[RonaldDumsfeld]

Even if that were true. Which it isn't.
 
Whatever infernal machinations that go on in today's mastering suites can hardly be regarded as anything for an audiophile to aspire too.
 
They don't care how **** it sounds as long as it's LOUD.

 

[adupree]

  Even if that were true. Which it isn't.
 
Whatever infernal machinations that go on in today's mastering suites can hardly be regarded as anything for an audiophile to aspire too.
 
They don't care how **** it sounds as long as it's LOUD.

Wow, So Bob Katz, Bernie Grundman, Ted Jensen and so on are all idiots. Also, all the people who talk about B&W 800, PMC, Lipinksi, Dunlavy, etc. know nothing about quality 

 

[cel4145]

Not true.

Passive speakers can be bi-amped also. Passive speakers can have just as good of a crossover. Headroom is based on making sure the AMPS have enough power available. Passive speakers are typically used in a lot of mastering suites, where they need to most "revealing and accurate" speakers.

+1

Yeah, he's still buying into that marketing and fanboy rhetoric for active vs. passive speaker setups. My CBM-170's, which are $300 speakers, measure extremely well because the crossover is well-designed and well-matched with the driver and tweeter. I would dare someone to find an active speaker set in the $500 or less range that measure more linear than that.

So one of the main problems is that kind of over generalizing doesn't help anyone at all to choose between an active setup and passive setup at a given price point. It's very misleading. It could very easily be that one setup is better than other.

Moreover, DR's argument ignores the great importance of driver transient response and the quality of the tweeter for accuracy and how revealing the sound is. Since music recorded to CDs has--at best--a 96db SNR, it's pretty easy to find an amp for passive speakers with a similar or lower noise floor. My HK 3390 is rated 95db SNR. So that means it would be practically near impossible to discern the noise from the CD from the amp (which is one reason why I'm sure Harman choose to be satisfied with that SNR). On the other hand, differences in driver and tweeter quality will be much more apparent.

About the best generalization one could make between the two is that, on average, the native response of an active speaker setup is more likely to have a more linear frequency response than a passive speaker setup. Passive speaker models tend to vary more greatly in sonic character, with some being more warm and some brighter, and some neutral.

 

[adupree]

+1

Yeah, he's still buying into that marketing and fanboy rhetoric for active vs. passive speaker setups. My CBM-170's, which are $300 speakers, measure extremely well because the crossover is well-designed and well-matched with the driver and tweeter. I would dare someone to find an active speaker set in the $500 or less range that measure more linear than that.

So one of the main problems is that kind of over generalizing doesn't help anyone at all to choose between an active setup and passive setup at a given price point. It's very misleading. It could very easily be that one setup is better than other.

Moreover, DR's argument ignores the great importance of driver transient response and the quality of the tweeter for accuracy and how revealing the sound is. Since music recorded to CDs has--at best--a 96db SNR, it's pretty easy to find an amp for passive speakers with a similar or lower noise floor. My HK 3390 is rated 95db SNR. So that means it would be practically near impossible to discern the noise from the CD from the amp (which is one reason why I'm sure Harman choose to be satisfied with that SNR). On the other hand, differences in driver and tweeter quality will be much more apparent.

About the best generalization one could make between the two is that, on average, the native response of an active speaker setup is more likely to have a more linear frequency response than a passive speaker setup. Passive speaker models tend to vary more greatly in sonic character, with some being more warm and some brighter, and some neutral.

Thank you 

   

 

[RonaldDumsfeld]

I've just looked on the website of Europe's biggest seller of pro audio gear Thomann.
Number of active monitors offered for sale 320. Number of passive monitors for sale 15.
 
I've looked on the website for London's premier high end studio gear supplier. KMR.
Number of active monitors offered for sale. 298. no of passive monitors 26.
 
I rest my case your honour!

 

[adupree]

How does the number of something offered make it better? That's like saying Bose is the best because it is the number 1 seller.

 

[GearMe]

Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld /img/forum/go_quote.gif

1. Active speakers are bi-amped which equals less distortion.
2. Active speakers allow better optimisation of the crossover.
3. Active crossovers increase headroom because the bands are separated reducing the chance of distortion.
4. Active monitors have amps specially matched to the drivers. Better damping.
5. Active monitors can connect the bass driver mechanical motion in the amps feedback loop. Better high freq response, reduced ringing, reduces driver distortion. 
6. 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.

 
Originally Posted by adupree /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Not true.  
Passive speakers can be bi-amped also. Passive speakers can have just as good of a crossover. Headroom is based on making sure the AMPS have enough power available. Passive speakers are typically used in a lot of mastering suites, where they need to most "revealing and accurate" speakers.

 
 
Hmmm -- pretty sure Abbey Road can afford whatever speakers/amps/etc. they want.  Don't see active speakers here.
 
Looks like we should be buying B&W speakers...and Bryston amps.  Never owned a pair but I can personally attest to the sound quality of Bryston amps.
 
I have to chuckle a little at the HD-600s and the conspicuously absent 800s!
 
Abbey Road Mastering Equipment (speakers & amps)
Monitoring

1. B&W 800D speakers with Classe CA-M400 amplifiers
2. B&W N801 speakers with Bryston 7B amplifiers
3. PMC TB1 speakers with Bryston 2B amplifiers
4. Yamaha NS-10M speakers with Bryston 2B amplifiers

 
Emil Berliner (DG spinoff)

1. Loudspeakers, Headphones
   1. B&W Matrix 801 Series 2 *
   2. B&W Nautilus 802
   3. B&W Nautilus 805
   4. Geithain RL906 *
   5. AKG K 240 *
   6. AKG K 501 *
   7. Sennheiser HD 580 *
   8. Sennheiser HD 600 *
   9. Sony MDR-7509HD *

 

[GearMe]

  How does the number of something offered make it better? That's like saying Bose is the best because it is the number 1 seller.

 
Or...dare I utter the word...BEATS!   

 

[romeozdistress]

   
Or...dare I utter the word...BEATS!   

yeah i see everyone with beats, it so sad lol. seems like you can get headphones just as good if not better for $50.

 

[Tablix]

WAY off topic with talk of headphones, abbey road studio's and comparing things outside the original budget.  DR was pretty accurate that the best value for money in this price bracket almost always stands in the favor of active speakers (please note the almost).  You cannot talk about Abbey Road as an example as that's not within the boundaries of the OP's budget, you can talk about amplifier and speakers WITHIN budget and how they measure up to studio monitors of a similar price.
 
The point of active monitors is the fact they are purpose designed as a group of matched components. You also have a single item with dealer mark-up, compared to speaker and amp with individual mark-up.
 
There is no win situation, or there would only be one choice, so lets actually offer direct options for the OP based on PERSONAL ownership and not random opinions to back up your own individual point of view.
 
I cannot offer any real objective opinion as I have been in the active camp for a while now and only own 2 sets of monitors, so my bias is far too strong.  It has been well over 5 years since I have owned a passive set-up, and my decision was purely based on my own needs.  
 
You need to consider many things including how and where you listen to your music, the size and acoustics of the room.  Active montors tend to have a very fine focal point which is not always ideal for home listening 10ft away, and at this price point all the active monitors are designed from nearfield listening.  
 
I am far from an expert but I would expect the advice from those that are to be more along the lines of, get yourself to a local supplier and use your own ears, rather than arguing back and forth over active>passive or the other way round.  
 
Just for information I recently bought some KRK RP6 G3's on a whim as a 2nd set of monitors, they are "musical" compared to more professional "FLAT" monitors such as Focal Solo, and they are a HUGE improvement over the G2's IMO having a more natural bass than the previous incarnation. I found the RP5's lacking in bass even on the newer model, so most people would probably want to add in a sub.  While most audio engineers would scoff at these for production I find them very enjoyable for the money, and for home use more than a good investment.

 

[cel4145]

WAY off topic with talk of headphones, abbey road studio's and comparing things outside the original budget.  DR was pretty accurate that the best value for money in this price bracket almost always stands in the favor of active speakers (please note the almost).

That is an opinion with no evidence to support it. How could you possibly know that to be true?

The point of active monitors is the fact they are purpose designed as a group of matched components. You also have a single item with dealer mark-up, compared to speaker and amp with individual mark-up.

And the point is? If active speakers are $700 and passive speakers and amp are $700, they could each have the same mark-up percentage??? And even if they didn't, that tells you nothing. Could be one thing is cheaper to produce than another because of economies of scale. Could be one is a better implementation. Who knows? I don't. You can't.

There is no win situation, or there would only be one choice, so lets actually offer direct options for the OP based on PERSONAL ownership and not random opinions to back up your own individual point of view.

I would agree. The problem seems to be that we have the active fanboys who have limited experience with speakers proclaiming that they are always superior, and those with a wide range of speaker experience saying that it really depends on the speakers/setup. Given the tons of speaker options available, which seems more likely? LOL

 

[Tablix]

That is an opinion with no evidence to support it. How could you possibly know that to be true?

Because perhaps I have used more speakers than I currently own, and consider 20 years of experience enough to formulate an opinion.

And the point is? If active speakers are $700 and passive speakers and amp are $700, they could each have the same mark-up percentage??? And even if they didn't, that tells you nothing. Could be one thing is cheaper to produce than another because of economies of scale. Could be one is a better implementation. Who knows? I don't. You can't.

Well from my understanding of retail and economics, its most likely.  Not provable but I will accept its possible.

I would agree. The problem seems to be that we have the active fanboys who have limited experience with speakers proclaiming that they are always superior, and those with a wide range of speaker experience saying that it really depends on the speakers/setup. Given the tons of speaker options available, which seems more likely? LOL

I accepted I may be biased in my original post due to MY usage which is recording and producing, however your viewpoint is no less biased.  I said I owned 2 sets of active monitors but I have been alive a many decades and have heard and used many speakers active and passive, so unless you been in my house for 25+ years you have no idea my experience with speakers let alone set-up I have experienced elsewhere.

 

The arguing gets a little tedious and achieves nothing, maybe better to answer the OP and ignore the rest as its all opinionated BS that cant be proven at the end of the day.  I really hate being quoted and argued with as it feels like my opinion is no longer wanted on an open forum.  The more it happens the less likely I am or others are to get involved in debate.  Not good for a community driven website IMO.

 

[cel4145]

Because perhaps I have used more speakers than I currently own, and consider 20 years of experience enough to formulate an opinion.

I can play that game, too. I have thirty years experience. Bought Mission speakers (during their heyday), an NAD amp, and a Hitachi CD player in 1984 when you could only find a few rows of CDs in an entire store.

Anyway, 20 years involved in the audio hobby is long enough to recognize when an opinion is untenable instead of getting touchy about it. You should know better anyway because personal listening preference is such a big factor in speaker preference. I know people that like Klipsch Reference bookshelves for computer setups, and I can't understand it because they are fatiguing in even HT setups, much less with nearfield usage.

The arguing gets a little tedious and achieves nothing, maybe better to answer the OP and ignore the rest as its all opinionated BS that cant be proven at the end of the day. I really hate being quoted and argued with as it feels like my opinion is no longer wanted on an open forum.

And that is exactly my point. I've listened to examples where your statement about active speakers is definitely disproven. I constantly recommend both active and passive speakers of certain types in these threads because I know that there are good values in both because I've heard them, and I know that there are bad values in both, too. I just don't happen to own any active speakers. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't if it suited my needs.

So It gets equally tiring to me to hear the active speaker fan club come every time there is a thread like this and try to overly bias an OP with over generalizations. It's not helpful to people seeking advice.

 

[kid vic]

One speaker model being more revealing than the other is an indication of difference in speaker quality. Has nothing to do with passive vs active.

 
What I meant to say was that in my opinion monitors tend to give more to your music in an engaging sense as compared to speakers which I always find enjoyable versus surreal.
 

  I listen to alot of different types all besides pop music. but id say metal is probably my all time favorite. i will be using these for listening to music. i dont need them to mix or anything.

I dont listen to metal but from what I have heard you probably want something that are fast, with good midrange, bass and dynamic range. I think you should stay away from Yamaha monitors (to bright not enough mid), KRK's (oodles of bass but considered kind of sloppy). Swan and Adam would probably work well for you but I have only heard Adams, and those were their higher end ones ($700 a speaker) in passing but they were phenomonal. Also, you might want to check out the Focal XS book ($350 a pair). I use Mackie MR5 mkii's which I love and they cost me $450 for the pair.

 

[GearMe]

Originally Posted by Tablix 
There is no win situation, or there would only be one choice, so lets actually offer direct options for the OP based on PERSONAL ownership and not random opinions to back up your own individual point of view.
 
Originally Posted by cel4145 
I would agree. The problem seems to be that we have the active fanboys who have limited experience with speakers proclaiming that they are always superior, and those with a wide range of speaker experience saying that it really depends on the speakers/setup. Given the tons of speaker options available, which seems more likely? LOL
 
 
- Hence the hyperbole in my response to point out the flaw in his declarations.  They aren't always better as 'authoritatively' stated by Dumsfeld -- at least not in one professional environment.  And yes, I really do trust the engineers at Abbey Road more than Dumsfeld.  Yet, I do understand the possibility exists that unlimited budget may result in a different buying decision.  Again, hyperbole...to drive a point home and put the 'that's the way it is' argument in perspective.
 
- In reality, I might even buy the argument that, at the lower to middle end of the spectrum, you could have better luck finding higher quality in individual components by choosing high-value performers from each equipment category with a little research, listening, and patience to get a good deal.  
 
- BTW, I have no issues whatsoever with posts on either side of this discussion.  I always come down on the side of helping the OP research alternatives based on others opinions (including real experts -- Tyll, ljokerl, etc.) and recommending they then listen for themselves to choose the product that satisfies their unique need/preferences.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The arguing gets a little tedious and achieves nothing, maybe better to answer the OP and ignore the rest as its all opinionated BS that cant be proven at the end of the day.  I really hate being quoted and argued with as it feels like my opinion is no longer wanted on an open forum.  The more it happens the less likely I am or others are to get involved in debate.  Not good for a community driven website IMO.

 

- Yep...would be great!  The problem is that some folks proclaim themselves as 'Experts' and then people that may be new to the hobby might make decisions based on the 'perceived power' of the 'Expert's' declarations; spending their hard-earned $$$ differently than they would have if there had been a reasonable discussion of alternatives.

 

- Honestly, I've made similar arguments in the never-ending 'Hate on BEATS' threads that periodically show up on Head-Fi.  FWIW, I don't own any BEATS products; opting for DT770s and Atrio IEMs for my 'basshead' listening.  That said, I don't get the whole 'you're stupid/ignorant if you don't agree with me' schtick!   It 'gets a little tedious' to hear people tell others that they're listening preferences are 'inferior'.  

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Originally Posted by Tablix 
WAY off topic with talk of headphones, abbey road studio's and comparing things outside the original budget.
 
- Thanks, I had no idea.       
But the 'talk of headphones' demonstrates the point (albeit subtle) that even Mastering Studios at the highest level don't always purchase the most expensive product but choose that they feel is the best one for their application -- which is definitely something worth bearing in mind as it relates to any audio purchase.