Are separates on borrowed time?

[bigblue235]

People do seem to be quite in love with you at the moment which considering you 'do Actives' is rather refreshing.

I can only speak for myself, but my issues with certain people who 'do Actives' has nothing to do with the fact that they 'do Actives'.

The reason I'm impressed with the Barefoot chappy is because, in addition to Actives, he also seems to 'do' diplomacy and humility. That's refreshing.

 

[Overdose]

People do seem to be quite in love with you at the moment which considering you 'do Actives' is rather refreshing.

I can only speak for myself, but my issues with certain people who 'do Actives' has nothing to do with the fact that they 'do Actives'.

The reason I'm impressed with the Barefoot chappy is because, in addition to Actives, he also seems to 'do' diplomacy and humility. That's refreshing.

Very true. He also has something to sell.

 

[bigblue235]

Very true. He also has something to sell.

Fine by me. Maybe I'd be more skeptical if I could afford something he sells

 

[Craig M.]

i have a question for Mr. Barefoot, if i may. i'll quote the sound on sound review of your mm27 speakers.

"and retired to my usual listening position about eight feet away: a typical ‘mid-field’ monitoring setup. In this arrangement, the MM27s were capable of providing generous sound pressure levels, lifelike dynamics, and excellent mid-range detail and resolution, but the balance was quite poor, with a distinctly lightweight bass, despite the two huge 10-inch bass drivers. The bass was well extended and extremely tight and accurate, but lacked oomph and power.
Could this be right? As I pondered the disappointing sound, I reached for the rather sparse ‘user manual’ and discovered my error. Relocating the monitors to a typical nearfield situation, about three feet away from my listening position, I was relieved to find the tonality was completely restored, with the kind of powerful, well-balanced bass that I’d expected to hear from the outset."i'm curious as to how/why the sound of the bass changes between the near and mid-field listening distances? would you expect the same from the mm35s?

 

[Anonymous]

P.S. I on the other hand like graphs. so what's with this impulse response you were mentioning before?

Hi Oldric,

I haven't forgot about your questions. It's just a big subject that needs some rather detailed explanations. I'll get back to you as soon as I have some time to elaborate. It might even deserve its own thread. In the meantime here’s one thing to ponder. Newton’s 2nd Law:

Force = mass*acceleration

or

a = F/m

Greater acceleration means faster impulse response. Ribbons (also a type of dynamic) and planer transducers do have the advantage with respect to lighter mass. But coiled dynamic speakers have the advantage of greater force. So the situation isn't as simple as you might expect. More to come.

Thomas

 

[Anonymous]

i have a question for Mr. Barefoot, if i may. i'll quote the sound on sound review of your mm27 speakers.

"and retired to my usual listening position about eight feet away: a typical ‘mid-field’ monitoring setup. In this arrangement, the MM27s were capable of providing generous sound pressure levels, lifelike dynamics, and excellent mid-range detail and resolution, but the balance was quite poor, with a distinctly lightweight bass, despite the two huge 10-inch bass drivers. The bass was well extended and extremely tight and accurate, but lacked oomph and power.
Could this be right? As I pondered the disappointing sound, I reached for the rather sparse ‘user manual’ and discovered my error. Relocating the monitors to a typical nearfield situation, about three feet away from my listening position, I was relieved to find the tonality was completely restored, with the kind of powerful, well-balanced bass that I’d expected to hear from the outset."i'm curious as to how/why the sound of the bass changes between the near and mid-field listening distances? would you expect the same from the mm35s?

Hi Craig,

Yes, I’ve read that review before. It appears that he slightly misinterpreted the manual (which is my fault for not writing it more clearly) . The manual states that the speakers are nearfield capable. But this doesn’t mean they can’t be used further out. In fact, having good nearfield performance just means that a speaker is even more cohesive at longer listening distances. I suspect he had null in his room that was causing the bass issue. However, it being such a glowing review otherwise, how could I raise a fuss?

Thomas

 

[Craig M.]

Hi Thomas, thanks for clarifying.

 

[BenLaw]

Has the mac mini gone Craig?

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

P.S. I on the other hand like graphs

Whereas I like my mathematics simple:

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Hi Oldric,

I haven't forgot about your questions. It's just a big subject that needs some rather detailed explanations. I'll get back to you as soon as I have some time to elaborate.

thanks. looking forward to it.

In the meantime here’s one thing to ponder. Newton’s 2nd Law:

Force = mass*acceleration

or

a = F/m

Greater acceleration means faster impulse response. Ribbons (also a type of dynamic) and planer transducers do have the advantage with respect to lighter mass. But coiled dynamic speakers have the advantage of greater force. So the situation isn't as simple as you might expect. More to come.

Thomas

it's clear from the formula that in order to arrive at given acceleration value one needs more force if mass is higher (less force if mass is lighter). so I don't think higher force of dynamic speakers is advantageous. it's rather necessary for them to work properly. furthermore, lower force needed to move ribbons means less chances to obscure low level information (I'm not claiming I heard it all but so far ribbons I heard proved to be definitely more resolving, than cones & domes).

but there's another aspect which is even more important in this light. more force applied equals more inertia force produced. inertia is no good as it creates overshooting product (it can be clearly seen as overshooting in impulse response graphs, and AFAIK can also be related to long decay times in so called waterfall plot). I stand to be corrected here but I suspect this overshooting to be a major contributor in many domes sounding "shrill"... just my thinking.

 

[relocated]

P.S. I on the other hand like graphs

Whereas I like my mathematics simple:

+1

 

[paradiziac]

There's a thread on another forum RE: active monitors for hi-fi use:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/589493-controversial-active-monitors-hi-fi-use.html

A refreshing read...

...some choice quotes:

...Acoustical treatment of your room is one of the biggest differences between a pro studio and a living room.

...I imagine outside hopelessly crud speakers, the difference between hi-fi and studio is purely marketing.

...one measurement, i.e. frequency response graph, is not really a great indication of how the speaker will actually 'sound' (nor perform). You can put many different brands of speakers up side by side, all with 'flat'ish' frq response 'charts' and they will all sound very different. The voicings will be the most audible difference and that isn't really reflected in freq measurements.

...My Totem Acoustic home stereo speakers have better Focal drivers than, I believe, any production studio monitor. And they sound better. And they're NOT flat.

I mix on KRK and Genelec and others, but then I listen for enjoyment on my Totems and Magnepans.

I would say, subjectively, that my home stereo sounds twice as good as my studio monitoring setup. Studio monitors tend to be built "to a price" moreso than audiophile home theater products. And studio monitors need to be a bit more rugged (which can compromise fidelity) to be able to take abuse (wayward self-oscillating filters, etc.) that is not an issue in home stereo.

Some apparently well-informed and rounded viewpoints, there's clearly much more to it than "actives speakers sound better"...

 

[Craig M.]

Has the mac mini gone Craig?

yup. loving this way of doing things. going to do something later i haven't done for a long time - watch a film!

 

[Craig M.]

Some apparently well-informed and rounded viewpoints, there's clearly much more to it than "actives speakers sound better"...

PMC think differently... and i quote "Nothing can beat an active speaker".

http://www.tnt-audio.com/tours/pmc_e.html

 

[John Duncan]

They do, though Pete Thomas has also stated that active only makes sense at a certain price point, which is why the £2k + DB1S have a passive crossover.

 

[Craig M.]

do you know what his reasons are? and what he thinks the price point is?

 

[John Duncan]

More than 2k, obv . Not sure where that came from, will have a dig later...

 

[John Duncan]

I read it in the Sound on Sound review. Not direct quotes though.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may05/articles/pmcmonitors.htm

I think their cheapest active-crossover design is the AML2, which are £6.5k a pair.

 

[steve_1979]

do you know what his reasons are? and what he thinks the price point is?

Quote from the Sound on Sound PMC TB2S AII review:

"The argument centres on the claim that it is better to use one good-quality amplifier coupled with a well-designed passive crossover than two cheaper, potentially less good amps and an active crossover"

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/pmctb2saii.htm

 

[steve_1979]

They do, though Pete Thomas has also stated that active only makes sense at a certain price point, which is why the £2k + DB1S have a passive crossover.

Here's something that you may find interesting.

The Digidesign RM1 and RM2 active speakers which are made by PMC apparently sound better than the passive PMC DB1 and TB2 speakers which they're based on. The active versions were the same price as the passive/powered versions too.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct07/articles/digidesignrm2.htm

 

[John Duncan]

They do, though Pete Thomas has also stated that active only makes sense at a certain price point, which is why the £2k + DB1S have a passive crossover.

Here's something that you may find interesting.

The Digidesign RM1 and RM2 active speakers which are made by PMC apparently sound better than the passive PMC DB1 and TB2 speakers which they're based on. The active versions were the same price as the passive/powered versions too.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct07/articles/digidesignrm2.htm

Where does it say that about the RM1s?

 

[the record spot]

People do seem to be quite in love with you at the moment which considering you 'do Actives' is rather refreshing.

I can only speak for myself, but my issues with certain people who 'do Actives' has nothing to do with the fact that they 'do Actives'.

The reason I'm impressed with the Barefoot chappy is because, in addition to Actives, he also seems to 'do' diplomacy and humility. That's refreshing.

Very true. He also has something to sell.

Yes and at prices like £6k a turn, I'd imagine he's not going to hit a few on this site. The point is, he's put up some great posts, gives good insight into the development side and is a decent bloke. I wouldn't say his presence on here is geared to sell his product, not least when he's probably doing pretty well in other markets elsewhere.

 

[steve_1979]

They do, though Pete Thomas has also stated that active only makes sense at a certain price point, which is why the £2k + DB1S have a passive crossover.

The active version of the Acoustic Energy AE22 is better than the passive version of the same identical speaker yet these only cost £850.

Passive AE22 review http://www.whathifi.com/review/acoustic-energy-ae22

Active AE22 review http://www.whathifi.com/review/acoustic-energy-ae22-active

 

[steve_1979]

Where does it say that about the RM1s?

Quote from the article:

"The smaller RM1 uses a 5.5-inch mid/bass driver, while the larger RM2 uses a 6.75-inch model."

The RM1 wasn't reviewed but it does say that the active RM2 is better than the passive TB2. Quote:

"I reached a point where the TB2s were sounding rather congested and veiled in comparison. The overall tonal character was very similar (bass and treble extension, smoothness through the mid band, and imaging) but the amount of detail and clarity, the articulation and presence of bass instruments from the RM2s, was quite astonishing. The image stability was also noticeably better, with bigger, deeper more believable sound stages on suitable material, and a wider sweet spot. Eventually, I had to take the TB2s down and move up to my much larger (and a lot more expensive) three-way PMC IB1s as a reference point instead, because the Digidesign speakers were revealing low-level details that simply weren't audible on the TB2s."

 

[Craig M.]

They do, though Pete Thomas has also stated that active only makes sense at a certain price point, which is why the £2k + DB1S have a passive crossover.

The active version of the Acoustic Energy AE22 is better than the passive version of the same identical speaker yet these only cost £850.

Passive AE22 review http://www.whathifi.com/review/acoustic-energy-ae22

Active AE22 review http://www.whathifi.com/review/acoustic-energy-ae22-active

maybe the price pmc think actives are better at, is linked to letting bryston sort the electronics. bryston are not exactly known for budget kit. you could make the argument that they needn't use such an expensive company for the electronics. i know what i think of the notion that a decent set of actives need to cost 6 and a half grand.