Audiophile quality speakers for computer use - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 57 Old 12-30-2012, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drewTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 92
For around $1,000 you can get used Paradigm S1s. In my opinion they are one of the best nearfield monitors. The Beryllium tweeter on them is just outstanding. Perfect size for a desk. Also they are completely sealed and have excellent frequency response.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/paradigm_signature_s1_v2/

For an amp, I am very happy with the Parasound A23. It is right in your budget of $1,000. Very, very good amp...

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAHA23
drewTT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 57 Old 12-30-2012, 04:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
I never tried the S1, but I didn't like the S2 as a computer speaker.
JerryLove is offline  
post #33 of 57 Old 12-30-2012, 05:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drewTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

I never tried the S1, but I didn't like the S2 as a computer speaker.

S1 makes a much better near field monitor.

I also like the KEF LS50.
drewTT is offline  
post #34 of 57 Old 12-30-2012, 09:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mudslide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 46
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM1/srm1.html

Hard to beat for a small, desktop, high quality monitor. The gloss black is on sale right now, too.

MARGARITAS,
they're not just for breakfast anymore.
Mudslide is online now  
post #35 of 57 Old 12-30-2012, 10:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sdg4vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 96
+1 re the KEF LS-50 - amazing sound. It's a bit above your stated budget, but it is specifically designed to be a near-field monitor.
sdg4vfx is online now  
post #36 of 57 Old 02-17-2013, 06:36 PM
Member
 
Masterjay88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Try Definitive Technology Studio monitor 350 or 450... I use the 350's as my PC speakers and they are excellent... Their newer studio monitor series is excellent as well, but a little too deep for the desk space I have

Masterjay88 is offline  
post #37 of 57 Old 02-17-2013, 09:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mudslide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Joms...have you made your selection yet? If not, here is a new kid on the block that you may want to research. It's designed by a fellow I consider THE premier crossover designer in the world, fwiw, Dennis Murphy. It's so new, you likely won't find many, if any reviews out there, yet. Nonetheless, Dennis will stand behind everything he sells. Here you go...the Philharmonitor, which looks like a wonderful performer:

http://philharmonicaudio.com/philharmonicaudio/philpages/monitors.html

MARGARITAS,
they're not just for breakfast anymore.
Mudslide is online now  
post #38 of 57 Old 02-18-2013, 07:04 AM
ap1
AVS Special Member
 
ap1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
For use with computer as a source I would choose active speakers. But you need go higher in quality than what you have now. Look at Adam Audio monitors. You should be able to get a pair for $1000. Then add subwoofer (another $500-600 or so). That will give you nice sounding system on par with $3-4000 Hi-Fi setup.
ap1 is online now  
post #39 of 57 Old 02-18-2013, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
PCMusicGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I saw a review on some new speakers this morning that looked interesting. They are called the Vanatoo Transparent One. They didn't have any measurements or detailed discussion so it is hard to know how they compare to others, but they may be worth a look.
PCMusicGuy is offline  
post #40 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 02:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Petden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Check out these. They are a mighty fine deal and leaves you with a lot of budget room for an amazing avr

Focal 814
http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/FOCAL814V/FOCAL-Chorus-814V-716v-Dual-6-Floorstanding-Speakers-Gloss-Black-Pair/1.html

Onkyo 818 avr with xt32 room correction
http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/ONKTXNR818/Onkyo-TX-NR818-7.2-Ch-THX-Certified-Network-A/V-Receiver/1.html

all of that is about $1500 which would give you a killer sound system capable of shaking the room with a great room correction. Assuming you can fit the towers
Petden is offline  
post #41 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 06:32 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petden View Post

Check out these. They are a mighty fine deal and leaves you with a lot of budget room for an amazing avr

Focal 814
http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/FOCAL814V/FOCAL-Chorus-814V-716v-Dual-6-Floorstanding-Speakers-Gloss-Black-Pair/1.html

Those Focals would be sweet, and appear to be an incredible deal. But they're not exactly ideal for a desktop ssystem. Yes, they could be implemented that way if one's desk/workspace was set-up accordingly.




A contributor suggested Adam, I'd agree. Adam, or any of the similar desk-top/near-field active monitors would be ideal. I often recommend this category because nowhere will you find better performance-to-cost ratio than this genre,.. the pro/prosumer near-field monitors. Dollar for dollar you can't do better than these. What's attainable for the money is truly extraordinary with these active/contoured time a freq corrected dsp designs. They're voiced ideally for nearfield/mid-field use, and are perfectly suited for this application.

From the inexpensive, yet incredible active Behringer ribbon-tweeter 3031, or the regular, version of the same speaker here. All the Behringer models are priced attractively.

Obviously those are the lowest end of the spectrum, but these are truly strong performers. The Behringers are well reviewed, and recommended, and highly regarded by some of the brightest in the industry. In the range the OP mentioned $1000 for speakers, $1000 for an amp ($2000 total?), there's some incredible offerings. I'd immediately recomend Mackie's HR824mk2, I've spent a lot of time with them and they are incredible. Their smaller sibling, the HR624mk2 is what Ethan Winer uses across the front of his room as LCRs.

Check this list of offerings. I'd pay close attention to the JBL actives, the Dynaudio actives, and the incredible line of Genelec two ways that are world renown.

I'm convinced these active monitors are the best value in loudspeakers today. DSP has revolutionized their capability, time aligning/EQ'ing drivers, close coupled amp sections perfectly suited for each section. The marketplace is so strong, and most importantly so competitive, that the consumer benefits with these products. Typical "Hi-Fi" loudspeakers, audiophile or otherwise, can't compete dollar for dollar. These are what the pros buy.

Audiophile loudspeakers can achieve fantastic and extraordinary reproduction. But they cannot compete in this price range.


Best of luck

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #42 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 07:02 AM
Newbie
 
Bdlitzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago (Naperville), IL
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Magnepan Minis
Bdlitzer is offline  
post #43 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 07:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

I'm convinced these active monitors are the best value in loudspeakers today. DSP has revolutionized their capability, time aligning/EQ'ing drivers, close coupled amp sections perfectly suited for each section. The marketplace is so strong, and most importantly so competitive, that the consumer benefits with these products. Typical "Hi-Fi" loudspeakers, audiophile or otherwise, can't compete dollar for dollar. These are what the pros buy.

Just curious. Have you actually tried comparable passive bookshelf speakers with amplification in the same budget range? This is a pretty broad, sweeping generalization to make without some experience or other evidence to back it up.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is offline  
post #44 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 09:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 1569
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Just curious. Have you actually tried comparable passive bookshelf speakers with amplification in the same budget range? This is a pretty broad, sweeping generalization to make without some experience or other evidence to back it up.
+1. FWIW, most powered speakers do not have DSP. Even those which do aren't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, as they don't allow for adjustment of the DSP to correct for room response. DSP is SOP in the pro-sound genre, but not necessarily on-board. And the beauty of DSP is that you can add it, inexpensively, to any system.

Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design

The Laws of Physics aren't swayed by opinion.
Bill Fitzmaurice is online now  
post #45 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 11:01 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
This much is true;
"I'm convinced these active monitors are the best value in loudspeakers today."
I'm convinced, that's me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Just curious. Have you actually tried comparable passive bookshelf speakers with amplification in the same budget range?

Yes, I've tried relatively comparable designs. I've performed extensive A/B demos here in my own room. Active possesses inherent advantages IMO. I experiment in my room all the time. Within the high value/yet high performance segment that I mentioned, ... active reigns supreme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

This is a pretty broad, sweeping generalization to make without some experience or other evidence to back it up.

Like many AVS'ers, I've got a pretty broad spectrum of experience.
Being an audio enthusiast for 35-40 years, with much of that interest focused upon loudspeakers, I've heard enough and learned enough to convince myself.

I've spent time in studios as a client, a great deal of time as a FOH engineer. I attend audio tradeshows and spend essentially all my time during those events listening,/auditioning speaker systems. As one could imagine, I've established many wonderful friendships, both professional and otherwise, and I've traveled across the country visiting these acquaintances and auditioning their systems with extensive sessions. Myself, I've owned (still own) Polk, JBL, Klipsch, Altec Lansing, QSC, Velodyne and there's more I'm sure (Cerwin-Vega etc). Also, a few of those mfrs. listed, I have multiple different products. I've performed DIY subs, sats, mains, etc. In addition to personally owned and DIY speakers, I've had a mix

My current, less than a year old, consists of an all active, 7.3 system, of Seaton Catalyst12C all across the front LCRs, surrounds/rears are (modded)QSC K-8s, with two Seaton SubMersive-HPs supplementing a custom, quad-18" IB sub. The system has 10kw across the seven main channels (2kw for each LCR, 1kw for each surround/rear), The IB sub system is powered by two EP4000s, and the SubMersives each have their own 2.4kw amp. The IB is re-configurable from 225w/driver, to 650w/driver. I'm currently in the latter config and that totals 2.6kw for the IB. This brings the total to 7.4kw for the subs.

17.4kw total, ... 10kw speaker system, 7.4kw sub system


I list my current system for context. I've gravitated away from passive approaches, toward all active approach. Contemporary DSP advances can be executed to be transparent. Upon considering that fact, and combining the clear theoretical/measurable benefits of active, it only seems a natural next step. Now granted, either approach, .. passive or active, can be executed poorly, or executed properly. The hardware is now available for any designer that wishes to exploit the advantages.

The additional tool set of variable slope type, steepness, time signal alignment and delay, level adjustment, eq, etc, is simply fantastic. There can be an advantage beginning with a local power supply, optimized for the amplifier sections, instead of the common PS/transformer that all speakers pull from. Long balanced interconnect runs are performed easily in both the studio and pro audio world every day,...in the home is no different. A distributed power supply approach, with the benefits of keeping individual current levels minimized, with the PS and amp stages right there ... close coupled to the driver, all has potential benefits.

Performing the all signal manipulation in regard to time, freq, and level, all without the insertion losses, the saturation, and the component tolerances that one encounters in the passive approach, has clear advantages. To achieve the ideal end result passively, would likely require the designer to alter each crossover specifically to match the driver's acoustically loaded impedance measurements. Even Earl Geddes, a staunch supporter of finely and individually tuned passive loudspeakers, has subsequently changed his position on his offerings and now offers his speakers in active form as well as passive.

The key is the designer's skill set in establishing the target response characteristcs, and how to achieve that in various environments, ... be it nearfield as in this case, or otherwise.

Poorly executed, inexpensive passive designs are everywhere. The designer optimizes the crossover in nice software, and all is nice and tidy. Until of course the inaccuracies of the crossover components throw things off. The driver's actual measured characteristics throw things off. Drivers easily encounter thermal compression, furthering the variance as crossover values change dynamically. Again, there are superbly executed passive networks, ... but these are the exception and aren't found in this affordable range.

What is found in this affordable range are ideally optimized active designs that have clearly changed the paradigm in my opinion.


It is a timely topic of interest though, ... good question for sure.

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #46 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 11:25 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

+1. FWIW, most powered speakers do not have DSP. Even those which do aren't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, as they don't allow for adjustment of the DSP to correct for room response. DSP is SOP in the pro-sound genre, but not necessarily on-board. And the beauty of DSP is that you can add it, inexpensively, to any system.

Good point. You may be right, I've no idea how many active designs have dsp or not and certainly don't intend to make any such claim.

I don't think one should alter the active on/board dsp, as it's a fully realized product .... not meant to be altered significantly. Besides, just as you stated, dsp can be added outboard easily and inexpensively for system integraton and addressing the influences of the room.


I'm convinced what's available to consumers today in the genre I mentioned (small to midsize active monitors, dsp or not) offer killer value. That's my opinion, my perspective. The competition in the pro audio segment is pretty tough.

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #47 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 11:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

This much is true;
"I'm convinced these active monitors are the best value in loudspeakers today."
I'm convinced, that's me.
Yes, I've tried relatively comparable designs. I've performed extensive A/B demos here in my own room. Active possesses inherent advantages IMO. I experiment in my room all the time. Within the high value/yet high performance segment that I mentioned, ... active reigns supreme.
Like many AVS'ers, I've got a pretty broad spectrum of experience.
Being an audio enthusiast for 35-40 years, with much of that interest focused upon loudspeakers, I've heard enough and learned enough to convince myself.

I've spent time in studios as a client, a great deal of time as a FOH engineer. I attend audio tradeshows and spend essentially all my time during those events listening,/auditioning speaker systems. As one could imagine, I've established many wonderful friendships, both professional and otherwise, and I've traveled across the country visiting these acquaintances and auditioning their systems with extensive sessions. Myself, I've owned (still own) Polk, JBL, Klipsch, Altec Lansing, QSC, Velodyne and there's more I'm sure (Cerwin-Vega etc). Also, a few of those mfrs. listed, I have multiple different products. I've performed DIY subs, sats, mains, etc. In addition to personally owned and DIY speakers, I've had a mix

My current, less than a year old, consists of an all active, 7.3 system, of Seaton Catalyst12C all across the front LCRs, surrounds/rears are (modded)QSC K-8s, with two Seaton SubMersive-HPs supplementing a custom, quad-18" IB sub. The system has 10kw across the seven main channels (2kw for each LCR, 1kw for each surround/rear), The IB sub system is powered by two EP4000s, and the SubMersives each have their own 2.4kw amp. The IB is re-configurable from 225w/driver, to 650w/driver. I'm currently in the latter config and that totals 2.6kw for the IB. This brings the total to 7.4kw for the subs.

17.4kw total, ... 10kw speaker system, 7.4kw sub system


I list my current system for context. I've gravitated away from passive approaches, toward all active approach. Contemporary DSP advances can be executed to be transparent. Upon considering that fact, and combining the clear theoretical/measurable benefits of active, it only seems a natural next step. Now granted, either approach, .. passive or active, can be executed poorly, or executed properly. The hardware is now available for any designer that wishes to exploit the advantages.

The additional tool set of variable slope type, steepness, time signal alignment and delay, level adjustment, eq, etc, is simply fantastic. There can be an advantage beginning with a local power supply, optimized for the amplifier sections, instead of the common PS/transformer that all speakers pull from. Long balanced interconnect runs are performed easily in both the studio and pro audio world every day,...in the home is no different. A distributed power supply approach, with the benefits of keeping individual current levels minimized, with the PS and amp stages right there ... close coupled to the driver, all has potential benefits.

Performing the all signal manipulation in regard to time, freq, and level, all without the insertion losses, the saturation, and the component tolerances that one encounters in the passive approach, has clear advantages. To achieve the ideal end result passively, would likely require the designer to alter each crossover specifically to match the driver's acoustically loaded impedance measurements. Even Earl Geddes, a staunch supporter of finely and individually tuned passive loudspeakers, has subsequently changed his position on his offerings and now offers his speakers in active form as well as passive.

The key is the designer's skill set in establishing the target response characteristcs, and how to achieve that in various environments, ... be it nearfield as in this case, or otherwise.

Poorly executed, inexpensive passive designs are everywhere. The designer optimizes the crossover in nice software, and all is nice and tidy. Until of course the inaccuracies of the crossover components throw things off. The driver's actual measured characteristics throw things off. Drivers easily encounter thermal compression, furthering the variance as crossover values change dynamically. Again, there are superbly executed passive networks, ... but these are the exception and aren't found in this affordable range.

What is found in this affordable range are ideally optimized active designs that have clearly changed the paradigm in my opinion.


It is a timely topic of interest though, ... good question for sure.

Thanks

Despite your experience, I think it would still be difficult to make this kind of claim across all price range configurations of active or passive. Your setup is a whole different league than what most people are willing/able to spend on active or passive. And at that price point, I'm not surprised that it's so well -engineered that it could be a better choice.

In other words, just because a particular technology or engineering strategy is available, it doesn't mean it is being implemented across all price points equally (seems unlikely it would be) and that alternatives do not offer equivalent, but different benefits.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is offline  
post #48 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 03:02 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

I think it would still be difficult to make this kind of claim across all price range configurations of active or passive.

I'm making no such claim.

I'm just convinced the area I referenced in the above desktop/nearfield examples (the OP's inquiry), as compared to high margin "audiophile" style offerings in the same price range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Your setup is a whole different league than what most people are willing/able to spend on active or passive. And at that price point, I'm not surprised that it's so well -engineered that it could be a better choice.

I merely included those details because you inquired regarding what I've tried. I don't brag about my system, I don't have a system thread, or HT thread, nor do I consider all such threads as bragging. I was attempting to convey that I have experienced an incredibly broad array of loudspeaker systems. With several such choices I still have for experimentation, which I perform to learn more about measurments, acoustics, etc.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

In other words, just because a particular technology or engineering strategy is available, it doesn't mean it is being implemented across all price points equally (seems unlikely it would be) and that alternatives do not offer equivalent, but different benefits.

I entirely agree, and I attempted to make that very point.

The active monitors in the example range the OP inquired about ($1000 desk-top speakers), to the examples I cited ($200-$250 Behringers, peaking at the mid-priced Mackies, and on up to the JBL, Genelec, and Dynaudio, simply outperform equitably priced HiFi, or audiophile offerings. I'm convinced of this.

Some HiFi low bang for the buck examples;
The 6.5" two way PSB bookshelf monitor for a whopping $2400 apiece!
A 5.25" two way PSB for $1100!
Remember, you still need to purchase amplification for both of these.


Here's a list of the desktop/bookshelfs from AudioAdvisor.

And here's the same from Crutchfield.

Sure, I'm guessing there's some adequate performers in there. Myself, I see a great deal more value in the active/pro genre .. especially targeted around the range the OP inquired about. Thus, I'm convinced these desktop type actives ... from around $1k give or take, all the way down to the Behringer Truth models, are solid performers that are tough to beat for the money. I feel these are oftentimes over-looked.

Although these are ideal for applications such as the OP desktop needs, they're certainly not limited there. A set of 8.75" two way actives, be they Mackie, JBL, Behringer, are a superb platform for a bass managed, multi-channel music/HT system.

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #49 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 03:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

I'm making no such claim.

I'm just convinced the area I referenced in the above desktop/nearfield examples (the OP's inquiry), as compared to high margin "audiophile" style offerings in the same price range.

Sorry. OK smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

I entirely agree, and I attempted to make that very point.

The active monitors in the example range the OP inquired about ($1000 desk-top speakers), to the examples I cited ($200-$250 Behringers, peaking at the mid-priced Mackies, and on up to the JBL, Genelec, and Dynaudio, simply outperform equitably priced HiFi, or audiophile offerings. I'm convinced of this.

See, I tried a few active monitors in the same price range as my Energy Veritas V5.1/HK 3390 setup (around $500-$600--Yamaha, Mackie, KRK). They sounded fine, but a little too flat to me. I like the coloring of the Energy speakers. I don't do mixing. I just listen to music. So a little tonal coloring is fine.

It would be interesting to do blind ABX testing with a large group of people and multiple setups and see which is better.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is offline  
post #50 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 08:07 PM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
[/quote]

It would be interesting to do blind ABX testing with a large group of people and multiple setups and see which is better.[/quote]

There have been many studies and blind testing done many times and people generally prefer a speaker with a flat frequency response both on and off axis. There are some other preferences too. At lower volume levels we prefer some bass boost. High frequencies naturally roll off with distance. Don't correct for this. A flat frequency response at the speaker and at the listener are two different things.

If you think about it we prefer a flat response at the speaker because it is natural to us. If someone is talking to you and they have a cold or sore throat we can pick that up very easily, often even with people we just met. We can detect this if we are close to them or across the room. So if we are coloring the frequency response we are changing the how the source was intended. If we try to boost the high frequencies to make it flat at the listening position we are changing the tone.

Active vs passive. Well having indiviudal amplifiers for each driver that is a match for that driver with an electronic crossover not powered by an amplifier is a big advantage for actives. the crossover in a typical passive speaker uses 30-60% of the power coming from the amplifier depending on design and slows the attack rate of the driver (how fast the driver pushes out). I'm not sure how audible the attack rate is between active and passive. The advantage of passive is generally cost.

Now having said that I would much rather have a great designed passive speaker than just an average designed active speaker. General statements about one type being better than the other are too vague. /the design is what is most important. But, if everything is equal I would rather have an active speaker.

Another interesting study was testing speakers blind and then sighted. In one test a relatively inexpensive(<$1000) 2.1 bookshelf system was preferred in the blind test but the expensive ($6000) beautiful looking towers were preferred in the sighted test. So having nice looking speakers might make it sound better to you:-)
BobL is offline  
post #51 of 57 Old 02-19-2013, 08:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

There have been many studies and blind testing done many times and people generally prefer a speaker with a flat frequency response both on and off axis. There are some other preferences too. At lower volume levels we prefer some bass boost. High frequencies naturally roll off with distance. Don't correct for this. A flat frequency response at the speaker and at the listener are two different things.

If you think about it we prefer a flat response at the speaker because it is natural to us. If someone is talking to you and they have a cold or sore throat we can pick that up very easily, often even with people we just met. We can detect this if we are close to them or across the room. So if we are coloring the frequency response we are changing the how the source was intended. If we try to boost the high frequencies to make it flat at the listening position we are changing the tone.

Active vs passive. Well having indiviudal amplifiers for each driver that is a match for that driver with an electronic crossover not powered by an amplifier is a big advantage for actives. the crossover in a typical passive speaker uses 30-60% of the power coming from the amplifier depending on design and slows the attack rate of the driver (how fast the driver pushes out). I'm not sure how audible the attack rate is between active and passive. The advantage of passive is generally cost.

Now having said that I would much rather have a great designed passive speaker than just an average designed active speaker. General statements about one type being better than the other are too vague. /the design is what is most important. But, if everything is equal I would rather have an active speaker.

Another interesting study was testing speakers blind and then sighted. In one test a relatively inexpensive(<$1000) 2.1 bookshelf system was preferred in the blind test but the expensive ($6000) beautiful looking towers were preferred in the sighted test. So having nice looking speakers might make it sound better to you:-)

Sure. I'm aware of the ABX testing for flatness of frequency response. smile.gif

But that's only one speaker attribute. Same with all this other stuff. You are arguing superiority on a few points, as people often do, but there various grades of drivers, enclosures, crossovers, and amplification even between active speakers. The question is whether or not AT A CERTAIN PRICE point is the technology and design in available products superior. Your argument only points out some areas where active speaker design COULD be superior.My experience is that it was not for me. And I've seen others say the same. So there are way more variables involved here than the standard "active is better" argument you are making. It is an interesting theoretical argument. No doubt.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is offline  
post #52 of 57 Old 02-20-2013, 03:54 AM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
At a given price point it is difficult to say and comes down to the design no matter what. Also, at a given price point are we comparing stereo or a multichannel system. With a price point we also have to factor the amps and controller into the cost. I'd say for a computer as the controller active would be better in general especially for a stereo system. If you are doing a 5 or 7 channels system it might be a better bang for the buck to have an amp and passive speakers.
BobL is offline  
post #53 of 57 Old 04-16-2013, 06:45 PM
Newbie
 
harmonicsreview's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I use a pair of active pebbles from Serene Audio. They have a subwoofer output, so I hooked them up to a sub that I owned from a previous system, and they sound amazing! I work from my computer and listen to them all day.
Another interesting thing about them is that when you connect a subwoofer, it automatically activates an internal highpass filter so they don't produce bass frequencies anymore. So they can play even louder without distorting.
harmonicsreview is offline  
post #54 of 57 Old 08-14-2013, 03:33 AM
Newbie
 
GutWulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello.

Can't decide between Adam ARTist 5 and KEF x300a. Just these two, these are the only ones I can find in Moscow, Russia for a reasonable price (around 1 000$).
I need ti active speakers for my desktop iMac. For now ot will be USB connection – just iMac and speakers.

ARTist have 16/48 dac, while KEF 24/96. The most part of music is 16/44, so Adam must be enough?

And KEF doesnt have any other connection, usb only.

About sound quality. I cant find place where I can hear them both. So its really difficult to choose. Which one is better?
GutWulf is offline  
post #55 of 57 Old 08-14-2013, 03:25 PM
ap1
AVS Special Member
 
ap1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by GutWulf View Post

Hello.

Can't decide between Adam ARTist 5 and KEF x300a. Just these two, these are the only ones I can find in Moscow, Russia for a reasonable price (around 1 000$).
I need ti active speakers for my desktop iMac. For now ot will be USB connection – just iMac and speakers.

ARTist have 16/48 dac, while KEF 24/96. The most part of music is 16/44, so Adam must be enough?

And KEF doesnt have any other connection, usb only.

About sound quality. I cant find place where I can hear them both. So its really difficult to choose. Which one is better?

Wouldn't Adam A5x be better. They do not have DAC, but simple active speakers with analog input and are good in what they do. Should be a little more than $1000 for pair. Being in Russia, you may order them directly from Germany.

If you want digital input, I would look at JBL Pro series like 4326. They even come with digital equalizer inside.
ap1 is online now  
post #56 of 57 Old 08-15-2013, 03:00 AM
Newbie
 
GutWulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

Wouldn't Adam A5x be better. They do not have DAC, but simple active speakers with analog input and are good in what they do. Should be a little more than $1000 for pair. Being in Russia, you may order them directly from Germany.

If you want digital input, I would look at JBL Pro series like 4326. They even come with digital equalizer inside.

Adam A5x and ARTist 5 are almost equal. ARTist 5 is A5X with simple DAC and more appeal design. Adam A5X is 60 cheaper.

JBL 4326 costs around 1500, its too much.
GutWulf is offline  
post #57 of 57 Old 08-15-2013, 06:03 AM
ap1
AVS Special Member
 
ap1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by GutWulf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

Wouldn't Adam A5x be better. They do not have DAC, but simple active speakers with analog input and are good in what they do. Should be a little more than $1000 for pair. Being in Russia, you may order them directly from Germany.

If you want digital input, I would look at JBL Pro series like 4326. They even come with digital equalizer inside.

Adam A5x and ARTist 5 are almost equal. ARTist 5 is A5X with simple DAC and more appeal design. Adam A5X is 60 cheaper.

JBL 4326 costs around 1500, its too much.

I would stll get A5x - it is more tuned for accurate sound which is requirement for studio use. I am not a fan of internal DACs anywhere. If you need DAC, get a standalone device. There is no excuse today for not having 24/96-192 capability.
ap1 is online now  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off