Powered monitors without AD conversion

[Martijn W]

It's a good thing that you bring up latency. Nowadays, youth are not accustomed to waiting for anything, so 5ms of latency is likely to be a dealbreaker for anyone born after a certain year.

haha are they becoming that impatient already?

I personally don’t mind such small latency but I know people that do, when monitoring audio while playing live in the studio. In such situations low latency will be preferred over phase linearity. For example when playing a keyboard you want instant feedback. small increases of latency (in addition to standard latency that an audio interface provides) can be noticed fairly soon.

 

[Newman]

Passive is always split post-power amp. Active is always pre-power amps.

Just for the sake of completeness, this is not correct. Passive can be split upstream of the power amps, at line level. Then it is called a passive line-level crossover (PLLXO).

A rare example.

It is generally considered inferior to active line-level crossovers, and for good reason, except of course among the inevitable fans.

The true way to distinguish passive from active crossovers is the complete absence of powered components in a passive crossover. No valves, transistors or IC's.

cheers

 

[dfuller]

Just for the sake of completeness, this is not correct. Passive can be split upstream of the power amps, at line level. Then it is called a passive line-level crossover (PLLXO).

A rare example.

It is generally considered inferior to active line-level crossovers, and for good reason, except of course among the inevitable fans.

The true way to distinguish passive from active crossovers is the complete absence of powered components in a passive crossover. No valves, transistors or IC's.

cheers

Huh, I've never even heard of that. I appreciate the correction.

Regardless, active crossovers are always before power amps.

 

[Frgirard]

Does anyone know of any powered monitors that do not have AD conversion? I am aware of the Focals and Gibsons, but would like to learn of more, particularly highly rated ones. It seems a bit odd to me to research DACs well, buy a highly rated DAC, and then feed the signal into powered monitors with AD that have internal DACs that may be much worse than a high quality outboard DAC. Does anyone else worry about this, or do I just worry too much? As great a thing as studio monitors are, it is a bit frustrating that it is so difficult for any reviewers to test their internals. Also curious if there are some of you who own Gibsons, like I do, and enjoy the look that was designed to look similar to a guitar.

A powered speaker is not an active speaker. All powered speakers have no dac.

 

[Ron Texas]

I believe the OP's question should have been a search for active speakers which accept a digital input. As usual the Genelec crowd came to the rescue as if there were nothing else available on this planet. I would mention the JBL LSR 705p, 708p and M2. Also the KEF LS50 wireless. Furthermore, with today's inexpensive and transparent DAC's, that single conversion back to digital is going to be inaudible. That's been reported by at least one member here who has tried it both ways. Having that DAC also enables the use of powered subwoofers which rarely have a digital input. Please don't bother me with the exceptions.

 

[AudioStudies]

A powered speaker is not an active speaker. All powered speakers have no dac.

I think you are mistaken. Some powered monitors were equipped with DACs. Also, powered monitors are called "active monitors" - just check out some of the pro audio websites.

 

[AudioStudies]

I believe the OP's question should have been a search for active speakers which accept a digital input.

No, wasn't looking for a digital input, just wanted something without ADC and DAC, just straight up analog amplification. I have since "wimped out" though and went with some Kali Audio speakers that do have the ADC and DAC steps.

 

[Frgirard]

I think you are mistaken. Some powered monitors were equipped with DACs. Also, powered monitors are called "active monitors" - just check out some of the pro audio websites.

Pmc tb2 powered speakers without active crossover.
All active speakers are usable in analogic.
I use since 2008 k+h o300 and 2017 kh420.
I think i know what is an active and a powered speakers.

 

[Frgirard]

No, wasn't looking for a digital input, just wanted something without ADC and DAC, just straight up analog amplification. I have since "wimped out" though and went with some Kali Audio speakers that do have the ADC and DAC steps.

Digital amplification doesn't exist! May be have you a scoop.
All active speakers with a digital input can be use in analogic.

 

[AudioStudies]

Digital amplification doesn't exist! May be have you a scoop.
All active speakers with a digital input can be use in analogic.

The term "active monitor" applies to powered monitors. This term can (and does) apply to many speakers that have no digital components whatsoever, such as those with ANALOG ACTIVE CROSSOVERS. Analog active crossovers have been defined many times over in these pages. If you think a crossover has to be digital to be active, you are just plain wrong. I agree that speakers with digital inputs also can be used in analog.

 

[AudioStudies]

Go to the Sweetwater Pro Audio site, Click on Studio Monitors, then Click on Active Monitors. You will find all sorts or powered monitors in there that have no digital components, such as the offerings from Focal. Some active monitors are equipped with DSP (and thus digital components) and some are not, they are entirely analog, like the Focals.

 

[Frgirard]

The term "active monitor" applies to powered monitors. This term can (and does) apply to many speakers that have no digital components whatsoever, such as those with ANALOG ACTIVE CROSSOVERS. Analog active crossovers have been defined many times over in these pages. If you think a crossover has to be digital to be active, you are just plain wrong. I agree that speakers with digital inputs also can be used in analog.

Active monitor is the use of an active crossover.
Jbl in the 80's sold active crossover without amplification like the DX1 as xilica, lake, berhinger .. today
Where i wrote a digital crossover bla bla?


You found a bone to chew on, make do with your teeth

 

[AudioStudies]

Active monitor is the use of an active crossover.
Jbl in the 80's sold active crossover without amplification like the DX1
Where i wrote a digital crossover bla bla?


You found a bone to chew on, make do with your teeth

How about you just vacate my thread? You are the one not making any sense on most of your posts. You are the one who appears to chew on some bone of faux incorrectness in what I have said, and when I try to explain - you clamp down the teeth.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Isn't there a little too much obsession about DAC measurements though, when many members are just going to recovert it again in their studio monitors?

 

[BobbyTimmons]

It's a good thing that you bring up latency. Nowadays, youth are not accustomed to waiting for anything, so 5ms of latency is likely to be a dealbreaker for anyone born after a certain year.

For people playing VSTs, there can be borderline cases where even 5ms would make a difference between tolerable or not tolerable. It can be quite difficult to reduce latency is your computer isn't able to manage smaller buffer sizes.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Far as I can tell, the first analog active crossover was 1967. No way was computing advanced enough to do high fidelity audio DSP of any sort.

I mean, if you're in a situation where you need the lowest possible latency it isn't great. Doing overdubs where the artist is in the room with you for example is not a situation I'd want any additional latency. Not a problem in home audio land (usually, HT it can be), but in pro audio land it is something people care about.

Latency is often important in home audio land as nowadays there are very many people who play VSTs, etc.

 

[YSC]

Latency is often important in home audio land as nowadays there are very many people who play VSTs, etc.

personally using genelec 7040->8030 with a PC-> holo spring 2-> EQ APO with typical 1.5-2ms latency, the subwoofer highpass might get some more, didn't notice anything latency induced even if looking for it, but the EQ did make the sound a lot better

 

[BobbyTimmons]

personally using genelec 7040->8030 with a PC-> holo spring 2-> EQ APO with typical 1.5-2ms latency, the subwoofer highpass might get some more, didn't notice anything latency induced even if looking for it, but the EQ did make the sound a lot better

If you are playing a VST like a lot of home audio users nowadays and just on the borderline of noticing latency or not, then I assume 5ms might be able to make a difference. As there is a line with the buffer sizes where you start to notice latency.

 

[Ultrasonic]

Isn't there a little too much obsession about DAC measurements though, when many members are just going to recovert it again in their studio monitors?

Well, any errors introduced in an initial DAC step won't be recovered later on so performance isn't irrelevant. Better to send a digital signal to the monitor if possible though.

 

[Mnyb]

Whats potentially bad in an AD-DA stage is also so in an analog active crossover? They are not pefect either and volume control to between two speakers and be tween the different drivers ?

Wonder if it is not always is about implementation?

And also always doing the xover digitally is the best idea regardless of source ?