Active v. Passive Monitoring

C

cornelius

Full Audioholic
jaxvon said:
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.
The "Studio" moniker doesn't automatically guarantee a speaker to be exempt of the many problems that plague 99% of the home gear out there - Mackies are no exception. Many of these studio monitors have great looking frequency response graphs, but would never be a faithful device when actually mixing/mastering/recording.

Active monitors are a great concept for HT, but unfortunately the market is very small. PMC is the only active combo that I ever liked, but for HT would be about a million $...
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I'm sure the active offerings from M&K would be excellent, but also very expensive. But, as we all know, you get what you pay for (at least most of the time).
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
jaxvon said:
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.
You say "tinny", I say "crisp". :-D

Is it likely that you prefer a little bit of a midrange boost, then? According to the measured response graphs that come with each speaker, the 824s are about as flat as my junior high girlfriend across their usable range.

In the studio I came from a pair of KRKs that I thought were totally the ****. Turns out they were bumping a little in the high mids. The transparent stereo imaging, tight low end, and wide sweet spot sold me on the Mackies, but it definitely took a while to get used to the flatter mids.
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
cornelius said:
The "Studio" moniker doesn't automatically guarantee a speaker to be exempt of the many problems that plague 99% of the home gear out there - Mackies are no exception. Many of these studio monitors have great looking frequency response graphs, but would never be a faithful device when actually mixing/mastering/recording.
How, exactly, are you using the term "faithful"? Low THD, low noise, and flat frequency response are exactly what most recording/mixing/mastering engineers are looking for. If your reference monitors are doing anything else to the sound, you're adapting to something that won't be present on the consumers' playback systems.

I try not to rely on the opinion of the masses, but considering how many 824s are out there in the recording/mixing/mastering world, they must be faithful for some people. Every engineer has his/her favorite monitor, and good engineers can adapt to work with a pretty wide range of gear, but the 824s worked great for me in my studio and are continuing to work great in my project rig at home. I never cut a record using any other monitoring system that sounded better that the work I did on the Mackies.
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I know the Mackies are flat (as they should be for monitoring purposes). Although, you want the ultimate studio monitor, it'd have to be a B&W Model Nautilus. 25Hz to 20kHz, +/- .5dB (!). Still, they're a bit out of my price range (and I would assume yours as well). We can still dream though...right?
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
jaxvon said:
I know the Mackies are flat (as they should be for monitoring purposes). Although, you want the ultimate studio monitor, it'd have to be a B&W Model Nautilus. 25Hz to 20kHz, +/- .5dB (!). Still, they're a bit out of my price range (and I would assume yours as well). We can still dream though...right?
But then you have to go through the trouble of finding exactly the right amplifiers. :-D
 
B

bloosqr

Audiophyte
active versus passive for home theatre / home audio

Hi everybody, I have been thinking of upgrading my home stereo system for a while and randomly came to the idea of using active monitors for a home stereo system and have been doing some research on this new found path to madness, when I realized you guys have a thread on the exact same subject.

The main two issues that were stumping me were worries about cable lengths going over RCA would really be too long to scatter all about a room and the issue of whether plugging in active monitors to different plugs and perhaps even different circuits in a home would introduce noise.

I don't really have an answer for the 2nd to be honest.

On the other hand one no longer needs to buy amps so the money spent on upgrading an amp can be spent on buying swanky preamps. The outlaw 990 has xlr outputs and I believe one of the rotels has balanced outputs (maybe not?). So if one was dreaming and building a swanky home theatre system:

one could use the outlaw as the preamp glued straight into

Mackie 824 L/R fronts
Mackie 624 L/R surrounds
Mackie 626 C

and a subwoofer (the mackies are crazy expensive subwoofers) so perhaps something else can substitute.

Now I dont have that sort of cash so my poor people's alternative is to try the active idea out on building the most awesome stereo system that I can afford. I'm doing this from scratch as my stereo is from back when I was an undergraduate (back in 90) Perhaps one day in the future I could scarf the parts to build a home theatre system. So this is where i've come to ask for some advice. Here is the "poor peoples ultimate active balanced stereo system" i've come up w/.

The hard part is find a stereo tuner that has balanced outputs. The one I have found is a dirt cheap rackmount gemini (yes we all know what "gemini" rhymes w/ :) ) But there is a gemini PA 7000 rackmountable preamp w/ XLR/TRS outputs. Its got phono/cd/aux/tape monitor inputs. THD seems to be about 0.05% reasonable enough I suppose. I do not know if it is possible but since it has XLR and TRS outputs I can glue the other one to the subwoofer inputs.

So the basic idea is some equivalent to the Mackie 824 (maybe KRS, maybe the JBL 4412's) a subwoofer and this gemini.


The crazy addendum to this (again suggestions critiques are most welcome) is motivated by the fact that the disappearence of equalizers in the world bothers me. So what I was thinking since this is for the "ultimate stereo" is to use the tape monitor function to glue in a behringer 6200 31 band stereo eq/analyzer from behringer </a>. One it has pink noise generators and analyzers built into to see what is going on in the room and fix that and also lets me take that flat output of the studio monitor and fix it how *I* like it. Which at the end of the day is what I want. (I admit I am from the 80's and am a little weirded out that equalizers have dissappeared and turned into "jazz", "rock","hall" buttons so I would like my equalizer back). The THD from the behringer is 0.006% so negligable.

The other advantage of the behringer is, instead of using the tape monitor, I think I can just use the XLR out of the gemini to the XLR in/out of the equalizer and I get the adjustable crossover for the subwoofer for free. The Behringer is $179 and the gemini is something like $80 so these two components are practically free as far as "high end audio" is concerned and the rest of cash goes into active monitors. The behringer tells me whats going on in the room since I dont live in a studio as well as lets me muck w/ the signal to make me happy. The other version of this is the
behringer DSP equalizer that has an automated room equalizer as well as timing delays if you have weird placement (so perhaps using a few of these for home theatre?)

So thats the current idea forced into a budget of somewhere around $1500-$2000. Some of the things that bother me is I am a big fan of digital inputs where ever I can as long as I can (for the CD player and for the computer) but while this is easy to do w/ receivers/preamps its not as obvious when one w/ using actual "gear" where this would belong. The other main issue is I am not really a big fan of gemini equipment. Maybe this is just snootiness on my part but I can't find anyone that makes a variation of the PA-7000 that isn't $1000+.



BTW the alternative which is probably more sane is buying the HK 3480 and two pairs of swanky speakers like (for my price range) LSI polks or maybe those axioms that people tend to rave about and scarf the speakers in some future time for home theatre. This was my original plan actually.

In any case I am curious if this seems like a really dumb idea and what alternatives should be considered instead of what i've outlined above and of course whether I should stick to the HK 3480 and some nice speakers.

-best, avi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

cornelius

Full Audioholic
djoxygen - I totally flaked on this thread - forgot to mention back to you that the Mackies are better/more reliable than most studio monitors out there. Didn't mean to be so harsh I just get a little bent out of shape when people talk about measured flat frequency response - I just agree with jaxvon concerning Mackie's mids and hi's... Still a pretty solid monitor.
 
S

Sonic Stasher

Enthusiast
bloosqr said:
Hi everybody, I have been thinking of upgrading my home stereo system for a while and randomly came to the idea of using active monitors for a home stereo system and have been doing some research on this new found path to madness, when I realized you guys have a thread on the exact same subject.

The main two issues that were stumping me were worries about cable lengths going over RCA would really be too long to scatter all about a room and the issue of whether plugging in active monitors to different plugs and perhaps even different circuits in a home would introduce noise.

I don't really have an answer for the 2nd to be honest.

On the other hand one no longer needs to buy amps so the money spent on upgrading an amp can be spent on buying swanky preamps. The outlaw 990 has xlr outputs and I believe one of the rotels has balanced outputs (maybe not?). So if one was dreaming and building a swanky home theatre system:

one could use the outlaw as the preamp glued straight into

Mackie 824 L/R fronts
Mackie 624 L/R surrounds
Mackie 626 C

and a subwoofer (the mackies are crazy expensive subwoofers) so perhaps something else can substitute.

Now I dont have that sort of cash so my poor people's alternative is to try the active idea out on building the most awesome stereo system that I can afford. I'm doing this from scratch as my stereo is from back when I was an undergraduate (back in 90) Perhaps one day in the future I could scarf the parts to build a home theatre system. So this is where i've come to ask for some advice. Here is the "poor peoples ultimate active balanced stereo system" i've come up w/.

The hard part is find a stereo tuner that has balanced outputs. The one I have found is a dirt cheap rackmount gemini (yes we all know what "gemini" rhymes w/ :) ) But there is a gemini PA 7000 rackmountable preamp w/ XLR/TRS outputs. Its got phono/cd/aux/tape monitor inputs. THD seems to be about 0.05% reasonable enough I suppose. I do not know if it is possible but since it has XLR and TRS outputs I can glue the other one to the subwoofer inputs.

So the basic idea is some equivalent to the Mackie 824 (maybe KRS, maybe the JBL 4412's) a subwoofer and this gemini.


The crazy addendum to this (again suggestions critiques are most welcome) is motivated by the fact that the disappearence of equalizers in the world bothers me. So what I was thinking since this is for the "ultimate stereo" is to use the tape monitor function to glue in a behringer 6200 31 band stereo eq/analyzer from behringer </a>. One it has pink noise generators and analyzers built into to see what is going on in the room and fix that and also lets me take that flat output of the studio monitor and fix it how *I* like it. Which at the end of the day is what I want. (I admit I am from the 80's and am a little weirded out that equalizers have dissappeared and turned into "jazz", "rock","hall" buttons so I would like my equalizer back). The THD from the behringer is 0.006% so negligable.

The other advantage of the behringer is, instead of using the tape monitor, I think I can just use the XLR out of the gemini to the XLR in/out of the equalizer and I get the adjustable crossover for the subwoofer for free. The Behringer is $179 and the gemini is something like $80 so these two components are practically free as far as "high end audio" is concerned and the rest of cash goes into active monitors. The behringer tells me whats going on in the room since I dont live in a studio as well as lets me muck w/ the signal to make me happy. The other version of this is the
behringer DSP equalizer that has an automated room equalizer as well as timing delays if you have weird placement (so perhaps using a few of these for home theatre?)

So thats the current idea forced into a budget of somewhere around $1500-$2000. Some of the things that bother me is I am a big fan of digital inputs where ever I can as long as I can (for the CD player and for the computer) but while this is easy to do w/ receivers/preamps its not as obvious when one w/ using actual "gear" where this would belong. The other main issue is I am not really a big fan of gemini equipment. Maybe this is just snootiness on my part but I can't find anyone that makes a variation of the PA-7000 that isn't $1000+.



BTW the alternative which is probably more sane is buying the HK 3480 and two pairs of swanky speakers like (for my price range) LSI polks or maybe those axioms that people tend to rave about and scarf the speakers in some future time for home theatre. This was my original plan actually.

In any case I am curious if this seems like a really dumb idea and what alternatives should be considered instead of what i've outlined above and of course whether I should stick to the HK 3480 and some nice speakers.

-best, avi
I have a similar experience involving building my HT system. I started with Pro-Audio gear:
Two Mackie SWA1501 subwoofers
Two Mackie SRM450 two-way powered speakers
Tascam CC-222MK II Tape/CD Recorder
Furman PL-8 Power Conditioner

and limited audio gear:
Toshiba Cinema Series CN32H95 Television
RCA DVR 40GB
Mitsubishi HS-U69 S-VHS VCR

Now I have begun the process of transitioning to home-audio by acquiring
Anthem AVM-30 Pre/Pro
Monster Power HTS-5000
Denon DVD 2910
Terk AF-1 Antenna
APC Smart-UPS 1500 and my latest acquisition an
Anthem P2 Amplifier

I now am at the point where I am trying to find a pair of home-audio speakers to function as Front speakers while I transition the Mackie SRM450s to serve as surrounds speakers. The current front-runner among my list of front speaker candidates is the Paradigm S4. After listening to the S4s and comparing their sound with the Mackie SRM450 I will complete my HT setup by either purchase a Mackie H676 for a center channel or an Anthem MC-50 amplifier (or comparable Sunfire amp) and the Paradigm C3 for a center channel and another pair of S4s for surrounds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

bloosqr

Audiophyte
Sonic Stasher said:
I have a similar experience involving building my HT system. I started with Pro-Audio gear:
Two Mackie SWA1501 subwoofers
Two Mackie SRM450 two-way powered speakers
Tascam CC-222MK II Tape/CD Recorder
Furman PL-8 Power Conditioner

and limited audio gear:
Toshiba Cinema Series CN32H95 Television
RCA DVR 40GB
Mitsubishi HS-U69 S-VHS VCR

Now I have begun the process of transitioning to home-audio by acquiring
Anthem AVM-30 Pre/Pro
Monster Power HTS-5000
Denon DVD 2910
Terk AF-1 Antenna
APC Smart-UPS 1500 and my latest acquisition an
Anthem P2 Amplifier

I now am at the point where I am trying to find a pair of home-audio speakers to function as Front speakers while I transition the Mackie SRM450s to serve as surrounds speakers. The current front-runner among my list of front speaker candidates is the Paradigm S4. After listening to the S4s and comparing their sound with the Mackie SRM450 I will complete my HT setup by either purchase a Mackie H676 for a center channel or an Anthem MC-50 amplifier (or comparable Sunfire amp) and the Paradigm C3 for a center channel and another pair of S4s for surrounds.

Nice, I noticed you have the PA mackies rather than the studio. Did you buy them originally for this purpose or requisition them for another use? Are you switching to home audio speakers because they aren't as clean as you liked them to be or for some other reason?

I ended up buying 2 826's. They sound remarkably clean for music as might be expected and I am happy with them. Actually I feel that they could use a subwoofer to be honest but I am still setting everything up.

Right now I am thinking of just buying the behringer deq 2496 as the DA to hook them up w/ (I am using the RCA directly for now) and some sort of optical digipatch to hook in the computer/cd player to the single optical in of the deq. Fostex used to make a cheap one, the DP8 which I dont think is made anymore.

If I do home theatre, I would like a preamp that has digital outs for each channel. The only one I can find that does this are the meridian ones.

-avi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

Sonic Stasher

Enthusiast
bloosqr said:
Nice, I noticed you have the PA mackies rather than the studio. Did you buy them originally for this purpose or requisition them for another use? Are you switching to home audio speakers because they aren't as clean as you liked them to be or for some other reason?

-avi
I purchased the Mackies (16 chan Yamaha mixer, compressor/exciter, mics, etc.) several several years ago to support a small music group which is no longer active. I just started building my HT system within the last 6 months with Anthem components. I am switching to home-audio gear because of comments I have heared from various high end home-audio dealers (Paradigm, Thiel, PSB) stating that home-audio gear would be able to more accurately produce sound approaching a live performance. I have not been able to tell the difference between the sound produced by my Mackies at home and what I hear at the Paradigm dealer's showroom 20 miles away. I hope to be able to perform a side-by-side comparison once I decide and acquire a pair of home audio speakers to connect to my Anthem P2.
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
cornelius said:
djoxygen - I totally flaked on this thread - forgot to mention back to you that the Mackies are better/more reliable than most studio monitors out there. Didn't mean to be so harsh I just get a little bent out of shape when people talk about measured flat frequency response - I just agree with jaxvon concerning Mackie's mids and hi's... Still a pretty solid monitor.
Hey man, no offense taken at all! Everyone has their own ear. Their own preferences. Bringing in the response graphs, THD, and measurements is only appropriate when talking about accuracy. When talking about taste, anything goes, no? (Esteemed Editors, please don't take this to be in reference to cables, only to things that should be allowed to color sound if/when the listener so desires. :)
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
Sonic Stasher said:
I purchased the Mackies (16 chan Yamaha mixer, compressor/exciter, mics, etc.) several several years ago to support a small music group which is no longer active. I just started building my HT system within the last 6 months with Anthem components. I am switching to home-audio gear because of comments I have heared from various high end home-audio dealers (Paradigm, Thiel, PSB) stating that home-audio gear would be able to more accurately produce sound approaching a live performance. I have not been able to tell the difference between the sound produced by my Mackies at home and what I hear at the Paradigm dealer's showroom 20 miles away. I hope to be able to perform a side-by-side comparison once I decide and acquire a pair of home audio speakers to connect to my Anthem P2.
I think the dealers are full of BS because they want to sell you something. Ultimately only your own ear can decide, and if you can do a side-by-side comparison (removing as many variables as possible) that will be the test for you (and only for you). But I have a hard time believing that, at equivalent SPL, and listening space, that a home theater speaker will be more "accurate" than the monitoring system used to create the CD/DVD-A/SACD in the first place.

Now "accurate" does not necessarily equal "better" (one is subjective, the other is objective), but it doesn't sound like they are claiming "better".
 
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
bloosqr said:
BTW the alternative which is probably more sane is buying the HK 3480 and two pairs of swanky speakers like (for my price range) LSI polks or maybe those axioms that people tend to rave about and scarf the speakers in some future time for home theatre. This was my original plan actually.

In any case I am curious if this seems like a really dumb idea and what alternatives should be considered instead of what i've outlined above and of course whether I should stick to the HK 3480 and some nice speakers.
Well, if you want to pursue the high-end balanced, active system in the distant future, you could certainly use the Gemini/Behringer system with a pair of 824s today, and then build up to the 7.1 system in the future. Heck, my 824s are wired to the variable outs of my TV (through an Aphex 124AX transformer). Not the greatest solution, but I don't want to spend $$ on something that won't further my long-term goal.
 
Last edited:
D

djoxygen

Full Audioholic
By the by, for those of you keeping score at home...

My next remodeling project is the garage, part of which is going to become a workshop so I can continue to work on projects throughout the winter. (Can't really cut flooring in the driveway in January in Minneapolis.) That should (read: has to) be done by the time snow flies. Then the home theater is at the top of the list.

Some of it is just lighting, carpet, building the bar, and other cosmetic stuff. But a big chunk of my effort will be doing all the line and power wiring, built-in speaker platforms, and possibly even a place for a future front projector and screen (gotta debate with the GF on that one). After the construction, highest financial priority is going to be balanced pre/pro and the center channel and sub I need to do 5.1. (Currently have the 624s for the surround channels in my studio/computer rig, but they're easy enough to move around the house.)

So hopefully by the time the snow melts in 2006, I'll be able to write up a detailed review of the "studio-quality home theater system".
 
B

bloosqr

Audiophyte
djoxygen said:
Well, if you want to pursue the high-end balanced, active system in the distant future, you could certainly use the Gemini/Behringer system with a pair of 824s today, and then build up to the 7.1 system in the future. Heck, my 824s are wired to the variable outs of my TV (through an Aphex 124AX transformer). Not the greatest solution, but I don't want to spend $$ on something that won't further my long-term goal.

I think this is going to be my goal. I haven't quite worked out how to do the surround quite yet as I want to go into the D in of any equalizers (whether I get another behringer for the surround channels or just use the 8 band alesis for the surround channels). I am positive there is a easy way of doing this w/ something that is in my budget (basically buying components in a very low multiple of $300 a pop), though it may require a bit of hacking but I'm sure it can be done.

-best,
-avi
 
newsletter

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