or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › bookshelf speakers vs studio monitors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

bookshelf speakers vs studio monitors? - Page 6

post #76 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

Yamaha make some nice monitors.


if he goes that route  the older hsXXm models are the ones you want.  the HSX series are kinda honky

https://soundcloud.com/sonic-sense-pro-audio/yamaha-hs5?in=sonic-sense-pro-audio/sets/studio-monitors

vs

https://soundcloud.com/sonic-sense-pro-audio/yamaha-hs50m?in=sonic-sense-pro-audio/sets/studio-monitors

post #77 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by nff View Post

edit  i found a source for comparison tracks. 
http://www.sonicsense.com/blog/category/studio-monitors/

One can't judge speakers effectively by listening to recordings of speakers because it's being filtered through a microphone and recording process which might affect the sound (this is definitely true for youtube videos) and then, most importantly, the speakers that you listen to the recordings on. That will affect the tonal quality of how the speakers sound, and then you can't learn anything about imaging that way. You would think a company that sells pro audio equipment would know better.
post #78 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post


One can't judge speakers effectively by listening to recordings of speakers because it's being filtered through a microphone and recording process which might affect the sound (this is definitely true for youtube videos) and then, most importantly, the speakers that you listen to the recordings on. That will affect the tonal quality of how the speakers sound, and then you can't learn anything about imaging that way. You would think a company that sells pro audio equipment would know better.

comparing them to the source material can give you some idea of what they sound like.   i know its not an ideal demoing conditions but its better than not hearing them.

post #79 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by nff View Post
 


if he goes that route  the older hsXXm models are the ones you want.  the HSX series are kinda honky

https://soundcloud.com/sonic-sense-pro-audio/yamaha-hs5?in=sonic-sense-pro-audio/sets/studio-monitors

vs

https://soundcloud.com/sonic-sense-pro-audio/yamaha-hs50m?in=sonic-sense-pro-audio/sets/studio-monitors

Can't say I've used any of the new ones, but I remember liking the HS80M.

post #80 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by nff View Post

comparing them to the source material can give you some idea of what they sound like.   i know its not an ideal demoing conditions but its better than not hearing them.

This idea of using speaker recordings to evaluate speakers has already been debunked in audio circles. It's just a logically flawed concept.

So I don't want to get into a big argument about this (you can research and find explanations of it), but the problem is that your speakers will always influence how the other speakers sound. There's no way around that. Think of it as like adding EQ. If you listen to multiple sets of speakers with no EQ, and then listen to them again with some set of minor EQ adjustments, the EQ can easily privilege one set of speakers sounding better than the others. They definitely will not sound the same once the EQ has been applied because the frequency response curves have been reshaped. And for instance, if one is looking to upgrade from current speakers to a better quality speaker, how can one evaluate the resolution of a recording of a speaker with a speaker that is incapable of the same resolution? Finally, as I already pointed out, you can't get a sense of a speakers imaging capability from listening to recordings because a recording of the original speakers just can't preserve that, and, once again, your speakers imaging ability will shape that experience.
post #81 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrallite View Post
 

 

But you are comparing consumer products. How you compare them is by pricing. Yeah you can make a steam engine as good as a gas powered one, too, the only difference is cost. The only thing worse than bad information is making a correction by presenting bad information.

Where did I compare them? What I said is that arguing active vs passive is pointless. So where was my bad info?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by romeozdistress View Post
 

id feel more comfortable getting something i can test with my own music, i have no wya of testing those at all. hmm. how is the bass with those? the bass was pretty strong with the jbls.

The low end is quite good for the size of the speaker, they also have 3 different settings. Plus they are front ported, which is good if you're limited on space.

post #82 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
 

Active speakers are bi-amped which equals less distortion.

 

Active speakers allow better optimisation of the crossover.

 

Active crossovers increase headroom because the bands are separated reducing the chance of distortion.

 

Active monitors have amps specially matched to the drivers. Better damping.

 

Active monitors can connect the bass driver mechanical motion in the amps feedback loop. Better high freq response, reduced ringing, reduces driver distortion. 

 

Passive crossovers waste energy as heat.

 

All else being equal active always beats passive. That's why it's almost impossible to buy high quality, new monitors that aren't active any more.

 

If you can afford it that's what you want. Active.

 

So yeah. kids right. Actives will be more 'revealing' because they are by nature more accurate, produce less distortion and play louder.

1. Active does result in less distortion generally than passive but not always. Some actives have too weak kneed power supplies such as Tannoy's 5 inch monitors back a couple years ago. They were obviously heavily EQed & lacked the power to match & as such ran into heavy distortion at quite low volumes. This was a built in EQ to get strong bass from a small driver.

 

2.Crossover optimization is another possible benefit that though true not always realized in the final product. See above.

 

3. Active crossovers  do not really increase headroom, The output is not sufficiently narrow band in most cases  too have any benefit. Also generally amps are generally smaller than would be used in a passive setup. Where the benefit is that if you clip the woofer amp the tweeter doesn't get sent the resulting distortion causing it to fry with an active setup which would happen in a passive setup.

 

4. Better damping is definitely a benefit. It is more the other way around as far what needs to be matched to what though as the driver needs to be matched to the amp too prevent from being over damped instead of the amp matched to the driver.. you can match the amp closer to the driver capability power wise though Yes there is such a thing as over damping. Either magnet strength needs reducing or fewer turns of wire needs to be exposed to the magnetic field in order to keep the sound balanced & not bass shy when connected directly to the amp as in an active speaker. .

 

5. this last point needs to be separated into 4 separate points

 

A. Yes woofer can have motion feedback & hence have lower distortion but this is really only applicable to subwoofers as above a certain frequency the feedback becomes positive instead of negative feedback & when that happens distortion increases instead of decreases.

 

B. High frequency response is not increased by motion feedback or damping, Contrary high damping prevents the voltage from rising with impedance as happens with all dynamic drivers as the get near their max frequency response. Result is sooner rolloff with high damping than without. except with electrostats & possibly piezoelectric tweeters.

 

C. Yes, reduced ringing of the driver units especially in the bass. This of coarse does not apply to cabinet resonances, hence poor cabinet design can negative affect the sound though so far most active monitors do ok here, not as well though as some high end passives though

 

D. Yes, reduced distortion

 

6. Yes reduced heat in the crossover compared to a passive design. Parts can be smaller , cheaper & generally higher quality as well than used in many passive speakers, especially cheap passive commonly use cheap poor quality crossover components compared to the components found in the active crossover which though even cheaper they tend to be much higher quality as they don't have to deal with high power they are much smaller.

 

Note that yes I am in the active generally better camp but don't believe that to always be the case


Edited by germanium - 1/27/14 at 10:17am
post #83 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by nff View Post

i am pretty much in the same pickle as the OP    i was going to get a pair of behringer (yes i know but they review quite highly )  3030a's (because i found em for 180 each and couldn't afford f5's)  but they got back ordered and my order got canceled.  and now they went up in price.  so im back to square one.  here are some im looking at  perhaps this will give OP some options also?  

http://www.axemusic.com/store/product/32405/Mackie-MR5-mk3-Active-Studio-Reference-Monitor-with-5.25-Inch-Woofer/

http://www.axemusic.com/store/product/31451/Presonus-E5-Eris-2-Way-Studio-Monitor-5.25%22-Kevlar-Woofer-and-1%22-Silk-Dome-Tweeter-70W-Bi-Amp-Power-Sold-Individually/

small and expensive  but  genelec is suposed to be some of the best monitors out there. in league with focal.  they bandwith is pretty narrow though.
http://www.axemusic.com/store/product/20229/Genelec-6010A-Bi-Amplified-Loudspeaker-System-2-way-Active-Nearfield-Studio-Monitor-Black-Sold-as-Single/

these look nice.
http://www.axemusic.com/store/product/20291/JBL-LSR2325P-Two-Way-Bi-Amplified-Powered-Studio-Monitor-Set-with-5-inch-Woofer-Sold-as-Pair/

thoughts?

edit  i found a source for comparison tracks. 
http://www.sonicsense.com/blog/category/studio-monitors/

The Mackie MR 5 is revamped this year & don't seem quite as bass bloated.

Haven't heard the smaller Presonus-E5-Eris speakers.

The JBL probably have the cleanest tightest bass with excellent extension, however everything else sounds a little on the muffled side.

I haven't heard th Genelec speakers.
Edited by germanium - 1/27/14 at 10:10am
post #84 of 286

Do the Adam Audio F5's have built in amplifier? Or do I have to buy a separate amp?

 

Edit: NVM. found on CNET that they already have class AB amps inside. At only $499 a pair these seem like a great deal, judging by all the stellar reviews they've been getting. I'm also considering getting KEF X300A's at $900/ pair. These guys have built in amp AND 24/96 dac. Anyone tried them?


Edited by L0SLobos - 1/27/14 at 5:14pm
post #85 of 286

just ordered the JBL's  they were going to go up in price at the end of the week so i had to jump on them.


Edited by nff - 1/27/14 at 9:14pm
post #86 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by romeozdistress View Post
 

went to guitar center and tested some speakers out. tested the jbl lsr305. they sounded very good, good bass response. the guy there kept trying to push mackie on me, saying he loved their monitors and hes a huge mackie guy lol. i tested out the mackie mr9mk3s they sounded nice but they are freaking huge. i should have tested out the 8 inch version of the jbls but it slipped my mind. i was too busy getting a lesson on mackie speakers haha. thoughts on mackie products? it was hard to find any metal to listen to. but i like the sound of both. gonna have to go back when i have the cash and make a huge decision.
 

I own the Mackie MR5 mk2's and love the heck out of em; the MR8's are too much for what you're need them for. If you can test the MR5 mk3's against the JBL LSR305's you can figure out which one you like most. I highly recommend the mackie's but its up to your ears to decide. The MR5's will sound very similar to the MR8's but with a slightly more restrained bass response. 

post #87 of 286

Does anyone here have experience with Adam audio studio monitors? I checked gearslutz forums but most people there prefer Focal monitors...

post #88 of 286

I've used Adams. I like them, but the can be kind of bright. I've never dealt with the the F-series though.

post #89 of 286

Gearslutz is a bunch of people with either buckets of opinion or buckets of money.  I have owned the A7x for about 2 years, and now added some 3rd gen KRK's to the horde, and am perfectly happy with both.  The KRK are certainly less detailed and a little "warm" for production but they sound great for music listening and are a nice comparison against the adam's.  The a7x are more detailed across the board and I find the bass a lot more accurate, however they are still not perfectly flat in response, the mids can be a little weaker than the top and bottom end, but that could also come down to the room I am in.  The higher end Focal's are wonderful, I cant deny, but once you get into the range of $1500 monitors you really need to worry about placement and acoustic treatment for the room, which most people are not prepared to do.  If you are a listening ROOM and a load of spare cash look into the ADAM S3x, or if space is limited the S2x, but most people will be perfectly happy in the low price brackets. 

 

I am not a fan of wasting money where its for minor gains, and you get FAR more for your money in acoustic treatment, once you get beyond the $1500 mark, then you are building a custom room and then blowing your remaining budget on the best speakers you can afford.  There are loads of high end brands outside focal, adam, genelec and the other usual brands and you should really do your homework before buying.

post #90 of 286
Thread Starter 

whats up with the thread jacking bro? LOL

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › bookshelf speakers vs studio monitors?