Are studio monitors a better buy than passive hifi speakers?

[Arindal]

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.

Could you explain please to which T/S parameter ´loose suspension´ is translating? High Qms?

I don´t see a reason why it is not possible to do a passive equivalent with such a simple 2-way concept, comparably big, OEM derivative midwoofer and vented box. In my understanding, it would be a sign of a very flawed or significantly misconnected woofer, if only an active limiter could prevent it from excursion beyond its limits and resulting deterioration of sound. I would not want to have such speaker as an active concept as well.

That said, some circuitry like filters in bass bands, subsonic filters, boost, are oftentimes too expensive to be designed with passive elements. And in some cases indeed a clever frequency-selective limiter can enable an active concept to drive a bass transducer closer to its limits without audible distortion.

But I would not file that under ´passive is impossible´. Which is definitely the case with speaker concepts requiring delay or complex phaseshift, extreme and steep filters or alike. A bass cardiod, for example, is maybe too difficult for a passive network, and so are ultra-compact closed subwoofers.

 

[dfuller]

Could you explain please to which T/S parameter ´loose suspension´ is translating? High Qms?

I don´t see a reason why it is not possible to do a passive equivalent with such a simple 2-way concept, comparably big, OEM derivative midwoofer and vented box. In my understanding, it would be a sign of a very flawed or significantly misconnected woofer, if only an active limiter could prevent it from excursion beyond its limits and resulting deterioration of sound. I would not want to have such speaker as an active concept as well.

That said, some circuitry like filters in bass bands, subsonic filters, boost, are oftentimes too expensive to be designed with passive elements. And in some cases indeed a clever frequency-selective limiter can enable an active concept to drive a bass transducer closer to its limits without audible distortion.

But I would not file that under ´passive is impossible´. Which is definitely the case with speaker concepts requiring delay or complex phaseshift, extreme and steep filters or alike. A bass cardiod, for example, is maybe too difficult for a passive network, and so are ultra-compact closed subwoofers.

Go look at Nuyes' review where he did some large signal measurements of the bare driver. Note the exceedingly flat Kms(x), which is usually a sign of a driver with a fairly "loose" suspension. Usually these aren't used for large excursion designs because (in passive designs especially) it's quite difficult to keep the driver from damaging itself under high excursions. However using DSP they can limit its excursion by implementing a signal limiter before the amplifier.

Neumann has said as much. This is a deliberate design choice for low distortion.

Also, please explain to me how you add gain with a passive crossover. That's literally not possible, by virtue of it being passive. Passive filters cannot add gain. They can only reduce. You can have a makeup gain stage after, but that's not the case here.

 

[Haskil]

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.

Of course, I don't forget it at all, but I note that it is increasingly common for them to be driven by a DSP. And if we are going to compare the best of the two setups, passive and active, we might as well only go with the best one technology in each case.

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.

Same answer

 

[Arindal]

Note the exceedingly flat Kms(x), which is usually a sign of a driver with a fairly "loose" suspension. Usually these aren't used for large excursion designs because (in passive designs especially) it's quite difficult to keep the driver from damaging itself under high excursions.

Speaker designers would call this rather a non-progressive suspension, combined with limited mechanical Xmax. Such drivers are not suitable for any concept, but they can be used in passive ones as well, particularly when not being driven to extreme excursions. Similar properties in drivers exist with some fair amount of mechanical Xmax reserve, for example in some Purifi designs. Really nothing that makes a limiter mandatory.

please explain to me how you add gain with a passive crossover. That's literally not possible, by virtue of it being passive. Passive filters cannot add gain.

There are several ways to do it, depending on which particular boost filter of which width you want to apply. Despite from just lowering overall sensitivity by a resistor bypass (as used in so-called contour filters), particularly for improving lower bass extension, some passive high-Q filters with amplitude overshoot are not uncommon. If I recall it correctly, Gauder/Isophon and Canton have implemented such filters in the past. It comes at the price of lower minimum impedance.

As mentioned, there are several things which only an active (or even DSP, or FIR-based) filter could do, and many sophisticated active concepts, like Kii Audio, rely on that. Would not file the Neumann concept under that category.

 

[Avp1]

Go look at Nuyes' review where he did some large signal measurements of the bare driver. Note the exceedingly flat Kms(x), which is usually a sign of a driver with a fairly "loose" suspension. Usually these aren't used for large excursion designs because (in passive designs especially) it's quite difficult to keep the driver from damaging itself under high excursions. However using DSP they can limit its excursion by implementing a signal limiter before the amplifier.

Neumann has said as much. This is a deliberate design choice for low distortion.

View attachment 512169

Also, please explain to me how you add gain with a passive crossover. That's literally not possible, by virtue of it being passive. Passive filters cannot add gain. They can only reduce. You can have a makeup gain stage after, but that's not the case here.

Passive also can have limiter for excursion. Look at old B&W 800 series from early 1990s. They had ACTIVE protection circuit in PASSIVE speakers back then. It needed 9 volts battery to power it up.

 

[Flaesh]

https://www.sonodyne.com/category/studio/studio-monitors/sm-series/sm-3300 - made in India.

 

[Arindal]

Passive also can have limiter for excursion.

Does not even have to be complicated, a 12V bulb would do:

 

[olds1959special]

I like that this thread has taken off and reading through it seems like there are a lot of advantages to having studio monitors with multiple separate amplifiers built-in along with a DSP crossover, even going as far as speakers with room correction EQ features like the Genelec SAM, although they are expensive. Right now I’m comparing a pair of passive hi-fi JBL L890 speakers with classic Kenwood L-05M amps and Yamaha MSP5 V2 studio monitors running from the same source, which is the output from my KRK S10.4 subwoofers, with the crossover set at 90Hz. They are both great sounding for pure music listening and the tiny Yamahas definitely hold their own with a sub. I had to take a picture.

 

[Rick63]

I like that this thread has taken off and reading through it seems like there are a lot of advantages to having studio monitors with multiple separate amplifiers built-in along with a DSP crossover, even going as far as speakers with built in room correction EQ features like the Genelec SAM, although they are expensive. Right now I’m comparing a pair of passive hi-fi JBL L890 speakers with classic Kenwood L-05M amps and Yamaha MSP5 V2 studio monitors running from the same source, which is the output from my KRK S10.4 subwoofers, with the crossover set at 90Hz. They are both great sounding for pure music listening and the tiny Yamahas definitely hold their own with a sub. I had to take a picture.View attachment 515116

Tell me that's not your normal MLP.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Tell me that's not your normal MLP.

Toe-in is important!

 

[AJM1981]

What I would choose as a consumer and probably not as a producer are monitors with an AMT tweeter, as I noticed how "laser like framed" they are in the way that the angle matters a lot. Yes, perhaps there is a fraction more clarity.. but it comes with a positional trade-off.

 

[Arindal]

What I would choose as a consumer and probably not as a producer are monitors with an AMT tweeter, as I noticed how "laser like framed" they are in the way that the angle matters a lot.

Directivity of AMT tweeters vastly depends on their geometry and frequency range. What you described, is usually a side effect of bigger, broader AMTs being used as a tweeter to the highest treble bands.

There are several AMT-equipped popular studio monitors which do not have such problems, or just in very limited form.

 

[Shrek6]

!!!???

somehow I keep getting vindicated!!!???

 

[dfuller]

somehow I keep getting vindicated!!!???

Except, well... all of the ones that are active and aren't that. You know, big midfields. 8361, S360, KH420, all the big ATC 3 ways, PMC, etc etc etc...