Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?


I was just curious why more home systems don't utilize active monitors from hi-end manufacturers. Dynaudio, Focal, PMC and Genelec to name a few seem to have very high value offerings that, on the surface, appear taylor made for a simple system. Just add a cd player with volume and balanced outs or a hi-end dac connected to a music server. Pros and cons are appreciated. A home consumer version seems to have already made it to market in the NHT XDs system. I haven't heard the NHT system and would appreciate your comments.
ghasley

Showing 6 responses by squeegybug

Shadhorn said: Wow that is an awesome equipment list. I would be delighted/comfortable with almost any of the gear you listed.


It's pretty fun to hunt it down and see what all these legendary guys are working with. I learn a lot from listening to their material and trying to pay attention to what is effective.

My only point was that some Mastering Engineers do or have used Active speakers rather than none (as "forget it" sort of implied to me). I stated earlier that "I would agree that many [Mastering Engineers] use conventional speakers (passive). " , which you just proved with a long list of illustrious ME's with impressive passive speakers - so I think we are in both in agreement. This is great - we agree and no need for me to add many more Active speaker users to a list as you have done (on passives) as I am not trying to prove that everyone uses Actives...I agree that a great many do not.


And it was a good point, Shadhorne. I had not realized that Sax had switched over to ATC, and I probably should not make such blanket statements. Just that the studio circles I hang in typically also use mostly passive designs, so it influences my perpective. I'd be really curious to hear Sax' latest work on those, compared to his strong historical catalogue done on his old custom setups. That is always the 'proof' of how well the monitoring is doing.

My friend, I'd welcome any other information or lists you have about MEs using actives, I think it can only shed some light in the dark place that active designs have sort of had so far. I sure don't want to seem like a know-it-all, there is always plenty of room for me to keep learning.

I had to laugh, since Bob Olhsson uses DunTech Sovereigns ... I mean hardly an ordinary run-of-the-mill circuit city speaker.


Yeah, I think he was talking about mixing as well as mastering. Guess his point was that so many folks get caught up in the micro-details, and lose perpective of the *feel*. And they should learn to trust that really accurate equipment and just get-'er-done instead of jacking around with all the imperfections that naturally come with recordings.

And from what I know of John Dunlavy's designs and from the folks who use them, he was a master at creating realistic sounding speakers, never hyped or unnatural. I think some of that is missing in modern designs, from what I've been exposed to.

That quote got my interest because of my recent experiences with the very simple Druid design. I'd had enough of the trees, wanted to see the forest for a while. And to me, the art of music is in the realism, including the imperfections.

Well, I certainly don't run in the same circles as those particular famous folks either.... but sometimes I have the same kinds of equipment :) No guru, no teacher.... I am a music lover and performer who had set up a private studio to do some recording, and it has grown from there.

Ghasley wrote: Thanks for the list and I appreciate you taking the time to compile such a comprehensive sampling. This is a funny hobby isn't it? In examining the list the speakers on the list I have heard all have good attributes to some extent however....


You are welcome Ghasley, I enjoy talking and learning about audio systems too. And the active/passive topic is a good one.

There is so much to the room involvement in these applications. Many of those professional setups are custom designed around specific speakers, to function as a complete system. Then things like 20 dB noise floors, no nulls or peaks, no flutter echoes or modal ringing, etc. become possible.

I don't know Tetra. Do you have any experience with them? I'll check it out sometime.

in theory, the active crossover feeding a properly executed bi or tri-amped 2 or 3 way speaker seems to have a technical advantage over a passive speaker with a passive crossover with a random choice of speaker cable and a random choice of amplification. Do you see my point?
... open minded about searching for a solution that may even be wall mountable, hangable from the ceiling or something thereabouts that will yield excellent sound quality. Maybe I should have explained it better in the beginning but as close to a turn key solution is my quest and I will start with the speakers.
... not interested in building a shrine to audio reproduction ... I am interested in an excellent reproduction of the music. Any and all input is appreciated and yet, a blanket dismissal of a well executed active solution is of no use.


Sure, it's a valid point. I think many folks are like you, and I don't mean to shout down the idea. Just that the 'regular' models I tried didn't suit me. If I was to use a higher cost/class like the ATCs I might have a different opinion. But again, I've also changed directions away from the super-detailed reference monitor approach, and that seems to be all the rage for active speakers (and most passive as well, anymore).

I don't know what systems you are using now, or what your budget is. Maybe you can try some ATCs, or even something like the 'activated' models from PMC, or Lipinski with their 'powered stand' that houses their own custom amp, so no long speaker cable runs. And of course Genelec has been doing actives since their beginning, but I don't know their newer models. I think those four would be a good place to start for quality in that field. I'd definitely prefer 3-way if possible, to get some kind a midrange driver. Just be aware that the sound of many of those reference monitors can be pretty unforgiving, and might not always suit your ears for all playback material.

In places like that where you want simple *and* good, I'd just repeat that spending some money up front on acoustic treatments, in case you haven't yet, can really help all your systems perform to their capacity. Then you might find some nice speaker options that could work out. Otherwise it may be a lot more guessing.

Steve, how do you like the Hsu subs and which models do you have? I have never listened to them and was unaware they were considered musical.


I have a pair of the smallest model they make, STF-1. They are outstanding, for music or HT. They are ported, 8" drivers. Easy to move around but not flimsy. Smaller than a bulldozer which is nice for a change. And are definitely not one-noters, they are reasonably fast and can play along with the music.

Ideally, I would probably prefer sealed cabs to mate best with the Druids, but for no more than I run the subs it is not a huge issue. One STF-1 will play easily down to 28/30 Hz, at 105 dBSPL range. Two of them in a 2500 cu ft room is way plenty for me! I far prefer stereo subs, aligned properly with the speakers. So at less than $300 apiece it was a better choice for me than getting only one high-$ monster sub.

Keep them in mind (or some kind of subwoofers) if you do get some of the reference active speakers. There are experienced comments about many of those kinds of monitors having clean and usable bass, but very limited in extension. And, many pro owners have stated that some of those designs can sound very bright and harsh without balancing subwoofers covering the lower octaves.

Steve
I've used Dynaudio, PMC, Tannoy, Paradigm, misc. other active and passive monitors in the studio and for hifi listening. At one time I thought they were a decent idea -- pre-packaged, simple connections, etc.

But... they are in very many cases significantly more expensive when compared to buying separates -- that is, the same speakers in a passive cabinet with high quality outboard amp and cables.

And there is the sound:

Almost always the active speakers are noisy. And I mean quite noticeable hiss and hum, even with no signal being applied. It smacks of cheap electronics and wiring.

Disperson can sometimes be pretty focused, intended for close inspection rather than spread for imaging.

The sound is what it is. Sometimes there will be removable foam port plugs. Or 'tone adjustments' for treble reduction. These are typically a necessary requirement, for many of the ones I have used have often been 'detailed' in the treble to the point of being hyped, and almost unusable in hifi rooms. And the bass can sometimes be unsuitable when trying to drive them to farfield listening levels rather than nearfield mixing levels. At least for my tastes.

Having separate components allows me to make the tonal adjustments through selection rather than being stuck with the pre-packaged sound.

And I don't like being gouged for high prices for possibly 'questionable' quality of electronics that are hidden in a black box.

Steve
"As far as actives go, no one on this thread has been able shoot any valid holes in the science of why an active monitor is not a better solution."

It is not strictly about science or engineering, or humor.

Remember receivers? Another pre-packaged idea that supposedly would simplify and optimize the whole chain. Do they typically sound as good as separates? Are the parts as high of quality?

What is the next logical step for active speakers? Of course, package the DA inside the housing as well. Think those DAs are on the quality level of Lavry or Weiss? I know the little switching amps most use are not equivalent to Bel Canto or McIntosh, etc. from my experience.

Some studio microphones are heading this way as well. Integrated preamps and AD converters, so just plug it straight to a computer. Again, it is self limiting. Buy that stagnant system for a huge premium, and hope it can compete against the inevitable separate component advancements....

As I've already mentioned, to me the sound of the several active speakers I have owned and used *was not* an improvement over passive separates. And were considerably more expensive. What is the advantage in that?

Steve
My goodness, Ghasley, I'm not a Luddite. As a mechanical engineer, I've been checking out and applying non-standard approaches to lots of things for many years. I just have not always liked what I've experienced with active monitors -- Tannoy, SLS, Paradigm, Genelec, Event, JBL, and Dynaudio. My experiences there will do you no good at all, for your preferences and systems and rooms. So you of course can determine what works for you by trying any or all active speakers. By the way, PMC uses the approach they call 'activated'. The Flying Moles and Brystons are just standard outboard powerpack amps, mounted directly to the speaker cabinet with a Speakon connection. And those amps are *mono*, so no active crossovers there.

My example of receivers is relevant in many cases. If you prefer, substitute the comparison of mixing board preamps versus standalone dedicated preamps. Or equalizers, compressors, converters, etc. Without specializing in designing and manufacturing a specific component, how can that component be superior? Those speaker companies (except for SLS, who bought the digital amplifier company whose products they were using) are typically not amp designers, and in many cases are just shopping on the street for something that will package and be cost effective for their profits -- opamps, switchers, whatever. Just because their marketing brochures say it is 'optimized' does not necessarily make it so.

It's almost always the same tradeoffs about convenience vs. specialization. I don't believe most of those prepacked amps cost that much in volume quantities, and I still prefer to choose quality separate components that I can inspect and compare, made by folks who are expert at making that particular thing.

Of course onboard DA has been done for many years, I did not say it was future technology. And JBL and others have builtin corrective DSP with a microphone included. Does absolutely no good of course, unless you happen to have both ears located in the same place on your head and never move an inch while listening.

I have RealTraps acoustic treatment, and as Bob said, that is where the action is in making *systems* perform somewhat predictably.

This is a regular subject in the recording business; although actives are ubiquitous due to common availability and convenience, the majority of studio engineers who have tried both are reporting the same thing I am. And mastering? Forget it, no ME I know of uses active speakers.

Steve
A quote from Andrew Lipinski: "Tests indicate that many amplifiers built into the back of a speaker produce up to 15 percent second- and third-harmonic distortion."

Ghasley: I notice you have Zu Druids and Bel Canto amps so you obviously enjoy a different type of reproduction than I do.

... if you are mastering on them then your recordings will likely be a touch hot on the frequency extremes since Zus are rolled off there.

Yes Ghasley, the Druids are fun speakers. However my studio pair are not currently using the standard tweeter networks. And I very occasionally use a pair of small Hsu subs to fill in the last octave, as needed. Bass trapping, diffusion, level calibration, positioning, etc. make real differences in the performance of the Druids (and any speaker) for these applications.

I like the Bel Canto/Zu combination for listening as well as for mix/master work -- a fast clean amp and fast clean speakers suit my needs. As for translation, the Druids are producing better mixes and masters for me than PMC, Paradigm, Dynaudio, Tannoy, Celestion, Infinity Ref, or SLS did.

Speakers with 'detailed' bright tweeters are very common and easy to find. Speed, dynamics, balance, and linear midrange, are not.

Quoting Bob Olhsson: "The right level of monitor resolution for the job is very important... ...you can go crazy with perfecting sound to the point that it gets in the way of the musical performance."

Shadhorne: Some Mastering engineer's have used Actives...Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg, Doug Sax, Gavin Lurssen, Frank Wolf, James Guthrie

For example Brothers in Arms 20th Aniversary Edition won a Grammy for best surround sound and was both mixed and mastered on active speakers.

Yep, you are right, all those except Ludwig are from the ATC client list. And of course Lurssen was connected to Sax through The Mastering Lab, where they both formerly long used Sax' own custom cabs/crossovers with Tannoy drivers, and his own custom amps.

I expect ATC is probably on top of the game as far as powered monitors go, for the $17,000/pair 3-way tri-amped SCM150A those particular four MEs are using.

Shadhorne, I'm curious about George Massenburg doing mastering? Of course he is a respected producer, recording/mixing engineer, and equipment designer (but no, he did not invent the parametric equalizer...). His quote I've seen was "My mastering engineer of choice is Doug Sax."

Also wondering where you heard that Ludwig used active monitors to master BIA/20th? I know he has long used EgglestonWorks and previously Duntech. And of course has done practically the entire Dire Straits/Knopfler catalog.

From a list I made up a while back, of equipment used by some of the most prolific and successful mastering engineers:

- Greg Calbi / Sterling ........ ProAc Response 4

- Bernie Grundman ........ Customized (vintage) Tannoy, Crown DC-300 amp

- Steve Hoffman ........ Escalante Juniper, Whatmough 202, Tannoy Lancaster Gold, Wavac SET and McIntosh MC402 amps

- Scott Hull / Masterdisk / Classic Sound / Hit Factory ........ Duntech Sovereign

- Ted Jensen / Sterling ........ B&W Nautilus 801

- Bob Katz ........ Reference 3A, Lipinski L-707, Pass X250 and Hafler amps

- Ken Love / Mastermix ........ Long CMF-100, Bryston amps

- Joe Lambert / Trutone ........ KEF Reference 4 and Reference 207, Bryston amps

- Emily Lazar / The Lodge ........ Duntech PCL-3 and PCL-5

- Bob Ludwig / Gateway ........ EgglestonWorks Ivy, Duntech Sovereign, Cello amps

- Stephen Marcussen ........ B&W Nautilus 802, Aragon amps

- Glenn Meadows / Masterfonics (now gone) ........ Hidley-Kinoshita custom soffit mount, Cello and FM Acoustics amps

- Bob Olhsson / Georgetown ........ Duntech Sovereign, Nova Evolution

- Denny Purcell (RIP) / Georgetown ........ Nova Applause and Evolution II, Pass Labs X-1000 amps

- Alan Silverman / Arf ........ Dunlavy Athena, Lipinski L-707, Bryston 5B-ST amps

- Paul Stubblebine ........ Alon Wolf custom

- Hank Williams / Mastermix ........ PMC BB-5 and MB-1, Bryston amps

Those are all passive speakers with standalone amplifiers.

Perhaps more of the audio production world will start to move to actives, but there is a lot of history in that business to stay with what has worked in the past, and to emulate successful MEs.

Well anyway, that is probably a detour from the original question of using actives in home audio environments. Just pointing to some other 'critical listening' situations that are pretty much committed to passive monitors over active.

Steve
Hey no problem Ghasley. Yes, you are correct, I was referring to the smaller PMC models. From what I know of the AML1, it is a much more refined system (and *much* more $), so if that is your budget then certainly go with those.

Another potential candidate in that price range could be the new Barefoot monitors. I have not personally used those but have noted several respected recording engineers switching to them, with rave reviews. Might be harder to source for a demo though, and I'm sure you are still in the right ballpark with the two you mentioned.

Hope it works out for you.

Steve