Small studio monitors, yes, but PA since the '80s has become increasingly 'focused', so just about won't work in these days of ever decreasing room size unless mounted up in the top corners angled down to 'taste' and why I quit doing/helping folks do HTs and joined the WWW to get my DIY audio 'fix'.
I like passive speakers for small applications because they CAN sound better than most cheap active ones, given you're not paying for the budget built in chip amps fed from nasty digital switching power supplies and less than optimal dsp. You're paying for the extra built in stuff and you don't have an upgrade path. It does save space not having outboard amps, but most people already have decent amplifiers.
The cheaper 2 way active monitors are more flexible if you need to adapt them to difficult acoustical environments and are running them off a digital streaming source ie PC audio interface. In the case of listening to vinyl or other analog sources, I wouldn't want the extra conversion step degrading sound, despite the significant improvements made in cheap dsp.
I've heard all of the commonly available budget active monitors on the market these days and they are all a big compromise in terms of SQ. The biggest issue is the cheap cabinet construction. The front panels are mostly plastic to incorporate HF waveguides and hide the cheap woofer basket. You have to spend at least 4 figures to get something good enough for critical listening. In comparison, passive speakers of similar price point can sound much better with supporting amplification.
The cheaper 2 way active monitors are more flexible if you need to adapt them to difficult acoustical environments and are running them off a digital streaming source ie PC audio interface. In the case of listening to vinyl or other analog sources, I wouldn't want the extra conversion step degrading sound, despite the significant improvements made in cheap dsp.
I've heard all of the commonly available budget active monitors on the market these days and they are all a big compromise in terms of SQ. The biggest issue is the cheap cabinet construction. The front panels are mostly plastic to incorporate HF waveguides and hide the cheap woofer basket. You have to spend at least 4 figures to get something good enough for critical listening. In comparison, passive speakers of similar price point can sound much better with supporting amplification.
The majority of active systems are just implemented very poorly.
Either designed from a passive filter point of view or designed from a theoretical textbook point of view.
Neither of those work really well in that context.
Either designed from a passive filter point of view or designed from a theoretical textbook point of view.
Neither of those work really well in that context.
This is the exact opposite of my experience.
You can get excellent performance out of basic crossover components, with the right component choices, that don't cost all that much.
You can also spend an absurd amount on boutique crossover components that will only sound marginally better, if at all, compared to well chosen basic crossover parts.
Troels likes to push the absurd end of the spectrum as he makes profit from selling crossover components in one way or another.
I call that the list of (audible) priorities.
Focus on things that matters the most first.
Frequency response and directivity are extremely high on that list.
Much higher than distortion or other similar effects.
Difference in freq resp can be heard by even non audio enthusiastic people.
Difference or improvement in distortion (assuming there is one), takes a lot more effort to figure out.
Or in other words, you can have the best components, but if the freq resp and directivity are already bad, better components are not gonna help to fix that problem.
It's like getting better tires while there is something wrong with the engine or so.
They also don't cancel each other out.
So (much) better distortion will never "fix" a bad directivity or frequency response.
Genelec has figured this out for years (decades?)
They use extremely basic Tymphany/Peerless drivers.
Focus on things that matters the most first.
Frequency response and directivity are extremely high on that list.
Much higher than distortion or other similar effects.
Difference in freq resp can be heard by even non audio enthusiastic people.
Difference or improvement in distortion (assuming there is one), takes a lot more effort to figure out.
Or in other words, you can have the best components, but if the freq resp and directivity are already bad, better components are not gonna help to fix that problem.
It's like getting better tires while there is something wrong with the engine or so.
They also don't cancel each other out.
So (much) better distortion will never "fix" a bad directivity or frequency response.
Genelec has figured this out for years (decades?)
They use extremely basic Tymphany/Peerless drivers.
This is something I have always wondered about. I mostly build with vintage drivers and the first thing to do is to measure DCR to check if the voice coil is open or not. DCRs between drivers often vary more than 10%. Next thing is do an impedance plot to see how not to destroy the drivers. Impedance plots vary as well and there are other factors like the magnet and the suspension.
But whats with the variation in DCR? I expect a manufacturer winding voice coils for the same type of driver from the same wire gauge and the same number of turns around the same diameter former. That then gets soldered to the same type and length of braid to the terminals. Where do the variations come from?
And @schiirrn
What parameters did varied wildly?
Just the Re (Rdc)?
And compared to the datasheet, or among different samples?
I think you are right. There can't be so much error on the part of the designers due to ineptitude. I think those measurements outside the "flat" are because they wanted to do it that way. Maybe the brain sees flat sound as boring.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by basic. I was under the impression that the drivers they use still use shorting rings. At least the distortion measurements I've seen show as much.
I consider this pretty basic.
I don't know if they have shorting rings, although even in $15 drivers that is possible (these days).
I have read that this one is also Genelec, although I don't see any markings on it.
(have to investigate)
Last edited:
I think the business model depends on finding something wrong with every speaker to justify an "upgrade".
This also gives some comfort to the customers because now feel they were correct in thinking their speakers were lacking in some way.
Imagine sending one for a perceivced reason and he says it's perfect, as-is.
I own a well known commercial BookShelf speakers rated at 6ohms. It sounded mostly fine. But when took a impedance sweep, it dipped to 3ish ohms in the bass region. Response was not flat in the treble region but it made it sound smooth and non fatiguing. So crossover will have issues in most commercial speakers. Now either you can be ignore it, fix it or make a business out of it.
Last edited:
To the OP:-
I've been a Hi-Fi "enthusiast" for 30+yrs which started when I used to crawl around Tottenham Court Road in London, which was THE place for all your audio & visual stuff in the U.K. back in the day!
Even back then it was known that some of the high end stuff you were paying for the fancy cabinet finish, as the cost difference in the components between the mid to high end stuff wasn't much!
A manufacturer will design a box around a set of drivers & design the cross-over to match. They might build a prototype & then check its "ok" for sound with the computer model. .....Then the bean counters get hold of it & the cost cutting starts....so maximum profit can be made...!!
So you end up with slightly thinner cabinet panels, less internal bracing, & cross over components that are of lower spec, usually having a bigger tolerance % value...etc., etc.
I modified my Monitor Audio BX2 speakers by adding more internal corner bracing, improving the internal damping material, & rebuilding the cross-over using better components with tighter tolerance % values, & better internal wiring....None of the components used were "exotic" no silver wiring, no foil inductors etc....
The result was a far clearer sound, better sound stage, & better clearer bass!!
Thread here:-
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ronze-bx2-speakers-2010-2015-yr-model.388989/
I've been a Hi-Fi "enthusiast" for 30+yrs which started when I used to crawl around Tottenham Court Road in London, which was THE place for all your audio & visual stuff in the U.K. back in the day!
Even back then it was known that some of the high end stuff you were paying for the fancy cabinet finish, as the cost difference in the components between the mid to high end stuff wasn't much!
A manufacturer will design a box around a set of drivers & design the cross-over to match. They might build a prototype & then check its "ok" for sound with the computer model. .....Then the bean counters get hold of it & the cost cutting starts....so maximum profit can be made...!!
So you end up with slightly thinner cabinet panels, less internal bracing, & cross over components that are of lower spec, usually having a bigger tolerance % value...etc., etc.
I modified my Monitor Audio BX2 speakers by adding more internal corner bracing, improving the internal damping material, & rebuilding the cross-over using better components with tighter tolerance % values, & better internal wiring....None of the components used were "exotic" no silver wiring, no foil inductors etc....
The result was a far clearer sound, better sound stage, & better clearer bass!!
Thread here:-
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ronze-bx2-speakers-2010-2015-yr-model.388989/
There must come a point where 'upgrade' or improvement is either not reasonably possible given the quality of the drivers or the owner's budget. The cliche 'you can't polish a turd' comes to mind and the 'law of diminishing returns' is going to apply at some stage of the upgrade process.
As an example, Dennis Murphy re-designed the crossover of the Dayton BR-1 kit (his 'Affordable Accuracy Monitor') to provide a clearer mid range and by all accounts he did a great job. It used a few more parts than the retail kit, but he didn't go overboard with expensive XO parts given the quality of the drivers. It sold as a complete, assembled speaker for not a lot more than the kit.
Geoff
As an example, Dennis Murphy re-designed the crossover of the Dayton BR-1 kit (his 'Affordable Accuracy Monitor') to provide a clearer mid range and by all accounts he did a great job. It used a few more parts than the retail kit, but he didn't go overboard with expensive XO parts given the quality of the drivers. It sold as a complete, assembled speaker for not a lot more than the kit.
Geoff
Dali for many years made speakers too good for their price to such extent, that audiophile snobs never considered buying them. After around Dali red line (early nineties?),they changed that.
Paradigm made "too good" speakers early nineties and maybe still do.
I live close to Dantax factory. They had the best facilities, engineers and famous designers. Many of their prototypes are floading around in the area, and sound great.
After cost-minimising very few of their production models ever sounded any good.
Cheers!
Paradigm made "too good" speakers early nineties and maybe still do.
I live close to Dantax factory. They had the best facilities, engineers and famous designers. Many of their prototypes are floading around in the area, and sound great.
After cost-minimising very few of their production models ever sounded any good.
Cheers!
Plenty of BS youtube channels out there.
Specially guys that think 1200 dollars of crossover components is a reasonable budget
to " upgrade" 500 dollar speakers.
Most his measurements are questionable and they usually skip any vertical off access response
and his roller coaster impedance curves are not worth 5 bucks.
Seen plenty of videos were the components are just fine and he says ...geez want low quality.
You mean we need 800 watt components for a system that uses 20 to 60 watts.
....NO, pretty much waste of time channel selling you something.
So yes ding dong channel will make everything look " bad" because in the end
" buying" a overpriced kit is the " fix"
Meaning if everything is over priced , it must be good.
He is selling something. Big surprise there is something wrong with everything.
Specially guys that think 1200 dollars of crossover components is a reasonable budget
to " upgrade" 500 dollar speakers.
Most his measurements are questionable and they usually skip any vertical off access response
and his roller coaster impedance curves are not worth 5 bucks.
Seen plenty of videos were the components are just fine and he says ...geez want low quality.
You mean we need 800 watt components for a system that uses 20 to 60 watts.
....NO, pretty much waste of time channel selling you something.
So yes ding dong channel will make everything look " bad" because in the end
" buying" a overpriced kit is the " fix"
Meaning if everything is over priced , it must be good.
He is selling something. Big surprise there is something wrong with everything.
I don't have enough experience of PA speakers to recommend any that would be suitable; if anyone else can think of a two way with compression tweeter and 8 inch mid/bass that's cheep, I'd welcome the advice.