PDA

View Full Version : Active Loudspeakers



John
07-12-2008, 17:34
I am interested if anyone has had any experience with active loudspeakers. I just had an interesting conversation with someone who is a top designer who has designed Loudspeakers as well as other projects. He was saying the major issue with passive loudspeakers is the crossover and that using active speakers manages to get rid of this issue.
Has anyone heard an ATC SCM 50 and what it can do and what are peoples views around going active as I think this maybe my next major upgrade if they perform to the level I think they are capable off

StanleyB
07-12-2008, 17:43
The only outstanding active oudspekers I ever heard were the motional feedback speakers from Philips. It is an excellent idea. The crossover is a a major problem in conventional speakers. There are solutions, but I haven't yet designed anything on a commercial scale;).

Clive
07-12-2008, 18:25
John, there are other ways of getting around the crossover issue, I think you know what I'm meaning!

John
07-12-2008, 18:29
yes i do

Primalsea
07-12-2008, 19:02
I made a set of active speakers (attached). Originally I used the 6 channel solid state amp in the pics but later changed to 2 EL34 Yarland amps and a WAD Kel84 for the bass. The crosover was a PA type unit that I modified to make it as quite as possible.

It was very good with the only thing letting it down was the slight quack like sound from the polyprop drivers. After I used these no passive unit ever sounded interesting to me.

I eventually moved on to the Martin Logans but there are some things I really miss about the active speakers. The poor things are currently wrapped up in plastic and stored in the garrage at the moment as I dont have room to keep them inside. They are rathe large as you can see.

scoobs
07-12-2008, 19:33
The only outstanding active oudspekers I ever heard were the motional feedback speakers from Philips. It is an excellent idea. The crossover is a a major problem in conventional speakers. There are solutions, but I haven't yet designed anything on a commercial scale;).

These are my active speakers, they are Sony and came bundled with a high end mini separates system back in the early 90's. The driver is a Philips motional feedback system, with an electrostatic tweeter. The 50w amps use a R-core transformer. I rue the day these speakers pack up, they are bloody great and I am pretty sure my next speakers will be active too.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee15/indypepa/speaker.jpg

Marco
07-12-2008, 19:39
Nice stands, Nick. I bet they made a difference compared to where you had the speakers before! ;)

Interesting designs, those Sonys...

Marco.

scoobs
07-12-2008, 19:45
Very much so Marco, I've filled the legs with sand, and the tension in the low bass notes is wonderful. I've also replaced the cheap stock power leads with decent ones, this again brought instantly noticeable gains. I never used to believe in cables!

Marco
07-12-2008, 19:52
Well there you go! Cables undoubtedly make a difference, but you don't need to spend a fortune on them.

Any movement on the Techy yet? I thought you'd have been inundated :)

Marco.

scoobs
07-12-2008, 20:02
Yes I thought the 1210 would have gone by now too, I haven't really made much effort with eiher the description or the picture to be honest, so this may be holding it back somewhat. I do have a lead to follow up and will hopefully see the deck handed over this wednesday. On the plus side, I should have the DP80 in place hopefully this time next week.

John
07-12-2008, 20:12
Nice speakers Nick

DSJR
09-12-2008, 20:59
Being an active ATC owner (and having once owned and loved their active 100's) and having sold ARC/Nytech centuries ago, Meridian and Linn/Naim ones, I think I can speak with just a little authority on active speakers in general.

According to a banned gent who co owns a firm making smallish actives with DACs built in (:) ) the active way of doing things was started mainly for pro/stage use and this was taken up by a few domestic companies, one of which cottoned on to the fact that lots of amps/supplies etc could be sold. The early passive Isobarik has a cruel loading and going active relieved the driving amps of most of this (apart from the average 4 Ohm load).

ATC's are a different matter. The three ways are compromised passively in other ways - the mid dome has a narrow operating bandwidth and it has to be very precisely phase and level matched to the bass unit and tweeter. This is easily done in their active amp packs at the factory, but cannot be done in the passive version, which doesn't sound as good whatever the amp driving it. The 50 is the same and can sound superb in active form. Just be aware that the sound is ruthless rather than charming and there's little tweaking you can do, other than tinker with stands and wiring (the recommended Belden is more than fine), although "ferrites" on the mains leads can appear to help in areas with bad mains...

Having said the above, there's nothing at all wrong with a well designed passive system, where the drivers have plenty of frequency range "in hand" and care is taken over phasing over the crossover network. I'm continually amazed just how good my recently inherited Spendor BC2's (with updated bass drivers) still sound, once the tubby bass is tamed. They're very different to the active ATC 20 pro's certainly - gentler in presentation, but no less valid or musically satisfying IMO.

Get a listen to the active ATC 50SL's. You may fall for them as I did the 100A's. I wish I still had the latter, but they wouldn't fit into our home when I got married and brought a lot of "stuff" to an already small house my wife was already living in.... I found I could take vinyl AND CD on equal terms and didn't feel the need to compare - just enjoy the individual great qualities in both formats.

John
09-12-2008, 21:59
Dave
Thank you for your thoughtful response
At present I am not sure if I will go open Baffle in the future or active I think both offer something different If I was to go active it would be the ATC route a pair of 50s maybe but still considering my options for the future

tfarney
09-12-2008, 22:02
I have a fair amount of experience with active speakers in studio and sound reinforcement. They should address not only the problem created by passive crossovers, but the one created by amplifiers that are designed with only the broadest knowledge of the load they'll be expected to drive. Amps designed to drive "whatever" have to be pretty grossly over-engineered. If you're able to build, or match, an amp to the load requirements presented by a specific driver, you should not only be able to get better performance, you should be able to do it much more efficiently. Theoretically.

Tim

John
09-12-2008, 22:48
This was the argument a friend was making to me I guess in the end I let my ears decide what I like best but will keep a open mind Thanks

tfarney
09-12-2008, 23:36
This was the argument a friend was making to me I guess in the end I let my ears decide what I like best but will keep a open mind Thanks

It's a good argument and a valid one, but it doesn't mean for a moment that your over engineered amp and passive speakers won't sound better to you. The fact that the overwhelming majority of audiophile systems are passive is telling. The fact that the overwhelming majority of studio monitoring systems are active is telling something else.

Tim

Marco
09-12-2008, 23:46
The fact that the overwhelming majority of studio monitoring systems are active is telling something else.


Yes, that many studio monitoring systems are assembled mainly under the premise of consistency and convenience than out-and-out sound quality ;)

Please note the 'wink' smiley!!

:)

Marco.

Neil McCauley
09-12-2008, 23:59
I have used Meridian M1 actives since 1976. I still do, although not with the 101B anymore. In terms of bass weight, speed, credibility and articulation, I have nothing and I mean nothing that comes close. In the mid and top they are still highly credible.

I truly do believe that in the intervening years, the only people to have truly benefited from the advances in production technique are the 'bean counters' in the makers' financial departments.

In sonic terms, it really is difficult - against these specific units - to justify spendng many £1000s.

Fortunately - as a retailer - nothing like the M1s exist today.

tfarney
10-12-2008, 02:20
Yes, that many studio monitoring systems are assembled mainly under the premise of consistency and convenience than out-and-out sound quality ;)

Please note the 'wink' smiley!!

:)

Marco.

Wink and smiley noted, Marco. And sorry about that fine American whine I served up earlier today. But active studio systems began with custom designs and installations. The mass produced studio actives followed in their wake.

I was thinking that what it might be telling is that the resolution of detail may not be the audiophile's ultimate objective.

Tim

Steve Toy
10-12-2008, 02:41
I was thinking that what it might be telling is that the resolution of detail may not be the audiophile's ultimate objective.

It depends on the audiophile and whether anyone here would actually own up to being one...

Resolution of detail is exactly what we are after here and both Marco and I (amongst others) believe that well-sorted valve designs deliver just that according to our ears.

Subjectivism as we regard it isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for stating that rose tinted specs or other to taste is the way to go; sounding nice isn't what we're about in the main, it's about things sounding more insightful. That's our aim anyway and the only way to evaluate the result is through subjective reporting here and subsequent semantics...

tfarney
10-12-2008, 03:24
It depends on the audiophile and whether anyone here would actually own up to being one...

Resolution of detail is exactly what we are after here and both Marco and I (amongst others) believe that well-sorted valve designs deliver just that according to our ears.

Subjectivism as we regard it isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for stating that rose tinted specs or other to taste is the way to go; sounding nice isn't what we're about in the main, it's about things sounding more insightful. That's our aim anyway and the only way to evaluate the result is through subjective reporting here and subsequent semantics...

I didn't mean to say you weren't seeking detail or couldn't find it in valves, Steve. But the recording/mixing engineer's objective is to listen in too close for comfort, to hear, with stark clarity, what is wrong. They need to hear, in an evening, what we have the luxury of picking up on over the course of weeks of listening, and as a result, the best studio monitoring systems are often considered cold and strident by even very sophisticated listeners, even those devoted to solid state and digital.

Tim

John
10-12-2008, 05:27
Some really good points about what people may value around sound Tim

DSJR
10-12-2008, 10:05
Having read and agreeing with the posts above (I also remember M1's Howard - huge fun!), I would suggest that "presentation" is very important in a domestic setting...

As a comparison, B&O have usually made TV sets of good quality (with a couple of clunkers along the way). Their philosophy for DOMESTIC viewing has been "viewing comfort" where a large number of different programmes can be watched with little concious effort on the viewer. Broadcast professionals (we had a few in Harpenden) used to scoff at the gentle pictures, wanting more "resolution" but having seen a Pro Sony which deeply analysed the picture and showed up every flaw in the transmission, I'm not sure I'd want to watch it on a relaxed evening with a drink in my hand...

The same goes for domestic audio I think. The fact that so many of you prefer the "organic" sounds that emanate from your vinyl players to the more "accurate to the master" (hopefully mostly) CD players tells me that you don't necessarily want "warts and all" sound reproduction. Indeed, there was a "BBC" monitor introduced slyly through the "back door" getting on for twenty years ago that was wonderful at reproducing distortion in the source material, but was awful at reproducing music!!!

I haven't heard these, but Marco's Spendor SP100's and Harbeth's new Monitor 40.1must be a great compromise - large enough to give the scale (like the rough and ready old Tannoys I still love) yet subtle enough to reproduce details and with very low colouration once set up right. I suspect they're great examples of top notch passive monitors. The current big Tannoys are more refined than ever and very efficient too, the tweeter spite now banished I think. The prices (except for the bigger Tannoys, which includes a good dealer margin) aren't excessive either, certainly by US import standards. The one major disadvantage with passive systems though as said above is that the driving amp(s) has to be a jack of all trades and this costs money........

A good pair of active ATC 50SL's (should be the SL version as they sound clearer with re-aligned bass performance) shouln't cost much more than £3-4,000 used and as said above, they come with precisely matched amps to the task at hand, ready to plug in and play. Just make sure the preamp is happy to drive long interconnects (it doesn't have to have balanced outputs as my AVI didn't, yet drove the 100A's with no difficulty over 9m of cable each speaker.

purite audio
10-12-2008, 10:19
DSJR I don't know what your turntable sounds like but mine is remarkably similar to CD, prhaps time for a new tt? Keith.

tfarney
10-12-2008, 12:54
Marco, I fear that your subjectivism is out of reach. Too much history. Too many assumptions put on every statement. I can't suggest that the difference in purpose between audiophile kit and studio monitor systems is reflected in their sound without Steve assuming I'm demeaning his choices. Dave can't describe the difference between vinyl and cd without someone suggesting, absurdly, that there is no difference, and blaming the quality of his kit on the fact that he hears one.

Tim

DSJR
10-12-2008, 13:03
DSJR I don't know what your turntable sounds like but mine is remarkably similar to CD, prhaps time for a new tt? Keith.


:lolsign: You've found me out..... The NAS Mentor/Decca Gold Microscanner I had was superb until the Decca commited suicide. I needed the money (what's new?) and sold the deck and arm.

The Decca is repaired and awaiting the time when I can afford a turntable/arm to do it justice. I still feel that most top-end decks have a "romance" about them and there's nowt at all wrong with that (unless it's excessive as on the LP12 for example, but apart from the Keel version, I personally don't think it could really be called a "top end" turntable these days - it's just not truthful enough IMO...) ;)

Clive
10-12-2008, 13:41
Personally I don't care what is regarded as "top end", what matters to me is what gives me the most enjoyment. Total accuracy if achieved at home would be horrendous. Just imagine a full drum kit being played live in your room. It would be very uncomfortable to listen to. Likewise a grand piano in a typical room can be over-strident. What I aim for is a sound that gives a good pretense of being real without being too real.

purite audio
10-12-2008, 14:23
Marco, I fear that your subjectivism is out of reach. Too much history. Too many assumptions put on every statement. I can't suggest that the difference in purpose between audiophile kit and studio monitor systems is reflected in their sound without Steve assuming I'm demeaning his choices. Dave can't describe the difference between vinyl and cd without someone suggesting, absurdly, that there is no difference, and blaming the quality of his kit on the fact that he hears one.

Tim

Tim , I am not demeaning anyone's kit, I am just stating a fact, there is not a great deal of difference between vinyl and cd, it sounds to me as if you have prejudices of your own!

Marco
10-12-2008, 14:32
Hi Keith,

I think you've slightly misunderstood Tim. I would re-read his post above and pay particular attention to the third sentence ;)

Can't comment anymore at the moment as I need to pop out :)

Marco.

Filterlab
10-12-2008, 14:42
I've had a pair of Alesis M1 mk2s, they were phenomenal little speakers. Although they're aimed at near field monitoring for musicians, I found that they trounced a lot of hi-fi speakers and they had a real integration to their sound, particularly when mounted on some fat stands (I used a pair of Atacama SE24s filled with sand). I sold them a couple of years back and sometimes I wish I'd held on to them, but you know how excess equipment just gets in the way.

They were a bargain for their performance, £500 a pair (back in 2003). Of course they can be had for far far less these days and ebay often brings up a few bargain treats, :) I bet they'd sound very good indeed with a set of Jim's Diffractionbegone baffle covers on them.

Pick a pair up now for a couple of hundred notes. (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Alesis-M1-Active-Mk2-Powered-Studio-Monitors-Pair_W0QQitemZ280292100381QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_De faultDomain_0?hash=item280292100381&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318)

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/shop_image/product/a4e5d26cd6197c34d4666f9d5fca81ec.jpg

purite audio
10-12-2008, 15:13
'Dave can't describe the difference between vinyl and cd without someone suggesting, absurdly, that there is no difference, and blaming the quality of his kit on the fact that he hears one. '
Marco there is nothing 'absurd ' about it, when I compare vinyl and cd here ,there is not a great deal of difference between them, perhaps a little more low level noise on vinyl, perhaps slightly greater high and low freq extension on CD , but tonally very similar, vinyl has more 'presence' ( 2nd order harmonic distortion I suspect ) I like both media.

Marco
10-12-2008, 15:19
Keith, that isn't the third sentence! :lolsign:

This is:


Too many assumptions put on every statement.


Try re-reading Tim's post with that in mind. Then you may realise that you've slightly misunderstood what he meant ;)

If necessary, I'll be more specific later - too busy otherwise at the moment.

Marco.

Clive
10-12-2008, 15:44
when I compare vinyl and cd here ,there is not a great deal of difference between them, perhaps a little more low level noise on vinyl, perhaps slightly greater high and low freq extension on CD , but tonally very similar, vinyl has more 'presence' ( 2nd order harmonic distortion I suspect ) I like both media.
For sure tonally you can get vinyl to sound just the same as CD, this just means achieving a reasonably flat freq response.

But on the systems that present music well spatially I do find differences which for me are quite noticable. I too listen happily to both.

Neil McCauley
10-12-2008, 16:04
Yawn ..........

Marco
10-12-2008, 16:06
Are you in a grumpy mood or something, Howard? :)

Marco.

Neil McCauley
10-12-2008, 16:11
Are you in a grumpy mood or something, Howard? :)

Marco.

Nope. Just bored with the same message - albeit sung by a different 'choir'. I'll get over it though. Maybe.

Marco
10-12-2008, 16:16
LOL. What "message" is that? I thought the points made so far were relevant and well-expressed.

Marco.

Filterlab
10-12-2008, 16:21
I think Howard may be referring to the repetition of the old CD/vinyl debate. I know we have thread drift as part of the culture here, but it seems that almost every thread ends up as a CD/vinyl debate. I was hoping that my post about the Alesis active speakers may have altered its course.

Clive
10-12-2008, 16:29
Personally I don't care what is regarded as "top end", what matters to me is what gives me the most enjoyment. Total accuracy if achieved at home would be horrendous. Just imagine a full drum kit being played live in your room. It would be very uncomfortable to listen to. Likewise a grand piano in a typical room can be over-strident. What I aim for is a sound that gives a good pretense of being real without being too real.
Rather than yawning it's better to constructively try redirect the discussion, I'd hoped the point I've quoted might have sparked a discussion. This does relate to, at least little, to active speakers. I suppose it's bad form to quote myself!

Marco
10-12-2008, 16:31
Point taken and accepted, Rob. I think all you can do though is allow threads to take their natural course and hope for the best. As soon as you start to 'manipulate' them and keep them on-topic, you in turn stifle discussion and stop people posting.

Also, one has to remember that there is a finite level of interest to any given topic; once that is exhausted (even if the thread is in its infancy) people will talk about what they like and the discussion will naturally diversify. I think we should allow that to happen within reason, whilst at the same time being aware of the OP's original intended topic of discussion :)

Marco.

Marco
10-12-2008, 16:32
Rather than yawning it's better to constructively try redirect the discussion

Indeed. I think you can do much better, Howard; indeed I *know* you can!

Work with the principle that if one has nothing constructive to add to a particular discussion then add nothing at all :)

Marco.

Neil McCauley
10-12-2008, 16:34
I think Howard may be referring to the repetition of the old CD/vinyl debate. I know we have thread drift as part of the culture here, but it seems that almost every thread ends up as a CD/vinyl debate. I was hoping that my post about the Alesis active speakers may have altered its course.

I agree 100%. Thank you.

Neil McCauley
10-12-2008, 16:36
Rather than yawning it's better to constructively try redirect the discussion

Oops. Silly me! I must try harder next time.

Neil McCauley
10-12-2008, 16:37
Point taken and accepted, Rob. I think all you can do though is allow threads to take their natural course and hope for the best. As soon as you start to 'manipulate' them and keep them on-topic, you in turn stifle discussion and stop people posting.

Also, one has to remember that there is a finite level of interest to any given topic; once that is exhausted (even if the thread is in its infancy) people will talk about what they like and the discussion will naturally diversify. I think we should allow that to happen within reason, whilst at the same time being aware of the OP's original intended topic of discussion :)

Marco.

Yes, exactly.

Marco
10-12-2008, 16:50
LOL. Isn't this fun!

Ok, active speakers? - Nice enough in the right system, but not for me. For starters, I like valves, and I've yet to discover a pair of active valve-driven loudspeakers, and no, having the preamp is not enough ;)

Secondly, even with the best conventional active designs I can generally hear the limitations of the built-in amp packs, which are designed to do a specific job efficiently and consistently rather than with the most absolute fidelity (this was the case with ATC 100s, for example), so I'm afraid, whilst appreciating the virtues, active is not really my thing, although I must say that Nick's Sonys look very interesting and I suspect would be a fabulous buy for someone wanting an innovative design out with the mainstream. However, I'm more of a high quality passive speaker/nice push-pull valve amp kind of chap. The sound is just more inherently musical to my ears.

Marco.

Filterlab
10-12-2008, 18:27
Point taken and accepted, Rob. I think all you can do though is allow threads to take their natural course and hope for the best. As soon as you start to 'manipulate' them and keep them on-topic, you in turn stifle discussion and stop people posting.

That's not really what I meant. I wasn't trying to manipulate the thread, I simply responded to the original question and in doing so it was my hope that the active speakers element of the thread would reignite so to speak. :) Obviously I don't mind at all that the threads drift, in fact I think it's a strong element that we don't jump in and stop a thread for doing so, but in reading this thread it has become a discussion about CD versus vinyl and I fancied throwing in my experiences of active speakers in case anyone was reading the thread and expecting discussion about speakers. :)

Filterlab
10-12-2008, 18:27
I agree 100%. Thank you.

My pleasure Howard. :)

Filterlab
10-12-2008, 18:32
Also it was very odd. I replied to the original question and when I read my post I thought I'd put it in the wrong thread. :lol: :scratch:

Marco
10-12-2008, 19:41
That's not really what I meant. I wasn't trying to manipulate the thread, I simply responded to the original question and in doing so it was my hope that the active speakers element of the thread would reignite so to speak. Obviously I don't mind at all that the threads drift, in fact I think it's a strong element that we don't jump in and stop a thread for doing so, but in reading this thread it has become a discussion about CD versus vinyl and I fancied throwing in my experiences of active speakers in case anyone was reading the thread and expecting discussion about speakers.

All is now clear, baby! :)

Marco.

Mike
11-12-2008, 11:39
Ok, active speakers? - Nice enough in the right system, but not for me. For starters, I like valves, and I've yet to discover a pair of active valve-driven loudspeakers, and no, having the preamp is not enough

And what makes you think an active loudspeaker must have it's amplification fitted into the box (as seems to be the current fashion)?

All you need is an external active crossover and you can drive the speaker cones with whatever amplifiers take your fancy. :)

Marco
11-12-2008, 12:07
Indeed, Mikey. When I mentioned "active speakers" I was referring to the commercially available designs with amps incorporated into the speakers, ADM9s, ATCs, and stuff like that ;)

Not my thang, really; mainly because of the relatively poor quality of the amp packs supplied as standard compared to what I'm used to these days.

Put it this way: I'd rather have my SP100s passively driven by my Copper amp than a pair of, say, ATC100s actively driven by their on-board transistor amps - and it's cheaper too!

Different strokes for different folks...

Marco.

Filterlab
11-12-2008, 12:24
Well the ATCs are certainly highly regarded active speakers, not that I've heard any active ATCs but the non-active versions are certainly good. I'd have thought ATCs would have been right up your boulevard Marco, similar sort of presentation as the large Spendors?

Marco
11-12-2008, 12:59
Yes, Rob, I love most things about ATCs in terms of their pedigree and style (large stand-mount studio monitor design), just not the amps that come with the active models, and ATC passives notoriously don't 'work' (certainly no where near as well) passively :)

Marco.

John
11-12-2008, 14:54
The argument is that the amps can be tailored better to the crossover if active so in theory giving you a more accurate sound
I guess the question is do I or we really want total accuracy
I have not heard an active speaker like the ATC so have yet to make up my mind

Marco
11-12-2008, 15:01
I know the theory and argument, John, but as I don't believe there is such as thing in hi-fi as "total accuracy"; merely choosing one's own brand of distortion, then the point is somewhat moot :)

Marco.

John
11-12-2008, 18:32
Tend to agree with you Marco
I guess what I am saying is I am just trying to stay open to to what I hear In the future I have a choice to which direction I want to head, do I go for a Open Baffle with good active subs or do I go for active loudspeakers and totally change my system I think it will be Open baffles I love what the Atlas do and like the idea of being able to control the bass in the room to what I want but until I hear a pair of ATC 50 can do I am keeping a open mind
But have enjoyed the debate!!!

tfarney
11-12-2008, 18:53
I know the theory and argument, John, but as I don't believe there is such as thing in hi-fi as "total accuracy"; merely choosing one's own brand of distortion, then the point is somewhat moot :)

Marco.

Marco! We are, after all, in complete agreement! :gig:

Tim

Filterlab
11-12-2008, 19:52
Time for a gig then. :)

DSJR
11-12-2008, 20:22
LOL. Isn't this fun!


Secondly, even with the best conventional active designs I can generally hear the limitations of the built-in amp packs, which are designed to do a specific job efficiently and consistently rather than with the most absolute fidelity (this was the case with ATC 100s, for example), Marco.

Marco, I can think of several things wrong with active ATC 100's, and the amp packs don't even come on the list, unless you want more power, in which case the external amp block used in the 200's and 300's will blow your socks off - literally!!! The amps are specifically designed to drive the 16 Ohm drivers and nothing else and I think they do it very well, especially having heard the tremendous "improvement" in audiophool qualities the "SL" updated bass units did for example - using the very same amp packs as before. I suspect the new ones with fourth order active slopes and new tweeter which replaces the gritty old VIFA thing they used would sound even better, but it's years since I ventured anywhere near a stockist, assuming anyone still has these things on dem.......;)

pure sound
11-12-2008, 20:28
I'm always amused by the assertion that steep active filtering often implemented with op-amps and masses of feedback has no sonic consequences.

Primalsea
11-12-2008, 23:32
This idea of accuracy in hifi speakers is a bit of a myth. Studio monitors tend to be the most accurate of speakers as they are designed for this very purpose. However studio monitors are not commonly liked by Hifi'ers. Ask some studio engineers and most will say that Hifi speakers do not make good monitors as they are inacurate in many ways. How ever this doesn't stop them sounded good. To be frank it really doesn't matter what your hifi speakers do as long as they make music in a way that you can listen to them. Its no point having the best monitors if they don't give you what they want.

With active speakers you trade off one set of problems for another. No passive crossover is ideal and they do all sorts of strange things when combined with drivers. However they do have some benefits too. Active crossovers mean your amps are connected directly to the drivers avoiding the problems you get with passive crossovers. However steep filtering does have its problems too, they have benefits for sure also. Its just a case of what you want to live with.

Its not as general as active bad, passive good or vice versa. At the end of the day its how its implemented thats important. With a good design and the right drivers theres noting like active speakers. However I have heard many passive speakers that can easily be rated a better as many active designs out there.

Just because once you heard a bad pair of active speakers or was told by a friend that they're bad, or just feel they are bad without hearing them doesn't make active speakers bad. Done properly nothing is bad it just a case of what you can actually live with.

DSJR
12-12-2008, 18:08
I'm always amused by the assertion that steep active filtering often implemented with op-amps and masses of feedback has no sonic consequences.

There may be sonic consequences, but they're tiny compared to other distortion causing factors in a speaker and cabinet, let alone the room IMO...

DSJR
12-12-2008, 18:16
This idea of accuracy in hifi speakers is a bit of a myth. Studio monitors tend to be the most accurate of speakers as they are designed for this very purpose. However studio monitors are not commonly liked by Hifi'ers. Ask some studio engineers and most will say that Hifi speakers do not make good monitors as they are inacurate in many ways. How ever this doesn't stop them sounded good. To be frank it really doesn't matter what your hifi speakers do as long as they make music in a way that you can listen to them. Its no point having the best monitors if they don't give you what they want.

With active speakers you trade off one set of problems for another. No passive crossover is ideal and they do all sorts of strange things when combined with drivers. However they do have some benefits too. Active crossovers mean your amps are connected directly to the drivers avoiding the problems you get with passive crossovers. However steep filtering does have its problems too, they have benefits for sure also. Its just a case of what you want to live with.

Its not as general as active bad, passive good or vice versa. At the end of the day its how its implemented thats important. With a good design and the right drivers theres noting like active speakers. However I have heard many passive speakers that can easily be rated a better as many active designs out there.

Just because once you heard a bad pair of active speakers or was told by a friend that they're bad, or just feel they are bad without hearing them doesn't make active speakers bad. Done properly nothing is bad it just a case of what you can actually live with.

Where was it I read recently about our ears all being made slightly differently and that some people are susceptible to one kind of distortion yet others can tolerate it? I must admit that the "edge" given by a typical Naim system isn't as pleasant as it once was half my life ago and my ATC 20 pros have an assertiveness I find a little tiring (which could be in the amp packs with respect to comments above and by Marco earlier), but I have no way of finding out, as they are so much clearer than some early passive '20's I once owned.

It's strange, The old Spendors I'm currently using can be incredibly exciting to listen to with tons of "sparkle," yet there are some recordings that sound dire. Is this because they are actually really reproducing what's there, or just that the characteristics of the production are upsetting the (bass) weaknesses in the speakers, which have had as much extra damping inside them as I feel they can take without losing the bass altogether. The active ATC's just don't like heavy compression at all and I wish they were more widely used, as I don't like ott compression either.........

Togil
12-12-2008, 18:29
This idea of accuracy in hifi speakers is a bit of a myth. Studio monitors tend to be the most accurate of speakers as they are designed for this very purpose. However studio monitors are not commonly liked by Hifi'ers. Ask some studio engineers and most will say that Hifi speakers do not make good monitors as they are inacurate in many ways. h.

A very few are used by both camps , notably the large B&Ws and Quad ESL 63s ( or the new versions ) , although the latter don't go to realistic levels. However, as Tony Faulkner has pointed out, listening at high volumes at great lengths is fatigueing and doesn't ultimately assist the recording skills.

Neil McCauley
12-12-2008, 21:58
Meanwhile, back on topic, I have been approached by the exclusive UK distributor of the Pro division of Focal (studio issue) active speakers to be their sole audiophile (as distinct from studio equipment suppliers) retailer in England. You can see one of the models here: http://www.scvlondon.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=35&products_id=886

The Focal Pro division is apparently an autonomous division of the Focal ‘family’ and it seems their design criteria, their aspirations regarding the audiophile market and their perception of the ability of conventional / traditional audiophile retailers to promote active speakers is somewhat different from the Focal division you know and might love.

Please do note the sheer amount of studio-proven technology you get in the Solo6 for the money.

Or how about these? http://www.scvlondon.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=35&products_id=887

I'm hoping to have these two pairs, and others, on demo in late January 2009.

Only then will I be able to determine what they can do against my LFD/Harbeth and LFD/Eggleston combinations when driven from one of a selection of Manley valve preamps.

John
22-12-2008, 22:35
Just heard the ATC very impressive but at the moment would perfer really good open Baffle speakers, done right they create something very special

Ali Tait
23-12-2008, 00:01
Agree John,once you hear a box sound as opposed to not,you always hear it! I could never go back to a box speaker now.

tfarney
23-12-2008, 13:51
Are there any open baffle designs that are small? As in bookshelf (desktop) size?

Tim

Filterlab
23-12-2008, 14:00
I believe that their being open baffle negates the chance for using small drivers.

Ali Tait
23-12-2008, 14:12
You need a minimum baffle size for a decent bass response AFAIK.

tfarney
23-12-2008, 16:19
ah well...

Tim