Why are hi-end active monitors not more popular?

Steve,

Thanks for the list and I appreciate you taking the time to compile such a comprehensive sampling. This is a funny hobby isn't it? In examining the list the speakers on the list I have heard all have good attributes to some extent however the dude that uses Nautilus 802s must only master mid range and boomy bass with a hump here and there (a joke ok). I heard somewhere that Hoffman had switched to Tetras but I may be confusing him...I just heard that there are a number of insiders that have made the switch to Tetra.

As you can see from some of my posts, I am just a hobbyist but in theory, the active crossover feeding a properly executed bi or tri-amped 2 or 3 way speaker seems to have a technical advantage over a passive speaker with a passive crossover with a random choice of speaker cable and a random choice of amplification. Do you see my point? Some people enjoy modifying the characteristics of their reproduction to suit their own tastes , which is cool, and I am looking for an integrated solution that suits my tastes. Maybe I will find it and maybe I won't but I am a bit tired of all of the electrical, cable and component variables inherent in, and to some extent nurtured by, our hobby. I would REALLY appreciate teams of designers to combine the best of class equipment, optimize it and put it out to market with the least amount of compromise and variability. A nice neutral and relatively "flattish" frequency response is what I am looking for.

I live in Southern California and we all know the price of real estate out here (its still crazy, don't let the media fool you). It's a funny exercise but I calculated the economic footprint of my systems (a dedicated room, a corner of another 2 rooms) and the dollar amount of the incremental real estate required for proper system setup is over $200,000 (approximately 400 total square feet) in my housing development. I will keep my dedicated room for now but I am open minded about searching for a solution that may even be wall mountable, hangable from the ceiling or something thereabouts that will yield excellent sound quality. Maybe I should have explained it better in the beginning but as close to a turn key solution is my quest and I will start with the speakers.

I am not interested in building a shrine to audio reproduction (as can be seen in SO many of the pictures people post of their systems....are you kidding me?) I am interested in an excellent reproduction of the music. Any and all input is appreciated and yet, a blanket dismissal of a well executed active solution is of no use. I am looking for open minds. If you prefer a passive setup and yet you heard XYZ active monitor at CES that was intriguing, that would be useful info! Mr Tennis, you seem to be pretty sold on panel speakers which is also cool however they do not tend to integrate well in a typical, well "balance" home....besides, flapping bass is not pleasing to me.

Steve, how do you like the Hsu subs and which models do you have? I have never listened to them and was unaware they were considered musical. Would appreciate your comments. Peace.

Give me great sounding active speaker over a passive speaker with mega buck amps any day! The passive speaker will likely still lag seriously in the dynamics and dynamic transparancy/realism department, IME.
Otherwise, some of the simple crossover designs, which act more like active speakers, are also a strong consideration.
I think the NHT active system, which sells for like $8k wiht sub, er whatever, stomps on most any highfi setup out there, personally! That's my opinion, of course. But then they're not selling many of those systems, relatively. So there you are.
I still think speakers with little or no crossover are a much more viable option, if done right! You get the benefits of an active system, with more flexiblity, lower manufacturing cost, and greater marketability.
Would like to see more of that option, for sure!

a great speaker will sound better than a mediocre one. whether the amps are built in or not, first select the speaker, then worry about the amplification.

panels rule, don't be an acoustic suspension audio fool.

you can stack up all the cones in the world, a pair of quad esls will blow them awy.

Shadhorn said: Wow that is an awesome equipment list. I would be delighted/comfortable with almost any of the gear you listed.

It's pretty fun to hunt it down and see what all these legendary guys are working with. I learn a lot from listening to their material and trying to pay attention to what is effective.

My only point was that some Mastering Engineers do or have used Active speakers rather than none (as "forget it" sort of implied to me). I stated earlier that "I would agree that many [Mastering Engineers] use conventional speakers (passive). " , which you just proved with a long list of illustrious ME's with impressive passive speakers - so I think we are in both in agreement. This is great - we agree and no need for me to add many more Active speaker users to a list as you have done (on passives) as I am not trying to prove that everyone uses Actives...I agree that a great many do not.

And it was a good point, Shadhorne. I had not realized that Sax had switched over to ATC, and I probably should not make such blanket statements. Just that the studio circles I hang in typically also use mostly passive designs, so it influences my perpective. I'd be really curious to hear Sax' latest work on those, compared to his strong historical catalogue done on his old custom setups. That is always the 'proof' of how well the monitoring is doing.

My friend, I'd welcome any other information or lists you have about MEs using actives, I think it can only shed some light in the dark place that active designs have sort of had so far. I sure don't want to seem like a know-it-all, there is always plenty of room for me to keep learning.

I had to laugh, since Bob Olhsson uses DunTech Sovereigns ... I mean hardly an ordinary run-of-the-mill circuit city speaker.

Yeah, I think he was talking about mixing as well as mastering. Guess his point was that so many folks get caught up in the micro-details, and lose perpective of the *feel*. And they should learn to trust that really accurate equipment and just get-'er-done instead of jacking around with all the imperfections that naturally come with recordings.

And from what I know of John Dunlavy's designs and from the folks who use them, he was a master at creating realistic sounding speakers, never hyped or unnatural. I think some of that is missing in modern designs, from what I've been exposed to.

That quote got my interest because of my recent experiences with the very simple Druid design. I'd had enough of the trees, wanted to see the forest for a while. And to me, the art of music is in the realism, including the imperfections.

Well, I certainly don't run in the same circles as those particular famous folks either.... but sometimes I have the same kinds of equipment :) No guru, no teacher.... I am a music lover and performer who had set up a private studio to do some recording, and it has grown from there.

Ghasley wrote: Thanks for the list and I appreciate you taking the time to compile such a comprehensive sampling. This is a funny hobby isn't it? In examining the list the speakers on the list I have heard all have good attributes to some extent however....

You are welcome Ghasley, I enjoy talking and learning about audio systems too. And the active/passive topic is a good one.

There is so much to the room involvement in these applications. Many of those professional setups are custom designed around specific speakers, to function as a complete system. Then things like 20 dB noise floors, no nulls or peaks, no flutter echoes or modal ringing, etc. become possible.

I don't know Tetra. Do you have any experience with them? I'll check it out sometime.

in theory, the active crossover feeding a properly executed bi or tri-amped 2 or 3 way speaker seems to have a technical advantage over a passive speaker with a passive crossover with a random choice of speaker cable and a random choice of amplification. Do you see my point?
... open minded about searching for a solution that may even be wall mountable, hangable from the ceiling or something thereabouts that will yield excellent sound quality. Maybe I should have explained it better in the beginning but as close to a turn key solution is my quest and I will start with the speakers.
... not interested in building a shrine to audio reproduction ... I am interested in an excellent reproduction of the music. Any and all input is appreciated and yet, a blanket dismissal of a well executed active solution is of no use.

Sure, it's a valid point. I think many folks are like you, and I don't mean to shout down the idea. Just that the 'regular' models I tried didn't suit me. If I was to use a higher cost/class like the ATCs I might have a different opinion. But again, I've also changed directions away from the super-detailed reference monitor approach, and that seems to be all the rage for active speakers (and most passive as well, anymore).

I don't know what systems you are using now, or what your budget is. Maybe you can try some ATCs, or even something like the 'activated' models from PMC, or Lipinski with their 'powered stand' that houses their own custom amp, so no long speaker cable runs. And of course Genelec has been doing actives since their beginning, but I don't know their newer models. I think those four would be a good place to start for quality in that field. I'd definitely prefer 3-way if possible, to get some kind a midrange driver. Just be aware that the sound of many of those reference monitors can be pretty unforgiving, and might not always suit your ears for all playback material.

In places like that where you want simple *and* good, I'd just repeat that spending some money up front on acoustic treatments, in case you haven't yet, can really help all your systems perform to their capacity. Then you might find some nice speaker options that could work out. Otherwise it may be a lot more guessing.

Steve, how do you like the Hsu subs and which models do you have? I have never listened to them and was unaware they were considered musical.

I have a pair of the smallest model they make, STF-1. They are outstanding, for music or HT. They are ported, 8" drivers. Easy to move around but not flimsy. Smaller than a bulldozer which is nice for a change. And are definitely not one-noters, they are reasonably fast and can play along with the music.

Ideally, I would probably prefer sealed cabs to mate best with the Druids, but for no more than I run the subs it is not a huge issue. One STF-1 will play easily down to 28/30 Hz, at 105 dBSPL range. Two of them in a 2500 cu ft room is way plenty for me! I far prefer stereo subs, aligned properly with the speakers. So at less than $300 apiece it was a better choice for me than getting only one high-$ monster sub.

Keep them in mind (or some kind of subwoofers) if you do get some of the reference active speakers. There are experienced comments about many of those kinds of monitors having clean and usable bass, but very limited in extension. And, many pro owners have stated that some of those designs can sound very bright and harsh without balancing subwoofers covering the lower octaves.

Steve

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to offer a lengthy reply. I agree with your comments about pro monitors - indeed they tend to be unforgiving, controlled accurate but limited bass extension, and harsh sounding with some playback material (especially hyper-compressed pop music, for example). Your comments are a fair assessment of potential drawbacks of pro monitor use in the home.

Apparently Dog Sax still uses his brother's designed tube EQ system!!! He listens to each track once or twice and then writes down the EQ settings he wants to use - then he goes through the whole thing one more time adjusting the EQ settings at the start of each track and makes a master. (He does not mess with EQ settings within the tracks) Essentially anything Doug does has gone to analog domain and then back to digital. He uses very little compression 1 or 1.5 db or so....which means most of what he produces retains the quality of the dynamics from the recording studio (now we know why his masters always sound good or at least natural). The tubes are probably used to sweeten the sound a bit....give the kick drum more punch for example.

A very good example of his work appears to be the re-masters of the first three Aerosmith albums...a HUGE improvement on what was previously issued.

This stuff really belongs to another thread, however, I thought I would share it. I have come to realize that you can only do so much with audio reproduction gear and you run into diminishing returns quite quickly.....at some point the quality coming out of the recording studio, mix and mastering becomes, by far, the biggest variable.

Indeed, I am astonished that audiophiles care so much about gear and yet seem to pay so very little attention to who is responsible in the studios for the sound production!!! I mean this is like building the most expensive chefs kitchen and then not caring where you buy your meat and vegetables!!!! Often a simple kitchen and simple recipe with great ingredients can suffice....

After selecting an artist or genre, the next thing I look for on a CD is the producer, mix engineer and the Mastering Engineer! If I don't like the crew I don't buy the CD!! Conversely, if I like the ME, such as Doug Sax, then I will be much more likely to buy a CD on a whim - even if I don't like the artist, at least it will have great sound!