[millionmonkeys]

Your budget allow for lots of juicy options.  Personnally I'd also consider active studio monitors (small 2-way speakers that have their own amplifiers built-in, one per driver) that deliver huge bass, flat frequency response, and are very dynamic.  And can't forget Aspen amps (from OZ) if your handy with a soldering pencil.

JLM
Can I ask you - when you talk about 'active studio monitors' - what brands are worth considering? (ie do the conventional speaker mfrs make them as well or is there a whole new subspecies of company?).

Tks
MM

[WEEZ]

millionmonkeys, perhaps these guys are throwing a 'monkey' wrench into the equation for you....

WEEZ

[millionmonkeys]

millionmonkeys, perhaps these guys are throwing a 'monkey' wrench into the equation for you....

WEEZ

 










[/quote]

[WEEZ]

Frankly, your original stated options will probably make you very happy. My only advice would really be to listen to as much stuff in your price range as possible..home trials if possible..then decide.

If you find speakers that match your tastes AND your room...you're half way there Too many opinions are just that..opinions. They're just like belly buttons...everybody has one....

WEEZ

[Turnandcough]

I brought a Cambridge 640a V2 and a NAD 325BEE home for evaluation. I went back and forth, undecided, for three days and was about to return the Cambridge until I swapped speaker cables. As it turns out the (ugly) NAD went back. I've been using the Cambridge with a Squeezebox3 with linear power supply mod, Beresford MarkIV DAC and Triangle Stella speakers for about six months now and am quite pleased. Prior to that I tried more costly Rotel, Rega and Audio Analogue amps but in the end found the Cambridge to be the best all 'rounder for my system. The inexpensive Beresford increased resolution and a gave a more analog sound than the Squeezebox's Burr Brown. I'd be curious to hear what something in the price range of a Paradisea or CIA VDA-2 could do. 

[Bob Reynolds]

Your budget allow for lots of juicy options.  Personnally I'd also consider active studio monitors (small 2-way speakers that have their own amplifiers built-in, one per driver) that deliver huge bass, flat frequency response, and are very dynamic.  And can't forget Aspen amps (from OZ) if your handy with a soldering pencil.

JLM
Can I ask you - when you talk about 'active studio monitors' - what brands are worth considering? (ie do the conventional speaker mfrs make them as well or is there a whole new subspecies of company?).

Tks
MM

Some active choices can be see here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/1641/Monitors_Active_Monitors.html

For a good explanantion on the advantages of active speakers: http://www.sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

[millionmonkeys]

Your budget allow for lots of juicy options.  Personnally I'd also consider active studio monitors (small 2-way speakers that have their own amplifiers built-in, one per driver) that deliver huge bass, flat frequency response, and are very dynamic.  And can't forget Aspen amps (from OZ) if your handy with a soldering pencil.

JLM
Can I ask you - when you talk about 'active studio monitors' - what brands are worth considering? (ie do the conventional speaker mfrs make them as well or is there a whole new subspecies of company?).

Tks
MM

Some active choices can be see here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/1641/Monitors_Active_Monitors.html

For a good explanantion on the advantages of active speakers: http://www.sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

Bob,
Many thanks.
The sheer volume of options to chose from is starting to do my head in. But I guess that's half the fun...

With the active monitors shown on the B&H website (boy I wish we had a company like this in Australia!) how do they stack up against passive speakers? For example, what would be the passive (ie normal speaker) equivalent of the Tascam VL-X5  Speaker(5.25" 90-Watt Biamplified Nearfield Monitor - $299)?

Thanks
MM

[Bob Reynolds]

With the active monitors shown on the B&H website (boy I wish we had a company like this in Australia!) how do they stack up against passive speakers? For example, what would be the passive (ie normal speaker) equivalent of the Tascam VL-X5  Speaker(5.25" 90-Watt Biamplified Nearfield Monitor - $299)?

In my mind there are two primary advantages of active speakers: 1) crossover operates on line level signals instead of speaker level signals and 2) the amplifier can be designed for a specific driver instead of being a general purpose amplifier.

The negative for many audiophiles is that active speakers takes the opportunity to mix and match components away. I see this as another advantage.

We like to think that passive crossovers in speakers behave in a well defined manner according to the speaker's specifications. They don't. The behavior of the filter is dependent upon the load, i.e., the driver. We know that the driver is reactive in nature so it does not present the filter with a fixed load. So the behavior of the filter is a function of frequency. If given enough budget, the designer can attempt to compensate for the driver so that the filter behaves more as desired.

For example, Jim Thiel uses first order crossovers in his speakers. You'd expect to see a very simple crossover with few components. Instead, the pictures I've seen are of large boards with literally tens of components.

In the line level active world these problems either completely go away or can be managed with greater precision and less cost.

Hope this helps a little.

[millionmonkeys]

In my mind there are two primary advantages of active speakers: 1) crossover operates on line level signals instead of speaker level signals and 2) the amplifier can be designed for a specific driver instead of being a general purpose amplifier.

The negative for many audiophiles is that active speakers takes the opportunity to mix and match components away. I see this as another advantage.

We like to think that passive crossovers in speakers behave in a well defined manner according to the speaker's specifications. They don't. The behavior of the filter is dependent upon the load, i.e., the driver. We know that the driver is reactive in nature so it does not present the filter with a fixed load. So the behavior of the filter is a function of frequency. If given enough budget, the designer can attempt to compensate for the driver so that the filter behaves more as desired.

For example, Jim Thiel uses first order crossovers in his speakers. You'd expect to see a very simple crossover with few components. Instead, the pictures I've seen are of large boards with literally tens of components.

In the line level active world these problems either completely go away or can be managed with greater precision and less cost.

Hope this helps a little.

Bob

Many thanks - it does help explain things. My guess is that "them is fightin' words" for people who are passionate about passive speakers. If I can annoy you just a bit more:

(a) if active speakers have these advantages, why are they (from what I can see) pushed off to the side and looked at as mainly for use in studios (not so much home hifi)?
(b) I mentioned Tascam above as an example - which brands of active speakers would you recommend?

Kind regards
MM

[Bob Reynolds]

(a) if active speakers have these advantages, why are they (from what I can see) pushed off to the side and looked at as mainly for use in studios (not so much home hifi)?

(b) I mentioned Tascam above as an example - which brands of active speakers would you recommend?

(a) As I alluded to before, many audiophiles like to twiddle gear. I've certainly done my share over the last decade. Here's a link (page 25) to one of the early attempts of active speakers for home use:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_25_r.pdf

Based on logic and engineering, Paradigm should have cleaned up with this system. Unfortunately, the high-end audio market is like the stock market in that logic seldom applies.

There's been much discussion on various message boards about the two types of audiophiles -- those that want to hear the source without any embellishment and those that want the sound their way. Studio monitors are a good fit for those in the first category, but a terrible fit for the other.

BTW, here's a link to a trio of papers by Floyd Toole, PhD on conventional loudspeakers. They are very much worth the read. Look under the White Papers link.

http://www.harman.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx

(b) ATC would be my first choice, but they are very very expensive. M&K would be my next choice, but they closed their doors after 34 years. So in no particular order, I'd consider these

http://www.mackie.com/products/studiomonitors/index.html

http://nhthifi.com/2006/s-s-ultimate.html

http://nhthifi.com/2006/pchifi.html

http://www.focalprofessional.com/en/products/solo6Be.html

http://www.genelecusa.com/products/

http://www.dynaudio.de/eng/prof_news.php

Make sure you plan for a subwoofer and external active crossover for it.

[millionmonkeys]

Bob

Many thanks again. I'm blown away by how helpful everyone is one this forum.

Kind regards

MM

[JLM]

MM,

Sorry to leave you hanging, but it looks like others have very aptly taken up the cause of active speakers.  This is a bit of an "off the wall" line of thinking, but since you have a blank slate to work with, it seems well worth considering.

Years ago I auditioned two pair of small 2-way standmounted Paradigm speakers:  Studio 20s (passive) and Active 20s.  It was Paradigm's attempt to build/market active speakers.  Both pairs were about the same size (except the Actives were deeper thanks to the amps attached to the back).  The Studio line was Paradigm's top (passive) models at the time.  Paradigm doesn't make into many discussions amoung elite audiophiles, but they build a solid/respectable product and build everything in-house.  The Studio 20s listed at $800 USD, the Active 20s listed at $1600 USD.

There was no contest between them.  Response from the Actives was noticably flatter, dynamics greatly improved (like a very efficient horn loaded system), and the amount of deep/tight bass coming out of them was unbelievable.  Bystanders left with mouths hanging open.  Overall performance matched the Paradigm Studio 80s ($1600 USD passive floorstanders).  It was one of three audio ephiphanies over my 30+ years.

Most audiophiles don't do active speakers, because they can't pick/flip amps.  In fact most audiophiles have never heard such a comparison and are frankless clueless.  But who better to pick the amp for a given set of speakers than the designer/manufacturer?  Nearly all the audiophiles that do go the active route are building their own speakers.  Going active allows the amp to "see" the driver load better without the veil of a crossover so that they can react faster and more harmoniously as a single unit.

Now, a couple words of warning.  Studio and home speakers serve different purposes.  Studio work is extremely analytical and is done in a small space with the speakers very close by.  Home speakers tend to have more soul, sound more musical/relaxed while interacting more with the room.  So audition with that in mind.  Of course active speaker need two wires to each, signal and power, so you'll need to plan for power outlets nearby.  Active speakers are typically designed for professional use, so they use XLR connectors (which allow for long cable runs without grounding, shielding, or cross-talk problems) so you'd need to consider using adapters or better yet look for a source/pre-amp with XLR connectors.