New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Active Speakers - Page 2

post #16 of 85
1/18/12 at 6:51pm

Just to throw a few more suggestions-- Focal CMS65 / Solo6 Be, and Genelec 8040A (the latter two cost a bit more than $1.5K, but if you're lucky you might be able to get an used pair for that price).
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

Where does everyone stand on subs for music?  I've heard some say no sub marries well enough for music, and that you don't need a sub if your 2-channel set up is right.


That really depends on the kind of monitors you have and the kind of music you listen to. Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but that's just me.

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #17 of 85
1/18/12 at 7:25pm

 

 

 

Quote:

When you listen to the Artist 5s, do you feel a lack of sub-bass or bass?  

 

 

 

Not particularly, no. But for most of my usage, sub bass is not an issue anyway (not in the mix). Bass (aside from sub-bass) is well represented in general. 

 

 

 

Quote:
My room acoustics won't be ideal probably, but I don't want to have to go out and buy a sub because of that.

 

 

 

Ours are not either. But a few sound absorbing panels go a long way. 

 

 

 

Quote:
How "nearfield" are these?  What's distance do you listen at and what's the ideal distance would you say?

 

 

 

Not sure I can say. For my use of them, they are at my mixing station in studio. I have them roughly 1m away, and 1.5 m apart, with a 30 degree toe in. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Lastly, what are your preferences?  Or, better yet, what headphones do you like & what don't you like?

 

 

Sound wise. I tend to gravitate towards mid and high centric cans, with lots of detail. I do my headphone mastering with a set of EQ'd AKG K702. For pleasure listening, I use the 702, Grado 225, Sennheiser 600. I did not like the Senn 650 as much, but I did enjoy the 595 and 555. I have never found an ultrasone I could stand. And as much as I wanted to like them, I didn't enjoy the Denon 2000 or 5000. I've not tried any of the AT's. 


We also use K240 and 271 AKGs in studio, but outside of that purpose, I've never really compared them for pleasure listening. 

 

Reply
post #18 of 85
1/18/12 at 8:21pm
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenneth View Post

Just to throw a few more suggestions-- Focal CMS65 / Solo6 Be, and Genelec 8040A (the latter two cost a bit more than $1.5K, but if you're lucky you might be able to get an used pair for that price).
 


That really depends on the kind of monitors you have and the kind of music you listen to. Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but that's just me.

 

Thanks for the additional names.  So how do you like your Genelecs, especially compared to your previous K+Hs and other monitors?  


Edited by sphinxvc - 1/18/12 at 8:24pm
Reply
post #19 of 85
1/18/12 at 8:24pm
Thread Starter 

Liamstrain, thanks for all the additional details, really helps.

Reply
post #20 of 85
1/18/12 at 9:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

Thanks for the additional names.  So how do you like your Genelecs, especially compared to your previous K+Hs and other monitors?  


 

I like my Genelecs quite a bit; they have a very balanced sound, a very smooth top, & a pretty nice low-end. My biggest issue with the K+H O110 is that they are simply too small to have enough bass for my taste.

Reply
post #21 of 85
1/19/12 at 12:33pm

 

Why do you want to spend $1.5k on actives in the first place? I thought your budget was around $500 which is why I suggested actives to you. At that price you might as well take the route I did.
 
As far as a subwoofer goes, it all depends where your speakers roll off. If you have speakers that roll off below 40-45hz, you don't really need one. However, I thought the addition of a sub did a world of good(mine roll off at 45hz). If you have speakers that roll off at 60-65hz you definitely require one. I would suggest getting a top notch sealed sub(Epik Empire or Rhythmik F12/F15) if you plan on getting one.

Edited by brasewel - 1/19/12 at 12:35pm
Reply
post #22 of 85
1/19/12 at 6:19pm
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by brasewel View Post

 

Why do you want to spend $1.5k on actives in the first place? I thought your budget was around $500 which is why I suggested actives to you. At that price you might as well take the route I did.


Re actives, why wouldn't you recommend them?  Is it just the flexibility of passives?  Of being able to swap amps? 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by brasewel View Post

 

As far as a subwoofer goes, it all depends where your speakers roll off. If you have speakers that roll off below 40-45hz, you don't really need one. However, I thought the addition of a sub did a world of good(mine roll off at 45hz). If you have speakers that roll off at 60-65hz you definitely require one. I would suggest getting a top notch sealed sub(Epik Empire or Rhythmik F12/F15) if you plan on getting one.

 

I'll keep that in mind.  

 

There's a Dale Pro Audio store in Manhattan, and I'll probably visit soon to listen to some of these Genelecs, etc.  Probably hit up Stereo Exchange too.


Edited by sphinxvc - 4/12/12 at 4:23pm
Reply
post #23 of 85
1/19/12 at 7:06pm

If you don't have a proper room and can't play the speakers loud it's not worth spending that much. I suggest you get something between $300-$500 and a cheap Rotel or Hafler power amp. You get great passive speakers in that price range that would handily beat any headphone.

 

Reply
post #24 of 85
1/20/12 at 8:01pm

@sphinxvc , what do you like? Bright sounding music, warm, analytical,etc? Also are you willing to go vintage... you are willing to go used?

Reply
post #25 of 85
1/20/12 at 9:02pm
Thread Starter 

I'm not willing to go vintage, but I'm willing to go used.  I've had a bad experience with a vintage receiver before.  I like my warranties too.  

 


Edited by sphinxvc - 4/12/12 at 4:24pm
Reply
post #26 of 85
1/20/12 at 9:07pm
Thread Starter 

Unless of course I decide to go for panel speakers, because as far as I'm aware there aren't any panel actives.

Reply
post #27 of 85
1/20/12 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

I'm not willing to go vintage, but I'm willing to go used.  I've had a bad experience with a vintage receiver before.  I like my warranties too.  For preferences, I'm into a smooth sound top to bottom and a flat FR.  I find that generally will do justice to the most genres, and would probably be the most transparent.  Basically nothin taken away or added.

 

Re passives, I still don't quite get it, unless any passive+power amp combo at a given price would always outperform actives of the same price, then I can't see any reason not to get actives for simplicity's sake.

 

 


Passives + pre/power always outperform actives at the same price. Actives are great if you want simplicity, thats all.
 

 

Reply
post #28 of 85
1/20/12 at 11:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by brasewel View Post

Passives + pre/power always outperform actives at the same price. Actives are great if you want simplicity, thats all.

Not always. I have some powered Boston Acoustics that listed for ~$100 about ten years ago. They sound WAY better than any $100 pair of passive speakers I've ever encountered. Heck, they sound better than any $200 pair of speakers I've ever encountered, and better than some $300-$400 pairs. (Where they fall short is max volume; they'll never win any loudness contest, but that's not important to me.) It's fair to say that $100 passive speaker pair and amp combo would be seriously outclassed.

I've never listened to any $1500 active speakers (in general I'm a fan of passives), but your absolute statement isn't true at at least some lower price points.
Reply
post #29 of 85
1/21/12 at 12:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r View Post


Not always. I have some powered Boston Acoustics that listed for ~$100 about ten years ago. They sound WAY better than any $100 pair of passive speakers I've ever encountered. Heck, they sound better than any $200 pair of speakers I've ever encountered, and better than some $300-$400 pairs. (Where they fall short is max volume; they'll never win any loudness contest, but that's not important to me.) It's fair to say that $100 passive speaker pair and amp combo would be seriously outclassed.
I've never listened to any $1500 active speakers (in general I'm a fan of passives), but your absolute statement isn't true at at least some lower price points.


Agreed, there are always exceptions. But in general you will be hard pressed to beat passives at any price point especially considering how expensive actives can get. Decent new active speakers cost over a grand and at that price you can get some seriously good passives.

Reply
post #30 of 85
1/21/12 at 8:28am
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by brasewel View Post


Agreed, there are always exceptions. But in general you will be hard pressed to beat passives at any price point especially considering how expensive actives can get. Decent new active speakers cost over a grand and at that price you can get some seriously good passives.


I'm heading over to Stereo Exchange in Manhattan in the afternoon today, so I'll ask the sales people for their opinion too (of course that's probably not the most reliable source of information, but it will add to the list of viewpoints to consider).  I'm sure they will push separates.  That's surprising to hear that passives plus matching amp will outperform actives of the same budget.  Part of me just wants to avoid drooling over class-A Pass Labs & Krell amplifiers in the future.  

 

redface.gif

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Head-Fi's Best Sellers