Do all Studio Monitors sound the same?

[fineMen]

Do all cars drive the same?
It pretty much sums this thread

Nice! With this perspective, what is the essence of a recording that survives alterations that seem to be common when listening at home? What is the essence that would render a plethora of monitors for studio use eqivalent?

If there is no equivalence relation, what to expect for the outcome of a recording process from selecting microphones up to accepting a preliminary result in the monitor room? Do you understand the 'circle of confusion'?

( Sorry, I'm logically/mathematically educated, hence the strong wording ;-)

 

[kemmler3D]

HiFi is equivalence (not identity) to studio sound, do you agree?

Depending on what you mean by equivalence, sure. My opinion is that the appropriate goal of Hi-Fi is to replicate what was heard in the studio, perhaps with some modification for taste in the "size of soundstage". There is some valid debate on whether wide (or even dipole / OB) dispersion or narrow dispersion is best.

 

[teashea]

I know the title sounds a bit stupid, but what I am really asking is: Studio monitors are designed to be neutral so does that mean they all are very close in the way the sound to one another regardless of the components and box design? I was thinking of getting other Studio Monitors after having tried the Kali 8-IN (which imo sounded a bit to hollow when vocals came in play), but if others are not too different there wouldn't be much of a point with bothering.

Ideally, all studio monitors would sound the same - flat frequency response and low distortion (like Neumann KH150's). But that is not the case. Most manufacturers are incapable of making monitors with flat frequency response and low distortion.

 

[mjgraves]

Also the lack of differentiation between powered and active gets completely ignored much of the time. It would also be nice to have descriptive levels of just how active a speaker it is…

This has been bothering me lately . One prominent Hi-Fi reviewer on YouTube recently did a video wherein he claimed that only if a system is bi-amped should it be considered "Active." This is hogwash. Simply bad lingusitics.

"Active" is the opposite of "passive." A speaker that is fed from an external amplifier is a passive device. Whether single driver, 2-way or 3-way doesn't matter. All would be passive.

If a speaker has an amplifier built-in it can rightfully be called an "active" speaker system. Presuming that amplifier requires power, it can honestly be called a "powered" loudspeaker.

In the low-end price range, it might be a two-way system with a single amplifier and a very simple set of passive filters for the drivers. That's still an "active" speaker. I would expect this in something like computer speakers.

If it has a crossover prior to a set of amplifiers then it's a bi-amplified or tri-amplified speaker system. That's an entirety separate matter from being merely active or passive.

To be accurate, it should be described as a "bi/tri-amplified active (or powered) speaker system."

There are edge cases. JBLs M2 is a passive loudspeaker. But it's often sold as part of a system, with Crown amplifiers and BSS DSP for crossovers.

MiniDSP once sold a small amplified speaker cube whose only connection was Ethernet. It received both signal and power over that Ethernet connection. It was both active and powered, even if the power source is unusual.

I reject the notion that a speaker must be bi/tri-amplified to be called "active."

 

[dfuller]

This has been bothering me lately . One prominent Hi-Fi reviewer on YouTube recently did a video wherein he claimed that only if a system is bi-amped should it be considered "Active." This is hogwash. Simply bad lingusitics.

"Active" is the opposite of "passive." A speaker that is fed from an external amplifier is a passive device. Whether single driver, 2-way or 3-way doesn't matter. All would be passive.

If a speaker has an amplifier built-in it can rightfully be called an "active" speaker system. Presuming that amplifier requires power, it can honestly be called a "powered" loudspeaker.

In the low-end price range, it might be a two-way system with a single amplifier and a very simple set of passive filters for the drivers. That's still an "active" speaker. I would expect this in something like computer speakers.

If it has a crossover prior to a set of amplifiers then it's a bi-amplified or tri-amplified speaker system. That's an entirety separate matter from being merely active or passive.

To be accurate, it should be described as a "bi/tri-amplified active (or powered) speaker system."

There are edge cases. JBLs M2 is a passive loudspeaker. But it's often sold as part of a system, with Crown amplifiers and BSS DSP for crossovers.

MiniDSP once sold a small amplified speaker cube whose only connection was Ethernet. It received both signal and power over that Ethernet connection. It was both active and powered, even if the power source is unusual.

I reject the notion that a speaker must be bi/tri-amplified to be called "active."

The notion you reject is the industry standard for how these things are defined. Active and powered are not the same thing. If it uses a passive crossover with a broadband plate amp, it's just powered. If it's using an active crossover and an amp channel per way, then it's an active.

 

[teashea]

I agree

This has been bothering me lately . One prominent Hi-Fi reviewer on YouTube recently did a video wherein he claimed that only if a system is bi-amped should it be considered "Active." This is hogwash. Simply bad lingusitics.

"Active" is the opposite of "passive." A speaker that is fed from an external amplifier is a passive device. Whether single driver, 2-way or 3-way doesn't matter. All would be passive.

If a speaker has an amplifier built-in it can rightfully be called an "active" speaker system. Presuming that amplifier requires power, it can honestly be called a "powered" loudspeaker.

In the low-end price range, it might be a two-way system with a single amplifier and a very simple set of passive filters for the drivers. That's still an "active" speaker. I would expect this in something like computer speakers.

If it has a crossover prior to a set of amplifiers then it's a bi-amplified or tri-amplified speaker system. That's an entirety separate matter from being merely active or passive.

To be accurate, it should be described as a "bi/tri-amplified active (or powered) speaker system."

There are edge cases. JBLs M2 is a passive loudspeaker. But it's often sold as part of a system, with Crown amplifiers and BSS DSP for crossovers.

MiniDSP once sold a small amplified speaker cube whose only connection was Ethernet. It received both signal and power over that Ethernet connection. It was both active and powered, even if the power source is unusual.

I reject the notion that a speaker must be bi/tri-amplified to be called "active."

I agree

 

[fpitas]

A speaker that is fed from an external amplifier is a passive device.

Yet, all my drivers are fed from separate amps in a rack, each amp fed from a DSP crossover. No one would call my system passive.

 

[fpitas]

I suppose we could break the semantic circle by saying active or passive crossover:

Active Vs. Passive Crossovers

Active Vs. Passive Crossovers - what are the factors that make active the only choice for serious hi-fi? Driver control is not well understood, but perhaps this article will help.

sound-au.com

 

[mjgraves]

Yet, all my drivers are fed from separate amps in a rack, each amp fed from a DSP crossover. No one would call my system passive.

The speaker itself is passive, the larger system as whole is not.

When a company is marketing _just_ the speaker to you, they cannot truthfully call it active.

Your system as whole is bi/tri-amped.

This is not unlike the good old days of Hi-Fi when we debated receivers vs integrated or separate pre & power amps.

An integrated amplifier does not become a receiver just because you also have a tuner connected.

 

[mjgraves]

I suppose we could break the semantic circle by saying active or passive crossover:

Active Vs. Passive Crossovers

Active Vs. Passive Crossovers - what are the factors that make active the only choice for serious hi-fi? Driver control is not well understood, but perhaps this article will help.

sound-au.com

Certainly. Specificity the key.

 

[Absolute]

I'm certainly happy my passive M2's are active.

Jokes aside, active or passive to my understanding is just about the crossover being passive or not and have nothing to do with where the amplifiers are located.
A speaker with passive crossover and built-in amplifier is usually called a powered speaker.

But poteto, potato.

 

[DSJR]

This has been bothering me lately . One prominent Hi-Fi reviewer on YouTube recently did a video wherein he claimed that only if a system is bi-amped should it be considered "Active." This is hogwash. Simply bad lingusitics.

"Active" is the opposite of "passive." A speaker that is fed from an external amplifier is a passive device. Whether single driver, 2-way or 3-way doesn't matter. All would be passive.

If a speaker has an amplifier built-in it can rightfully be called an "active" speaker system. Presuming that amplifier requires power, it can honestly be called a "powered" loudspeaker.

In the low-end price range, it might be a two-way system with a single amplifier and a very simple set of passive filters for the drivers. That's still an "active" speaker. I would expect this in something like computer speakers.

If it has a crossover prior to a set of amplifiers then it's a bi-amplified or tri-amplified speaker system. That's an entirety separate matter from being merely active or passive.

To be accurate, it should be described as a "bi/tri-amplified active (or powered) speaker system."

There are edge cases. JBLs M2 is a passive loudspeaker. But it's often sold as part of a system, with Crown amplifiers and BSS DSP for crossovers.

MiniDSP once sold a small amplified speaker cube whose only connection was Ethernet. It received both signal and power over that Ethernet connection. It was both active and powered, even if the power source is unusual.

I reject the notion that a speaker must be bi/tri-amplified to be called "active."

Did you post on YouTube that the presenter had it wrong?

In the UK, we kind of standardised it that a speaker could be single, bi or tri amped *passive* (I'll ignore 'buy-wiring' for a moment), or if the amps were inside a pair of passive speakers we'd refer to them as *powered (passive).* Only if the crossovers were 'active' and placed in front of the power amps, could we regard them as *active* setups.

I remember that two way speakers with the bass-mid driver wired directly with no filtering at all and merely a cap to stop bass getting into and destroying the tweeter were still regarded as basically *passive* but with advantages

 

[Matias]

It will be hard to find compact replacement for Thiel towers (were they C3.7?). In large enough and treated room Thiel speakers sound excellent - there are only few speakers in the world capable to correctly reproduce step waveform.

I just switched from Thiel CS3.7 to March Audio Sointuva AWG. Amazing that the books reach as low as the Thiels and can play louder without distortion. Lost the time coherence, but gained a lot better dispersion and linearity, which was worth it imo.

 

[Absolute]

I just switched from Thiel CS3.7 to March Audio Sointuva AWG. Amazing that the books reach as low as the Thiels and can play louder without distortion. Lost the time coherence, but gained a lot better dispersion and linearity, which was worth it imo.

Happy to hear you're happy. Beautiful speakers. You could always buy a minidsp flex and phase align things again with a FIR filter. Win-win.

 

[mjgraves]

Did you post on YouTube that the presenter had it wrong?

In the UK, we kind of standardised it that a speaker could be single, bi or tri amped *passive* (I'll ignore 'buy-wiring' for a moment), or if the amps were inside a pair of passive speakers we'd refer to them as *powered (passive).* Only if the crossovers were 'active' and placed in front of the power amps, could we regard them as *active* setups.

I remember that two way speakers with the bass-mid driver wired directly with no filtering at all and merely a cap to stop bass getting into and destroying the tweeter were still regarded as basically *passive* but with advantages

I did comment. Of course, he refutes my assertion.

Hi-Fi and Pro audio are quite different worlds. Bi/Tri-amped nearfield monitors has been common in production for decades. They're only new(ish) in the Hi-Fi world.

He doesn't know me or any of my past. I've spent 35 years in broadcast audio & video production, working in numerous facilities. And I'm no-one special. I just have vastly more experience with such systems than he might, at least at this point.

 

[sergeauckland]

This has been bothering me lately . One prominent Hi-Fi reviewer on YouTube recently did a video wherein he claimed that only if a system is bi-amped should it be considered "Active." This is hogwash. Simply bad lingusitics.

"Active" is the opposite of "passive." A speaker that is fed from an external amplifier is a passive device. Whether single driver, 2-way or 3-way doesn't matter. All would be passive.

If a speaker has an amplifier built-in it can rightfully be called an "active" speaker system. Presuming that amplifier requires power, it can honestly be called a "powered" loudspeaker.

In the low-end price range, it might be a two-way system with a single amplifier and a very simple set of passive filters for the drivers. That's still an "active" speaker. I would expect this in something like computer speakers.

If it has a crossover prior to a set of amplifiers then it's a bi-amplified or tri-amplified speaker system. That's an entirety separate matter from being merely active or passive.

To be accurate, it should be described as a "bi/tri-amplified active (or powered) speaker system."

There are edge cases. JBLs M2 is a passive loudspeaker. But it's often sold as part of a system, with Crown amplifiers and BSS DSP for crossovers.

MiniDSP once sold a small amplified speaker cube whose only connection was Ethernet. It received both signal and power over that Ethernet connection. It was both active and powered, even if the power source is unusual.

I reject the notion that a speaker must be bi/tri-amplified to be called "active."

I think this is another of those things that are different depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on. Here in the UK, loudspeakers with passive crossovers are passive. Loudspeakers with passive crossovers but amplifiers built into the cabinets are Powered loudspeakers, not Active. Actives are those with electronic crossovers (either analogue or DSP) before power amplifiers, one for each driver. They can be two, three or more ways, but the essence is that for a loudspeaker to be Active, it has to have a separate power amplifier per way. It doesn't matter if the amplifiers are built-in to the loudspeaker or external, what matters is that the crossover should be done electronically before the power amps.

There are a few loudspeakers that have active bass and/or midrange but a passive crossover to the tweeter. These outliers don't have a generally accepted name, perhaps semi-active, as there are so few of them.

The term 'bi-amping' or even 'tri-amping' has been used over here for passive loudspeakers where separate power amps are used, but retaining the passive crossover. A totally pointless exercise except for the dealer selling more amplifiers and cables.

S.

 

[dfuller]

I think this is another of those things that are different depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on. Here in the UK, loudspeakers with passive crossovers are passive. Loudspeakers with passive crossovers but amplifiers built into the cabinets are Powered loudspeakers, not Active. Actives are those with electronic crossovers (either analogue or DSP) before power amplifiers, one for each driver. They can be two, three or more ways, but the essence is that for a loudspeaker to be Active, it has to have a separate power amplifier per way. It doesn't matter if the amplifiers are built-in to the loudspeaker or external, what matters is that the crossover should be done electronically before the power amps.

There are a few loudspeakers that have active bass and/or midrange but a passive crossover to the tweeter. These outliers don't have a generally accepted name, perhaps semi-active, as there are so few of them.

The term 'bi-amping' or even 'tri-amping' has been used over here for passive loudspeakers where separate power amps are used, but retaining the passive crossover. A totally pointless exercise except for the dealer selling more amplifiers and cables.

S.

No, no, that's how it's defined here too.

 

[IPunchCholla]

driver - crossover - amplifier are the three elements.

We can have:

driver -> crossover (active or passive) - > amplifier (per channel or for all drivers or various combinations) OR

driver -> amplifier (per channel or for all drivers, or various combinations) -> crossover (active or passive.

There seem different possible definitions of what makes a crossover "active".

My monitors have boundary condition switches that change the low end, a frequency setting for integrating the sub, gain, and treble adjust. I assume those are all adjustments to the passive crossover in the monitor. There is no DSP. Is that an active crossover or does it need to be externally powered in some way for it to be active. If we can agree on a definition of active crossover that gives us:

1 driver

driver -> passive crossover -> amplifier

driver ->active crossover ->amplifier

driver -> amplifier -> active crossover

driver ->amplifier -> passive crossover I don't believe this is done.

2 drivers

drivers -> passive crossover -> amplifier

drivers-> passive crossover -> 2 amplifiers

drivers ->active crossover ->amplifier

drivers ->active crossover ->2 amplifiers

drivers -> amplifier -> active crossover I don't think this is done

drivers -> amplifiers -> active crossover

drivers -> amplifiers -> passive crossover

drivers -> amplifier -> passiver crossover I don't think this is done.

and then we get to 3 and 4 ways, but I'm too lazy to go through all the combos.

Does the positioning of the crossover and the number of amplifiers matter at all in whether a speaker is active?

 

[sergeauckland]

Yes, for the 'speaker to be active, the crossover MUST be before the power amplifier(s) and the power amp connected directly to the driver.

It is theoretically possible to have a crossover made entirely from passive R C & L, and that would still make the loudspeaker active (if weird!) provided the crossover was before the power amp, and the power amp directly connected to the driver.

S

 

[IPunchCholla]

Yes, for the 'speaker to be active, the crossover MUST be before the power amplifier(s) and the power amp connected directly to the driver.

It is theoretically possible to have a crossover made entirely from passive R C & L, and that would still make the loudspeaker active (if weird!) provided the crossover was before the power amp, and the power amp directly connected to the driver.

S

I don’t disagree, but over in the “Why do passives still exist thread?” One definition offered as the only real definition was that for an active speaker to be active the crossover had to be powered. Other definitions were closer to yours.

I’m just wondering if there is an actual definition.

Looking at sweetewatet/guitar center, my feeling is there really isn’t a common standard.