Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Phelonious Ponk]

Jack, I agree with most of what you said. Yeah, we've discussed manufactured active systems here, I just saw the conversation taking a turn toward the esoteric and unattainable for most people, ie: DIY, and the need to have a deep understanding in order to pull off a good-sounding active system. That's just not the case, and wanted to make sure we were clear. One thing I don't quite understand:

I do not cotton to closed systems for the simple reason that I have yet to come across one that is aligned with what I want. The lack of controllable parameters is no help either. That's all there is too it.

Not sure what you mean by a "closed system." A passive system, even one in which DAC, pre and amps are all from different manufacturers is not an open system in any real sense of the term. You can't get inside those boxes and tweak parts and parameters any easier than you can get inside a single box that contains your amps and your speakers. If you really want to, I'm sure you could get inside a pair of Adam Tensors and change the crossovers. A fool's game, probably, but you could do it.

The battle cry of the mini pro monitor folks has never been purely about performance. Never. It's always been about price vs. performance. Is that a bad thing? No it isn't it, far from it. Leave the price part out of it however and the comparative lack of flexibility and consequent utility comes into stark relief.

Nah. The pro monitor is about a highly refined tool designed for critical - very critical, money, careers, reputations on the line critical - listening. Buy a pair that was very well-designed and engineered, the flexibility you've lost is the freedom to make decisions probably better left to audio engineers (like getting inside those Tensors and changing the crossovers). I don't see any utility lost. You'll have to explain that one to me.

No doubt the price/performance ratio of pro monitors - mini and otherwise - can be a whack to the side of the head compared to high end "monitors" and amplifiers of the same capability, but I don't think that's because the pro stuff is about bang for the buck; I think it points to the excessive pricing in the high end? $29k for a pair of Magico monitors that the Audiophile will hook up to another $10k (at least!) worth of amplification? In the face of the quality and prices of the best pro products, that $40k is absurd. But that doesn't make the pro stuff about "good for the money" so much as it should make you all keep one hand on your wallet at the next show.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

No doubt the price/performance ratio of pro monitors - mini and otherwise - can be a whack to the side of the head compared to high end "monitors" and amplifiers of the same capability, but I don't think that's because the pro stuff is about bang for the buck; I think it points to the excessive pricing in the high end? $29k for a pair of Magico monitors that the Audiophile will hook up to another $10k (at least!) worth of amplification? In the face of the quality and prices of the best pro products, that $40k is absurd. But that doesn't make the pro stuff about "good for the money" so much as it should make you all keep one hand on your wallet at the next show.

Tim

Tim,

I have experience with the Magico mini monitors and can assure you they are really what most people say. Anyway I would love to know of a pro product you consider that can outperform them. But our great divergence is much deeper, it is in definition of the same capability.

BTW, I hope you agree the capabilities and objectives of the Orion 4 are much different from the pro stuff.

Nah. The pro monitor is about a highly refined tool designed for critical - very critical, money, careers, reputations on the line critical - listening. Buy a pair that was very well-designed and engineered, the flexibility you've lost is the freedom to make decisions probably better left to audio engineers (like getting inside those Tensors and changing the crossovers). I don't see any utility lost. You'll have to explain that one to me.

You have to read what F. Toole writes about most of the professional monitors. See the "Circle of confusion". Do you think that professionals using innacurate monitors did / do not care about their careers, money or reputation?

 

[JackD201]

What are your options with regards to your own system Tim? Everything but the sources has been decided by the designer with the exception perhaps of what gain you want to apply to each amplifier. Contrast that with a system like Rob's or Terry's. That is the context within which I made that statement. Some people just want to make their own decisions. If I did come across an active system that can do what I want it to do how I want it to do it, I wouldn't hesitate. That I haven't is not a put down of active in a box solutions.

Pro Monitor is about highly refind tool designed for critical - very critical ........listening. Yeah keep telling yourself that until you believe it. Being active does not and will never guarantee good performance, performance along what you say is "very critical, money, careers, reputations on the line critical" no more than spending on esoteric high end will guarantee the same.

Now what's the point in comparing active and passive at all? No matter what anyone says they will be judged on qualitative grounds. Dragging in price vs performance is not being objective about sound, it's being something else. For one, define "equal performance" or "same capability". You have to do that before you can factor in price for a meaningful comparison. You are making your case on theoretical AND hypothetical grounds Tim. I bitch about the insane prices of high end gear too but you will never hear me say something is better because it's cheaper or that something is better because it is more expensive.

My point is actually a simple one. With an active monitor you have less flexibility than with separates of any kind unless of course you believe that all drivers sound the same, all cabinets will make the drivers sound the same, all amps sound the same, all crossovers and crossover settings sound the same and all EQs sound the same.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm familiar with Toole's "circle of confusion." It has to do with a lack of recording/playback standards for professionals and the developers of their equipment to work within, it has nothing to do with the quality of the people or the equipment. This problem that Toole points to is, if anything, much worse in the high end where many do not even seem to believe in the measurements that would set the standards or in the basic goal of fidelity to the recording in playback equipment.

I"m sure the Magicos are very good. Magico is one of the high-end speaker companies that do seem to believe accuracy (ie: high fidelity) is the objective. I'm sure when properly amplified they are very good. What, in the pro world is better? Well, I don't know, as I haven't heard the Magicos, nor have I heard every pro monitor on the market. But I've heard of no reason whatsoever to believe, or even expect that Magico has come up with any engineering breakthroughs that would push them ahead of the best pro listening tools made, much less tens of thousands of dollars ahead. Have you? I do, on the other hand, know of a few reasons to expect that the best pro monitors might out perform any passive speaker of the same capabilities. That doesn't necessarily mean they are better. Magico may have pulled off some magic . But at 30 grand and the need for amplification, they'd better be showing the rabbit hole inside the hat....unless they're just catering to an adoring, uncritical market.

By the way, I mean no offense to Magico. I would apply the same skepticism and critical thinking to any company selling a small passive "monitor" at that price point, or any one close to it.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What are your options with regards to your own system Tim? Everything but the sources has been decided by the designer with the exception perhaps of what gain you want to apply to each amplifier. Contrast that with a system like Rob's or Terry's.

Mine are very few. Most integrated actives take away your choice of amplification and crossover. Sources and pre-amplification are still your choice.

Pro Monitor is about highly refind tool designed for critical - very critical ........listening. Yeah keep telling yourself that until you believe it. Being active does not and will never guarantee good performance, performance along what you say is "very critical, money, careers, reputations on the line critical" no more than spending on esoteric high end will guarantee the same.

Just assume, for the sake of brevity, that when I say "pro monitors" I'm talking about good ones, Jack, and we can stop going down this road. I understand that there are bad ones, colored ones, and an awful lot of awfully bright ones. These are not, IMO, fulfilling the purpose of a pro monitor, which is a highly refined tool designed for very critical listening.

Now what's the point in comparing active and passive at all?

Hell, I don't know. At this point I don't even remember when or how this thread turned down this path. I completely understand at this point that talking about the advantages of active design pisses off a lot of people in this part and try to avoid getting into it. I didn't do a very good job this time.

No matter what anyone says they will be judged on qualitative grounds. Dragging in price vs performance is not being objective about sound, it's being something else.

There is only one good reason I can think of to examine price/performance: Because far too many audiophiles believe that price = performance and that has created an absurd high end market.

For one, define "equal performance" or "same capability".

All I'm really talking about there, to be clear, is that we're being fair to monitors by not comparing them huge floorstanders and fair to passives by not comparing them when not properly amplified. "Same capability?" Volume, FR, properly amplified.

You are making your case on theoretical AND hypothetical grounds Tim.

There is no other ground to make it on, Jack. I seriously doubt a head to head comparison of active and passive speakers is forthcoming. Like you asked early in this section of this thread, "have I ever heard the same speaker implemented actively and passively?" I answered no and I imagine very few have. Very few. A/B side by side? Even fewer.

I bitch about the insane prices of high end gear too but you will never hear me say something is better because it's cheaper or that something is better because it is more expensive.

You will never hear me say that either.

My point is actually a simple one. With an active monitor you have less flexibility than with separates of any kind unless of course you believe that all drivers sound the same, all cabinets will make the drivers sound the same, all amps sound the same, all crossovers and crossover settings sound the same and all EQs sound the same.

I don't believe any of that. What I believe is that a very good, experience electrical engineer who has made is career in pro or quality consumer audio will make far more informed choices and get better results than I will.

YMMV

Tim

 

[JackD201]

Mine are very few. Most integrated actives take away your choice of amplification and crossover. Sources and pre-amplification are still your choice.



Just assume, for the sake of brevity, that when I say "pro monitors" I'm talking about good ones, Jack, and we can stop going down this road. I understand that there are bad ones, colored ones, and an awful lot of awfully bright ones. These are not, IMO, fulfilling the purpose of a pro monitor, which is a highly refined tool designed for very critical listening.

Now what's the point in comparing active and passive at all?

Hell, I don't know. At this point I don't even remember when or how this thread turned down this path. I completely understand at this point that talking about the advantages of active design pisses off a lot of people in this part and try to avoid getting into it. I didn't do a very good job this time.



There is only one good reason I can think of to examine price/performance: Because far too many audiophiles believe that price = performance and that has created an absurd high end market.

For one, define "equal performance" or "same capability".

All I'm really talking about there, to be clear, is that we're being fair to monitors by not comparing them huge floorstanders and fair to passives by not comparing them when not properly amplified. "Same capability?" Volume, FR, properly amplified.



There is no other ground to make it on, Jack. I seriously doubt a head to head comparison of active and passive speakers is forthcoming. Like you asked early in this section of this thread, "have I ever heard the same speaker implemented actively and passively?" I answered no and I imagine very few have. Very few. A/B side by side? Even fewer.



You will never hear me say that either.

My point is actually a simple one. With an active monitor you have less flexibility than with separates of any kind unless of course you believe that all drivers sound the same, all cabinets will make the drivers sound the same, all amps sound the same, all crossovers and crossover settings sound the same and all EQs sound the same.

I don't believe any of that. What I believe is that a very good, experience electrical engineer who has made is career in pro or quality consumer audio will make far more informed choices and get better results than I will.

YMMV

Tim

Ok, lets assume the good ones. The utility alone differs from the domestic market. I would use a Tannoy Ellipse's for work and something like a Unifield 1/ Valvet combo for pleasure. The thing is I could also use a BelCanto 300Si or a Leben or a Moscode. Prices all close. It's just one more option for me, more flexibility.

I don't see how the fact that many audiophiles thinking more money means better sound is relevant to what are personal choices when professional make personal choices for their monitors as well. A KRK, a Genelec, a Hafler, etc with the parameters you set still sound different from one another. There are no standards for Pro either. Because there is no industry acknowledged "golden unit", there is no standard for all else to be judged.

While the domestic user or owner may not have the skill of a good designer of an active unit, it also does not mean that the output of that designer will be more liked than the system put together by the domestic user either. While you have chosen to delegate these informed choices to your designer and accepted what you have for what it is, it also doesn't mean that you can't learn to if you want to.

As mentioned before, others judge in the electrical others on the acoustical. I am of the latter, you are a combination. I want a specific curve at the listening position, I will manipulate the signal in any way at my disposal to do it. Truth be told, I miss fully active systems but for reasons already stated I didn't. Still I get very linear response, very high low distortion output with more headroom than most need an only a semi-active system and I'm not an electronic engineer.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan: if you accept the fact that most components, whether source, electronic or speakers, are not perfect, and have some sonic signature of their own (I do accept this premise, you may not), then the task to building a system is to match the parts in a way that brings about the best result.

Some devices change the sound enough to notice, but many do not. Properly designed electronics will be transparent, and even budget gear these days can be sufficiently transparent. Loudspeakers, not so much. But unless you have really lame speakers, the room you listen in degrades the sound even more.

If your power amp is down 5 dB from 10 KHz and higher (unlikely unless it's crap), then I can see how buying speakers that counter the roll-off might be "synergistic." But what are the odds that any one device will properly counter the specific frequency response error of another? Isn't is much more sensible to just buy gear that you know is flat?

Distortion cannot be countered at all. All another device can do is either pass the distorted sound unchanged, or add yet more distortion. Me, I prefer gear that has distortion too soft to hear.

Back to the room. Modal peaks are always accompanied by ringing that adds an extended decay to bass notes at (only) some frequencies. Not only are decay times extended, but the same phenomenon also causes bass frequencies to swell over time. These problems cannot be countered by a "complementary" device either.

The theoretical advantage of an active speaker system is that...

There are many advantages to active speakers, and they are very real, not just theoretical. I'm a huge proponent of active speakers. Not that all active speakers sound the same! I picked mine after hearing the same model over several years at the homes of four different friends.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of an active speaker is that it doesn't permit the user to make changes- some of which may be unnecessary

I'm always amused by audiophiles who believe they know more than the EEs who designed their gear. They spend all that money on [whatever], and then send it to someone else to replace capacitors etc. I know one guy who sent all his audio gear, including the power supplies, to a "cryo" service.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Once I asked you if you tuned rooms to be flat or not. You answered it was up to the client's preference.

I can't believe those are the words I used. If you have a link, I'd love to see it. However, I suppose it's possible for a room to have a peak at a pleasing frequency, and maybe some listeners don't want to damp that completely.

Yet you make choosing equipment based on preference sound (with the accompanying audiophile swipe) sound like it's the dumbest thing in the world and worse make it appear that professionals don't do this either.

Again you intentionally distort my words. I said synergy is mostly not a real phenomenon, and I explained why. I never said there's anything wrong with buying stuff because you like the way it sounds.

--Ethan

 

[microstrip]

I'm familiar with Toole's "circle of confusion." It has to do with a lack of recording/playback standards for professionals and the developers of their equipment to work within, it has nothing to do with the quality of the people or the equipment. This problem that Toole points to is, if anything, much worse in the high end where many do not even seem to believe in the measurements that would set the standards or in the basic goal of fidelity to the recording in playback equipment.

I"m sure the Magicos are very good. Magico is one of the high-end speaker companies that do seem to believe accuracy (ie: high fidelity) is the objective. I'm sure when properly amplified they are very good. What, in the pro world is better? Well, I don't know, as I haven't heard the Magicos, nor have I heard every pro monitor on the market. But I've heard of no reason whatsoever to believe, or even expect that Magico has come up with any engineering breakthroughs that would push them ahead of the best pro listening tools made, much less tens of thousands of dollars ahead. Have you? I do, on the other hand, know of a few reasons to expect that the best pro monitors might out perform any passive speaker of the same capabilities. That doesn't necessarily mean they are better. Magico may have pulled off some magic . But at 30 grand and the need for amplification, they'd better be showing the rabbit hole inside the hat....unless they're just catering to an adoring, uncritical market.

By the way, I mean no offense to Magico. I would apply the same skepticism and critical thinking to any company selling a small passive "monitor" at that price point, or any one close to it.

Tim

Tim,

I just referred to the Circle of confusion to show you that your argument that professional gear must be the reference because professionals depend on it was not valid as an argument. Figure 2.4 of his book Sound Reproduction displaying the analysis of 250 studios just shows how tolerant the great majority of professionals are.

You return to your vague and distorted view about audiophiles and measurements ... Can you for once say exactly what are the specific measurements that would set the standards and its acceptable variance according to Tim for audio electronics? Or should we consider that your skepticism and critical thinking is only destructive?

 

[Gregadd]

***
Again you intentionally distort my words. I said synergy is mostly not a real phenomenon, and I explained why. I never said there's anything wrong with buying stuff because you like the way it sounds.

--Ethan

Synergy?
I see "system synergy" mentioned often, and I don't think there really is such a thing. Yes, each component should be high quality, and any one can be the weakest link. But the only way I could imagine "synergy" occurring is when there are two components that have exactly opposite skewed frequency responses. Distortion in one device can't be countered by another device, unless it was specially designed just for that purpose. Same for noise. So all that's left is frequency response.

I supposed there could be a sort of "synergy" between a room and the loudspeakers. In that case it's possible to have sort-of opposing frequency responses. But so far as preamps and cables etc, I'd like to hear a logical science-based explanation.

--Ethan

Some people think I'm opposed to paying more for "good" audio gear, but that's not true. While I don't think you have to pay huge amounts to get high quality, I'm not a fan of cheap junk either, even if it sounds just as good as products that are more durable and have knobs that feel better etc. But sometimes paying a lot of money gets you a product that is truly dreadful.

---Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I just referred to the Circle of confusion to show you that your argument that professional gear must be the reference because professionals depend on it was not valid as an argument. Figure 2.4 of his book Sound Reproduction displaying the analysis of 250 studios just shows how tolerant the great majority of professionals are.

Then there was no need, as I wasn't making that argument.

You return to your vague and distorted view about audiophiles and measurements ... Can you for once say exactly what are the specific measurements that would set the standards and its acceptable variance according to Tim for audio electronics? Or should we consider that your skepticism and critical thinking is only destructive?

Well, let me clarify it for you then. You referred to a Toole discussion about a lack of recoding and playback standards to create consistency in the creation of commercial recordings. It seemed like you were using it as an argument against the quality of pro gear relative to high end consumer gear. I felt it was fair to point out that the high end has no standards either and that, in fact many in the hobby don't seem to accept the few standards we could have .

I think we were talking sat each other, Micro, each assuming things about the other's position.

Personally, whirl I understand the problem Toole is referring to in his "circle of confusion," I think any solution might create as many problems as it solved.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-When you quote someone, can't you include their name that is embedded with the quote so we know who you are quoting?

 

[microstrip]

T(...) Well, let me clarify it for you then. You referred to a Toole discussion about a lack of recoding and playback standards to create consistency in the creation of commercial recordings. It seemed like you were using it as an argument against the quality of pro gear relative to high end consumer gear. I felt it was fair to point out that the high end has no standards either and that, in fact many in the hobby don't seem to accept the few standards we could have .

I think we were talking sat each other, Micro, each assuming things about the other's position.

Personally, whirl I understand the problem Toole is referring to in his "circle of confusion," I think any solution might create as many problems as it solved.

Tim

Tim,

So what do you intent to say when you stated :

Nah. The pro monitor is about a highly refined tool designed for critical - very critical, money, careers, reputations on the line critical - listening. Buy a pair that was very well-designed and engineered, the flexibility you've lost is the freedom to make decisions probably better left to audio engineers (like getting inside those Tensors and changing the crossovers).

BTW, do you agree that pro's and consumers have different requirements? If possible a direct answer would be appreciated.

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Micro

BTW, do you agree that pro's and consumers have different requirements? If possible a direct answer would be appreciated.

I know you didn't ask me directly but IMHO there should be no difference on the functional side. From a strictly engineering stand point the goals should be the same. Of course I mean scaled, I would not expect a small system to compete with a large format monitor which seem to be a dying breed. Now on the WAF side well most are not all that nice to look at and are big boxes especially when compared to the tall narrow baffles popular now. Definitely an acquired taste.

You would be surprised what a properly set-up pair of the older large format monitors can sound like in a "normal" size room. Compared to modern systems they offer a lot of bang for the buck. A pair of URIE 811's and a good sub can sound really good. Same with the older JBL's 4 ways like the 4343, 4344 or 4345.

I have used 4412's and 4406's along with 4344's and they sound quite good in a home environment. I used a Urie 811 as my center channel for years until I retired it after I purchased the Array Center last year. In case you not sure what the 4344 is I have a picture of my Arrays next to my 4344's. In a nutshell it's a 15" 4 way with a 10" mid 1" compression driver and a ring radiator tweeter. The Arrays are more HI-Fi and refined but those 30 year old monitors don't embarrass themselves at all.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Originally posted by microstrip
Tim,

So what do you intent to say when you stated :

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk
Nah. The pro monitor is about a highly refined tool designed for critical - very critical, money, careers, reputations on the line critical - listening. Buy a pair that was very well-designed and engineered, the flexibility you've lost is the freedom to make decisions probably better left to audio engineers (like getting inside those Tensors and changing the crossovers).

I'm not sure I can clarify that, micro. It says what it intends to say, and quite directly. Like I told Jack, please assume that when I refer to pro monitors I'm talking about the good ones, and the rest of the statement pretty much is what it is.

BTW, do you agree that pro's and consumers have different requirements? If possible a direct answer would be appreciated.

Some consumers seem to have different requirements. I don't. Direct enough?

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Tim-When you quote someone, can't you include their name that is embedded with the quote so we know who you are quoting?

-----That is a very good point, as often I had to search for who the quote was from. :b
But most of the time it was from the poster above or a couple posts above, or more...

But then, there is the other flip side of that coin; and that is that Tim always replies to the CONTENT of the post, and not the poster himself.
See, that is a very positive point right there! :b ...And that is the way it should be, always.
...But having the name of the poster included in the quote is good, very good. ...So we at least know who wrote it. :b

Now back to our "natural" programming.

 

[GaryProtein]

-----That is a very good point, as often I had to search for who the quote was from. :b
But most of the time it was from the poster above or a couple posts above, or more...

But then, there is the other flip side of that coin; and that is that Tim always replies to the CONTENT of the post, and not the poster himself.
See, that is a very positive point right there! :b ...And that is the way it should be, always.
...But having the name of the poster included in the quote is good, very good. ...So we at least know who wrote it. :b

Now back to our "natural" programming.

I like to know who said the quote because that way I can go back and see the entire post which is sometimes abridged and the earlier posts which may have had an influence on the post being quoted.

Knowing who said the quote has many positives.

 

[microstrip]

Some consumers seem to have different requirements. I don't. Direct enough?

Tim

Tim,

Direct, but evasive as always ... You answer about SOME (that means a few, not the majority) and you. What about (WORLD - SOME -1) consumers? They are the great majority.

At less I confirm my suspicious - your requirements are the same as pro's. This explains a lot.

 

[microstrip]

Knowing who said the quote has many positives.

IMHO ignoring who said the quote has only negatives.

 

[NorthStar]

I like to know who said the quote because that way I can go back and see the entire post which is sometimes abridged and the earlier posts which may have had an influence on the post being quoted.

Knowing who said the quote has many positives.

-----I agree.