Hello
I've bought an iMac but would like to listen to some decent music instead of listening to the built-in speakers. I've already done some research but I just can't find out what equipment I need besides the speakers. Concerning the speakers there's also something that's not perfectly clear for me: passive or active ones? Some say that active ones are the way to go when you're on a tight budget, others say that they are unpleasant to listen to and that you should only buy them when you produce music.
And what about the suggestion in this blog post? Here he buys active speakers that are connected to an "audio interface" which are on their turn connected to his iMac.
Before I start looking further for speakers and the rest I need to know what equipment I actually need.
My budget is about 500-600 dollars.
Thanks
Full Version: Needed equipment for computer audio
I hope I was clear enough, if not please let me know.
Currently I'm listening to music that comes from the optical out of my iMac, into a receiver that I bought v. cheap because it's a discontinued model, and out through a pair of bookshelf speakers (as it happens, KEF C10 that I bought secondhand for NZ$400--currently about US$250)
I've also used a pair of M-Audio active near field monitors, roughly in the same class as the Rokits, though possibly not as good; I haven't compared them, but Rokits have been well spoken of here.
I ended up preferring the KEFs, but there wasn't much in it, and I'd call it a personal preference rather than a difference in performance, even if I didn't respect TOS 8.
The point is that there are choices at your price range that I would be happy with. Definitely listen to the Rokits, and maybe see if you can locate some (perhaps secondhand) passive speakers to compare. Getting a decent amp for not much money should not be a problem. Whether you go for active speakers, or passive + amp, is really a question of what ends up as best value for money in your particular situation, for your tastes.
I've also used a pair of M-Audio active near field monitors, roughly in the same class as the Rokits, though possibly not as good; I haven't compared them, but Rokits have been well spoken of here.
I ended up preferring the KEFs, but there wasn't much in it, and I'd call it a personal preference rather than a difference in performance, even if I didn't respect TOS 8.
The point is that there are choices at your price range that I would be happy with. Definitely listen to the Rokits, and maybe see if you can locate some (perhaps secondhand) passive speakers to compare. Getting a decent amp for not much money should not be a problem. Whether you go for active speakers, or passive + amp, is really a question of what ends up as best value for money in your particular situation, for your tastes.
So if I understand it correctly, I have two options:
Is this correct?
iMac > external audio interface > active speakers
OR
iMac > amp > passive speakers
Is this correct?
QUOTE (Tomovich @ Nov 16 2008, 19:05) 
Hello
I've bought an iMac but would like to listen to some decent music instead of listening to the built-in speakers. I've already done some research but I just can't find out what equipment I need besides the speakers. Concerning the speakers there's also something that's not perfectly clear for me: passive or active ones? Some say that active ones are the way to go when you're on a tight budget, others say that they are unpleasant to listen to and that you should only buy them when you produce music.
And what about the suggestion in this blog post? Here he buys active speakers that are connected to an "audio interface" which are on their turn connected to his iMac.
Before I start looking further for speakers and the rest I need to know what equipment I actually need.
My budget is about 500-600 dollars.
Thanks
I've bought an iMac but would like to listen to some decent music instead of listening to the built-in speakers. I've already done some research but I just can't find out what equipment I need besides the speakers. Concerning the speakers there's also something that's not perfectly clear for me: passive or active ones? Some say that active ones are the way to go when you're on a tight budget, others say that they are unpleasant to listen to and that you should only buy them when you produce music.
And what about the suggestion in this blog post? Here he buys active speakers that are connected to an "audio interface" which are on their turn connected to his iMac.
Before I start looking further for speakers and the rest I need to know what equipment I actually need.
My budget is about 500-600 dollars.
Thanks
If you are buying new then the most accurate sound for your money will almost certainly be obtained with active speakers from a music shop. Whether you want accurate or audiophile is a decision for you to make but, given your budget, audiophile is not really an option.
Do you want to put small speakers close to you at a desk (they would sound better raised on shelf) or to sit in a chair with the speakers filling the room with sound like a hi-fi? If the latter then one should look to larger speakers.
Whether it is cost effective on your budget to spend $100 or so on an external sound card depends on the quality of the internal sound card, how many sources you have and, to some extent, whether you can reach a volume control. For example, a desk setup with a volume control on the front of active speakers would be useful in this regard. Many, probably most, internal sound cards are fine these days in the sense that you would you not be able to identify it in a controlled listening test against an external card (your blogger would appear to be something of a marketing victim in this regard). But I don't know in your particular case.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 17 2008, 14:09)
If you are buying new then the most accurate sound for your money will almost certainly be obtained with active speakers from a music shop. Whether you want accurate or audiophile is a decision for you to make but, given your budget, audiophile is not really an option.
Everything I'll buy will be new material. It will certainly be a desk setup, I will put the speakers next to the iMac. It's not my intention to go audiophile, my budget is also too insufficient for this.
Concerning active speakers, I've read some arguments from people that they are not made for listening, only for producing music. They would be tiresome and annoying to listen to. I know that this is mainly subjective and I will certainly audition the speakers I'll buy but if this is true maybe this is not the way to go?
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 17 2008, 14:09)
Do you want to put small speakers close to you at a desk (they would sound better raised on shelf) or to sit in a chair with the speakers filling the room with sound like a hi-fi? If the latter then one should look to larger speakers.
As said previously, I'll only use the speakers with the iMac and everything will be put on the desk next to it. I'm not dependent on size but I do not want some beast on my desk.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 17 2008, 14:09)
Whether it is cost effective on your budget to spend $100 or so on an external sound card depends on the quality of the internal sound card, how many sources you have and, to some extent, whether you can reach a volume control. For example, a desk setup with a volume control on the front of active speakers would be useful in this regard. Many, probably most, internal sound cards are fine these days in the sense that you would you not be able to identify it in a controlled listening test against an external card (your blogger would appear to be something of a marketing victim in this regard). But I don't know in your particular case.
How do I know if my internal sound card is good enough (I'll post the type tonight when I'm home). And what do you mean with "the quantity of sources"?
What kind of amp will I be looking for when I go the passive route?
> Concerning active speakers, I've read some arguments from people that they are
> not made for listening, only for producing music. They would be tiresome and
> annoying to listen to. I know that this is mainly subjective and I will
> certainly audition the speakers I'll buy but if this is true maybe this is not
> the way to go?
This is a typical audiophile statement that has a small element of truth but is mainly foolish. Audiophile speakers are typically not accurate speakers but tailored to sound more attractive to audiophiles. This tailoring can to a large extent be reproduced on accurate speakers using signal processing but audiophiles don't believe in signal processing. However, one cannot really address the ratio of indirect to direct sound with signal processing (i.e. the directivity of the speaker) and so it is not complete. But if you sit close to the speaker you will hear mainly direct sound.
If you go to a hi-fi shop and listen to a range of 2 way speakers around the $500 price point you will tend to hear a wide range in sound from clear/hard to soft/warm (or however you want to describe it). If you go to a music shop and listen to a range of active speakers around the same price point you will tend to hear a smaller range in sound with it being towards the clear/hard end (or however you want to describe it).
> As said previously, I'll only use the speakers with the iMac and everything
> will be put on the desk next to it. I'm not dependent on size but I do not
> want some beast on my desk.
This will limit the sound quality because size is a requirement for deep bass and low distortion at high volumes, reflections off the desk and monitor will confuse the sound sources and sitting close to the speakers will skew the direct/indirect sound ratio.
If you are going to place the speakers on the desk then a realistic upper limit is probably defined by something like a pair of Adam A5s:
http://www.dv247.com/invt/50641/
which have a linked volume control on the front and come with optional wedge stands to angle the speakers off the desk (but would be better raised off the desk on a shelf). My local Apple store has quite a few of these in stock and one on display and so you might be able to hear them plugged into an iMac at your local Apple store.
This is not particularly a recommendation and in your position I would probably look for something at half to two-thirds the price that sounded close.
> How do I know if my internal sound card is good enough (I'll post the type
> tonight when I'm home).
Because of the dominance of audiophile nonsense there is almost no reliable source a consumer can turn to for this sort of information. If you have access to a good external sound card then you can check yourself if you can hear a difference or if the difference you can hear is worth $100 to you.
Since the external sound card is optional perhaps the best approach is to buy the speakers and ask a shop to demonstrate the improvement with an external sound card.
> And what do you mean with "the quantity of sources"?
If you have more than one source of music apart from the computer such as a turntable, microphone, radio or similar then you will need a box with a set of input sockets and a selector switch.
> What kind of amp will I be looking for when I go the passive route?
This depends on the requirements of the speakers but given you want a desk setup and to buy new, an amplifier plus passive speakers does not look the right way to go unless there are other factors that push you in this direction.
> not made for listening, only for producing music. They would be tiresome and
> annoying to listen to. I know that this is mainly subjective and I will
> certainly audition the speakers I'll buy but if this is true maybe this is not
> the way to go?
This is a typical audiophile statement that has a small element of truth but is mainly foolish. Audiophile speakers are typically not accurate speakers but tailored to sound more attractive to audiophiles. This tailoring can to a large extent be reproduced on accurate speakers using signal processing but audiophiles don't believe in signal processing. However, one cannot really address the ratio of indirect to direct sound with signal processing (i.e. the directivity of the speaker) and so it is not complete. But if you sit close to the speaker you will hear mainly direct sound.
If you go to a hi-fi shop and listen to a range of 2 way speakers around the $500 price point you will tend to hear a wide range in sound from clear/hard to soft/warm (or however you want to describe it). If you go to a music shop and listen to a range of active speakers around the same price point you will tend to hear a smaller range in sound with it being towards the clear/hard end (or however you want to describe it).
> As said previously, I'll only use the speakers with the iMac and everything
> will be put on the desk next to it. I'm not dependent on size but I do not
> want some beast on my desk.
This will limit the sound quality because size is a requirement for deep bass and low distortion at high volumes, reflections off the desk and monitor will confuse the sound sources and sitting close to the speakers will skew the direct/indirect sound ratio.
If you are going to place the speakers on the desk then a realistic upper limit is probably defined by something like a pair of Adam A5s:
http://www.dv247.com/invt/50641/
which have a linked volume control on the front and come with optional wedge stands to angle the speakers off the desk (but would be better raised off the desk on a shelf). My local Apple store has quite a few of these in stock and one on display and so you might be able to hear them plugged into an iMac at your local Apple store.
This is not particularly a recommendation and in your position I would probably look for something at half to two-thirds the price that sounded close.
> How do I know if my internal sound card is good enough (I'll post the type
> tonight when I'm home).
Because of the dominance of audiophile nonsense there is almost no reliable source a consumer can turn to for this sort of information. If you have access to a good external sound card then you can check yourself if you can hear a difference or if the difference you can hear is worth $100 to you.
Since the external sound card is optional perhaps the best approach is to buy the speakers and ask a shop to demonstrate the improvement with an external sound card.
> And what do you mean with "the quantity of sources"?
If you have more than one source of music apart from the computer such as a turntable, microphone, radio or similar then you will need a box with a set of input sockets and a selector switch.
> What kind of amp will I be looking for when I go the passive route?
This depends on the requirements of the speakers but given you want a desk setup and to buy new, an amplifier plus passive speakers does not look the right way to go unless there are other factors that push you in this direction.
Do you know that you can connect the output of your laptop to your current hifi equipment, and that requires just a 3 to 5$ cable?
I say so, since you may have asked the wrong question.
Next: It is not the same to talk about active speakers than to talk about Monitors. Monitors tend to be active speakers, but any 10$ PC speaker is *also* an active speaker. Putting both on the same bag is clearly a stupid thing to do.
Now on the special bits:
What makes an active speaker "active", is that it is driven by itself. Driven means powered, and powered means amplified.Active speakers have an integrated amplifier built in, so the input is AC power + line-level signal input.
On the other side, passive speakers need to be driven by an external amplifier. passive speakers are the the ones you connect to an integrated amp, boombox or whatever that outputs enough power to drive them. (Clearly a 50W amplifier cannot drive a 1200W sub)
In your case, active speakers make sense. Studio Monitors do not.
As you said, you plan to listen to music, not to "work the sound".
I would take a look at the higher end of PC speakers, not to the lower end of hifi speakers. Anything above the 50 or 60$ could be good. Also, be sure there are cheaper studio monitors than those shown ( http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=produc...=studiomonitors )
I say so, since you may have asked the wrong question.
Next: It is not the same to talk about active speakers than to talk about Monitors. Monitors tend to be active speakers, but any 10$ PC speaker is *also* an active speaker. Putting both on the same bag is clearly a stupid thing to do.
Now on the special bits:
What makes an active speaker "active", is that it is driven by itself. Driven means powered, and powered means amplified.Active speakers have an integrated amplifier built in, so the input is AC power + line-level signal input.
On the other side, passive speakers need to be driven by an external amplifier. passive speakers are the the ones you connect to an integrated amp, boombox or whatever that outputs enough power to drive them. (Clearly a 50W amplifier cannot drive a 1200W sub)
In your case, active speakers make sense. Studio Monitors do not.
As you said, you plan to listen to music, not to "work the sound".
I would take a look at the higher end of PC speakers, not to the lower end of hifi speakers. Anything above the 50 or 60$ could be good. Also, be sure there are cheaper studio monitors than those shown ( http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=produc...=studiomonitors )
If I understand correctly, OP's puter is an iMac--that is, a desktop, though I don't know what generation. I would be surprised if an external sound interface would make an audible difference. Mine is a couple of years old, and I'm not conscious of any difference between the regular audio out and the optical into a receiver.
The internal speakers on my 5th generation iMac are not too appalling, so I think OP would be best off spending up near the top end of his budget. I'd agree a trip to the local music shop should be the first thing to do.
The internal speakers on my 5th generation iMac are not too appalling, so I think OP would be best off spending up near the top end of his budget. I'd agree a trip to the local music shop should be the first thing to do.
The sound interface I have is an "Intel High Definition Audio (0x106B00A0)". My iMac is the latest version I think (iMac7,1).
How do I distinguish the active speakers that I'm looking for from the monitors that I do not need? Is there a website with only this kind of speakers?
Concerning the number of sources: I will only have one, the iMac.
If I go for the active speakers I will invest all my money on the speakers since these are the most important elemants. An external soundcard can be bought later.
Why is this not the right way?
How do I distinguish the active speakers that I'm looking for from the monitors that I do not need? Is there a website with only this kind of speakers?
Concerning the number of sources: I will only have one, the iMac.
If I go for the active speakers I will invest all my money on the speakers since these are the most important elemants. An external soundcard can be bought later.
QUOTE
This depends on the requirements of the speakers but given you want a desk setup and to buy new, an amplifier plus passive speakers does not look the right way to go unless there are other factors that push you in this direction.
Why is this not the right way?
QUOTE (Tomovich @ Nov 17 2008, 21:58)
Why is this not the right way?
Passive speakers are likely to be an inappropriate choice for a new desktop system for a number of reasons:
- you have only one source and would be spending perhaps a third to a half your budget on something that you only use part of.
- you would have to put an amplifier on your desk.
- the sound quality of a new amplifier + passive speakers compared to active speakers at your price point is likely to be noticeably in favour of active speakers unless you prefer a soft/warm sound and do not want to signal process to get it.
- these days, bookshelf passive speakers tend to be too big/deep to put on bookshelves never mind desks. They are designed to go on stands and radiate into free space and usually have no means to correct the response for other locations unlike active monitors. But you could signal process to address it.
Thanks for the clear and thorough explanation. One thing that is still not clear is what the difference is between active and powered speakers. And then you have also monitors (which are for music production, not?).
And is there some sort of "active speaker brand database"? These are the brands that I've found make active speakers:
And is there some sort of "active speaker brand database"? These are the brands that I've found make active speakers:
- Dynaudio
- Monitor Audio (I'm not really sure about this one, probably confusing this one with M-Audio.)
- M-Audio
- Audio Engine
- Mackie (I do not know if these are consumer oriented - for listening-, they are certainly used for music production.)
- Yamaha
- Wharfedale
- Adam Audio
- Alesis
> One thing that is still not clear is what the difference is between active and
> powered speakers.
Strictly nothing, they both mean speakers with amplifiers, but they do have slightly different associations when used in marketing.
> And then you have also monitors (which are for music production, not?).
Monitor is a term associated with music production which can be a good association or a bad one depending on the marketing. I would suggest ignoring the word.
Active/powered speakers/monitors come in essentially two flavours: those with an active crossover and one amplifier per drive unit (i.e. 2 amplifiers per speaker) and those with a passive crossover and only one amplifier per speaker. The former is the more accurate but more expensive way (usually) to do things and is another factor making active speakers preferable to a separate amplifier plus passive speakers.
> When a speaker is an active one, how will this be described in the
> specifications? How can I recognize an active speaker from a passive?
An active speaker will usually have a specification for the amplifiers whereas a passive one will not. You are looking for 2 amplifiers per speaker. The power does not mean much for small speakers and the distortion will also not mean much if it is just a number rather than a graph.
A complete specification including measurements for a good small active monitor of the type you are probably looking for can be found here:
http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hummel/i...d-monitors_O110
These cost $2000 per pair and so are not being recommended but the full specification of a good example should help with interpreting what is provided by the ones you are looking at. They also lack a volume control which you will probably need if you do not use an external sound card.
> powered speakers.
Strictly nothing, they both mean speakers with amplifiers, but they do have slightly different associations when used in marketing.
> And then you have also monitors (which are for music production, not?).
Monitor is a term associated with music production which can be a good association or a bad one depending on the marketing. I would suggest ignoring the word.
Active/powered speakers/monitors come in essentially two flavours: those with an active crossover and one amplifier per drive unit (i.e. 2 amplifiers per speaker) and those with a passive crossover and only one amplifier per speaker. The former is the more accurate but more expensive way (usually) to do things and is another factor making active speakers preferable to a separate amplifier plus passive speakers.
> When a speaker is an active one, how will this be described in the
> specifications? How can I recognize an active speaker from a passive?
An active speaker will usually have a specification for the amplifiers whereas a passive one will not. You are looking for 2 amplifiers per speaker. The power does not mean much for small speakers and the distortion will also not mean much if it is just a number rather than a graph.
A complete specification including measurements for a good small active monitor of the type you are probably looking for can be found here:
http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hummel/i...d-monitors_O110
These cost $2000 per pair and so are not being recommended but the full specification of a good example should help with interpreting what is provided by the ones you are looking at. They also lack a volume control which you will probably need if you do not use an external sound card.
QUOTE
If I go for the active speakers I will invest all my money on the speakers since these are the most important elements. An external soundcard can be bought later.
There are a lot of soundcards out there that are very good and have excellent MIDI I/O, but the first one that comes to mind is M-Audio Audiophile 24/96. It's a solid card that has been around for quite a few years and is a trusted name in the industry. Once again you are going to need a card like that only if you are into music production especially if you have a MIDI controller. If you are just looking for a hi-end soundcard to listen to music on then that's a different story.
QUOTE
M-Audio
You don't need monitors unless you are doing music production. M-Audio makes tremendous monitors though. They are unfortunatly the only brand that I am familiar with. I knew somebody who was using them for music production along with Propellerheads Reason with a MIDI Controller/Interface. They are a little on the pricier side, but from what I have read they are also the cheapest. They are designed for mastering and playback correctly on different a number of different setup's and systems (i.e to differentiate mastering on a normal stereo or a hi-end one vs. a radio for instance). That is one of the reason why when you are doing music production you buy monitors. In terms of an active speaker vs. passive speaker I have no idea how to differentiate between the two. I have never heard of that before and never thought about that as a contributing factor when buying speakers (again I guess it's an engineering thing)
Active speakers have amplifiers in the speaker cabinet: passive speakers need a separate amplifier. Active speakers therefore are advertised with their amplifier specifications.
To add to your list of brands: Behringer, Edirol and the Rokit brand mentioned in the blog referenced in your OP all operate in your price range.
A regular participant here speaks well of the Behringer 2030, though that is a passive speaker. There is an active equivalent, which he hasn't examined. But the VFM is good, and you might give it a listen. Use the Search to find the threads and see if it seems interesting.
I bought M-Audio BX-5a monitors, and I'd be happy with them, but I marginly prefer a pair of passive bookshelf speakers I also have. When I was buying them, I also listened to 5 inch Rokits. I somewhat preferred the Rokits, on a first hearing, but 1. they were a little above my budget 2. the speaker cones are bright yellow, and I was initially intending to use them in a setting where Spouse Approval Factor was a consideration.
Do not take my responses as meaning anything for you, for a variety of reasons, except as suggestions for what you might listen to. As to the choice between something marketed as a monitor, and sold through a music shop, and something marketed as an active speaker and sold through a computer or hi-fi shop, I think it would largely depend on your taste and your music. Listen to both.
Have fun.
To add to your list of brands: Behringer, Edirol and the Rokit brand mentioned in the blog referenced in your OP all operate in your price range.
A regular participant here speaks well of the Behringer 2030, though that is a passive speaker. There is an active equivalent, which he hasn't examined. But the VFM is good, and you might give it a listen. Use the Search to find the threads and see if it seems interesting.
I bought M-Audio BX-5a monitors, and I'd be happy with them, but I marginly prefer a pair of passive bookshelf speakers I also have. When I was buying them, I also listened to 5 inch Rokits. I somewhat preferred the Rokits, on a first hearing, but 1. they were a little above my budget 2. the speaker cones are bright yellow, and I was initially intending to use them in a setting where Spouse Approval Factor was a consideration.
Do not take my responses as meaning anything for you, for a variety of reasons, except as suggestions for what you might listen to. As to the choice between something marketed as a monitor, and sold through a music shop, and something marketed as an active speaker and sold through a computer or hi-fi shop, I think it would largely depend on your taste and your music. Listen to both.
Have fun.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 17 2008, 13:11)
This will limit the sound quality because size is a requirement for deep bass and low distortion at high volumes, reflections off the desk and monitor will confuse the sound sources and sitting close to the speakers will skew the direct/indirect sound ratio.
If you are going to place the speakers on the desk then a realistic upper limit is probably defined by something like a pair of Adam A5s:
If you are going to place the speakers on the desk then a realistic upper limit is probably defined by something like a pair of Adam A5s:
I have Adam A7s on my desk I don't think they are much too big. As of direct/indirect ratio, monitors of this kind are so called nearfield monitors - which means that they are designed for a huge (ideally infinite) direct/indirect ratio. So this is not a problem, really. But if you sit really close, images produced by high and low frequency drivers might dissociate from each other. Nevertheless, nearfiled monitors are tuned to minimize this problem with nearfield listening.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 17 2008, 13:11)
Because of the dominance of audiophile nonsense there is almost no reliable source a consumer can turn to for this sort of information. If you have access to a good external sound card then you can check yourself if you can hear a difference or if the difference you can hear is worth $100 to you.
I just switched today from an onboard to an external card. I think that I hear a bit of improvement in sound quality, but it might be my bias, I did not do formal testing. But with the onboard I could sometimes clearly hear noise due to some computer components or processes. Quick and massive display updates were pretty well audible. With my decent card these are gone. And I chose external to have volume control - A7s have separate volume controls for each channel, which is not very convenient. In general, most studio monitors will have no volume control, separate volume controls on the front (like A7s), or separate volume controls on the back of the enclosure.
QUOTE
' date='Nov 17 2008, 14:00' post='599715']
Do you know that you can connect the output of your laptop to your current hifi equipment, and that requires just a 3 to 5$ cable?
Do you know that you can connect the output of your laptop to your current hifi equipment, and that requires just a 3 to 5$ cable?
Laptop onboard soundcards often offer terrible sound quality, with a lot of noise coming from computer components.
QUOTE
' date='Nov 17 2008, 14:00' post='599715']
What makes an active speaker "active", is that it is driven by itself. Driven means powered, and powered means amplified.Active speakers have an integrated amplifier built in, so the input is AC power + line-level signal input.
What makes an active speaker "active", is that it is driven by itself. Driven means powered, and powered means amplified.Active speakers have an integrated amplifier built in, so the input is AC power + line-level signal input.
Actually, strictly speaking this is a "powered speaker". An active speaker is not only powered, but uses an active crossover and each driver is driven by a different amplifier.
QUOTE
' date='Nov 17 2008, 14:00' post='599715']
In your case, active speakers make sense. Studio Monitors do not.
As you said, you plan to listen to music, not to "work the sound".
In your case, active speakers make sense. Studio Monitors do not.
As you said, you plan to listen to music, not to "work the sound".
I listen to music on studio monitors. I am doing it right now. I don't see a problem with it, on the contrary, I am extremely happy. I actually recommed everyone to give it a try. With good studio monitors you typically get very clear and transparent presentation, with timbres rendered very accurately, and with instruments perceptually separable. The sound is open, does not feel strained or compressed, and is not fatiguing. Not fatiguing for me: those who prefer plushy audiophile sound dsay the opposite.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 18 2008, 08:09)
> One thing that is still not clear is what the difference is between active and
> powered speakers.
Strictly nothing, they both mean speakers with amplifiers, but they do have slightly different associations when used in marketing.
[...]Active/powered speakers/monitors come in essentially two flavours: those with an active crossover and one amplifier per drive unit (i.e. 2 amplifiers per speaker) and those with a passive crossover and only one amplifier per speaker. The former is the more accurate but more expensive way (usually) to do things and is another factor making active speakers preferable to a separate amplifier plus passive speakers.
> powered speakers.
Strictly nothing, they both mean speakers with amplifiers, but they do have slightly different associations when used in marketing.
[...]Active/powered speakers/monitors come in essentially two flavours: those with an active crossover and one amplifier per drive unit (i.e. 2 amplifiers per speaker) and those with a passive crossover and only one amplifier per speaker. The former is the more accurate but more expensive way (usually) to do things and is another factor making active speakers preferable to a separate amplifier plus passive speakers.
I don't agree with it (see above), but as you correctly explained the difference between the two flavors (which I call powered and active), it's only about labels.
> I have Adam A7s on my desk I don't think they are much too big.
Do you think most people would be prepared to have speakers that size on their desk? Speaking for myself, I do not want any monitors on my desk and so usually do without or put them on a shelf above the desk where they sound better and their size is less of a problem.
> which means that they are designed for a huge (ideally infinite) direct/
> indirect ratio. [...] Nevertheless, nearfiled monitors are tuned to minimize this
> problem with nearfield listening.
What is done to achieve this?
Indirect sound plays an important role in how we hear and enjoy music and, because of this, concert halls will be designed to have higher levels of indirect sound than, say, lecture theatres. The role of indirect sound when listening to a stereo signal which usually contains a degree of indirect sound cues and where the listening room is different to the performance room is somewhat different but hearing indirect sound is still necessary if music is to sound normal/natural.
Sitting close to speakers produces an unnaturally clear sound with unnaturally precise source images and the high/low balance will usually be different because most rooms have different amounts of indirect sound at high and low frequencies. The enhanced clarity is generally helpful for a recording engineer monitoring what is being recorded and having the experience to map to what would be heard under more usual listening conditions. Some may prefer listening in this way as some prefer the even more unnatural sound of listening on headphones but it may be wise not to lose sight of what is normal/natural and why.
> A7s have separate volume controls for each channel, which is not very convenient.
The A5s have a wire that goes from one speaker to the other in order to link the volume controls. It is not something a speaker designed to be used as a studio monitor would want but it is something speakers designed to be used on a desktop might want.
Do you think most people would be prepared to have speakers that size on their desk? Speaking for myself, I do not want any monitors on my desk and so usually do without or put them on a shelf above the desk where they sound better and their size is less of a problem.
> which means that they are designed for a huge (ideally infinite) direct/
> indirect ratio. [...] Nevertheless, nearfiled monitors are tuned to minimize this
> problem with nearfield listening.
What is done to achieve this?
Indirect sound plays an important role in how we hear and enjoy music and, because of this, concert halls will be designed to have higher levels of indirect sound than, say, lecture theatres. The role of indirect sound when listening to a stereo signal which usually contains a degree of indirect sound cues and where the listening room is different to the performance room is somewhat different but hearing indirect sound is still necessary if music is to sound normal/natural.
Sitting close to speakers produces an unnaturally clear sound with unnaturally precise source images and the high/low balance will usually be different because most rooms have different amounts of indirect sound at high and low frequencies. The enhanced clarity is generally helpful for a recording engineer monitoring what is being recorded and having the experience to map to what would be heard under more usual listening conditions. Some may prefer listening in this way as some prefer the even more unnatural sound of listening on headphones but it may be wise not to lose sight of what is normal/natural and why.
> A7s have separate volume controls for each channel, which is not very convenient.
The A5s have a wire that goes from one speaker to the other in order to link the volume controls. It is not something a speaker designed to be used as a studio monitor would want but it is something speakers designed to be used on a desktop might want.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 20 2008, 03:56)
Do you think most people would be prepared to have speakers that size on their desk? Speaking for myself, I do not want any monitors on my desk and so usually do without or put them on a shelf above the desk where they sound better and their size is less of a problem.
I cannot speak for "most people". There are desks and desks, mine are relatively big, I think. I have A7s on one desk and Tannoy Reveals on another desk, and I am fine with this. Decoupling monitors from the desk, pointing tweeters towards the ears and reducing reflections off the desk surface are all desirable, and properly designed shelves are a good solution. Though if you really want space on your desk, then the shelves should be located pretty high, and you may need to angle your monitors down a bit to have tweeters pointed towards your ears. I have my monitors raised and angled up with decoupling pads, which does the job pretty well. By the way, bigger monitors should be probably a bit better when it comes to avoiding reflections off the desk surface, because there is less surface available for reflections left ;-).
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 20 2008, 03:56)
> indirect ratio. [...] Nevertheless, nearfiled monitors are tuned to minimize this
> problem with nearfield listening.
What is done to achieve this?
> problem with nearfield listening.
What is done to achieve this?
No idea. I heard/read the statement independently from 2 people which use monitors professionally on a daily basis. Possibly, it could be an urban myth of the recording industry, but this industry seems to be pretty resistant to urban myths.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 20 2008, 03:56)
Indirect sound plays an important role in how we hear and enjoy music and, because of this, concert halls will be designed to have higher levels of indirect sound than, say, lecture theatres. The role of indirect sound when listening to a stereo signal which usually contains a degree of indirect sound cues and where the listening room is different to the performance room is somewhat different but hearing indirect sound is still necessary if music is to sound normal/natural.
It is important to hear indirect sound embedded in the signal, and coming from the recording location (or plugins/processors used in processing and editing). This sound conveys properties of the recording location or an artificial creation thereof. If you do not control, and possibly reduce the influence of your listening room's reflected sound, you are actually messing up the original information. The whole idea of nearfield monitoring is to help reduce the influence of listening room to properly reveal the recorded signal iself.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 20 2008, 03:56)
Some may prefer listening in this way as some prefer the even more unnatural sound of listening on headphones but it may be wise not to lose sight of what is normal/natural and why.
Headphones are a completely different story: in general music is mixed using loudspeakers, that is, with a significant amount of acoustic interchannel bleed. Using loudspeakers for listening, whether studio monitors or another kind, also causes such bleed more or less replicating conditons available for the engineer who set the stereo pan. Headphones remove the bleed.
I find it quite bold that you dare to decide what is natural and what is normal for other people. Especially if you claim that the nearfield monitoring steup, that is, the very setup that is used to make many artistic decisions about the recording, is not normal.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 20 2008, 03:56)
> A7s have separate volume controls for each channel, which is not very convenient.
The A5s have a wire that goes from one speaker to the other in order to link the volume controls. It is not something a speaker designed to be used as a studio monitor would want but it is something speakers designed to be used on a desktop might want.
The A5s have a wire that goes from one speaker to the other in order to link the volume controls. It is not something a speaker designed to be used as a studio monitor would want but it is something speakers designed to be used on a desktop might want.
Yes, and it's a big advantage for "normal" (as opposed to in-studio) listening. On the other hand, A5s are smaller than A7s, and possibly even more bass-shy, which might be disliked by many. I solved it by using an external sound card with volume knob in combination with A7s. Still, some kinds of music may benefit from a subwoofer.
> I find it quite bold that you dare to decide what is natural and what is
> normal for other people.
I am afraid that you or I do not get to decide what is normal/natural. It is decided by how sound propagates in rooms and how the human brain interprets the direct and indirect sound in rooms.
> Especially if you claim that the nearfield monitoring steup, that is, the very
> setup that is used to make many artistic decisions about the recording, is not
> normal.
You would seem to be assuming that an engineer sitting close to a small monitor expects this to be the "normal" sound heard by the customer. This is not the case. Engineers are well aware that their music is going to be heard on earbuds, in the car, on audiophile speakers or whatever and will map/translate what they hear onto what they want to be heard in the target environment.
> normal for other people.
I am afraid that you or I do not get to decide what is normal/natural. It is decided by how sound propagates in rooms and how the human brain interprets the direct and indirect sound in rooms.
> Especially if you claim that the nearfield monitoring steup, that is, the very
> setup that is used to make many artistic decisions about the recording, is not
> normal.
You would seem to be assuming that an engineer sitting close to a small monitor expects this to be the "normal" sound heard by the customer. This is not the case. Engineers are well aware that their music is going to be heard on earbuds, in the car, on audiophile speakers or whatever and will map/translate what they hear onto what they want to be heard in the target environment.
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 20 2008, 12:39)
I am afraid that you or I do not get to decide what is normal/natural. It is decided by how sound propagates in rooms and how the human brain interprets the direct and indirect sound in rooms.
It is my understanding, that to properly perceive a recording one should hear the direct and indirect sound which are in the recording, with as little influence of one's listening room as possible. Each room's influence would be different, and, in my opinion, likely detrimental. You seem to say that listening room's influence is desirable. Would you explain why do you think so?
> It is my understanding, that to properly perceive a recording one should hear
> the direct and indirect sound which are in the recording, with as little
> influence of one's listening room as possible.
The target environment for most recordings has been a home stereo hi-fi system. This environment contains a significant degree of indirect sound which an engineer has had little option but to work with. Usually, the introduction of a real diffuse indirect sound field is beneficial in helping the illusion of real instruments but the illusion is far from complete. A stereo still sounds like a stereo because insufficient information on the indirect sound of real instruments can be included in stereo signal (but a lot more can in a binaural signal).
Multi-channel audio is a way to include more of the indirect sound field into the signal and, in this case, a room with less indirect sound of its own is going to be preferable (assuming the engineer/producer uses the extra channels for this purpose).
Of course, in recent years for a significant amount of pop music, the stereo hi-fi system would seem to have been abandoned as a target environment.
> Each room's influence would be different, and, in my opinion, likely
> detrimental.
Rooms are different but the indirect sound field is usually beneficial for increasing the "reality" of musical instruments unless the room has serious problems with modes. Many of the audible problems with small rooms are related to confusing the direct sound field with early reflections. Sitting closer to the speakers can help with this but at the expense of the indirect sound field.
> You seem to say that listening room's influence is desirable.
Yes for stereo but less so for multichannel audio. To hear the truth of this one only has to listen in a (competently) acoustically treated room for stereo or even a music room but a home theatre is likely to be a bit too dead.
Again, preference and reality are not the same thing. Reproduced music is illusion anyway and so why not make it better? Some people like pinpoint images or even sounds in the head.
> the direct and indirect sound which are in the recording, with as little
> influence of one's listening room as possible.
The target environment for most recordings has been a home stereo hi-fi system. This environment contains a significant degree of indirect sound which an engineer has had little option but to work with. Usually, the introduction of a real diffuse indirect sound field is beneficial in helping the illusion of real instruments but the illusion is far from complete. A stereo still sounds like a stereo because insufficient information on the indirect sound of real instruments can be included in stereo signal (but a lot more can in a binaural signal).
Multi-channel audio is a way to include more of the indirect sound field into the signal and, in this case, a room with less indirect sound of its own is going to be preferable (assuming the engineer/producer uses the extra channels for this purpose).
Of course, in recent years for a significant amount of pop music, the stereo hi-fi system would seem to have been abandoned as a target environment.
> Each room's influence would be different, and, in my opinion, likely
> detrimental.
Rooms are different but the indirect sound field is usually beneficial for increasing the "reality" of musical instruments unless the room has serious problems with modes. Many of the audible problems with small rooms are related to confusing the direct sound field with early reflections. Sitting closer to the speakers can help with this but at the expense of the indirect sound field.
> You seem to say that listening room's influence is desirable.
Yes for stereo but less so for multichannel audio. To hear the truth of this one only has to listen in a (competently) acoustically treated room for stereo or even a music room but a home theatre is likely to be a bit too dead.
Again, preference and reality are not the same thing. Reproduced music is illusion anyway and so why not make it better? Some people like pinpoint images or even sounds in the head.
I see your point. Nevertheless, I prefer the spatially well defined, transparent, and timbrally very accurate reproduction offered by nearfield monitors, with emphasis on the indirect sound recorded in the recording location (or added in the processing in a controlled fashion) . And I myself perceive it as more natural than sound blown up with poorly controlled reflections of the listening room whose acoustic parameters have nothing to do with those of the recording location, with inevitable coloration from these reflections and possibly with additional coloration due to the design of hi-fi loudpseakers. I probably do prefer pinpoint sources over those artificially smeared to add "space". Some may have other preferences, up to the point of Bose.
In other words, I agree that we are talking about illusion here. I would probably say that there is a trade-off between various components of this illusion, and decision should be made based on personal preference, preferably without using the word "natural".
In other words, I agree that we are talking about illusion here. I would probably say that there is a trade-off between various components of this illusion, and decision should be made based on personal preference, preferably without using the word "natural".
QUOTE (honestguv @ Nov 21 2008, 05:19)
A stereo still sounds like a stereo because insufficient information on the indirect sound of real instruments can be included in stereo signal (but a lot more can in a binaural signal).
I have to interject. A stereo, under the right circumstances, can sound incredibly real as compared to say, a live classical concert in a real hall. Now, the circumstances that make this possible are very rare to come across even in so-called high end stereo systems, but none the less, it can be accomplished. But the polar response characteristics of speakers required to do this, along with resonance behaviors, room placement and room acoustics to facilitate the illusion are rarely encountered.
QUOTE
Multi-channel audio is a way to include more of the indirect sound field into the signal and, in this case, a room with less indirect sound of its own is going to be preferable (assuming the engineer/producer uses the extra channels for this purpose).
Unfortunately, multi-channel has no standards to accurately reproduce anything, and the current speaker layout format is not optimal. However, multi channel does have the potential to reproduce real acoustic spaces under the right conditions and standards. Refer to Tom Hollman's 10.1 channel experimental system. Google it.
-Chris
QUOTE (pawelq @ Nov 22 2008, 09:38)
I see your point. Nevertheless, I prefer the spatially well defined, transparent, and timbrally very accurate reproduction offered by nearfield monitors, with emphasis on the indirect sound recorded in the recording location (or added in the processing in a controlled fashion) . And I myself perceive it as more natural than sound blown up with poorly controlled reflections of the listening room whose acoustic parameters have nothing to do with those of the recording location, with inevitable coloration from these reflections and possibly with additional coloration due to the design of hi-fi loudpseakers. I probably do prefer pinpoint sources over those artificially smeared to add "space". Some may have other preferences, up to the point of Bose.
There are some contradictions here, that are easily missed, because of real world vs. ideal circumstances.
Timbre resolution is actually increased, with the aid of reflections, under the right circumstances. Now, the circumstances to make this occur are for the speaker to have very low resonances itself(very rare) and for the off axis response that is reflected to be very close to the on axis/direct sound(also rare). If these two conditions are met, and the direct to reflected path is between 4-10 msec difference, then the effect will be enhanced timbre accuracy and realism, as a result of the enhanced timbre perception. Also, the spatial field would be widened. These are conclusions made from the most reputable scientists in the field such as Dr. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, just so you know.
I do a lot of audio research/experimentation; and not the typical type that a speaker DIYer normally does. I rely heavily on the scientific texts, and my own experiments are controlled as much as possible. Also, I do design/build speakers. I have available, personally, a near field monitor system substantially superior to most used in high end production studios, and in a fully treated acoustic environment, of course. This system has specially built cabinets with 2" thick multi constrain layer construction with 1/2" visco-elastic dampening channels and matrix bracing in them that spans every axis internally, every 3" of distance one every wall. The system uses ceramic / alloy sandwhich drivers; resonance of both the drivers and cabinet system is minuscule; vastly superior to most systems. The system uses a DSP active crossover, and has +/- 0.7dB accuracy up to 15kHz. It is the epitome of accurate near field monitoring. I also have available, a dedicated 2 channel stereo listening room with a low resonance omni polar type speaker system, with virtually unlimited acoustical treatment/controls available to me. I want you to know what I have to compare. To make it clear, the 2 channel omni polar system sounds vastly superior in terms of natural/realistic sound reproduction. But of course, this is not by any means a common system/set up. I actually am not disagreeing with you though. My personal view is that most speakers can make good use of very heavy/extensive absorption of all reflections and near-filed use is beneficial, because these things help to cover up/hide speaker resonance and poor off axis response characteristics that are common with the overwhelming majority of speakers. If speakers had substantially better performance in those two key areas, however, then different situations/set ups would be conducive to superior sound quality.
-Chris
QUOTE (WmAx @ Nov 24 2008, 20:56)
These are conclusions made from the most reputable scientists in the field such as Dr. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, just so you know.
This is interesting. Did they publish in JASA or another journal of similar reputation? Do you have references?
QUOTE (pawelq @ Nov 24 2008, 22:44)
QUOTE (WmAx @ Nov 24 2008, 20:56)
These are conclusions made from the most reputable scientists in the field such as Dr. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, just so you know.
This is interesting. Did they publish in JASA or another journal of similar reputation? Do you have references?
The publication for loudspeaker research is generally JAES.
The original project, where it was found that timbre resolution was increased to subjects with proper delayed reflections under specific circumstances was: "The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement", Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, JAES, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1988, March, pages 122-141
A recent article where Toole discusses/overviews many relevant perceptual works, including the timbre issue:
Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction—A Scientific Review
Floyd E. Toole
JAES, June, 2006, Vol. 54, No. 6, pages 451-476
-Chris
There seems to be a lot of confusion over the term 'active loudspeaker'.
An active loudspeaker is a loudspeaker that uses an active (as opposed to passive) crossover. It is the crossover that is either active or passive, and hence the speaker is so called. A crossover is an active crossover when it uses electronics like transistors that must be powered for the crossover to operate. Passive crossovers do not require electricity to operate.
The amplifiers and crossover of an active loudspeaker need not all be in the same speaker box. The distinction between an active and a passive loudspeaker is simple.
In an active loudspeaker the order is:
Source ----- Powered Crossover ----- 2 or more amplifiers ----- Loudspeaker with 2 or more drivers
In a passive loudspeaker the order is:
Source ----- Single Amplifier ----- Passive Crossover ----- Loudspeaker with 2 or more drivers
An active loudspeaker is a loudspeaker that uses an active (as opposed to passive) crossover. It is the crossover that is either active or passive, and hence the speaker is so called. A crossover is an active crossover when it uses electronics like transistors that must be powered for the crossover to operate. Passive crossovers do not require electricity to operate.
The amplifiers and crossover of an active loudspeaker need not all be in the same speaker box. The distinction between an active and a passive loudspeaker is simple.
In an active loudspeaker the order is:
Source ----- Powered Crossover ----- 2 or more amplifiers ----- Loudspeaker with 2 or more drivers
In a passive loudspeaker the order is:
Source ----- Single Amplifier ----- Passive Crossover ----- Loudspeaker with 2 or more drivers
QUOTE (pawelq @ Nov 24 2008, 21:44)
QUOTE (WmAx @ Nov 24 2008, 20:56)
These are conclusions made from the most reputable scientists in the field such as Dr. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, just so you know.
This is interesting. Did they publish in JASA or another journal of similar reputation? Do you have references?
Freebies at their employer's web site:
http://www.harman.com/about_harman/technol...leadership.aspx
Search on Toole
Freebies from Olive
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
QUOTE (WmAx @ Nov 24 2008, 20:56)
QUOTE (pawelq @ Nov 22 2008, 09:38)
I see your point. Nevertheless, I prefer the spatially well defined, transparent, and timbrally very accurate reproduction offered by nearfield monitors, with emphasis on the indirect sound recorded in the recording location (or added in the processing in a controlled fashion) . And I myself perceive it as more natural than sound blown up with poorly controlled reflections of the listening room whose acoustic parameters have nothing to do with those of the recording location, with inevitable coloration from these reflections and possibly with additional coloration due to the design of hi-fi loudpseakers. I probably do prefer pinpoint sources over those artificially smeared to add "space". Some may have other preferences, up to the point of Bose.
There are some contradictions here, that are easily missed, because of real world vs. ideal circumstances.
Timbre resolution is actually increased, with the aid of reflections, under the right circumstances. Now, the circumstances to make this occur are for the speaker to have very low resonances itself(very rare) and for the off axis response that is reflected to be very close to the on axis/direct sound(also rare). If these two conditions are met, and the direct to reflected path is between 4-10 msec difference, then the effect will be enhanced timbre accuracy and realism, as a result of the enhanced timbre perception. Also, the spatial field would be widened. These are conclusions made from the most reputable scientists in the field such as Dr. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, just so you know.
Chris,
Always a pleasure to read your posts.
If I read Toole right in his new textbook, your 2-channel conditions get you part of the pie (timbral accuracy and 'apparent source width') ; the other part is 'listener envelopment', and absent a truly concerthall-sized space, this can only come from properly employed surround channels. I'm guessing you were referring to this in your post mentioning Holman?
Anyway, pawelq and others could do well to pick up Toole's book, there's a wealth of information in there.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.