Are separates on borrowed time?

[John Duncan]

I wouldn't be so presumptious as to think for a moment that an entrepreneur and designer/manufacturer of a range of active studio monitors is going to need help from us in cracking the domestic hi-fi scene in a market few of us* have any experience in (even as consumers).

Oh I dunno. He's already had the "make them prettier" line from Craig, and I'll add "make them cheaper". Whilst Thomas's products may very well be excellent, they're way past the normal boundaries of what would sell in the domestic hifi market on looks and price alone. But I think it's great when manufacturers are on here.

 

[John Duncan]

Yes, we've gone from blanket "active sound better than passives" to properly designed ones sounding better...I'm not singling out Steve's post specifically, but for a long time I used to read how just about any old pair of actives from about £100 up would lick just about any passives off the floor.

Not quite so methinks...

+1, and my point all along...

 

[steve_1979]

Good quality, properly designed active studio monitors have the potential to sound better than an equivalently priced passive hifi setup.

Ah, still refining it? 🙂 I agree though!

🙂

for a long time I used to read how just about any old pair of actives from about £100 up would lick just about any passives off the floor.

Not quite so methinks...

I've found the the many of the cheap actives (say under £500ish) can sound quite compromised and a good quality equivalently priced passive system can sound just as good.

But once you've got upto the £1000ish price point the good quality, properly designed active studio monitors have noticably better performance compared to equivalently priced passive systems. The actives are noticeably clearer in the mids and treble and they have tighter, better controled bass.

 

[the record spot]

But that wasn't the point I was making Steve...

 

[BenLaw]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

 

[The_Lhc]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

I often feel like that here.

 

[BenLaw]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

I often feel like that here.

Do you get that on other forums and in real life, or is it just here?

 

[John Duncan]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

No you are thinking of "nee:nee:nee:nee:nee:nee"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfthzU3V4zo

 

[BenLaw]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

No you are thinking of "nee:nee:nee:nee:nee:nee"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfthzU3V4zo

I thought that's what the knights said.

 

[Diamond Joe]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

I often feel like that here.

Oh good, not just me then, especially when any of the letters A, V, I, D or M and the number 9 get mentioned!!

 

[drummerman]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

I often feel like that here.

Oh good, not just me then, especially when any of the letters A, V, I, D or M and the number 9 get mentioned!!

Oh, I will never hug you now ...

regards

 

[John Duncan]

Looking at the title of the posts, all I can think about is stabbing people.

No you are thinking of "nee:nee:nee:nee:nee:nee"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfthzU3V4zo

I thought that's what the knights said.

No, they are now the Knights who say Icky-Icky-Icky-Icky-Kapang-Zoop-Boing. Do keep up.

 

[BenLaw]

Kapang-Zoop-Boing.

I really must keep up, I thought that's what Alan Duckworth said.

 

[steve_1979]

But that wasn't the point I was making Steve...

I agree with you that the blanket comments of "actives sounding better than passives" is OTT. The crossover is just one of several factors that needs to be designed right for a speaker to sound good.

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.*

*Just my opinion based on auditioning of both actives and passives.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.

When the Xeos turn up, I'll be pitching them against the Excite X12's, which they effectively are. It'll be interesting to see how the Excite performs with say an Audiolab 8200A, or a Cyrus 6A.

 

[steve_1979]

When the Xeos turn up, I'll be pitching them against the Excite X12's

How would you describe the sound of the Excite X12's compared to the XEO's?

 

[John Duncan]

But that wasn't the point I was making Steve...

I agree with you that the blanket comments of "actives sounding better than passives" is OTT. The crossover is just one of several factors that needs to be designed right for a speaker to sound good.

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.*

*Just my opinion based on auditioning of both actives and passives.

By Jove, I think we might be getting somewhere...

 

[Frank Harvey]

When the Xeos turn up, I'll be pitching them against the Excite X12's

How would you describe the sound of the Excite X12's compared to the XEO's?

I'll be able to answer that better when both turn up as it's been a little while since I've heard the X12's. From memory, I would say the overall sound is quite similar, but the Xeos just seemed tighter and more energetic than the Excites. But as I say, it's been a while, so I wouldn't want to comment much further than that until I've heard them properly.

 

[relocated]

But that wasn't the point I was making Steve...

I agree with you that the blanket comments of "actives sounding better than passives" is OTT. The crossover is just one of several factors that needs to be designed right for a speaker to sound good.

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.*

*Just my opinion based on auditioning of both actives and passives.

By Jove, I think we might be getting somewhere...

I feel that we are getting somewhere on many fronts John, unfortunately with some notable exceptions.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.*

well, that largely depends on price point and engineering skills of the designer. at price-no-objecttive price point you can make pretty good passive crossovers that will hardly be distinguishable from active, if at all. it's even possible that they would sound better since there's no active electronic (hence no extra THD) in passive components. and top-of-the-line passive components maintain very strict tolerances therefore exhibit marginal distortion contribution.

so you can build a passive xover using cheap ferrite cored inductors and 10% - 20% tolerance electrolytic caps and then have it compared to how the speaker sounds with an active one. the result is obvious. but then again you can get copper foil air core inductors (the best it gets ATM, nearly perfect theoretical inductor, great electrical and mechanical properties) and 1% - 2% tolerance polypropylene caps (AFAIK the best electrical performance ATM) and design a proper 1st order xover (for various reasons the best design yet). I'll be very surprised if you heard any audible difference then. note "audible". that's the main reason why there are still people who pee on active speakers, despite their arguable superiority.

the problem is that one coil will be easily more expensive than the whole active xover. but it's not the point here.

FYI; if you are so much pro-active you should know it's way more useful to do the whole xover business in digital domain rather than rely on cheap off-the-shelf active solutions.

 

[John Duncan]

But that wasn't the point I was making Steve...

I agree with you that the blanket comments of "actives sounding better than passives" is OTT. The crossover is just one of several factors that needs to be designed right for a speaker to sound good.

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.*

*Just my opinion based on auditioning of both actives and passives.

By Jove, I think we might be getting somewhere...

I feel that we are getting somewhere on many fronts John, unfortunately with some notable exceptions.

There will always be those, on both sides. But when we can avoid the hyperbole, it's possible that a statement like Steve's can be made where both sides can agree. For the first time, I think, I agree with him 100%.

Am now going for a lie down.

 

[Craig M.]

Although all things being equal, I do think that you can easily hear noticable and worthwhile improvements by using an active crossover rather than a passive crossover but the difference between them isn't quite as huge as some people would have you believe.*

well, that largely depends on price point and engineering skills of the designer. at price-no-objecttive price point you can make pretty good passive crossovers that will hardly be distinguishable from active, if at all. it's even possible that they would sound better since there's no active electronic (hence no extra THD) in passive components. and top-of-the-line passive components maintain very strict tolerances therefore exhibit marginal distortion contribution.

so you can build a passive xover using cheap ferrite cored inductors and 10% - 20% tolerance electrolytic caps and then have it compared to how the speaker sounds with an active one. the result is obvious. but then again you can get copper foil air core inductors (the best it gets ATM, nearly perfect theoretical inductor, great electrical and mechanical properties) and 1% - 2% tolerance polypropylene caps (AFAIK the best electrical performance ATM) and design a proper 1st order xover (for various reasons the best design yet). I'll be very surprised if you heard any audible difference then. note "audible". that's the main reason why there are still people who pee on active speakers, despite their arguable superiority.

the problem is that one coil will be easily more expensive than the whole active xover. but it's not the point here.

FYI; if you are so much pro-active you should know it's way more useful to do the whole xover business in digital domain rather than rely on cheap off-the-shelf active solutions.

if we're talking money no object why not get the band to come and play in your front room? in the real world, were cost is a factor, show me some passives that get even close to my opals and i'll eat my hat.

from s.o.s. "distortion is quoted (measured at 90dB SPL, 1m) as: 500-7kHz, 0.08 percent; 200-20kHz, 0.2 percent; and <200Hz, 1.5 percent. This wouldn’t look that special on a power amp, but for speakers, where distortion figures of 10 percent are not uncommon, it’s very impressive." don't forget that the price includes four mono block power amps putting out peaks of over 700 watts per channel.

 

[paradiziac]

A review of some passive monitors:

http://tapeop.com/reviews/265/

Overall, working on Studio 100s is a full-range experience with no noticeable dips or peaks across the spectrum. One advantage with passive monitors is that they tend to have fewer issues around the crossover point than their powered cousins, and Studio 100s are a great example of this phenomenon. They're very flat. Of course, pairing passive monitors with amps adds to both the complexity and freedom of developing your monitoring situation.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are good and bad examples of actives and passives...at the end of the day it's personal preference...

...if you're happy with your choice of kit, be happy

 

[CnoEvil]

....and there's me thinking it was a YES or NO answer. :roll:

 

[steve_1979]

I agree with him 100%.

I think that I need to have a lie down too after a shock like that. 🙂