Active v. Passive Monitoring

D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
I'm curious if anyone has an opinion on using active monitors in home theater.

It seems the trend in professional audio in the last 5 or so years has been toward active monitors. Genelec, Mackie, Event, and many other manufacturers have made significant gains in market share in the world of professional studios. Many of the movies we watch (and much of the music we listen to) at home are mixed and mastered using integrated monitors.

The proponents of active monitoring claim that the manufacturers can better control the interactions between amp, crossover, cabinet, and driver if they are the ones designing all of those pieces. (The anechoic frequency response chart included with every Mackie HR series monitor would seem to bear this out - they are almost ruler-flat within their stated frequency range.)

With a background in professional audio, I am inclined to agree with them. The work I produce using a pair of Mackie HR824s or Genelec 1032s is vastly better than any combination of "studio" power amps and whatever "studio" monitors I have used in the past (NS-10s, KRKs, JBLs, and on and on...).

Now that someone else is providing the hardware that I use 9 to 5 (the Genelecs), the gear from my own studio has been incorporated into my own (sadly, only stereo as of yet) personal system, and I'm working toward building an entire 7.1 system with matched Mackie monitors for the audio transducers.

Questions to ponder:

1) Is it not desirable to listen to something similar to what was used to track/mix/master in the studio?

2) Is it true that a manufacturer can better control the complex interactions between amp, crossover, cabinet, and driver than we consumers can by sourcing from multiple manufacturers?

3) Is it better to run balanced line-level signals for the distances from pre/pro to active monitor than to run amplified signals over the same stretch?

My own bias (from years in recording studios) leads me to believe that the answers to all of these might lean at least slightly toward "Yes". I'm curious to know what others think. But the fact that I'm bringing this up at all has as much to do with my 4th query:

4) Why is almost no space given to active monitoring at almost any price/quality level within the consumer space?
 
D

dontsleep

Enthusiast
1) Is it not desirable to listen to something similar to what was used to track/mix/master in the studio?
I would think so,acoustics permitting.

2) Is it true that a manufacturer can better control the complex interactions between amp, crossover, cabinet, and driver than we consumers can by sourcing from multiple manufacturers?
Probably,depending on how good the manufacturers can and or want to make them.

4) Why is almost no space given to active monitoring at almost any price/quality level within the consumer space?
Good question,I would be inclined to buy some.

Just my thoughts on those good questions.I like where you are headed in your home sound solution.I might do that too someday.
 
Mudcat

Mudcat

Senior Audioholic
Where's Dan When You NEED him?

My wife and I had a home studio. We did not use active monitors. We used Alesis amps driving a mix of Yamaha, Sapphire, and old DBX Soundfield V's. I other words, we mixed base on what we would listen on. I think park of the reason that studios use active monitors is to remove a piece of heat generating equipment (the amp) to another cooler/accessible location away from the main rack. Dan Banquer may have another opinion.
 
C

cornelius

Full Audioholic
1.Mastering monitors, maybe
2.Probably, PMC/Bryston is a nice combo.
3.Yes
4.I think manufacturers like to keep a distinction between home and studio. That may change with all of the home studios that are everywhere now.

Nice topic, I think powered speakers are a great idea for H/T. Someone should make a tube-surround pre-amp without the useless gizmos and H/T will be sounding pretty good.
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
Follow up

Thanks to those of you who took an interest and responded! I can't emphasize enough that, although I'm coming at this from my own biased starting place, I in no way consider my POV to be "right". I really appreciate the experience and opinions of others that probably have more HT experience than I. It's doubtful that I'll change my own plans since I'm already 1/3 to 1/2 way there ($$$-wise) and it's as much a matter of satisfying my own curiousity, since it seems to be such a rarity in the HT world. But hopefully we can all pique the interest of others (esp. the HT press!) in exploring the full range of options.

Something that occurred to me after my original posting that prompts a possible 5th question:

Almost all subwoofers are active. In fact, it seems to be almost assumed that they are. Few, if any, receivers that I'm aware of have an amp for driving a sub (I'm sure some do, just can't pull one off the top of my head). I don't remember any 5.1 or 7.1 stand-alone amps either. So the next question...

5) Why is it assumed to be desirable to design a dedicated x-over, amp, cabinet, and driver combination for a larger, low-frequency driver, while the lo-mids, mids, and highs are left to chance combinations the consumer may stumble upon?

Also, cornelius brings up an interesting point. As more hobbyist and professional musicians are bringing gear from Guitar Center into their homes, and Apple's GarageBand is enabling everyone who dreams of being a musician, it seems likely that the already-blurry line between pro audio and consumer audio will grow much dimmer in the very near future. The better for all of us!

Finally, mudcat, I believe that one can use combinations of amp and speaker to enhance particular traits of sound, and the fact that so many hit records of the '80s were mixed on NS-10s with heaven-only-knows-what-amp driving them certainly points to the power of the human brain in processing sound. If you "mixed based on what [you] would listen on", but you can't determine what your favourite store-bought movie or CD was mixed on, what would pick as the best compromise, especially knowing that there's a reasonable chance it was an active system? Being musicians and engineers, I'd like to know if your current listening system is active or passive, and what you think are the strong and weak points of it?
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
djoxygen said:
1) Is it not desirable to listen to something similar to what was used to track/mix/master in the studio?
It seems rational. Though, this does not consider some other variables such as people's preferences which may result in different interpretations. It also does not consider that much more then just the speaker is a factor. The room interaction/listening distance differences are an issue also. IN a studio, monitors are typically used in (1) near-field applications which have minimal room interactios [and/or] (2) used in rooms treated with sound diffusion/absorption systems.

This leaves open the much greater variability in home applications where such circumstances are not often found. Not only that, but the variability is not even consistent in varying environments since the room interaction(direct and reflected sound contributions) difference is dependant on the particular polar response of a speaker. Polar response varies drasticly across different speakers.

2) Is it true that a manufacturer can better control the complex interactions between amp, crossover, cabinet, and driver than we consumers can by sourcing from multiple manufacturers?
Well, any modern SS amplifier that is properly designed should have an output impedance that has insignificant reaction with just about any crossover/speaker system.

3) Is it better to run balanced line-level signals for the distances from pre/pro to active monitor than to run amplified signals over the same stretch?
I don't have any statistical information concerning home enviroments on this -- but it's seems logical to insure that interference/noise is not an issue by using balanced connections for these long runs.

4) Why is almost no space given to active monitoring at almost any price/quality level within the consumer space?
Excellent question. I don't even want to speculate on this one.
 
T

TT-

Audioholic Intern
I'm just adding some of my thoughts regarding passive vs active. I own a pair of Mackie HR824 and its exclusively use for music listening. I've tried all kind of combination and the my ultimate combo is : CD Transporter, D/A Converter, pre-amp, and Active Speaker (connected thru balanced output).

Active speaker (to me) is a lot better since amp+speaker combo almost always adding extra interference. My thought is that, the less interference there are, the better the sound would be. Extra wires running from pre-amp to amp, and then amp to speaker is adding an extra step of noise that I'd like to eliminate. I'm sure some of you will disagree with me on this matter, but that's just my personal preference.

I always preferred the flat response of the active monitor speakers. I think if you hear any extra "enhancements" that brought about through speaker design while listening to the record is unacceptable. Music should be reproduced as accurately as possible without any added flavor or unneccessary interference.

I originally planned to have all 6.1 HR824, but the thought of running balanced wires + dedicated power outlet for each speaker just .... knock me out. So for my home theater, I went with the old fashion way... DVD->receiver/pre-processor->amp->speaker. A friend of mine had the Mackie HR824 setup for his hometheater and I was totally blown away. Even at very low level, I can still clearly hear the dialogue and the special effects. Compare that to my hometheater, I'd have to turn up a couple extra db to get the same level of performance.
 
M

moverton

Audioholic
Good active/passive article

A very good article on active versus passive. Active makes much more sense. I've been waiting for the consumer lines to catch up. I think it is just the difficulty in selling anything different.
Genelec is now selling consumer versions of thier pro line. They have extra feature like non-balanced inputs (with balanced too). I listened to them a few weeks ago. I thought they were very, very good. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_4/feature-article-active-speakers-12-2002.html
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
Wow! That was a thick article. Plenty of stuff in there I didn't understand, or only understood at a very surface level.

We have several pairs of pro Genelecs at the office. They are pretty good, but I don't know much about the consumer versions. At the pro level, I prefer the Mackies, but that's as much a personal preference as anything. Can't really say why one would be "better" than the other.
 
Rip Van Woofer

Rip Van Woofer

Audioholic General
Basically, active speakers are just too logical for a hobby that is overrun with irrationality. Gad, sir, if the amps are built into the speakers, how will an audiophile be able to churn his amplification gear in the elusive search for the most "liquid midrange" and such? Whither those sexy looking Krells and Pass-es? And what about building tube amps into a speaker cabinet - yikes! (Of course, the tubes could be on top of the cabinet. It'd look like a prop from Fritz Lang's Metropolis.) :p

I suppose, to tak a less cynical view, that it's just inertia: we all have a fair amount of capital invesment in amps already (separates or in our receivers) and are reluctant to sell them at a loss for the sake of active speakers. Powered speakers just haven't taken off in the consumer market; witness the splendid (by all accounts) Paradigm active system from a few years back.

And there is one practical concern that rightly or wrongly seems to stymie some folks (as TT above experienced): each speaker needs not just a speaker cable but a power cord, too! (But hey, that means the 'phile can spend even more on magic power cords!)

Anyway, I'm planning on building the amplification (solid state, fear not) into the stands of my future actively-crossed-over DIY speakers. Fronts only, though. I won't call them "active" speakers as the xover will still likely be in a box of its own atop the preamp, and finely tailoring the amps' power etc. to the drivers is beyond my skills. Most I might do is put in a peak limiter for the tweet. Oh, and silver plated Teflon jacketed power cords with hospital grade plugs. :rolleyes:

The Audio Critic did a good review on Genelecs recently ("recently" by TAC standards, anyway!)
 
Last edited:
jrohland

jrohland

Enthusiast
They got da power

As this is the Philosophers forum let's bring philosophy into the question. Would using active (really, integrated) speakers take another step away from components to integrated setups? You can't change your amp to the latest wizbang-impress-your-buds unit out there.

The big problems mentioned before are:
Electric power (ground matched to the other components) will be needed at each speaker location.
Balanced lines will be needed to the satillite speakers (Image the premium Monster will get from the goobers for those cables.)

I would like to see the manufactures go to Tip-Ring-Sleeve 1/4" balanced plugs and transformers for all line-level connections now. That change should have been made some time ago. Better yet would be all fiber optic (difficult with analog signals).

I suppose the power issue would not be that hard, as you have to run speaker wire to the satillites now. However, expecting harry homeowner to run electric power to the speakers without screwing up the hot-neutral-ground and, not getting ground loops and, not killing themselves while doing it may be a trick. Also, how many DIY HT builders are going to run the power and signal lines right next to each other? Can you spell HUM?

So what is my opinion? I like the idea of using active monitors. If for no other reason then to put all those speaker cable snake oil pushers out of business.

jrohland
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
WmAx said:
It also does not consider that much more then just the speaker is a factor. The room interaction/listening distance differences are an issue also. IN a studio, monitors are typically used in (1) near-field applications which have minimal room interactios [and/or] (2) used in rooms treated with sound diffusion/absorption systems.

This leaves open the much greater variability in home applications where such circumstances are not often found. Not only that, but the variability is not even consistent in varying environments since the room interaction(direct and reflected sound contributions) difference is dependant on the particular polar response of a speaker. Polar response varies drasticly across different speakers.
Is there any reason that either a passive or active system would have an advantage when the room comes into play?

(It is certainly true that the distance from my couch to the Mackies is about 2-3x the distance was from my engineer's chair to them, so I've definitely moved out of the Near Field distance.)

It seems to me that the same physics applies to either, and neither approach would have a leg up. Once the voltages become vibrations, I'd think the room wouldn't care what led to the cone/dome wiggling.
 
M

moverton

Audioholic
Logical conclusion of 'rocket' audio

Philosophy, ok.
Here is how I see audio evolving.
Stage 1
1. All audio will be converted into or sourced in digital form.
2. The receiver will process this in purely digital terms. Basically just a bunch of DACs and a CPU.
3. The receiver will send digital signal to active speakers.
4. Speakers will have a DAC->amp or digital amp (something like new Sony ES line)

Stage 2
Someone finally figures out that trying to hit a bulleye without end-to-end feedback is a losing battle and makes the receiver to speaker cable two way. The return signal is a digitized microphone reading of what is actually being generated. The receiver runs software to error correct the outgoing signal. We move from rockets to missles.


jrohland said:
As this is the Philosophers forum let's bring philosophy into the question. Would using active (really, integrated) speakers take another step away from components to integrated setups? You can't change your amp to the latest wizbang-impress-your-buds unit out there.

The big problems mentioned before are:
Electric power (ground matched to the other components) will be needed at each speaker location.
Balanced lines will be needed to the satillite speakers (Image the premium Monster will get from the goobers for those cables.)

I would like to see the manufactures go to Tip-Ring-Sleeve 1/4" balanced plugs and transformers for all line-level connections now. That change should have been made some time ago. Better yet would be all fiber optic (difficult with analog signals).

I suppose the power issue would not be that hard, as you have to run speaker wire to the satillites now. However, expecting harry homeowner to run electric power to the speakers without screwing up the hot-neutral-ground and, not getting ground loops and, not killing themselves while doing it may be a trick. Also, how many DIY HT builders are going to run the power and signal lines right next to each other? Can you spell HUM?

So what is my opinion? I like the idea of using active monitors. If for no other reason then to put all those speaker cable snake oil pushers out of business.

jrohland
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
Rip Van Woofer said:
Basically, active speakers are just too logical for a hobby that is overrun with irrationality. Gad, sir, if the amps are built into the speakers, how will an audiophile be able to churn his amplification gear in the elusive search for the most "liquid midrange" and such? Whither those sexy looking Krells and Pass-es? And what about building tube amps into a speaker cabinet - yikes! (Of course, the tubes could be on top of the cabinet. It'd look like a prop from Fritz Lang's Metropolis.) :p
Hah! But certainly it would be "impressive" to double or even triple the number of amps and cables by designing one's own active system. Imagine the quest for the perfect 100wpc tube amp to give the domes in the surround channels the perfect "airiness".

Rip Van Woofer said:
I suppose, to tak a less cynical view, that it's just inertia: we all have a fair amount of capital invesment in amps already (separates or in our receivers) and are reluctant to sell them at a loss for the sake of active speakers. Powered speakers just haven't taken off in the consumer market; witness the splendid (by all accounts) Paradigm active system from a few years back.
To be a bit *more* cynical, any thoughts on the level of resistance of the mfrs? Certainly Krell, Levinson, and others have a lot to lose if people start buying active monitors. But it would seem that JBL/HK are in a perfect position to "collaborate" within the company. If some of the smaller, and well-respected speaker and amp mfrs started getting together, think of the markups they could "justify" by having *both* names on the grille. Win-win, no? They still get the money, and we get active systems designed by some of the best in the biz.

Rip Van Woofer said:
Anyway, I'm planning on building the amplification (solid state, fear not) into the stands of my future actively-crossed-over DIY speakers. Fronts only, though. I won't call them "active" speakers as the xover will still likely be in a box of its own atop the preamp, and finely tailoring the amps' power etc. to the drivers is beyond my skills. Most I might do is put in a peak limiter for the tweet.
That's a fantastic idea! And you can still call it an "active monitoring system". Don't sell yourself short on the tuning of power. The trusty Radio Shack SPL should be all you need to find the right x-over frequencies and amp gains. I trust you'll regale us all with photos and a review when it's all finished!
 
Last edited:
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
jrohland said:
The big problems mentioned before are:
Electric power (ground matched to the other components) will be needed at each speaker location.
This is a big potential problem for many, especially since most electricians seem to be drunk. (At least judging by the wiring in almost every house I've ever lived in.) The odds of any one outlet being on the same circuit as even its nearest neighbor seems to be about 1 in 6.

jrohland said:
Balanced lines will be needed to the satillite speakers (Image the premium Monster will get from the goobers for those cables.)
No more trouble than running speaker cables. But it certainly will open up a huge new market for the snake oil peddlers. "Hmm... if the recording of this vocal was done with 15' of mic cable that cost $30 and 45' of plenun at $1.50/ft, I should definitely not spend less than $624 on any one line to my surrounds."

jrohland said:
I would like to see the manufactures go to Tip-Ring-Sleeve 1/4" balanced plugs and transformers for all line-level connections now. That change should have been made some time ago. Better yet would be all fiber optic (difficult with analog signals).
Any reason for your preference of TRS over XLR? In my experience XLRs have been more reliable.

Optical digital to the speakers would certainly get us out of the grounding issue, and at that point, why not go with digital wireless? I don't trust analog wireless because of interference, but digital over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi - sign me up! Plug your "Wireless Digital Monitors" into whatever outlet is nearby, choose the broadcast channel(s) on your "Wireless Pre-Pro" (so your viewing of Fifth Element isn't interrupted by your neighbor's porn (or vice versa)) and you're ready to go.
 
jrohland

jrohland

Enthusiast
I'll that that in digital thanks

djoxygen said:
Any reason for your preference of TRS over XLR? In my experience XLRs have been more reliable.
It would take up much more space on the back panel of a receiver/switch. I also like XLR but, they take up too much room. The TRS should be fine for the average home unit. Could they be any worse then the RCA jacks we have now?

djoxygen said:
Optical digital to the speakers would certainly get us out of the grounding issue, and at that point, why not go with digital wireless? I don't trust analog wireless because of interference, but digital over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi - sign me up! Plug your "Wireless Digital Monitors" into whatever outlet is nearby, choose the broadcast channel(s) on your "Wireless Pre-Pro" (so your viewing of Fifth Element isn't interrupted by your neighbor's porn (or vice versa)) and you're ready to go.
I thought about the possibility of going digital to the monitors and the options that brings--including wireless. I'd be a little concerned about war driving marketers driving around narrowcasting audio advertisments to any system within radio range. Image the fun they would have on Super Sunday. Infrared would be a possible option. Just make sure the sender and receiver are in line of sight.

jrohland
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
jrohland said:
It would take up much more space on the back panel of a receiver/switch. I also like XLR but, they take up too much room. The TRS should be fine for the average home unit. Could they be any worse then the RCA jacks we have now?
Certainly not!!! Just about anything is better than RCAs.

Re: TRS. If your input connections are mostly or all-digital (Optical, HDMI, FireWire, S/PDIF) the only need for the XLRs is at the outputs, those shouldn't take up too much room. If *every* audio connection is XLR, that would definitely pose a problem with space on the back-plane.

jrohland said:
I thought about the possibility of going digital to the monitors and the options that brings--including wireless. I'd be a little concerned about war driving marketers driving around narrowcasting audio advertisments to any system within radio range. Image the fun they would have on Super Sunday. Infrared would be a possible option. Just make sure the sender and receiver are in line of sight.
At first I was thinking that was a good point, but after pondering it a while, I don't think it should be a concern.

1) Not cost-effective. Even if Wi-Fi monitors were available tomorrow, it'll be a lot of years before you could reach enough people to make it pay for the gas and labor.

2) Illegal. Federal law and the courts have pretty much said that citizens can listen to whatever frequency they want, but broadcasting (outside of a very short range) isn't allowed without approprate licensing. It wouldn't take much to track down the guy parked outside your house for 60 seconds trying to sell you V1@gra.

3) Easy to defeat. Even a modest number of DIP switches on the back of the speaker would give you enough possible frequencies (or encryption options) to defeat the spammers. Since the speakers are receivers only (or *very* short range transmitters if there's the proposed feedback system), there's no way for them to even know when they've hit an active frequency or broken the encryption.

Whatever the solution, I think we've got a pretty solid idea in the offing.
 
D

dansevush

Audiophyte
I am about to use a pair of Mackie HR624 for L/R and HR626 as center channel.

One of the benefits of balanced wire is you can wrap it around AC and not get any interference. And a good quality mic cable w/XLRs is all you need, Monster et al be damned!

Not too too difficult to run all the AC cords into the same basic strip/outlet.
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
dansevush said:
I am about to use a pair of Mackie HR624 for L/R and HR626 as center channel.
Let me know how you like the 626. I have yet to hear one in practice. None of the music gear shops around here ever have them on display.

dansevush said:
One of the benefits of balanced wire is you can wrap it around AC and not get any interference.
Theoretically, but still not advisable!

dansevush said:
Not too too difficult to run all the AC cords into the same basic strip/outlet.
As long as your S.O. doesn't mind lots of cables running around the periphery of the room.
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
Hmm...I'm not a fan of the Mackies. They have decent imaging, but I find the midrange a little lacking (at least on the 8" monitors) and the treble seems tinny. Not as bright as other metal domes I've heard. But then again, I'm a soft-dome man. So that's not the end-all for that.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top