Pardon my long (long, really...) post - I'll make it a two parter.
Part 1.
Ghasley,
It's been about another month - just wondering what you finalized on, assuming you've completed your eval.
I just found this thread and read through it today and it has been an interesting discussion over months.
I went from a pair of Watkins WE-1A speakers paired with Mark Levinson 20.5 amps and an ML-26 pre (later upgraded to a 38S) that I thought sounded wonderful and pretty close to reference for home hi-fi (at least at the time) to a pair of Genelec 1032As and a 1094 Sub.
My reason for doing this was several fold but rooted in the fact that I am a recording engineer/producer. While I loved the Watkins/ML combo (still miss those Watkins!), I found them, like most great home-pointed hifi to sound really "nice."
Nice is great for enjoyment only but does not necessarily equal "accurate." As I had a need to bring mixes home and listen to them sans the musicians and anyone else who might be in the studio requesting they or someone they know be turned up/down, etc., "nice" wouldn't/won't cut it. Budget and physical space impaired having "nice" and "accurate" simultaneously.
So, I sold my Watkins & ML 20.5s to gain capital to get the Genelec system. I have been immensely pleased with the Genelecs over the years. I have also found myself pondering something different more recently, just for a change and to see where evolution of the species has taken us.
I heard some Genelecs in a studio in which I was working back when they were first being imported into the US. I was blown away by the accuracy, clarity, depth of presentation, and imaging. I put in some of my own CDs and literally heard things that I'd never heard before. I knew back then that I'd end up with some as they were the best thing I'd ever heard.
As does everything... the market's evolved. Many have followed into the active speaker market, and they're now available in almost every application.
I have not heard the PMCs so I am curious about your longer-term impressions on both speakers. Did you get rid of the Genelecs or relegate them to lesser duties? I know the 8050s are not 1032s but for the purpose of general reference, that is a great place to start.
----------------------------------------------------------
Part 2
As for the original discussion - For a very long time, even the highest end hifi'ers didn't even know about active monitors because they were marketed almost exclusively to the professional demographic. There's also the fact that most hi-end home gear is not designed to sound as accurate to the source as it is "pleasurable" to listen to - which is, of course extremely subjective (as is all audio.)
Besides, people in the general consumer market don't have, nor should even want access to the more controlled atmosphere of studios and professional listening experience. So the equipment for each has different design goals and purpose. Which can be seen as ironic since everything that happens on the backend is done to sell product to that general market... One of the reasons most studios have a "cheaper consumer grade" pair of speakers to check mixes on. This is not to say that all hifi gear is less capable - the high-end of the market produces some amazing results, especially in electronics(!), that often far surpasses what's available in the pro market. (Especially in the area of price, but that's another conversation (rant...))
Back to "accuracy" being generally acceptable/desirable, I too, back in the day asked the question (often) "Why are audiophiles not jumping on this high-end pro gear more often?" - especially in the realm of monitors/speakers. For many years, names like Fostex LS1,2 & 3s, Genelec, Quested, TAD, and others have all crossed my mind as to why consumers weren't finding/buying them.
Having been a long-time audiophile myself, and served on the board of an audiophile organization, I think I have reached two conclusions - one of which is mentioned at the beginning of this thread:
1. Audiophilia is as much about the pursuit of the gear itself and exploring the latest theories (no matter how far-fetched they may be) than it is the most accurate representation of the music possible. That's part of the fun!
2. Audiophilia is as much about the socialization as it is the gear or the music. The sharing of experiences (music and equipment), opinions, the debates, intellectual exploration, and a reason to get together to talk, listen, and/or brag about one's latest acquisition seems to be the spark that ignites and keeps it going. That's the other part of the fun!
Otherwise, we'd all be trapping ourselves alone in the basement with our system, waiting on the next meal to be slid under the door - never sharing our secrets with anyone... right!?! (tongue firmly in cheek)
When was the last time you went to an audiophile club meeting and everyone sat quietly in front of a 'reference' system for the duration until it was time to leave?
I can't imagine what would happen if suddenly a system of reproduction came about that EVERYONE agreed sounded as good as physics will allow possible. I'm not even sure that many people would own such a system...
Active or passive, the irony is that, by nature the most important piece of equipment in your reproduction system is also the least technically capable of producing "true" results. Even before all the subjectivity starts.
As for the pros/cons - many have already been stated here. Active =
The opportunity to design & implement the best matched electronics to their mechanical counter-components while moving spectrum splitting hardware, etc. to the optimal place in the circuit. All with simple connectivity and usually the benefit of a balanced signal path to as close to the mechanical piece as possible (read common mode rejection benefits.)
But(!) Most times, it's not as pretty to look at, you can't monkey with it (at least as readily and certainly not within warranty); you are forced to evolve in large wholesale steps instead of incrementally/piecemeal due to the nature of the beast; as well - you are left to trust that those who design the mechanical parts are just as adept at electronics design, and then there's the whole implementation part... Great design poorly implemented (or vice-versa) is still left to suffer its own lowest common denominator...; along with the fact that there's less to talk about because the components are all integrated.
It's also been my observation over time that few people actually know or even care (truly) if what comes out of the speakers is as close to the actual live performance as possible. I can tell you that there are many, many times that we as the listener DON'T want it to be! We want the added benefit of polishing and tweaking that happens before it gets to us, as well as the coloration that our own system adds to it - the "nice" part.
If you have difficulty wrapping your head around this, just imagine standing 10, 20, or even 75 feet away from an on-axis high note out of Randy Brecker's Harmon muted trumpet... (or even with no mute for that matter!) I can tell you from experience - you don't want that! :-)
Indeed, unless it is symphony/orchestral music, or straight-ahead jazz, or some exception, we don't even mix a performance to provide "the band is in my room" presentation. So the whole idea of "performance accuracy" goes out the window like a "Trout Fishing in America" song. Example: Last I checked, there's no such thing as reverb, delay, or any other form of "wetness" that comes out of an acoustic instrument in its native form. But wetness gets dumped all over those puppies in the production process - 'cause it sounds "nice" or it's thought to better express the artist's concept or idea.
With all that in mind, I've observed that many audiophiles don't really even like an "accurate" system (at the professional & measurable level) when they're in front of it. They use words like "clinical" or "sterile" to describe the experience. In theory, it's supposed to be all source, no vehicle, right?! Clinical and unaltering is what the reproduction system's supposed to be like! Referring to the means of this thread, most active speakers have been designed to play in the "clinical" space - lacking as much of the "niceness" as possible.
But again, that kinda kills the fun in the subjectivity and pursuit of it all, doesn't it?
My stance has always been this:
If you think it sounds good, shut-up and listen to it!
If you think it sounds great & it's worth the price - get it for yourself and ENJOY!
If you have to use it as a tool to make a living, make sure it does the best job at hand within your resources and leave the "nice" part for later.
I told ya this was going to be long.
I don't get out much - at least not on these kinds of things so when I do, I go kinda nuts. My apologies.
Cheers All & Happy Holidays,
Chuck
Part 1.
Ghasley,
It's been about another month - just wondering what you finalized on, assuming you've completed your eval.
I just found this thread and read through it today and it has been an interesting discussion over months.
I went from a pair of Watkins WE-1A speakers paired with Mark Levinson 20.5 amps and an ML-26 pre (later upgraded to a 38S) that I thought sounded wonderful and pretty close to reference for home hi-fi (at least at the time) to a pair of Genelec 1032As and a 1094 Sub.
My reason for doing this was several fold but rooted in the fact that I am a recording engineer/producer. While I loved the Watkins/ML combo (still miss those Watkins!), I found them, like most great home-pointed hifi to sound really "nice."
Nice is great for enjoyment only but does not necessarily equal "accurate." As I had a need to bring mixes home and listen to them sans the musicians and anyone else who might be in the studio requesting they or someone they know be turned up/down, etc., "nice" wouldn't/won't cut it. Budget and physical space impaired having "nice" and "accurate" simultaneously.
So, I sold my Watkins & ML 20.5s to gain capital to get the Genelec system. I have been immensely pleased with the Genelecs over the years. I have also found myself pondering something different more recently, just for a change and to see where evolution of the species has taken us.
I heard some Genelecs in a studio in which I was working back when they were first being imported into the US. I was blown away by the accuracy, clarity, depth of presentation, and imaging. I put in some of my own CDs and literally heard things that I'd never heard before. I knew back then that I'd end up with some as they were the best thing I'd ever heard.
As does everything... the market's evolved. Many have followed into the active speaker market, and they're now available in almost every application.
I have not heard the PMCs so I am curious about your longer-term impressions on both speakers. Did you get rid of the Genelecs or relegate them to lesser duties? I know the 8050s are not 1032s but for the purpose of general reference, that is a great place to start.
----------------------------------------------------------
Part 2
As for the original discussion - For a very long time, even the highest end hifi'ers didn't even know about active monitors because they were marketed almost exclusively to the professional demographic. There's also the fact that most hi-end home gear is not designed to sound as accurate to the source as it is "pleasurable" to listen to - which is, of course extremely subjective (as is all audio.)
Besides, people in the general consumer market don't have, nor should even want access to the more controlled atmosphere of studios and professional listening experience. So the equipment for each has different design goals and purpose. Which can be seen as ironic since everything that happens on the backend is done to sell product to that general market... One of the reasons most studios have a "cheaper consumer grade" pair of speakers to check mixes on. This is not to say that all hifi gear is less capable - the high-end of the market produces some amazing results, especially in electronics(!), that often far surpasses what's available in the pro market. (Especially in the area of price, but that's another conversation (rant...))
Back to "accuracy" being generally acceptable/desirable, I too, back in the day asked the question (often) "Why are audiophiles not jumping on this high-end pro gear more often?" - especially in the realm of monitors/speakers. For many years, names like Fostex LS1,2 & 3s, Genelec, Quested, TAD, and others have all crossed my mind as to why consumers weren't finding/buying them.
Having been a long-time audiophile myself, and served on the board of an audiophile organization, I think I have reached two conclusions - one of which is mentioned at the beginning of this thread:
1. Audiophilia is as much about the pursuit of the gear itself and exploring the latest theories (no matter how far-fetched they may be) than it is the most accurate representation of the music possible. That's part of the fun!
2. Audiophilia is as much about the socialization as it is the gear or the music. The sharing of experiences (music and equipment), opinions, the debates, intellectual exploration, and a reason to get together to talk, listen, and/or brag about one's latest acquisition seems to be the spark that ignites and keeps it going. That's the other part of the fun!
Otherwise, we'd all be trapping ourselves alone in the basement with our system, waiting on the next meal to be slid under the door - never sharing our secrets with anyone... right!?! (tongue firmly in cheek)
When was the last time you went to an audiophile club meeting and everyone sat quietly in front of a 'reference' system for the duration until it was time to leave?
I can't imagine what would happen if suddenly a system of reproduction came about that EVERYONE agreed sounded as good as physics will allow possible. I'm not even sure that many people would own such a system...
Active or passive, the irony is that, by nature the most important piece of equipment in your reproduction system is also the least technically capable of producing "true" results. Even before all the subjectivity starts.
As for the pros/cons - many have already been stated here. Active =
The opportunity to design & implement the best matched electronics to their mechanical counter-components while moving spectrum splitting hardware, etc. to the optimal place in the circuit. All with simple connectivity and usually the benefit of a balanced signal path to as close to the mechanical piece as possible (read common mode rejection benefits.)
But(!) Most times, it's not as pretty to look at, you can't monkey with it (at least as readily and certainly not within warranty); you are forced to evolve in large wholesale steps instead of incrementally/piecemeal due to the nature of the beast; as well - you are left to trust that those who design the mechanical parts are just as adept at electronics design, and then there's the whole implementation part... Great design poorly implemented (or vice-versa) is still left to suffer its own lowest common denominator...; along with the fact that there's less to talk about because the components are all integrated.
It's also been my observation over time that few people actually know or even care (truly) if what comes out of the speakers is as close to the actual live performance as possible. I can tell you that there are many, many times that we as the listener DON'T want it to be! We want the added benefit of polishing and tweaking that happens before it gets to us, as well as the coloration that our own system adds to it - the "nice" part.
If you have difficulty wrapping your head around this, just imagine standing 10, 20, or even 75 feet away from an on-axis high note out of Randy Brecker's Harmon muted trumpet... (or even with no mute for that matter!) I can tell you from experience - you don't want that! :-)
Indeed, unless it is symphony/orchestral music, or straight-ahead jazz, or some exception, we don't even mix a performance to provide "the band is in my room" presentation. So the whole idea of "performance accuracy" goes out the window like a "Trout Fishing in America" song. Example: Last I checked, there's no such thing as reverb, delay, or any other form of "wetness" that comes out of an acoustic instrument in its native form. But wetness gets dumped all over those puppies in the production process - 'cause it sounds "nice" or it's thought to better express the artist's concept or idea.
With all that in mind, I've observed that many audiophiles don't really even like an "accurate" system (at the professional & measurable level) when they're in front of it. They use words like "clinical" or "sterile" to describe the experience. In theory, it's supposed to be all source, no vehicle, right?! Clinical and unaltering is what the reproduction system's supposed to be like! Referring to the means of this thread, most active speakers have been designed to play in the "clinical" space - lacking as much of the "niceness" as possible.
But again, that kinda kills the fun in the subjectivity and pursuit of it all, doesn't it?
My stance has always been this:
If you think it sounds good, shut-up and listen to it!
If you think it sounds great & it's worth the price - get it for yourself and ENJOY!
If you have to use it as a tool to make a living, make sure it does the best job at hand within your resources and leave the "nice" part for later.
I told ya this was going to be long.
I don't get out much - at least not on these kinds of things so when I do, I go kinda nuts. My apologies.
Cheers All & Happy Holidays,
Chuck
