Budget active/powered speakers vs. traditional separates

[maxmelvin19]

Hi,

I thought it was correct to start a new topic since my question no longer fit under the previous post's heading. I want to get a smooth and detailed setup going in a small room for under £300. After some research (whathifi, stereophile, audiostream, etc.) it is still not clear whether a good powered desktop speaker like the Audioengine A5+s or the PSB Alpha 1s compare to the best traditional sub-£300 passive and amp set-ups. I think my choices are as follows (any input from whathifi's staff would obviously be much appreciated):

1. Q acoustics 2010i + Marantz PM5004 £260

2. Tannoy Mercury V1 + Marantz PM5004 £279

3. Audioengine A5+ £295

In a small room and sitting 6-8 feet from the speakers, what is going to give me the most hi fidelity sound?

Thank you in advance,

Max

 

[lecson]

You may wish to broaden your search a little and look at some of the professional active speakers. You will find them on pro-audio websites and dealers (although finding one nearby may be problematical).

At a recent video screening, I heard a pair of small-ish M-Audio active loudspeakers which filled a large room with music and sounded very clean, fed directly from a laptop. Yamaha and Behringer are other popular makes.

In theory, the cost benefits are with these pro actives as they are built in greater numbers and you're not paying for extras. It is then up to you to see if the sound suits what you are looking for and whether the facilities (input switching and so on) match your requirements. A good passive preamp would be an ideal addition and shouldn't cost too much.

I think these were the ones I heard

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avid-M-Audio-BX5-D2-Monitors/dp/B005OOSZR2

 

[davedotco]

You may wish to broaden your search a little and look at some of the professional active speakers. You will find them on pro-audio websites and dealers (although finding one nearby may be problematical).

At a recent video screening, I heard a pair of small-ish M-Audio active loudspeakers which filled a large room with music and sounded very clean, fed directly from a laptop. Yamaha and Behringer are other popular makes.

In theory, the cost benefits are with these pro actives as they are built in greater numbers and you're not paying for extras. It is then up to you to see if the sound suits what you are looking for and whether the facilities (input switching and so on) match your requirements. A good passive preamp would be an ideal addition and shouldn't cost too much.

I think these were the ones I heard

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avid-M-Audio-BX5-D2-Monitors/dp/B005OOSZR2

There are plenty of active options available and a lot will depend on how you plan to drive them. My own setup is very simple, an AEX digital out into a cheap Fiio dac to a small pair of active monitors.

The single biggest reason I went down this route was to avoid the excessive bloom that I find endemic in modern low cost speakers (Dali Zensor 1 was an honourable exception), I find it pretty much unlistenable.

By choosing the active route I managed to get the tight, punchy sound that I prefer at a lower cost than I could hope for with conventional passive components.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

This also depends on sources. If you have more than one - CD player, and turntable, for example - you need a preamp to use most active speakers, and that pushes the price up to the point where the passive route is better vfm. It's also worth bearing in mind some pro active speakers sound pretty horrible - forward, coarse treble etc.

 

[KidKomet]

As Lemon said, it depends on your source. If you're using a Mac/PC source and want little clutter, I recently heard a pair of M-Audio BX8's and for the price, they really were very good. Bear in mind that these are for professionals and generally used more for near-field listening. Neutral balance is paramount this kind of speaker. Keep your eyes and ears open, don't be afraid to explore the second hand market either, given your budget.

 

[davedotco]

This also depends on sources. If you have more than one - CD player, and turntable, for example - you need a preamp to use most active speakers, and that pushes the price up to the point where the passive route is better vfm. It's also worth bearing in mind some pro active speakers sound pretty horrible - forward, coarse treble etc.

Clearly most active speakers are single input with a choice of connector, for simple systems such as my own a very basic dac will do the job, more digital inputs are easily catered for and it is only really when analogue sources need to be included that a full pre-amp is required.

You could of course turn that statement around, why buy a fully featured pre or integrated amplifier if you are only going to use a single input, poor vfm there too.

That there are some really poor passive speakers masquerading as hi-fi too, you can not judge a a whole genre of equipment on one or two poor examples. Personally it is my experience that the classic, forward and 'in your face' style of presentation is largely a thing in the past, modern designs are simply not like that.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

The statement is correct as you've agreed, why do you want to turn it around?

 

[davedotco]

The statement is correct as you've agreed, why do you want to turn it around?

To offer a different view, apologies if you don't see the point.

 

[maxmelvin19]

Thank you all,

My only source, for the next few years at least, will be my mac. I hope to get a USB DAC in the not too distant future. As I said, I won't spend too much time listening near field but about 6 feet away sitting on a sofa. So I guess I'm asking, if anyone has listened to/knows about the list of options I gave above (I know whathifi have reviewed the Audioengine A5+s, Tannoy Mercury V1s and the Q Acoustics 2010is) could give me some advice about which setup is likely to sound best.

Max.

 

[davedotco]

Thank you all,

My only source, for the next few years at least, will be my mac. I hope to get a USB DAC in the not too distant future. As I said, I won't spend too much time listening near field but about 6 feet away sitting on a sofa. So I guess I'm asking, if anyone has listened to/knows about the list of options I gave above (I know whathifi have reviewed the Audioengine A5+s, Tannoy Mercury V1s and the Q Acoustics 2010is) could give me some advice about which setup is likely to sound best.

Max.

If we are keeping to budget I would suggest the Behringer UCA202 usb dac which costs a miserly £25, driving a pair of Presonus Eris E5 at £230 or a pair of Yamaha HS5 at £270.

Both combinations would be in budget and I think the Eris E5 is better value, leaves you a few pounds for cables and stands.

In my opinion far better than any passive solution for similar money, but should you choose to go town the traditional route, I am sure there are plenty on here who can help.

http://www.presonus.com/products/Eris

 

[steve_1979]

With a £300 budget my choice would be a Behringer UCA202 DAC (£24) and a pair of Yamaha HS5 active monitors (£264 per pair).

 

[davedotco]

With a £300 budget my choice would be a Behringer UCA202 DAC (£24) and a pair of Yamaha HS5 active monitors (£264 per pair).

As you can see, I agree, though I am very taken with the new Eris E5.

Presonus as a brand is less well known in the uk, much more prominent in germany.

 

[steve_1979]

With a £300 budget my choice would be a Behringer UCA202 DAC (£24) and a pair of Yamaha HS5 active monitors (£264 per pair).

As you can see, I agree, though I am very taken with the new Eris E5.

Presonus as a brand is less well known in the uk, much more prominent in germany.

I've never seen those ones before but I'll keep an eye out for them. I've heard that the Studio spares motitors are good for the price too.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

The statement is correct as you've agreed, why do you want to turn it around?

To offer a different view, apologies if you don't see the point.

Because there was no point.

Anyway, I'd definitely avoid the Yamahas. Their treble is almost grating. I thought the Adam Audio speakers far better. However, it is important to audition any of the speakers mentioned here. Tastes differ so much.

 

[maxmelvin19]

Am I right in thinking that studio monitors are designed for a different application than audiophile hifi? It's just that whilst I do want transparency and timing, smooth and warm musicality is at the top of my list, not hearing every problem in the mix as glaringly obvious. I want the speakers to be forgiving of radio, mp3 and tv sound whilst making the most of cd quality and HD music (once I get a dac) from my laptop.

Thanks,

Max

 

[davedotco]

With a £300 budget my choice would be a Behringer UCA202 DAC (£24) and a pair of Yamaha HS5 active monitors (£264 per pair).

As you can see, I agree, though I am very taken with the new Eris E5.

Presonus as a brand is less well known in the uk, much more prominent in germany.

I've never seen those ones before but I'll keep an eye out for them. I've heard that the Studio spares motitors are good for the price too.

Their basic models are excellent for little more than beer money. They are built in China by Seiwin http://www.seiwin.com/product_y.php

Studiospares bring in the ST5a and ST6a, £120 and £140 respectively. I have the smaller PM4a, called SN4a by Studiospares, probably the best desktop monitors I have seen. Cost me just £100 (small promo discount), sat on a pair of Audio Engine desktop stands.

 

[davedotco]

Am I right in thinking that studio monitors are designed for a different application than audiophile hifi? It's just that whilst I do want transparency and timing, smooth and warm musicality is at the top of my list, not hearing every problem in the mix as glaringly obvious. I want the speakers to be forgiving of radio, mp3 and tv sound whilst making the most of cd quality and HD music (once I get a dac) from my laptop.

Thanks,

Max

At the end of the day they, studio monitors, are just speakers. Some of the better hi-fi speakers by the likes of Tannoy, B&W, PMC etc are used in studios but many are not.

This is not normally a quality issue but more to do with the way they are used, they are generally required to play very loud by hi-fi standards, so need to be capable of this without compression and without losing control, by extension they need to be pretty robust too.

Specifically we are talking about budget home studio monitors here, that doesn't sound great so the marketing guys refer to them as 'Near field monitors' because they are usually used up close in a small room.

They are not highly thought of by conventional enthusiasts who usually dismiss them as 'bright', 'upfront' or similar. Much in the same way that pro users refer to budget hi-fi speakers as being wooly and all 'boom and tizz'.

It can be quite difficult auditioning pro style monitors, some music shops are happy to play them to you, though the environment tends not to be particularly domestic and they do tend to play quite loud.

Even should you be able to get a pair home for a proper audition you can get into trouble, active speakers do not sound loud in the way that passive speakers do, the audible clues (as to loudness) are different and it is very easy to play them much louder than you think you are.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Conventional enthusiasts?? If a speaker sounds bright and upfront it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

 

[davedotco]

Conventional enthusiasts?? If a speaker sounds bright and upfront it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

If a speaker sounds "woolly and all boom and tizz" it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

But you know what, I am not going to go there.

I was attempting to answer the OP's question about the difference between hi-fi speakers and active monitors and illustrating my answer with typical (overblown) comments from both sides of the divide.

 

[steve_1979]

Am I right in thinking that studio monitors are designed for a different application than audiophile hifi? It's just that whilst I do want transparency and timing, smooth and warm musicality is at the top of my list, not hearing every problem in the mix as glaringly obvious. I want the speakers to be forgiving of radio, mp3 and tv sound whilst making the most of cd quality and HD music (once I get a dac) from my laptop.

Thanks,

Max

There's not all that much difference in the sound quality between active and passive speakers to be honest. Generally I prefer active speakers because they tend to have slightly better clarity and offer better value for money.

But as I said there isn't all that much difference and of course you get good and bad examples of both types so it's worth shopping around to see what sounds the best to you.

 

[chelstondave]

Just noticed these somewhat soiled but still working aktimate maxis on special offer:

http://www.audioaffair.co.uk/Aktimate-Maxi-iPod-Active-Speakers-Pair-Red-Ex-Display/product_7357

Very well reviewed, 5 stars in WHF at twice the price and would leave room over for some second hand stands and a cheap dac

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Conventional enthusiasts?? If a speaker sounds bright and upfront it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

If a speaker sounds "woolly and all boom and tizz" it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

But you know what, I am not going to go there.

I was attempting to answer the OP's question about the difference between hi-fi speakers and active monitors and illustrating my answer with typical (overblown) comments from both sides of the divide.

Er - I'll put it more simply. Why use the disparaging term "Conventional enthusiasts"? People hear what they hear.

 

[jiggyjoe]

Am I right in thinking that studio monitors are designed for a different application than audiophile hifi? It's just that whilst I do want transparency and timing, smooth and warm musicality is at the top of my list, not hearing every problem in the mix as glaringly obvious. I want the speakers to be forgiving of radio, mp3 and tv sound whilst making the most of cd quality and HD music (once I get a dac) from my laptop.

Thanks,

Max

Absolutely, most hifi speakers are designed to play in absolute terms pretty low listening levels. Because of the ears sensitivity at low listening levels most hifi speakers have the 'smile' frequency response or as others like to put the boom and tizz, to give a balanced sound at these levels.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the speaker is active or passive, but the way the speaker was designed to sound.

You can easily design a ruler flat frequency response from a passive speaker by using critically damped bass alignment, and correct tweeter attenuation but it will sound very thin and forward at low levels but give you plenty of detail into the music.

Pro active speakers on the other hand, are designed for high listening levels and are not usually balanced the same as hifi speakers because your hearing frequency response flattens the louder you listen. So active pro speakers tend to have a flat frequency responce so they do not have the boom and tizz sound of hifi speakers, but again can sound thin and forward at low listening levels.

Active or passive crossovers has nothing to do with whether the speaker booms and tizz or not. An active speaker with a underdamped bass alignment and too high a tweeter level can boom and tizz the same as a passive speaker.

At the end of the day you have to choose the sound you like best, at the volume you most listen to.

If you do like to listen REALLY loud most of the time then active is the way to go.

 

[davedotco]

Conventional enthusiasts?? If a speaker sounds bright and upfront it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

If a speaker sounds "woolly and all boom and tizz" it is just that, irrespective of whether it is active or passive. Why try to dismiss what is a failing in many speakers by blaming the listener?

But you know what, I am not going to go there.

I was attempting to answer the OP's question about the difference between hi-fi speakers and active monitors and illustrating my answer with typical (overblown) comments from both sides of the divide.

Er - I'll put it more simply. Why use the disparaging term "Conventional enthusiasts"? People hear what they hear.

This is a hi-fi forum and the bulk of the contributors are enthusiasts who own, use and discuss 'conventional' passive hi-fi systems.

Hence the phrase 'conventional enthusiasts', it was really just a shorthand way to describe that group.

It was not meant to be disparaging in any way and to be honest I didn't think it was.

Yes people do hear what they hear, how they 'reference' what they hear depends very much on their experience which was the point I was making.

 

[davedotco]

Am I right in thinking that studio monitors are designed for a different application than audiophile hifi? It's just that whilst I do want transparency and timing, smooth and warm musicality is at the top of my list, not hearing every problem in the mix as glaringly obvious. I want the speakers to be forgiving of radio, mp3 and tv sound whilst making the most of cd quality and HD music (once I get a dac) from my laptop.

Thanks,

Max

Absolutely, most hifi speakers are designed to play in absolute terms pretty low listening levels. Because of the ears sensitivity at low listening levels most hifi speakers have the 'smile' frequency response or as others like to put the boom and tizz, to give a balanced sound at these levels.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the speaker is active or passive, but the way the speaker was designed to sound.

You can easily design a ruler flat frequency response from a passive speaker by using critically damped bass alignment, and correct tweeter attenuation but it will sound very thin and forward at low levels but give you plenty of detail into the music.

Pro active speakers on the other hand, are designed for high listening levels and are not usually balanced the same as hifi speakers because your hearing frequency response flattens the louder you listen. So active pro speakers tend to have a flat frequency responce so they do not have the boom and tizz sound of hifi speakers, but again can sound thin and forward at low listening levels.

Active or passive crossovers has nothing to do with whether the speaker booms and tizz or not. An active speaker with a underdamped bass alignment and too high a tweeter level can boom and tizz the same as a passive speaker.

At the end of the day you have to choose the sound you like best, at the volume you most listen to.

If you do like to listen REALLY loud most of the time then active is the way to go.

There is some truth in what you say but other factors also come into play. Some passive hi-fi speakers are diliberately balanced to produce the 'bass driven sound' that is very popular for certain music styles, it is often balanced with a slightly 'hot' treble and these are the real culprits when it comes to what is sometimes described as 'boom and tizz'.

My experience of modern, inexpensive, nearfield monitors is that the loudness effect you describe so well is much less pronounced than it used to be but it is still there and needs to be born in mind. Many models now have simple yet effective controls for optimising bass level and treble output and that can take a lot of the balance issues out of the equation.

Most active monitors of the type we are dicussing are targeted at the home studio and simple production facilities, rarely do these rooms have much in the way of 'treatment' so this is taken into account by the manufacturer and your suggestion that you have to play REALLY loud is perhaps overstating things.

One final thought, direct connection of the power amp to the bass driver appears to give greater control, particularly in regard to 'overhang', giving a cleaner, tighter bass at any level. This is disputed, I have seen technical articles both for and against this effect though from experience I believe it to be the case.