there were just adjustments for 0db gain then maybe -3db and +3db of gain.

sorry didn't mean to mislead you ...yes most have a db gain control mine have +6, -6 so the better option is to have somesort of preamp......i.e dac,,,,headphone pre amp......etc

No worries, thanks.

I have to admit though, regardless of my budget, i would be going for active monitors as opposed to a passive setup these days.

They can sound better pound for pound and don't require a huge power amp lurking in the corner of the room to power them.

From the various setup's ive had, ive come to the conclusion that i prefer large speakers with lots of power and volume potential. And that i love ATC's sonic signature(or lack of it), so my plan now is to work towards a set of active ATC's as they also work out cheaper than a comparable passive speaker and big power amp

 

[SteveR750]

Tarquinh:.
In other words, it would be a marketing disaster if manufacturers assumed average consumer listening distance was 3 ft and designed their speakers accordingly, which is why they don't.

What do they do then, 2m? 5m? curtains open? carpet or tiles? Unless we are arguing the same point here! I would have thought that the starting point for all speaker design is the same whether for near field use or normal domestic use in an attempt to remove as many variables as possible. The only difference being that a monitor would have to be robust for pro use and as flat a response as possible, arguably some (cheaper?) domestic speakers will be 'tailored' in such a way that would work supposedly better in an average furnished room might. That said, I would assume that most speakers will sound most 'accurate' if used in an anechoic chamber unless specificaly design to bounce sound off walls etc to create some surround sound effect.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think that a lot of the monitor v domestic use is simply marketing department differentiation a lot of cases. After all, ATC are doing a good job in the domestic market, and they are a Pro PA / Monitor manufacturer of some repute.

 

[Anonymous]

sounds fantastic

 

[Anonymous]

SteveR750:Tarquinh:.
In other words, it would be a marketing disaster if manufacturers assumed average consumer listening distance was 3 ft and designed their speakers accordingly, which is why they don't.

What do they do then, 2m? 5m? curtains open? carpet or tiles? Unless we are arguing the same point here! I would have thought that the starting point for all speaker design is the same whether for near field use or normal domestic use in an attempt to remove as many variables as possible. The only difference being that a monitor would have to be robust for pro use and as flat a response as possible, arguably some (cheaper?) domestic speakers will be 'tailored' in such a way that would work supposedly better in an average furnished room might. That said, I would assume that most speakers will sound most 'accurate' if used in an anechoic chamber unless specificaly design to bounce sound off walls etc to create some surround sound effect.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think that a lot of the monitor v domestic use is simply marketing department differentiation a lot of cases. After all, ATC are doing a good job in the domestic market, and they are a Pro PA / Monitor manufacturer of some repute.

Actually, you're arguing for reasons I no longer understand, plus don't seem to have grasped the fundamental differences between nearfield monitors and domestic speakers. You should also define what you mean by accurate rather than bandy the term around willy nilly. Incidentally it's because we don't, don't live in anechoic chambers that give speaker designers freedom to produce differing designs based on differing philosophies. Plenty of manufacturers manufacture for home and studios with equal success So what?

The www has plenty of info on speaker design, constraints, studio vs domestic design and so on. Have a look - the internet can be a positive educational influence for all []

Who cares in the end anyway. Much more important things in life, not in the least of which is Australia against Ghana. See ya, mate!

 

[Anonymous]

 

[SteveR750]

Tarquinh:SteveR750:Tarquinh:.
In other words, it would be a marketing disaster if manufacturers assumed average consumer listening distance was 3 ft and designed their speakers accordingly, which is why they don't.

What do they do then, 2m? 5m? curtains open? carpet or tiles? Unless we are arguing the same point here! I would have thought that the starting point for all speaker design is the same whether for near field use or normal domestic use in an attempt to remove as many variables as possible. The only difference being that a monitor would have to be robust for pro use and as flat a response as possible, arguably some (cheaper?) domestic speakers will be 'tailored' in such a way that would work supposedly better in an average furnished room might. That said, I would assume that most speakers will sound most 'accurate' if used in an anechoic chamber unless specificaly design to bounce sound off walls etc to create some surround sound effect.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think that a lot of the monitor v domestic use is simply marketing department differentiation a lot of cases. After all, ATC are doing a good job in the domestic market, and they are a Pro PA / Monitor manufacturer of some repute.

Actually, you're arguing for reasons I no longer understand, plus don't seem to have grasped the fundamental differences between nearfield monitors and domestic speakers. You should also define what you mean by accurate rather than bandy the term around willy nilly. Incidentally it's because we don't, don't live in anechoic chambers that give speaker designers freedom to produce differing designs based on differing philosophies. Plenty of manufacturers manufacture for home and studios with equal success So what?

The www has plenty of info on speaker design, constraints, studio vs domestic design and so on. Have a look - the internet can be a positive educational influence for all []

Who cares in the end anyway. Much more important things in life, not in the least of which is Australia against Ghana. See ya, mate!

sorry if I came over a bit argumentative, wasn't intended. I am genuinely interested to understand the diffrences. I read a bit on good old wiki about monitors, the conclusion was simplay primarily accuracy. I just assume that all good speaker design would try to achieve this, hence I cannot see much distinction between good hi fi speakers and monitors. Apart from the physical size, what else makes something suitable for near field?

By accurate I mean faithfully following the electrical input, so flat frequency response and low colouration.

And indeed, its all pretty uimportant

As for Ghana v Aus, hmmm. After this mornings hammering from the All Blacks nothing really matters at all.... [']

Have a good 'un

 

[AEJim]

Making a good pro speaker isn't all about measuring "flat" (aside from other factors) - it depends on the usage. We made our AE22's to work in near/mid field on a mixing desk and they were designed and balanced as such, in-situ. If we made them as neutral as poss in free-space then the mid would thicken up and become coloured when placed with the large flat surface underneath. I don't actually think they work particularly well as a hi-fi speaker - placed on stands in free-space, the sound becomes a little "exposed" and on the bright side, but they should fair well in the less preferred positions like on a shelf or cabinet.

We had problems with our Neo 5.1 in reviews because I insisted we design in a realistic environment - the centre was therefore placed on a rack under a TV for balancing, the review from WHF said it sounded "cuppy" - most likely due to lack of midband reinforcement from being placed in a more neutral position for review purposes... Now we design all in free space as a result.

Everyone prefers different things at the end of the day, even from reviewer to reviewer - some prefer a clinical, clean and detailed sound and some like things with more character, warmth or pace. We designed the Radiance series to have character, to be musical and enjoyable - we haven't had any bad reviews on them but we have found some are lukewarm to them and others love them to bits. I'd say it's the same for the Pro/Home debate, both types of product have benefits and it will depend on taste and listening environment as to what works best. Active speakers definitely have many plusses and I'd imagine you will see more and more of them due to the ever-increasing MP3 player market making them an easy plug-in solution, we will certainly be making more of them over the coming years at both the budget and reference price points. Hi-Fi, as always, is an evolving thing...

 

[the record spot]

AEJim:
...we will certainly be making more of them over the coming years at both the budget and reference price points.

Oh thank God!! Will the, just out of interest of course, AE22 Actives likely drop down a pound or two ahead of their replacements coming in by any chance?!

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Since 8 days ago I am enjoying active speakers sound. Fantabulous!

If only I could post properly (keep getting errors) I would have continued 'my system' thread with full impressions of the switch.

The actives are excellent. Fast, dynamic, effortless sound with endless headroom.

Worth a try.

 

[Messiah]

My experience with Active speakers so far is only positive. The most impressive I have heard are the Meridian DSP8000 although they are quite expensive!

Currently I have the AVI ADM 9.1s and these are superb. I cannot see myself going back to a passive design for my main listening.

As others are finding, Active speakers and a PC are the way forward.

 

[SteveR750]

AEJim:
Making a good pro speaker isn't all about measuring "flat" (aside from other factors) - it depends on the usage. We made our AE22's to work in near/mid field on a mixing desk and they were designed and balanced as such, in-situ. If we made them as neutral as poss in free-space then the mid would thicken up and become coloured when placed with the large flat surface underneath. I don't actually think they work particularly well as a hi-fi speaker - placed on stands in free-space, the sound becomes a little "exposed" and on the bright side, but they should fair well in the less preferred positions like on a shelf or cabinet.

We had problems with our Neo 5.1 in reviews because I insisted we design in a realistic environment - the centre was therefore placed on a rack under a TV for balancing, the review from WHF said it sounded "cuppy" - most likely due to lack of midband reinforcement from being placed in a more neutral position for review purposes... Now we design all in free space as a result.

Everyone prefers different things at the end of the day, even from reviewer to reviewer - some prefer a clinical, clean and detailed sound and some like things with more character, warmth or pace. We designed the Radiance series to have character, to be musical and enjoyable - we haven't had any bad reviews on them but we have found some are lukewarm to them and others love them to bits. I'd say it's the same for the Pro/Home debate, both types of product have benefits and it will depend on taste and listening environment as to what works best. Active speakers definitely have many plusses and I'd imagine you will see more and more of them due to the ever-increasing MP3 player market making them an easy plug-in solution, we will certainly be making more of them over the coming years at both the budget and reference price points. Hi-Fi, as always, is an evolving thing...

Thanks for a constructive post Jim.

So ultimately you tailor a speaker's tonal balance (read freq response) to it's intended use / location.I was reading up a little on the history of the LS3/5A which from what I cold gather was tuned to give a realistic rendition of voices, which necesitated a deliberate hump in the lower mid bass somewhere (don't know what f didn't state it it in the article).

I guess then it makes sense to develop and market a completely different suite of products for pro (monitor) use and domestic use.

So why not make cloth covered mixing desks, no one would know...

 

[Anonymous]

Messiah:
My experience with Active speakers so far is only positive. The most impressive I have heard are the Meridian DSP8000 although they are quite expensive!

Currently I have the AVI ADM 9.1s and these are superb. I cannot see myself going back to a passive design for my main listening.

As others are finding, Active speakers and a PC are the way forward.

I recently purchased the AVI ADM 9.1's for downtempo/classical/relaxing music and they are fantastic, but they would never replace my big floorstander passive PMC's for filling a room with rock/electronic etc. I tried the active Dynaudio MC15's for a week, initially they were really impressive, but I found them tiring to listen to as they reveal too much.

 

[the record spot]

I heard a pair of Genelec 8030s today; 40w+40w onboard amps for HF & LF and they're about as close as I've heard to "domestic" sounding speakers, yet incredibly deep bass from a box roughly a foot high. Midrange and nicely rolled off treble; £830 the pair (some places may offer deals for paired sets as opposed to the single price).

Also heard some KRK VX8s, also the entry level KRK Rokit 5 which was pretty decent too. The Adam and Dynaudios were more revealing I thought, or at least, they had the flattest and most neutral of the sets I heard, so less likely to be popular in the home. However, the Genelecs were delightful. An easy recommendation and moreso for smaller to mid-sized rooms where space might be at a premium, this is definitely not a speaker that's just for the recording and mastering professions, albeit that is the target market.

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:I heard a pair of Genelec 8030s today; 40w+40w onboard amps for HF & LF and they're about as close as I've heard to "domestic" sounding speakers, yet incredibly deep bass from a box roughly a foot high. Midrange and nicely rolled off treble; £830 the pair (some places may offer deals for paired sets as opposed to the single price). Also heard some KRK VX8s, also the entry level KRK Rokit 5 which was pretty decent too. The Adam and Dynaudios were more revealing I thought, or at least, they had the flattest and most neutral of the sets I heard, so less likely to be popular in the home. However, the Genelecs were delightful. An easy recommendation and moreso for smaller to mid-sized rooms where space might be at a premium, this is definitely not a speaker that's just for the recording and mastering professions, albeit that is the target market.

So MR Record Spot is a future purchase likely or are you holding off for a while......................glad you liked the KRK's

incidently the best speakers I think I've ever heard are these Genelecs

http://www.genelec.com/products/2-way-monitors/1036a/

mind you I think they are £20000 each......

 

[MattSPL]

They are huge beasts

 

[Anonymous]

MattSPL:They are huge beasts

absolute Mosters