Are studio monitors a better buy than passive hifi speakers?

[RDoc]

Those are amazing active speakers, clearly, but they don't come in passive versions for us to establish the ultimate benefits.
<snip>

Well, to be fair, I've not seen any passive speakers that came in a bookshelf and subwoofer version either. Good speakers are engineered as a whole.

 

[pablolie]

Not that feasible unless the drivers have independent direct connections that bypass the built in crossovers so a dsp can take over the crossover function. Anyway, as I said before, just look at the reviews in ASR, no need to guess.

Nope, several passive speakers offer switches to eliminate the passive cross-overs. This is yet another thing that is *not* intrinsic when it comes to separating well-designed active and passive speakers. It's perfectly feasible in designing both, and it's not a universal design practice in either.

Again, my issue here is with the constant generalizations of either category - they will always be inaccurate and thereby easy to prove false. It's down to individual designs.

 

[ivayvr]

Nope, several passive speakers offer switches to eliminate the passive cross-overs. This is yet another thing that is *not* intrinsic when it comes to separating well-designed active and passive speakers. It's perfectly feasible in designing both, and it's not a universal design practice in either.

Again, my issue here is with the constant generalizations of either category - they will always be inaccurate and thereby easy to prove false. It's down to individual designs.

I would agree with the above statement if the conclusions were made based on a sample of 5, even 15. If the sample is large enough, than, results are or may be, meaningful.
If that was not the case, nobody would even bother with the statistics.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

it's just a speaker version of #notallmen imo

NotAllMen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dfuller]

It's very difficult to compare an active and a passive version of a speaker 1:1. Not many companies do it, and that's partially because actives often are not simply just high/low pass and notch filters. There are often additive EQs and phase/time correction as part of the crossovers. In addition, the slopes are often steeper in actives because doing steep slopes with op-amp filters or in DSP is considerably cheaper than doing so with high power passive components.

The only company I know of that offers the same speaker in both active and passive form is ATC, and even then the crossovers on the actives are not the same slopes. I would like to see more in-depth testing between an SCM50PSL and SCM50ASL than what I've seen (which is not much).

Something like a Neumann KH150 is not possible in passive form; the woofer is designed specifically with a "loose" suspension (for low distortion reasons) and it's kept from breaking itself from overexcursion via limiter.

 

[pablolie]

I would agree with the above statement if the conclusions were made based on a sample of 5, even 15. If the sample is large enough, than, results are or may be, meaningful.
If that was not the case, nobody would even bother with the statistics.

It is however more accurate than labeling all active and all passive speakers as if they all shared the same design principles....

 

[Haskil]

The question asked is, however, clear, and unless one wants to twist it in every possible way to make it irrelevant, it is about whether, with equivalent design quality and identical size, it is better to choose an active monitor or a passive speaker...

Deviating from this is like comparing CDs and LPs to oppose bad CDs to good LPs... yet, fundamentally, the CD is better than the LP.

So here, it comes down to asking whether using a DSP to filter, correct, and control the operation of a speaker is inherently superior to filtering the drivers passively...

The answer is yes, even if there are mediocre active monitors and remarkable passive speakers. One should not confuse a rule with its more or less faulty applications.

 

[a4eaudio]

The question asked is, however, clear,

You missed the key term, "better buy". It is NOT asking if one is technically better than the other. Which gets you more for the money? Which is a better value?

 

[DSJR]

Kudos make a big active tower, I has a listen to it at a show last year. The amplification isn't built in though.

If it's a 'Titan' model, they're seemingly designed by ears alone, they're usually placed with top Naim gear, the whole shebang at >£100k and they don't 'sound' that wonderful compared to the already (on here) dated ATC 100A actives at a fifth the price or less, depending on the Naim stuff used. owners on 'the ladder' can't really afford to sell on as residuals mean they lose a shedload of dosh.

 

[Mart68]

If it's a 'Titan' model, they're seemingly designed by ears alone, they're usually placed with top Naim gear, the whole shebang at >£100k and they don't 'sound' that wonderful compared to the already (on here) dated ATC 100A actives at a fifth the price or less, depending on the Naim stuff used. owners on 'the ladder' can't really afford to sell on as residuals mean they lose a shedload of dosh.

Titan 808. Bass was good but something odd about the mid and top, like there was no definition/impact to it.

I've looked for measurements but there don't seem to be any, anywhere, for any Kudos model.

 

[DSJR]

Titan 808. Bass was good but something odd about the mid and top, like there was no definition/impact to it.

I've looked for measurements but there don't seem to be any, anywhere, for any Kudos model.

Kudos measurements - as I posted, I was told by one of their dealers (my local one) that they pride(d) themselves on designing by ear alone, so it's unlikely any objective mags would be sent any.

 

[Mart68]

Kudos measurements - as I posted, I was told by one of their dealers (my local one) that they pride(d) themselves on designing by ear alone, so it's unlikely any objective mags would be sent any.

No mention of that on their site. The testimonials seem to all be from people who previously owned Naim speakers, so I suppose pretty much anything would be a step up for them.

Christ, just seen they are thirty grand, more if you want them active. And they're only a two and a half way.

 

[ivayvr]

No mention of that on their site. The testimonials seem to all be from people who previously owned Naim speakers, so I suppose pretty much anything would be a step up for them.

Christ, just seen they are thirty grand, more if you want them active. And they're only a two and a half way.

Tuning "by ear" is extremely expensive process, and only a chosen few are able to do it properly. That is why the higher cost. Easy to justify!

 

[Ultrasonic]

So here, it comes down to asking whether using a DSP to filter, correct, and control the operation of a speaker is inherently superior to filtering the drivers passively...

Actually it doesn't because not all active speakers use DSP, with active speakers in general pre-dating digital audio. Focusing on current active speakers targeting studio use, I'm aware that both use both ATC and Hedd sell all-analogue models. I suspect there are others too.

 

[dfuller]

So here, it comes down to asking whether using a DSP to filter, correct, and control the operation of a speaker is inherently superior to filtering the drivers passively...

People continuously forget that actives need not be DSP. In fact they weren't for a long time. You can do all these functions with op-amp filters.

And yes, in almost all circumstances (save mostly for notching hard diaphragm breakup modes) it is better to do crossovers at line level and multi-amp.

 

[DSJR]

Tuning "by ear" is extremely expensive process, and only a chosen few are able to do it properly. That is why the higher cost. Easy to justify!

There's tuning by ear a basically well optimised design - and there's cobbling a load of fancy looking drive units together and kind-of matching them with as simple a crossover as can be managed - then copying it in a simple active form...

One traditional maker I know, agonises for weeks almost over the raw responses of various developments of their in-house drive units, uses computer aided design for the basic crossover designs I gather and then hours and hours fine-tuning the basically optimised design, fortunately using the previous well-established and successful models as references, to make sure the next generation of a given model, really will an improvement, albeit I suspect these days, a fairly subtle one subjectively. Every stage, even aborted ones, are catalogued and filed extensively we were told.

@Mart68 - I was told the 'design purely by ear' thing rather proudly by the dealer. I suspect they may well have a simple form of testing out what their products do these days, as some of the earlier ones were screamers basically, only working at all because the raw drive units were seemingly pretty good quality to start with.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Tuning "by ear" is extremely expensive process, and only a chosen few are able to do it properly.

kudos' derek gilligan is 60, so he has age-degraded hearing, and yet he believes:

my belief is that everything we hear cannot be measured

 

[ivayvr]

There's tuning by ear a basically well optimised design - and there's cobbling a load of fancy looking drive units together and kind-of matching them with as simple a crossover as can be managed - then copying it in a simple active form...

One traditional maker I know, agonises for weeks almost over the raw responses of various developments of their in-house drive units, uses computer aided design for the basic crossover designs I gather and then hours and hours fine-tuning the basically optimised design, fortunately using the previous well-established and successful models as references, to make sure the next generation of a given model, really will an improvement, albeit I suspect these days, a fairly subtle one subjectively. Every stage, even aborted ones, are catalogued and filed extensively we were told.

@Mart68 - I was told the 'design purely by ear' thing rather proudly by the dealer. I suspect they may well have a simple form of testing out what their products do these days, as some of the earlier ones were screamers basically, only working at all because the raw drive units were seemingly pretty good quality to start with.

Just to avoid potential confusion, my "tuning by ear" statement was good old sarcasam.

 

[Flaesh]

kudos'

I know the owner of the Kudos C2 a little. He's been talking for years about the kilograms of current, cubic meters of current, and manymany amps of current the amplifier must deliver to the Kudos C2. Even at low volume. To control the speaker, to "hold the speaker by the balls." He stubbornly refuses to measure this monstrous current, but when I (jokingly, for those who didn't get it) suggested 40 amps "at low volume", he didn't object. Pure, sincere faith can do a lot!!

 

[thcdru2k]

I have a little bit of everything. I have a nearfield office setup with active monitors and a powered sub (preamp/separate DAC). I have a system full of separates (preamp, DSP, separate amp, multiple subs, passive bookshelf). I also have a full range 2.0 (preamp, DAC, separate amp, floorstanding speakers that respond down to 30hz). The nearfield setup is detailed and very clear. Probably the best value/$. But for whatever reason I get listener fatigue when I listen at anything louder than moderate levels. The system with multiple subs has the best bass articulation obviously...seems like bass just starts and stops on a dime and I can listen to the system forever. The 2.0 I thought I would overlook because its so old school compared to the other two but I notice that weight of midbass instruments like cello seems more natural and for whatever reason it seems to fill the room better than the other two. Granted these are completely different setups, different rooms, and the only thing I was able to control was level match with pink noise but those are things I noticed. I find myself spending the majority of my time listening to the 2.0 setup.