Active vs Passive monitors

[muzician21]

I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
passive monitor for sale, everything was active.

The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything
a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can
convince you to walk out the door with."

They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of
random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific
pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam
Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't
effectively demo anything?

Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a
separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component
that dies.

At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I
probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that
isn't to say it won't be improved someday.

General thoughts on active vs passive?

[Andre[_2_]]

Genelec is from Finland, not Sweden.

You must have a serious hearing problem if you use Bose for monitoring.
Their speakers would not even qualify as Hifi. Too expensive
middle-of-the-road would be a better description.

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

> It will be interesting to hear what others say.

Brian McMoron never comments directly on audio, just parrots others. Ever
wonder what his favourite mp3 encoder is.....LAME of course !

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 11:19:17 +0200, "Andre" >
wrote:

>Genelec is from Finland, not Sweden.
>
>You must have a serious hearing problem if you use Bose for monitoring.
>Their speakers would not even qualify as Hifi. Too expensive
>middle-of-the-road would be a better description.

Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:23:08 GMT, "Ray Thomas"
> wrote:

>
>> It will be interesting to hear what others say.
>
> Brian McMoron never comments directly on audio, just parrots others. Ever
>wonder what his favourite mp3 encoder is.....LAME of course !
>

And he can't even work out that he is posting at entirely the wrong
time of day for somebody from America.

d

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...


> Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-)

That's Norway:-)

[Mike Rivers]

muzician21 wrote:
> I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
> passive monitor for sale, everything was active.

Understand that the largest piece of the "recording engineer" pie are
people who have trouble hooking up a home stereo system, so powered
monitors make it simple for them. No issues with getting the speaker
polarity correct, no decisions about which power amplifier is best or
has sufficient power, no fooling with crossover networks for bi-amped
systems.

In general, a powered monitor is a pretty good idea, but understand that
you're buying a cabinet, speakers, some electronics, and some power
amplifiers, and you can't get all of that for the price of a good sounding
passive speaker.

> They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
> selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
> point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
> actually work

You probably found that most of the monitors that you could audition at the
store were in roughly the same price range and most were in the $300-$600
range for a pair. You probably won't have an opportunity to compare those
with a $2,000 ADAM system or even the larger Mackies. You need to find a
better place to shop. But keep in mind, also, that you shouldn't try to
choose
between 20 different sets of monitors.

> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
> is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
> they're expensive enough to be worth fixing

That's probably the biggest problem. But the good news is that unless
they're
so cheap that they're really not worth repairing, the power amplifiers
rarely
fail. Powered on-stage monitors and PA speakers are a different story here
since they're often used outdoors and in the sun, and if the manufacturer
didn't account for the additional heat source, they can fail
prematurely. Unless
your studio is outdoors, you're pretty safe with powered studio monitors.

One of the things that has come along with the flood of powered monitors is
the reduced number of power amplifiers available. Your best bet if
you're on a
"powered monitor budget" is probably to look for a second-hand Adcom or
Hafler amplifier. Most of the stand-alone power amplifiers that you'll
see in the
Sam Ash type store will be PA oriented. There really are audible
differences
between power amplifiers and it's worth getting one that has a good
reputation
for studio monitor use.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 > wrote:
>I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
>passive monitor for sale, everything was active.

That's fine. However, you shouldn't expect to find much in the way
of good audio gear at an MI store. These guys sell the stuff they
can move quickly.

>The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything
>a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can
>convince you to walk out the door with."

Yes, it's like a used car lot. The salesman usually has no idea what
he's actually selling, but he probably knows everything about how much
it costs and what his margins and commissions are.

>They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
>selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
>point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
>actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of
>random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific
>pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam
>Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't
>effectively demo anything?

Welcome to the MI market.

>Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
>is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
>they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a
>separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component
>that dies.

There's nothing wrong with them, except that you can't upgrade the amp
and speaker system seperately. If you already have an amp, now you are
paying for another set of amps that may not be as good as what you already
have.

>At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I
>probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that
>isn't to say it won't be improved someday.
>
>General thoughts on active vs passive?

Get monitors that you like the sound of. If they are passive, get an amp
for them. If they are active, don't. It really doesn't matter.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


>> They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room,
>> however the selection switching board they had seemed to
>> be jury-rigged to the point that the audio/recording guy
>> could only get about 5 of them to actually work and only
>> with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of random
>> stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing
>> specific pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the
>> way it is in all Sam Ash stores? What's the point of
>> having a demo wall if you can't effectively demo
>> anything?

The most important thing in selling is the salesman's verbal sales pitch,
not the demo. Retail store management can put whatever faciilities into
their stores, but in the end the sales staff will establish this priority.
It is easy to do - all one has to do is be careless and uncaring.

>> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se?

Nothing comes to mind.

>> One> problem I see is that if either the amp or the speaker
>> goes, it's done unless they're expensive enough to be
>> worth fixing, whereas if you have a separate
>> amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the
>> component that dies.

You talk about repairing things like it is something that would actually
happen. As a general rule, anything that breaks outside of warranty is never
repaired unless it is itself extremely expensive.

>> At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening
>> environment, so I probably couldn't benefit from
>> top-drawer monitor performance but that isn't to say it
>> won't be improved someday.

So are are aware of general wisdom, which is that beyond a point spending
money on expensive monitors for a crappy room is a bad idea.

>> General thoughts on active vs passive?

Active gives more options to the loudspeaker designer.

> I think there's a strong pro, and a strong con.

> 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising
> the kind of control possible out-of-the-box only when the
> amp/crossovers/drivers are designed together. Total
> control is a good thing.

It's just not Genelec that understands that.

> 2. All those little electrolytic caps that contain liquid
> hydroxide, rubber seals, chips with delicate wirebonds,
> fatiguable solder joints, etc, really take a pounding
> from being in the same box as the transducers.

It is not like shock and vibration is something that we haven't been able to
manage well for electronic equipment for years.

The basic technology of surface-mount components on an insulating board was
origionally designed for incorporation into artillary shells. Believe it or
not, during WWII they put working radio receivers and transmitters based on
vacuum tubes inside anti-aircraft shells, and made them work up to 10,000's
of feet in the air. That was 60 years ago!

What is tougher - putting power amps inside speaker enclosures or ignition
and fuel computers inside engine compartments? Both are done routinely and
generally work just fine.

> All things equal, electronics lives longer in a vibration-free
> environment.

We don't generally base system designs on what makes electronics last a long
time. We expect electronics to man-up to the requirements we have in mind.

> Perhaps if they throw enough money at it, it
> can have a long life expectancy. But do they?

I see no evidence that general audio electronics construction techniques are
inadequate for speakers.

> I think I'd want a really good brand. Maybe Genelec, or
> stick with passives. It will be interesting to hear what
> others say.

IME even Behringer powered monitors are no less reliable than Behringer
electonics in general.

One of the worst things about cheap garbage computer speakers is that they
tend to have long lives! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>You talk about repairing things like it is something that would actually
>happen. As a general rule, anything that breaks outside of warranty is never
>repaired unless it is itself extremely expensive.

This, right there, is the number one difference between professional and
consumer equipment.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:09:24 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> One of the worst things about cheap garbage computer speakers is that they
> tend to have long lives! ;-)

as with cockroaches.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On May 24, 10:04 pm, muzician21 > wrote:
> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se?

Here's my standard blurb on that:

There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project
studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever
do remotes:

Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner
sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize
the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive
components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers,
they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter
which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as
implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion
can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce
distortion by a significant amount.

--Ethan

[Phil W]

Iain Churches wrote:
> "Laurence Payne":
>
>> Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-)
>
> That's Norway:-)

Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway)

[Rupert]

On May 25, 1:53*am, Soundhaspriority > wrote:
> "muzician21" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
> > passive monitor for sale, everything was active.
>
> > The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything
> > a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can
> > convince you to walk out the door with."
>
> > They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
> > selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
> > point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
> > actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of
> > random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific
> > pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam
> > Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't
> > effectively demo anything?
>
> > Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
> > is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
> > they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a
> > separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component
> > that dies.
>
> > At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I
> > probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that
> > isn't to say it won't be improved someday.
>
> > General thoughts on active vs passive?

Troll Brian wrote:

> 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of control
> possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed
> together. Total control is a good thing. *These people don't know **** about
> sound quality - them Genelecs just sound nasty.

For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and
I have set up many audio workstation with them. I'd take the Mackie
HR824 any day and I'm not a Mackie fan. As far as self-power speakers
go ("active" is a Mackie coined term which isn't really correct), They
can really be tweaked and controlled for optimum performance compared
to a passive speaker with multi-way amplification and processing. That
said, there are very good passive systems obviously and in some ways
it might be more true to form as far as representing more average
sound systems. Regardless, the most important thing is that no matter
what monitors are used, the person using them has to be able to
translate that mix to the average outside world. Whatever monitor that
allows them to do that is the correct one.

Rupert

[liquidator[_2_]]

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
On May 25, 1:53 am, Soundhaspriority > wrote:
> "muzician21" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
> > passive monitor for sale, everything was active.
>
> > The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything
> > a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can
> > convince you to walk out the door with."
>
> > They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
> > selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
> > point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
> > actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of
> > random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific
> > pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam
> > Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't
> > effectively demo anything?
>
> > Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
> > is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
> > they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a
> > separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component
> > that dies.
>
> > At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I
> > probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that
> > isn't to say it won't be improved someday.
>
> > General thoughts on active vs passive?

Troll Brian wrote:

> 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of
> control
> possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed
> together. Total control is a good thing. These people don't know ****
> about
> sound quality - them Genelecs just sound nasty.

For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and
I have set up many audio workstation with them. I'd take the Mackie
HR824 any day and I'm not a Mackie fan. As far as self-power speakers
go ("active" is a Mackie coined term which isn't really correct), They
can really be tweaked and controlled for optimum performance compared
to a passive speaker with multi-way amplification and processing. That
said, there are very good passive systems obviously and in some ways
it might be more true to form as far as representing more average
sound systems. Regardless, the most important thing is that no matter
what monitors are used, the person using them has to be able to
translate that mix to the average outside world. Whatever monitor that
allows them to do that is the correct one.

Rupert

A point I'd like to add- Sam Ash is hardly the place I would go for
opinions on Pro Sound gear....

Music stores tend to sell what they make the most money on. A sales guy only
has the brands management orders, and if he doesn't sell them his family
does not eat...he HAS to sell it, crap or not.

Check here, Pro sound Web, Harmony Cental, et al. NOT a music store. If you
have to, then buy it at the music store. I prefer when possible to buy from
someone who only does pro audio.

[Scott Dorsey]

liquidator > wrote:
>"Rupert" > wrote in message
>> 1. The people who swear by Genelec are actually praising the kind of
>> control
>> possible out-of-the-box only when the amp/crossovers/drivers are designed
>> together. Total control is a good thing. These people don't know ****
>> about
>> sound quality - them Genelecs just sound nasty.
>
>For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and
>I have set up many audio workstation with them.

Note that the old Genelec line consisted of a whole lot of speakers that
were all voiced totally differently... the 1030 didn't sound like the 1031
and the S30 sounded totally different. If you didn't like one, you might
like another. I rather liked the S30, and thought the 1029 was one of the
worst things ever.

The new Genelec line, the 8000 series, uses some manner of dsp and all of
the speakers are voiced to sound similar, though with varying amounts of
LF extension. If you don't like one, you won't like any of them, but if
you didn't like any of the old ones, you might still like them.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

But to me the overwhelming advantage, as
> implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion
> can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce
> distortion by a significant amount.
>
> --Ethan

How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback,
is there a second voice coil?

Mark

[Geoff]

liquidator wrote:
> For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and
> I have set up many audio workstation with them.

I've often wondered if the chief designer has high HF hearing-loss and
doesn't realise. Always very tizzy to the point of painful.

geoff

[Keith.]

"Ethan Winer" > wrote in message
...
> On May 24, 10:04 pm, muzician21 > wrote:
>> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se?
>
> Here's my standard blurb on that:
>
> There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project
> studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever
> do remotes:
>
> Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner
> sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize
> the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive
> components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers,
> they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter
> which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as
> implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion
> can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce
> distortion by a significant amount.
>
> --Ethan

I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat
effectively? especially on stage.

Keith.

[Keith.]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ethan Winer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On May 24, 10:04 pm, muzician21 > wrote:
>>>> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se?
>>>
>>> Here's my standard blurb on that:
>>>
>>> There are many advantages of active monitors for the typical project
>>> studio, besides a simpler hookup with less pieces to carry if you ever
>>> do remotes:
>>>
>>> Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner
>>> sound with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize
>>> the crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive
>>> components. Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers,
>>> they won't have a fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter
>>> which improves damping. But to me the overwhelming advantage, as
>>> implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion
>>> can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce
>>> distortion by a significant amount.
>>>
>>> --Ethan
>>
>> I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp
>> heat effectively? especially on stage.
>>
>> Keith.
> It looks like their stage speakers, at least the newer ones, use Class D
> amplification: http://www.mackie.com/products/srmv2series/splash.html
> According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_amplifier
> , such amplifiers have efficiency > 90%.
>
> The studio monitors use Class AB, but it's unlikely that in desk use,
> power dissipation would be an issue.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Such efficiency would help.
It is just that with no fan they must have large sinks that normally rely on
free convective air. In an active monitor box there is no air movement
except some cone pumping. I find with mine it really hard to find out the
heat inside because of the thick wood box structure.They do seem to get
quite warm.

Keith.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
> But to me the overwhelming advantage, as
>> implemented in the Mackies anyway, is that the woofer cone's motion
>> can be included within the power amp's feedback loop to reduce
>> distortion by a significant amount.
>
>How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback,
>is there a second voice coil?

I don't know what Mackie is doing, but popular methods include a second
voice coil, a sense coil around the magnet, and an accelerometer mounted
on the cone. Velodyne started with the accelerometer trick in the early
1980s. You don't get any more low end extension and the cone breakup issues
remain but you can reduce the distortion in the lower octave a lot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean[_5_]]

Phil W wrote:
> Iain Churches wrote:
>> "Laurence Payne":
>>
>>> Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-)
>> That's Norway:-)
>
> Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway)
>
>

Iceland?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:23:52 GMT, Sean > wrote:

>Phil W wrote:
>> Iain Churches wrote:
>>> "Laurence Payne":
>>>
>>>> Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-)
>>> That's Norway:-)
>>
>> Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway)
>>
>>
>
>Iceland?

You talking about the checkout girls, heh?

d

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On May 25, 11:14 pm, wrote:
> How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback,
> is there a second voice coil?

No need for a second voice coil. They can detect the motion by
comparing the current that should be drawn versus what is actually
drawn.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On May 25, 11:56 pm, "Keith." > wrote:
> I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat
> effectively? especially on stage.

I've seen and used Mackie 824s many times and never seen them
overheat.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer > wrote:
>On May 25, 11:14 pm, wrote:
>> How is the woofers' cone motion detected and included in the feedback,
>> is there a second voice coil?
>
>No need for a second voice coil. They can detect the motion by
>comparing the current that should be drawn versus what is actually
>drawn.

Doing this, though, doesn't buy you anything over having an amplifier with
a zero ohm output impedance. It can only do a limited amount of actual
correction. There's actually a nice discussion of this in an Altec-Lansing
paper from the sixties when they were on their adjustable-damping-ratio kick.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer > wrote:
>On May 25, 11:56 pm, "Keith." > wrote:
>> I can well understand the lack of a fan but do they dissipate the amp heat
>> effectively? especially on stage.
>
>I've seen and used Mackie 824s many times and never seen them
>overheat.

Nor have I, but I have also never seen them on stage. I'm not sure why you'd
want them on stage...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil W]

Sean wrote:
> Phil W wrote:
>> Iain Churches wrote:
>>> "Laurence Payne":
>>>
>>>> Didn't the mention of Finland make you think of Trolls? :-)
>>> That's Norway:-)
>>
>> Trolls (the real ones) are all over Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden,
>> Norway)
>
> Iceland?

I knew, I should´ve written that I´m not sure about Trolls in Iceland, but
they probably also have some there. ;-)

[Anahata]

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:13:15 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Ethan Winer > wrote:
>>
>>No need for a second voice coil. They can detect the motion by comparing
>>the current that should be drawn versus what is actually drawn.
>
> Doing this, though, doesn't buy you anything over having an amplifier
> with a zero ohm output impedance.

It should do a better that that, as that type of amplifier actually has a
negative output impedance. For stability you don't want the magitude of
the negative output impedance to exceed the speaker's DC resistance. In
an active speaker you can do that safely, because you know what will be
connected to the amplifier.

Though I haven't seen the Altec-Lansing paper, I'm prepared to believe
that the benefits are limited, but at least the option is available to
the active speaker designer.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Mike Rivers]

Ethan Winer wrote:

> I've seen and used Mackie 824s many times and never seen them
> overheat.

It was the SRM-450 that had a tendency to overheat when used on stage
outdoors.
The original design had the heat sink fins all lined up with the long
dimension of the
cabinet. When it was turned on its side to use as a stage monitor (a
recommended
application) the fins tended to capture the rising hot air and, given
some added heat
from the sun, not enough heat got carried away by convection. This was
back in
about 2000 when the speaker was introduced.

In a later versions, they changed the heat sink design and also made
some changes
to the circuitry to give better protection when overheated.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On May 26, 1:13 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Doing this, though, doesn't buy you anything over having an amplifier with
> a zero ohm output impedance. It can only do a limited amount of actual
> correction. There's actually a nice discussion of this in an Altec-Lansing
> paper from the sixties when they were on their adjustable-damping-ratio kick.

I think the idea is that when the voice coil approaches the excursion
limits, the current drawn is higher than it should be for the applied
voltage. So this current sensing is inside the loop and compensated
for. Again, the goal is to reduce distortion.

I don't have the schematic for an HR824, but I do for the HR624 which
should be similar. There's a 0.1 ohm resistor from the woofer minus to
ground, which is probably where the current is sensed. That then goes
to a pot marked "damping," which in turn passes through a switch
labeled "Feedback defeat." That switch is not part of the user
controls, so it's likely on the circuit board for testing or
calibration only.

--Ethan

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

muzician21 > wrote:


> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
[...]
> General thoughts on active vs passive?

Active monitors need a power supply, which adds to the connecting wires.
They also need to be connected up by low impedance balanced signal
circuits, otherwise you could finish up with nasty noises if somebody
unplugs them. Apart from that, they have many advantages over passive
loudspeakers:

1) From the designer's point of view it is a lot easier to design an
accurate low level crossover which works into amplifier inputs than to
design one which has to take account of drive unit impedances and their
tolerances.

2) Each amplifier can be rated to suit each drive unit and does not
need to be over-powered across the spectrum. It can also be fitted with
time-delayed over-power protection for tweeters, which allows full
powered transients but prevents heat damage from sustained oscillation
under fault conditions.

3) Intermodulation distoration creates less of a problem if each
amplifier only handles a narrow band of frequencies.

4) There is plenty of space on a loudspeaker casing for good
heatsinking, which is a luxury rarely available to the designer of a
boxed-up amplifier. (But see other posts about using them sideways as
stage monitors). If sufficient area is available, fins can be dispensed
with entirely - which saves a bit of money.

5) There is no direct external connection to the amplifiers, so their
outputs do not have to be designed to be idiot-proof.

6) Because the characteristics of the loudspeakers are known to the
amplifier designer, he can incorporate tweaks in the response to make up
for some of the shortcomings.


I tend to use active loudspeakers for studio monitoring and some stage
work and 100v line loudspeakers for stage and P.A. work. Low impedance
passive speakers don't fit my way of working, so I have converted all my
old stock to either active types or 100v line.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Sean Conolly]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> liquidator wrote:
>> For once I agree with Brian. Never have been a fan of the Genelecs and
>> I have set up many audio workstation with them.
>
> I've often wondered if the chief designer has high HF hearing-loss and
> doesn't realise. Always very tizzy to the point of painful.

That was my impession also, and I do have HF hearing loss :-)

Sean

[jim greg]

"muzician21" > wrote in message
...
>I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
> passive monitor for sale, everything was active.
>
> The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything
> a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can
> convince you to walk out the door with."
>
> They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
> selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
> point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
> actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of
> random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific
> pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam
> Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't
> effectively demo anything?
>
> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
> is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
> they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a
> separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component
> that dies.
>
> At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I
> probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that
> isn't to say it won't be improved someday.
>
> General thoughts on active vs passive?

Passive selections allow for hooking up enclosures to many different amps,
rather
than the array of restrictive ready-integrated units but with dedicated
low-distn coupling.

Note...
if, in the listening room there is a Demo 'bank' of umpteen stereo
loudspeaker
enclosures, especially passive units - but only one selected pair is
'live' - do be aware that the remainder of the models can act as both
a) auxiliary bass radiators or attenuators, wholly dependent on bass
frequency
unless the rear terminals are shorted across, to squelch electro-mech
dynamics.
b) sometimes Helmholtz resonators/absorbers, according to individual port
designs.

So I would keep away from posey terraces of sound - but instead trial the
pairs separately [on appro, if allowed].
Jim

[[email protected]]

You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the amplifiers
are matched to the drivers) really means anything. The amp won't sound
good if it's underpowered and bad, but the general idea is that you
want the amp to have good specs: low distortion, good slew rate, good
damping factor...all the things you see on the spec sheet and in the
white papers that are written after the fact. In other words, an amp
that's going to match with the driver is an amp that's going to match
well with *any* driver.

What does make a difference with powered monitors is that they have
built-in active crossovers, and as someone wrote above that's part of
what gives designers more choices. I don't know electronics, but
everyone seems to agree that passive crossovers are suboptimal.

Nonetheless, I can think of a few passive speakers that sound great
when you power them with a good amp. For a second reference, I picked
up a pair of UREI 809As on eBay for next to nothing, which I power
with a Hafler 9505, and - I hate to admit it (because if price were no
object, no way would those outdated horn-loaded things even be on the
list) - I love them to death. To me the sound of the speakers trumps
the hell out of a passive crossover.

As an aside, I have to say that the overwhelming correctness of the
bass has convinced me that the NFM concept is severely limited. Even a
system with a well-integrated sub, such as the Blue Sky System One (my
primary set-up) doesn't have that kick in the chest. With the 809s
there's absolutely no question what the low end sounds like.

Also, don't underestimate how big an impact the amp you're using can
have on the sound. For a long time I used Tannoy System 8 IIs with the
Hafler amp, and they were really good; the same basic speaker (800p)
powered with their own amps sounded embarrassingly bad (and that's
being charitable). I'm almost certain the difference is that their
amps were toiletworthy.

Bottom line, what Mike Rivers says is the important point: in the
budget monitor price range, decent stand-alone electronics are going
to be more expensive. The argument about passive vs. active is subtle
enough to be important only in a higher price range.

Those are my theories and I'm sticking with them.

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
> You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the amplifiers
> are matched to the drivers) really means anything.

It certainly could mean something, and even something useful. However,
I don't think every Sam, Uli, and Al takes much care in "matching" the
amplifier to the driver other than to assure that it's in the right power
range so that it gets the rated SPL out of the system and doesn't melt
the voice coil. I suspect that Mackie (at least in their HR series), ADAM,
Genelec, and so on actually do take some care to optimized the cone
damping of the woofer and some use DSP to correct for frequency
response irregularities in the driver itself.

> Nonetheless, I can think of a few passive speakers that sound great
> when you power them with a good amp.

For sure. There always have been. But given that most recordings systems
today are built by amateurs who don't understand the meaning of
specifications,
and are connecting equipment for which inadequate specifications are
provided
even if they COULD understand them, letting the manufactuer do what he
thinks is best, or at least adequate, is one less thing that the hobbyist
can do wrong.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[jim greg]

"muzician21" > wrote in message
...
>I was at the local Sam Ash last week and they didn't have a single
> passive monitor for sale, everything was active.
>
> The salesman was singing the praises of active monitors but everything
> a Sam Ash salesman says sounds like "I'll sell you whatever I can
> convince you to walk out the door with."
>
> They had probably 20 or more models in their demo room, however the
> selection switching board they had seemed to be jury-rigged to the
> point that the audio/recording guy could only get about 5 of them to
> actually work and only with a lot of what appeared to be a lot of
> random stabbing at the selector buttons, so rapidly A/B'ing specific
> pairs was out of the question. Btw, is that the way it is in all Sam
> Ash stores? What's the point of having a demo wall if you can't
> effectively demo anything?
>
> Is there anything wrong with active monitors per se? One problem I see
> is that if either the amp or the speaker goes, it's done unless
> they're expensive enough to be worth fixing, whereas if you have a
> separate amp/speaker, obviously you only have to replace the component
> that dies.
>
> At present, I don't have a "tuned" listening environment, so I
> probably couldn't benefit from top-drawer monitor performance but that
> isn't to say it won't be improved someday.
>
> General thoughts on active vs passive?

Passive selections allow for hooking up enclosures to different amps, rather
than the ready-integrated active unit.
Note...
if in the listening room there is a Demo wall of stereo loudspeaker
enclosures, especially passive units - but only one selected pair is
'live' - do be aware that the remainder of the models can act as both
a) auxiliary bass radiators or attenuators, wholly dependent on frequency
band, unless the rear terminals are shorted across,
b) sometimes Helmholtz resonators, according to individual port designs.

so this interference would cause listening colouration of some scale.

[geoff]

"jim greg" > wrote in message news:eQTTl.31647>

> Passive selections allow for hooking up enclosures to many different amps,
> rather
> than the array of restrictive ready-integrated units but with dedicated
> low-distn coupling.


Which could be positive or negative. With an active monitor, you know
exactly what you are getting, and will (should) be consistant where-ever you
go that has that model.

geoff

[geoff]

> wrote in message
...
> You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the amplifiers
> are matched to the drivers) really means anything.

It means that the amp(s) is an appropriate power/impedence/x-over-freq/etc,
and has it's level set correctly, as opposed to externally biamped
arrangements where the matching of amps/crossover freq/ level is in the
hands of users.

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> You know, I've often wondered whether the line that "the
> amplifiers are matched to the drivers) really means
> anything.

There are two kinds of matching that are going on.

(1) The amplifiers are sized and designed to drive the actual drivers that
are used in the speakers. BTW the possibility that the passive crossover
puts extra stress on the amplifiers (which is not uncommon) no longer exists
since there is no passive crossover any more.

(2) The active crossover networks that drive the amplifiers are designed to
optimize over-all system response.

> The amp won't sound good if it's underpowered
> and bad, but the general idea is that you want the amp to
> have good specs: low distortion, good slew rate, good
> damping factor...all the things you see on the spec sheet
> and in the white papers that are written after the fact.
> In other words, an amp that's going to match with the
> driver is an amp that's going to match well with *any*
> driver.

When you drive a speaker with an amplifier you choose, there are three
possibilities - that the amplifier is overbuilt, underbuilt, or a precise
match for the speaker. Frankly, the most likely possibility is that the
amplifier is overbuilt, all things considered. Overbuilt usually means that
you are paying for amplifier capabilties that you will never be able to use.

> What does make a difference with powered monitors is that
> they have built-in active crossovers, and as someone
> wrote above that's part of what gives designers more
> choices. I don't know electronics, but everyone seems to
> agree that passive crossovers are suboptimal.

You've got that right. There are very distinct limitations on speakers with
passive crossovers. For example, the woofer must have less efficiency than
the tweeter, as it is very impractical to pad a woofer down to match the
tweeter. The crossover network has to be designed with the impedance curve
of the drivers in mind, or the desired results won't be obtained. It is
generally far more costly to implement non-trivial electrical networks as
high level components (particularly the cost of the inductors but also the
capacitors) than as DSP programs or line-level analog filters. In modern
times it is good practice to build a woofer with non-flat frequency response
and obtain the desired bass extension with a bass boost circuit. That is far
less practical to implement with a passive filter network operating at
loudspeaker power levels.

> Nonetheless, I can think of a few passive speakers that
> sound great when you power them with a good amp.

Actually, there are a ton of examples of speakers with passive crossovers
that sound great. It is just that they would probably sound even better as
active designs.

There has been tremendous amount of resistance to active speakers, probably
because most audiophiles want to choose their own power amplifiers or use
the ones they have with their new speakers.

> For a second reference, I picked up a pair of UREI 809As on
> As an aside, I have to say that the overwhelming
> correctness of the bass has convinced me that the NFM
> concept is severely limited. Even a system with a
> well-integrated sub, such as the Blue Sky System One (my
> primary set-up) doesn't have that kick in the chest. With
> the 809s there's absolutely no question what the low end
> sounds like.

I think that you are confusing the performance of a particular example of a
speaker that uses an active design with some non-existent limitation of the
basic prrinciple of active speaker designs. I can't believe you just did
what you did. There is an incredible list of unfair issues in the
comparison you just made. Do I need to humliate you in public you by
listing them all out?