Ideal characteristics and features for near-field/desktop usage

[hashhar]

Hi, I am looking to setup a stereo listening setup for my computer on a 150cmx75cm table and my listening position is ~3ft from where the speakers would probably go.
I'm looking for speakers that can fit on my desk and while researching this I came across two choices:

• Active/powered studio monitors
• Passive smaller bookshelfs (<400mm high for example)

I do understand that towers are a no go because the drivers won't sum up properly over short distances (and hard to make near-field equi-triangle due to wide desk).

The closest answer I found to identify speakers for near-field usage is https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...hat-measurements-show-that.59401/post-2171958.

I gather a good near-field speaker needs to have:

• Perfect on-axis response
• Low dispersion (to reduce far-field interactions / reflected sounds)
• Good EQ-ability (uniform directivity)
• Peak SPL is not as important

For me personally:

• Small size (desktop friendly)
• Enough dispersion to have a not-very-narrow sweet spot
• Ability to integrate a sub in future if needed

Both categories provide solutions, like the Kali LP6v2 / Neumann KH120 II (powered) and KEF Q350 / Revel M16 (passive).

Why should one go for active over passive or vice-versa?
In other words why do most people use powered speakers for near-field / desktop usage instead of passive bookshelfs?

 

[NestorM]

If it were my decision I would go for the Neumanns, they are a safe bet. Answering your second question, I think people use active nearfields just for marketing reasons, because most of them are sold as "studio monitors" and they think it's synonymous of quality.

 

[Jim Taylor]

These threads discuss similar issues. It might be interesting to read through them:

This OP favors active speakers

This OP favors passives

 

[hashhar]

Very interesting rabbit hole you sent me into. It seems I can see some of the appeal for an active system.

The total cost of actives is much lower for similarly measuring systems specially if you start looking for active crossover management.
There are very small actives (like half the volume) which measure super good and there are almost no similarly sized well-measuring passives.
Since in nearfield high SPL is not a requirement and bass is not as big of a deal the smaller woofer and cabinet sizes don't seem to sway people's perceptions very much.
The wiring benefit of passives isn't a big deal for a desktop setup.
Some of the actives with DSP do bring in nice features like loudness equalization which you need either an AVR or build in your PEQ software of choice (I don't know any that allows automatically changing curves based on volume) which is much more effort.

However passives do seem to have the benefit that you can move them into surrounds for your HT in the future if wanted and upgrade your studio monitors. Can't really do that easily with actives.
Also most passives seem to spend a lot of money of the "aesthetics" which drives up their price and makes them not competitive with actives.

For comparison the cheapest good passive speaker I can buy (Wharfedale Diamond 12.1) is almost the same price as the Kali LP6v2. So if I add in the price of a DAC/Amp it heavily tilts towards the actives. If I pick better bookshelves like the Polk R100 or the cheapest good ELACs those themselves are costlier than the actives.

Objectively though purely in terms of sound I don't think there's going to be any difference so it seems to boil down to:

• Cost
• Appearance
• Physical Size
• Sub integration
• Flexibility

Thanks for being a sounding board. I'll still keep eyes open for other people's input.

 

[unpluggged]

The most important speaker characteristic for me in a desktop setup is inaudible hiss. If it interferes with your listening experience (sometimes even if audible only when idle), how well the speaker performs is not relevant anymore.

Some of the actives with DSP do bring in nice features like loudness equalization

Which ones? I'm not aware of any.

I don't know any that allows automatically changing curves based on volume

RME ADI-2 DAC FS/ADI-2 Pro FS R/ADI-2/4 Pro SE.

 

[AnalogSteph]

+1 for keeping an ear out for hiss. Active speakers with waveguided tweeters are at a greater risk here because they generally don't have a passive crossover to pad down the tweeter (and cheap Class D amps in particular can be a tad noisy), and limited dynamic range in entry-level DSP speakers can make things even more problematic. If you are utterly allergic to hiss, some common models like ADAM T5V, JBL 305P or the old v1 Kalis probably aren't for you, or the "princess on the pea" Genelec 8010A. That being said, actives with negligible to downright inaudible hiss levels do exist. With my EVE SC203s in the office I literally have to stick my ear to the tweeter to hear any at all.

There are very small actives (like half the volume) which measure super good and there are almost no similarly sized well-measuring passives.

That's because going active makes it easy to apply bass boost, iron out the wrinkles in your frequency response without going broke on crossover parts, provide basic EQ facilities and - if DSP-based - even apply time delay to improve crossover dispersion (that's what enables some designs to work decently in the first place, like coaxes with stick-out tweeters).

In a speaker that's specifically geared towards nearfield use you can also go for a different balance of bass response vs. level handling than in one that has to work at classic hi-fi distances (1.5-3+ m).

A good compact 3" class desktop monitor is a thing that would be plain impossible without going active.

Answering your second question, I think people use active nearfields just for marketing reasons, because most of them are sold as "studio monitors" and they think it's synonymous of quality.

That's kinda backwards, I'd say. Yes, there are plenty of dreadful cheap wannabe "monitors" in the 3"/4" class in particular which are merely powered speakers with single-capacitor passive crossovers. FR issues from ill-suppressed breakup modes, cabinet resonances and poor port tuning abound. But spend some more, and there's a bunch that deliver great sound for the money.

 

[hashhar]

Which ones? I'm not aware of any.

Yes you seem to be right. It is technically possible though, I wonder if really none ship with a Fletcher Munson curve that activates below some power.

Thank you for mentioning about hiss and explaining how and why small actives can maintain good responses.

Is there any difference in how a sub would be integrated into an active vs passive system? With a passive I need an amp that has bass-management facilities.
How does it work for an active speaker? Do the speakers provide bass-management via onboard DSP?

Just as a side note the story for how I reached this point is that I was looking to setup a 5.1 HT so obviously started researching passives and I also wanted good stereo music experience so realised that towers can't give me that unless I sit farfield so now I end up with having to build two systems - a farfield HT + music and a nearfield stereo for music only.

 

[Esprit]

If you are utterly allergic to hiss, some common models like ADAM T5V

Sure model with a higher price but my Adam S3X-V have never produced any hiss or noise.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Sure model with a higher price but my Adam S3X-V have never produced any hiss or noise.

That's a 3-way midfield monitor (ca. 2009-2017) that used to retail for around 2000€ before being replaced by the S3V, not a 2018 budget DSP 2-way nearfield currently listed for 159€ a pop. If that's not apples and oranges I don't know what is.

The T5V was measured at a mediocre 29.7 dB(A) SPL @ 10 cm (even a hair noisier than the JBL LSR305 at 28.5) - as opposed to 22 dB(A) for the S3V, which would be listened to at significantly greater distances. Effectively, there's at least 10-12 dB between them.

 

[hashhar]

While researching this topic I somehow came across this two-part article which explained a bit about some of the various ways in which "studio monitors and hi-fi monitors" (the terms used in the link) may differ and used some real speakers as examples to showcase - https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/monitors-vs-hi-fi-speakers-part-1 and https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/monitors-vs-hi-fi-speakers-part-2.

I personally see a very strong reason to look for actives at the price point I'm looking for unless I happen to run across someone who offers very nice discounts on the passives + amps to bring total cost to be lower.

I think we can consider the thread "resolved" for my purposes - actives it is with a wider+uniform horizontal dispersion (to have bigger sweet spot) in my case.

 

[hashhar]

Also regarding how an active might be connected with a sub is answered in https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-sub-kali-lp-unf-kali-lp-6-v2-with-sub.59752/.

 

[hashhar]

Ok, I'm back with another question.
So supposing that the reason for active speakers is the better frequency response and cheaper cost how does the following compare:

A passive well-measuring speaker (e.g. Wharfedale Diamond 12.1/KEF Q150) which are physically smaller than Kali LP6-v2 + room correction.
I get the ability for sub-outs through the DAC/Amp I'll use which is harder with the Kali LP6 for example. I get equivalent sound, lower power usage, zero hiss.

What do I miss (other than price)? Just want to make sure I don't misunderstand something.

 

[hashhar]

Another question - do the active speakers which have DSP AND analog input mean that they perform a A/D conversion to perform the DSP and then another D/A to drive the drivers?

EDIT: Nevermind, I seem to have found the answer to this one - yes, an active (i.e. digital crossover, not just powered speakers) REQUIRES a A/D conversion for analog inputs. So the "shortest" signal path is to use digital inputs on them. https://dynaudio.com/magazine/2024/january/using-dac-with-digital-speakers-ask-the-expert

 

[AnalogSteph]

So supposing that the reason for active speakers is the better frequency response and cheaper cost how does the following compare:

A passive well-measuring speaker (e.g. Wharfedale Diamond 12.1/KEF Q150) which are physically smaller than Kali LP6-v2 + room correction.
I get the ability for sub-outs through the DAC/Amp I'll use which is harder with the Kali LP6 for example. I get equivalent sound, lower power usage, zero hiss.

If you want the bass level handling of LP6v2s in Diamond 12.1s, you'd have to cross them over well above 100 Hz. Q150s, being coaxes, will be even more limited. Kali chose a 6.5" class driver for good reason (even if it's a bit crummy). It's always good to have physics on your side. Mind you, if levels aren't your main concern since you intend to go very nearfield, then things might look a bit different. The Kalis are not optimized for that from driver spacing alone.

You tend to be routing your mains through a studio sub which will have a crossover built-in, so the subwoofer is handled ahead of the mains either way. Not a real fundamental difference there, although the details may vary. As an aside, speakers like the Kalis are specifically targeted at people who want pretty much full spectrum coverage without having to resort to subs.

v2 Kalis actually are among the better-behaved budget monitors in terms of hiss. It should not normally be a problem now.

As for power consumption, how can you even say it's lower without having specified which amplifier you're comparing to? According to here, specified idle power for the LP6v2 is 6.3 W a piece (so 12.6 W for two), which is by no means outrageous - you wouldn't see a lot less than 9-10 W each in anything vaguely comparable with traditional AB amps. If I were to be using my old ProLogic receiver for passives, that thing draws over 50 W at idle (and its transformer hum is low but not entirely inaudible).

 

[EERecordist]

I would look at the Klippel horizontal and vertical plots. Active vs passive, there are things that can be done in a DSP crossover which cannot be done in a passive crossover. The downside of an active crossover is service if they fail. The DSP is code.

 

[hashhar]

Ok, that was a very good hint to compare the directivity plots and the FR plots.

I looked at the Kali, Neumann KH120 II and compared to KEF and Wharfedales mentioned above and there's not a lot in favour of the passives.
Since the actives FR is already so good there's no reason to EQ them and they also go quite low (almost 40Hz -6dB), probably low enough that I won't need a sub unless I needed LFE.

You tend to be routing your mains through a studio sub which will have a crossover built-in, so the subwoofer is handled ahead of the mains either way. Not a real fundamental difference there, although the details may vary. As an aside, speakers like the Kalis are specifically targeted at people who want pretty much full spectrum coverage without having to resort to subs.

Does it practically make a difference having subs "in front" of the mains vs the other way around? I know some speakers have sub-outs for that reason.
Also is it stupid to place a DAC in between my digital output and the active speakers? e.g. I'd like to use a Wiim for multi-room audio with the speakers.

Sorry for what might be stupid questions - I'm just very new to active speakers, never bothered to learn much about them.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Does it practically make a difference having subs "in front" of the mains vs the other way around? I know some speakers have sub-outs for that reason.

Not fundamentally, no. It's mostly a matter of what kind of subs you wish to accommodate. The home theater variety (generally unbalanced input only, no crossovers) tends to be more common and cheaper.

Also is it stupid to place a DAC in between my digital output and the active speakers? e.g. I'd like to use a Wiim for multi-room audio with the speakers.

I mean, lots of folks are using DSP-based monitors with audio interfaces and analog connections, so if that happens to be the most practical solution...

Do note that adapters from coax SPDIF to AES3 exist, so as long as you pick a WiiM model with one of the former you could probably use the AES3 input on the Neumanns (now standard, so basically they're functionally equivalent to the old KH120D).