Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
passive monitor for sale, everything was active. The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can convince you to walk out the door with." They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. General thoughts on active vs passive? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Genelec is from Finland, not Sweden.
You must have a serious hearing problem if you use Bose for monitoring. Their speakers would not even qualify as Hifi. Too expensive middle-of-the-road would be a better description. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
It will be interesting to hear what others say. Brian McMoron never comments directly on audio, just parrots others. Ever wonder what his favourite mp3 encoder is.....LAME of course ! |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:19:17 +0200, "Andre"
wrote: Genelec is from Finland, not Sweden. You must have a serious hearing problem if you use Bose for monitoring. Their speakers would not even qualify as Hifi. Too expensive middle-of-the-road would be a better description. Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-) |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:23:08 GMT, "Ray Thomas"
wrote: It will be interesting to hear what others say. Brian McMoron never comments directly on audio, just parrots others. Ever wonder what his favourite mp3 encoder is.....LAME of course ! And he can't even work out that he is posting at entirely the wrong time of day for somebody from America. d |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-) That's Norway:-) |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
muzician21 wrote:
I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single passive monitor for sale, everything was active. Understand that the largest piece of the "recording engineer" pie are people who have trouble hooking up a home stereo system, so powered monitors make it simple for them. No issues with getting the speaker polarity correct, no decisions about which power amplifier is best or has sufficient power, no fooling with crossover networks for bi-amped systems. In general, a powered monitor is a pretty good idea, but understand that you're buying a cabinet, speakers, some electronics, and some power amplifiers, and you can't get all of that for the price of a good sounding passive speaker. They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work You probably found that most of the monitors that you could audition at the store were in roughly the same price range and most were in the $300-$600 range for a pair. You probably won't have an opportunity to compare those with a $2,000 ADAM system or even the larger Mackies. You need to find a better place to shop. But keep in mind, also, that you shouldn't try to choose between 20 different sets of monitors. Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing That's probably the biggest problem. But the good news is that unless they're so cheap that they're really not worth repairing, the power amplifiers rarely fail. Powered on-stage monitors and PA speakers are a different story here since they're often used outdoors and in the sun, and if the manufacturer didn't account for the additional heat source, they can fail prematurely. Unless your studio is outdoors, you're pretty safe with powered studio monitors. One of the things that has come along with the flood of powered monitors is the reduced number of power amplifiers available. Your best bet if you're on a "powered monitor budget" is probably to look for a second-hand Adcom or Hafler amplifier. Most of the stand-alone power amplifiers that you'll see in the Sam Ash type store will be PA oriented. There really are audible differences between power amplifiers and it's worth getting one that has a good reputation for studio monitor use. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
muzician21 wrote:
I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single passive monitor for sale, everything was active. That's fine. However, you shouldn't expect to find much in the way of good audio gear at an MI store. These guys sell the stuff they can move quickly. The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can convince you to walk out the door with." Yes, it's like a used car lot. The salesman usually has no idea what he's actually selling, but he probably knows everything about how much it costs and what his margins and commissions are. They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? Welcome to the MI market. Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. There's nothing wrong with them, except that you can't upgrade the amp and speaker system seperately. If you already have an amp, now you are paying for another set of amps that may not be as good as what you already have. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. General thoughts on active vs passive? Get monitors that you like the sound of. If they are passive, get an amp for them. If they are active, don't. It really doesn't matter. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? The most important thing in selling is the salesman's verbal sales pitch, not the demo. Retail store management can put whatever faciilities into their stores, but in the end the sales staff will establish this priority. It is easy to do - all one has to do is be careless and uncaring. Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? Nothing comes to mind. One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. You talk about repairing things like it is something that would actually happen. As a general rule, anything that breaks outside of warranty is never repaired unless it is itself extremely expensive. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. So are are aware of general wisdom, which is that beyond a point spending money on expensive monitors for a crappy room is a bad idea. General thoughts on active vs passive? Active gives more options to the loudspeaker designer. I think there's a strong pro, and a strong con. 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of control possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed together. Total control is a good thing. It's just not Genelec that understands that. 2. All those little electrolytic caps that contain liquid hydroxide, rubber seals, chips with delicate wirebonds, fatiguable solder joints, etc, really take a pounding from being in the same box as the transducers. It is not like shock and vibration is something that we haven't been able to manage well for electronic equipment for years. The basic technology of surface-mount components on an insulating board was origionally designed for incorporation into artillary shells. Believe it or not, during WWII they put working radio receivers and transmitters based on vacuum tubes inside anti-aircraft shells, and made them work up to 10,000's of feet in the air. That was 60 years ago! What is tougher - putting power amps inside speaker enclosures or ignition and fuel computers inside engine compartments? Both are done routinely and generally work just fine. All things equal, electronics lives longer in a vibration-free environment. We don't generally base system designs on what makes electronics last a long time. We expect electronics to man-up to the requirements we have in mind. Perhaps if they throw enough money at it, it can have a long life expectancy. But do they? I see no evidence that general audio electronics construction techniques are inadequate for speakers. I think I'd want a really good brand. Maybe Genelec, or stick with passives. It will be interesting to hear what others say. IME even Behringer powered monitors are no less reliable than Behringer electonics in general. One of the worst things about cheap garbage computer speakers is that they tend to have long lives! ;-) |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Arny Krueger wrote:
You talk about repairing things like it is something that would actually happen. As a general rule, anything that breaks outside of warranty is never repaired unless it is itself extremely expensive. This, right there, is the number one difference between professional and consumer equipment. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:09:24 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ) : One of the worst things about cheap garbage computer speakers is that they tend to have long lives! ;-) as with cockroaches. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On May 24, 10:04 pm, muzician21 wrote:
Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? Here's my standard blurb on that: There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever do remotes: Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount. --Ethan |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Iain Churches wrote:
"Laurence Payne": Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-) That's Norway:-) Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On May 25, 1:53*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
"muzician21" wrote in message ... I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single passive monitor for sale, everything was active. The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can convince you to walk out the door with." They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. General thoughts on active vs passive? Troll Brian wrote: 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of control possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed together. Total control is a good thing. *These people don't know **** about sound quality - them Genelecs just sound nasty. For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and I have set up many audio workstation with them. I'd take the Mackie HR824 any day and I'm not a Mackie fan. As far as self-power speakers go ("active" is a Mackie coined term which isn't really correct), They can really be tweaked and controlled for optimum performance compared to a passive speaker with multi-way amplification and processing. That said, there are very good passive systems obviously and in some ways it might be more true to form as far as representing more average sound systems. Regardless, the most important thing is that no matter what monitors are used, the person using them has to be able to translate that mix to the average outside world. Whatever monitor that allows them to do that is the correct one. Rupert |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"Rupert" wrote in message ... On May 25, 1:53 am, Soundhaspriority wrote: "muzician21" wrote in message ... I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single passive monitor for sale, everything was active. The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can convince you to walk out the door with." They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. General thoughts on active vs passive? Troll Brian wrote: 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of control possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed together. Total control is a good thing. These people don't know **** about sound quality - them Genelecs just sound nasty. For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and I have set up many audio workstation with them. I'd take the Mackie HR824 any day and I'm not a Mackie fan. As far as self-power speakers go ("active" is a Mackie coined term which isn't really correct), They can really be tweaked and controlled for optimum performance compared to a passive speaker with multi-way amplification and processing. That said, there are very good passive systems obviously and in some ways it might be more true to form as far as representing more average sound systems. Regardless, the most important thing is that no matter what monitors are used, the person using them has to be able to translate that mix to the average outside world. Whatever monitor that allows them to do that is the correct one. Rupert A point I'd like to add- Sam Ash is hardly the place I would go for opinions on Pro Sound gear.... Music stores tend to sell what they make the most money on. A sales guy only has the brands management orders, and if he doesn't sell them his family does not eat...he HAS to sell it, crap or not. Check here, Pro sound Web, Harmony Cental, et al. NOT a music store. If you have to, then buy it at the music store. I prefer when possible to buy from someone who only does pro audio. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
liquidator wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of control possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed together. Total control is a good thing. These people don't know **** about sound quality - them Genelecs just sound nasty. For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and I have set up many audio workstation with them. Note that the old Genelec line consisted of a whole lot of speakers that were all voiced totally differently... the 1030 didn't sound like the 1031 and the S30 sounded totally different. If you didn't like one, you might like another. I rather liked the S30, and thought the 1029 was one of the worst things ever. The new Genelec line, the 8000 series, uses some manner of dsp and all of the speakers are voiced to sound similar, though with varying amounts of LF extension. If you don't like one, you won't like any of them, but if you didn't like any of the old ones, you might still like them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
But to me the overwhelming advantage, as
implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount. --Ethan How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback, is there a second voice coil? Mark |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
liquidator wrote:
For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and I have set up many audio workstation with them. I've often wondered if the chief designer has high HF hearing-loss and doesn't realise. Always very tizzy to the point of painful. geoff |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message ... On May 24, 10:04 pm, muzician21 wrote: Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? Here's my standard blurb on that: There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever do remotes: Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount. --Ethan I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat effectively? especially on stage. Keith. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "Keith." wrote in message ... "Ethan Winer" wrote in message ... On May 24, 10:04 pm, muzician21 wrote: Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? Here's my standard blurb on that: There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever do remotes: Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount. --Ethan I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat effectively? especially on stage. Keith. It looks like their stage speakers, at least the newer ones, use Class D amplification: http://www.mackie.com/products/srmv2series/splash.html According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_amplifier , such amplifiers have efficiency 90%. The studio monitors use Class AB, but it's unlikely that in desk use, power dissipation would be an issue. Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 Such efficiency would help. It is just that with no fan they must have large sinks that normally rely on free convective air. In an active monitor box there is no air movement except some cone pumping. I find with mine it really hard to find out the heat inside because of the thick wood box structure.They do seem to get quite warm. Keith. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
In article ,
wrote: But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount. How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback, is there a second voice coil? I don't know what Mackie is doing, but popular methods include a second voice coil, a sense coil around the magnet, and an accelerometer mounted on the cone. Velodyne started with the accelerometer trick in the early 1980s. You don't get any more low end extension and the cone breakup issues remain but you can reduce the distortion in the lower octave a lot. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Phil W wrote:
Iain Churches wrote: "Laurence Payne": Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-) That's Norway:-) Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) Iceland? |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:23:52 GMT, Sean wrote:
Phil W wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Laurence Payne": Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-) That's Norway:-) Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) Iceland? You talking about the checkout girls, heh? d |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On May 25, 11:14 pm, wrote:
How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback, is there a second voice coil? No need for a second voice coil. They can detect the motion by comparing the current that should be drawn versus what is actually drawn. --Ethan |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On May 25, 11:56 pm, "Keith." wrote:
I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat effectively? especially on stage. I've seen and used Mackie 824s many times and never seen them overheat. --Ethan |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Ethan Winer wrote:
On May 25, 11:14 pm, wrote: How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback, is there a second voice coil? No need for a second voice coil. They can detect the motion by comparing the current that should be drawn versus what is actually drawn. Doing this, though, doesn't buy you anything over having an amplifier with a zero ohm output impedance. It can only do a limited amount of actual correction. There's actually a nice discussion of this in an Altec-Lansing paper from the sixties when they were on their adjustable-damping-ratio kick. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Ethan Winer wrote:
On May 25, 11:56 pm, "Keith." wrote: I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat effectively? especially on stage. I've seen and used Mackie 824s many times and never seen them overheat. Nor have I, but I have also never seen them on stage. I'm not sure why you'd want them on stage... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Sean wrote:
Phil W wrote: Iain Churches wrote: "Laurence Payne": Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-) That's Norway:-) Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) Iceland? I knew, I should´ve written that I´m not sure about Trolls in Iceland, but they probably also have some there. ;-) |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:13:15 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ethan Winer wrote: No need for a second voice coil. They can detect the motion by comparing the current that should be drawn versus what is actually drawn. Doing this, though, doesn't buy you anything over having an amplifier with a zero ohm output impedance. It should do a better that that, as that type of amplifier actually has a negative output impedance. For stability you don't want the magitude of the negative output impedance to exceed the speaker's DC resistance. In an active speaker you can do that safely, because you know what will be connected to the amplifier. Though I haven't seen the Altec-Lansing paper, I'm prepared to believe that the benefits are limited, but at least the option is available to the active speaker designer. -- Anahata ==//== 01638 720444 http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
Ethan Winer wrote:
I've seen and used Mackie 824s many times and never seen them overheat. It was the SRM-450 that had a tendency to overheat when used on stage outdoors. The original design had the heat sink fins all lined up with the long dimension of the cabinet. When it was turned on its side to use as a stage monitor (a recommended application) the fins tended to capture the rising hot air and, given some added heat from the sun, not enough heat got carried away by convection. This was back in about 2000 when the speaker was introduced. In a later versions, they changed the heat sink design and also made some changes to the circuitry to give better protection when overheated. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
On May 26, 1:13 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Doing this, though, doesn't buy you anything over having an amplifier with a zero ohm output impedance. It can only do a limited amount of actual correction. There's actually a nice discussion of this in an Altec-Lansing paper from the sixties when they were on their adjustable-damping-ratio kick. I think the idea is that when the voice coil approaches the excursion limits, the current drawn is higher than it should be for the applied voltage. So this current sensing is inside the loop and compensated for. Again, the goal is to reduce distortion. I don't have the schematic for an HR824, but I do for the HR624 which should be similar. There's a 0.1 ohm resistor from the woofer minus to ground, which is probably where the current is sensed. That then goes to a pot marked "damping," which in turn passes through a switch labeled "Feedback defeat." That switch is not part of the user controls, so it's likely on the circuit board for testing or calibration only. --Ethan |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
muzician21 wrote:
Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see [...] General thoughts on active vs passive? Active monitors need a power supply, which adds to the connecting wires. They also need to be connected up by low impedance balanced signal circuits, otherwise you could finish up with nasty noises if somebody unplugs them. Apart from that, they have many advantages over passive loudspeakers: 1) From the designer's point of view it is a lot easier to design an accurate low level crossover which works into amplifier inputs than to design one which has to take account of drive unit impedances and their tolerances. 2) Each amplifier can be rated to suit each drive unit and does not need to be over-powered across the spectrum. It can also be fitted with time-delayed over-power protection for tweeters, which allows full powered transients but prevents heat damage from sustained oscillation under fault conditions. 3) Intermodulation distoration creates less of a problem if each amplifier only handles a narrow band of frequencies. 4) There is plenty of space on a loudspeaker casing for good heatsinking, which is a luxury rarely available to the designer of a boxed-up amplifier. (But see other posts about using them sideways as stage monitors). If sufficient area is available, fins can be dispensed with entirely - which saves a bit of money. 5) There is no direct external connection to the amplifiers, so their outputs do not have to be designed to be idiot-proof. 6) Because the characteristics of the loudspeakers are known to the amplifier designer, he can incorporate tweaks in the response to make up for some of the shortcomings. I tend to use active loudspeakers for studio monitoring and some stage work and 100v line loudspeakers for stage and P.A. work. Low impedance passive speakers don't fit my way of working, so I have converted all my old stock to either active types or 100v line. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.arts.movies.production.sound,aus.hi-fi,alt.audio.pro.live-sound
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"geoff" wrote in message
... liquidator wrote: For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and I have set up many audio workstation with them. I've often wondered if the chief designer has high HF hearing-loss and doesn't realise. Always very tizzy to the point of painful. That was my impession also, and I do have HF hearing loss :-) Sean |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"muzician21" wrote in message ... I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single passive monitor for sale, everything was active. The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can convince you to walk out the door with." They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. General thoughts on active vs passive? Passive selections allow for hooking up enclosures to many different amps, rather than the array of restrictive ready-integrated units but with dedicated low-distn coupling. Note... if, in the listening room there is a Demo 'bank' of umpteen stereo loudspeaker enclosures, especially passive units - but only one selected pair is 'live' - do be aware that the remainder of the models can act as both a) auxiliary bass radiators or attenuators, wholly dependent on bass frequency unless the rear terminals are shorted across, to squelch electro-mech dynamics. b) sometimes Helmholtz resonators/absorbers, according to individual port designs. So I would keep away from posey terraces of sound - but instead trial the pairs separately [on appro, if allowed]. Jim |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the amplifiers
are matched to the drivers) really means anything. The amp won't sound good if it's underpowered and bad, but the general idea is that you want the amp to have good specs: low distortion, good slew rate, good damping factor...all the things you see on the spec sheet and in the white papers that are written after the fact. In other words, an amp that's going to match with the driver is an amp that's going to match well with *any* driver. What does make a difference with powered monitors is that they have built-in active crossovers, and as someone wrote above that's part of what gives designers more choices. I don't know electronics, but everyone seems to agree that passive crossovers are suboptimal. Nonetheless, I can think of a few passive speakers that sound great when you power them with a good amp. For a second reference, I picked up a pair of UREI 809As on eBay for next to nothing, which I power with a Hafler 9505, and - I hate to admit it (because if price were no object, no way would those outdated horn-loaded things even be on the list) - I love them to death. To me the sound of the speakers trumps the hell out of a passive crossover. As an aside, I have to say that the overwhelming correctness of the bass has convinced me that the NFM concept is severely limited. Even a system with a well-integrated sub, such as the Blue Sky System One (my primary set-up) doesn't have that kick in the chest. With the 809s there's absolutely no question what the low end sounds like. Also, don't underestimate how big an impact the amp you're using can have on the sound. For a long time I used Tannoy System 8 IIs with the Hafler amp, and they were really good; the same basic speaker (800p) powered with their own amps sounded embarrassingly bad (and that's being charitable). I'm almost certain the difference is that their amps were toiletworthy. Bottom line, what Mike Rivers says is the important point: in the budget monitor price range, decent stand-alone electronics are going to be more expensive. The argument about passive vs. active is subtle enough to be important only in a higher price range. Those are my theories and I'm sticking with them. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"muzician21" wrote in message ... I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single passive monitor for sale, everything was active. The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can convince you to walk out the door with." They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo anything? Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component that dies. At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it won't be improved someday. General thoughts on active vs passive? Passive selections allow for hooking up enclosures to different amps, rather than the ready-integrated active unit. Note... if in the listening room there is a Demo wall of stereo loudspeaker enclosures, especially passive units - but only one selected pair is 'live' - do be aware that the remainder of the models can act as both a) auxiliary bass radiators or attenuators, wholly dependent on frequency band, unless the rear terminals are shorted across, b) sometimes Helmholtz resonators, according to individual port designs. so this interference would cause listening colouration of some scale. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
"jim greg" wrote in message news:eQTTl.31647 Passive selections allow for hooking up enclosures to many different amps, rather than the array of restrictive ready-integrated units but with dedicated low-distn coupling. Which could be positive or negative. With an active monitor, you know exactly what you are getting, and will (should) be consistant where-ever you go that has that model. geoff |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
wrote in message ... You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the amplifiers are matched to the drivers) really means anything. It means that the amp(s) is an appropriate power/impedence/x-over-freq/etc, and has it's level set correctly, as opposed to externally biamped arrangements where the matching of amps/crossover freq/ level is in the hands of users. geoff |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Active vs Passive monitors
wrote in message
You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the amplifiers are matched to the drivers) really means anything. There are two kinds of matching that are going on. (1) The amplifiers are sized and designed to drive the actual drivers that are used in the speakers. BTW the possibility that the passive crossover puts extra stress on the amplifiers (which is not uncommon) no longer exists since there is no passive crossover any more. (2) The active crossover networks that drive the amplifiers are designed to optimize over-all system response. The amp won't sound good if it's underpowered and bad, but the general idea is that you want the amp to have good specs: low distortion, good slew rate, good damping factor...all the things you see on the spec sheet and in the white papers that are written after the fact. In other words, an amp that's going to match with the driver is an amp that's going to match well with *any* driver. When you drive a speaker with an amplifier you choose, there are three possibilities - that the amplifier is overbuilt, underbuilt, or a precise match for the speaker. Frankly, the most likely possibility is that the amplifier is overbuilt, all things considered. Overbuilt usually means that you are paying for amplifier capabilties that you will never be able to use. What does make a difference with powered monitors is that they have built-in active crossovers, and as someone wrote above that's part of what gives designers more choices. I don't know electronics, but everyone seems to agree that passive crossovers are suboptimal. You've got that right. There are very distinct limitations on speakers with passive crossovers. For example, the woofer must have less efficiency than the tweeter, as it is very impractical to pad a woofer down to match the tweeter. The crossover network has to be designed with the impedance curve of the drivers in mind, or the desired results won't be obtained. It is generally far more costly to implement non-trivial electrical networks as high level components (particularly the cost of the inductors but also the capacitors) than as DSP programs or line-level analog filters. In modern times it is good practice to build a woofer with non-flat frequency response and obtain the desired bass extension with a bass boost circuit. That is far less practical to implement with a passive filter network operating at loudspeaker power levels. Nonetheless, I can think of a few passive speakers that sound great when you power them with a good amp. Actually, there are a ton of examples of speakers with passive crossovers that sound great. It is just that they would probably sound even better as active designs. There has been tremendous amount of resistance to active speakers, probably because most audiophiles want to choose their own power amplifiers or use the ones they have with their new speakers. For a second reference, I picked up a pair of UREI 809As on As an aside, I have to say that the overwhelming correctness of the bass has convinced me that the NFM concept is severely limited. Even a system with a well-integrated sub, such as the Blue Sky System One (my primary set-up) doesn't have that kick in the chest. With the 809s there's absolutely no question what the low end sounds like. I think that you are confusing the performance of a particular example of a speaker that uses an active design with some non-existent limitation of the basic prrinciple of active speaker designs. I can't believe you just did what you did. There is an incredible list of unfair issues in the comparison you just made. Do I need to humliate you in public you by listing them all out? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Passive or active bi-amping (aka active operation) | High End Audio | |||
passive or active crossovers | Car Audio | |||
active or passive sub? | Audio Opinions | |||
Passive Monitors vs Active Monitors | Pro Audio | |||
KRK Studio Monitors for a Desktop (Nearfields Passive and Active) | Pro Audio |