@inna Not. At. All. The first concern, by far, is sound quality. One's job depends on it. But pros are generally a no-nonsense bunch with better things to concern themselves with than pointless tweaks. Active monitors are a very well proven concept, and they generally DO offer substantially more real value for the money invested. So from that perspective, one might think that they're "cost and effort saving," but the proof is in the studio, even studios where cost is a very secondary concern. Active monitors are VERY widely accepted by professionals for the quality of their sound, regardless of cost.
Showing 7 responses by lp2cd
There may be others as good, I’ve not auditioned all that there is obviously, but I’m confidant that none are finer than PSI Audio Active Studio Monitors. They are built in Switzerland by a company that is an offshoot of Revox, if that rings a bell, and they are to speakers what Swiss is to watches, none finer. They’re profession gear, and uncommon in the U. S., so you’ll not find them in any audio salon. But trust me, I’ve used a pair of A-21Ms in my mastering studio for several years now, and they’ve completely cured me of any "upgradeitis." They’re utterly clean, utterly neutral, utterly transparent, detailed, and as "fast" and dynamic as any speaker built, with pinpoint imaging and not at all fatiguing. They sonically disappear and one is left simply listening "down the wire" to the source; I listen to them all day. If I was ever to replace my "living room" setup (Thiel speakers, Classé amp), it would be with PSIs. As I said, none finer. http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/psi-audio-a-14m-active-powered-loudspeaker-tas-212/ https://www.zenproaudio.com/brands/PSI-Audio.html |
Several notes: 1) Active speakers (monitors) such as most of the higher-end ones being discussed here are by in large no-nonsense and demanding professional tools. Not only are they not designed to be eye-catching and decorative, as a class they must needs be ruthlessly revealing yet highly listenable at the same time. Thus, they are very apt to tell one everything that’s wrong (or right!) with what comes before them, from recording technique, to mastering, to one’s electronics, to their position and placement in the room (studio). If they don’t sound good to you, it’s very likely that the problem lies elsewhere, including what one expects or is accustomed to. Best possible program material and kit is a given. 2) Well-designed, especially higher-end, active speakers are a highly integrated system. The physical design, the amplification, and the drivers are all rigorously designed to work specifically with the other components in the speaker. Moreover, actives work with either a line-level or a *digital* input (see below). The result is a remarkable degree of flexibility in design throughout. That’s profoundly different from a passive system where the input is an already fully amplified signal. The passive design has to be substantially generic, and try to both accommodate the quirks of an unknown amplifier and crossover the high-powered input to the sundry drivers. That’s challenging and expensive to do well, and it actually allows for less flexibility in design. 3) Active monitors fall into two categories, analog and DSP. The difference is rather obvious. The older, analog, approach is just that, the input signal remains analog throughout the processing, amplification, and reproduction chain. The analog processing, however, can be and often is highly sophisticated. PSI, Questeds, and others, are excellent examples. The DSP monitors are newer and typically rely on digital wizardry to achieve their often remarkable sonic results. Kii three’s, D&D’s, and several others are the hot new guys on the block. Overall, both types have their merits and, to some degree, drawbacks. Analog monitors only accept a line-level analog input, and then have an assortment of level and EQ controls available (on the back). That makes driving them and setting them up rather straightforward. DSP monitors will ordinarily accept an analog input, but often also accept, and generally prefer, a digital input, usually @ 96kHz. Even an analog input will be converted to digital for processing. The result can be amazing sound, but the setup and configuration, even the volume control, can also be challenging and complex. Your choice. |
@gosta. Congrats on those Quested V3110s! They are certainly among the first rank of active studio monitors and, by all accounts, altogether the equal of the PSIs that I flog. Between their sound and @ 6½ stone (they're British, after all...) they'll undoubtedly put down roots in you listening room. Did you get the custom stands as well? Horizontal or vertical? And unless you're way into pipe organ music, a sub will be superfluous with those guys. As you note, "huge spl capacity." That's one of the many virtues common to active monitors. With their tightly integrated amplifier designs, pretty much all of the better actives can crank the spl without compression until one hits their maximum, and essentially without the any danger of over-driving and harming the speaker. (Please don't feed them too much distortion or square waves, however...) The coherence, transparency and just plain musicality of Questeds and the like can be truly amazing. Undoubtedly, my PSIs put an end to my search for "better." Rock on! |
@gosta. Interesting. Those "trash can" stands may account for some "interesting" resonant bass interactions and effects. You may not need to spend the dime for Quested's stands, but something better should be a priority. I've no special insights into either the Unity or or RCF monitors, altho I might expect the Unitys to at least play in the same league as the Questeds. As for the PSIs, I use the A-21s as mastering monitors in a close near-field setup with a Focal CMS SUB taking the "flat" system response down to 32 Hz. They perform brilliantly. (I upgraded from Focal CMS 65s. Fine monitors, but they made everything sound too good. Great for casual listening...) The larger PSIs are for mid- or far-field listening. I've not listened to the other PSIs, but by all accounts they are as a family closely similar in sound. The A-17s would have undoubtedly worked fine for my purposes, too. PSIs are rather fussy about setup and positioning. I wouldn't expect any of them to stand out at all in a "shop" environment. PSIs tell the truth, they don't scream about themselves. |
@lonemountain Exactly! I often get the sense that some people in these parts are simply EQing their system by other means. The clarity and lack of distortion with top quality active speakers/studio monitors may well tell some people more than they want to know about a recording, and such speakers can spoil a good bit of the "fun" of all the time tweaking. Myself, I’ve music to listen to. A commenter, audiokinesis, on this thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/frequency-response-or-1-db , made some very valuable and relevant observations about the desirability of a truly flat speaker response, and linked to a very interesting technical review of D & D 8c monitors. Well worth the read. Oh, and BTW, for much more than just reference, I’ve listened to Sarah Jarosz & Co. live from 10’ away. Very, VERY, good... |