[TMRaven]

I'm not quite sure how you would distinguish the two, especially when subs are concerned.  A good speaker is a good speaker.

 

[Mauricio]

I've written elsewhere on the forum that the information asymmetry, prestige considerations and objectives of the professional equipment market, indeed market incentives, are in different alignment from that of the home, hobbyist/audiophile "hi-fi" market.  Finally the two market segments are separated by a huge technological divide.  Home "hi-fi" is overwhelmingly passive while professional studio is largely active.

 

[adamlau]

Outside of native XLR connection options and shelving filters and unless you are priced in the range of Opals, PMC/Bryston, or the the higher end ADAM SX line with ICEpower ASP amps, it is difficult to make a blanket statement indicating the superiority of studio monitors over those marketed for home audio at equivalent driver sizes. It is a misconception that studio monitors are unequivocally more accurate over their domestic bretheren, particularly where subs are concerned. Being in the market for a secondary sub myself, I found myself considering either the Neumann KH 810, or a Seaton SubMersive HP. The Seaton was in the lead for its superior amp, larger driver size and slightly lower price until I happened upon this thread. Am now considering a second ARTist Sub (7) in order to run a true 2.2 as mixing and matching subs of differing brands can and will ead to endless crossover adjustments... 

 

[TMRaven]

Yes, there's no reason any hi-fi speaker wouldn't be as accurate as a monitor speaker.  Both can be as flat or as colored as their maker makes them out to be.  I know you've written about the supposed benefits of active crossovers and matched amps and whatnot, and their supposed benefits, but we're talking subwoofers here, which are usually active no matter their market distinction.
 
 

 

[Mauricio]

You woefully underestimate the differences between passive and active if you think that the only differences in actives are XLR connections and on-board EQ.  There is a fundamental systemic difference between an passive and an active driver, even if they are both of the same price and size.

 

[Mauricio]

Quote:

Yes, there's no reason any hi-fi speaker wouldn't be as accurate as a monitor speaker.  Both can be as flat or as colored as their maker makes them out to be.  I know you've written about the supposed benefits of active crossovers and matched amps and whatnot, and their supposed benefits, but we're talking subwoofers here, which are usually active no matter their market distinction.
 
 

You are talking subwoofers.  I am talking about the entire two-way or three-way loudspeaker.  I am talking about the system.  Think systems.

 

[TMRaven]

What makes you think integrating a marketed 'monitor' sub is easier than integrating a hi-fi sub to two active bookshelves?

 

[adamlau]

Nearly all subs marketed for home theater are active. XLR  and shelving filters are not the only differences between active and passive monitors, of course. Factory matched drivers, crossovers and aligned impedences can be considered additional benefits for some active monitors. I am not unaware of the differences between active versus passive as I do own and operate the active system in my signature. Will be upgrading to a full PMC system soon. Note that most of their passive units can be converted to active ones with the simple addition of an amplifier. No other modifications outside the addition of onboard amplification are made. 

 

[Mauricio]

I make a sharp distinction--indeed there are significant differences in system design--between an active design and a passive/powered design.  A powered speaker has more in common with a passive than with an active one.

 

[Mauricio]

Quote:

What makes you think integrating a marketed 'monitor' sub is easier than integrating a hi-fi sub to two active bookshelves?

Check again.  I never stated what you are now imputing to me.

 

[TMRaven]

Quote:

Ya, I know.  I, myself, have said as much a couple of times on this forum.  $400 is the entry-level point.  Taking it to the next level will bring you to the $1,000 point.  There, I'd go with the likes of a JBL or Focal.  No "hi-fi" for me.  I much prefer studio, recording equipment.

You said it right there.
 
As for the integration part, it's only an assumption on my part, because that's literally the most important thing you need the sub to do.  You can always buy certain subs that were designed to go with a pair of speakers from the same company, but when it all comes down to it, you'll be messing around with your EQ/crossover/placement multiple times over regardless, because your room alters the sound too much.

 

[Mauricio]

I don't see where in the text that you quoted where I say, implicitly or explicitly, that integrating a "hi-fi" sub is more difficult than a "studio" sub.
 
Really? Multiple times?   I must have a knack or natural instinct for chosing places to live suitable for my 2.1 system.  I must have been very lucky or my 2.1 system was so well designed to work together in a fully active fashion that I've never experienced the headaches and mismatching woes that are often highlighted in the matching of subs with satellites.  I went with the first option described in the user manual, and that worked liked a charm from the start in the three different rooms/two houses where the set-up has now lived.  In fact, it's when I depart from the manual instructions that it starts to sound unnatural and boomy.  Your mileage may vary, of course, if you are matching an active subwoofer from one manufacturer with the passive speakers of another.

 

[TMRaven]

The 'think system' post was another post I took as 'I'm going for better integration.'  You never exactly said it but it was an assumption on my part.  If that's not what you're going for when you said you didn't want hi-fi products, then I'm not quite sure what you were trying to convey.  It's not that I'm particularly trying to get you to change your train of thought  as much as I'm puzzled because you've time and time again stated to have a flat-out preference for monitor speakers, when in reality both monitor marketed and hi-fi marketed speakers can do the same things.
 
Oh I bet the 2.1 system isn't as fleshed out as it could be, unless you have a very-well treated room.  Every single room has different physical aspects to it, and will give different modes, peaks and dips in the bass range.  What matched well in a company's anechoic chamber or outdoors won't mirror in different rooms, especially ones with minimal treatment.  You already know this though.