Beginner system?

[ID.]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

At the end of the day they are simply a pair of speakers with properly matched amplifiers and as such subject to the usual cost vs performance criterea.

However, compared to comparitively priced hi-fi combinations, the active option usually wins in terms of clarity, deeper more controlled bass, better dynamics and a sense of real presence. Conventional hi-fi options tend to be warmer, smoother and often more relaxing, you pay your money........!

The Adam A8x is a cracking amp/speaker combination for around £1k, spend nearly double that on the Opals and you simply get more performance, bigger box, more power, deeper bass etc, etc.

It is just like hi-fi, spend more (choose wisely) and it sounds better, simple as that, sometimes the improvements are worth the difference in price sometimes not, it is up to you.

This. The reason people don't use active monitors more include a lack of familiarity because they aren't sold in hifi stores, myths about how they sound and looks that usually don't fit in with the average living room due to a lack of wood veneers and grills.

But, they offer fantastic value for money and technical advantages.

I think the Opals look better than the Adams. Based on my personal tastes and decor Genelecs in white are probably the best looking studio monitor and doesn't look out of place in a living room, etc. Like with any speakers try to go listen to them and see how you get on with them.

I auditioned my Adams before buying. I bought my Genelecs without even hearing them.

 

[rainsoothe]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

At the end of the day they are simply a pair of speakers with properly matched amplifiers and as such subject to the usual cost vs performance criterea.?

However, compared to comparitively priced hi-fi combinations, the active option usually wins in terms of clarity, deeper more controlled bass, better dynamics and a sense of real presence. Conventional hi-fi options tend to be warmer, smoother and often more relaxing, you pay your money........!

The Adam A8x is a cracking amp/speaker combination for around £1k, spend nearly double that on the Opals and you simply get more performance, bigger box, more power, deeper bass etc, etc.

It is just like hi-fi, spend more (choose wisely) and it sounds better, simple as that, sometimes the improvements are worth the difference in price sometimes not, it is up to you.

I use a pair of Yamaha HS80 in my pc system, and I love'm. Also heard Adam 77x(or whatever the horizontal ones are called) and I think they sound amazing. However, different people like different kinds of presentation, that's why I'm suggesting trying to audition. Or audition what he can, and purchase monitors wiith the possibility of returning.

 

[drummerman]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

Not really. A properly designed studio monitors sound is supposed to reveal everything to enable the sound engineer to mix to the job brief.

So, applied to the 'real world' ie. your or my house this is great if you want to hear what the engineer intended (some peoples definition of 'hifi') but lets face it, this could get very wearing very quickly with a lot of music available.

Then there is the issue of many so called studio monitors actually being everything but, meaning they can be as flawed as anything else, including passive. - I would exclude ADAM and other leading more expensive brands. They have a good studio track background but whether you'd really want that 'wart's n'all' sound constantly at home ... ?.

Something like AVI's ADM probably tread the middleground somewhere, offering sound you can listen to for a long time with a domestically acceptable look (ie. they come with grills). - Even so, they still divide opinion on 'musicality' for some.

 

[Esra]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

Not really. A properly designed studio monitors sound is supposed to reveal everything to enable the sound engineer to mix to the job brief.

- Even so, they still divide opinion on 'musicality' for some.

Here you have some examples how most studio monitors would sound in "normal" rooms,just to get an idea.Then compare to "normal" speakers.I bet you can get an idea that way what I mean that these are not everybodies cup of tea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rosr8wq_hDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyqIGGP95zc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZn9alsmSNE

 

[drummerman]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

Not really. A properly designed studio monitors sound is supposed to reveal everything to enable the sound engineer to mix to the job brief.

- Even so, they still divide opinion on 'musicality' for some.

Here you have some examples how most studio monitors would sound in "normal" rooms,just to get an idea.Then compare to "normal" speakers.I bet you can get an idea that way what I mean that these are not everybodies cup of tea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rosr8wq_hDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyqIGGP95zc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZn9alsmSNE

Not sure I'd use youtube as an example of how things really sound (but I do use it myself to look at systems sometime) but I think we broadly agree that a top studio monitor is not everybodies idea of a good time.

 

[drummerman]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

Not really. A properly designed studio monitors sound is supposed to reveal everything to enable the sound engineer to mix to the job brief.

- Even so, they still divide opinion on 'musicality' for some.

Here you have some examples how most studio monitors would sound in "normal" rooms,just to get an idea.Then compare to "normal" speakers.I bet you can get an idea that way what I mean that these are not everybodies cup of tea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rosr8wq_hDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyqIGGP95zc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZn9alsmSNE

Not sure I'd use youtube as an example of how things really sound (but I do use it myself to look at systems sometime) but I think we broadly agree that a top studio monitor is not everybodies idea of a good time.

 

[Electro]

I realise it is probably a pointless observation but the Adams sounded by far the most natural to my ear .*smile*

 

[davedotco]

A lot of bullsh**t.

Studio monitors are built to be transparent, within the limitations of size and cost. The hyped, smiley face style response is most likely to be found on hi-fi speakers rather than studio monitors these days.

The idea that this transparancy reduces listening pleasure is a peculiar one, I find the extra clarity gives greater insight into the music, the lack of dynamic compression makes music sound more 'real' than all but the very best hi-fi, bass control is often better providing better bass definition and rhythmic integrity, I could go on.....!

Personally I think the issue is that hi-fi users have become used to 'hi-fi sound' and anything that does not sound like 'regular' hi-fi is wrong to them, most manufacturers know this and produce product accordingly.

 

[CnoEvil]

I agree that the OP should pursue both Active and Passive options...but people should buy the system that they find most enjoyable, not the one that measures well (if the two happen to differ).

FWIW. I would have a system that would have a Linn Sneaky on one end, some LS50s on the other and an Arcam A19 or Creek Evo 50A in the middle. The Q Acoustics Concept 20s (or even 40s), are also outstanding VFM.

 

[Native_bon]

There is a lot of boll**ks talked about studio monitors, too clinical, only for use in the nearfield etc.

At the end of the day they are simply a pair of speakers with properly matched amplifiers and as such subject to the usual cost vs performance criterea.

However, compared to comparitively priced hi-fi combinations, the active option usually wins in terms of clarity, deeper more controlled bass, better dynamics and a sense of real presence. Conventional hi-fi options tend to be warmer, smoother and often more relaxing, you pay your money........!

The Adam A8x is a cracking amp/speaker combination for around £1k, spend nearly double that on the Opals and you simply get more performance, bigger box, more power, deeper bass etc, etc.

It is just like hi-fi, spend more (choose wisely) and it sounds better, simple as that, sometimes the improvements are worth the difference in price sometimes not, it is up to you.

I use a pair of Yamaha HS80 in my pc system, and I love'm. Also heard Adam 77x(or whatever the horizontal ones are called) and I think they sound amazing. However, different people like different kinds of presentation, that's why I'm suggesting trying to audition. Or audition what he can, and purchase monitors wiith the possibility of returning.

Surprise took so long for anyone to mention the Yamaha HS80's. Brilliant pair of Active's.

 

[rainsoothe]

A lot of bullsh**t.

Studio monitors are built to be transparent, within the limitations of size and cost. The hyped, smiley face style response is most likely to be found on hi-fi speakers rather than studio monitors these days.

The idea that this transparancy reduces listening pleasure is a peculiar one, I find the extra clarity gives greater insight into the music, the lack of dynamic compression makes music sound more 'real' than all but the very best hi-fi, bass control is often better providing better bass definition and rhythmic integrity, I could go on.....!

Personally I think the issue is that hi-fi users have become used to 'hi-fi sound' and anything that does not sound like 'regular' hi-fi is wrong to them, most manufacturers know this and produce product accordingly.

What's the bull? That I like a different sound then you do, even if it means less transparent or true to the recording? Ok, I'm sorry, you're right. I like exactly what you like, and tastes are not at all a subjective matter.

 

[bluedroog]

CP - I really would urge you to demo as much gear as possible and don’t rush in to your purchase, one of the best circumstance I ever have when it comes to Hi-Fi shopping is being too skint to satisfy my upgrade urges, it forces me to do more research, listen to more gear and really consider what I’m buying. Speakers particularly are such a personal thing and tastes vary from one listener to the next. There is so much choice in the audio world and many different schools of thought.

Try a few Hi-Fi stores and some pro-audio stores too, call them in advance, book a demo and take a selection of your own preferred music you’re familiar with.

I bought my Opals from DV247, the £909 (per speaker which pro audio typically do compared to Hi-Fi pair prices) is a very good price, you could probably get some free cables etc. with a little friendly charm, I dealt with Jim, he was a pleasure.

Re actives Vs passive, as I said all things being equal actives are typically better due match amplifiers for each drive and in the implementation of the cross over before the amplification process. There are plenty of wonderful passive solutions though, don’t be put off if it suits you.

The reason you don’t see them on the high street is industry driven in my opinion, it is in the manufactures and dealers interest to keep the consumers consuming and on the upgrade path, active means less scope for that. The industry is slowly changing but not fast enough, the is a changing trend from the public and I think in part that is down to the wealth of information online, people are just more clued up. Actives are often better value because there is less snake oil and also the finishes are more functional, the pros would see through poor value to and vote with their wallets compared to us gullible audiofools.

I can tell from your OP you’re considered in your approach even as a beginner and this will serve you well, don’t dismiss the importance of the acoustics of your room (you don’t necessarily need unsightly treatment but consider how the likes of a rug of soft furnishings can influence sound), a solid pair of stands and speaker positioning.

 

[davedotco]

What's the bull? That I like a different sound then you do, even if it means less transparent or true to the recording? Ok, I'm sorry, you're right. I like exactly what you like, and tastes are not at all a subjective matter.

The bullsh**t is people commenting on product they havn't heard and know nothing about, expressing a preference is just that.

I have never heard your setup or for that matter anything that close to it, to express a view would be bullsh**t of the highest order, but people seem to think it is ok to rubbish studio monitors that they have never heard.

 

[bluedroog]

I suspect there is an incredible amount of opinions expressed, both positive and negative on gear people haven’t actually heard. Too much hearsay expressed as first hand opinion. I always make a point of only recommending gear I’ve heard and highlighting for further investigation gear I’ve not heard but find interesting or has a good rep.

 

[Vladimir]

FWIW. I would have a system that would have a Linn Sneaky on one end, some LS50s on the other and an Arcam A19 in the middle.

That would sum up to £2K - £2.5K depending where you buy them, and that is without cables and speaker stands.

Will a pair of Event Opal's outrun that pricewise comparable system, factoring in the OP's music taste?

 

[rainsoothe]

What's the bull? That I like a different sound then you do, even if it means less transparent or true to the recording? Ok, I'm sorry, you're right. I like exactly what you like, and tastes are not at all a subjective matter.

The bullsh**t is people commenting on product they havn't heard and know nothing about, expressing a preference is just that.

I have never heard your setup or for that matter anything that close to it, to express a view would be bullsh**t of the highest order, but people seem to think it is ok to rubbish studio monitors that they have never heard.

I didn't "rubbish" them, I just said they "MIGHT" sound clinical, implying he should audition. But whatever.

 

[Esra]

FWIW. I would have a system that would have a Linn Sneaky on one end, some LS50s on the other and an Arcam A19 in the middle.

That would sum up to £2K - £2.5K depending where you buy them, and that is without cables and speaker stands.

Will a pair of Event Opal's outrun that pricewise comparable system, factoring in the OP's music taste?

You bet,the opals have huge power and much bigger cones to move air for bass.Factoring the OP´s music taste i would not consider ls50 without a sub but for that kind of music it is questionable if you would need a ultra high resolution system anyway.

 

[bluedroog]

I know the Kef LS50 have legions of fans but honestly if I purchased them and suitable amp at around £1,500+ or so and then heard the Opals at £1,800 I’d kick myself.

The LS50s are ok but the Opals show them a clean pair of heels in every department for me.

There is a used pair going for £1k in the classifieds of PFM is you don’t mind going second hand. I have no connection to him.

A bargain at the price and you could move them on for no loss if you decide they’re not for you. I realise I said take you time and demo a few posts up!.....but I’d honestly take the plunge with these, it is the cheapest I’ve ever seen a pair up for.

 

[ID.]

FWIW. I would have a system that would have a Linn Sneaky on one end, some LS50s on the other and an Arcam A19 in the middle.

That would sum up to £2K - £2.5K depending where you buy them, and that is without cables and speaker stands.

Will a pair of Event Opal's outrun that pricewise comparable system, factoring in the OP's music taste?

You bet,the opals have huge power and much bigger cones to move air for bass.Factoring the OP´s music taste i would not consider ls50 without a sub but for that kind of music it is questionable if you would need a ultra high resolution system anyway.

personal tastes and all, but I crave a highly resolving system for electronic music that makes up the majority of what I listen to. Sure there's thumping, subterranean bass at times, but there's also often a lot of effort put into creating a soundscape. I want to hear what the artist has chosen to do with reverb, I want to hear the textures of that gorgeous vintage analog synth, I want to hear subtle details incorporated into the background, I want to hear the different production and sound of various different samples taken from different vinyl records that the artist has chosen, etc.

 

[bluedroog]

Claude Von Stroke's Who's Afriad of Detroit, mixed on Opals and enjoy at home on Opals.

now I'm going to stop before I come over all AVI. Other speakers are availible.

 

[Native_bon]

Yes all boils dwn to taste, but I think actives make for more value for money, that's the very reason I looking to put together a 5.1 active system.

 

[CnoEvil]

I think there has been lots of useful comment, but at the end of the day, there is no substitute for hearing the available options.

Personally, I think "resolving" is good, but "involving" is vital.....though the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I can't comment on Actives, other than the really expensive ones from the likes of Linn and Meridian.

 

[ID.]

I think there has been lots of useful comment, but at the end of the day, there is no substitute for hearing the available options.

Personally, I think "resolving" is good, but "involving" is vital.....though the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I can't comment on Actives, other than the really expensive ones from the likes of Linn and Meridian.

Agreed. We can all rave about our preferred kit, but the OP needs to listen to it and work out whether he likes the sound, as well as evaluate other factors such as the looks and how easy it is to set up (some people seem have a bit of a hard time getting their heads around streamers and active speakers).

 

[davedotco]

Agreed. We can all rave about our preferred kit, but the OP needs to listen to it and work out whether he likes the sound, as well as evaluate other factors such as the looks and how easy it is to set up (some people seem have a bit of a hard time getting their heads around streamers and active speakers).

The whole 'active speaker' thing is difficult for a lot of enthusiasts, for a whole raft of reasons.

Brought up on the concept of 'separates', putting the amps (plus sometimes dac and pre-amp) inside the speakers seems a retrograde step, it also reduces significantly the opportunities for system 'matching'. Cost is a huge factor too, given that the case is the most expensive part of any amplifier, value for money can be exceptional.

The whole idea is contrary to conventional hi-fi thought, it is too 'simple', consider a streamer such as the StreamMagic 6, or a Sonos Connect driving a pair of Adam Artist 6, pretty much every digital requirement is met with just one box and a neat pair of floorstanding speakers, and less than £1000 all in.

Choosing such a system is difficult though, active speakers of the type suggested are rarely, if ever, found in hi-fi shops so getting to hear the complete setup is awkward, that said there is minimal matching to be considered, the amp/speaker synergy is built in so no real issue there, just try and find a pro-music store and get a taste of what is on offer

If you want to spend a little more on audiophile 'flavouring', use a Unitiqute or Sneaky to drive the speakers, it's up to you.

 

[CnoEvil]

As far as I know, they don't make Actives with Class A or Valve amps (for obvious reasons)....which is what I prefer.