Any opinions on RCF Mytho 8?

[Neutrino]

Just found RCF Mytho 8 at a good price (600 eur a piece) so I'm quite tempted to pick up a pair.

Even at half price they are not that cheap and I was wondering if anyone has any info on them.

For some reason I could not find many reviews of them.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

I think most people would be looking for passive speakers and an amplifier in that price range... I'd suggest going to AVSForums if I were you. You're about to blow $1620.

 

[Neutrino]

I think most people would be looking for passive speakers and an amplifier in that price range... I'd suggest going to AVSForums if I were you. You're about to blow $1620.

Thanks but no ... I've already had this discussion with a few people here, I much rather prefer active designs

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

My advice to go to AVSForums doesn't change either way.

 

[Neutrino]

yeah i was not refuting that part ... although from what i could see active monitors are not often discussed at avs

anyway I'm a sucker for good deals, found those RCF discounted on a site Boonie mentioned and I would like to know if they are worth it

 

[Venomous]

Taking a huge chance buying speakers you've never personally auditioned. There's better options out there, especially for that price.

 

[Kueller]

Taking a huge chance buying speakers you've never personally auditioned. There's better options out there, especially for that price.

I tend to agree, the Mythos 8's seem quite nice, but I think you're paying a significant premium for the housing. I've never heard em though, so my opinion's worth squat.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

That's mainly why I'm suggesting he go to AVSForums (or actually post at multiple audio forums). Higher chance that someone has had them to compare to other speakers and such.


... All of that being said, I'm really curious... why are you so against passive speakers? Where was this conversation at? I mean there's just a certain size of speaker that you get to where having active rather than passive kind of becomes a pointless distinction, and it's not like all amps need to be big. If you get sensitive speakers for instance a tiny (literally thing is almost portable size?) Topping amp will drive them just fine.


I also had some number of threads from google that I dug up, but I accidentally left that on my work computer and didn't end up posting it. >.<

 

[Tonmeister]

It depends what you want speakers for, casual music listening or studio production where accuracy matters? I have tested these in my mastering studio and have just purchased a pair.
These are seriously powerful, low distortion studio monitors that are designed for medium to large control rooms.
A bit over the top in a small room, they can really get the windows rattling!
They have a lot of high end research in them, the DSP makes them very flat down to 38Hz. They come highly recommended from me, best value by far. Worth more than the list price let alone the discount. IMO they blow away similar sized JBL, Genelec or Dynaudio monitors. Passive speakers would never be able to deliver this sort of accuracy unless you bi-amped them with an EQ system. That said accuracy is not a high priority for many audiophiles. Much fun/frustration is to be had by them in the more esoteric/ coloured / boutique end of the market. Being a studio geek I would still choose these just for home music listening because I know how good they sound. The dip switches allow for a fair bit of sonic tailoring if desired

 

[Sycraft]

I think most people would be looking for passive speakers and an amplifier in that price range... I'd suggest going to AVSForums if I were you. You're about to blow $1620.

Not really. There are lots of high end active monitors. $1500ish (for a pair) is getting in to the high end of most of them, but plenty of brands have stuff in that area. Mackie HR824mk2 ($1400), Presonus Sceptre S8 ($1500), JBL LSR4328P ($1550), Dynaudio BM5A MKII ($1400). It also goes a lot higher end than that. The Event Opal monitors are highly acclaimed and they are $3000. Genelec speakers start at around $1000 and go to $17,000 for some of their mains. And ATC? $8500 to get thier ATC SCM25A nearfields, and $20k or more for some of their large stuff.

All active speakers.

... All of that being said, I'm really curious... why are you so against passive speakers? Where was this conversation at? I mean there's just a certain size of speaker that you get to where having active rather than passive kind of becomes a pointless distinction, and it's not like all amps need to be big. If you get sensitive speakers for instance a tiny (literally thing is almost portable size?) Topping amp will drive them just fine.

There's reasons to like active speakers. However I think the bigger question is why you are against them. Neutrino doesn't seem to be against passive speakers, he just found some active speakers he likes.

The thing to note is that passive is not the "right" way to do speakers. It is common, but that isn't because it is superior. That's not to say it is the wrong way either (though some people will argue that) but it is just a different way of doing things. Good speakers can be very good, regardless of if their crossover is active or passive, if their amps are internal or external.

Also active speakers can do some things passive speakers can't. Particularly if you go with a digital crossover, you can go for a complex, non-symmetrical crossover which can be useful for some designs. You can also implement a very steep crossover much easier.

It's all in what you like and what works for you. There isn't a right answer.

Just a note though, AVSForum isn't so useful for active speaker advice. Since they are HT focused and that is a largely passive speaker market, that is what their members tend to have the most experience with. Gearslutz might be a more useful site, though they tend to have some elitist dbags there who are heavy on opinion but light on reasons for it.

 

[Neutrino]

Thank you Sycraft for the well reasoned post. It is as you said I don't hate passives it's just that from my research i found I would much rather get actives.

...

Right now I'm looking to upgrade both my nearfield BX8s and get a pair of midfields for the HT.

The RCF mentioned here would be a nearfield replacement. For midfield I would love a pair of Focal SM9 but it would be very difficult to justify the price. I might be able to justify a pair of Adam s3-v though

...

To elaborate a bit on my choice of actives:

I prefer the concept more. To me it's simply a better starting platform. From what i can see a truly good passive crossover it's an absolute nightmare to design and on top of this you have a match a overly engineered amp just to be a able to properly drive drivers, drivers that the amp engineers cannot know hence the need for over engineering them.

Why not then simply use a more efficient, easier to design active crossover and then use amps that the engineers can properly match to each driver individually.

http://www.genelec-ht.com/learning-center/technology-tutorials/active-passive/

Some companies like presonus and equator take it even further by adding a DSP to correct speaker issues introduced by its design (in this case coax)

In this case it seems RCF also used a DSP

Another reason I prefer the PRO market in this case is the community SNR. There is so much BS in the boutique audiophile community that it becomes very hard for an amateur like me to filter it out. It seems there is a lot less BS when talking about professional gear.

...

Yes as mentioned earlier in this thread auditioning them would be nice; however, i simply do not know any local place that has them.

If they were a well known brand like genelec or focal (btw maybe they are well known and I'm just ignorant of it) I would not hesitate

I would just like to know If they are really worth it over something like a presonus sceptre s8 for example given the similar prices.

...

Tonmeister thank for your feedback. I do not need them for professional usage but i do certainly appreciate a good sound system with lots of clearly defined details, something good studio monitors do excel at.

If indeed it's better than the equivalent Genelec of Dynaudio then that would be quite something.

 

[Sycraft]

I've never heard them so I can't say how they do. For that matter I'd never heard of Mythos, they don't seem to be something many stores are interested in.

Personally, I'm looking in to the Presonus Sceptre monitors. I really like what a coax design can offer, and supposedly they've mitigated the downsides via DSP. We'll see. I have a pair of S6s on the way and if I like them, I'll be getting a pair of S8s and another S6 for 5.1.

While it doesn't help you with this particular decision, something you can look it in general Sonic Sense has a nice little deal online where they record a bunch of different studio monitors so you can listen and compare. If you listen on decent headphones, it can give you a reasonable idea what they do to the sound.

Now it isn't perfect, they are close micing them so you don't get to hear how good they are (or aren't) at imaging and sweet spot and that kind of thing (which is one of the things the Sceptres are supposedly great at) but it can help you identify over all what kind of sound they have. The good ones don't tend to have much sound of their own at all, they sound a lot like the source track. The cheaper ones tend to impart a lot more changes to the sound.

Sorry I can't be of more help on the specific ones you are looking at. For reference, they sell new for about $1000 (720 Euro) each in the US. The good news is they look like they are a pretty traditional design well implemented, and at that price they can afford to use good materials and do things right. So I can't imagine they sound bad.

 

[Tonmeister]

I can comment on the Presonus Sceptre S8 Vs the RCF Mytho 8 as we bought a pair of Sceptre S8s for the audio college I teach at. While I don't regret buying the Presonus S8's, they have some weaknesses. The class D amps overdrive quite easily and Class D clipping is really ugly sounding distortion. I like the idea of the co-axial horn thing but the voicing is a bit strange to my ears. They list at about half the price of the RCFs and I think are priced well but overall dont compete for me at the same level as the RCFs, particularly in terms of power/volume/low end. RCF is very well respected in the world of live sound reinforcement and make large live line array systems. They have been around since the 1940's, but are new to the studio monitor world, and seem to need some help with marketing as they appear to have a low profile in that arena. They are studio monitors so aren't sold via Hifi shops. There is no reason not to use a studio monitor at home. need good speaker stands for them

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Not really. There are lots of high end active monitors. $1500ish (for a pair) is getting in to the high end of most of them, but plenty of brands have stuff in that area. Mackie HR824mk2 ($1400), Presonus Sceptre S8 ($1500), JBL LSR4328P ($1550), Dynaudio BM5A MKII ($1400). It also goes a lot higher end than that. The Event Opal monitors are highly acclaimed and they are $3000. Genelec speakers start at around $1000 and go to $17,000 for some of their mains. And ATC? $8500 to get thier ATC SCM25A nearfields, and $20k or more for some of their large stuff.

All active speakers.

Eh, I was just making some unfounded assumption that most people looking at very high end speakers would rather go for passives than actives. I'm honestly not 100% sure why. Just a gut feeling.

There's reasons to like active speakers. However I think the bigger question is why you are against them. Neutrino doesn't seem to be against passive speakers, he just found some active speakers he likes.

I'm not against them. In fact I'm not sure where you're getting that notion as I never tried to dissuade him from active speakers in particular, I simply tried to dissuade him from not considering passives at all.

Anyway, the best deal at the moment and the best sound you will get for the money cannot be boiled down to squarely in either active or passive designations. I think limiting yourself solely to either one is a mistake, especially when you're looking to spend 1600$+. I never said that passive or active was the "right" way. There is no right way for anything, there is just the best way for an individual. The world's just chaos after all. However an individual that has an irrational basis for dismissing possible solutions is something that needs to be corrected... in my eyes.

That being said, this link:
http://www.genelec-ht.com/learning-center/technology-tutorials/active-passive/
... Looks to be by a company that makes active monitors. >_>; (Which by the way was just copied over to the wikipedia page =_=)
Moreover, my MS Aviano 2's, as well as most high end speakers... iirc let you just utterly bypass the crossover and feed whatever you want into both the woofer and tweeter... at least that's why I think it has 4 knobs...

The thing to note is that passive is not the "right" way to do speakers. It is common, but that isn't because it is superior. That's not to say it is the wrong way either (though some people will argue that) but it is just a different way of doing things. Good speakers can be very good, regardless of if their crossover is active or passive, if their amps are internal or external.

<snip>

Ok. Never disagreed.

It's all in what you like and what works for you. There isn't a right answer.

Truer statement never uttered. Too bad it's difficult to actually know whether you'll like something without hearing it, and that these high end shops seem to be disappearing.

Just a note though, AVSForum isn't so useful for active speaker advice. Since they are HT focused and that is a largely passive speaker market, that is what their members tend to have the most experience with. Gearslutz might be a more useful site, though they tend to have some elitist dbags there who are heavy on opinion but light on reasons for it.

Eh, a lot of them buy speakers for music so there might be more than that over there, but I wouldn't know. I only stopped by to ask one thing, one time. I'd suggest actually posting to multiple places. That's the most helpful option when looking on advice on the obscure.


As for me, regarding active speakers:
I do have one major problem with active speakers. This is just for me, so if it doesn't matter to you it's fine:
Whenever I upgrade them, I view any money sunk into the amplifier and active portion of them is utterly lost. Just from my viewpoint as a consumer, I see active speakers as getting "locked in... in a way". That is, for expensive high quality active monitors, I paid for both an expensive amplifier that is fine tuned to the speakers, and a pair of speakers. Had I went the passive route, I could make one investment into a good amplifier and DAC... and then never have spend money on that portion again. Anything that I spend on speakers goes PURELY into speakers. Active speakers on the other hand are buying both things every time you upgrade. To me that's just unattractive. For instance, I bought a cheap and extremely good Topping TP20 as my amplifier (and I use an O2 DAC+AMP as the source+preamp now... as well as the Source+Amp for my T1's) and as long as I keep getting sensitive speakers, I any speaker upgrade budget I have goes straight into speakers. I can then worry about the amp later if it's insufficient. To me that's a bit more freedom. So yeah short term I can see them being cheaper. Long term? I'm a bit iffy on that. Mathematically it seems to be a losing proposition to me.

Plus I just don't trust these companies. Unless I have blueprints and such, I have absolutely no way to tell just how much went into the speakers and how much went into the AMP portion, so I have no idea how much money I'll be losing when I upgrade. Oh, and forget surround unless I want to practically buy 2 AMPs+speakers every time I upgrade.

Also, as a bit of spice:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/197513-what-do-you-think-passive-crossovers.html

I guess it would attractive for DIY though. For instance, MBED has a DSP library, and I know both some DSP and how to program and MBED from my college days. So if I wanted to I guess I could actually make an active crossover/amp that I could then modify to work with any drivers I choose to upgrade to... and very easily actually, especially if I made a competent class-based system in C++ to work with the library for my future endeavors. Well actually no, I would get a premade amp. Analog electronics are icky, I don't like working with them. Screw those circuit labs I had to do.

So make whatever decision you want, but just make sure to truly consider your options.

 

[TypeO]

Truer statement never uttered. Too bad it's difficult to actually know whether you'll like something without hearing it, and that these high end shops seem to be disappearing.

That's the sad part of it. We have 1 shop here in town that carries high end audio and I've listened to a lot of the stuff they have. This guy has a very nice big store but doesn't carry much inventory on hand. I tried very hard to place an order for a pair of headphones and something else and after 45 days of him not getting it in, I gave up and purchased online. He finally told me he had no idea when it would come. Honestly don't know how he stays in business like that.

 

[B00nie]

Whenever I upgrade them, I view any money sunk into the amplifier and active portion of them is utterly lost. Just from my viewpoint as a consumer, I see active speakers as getting "locked in... in a way". That is, for expensive high quality active monitors, I paid for both an expensive amplifier that is fine tuned to the speakers, and a pair of speakers. Had I went the passive route, I could make one investment into a good amplifier and DAC... and then never have spend money on that portion again. Anything that I spend on speakers goes PURELY into speakers. Active speakers on the other hand are buying both things every time you upgrade. To me that's just unattractive. For instance, I bought a cheap and extremely good Topping TP20 as my amplifier (and I use an O2 DAC+AMP as the source+preamp now... as well as the Source+Amp for my T1's) and as long as I keep getting sensitive speakers, I any speaker upgrade budget I have goes straight into speakers. I can then worry about the amp later if it's insufficient. To me that's a bit more freedom. So yeah short term I can see them being cheaper. Long term? I'm a bit iffy on that. Mathematically it seems to be a losing proposition to me.

Plus I just don't trust these companies. Unless I have blueprints and such, I have absolutely no way to tell just how much went into the speakers and how much went into the AMP portion, so I have no idea how much money I'll be losing when I upgrade. Oh, and forget surround unless I want to practically buy 2 AMPs+speakers every time I upgrade.

Weird way of thinking. Active speakers are one optimized package. It does not matter if they use golden interconnects or not as long as the speaker performs optimally. With passive speakers you play a game of chance. Any amp that you're going to buy hasn't been designed to work with the exact speaker you're going to have as opposed to an active speakers amp purpose built for it. You're going to be stuck with passive crossover problems (discussed more deeply in another thread) etc.

If you decide to upgrade an active speaker you lose nothing more than with a passive speaker of the same price range. You sell it on Ebay and buy a new one, quite simply. When you go active you lose a huge load of uncertainties that all passive solutions have. Can your amp handle the impedance curve, does your speaker have capacitive load induced by the passive x-over, how will your amp like that? How will your amp like the mismash of phase and impedance resulting from running multiple drivers through the passive xover... What kind of speaker cables you need oh noes lol.

Basically when you go passive your amps are going to need to be 'over engineered' to meet a wide range of requirements so that your amp can drive basically anything you throw at it. An active speakers amp is designed to drive that *one* driver *directly* without coils, capacitors and resistors in the way. Oh, and have a nice phase perfect 24db/oct sharp roll off thanks to signal level crossovers.

Of course some of the best speakers in the world are passive. Some are hybrid, some most expensive are fully active even. Usually the reason for manufacturers to go passive is pure cost. If they made a high-end speaker active very few people could afford to buy it.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Basically, even if you sell it on Ebay, I look at it like this:
Cost of active (always) = (cost of) speaker + amplifier
Cost of passive (initial) = speaker+amplifier
Cost of passive (afterwards) = speaker
So suppose I have 1500$ for my upgrade, and I have an "overengineered amplifier". For active, that means 1500$ goes to both the speaker and the amplifier. I can't reuse the one I had from the previous set. That happens regardless of whether I sold my first one on Ebay. On the other hand, going passive I can reuse part of the components I initially invested in, and the money all goes to the speaker. That happens for all subsequent upgrades as well. Whereas with active speakers even supposing I sell them on Ebay the cost will have degraded some on the entire package. So I'll sell both the speaker portion and the amplifier portion back for less. On the other hand, my amplifier portion for passive will keep constant value for me because I can keep using it, and... oh hell it's been too long since I've done econ and that crap, screw it I'm not even gonna try.

Moving on, which option will sound better? Speaker+amp for 1500 or speaker for 1500 with my old overengineered amp (not the one I have obviously, this is a hypothetical scenario)? I cannot say, it's just a consideration to make. I'm satisfied with my setup... and either way I'm using my Beyerdynamic T1's for most of my listening right now anyway. But keep in mind that with passive, it's not just this 1500$ upgrade. Say your next one is 5000. Shrug. Same amp.

Surely there's some evidence on this or that site showing one way or the other. So some scientific measurements would be nice. That speaks better than theory. On the other hand I will note. You're assuming that active speaker designers always take full advantage of what they can. For what it's worth from all I can see regarding passive vs active crossovers, they seem to just be different type of circuits. Powered circuits vs nonpowered circuits. Which is what? The difference between having an OP amp and just doing a regular RLC filter? At that point it's just about the measurement of the output. I'm sure well designed active and passive circuits do fine. They're just filters, aren't they?

 

[Bluesun311]

They're just filters, aren't they?

I don't really know but I think so. I'm pretty sure active crossovers are less destructive to the signal though. Passive crossovers cause the final impedance to vary. In practice with cheap speakers this is not an issue as much as other considerations, but if I'm spending big money on speakers I want active crossovers because it's not going to be any worse than a passive but is likely to be better. Ideally you want no crossovers at all.

FWIW I think about being locked in with active sets in pretty much the exact same way you do. I can't remember a time where I've ever allowed myself to reuse old components for a new system, but I'm used to building mobile setups every few years and not home speakers. Home speakers will last a lot longer and they damn well better.

 

[B00nie]

Basically, even if you sell it on Ebay, I look at it like this:
Cost of active (always) = (cost of) speaker + amplifier
Cost of passive (initial) = speaker+amplifier
Cost of passive (afterwards) = speaker
So suppose I have 1500$ for my upgrade, and I have an "overengineered amplifier". For active, that means 1500$ goes to both the speaker and the amplifier. I can't reuse the one I had from the previous set. That happens regardless of whether I sold my first one on Ebay. On the other hand, going passive I can reuse part of the components I initially invested in, and the money all goes to the speaker. That happens for all subsequent upgrades as well. Whereas with active speakers even supposing I sell them on Ebay the cost will have degraded some on the entire package. So I'll sell both the speaker portion and the amplifier portion back for less. On the other hand, my amplifier portion for passive will keep constant value for me because I can keep using it, and... oh hell it's been too long since I've done econ and that crap, screw it I'm not even gonna try.

Moving on, which option will sound better? Speaker+amp for 1500 or speaker for 1500 with my old overengineered amp (not the one I have obviously, this is a hypothetical scenario)? I cannot say, it's just a consideration to make. I'm satisfied with my setup... and either way I'm using my Beyerdynamic T1's for most of my listening right now anyway. But keep in mind that with passive, it's not just this 1500$ upgrade. Say your next one is 5000. Shrug. Same amp.

Surely there's some evidence on this or that site showing one way or the other. So some scientific measurements would be nice. That speaks better than theory. On the other hand I will note. You're assuming that active speaker designers always take full advantage of what they can. For what it's worth from all I can see regarding passive vs active crossovers, they seem to just be different type of circuits. Powered circuits vs nonpowered circuits. Which is what? The difference between having an OP amp and just doing a regular RLC filter? At that point it's just about the measurement of the output. I'm sure well designed active and passive circuits do fine. They're just filters, aren't they?

Yes they're 'just' filters but you need to understand that a filter that's done line level is infinitely simplyer and cheaper than one done high level i.e. passive. Also passive crossovers can suck up to 50% of the amplifier power alone.

Passive crossovers are extremely tricky to build because the drivers impedance curves alter the behaviour of the 'filter'. In active filters, especially ones made digitally, the designer is freed from all the nasty limitations cost, power loss, component saturation and interference etc. would do on passive side.

Passive crossovers are like a mechanical computer compared to a digital active computer. Which one do you think is easyer, faster and better for its job? There are just so many practical limitations on what you can do with cogs and pulleys, you're not going to reach 5Ghz very soon

When you move from, say, 1500 speaker to a 5000, what if your new fancy 5000 buck speaker happends to have an impedance of 0.5 ohms @ 15khz and your old 'over engineered' amp refuses to turn even on because the safety circuits cut the signal at 1 ohm? Or worse, your amp goes unstable and starts to produce ultrasonic hum frying your speaker, or just goes nonlinear messing your response (which you would never find out unless you switch amps to another one that may be differently unlinear or *gasp* flat which may sound dull after hearing the boosted nonlinear one).

It's always a game of chance matching passive speakers to amps, on active side the designer has known the driver parameters, tested the function and implemented it as designed.

So as you can see, for near field use where a phase perfect 24db/oct crossover is essential, the active solutions are superior. The gap gets smaller on conventional non-nearfield speakers because they have more slack requirements. Still, many truly high-end designs tend to be active these days. If nothing more, the bass unit is often active because you can do stuff on active side that would simply be impossible to do as passive on bass frequencies even if you throw the cost of the speaker to the 100kg lump of passive circuitry.

 

[Sycraft]

Still can't help you with the Mythos specifically, but I can say that the Presonus Sceptres aren't that impressive. Mine came in today, and I'm sending them back tomorrow. They aren't bad speakers, far from it, they don't have any of the problems you normally get from a horn tweeter and they sound good... but no better than my SVS speakers. Their imaging may be good, but apparently the SVS's imaging is just as good, at least in my opinion. Also in a quiet room, you can hear them hiss, even with input gain at minimum and the connected soundcard turned off.

I'm not hating, The MTS speakers they were up against were like $1200 and have $400 of amp backing them up, so a bit more expensive overall, but the fact remains that the didn't seem to offer anything better. Their much vaunted imaging appears to just be what you get with good speakers. Hence if I were looking at monitors I'd check out other things in that price range. Given the price you can get on the Mythos, it seems like a solid bet. I can't imagine they'd be worse, given that I don't find you really gain anything from coax, they are just good speakers which the Mythos would be as well.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

@B00nie: Like I said I won't really be convinced without lots of actual data and circuit simulations and experimentation showing what you're talking about happening. I've designed both active and passive filters for that circuit class... and if anything the active design came out as more complicated (I guess it depends on the order of the filter)... and when I hooked it up to the testing equipment the FR curves looked similar (though I guess that says nothing about the rest of the signal)... Granted this was a long time ago, but I think remember for the frequencies that needed to pass the gain was pretty close to 1 if the components did not have a lot of manufacturing defects (which manufacturing defects is a big problem, though. That +/- 5% makes a difference...)

Digital filters are another ball game in and of themselves, I would think. I mean if you have a digital filter you might as well make the speaker a DAC as well. Logic levels aren't enough to drive a speaker so you're going to have to amplify the signal anyway. You're doing extra ADC and then DAC.

The important question is also whether any of this makes a discernible difference sound wise, too. Minutia during testing and whatnot don't necessarily constitute a noticeable difference.

Oh, and Edit: Also, note that for really good active filtering, you also need good OP Amps. I remember one time we found a blueprint for an audio mixer circuit and it turned out that the OP Amp we were using wasn't good for audio applications. We needed a more expensive one that one of our professors had lying around...

 

[B00nie]

Simulation is simulation. Your simulation software doesn't account for the drivers parameters etc. that complicate the design in real life - or the impact to the amplifier load.

Active is superior to passive. This is how it just is.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Simulation is simulation. Your simulation software doesn't account for the drivers parameters etc. that complicate the design in real life - or the impact to the amplifier load.

I don't just mean circuit simulations (which, manufacturing defects aside, are accurate), I mean actual lab tests. Oscilloscopes, dmms and function generators exist for a reason.

Also you can make custom parts for circuit simulation programs. If you want to, you can effectively model anything depending on the program (depending on how complex you want to make this).

Active is superior to passive. This is how it just is.

Unless you have actual data to back it up, stop making these blanket statements. You keep saying that there are all of these complications for passive filters, but active filters have their own complications.

Digital filters are another thing entirely.

 

[Sycraft]

I don't think it is necessarily that passive filters are more complex, as in have more components or the like, it is that they need higher quality components and are more fiddly and expensive to design right. Good passive crossovers are usually pretty simple for a circuit layout standpoint. However the components they use are often pretty pricey. As expensive as a good opamp is, they just don't compare to the cost of the high end caps you'll see in a nice passive crossover.

That said, I think the hype on active speakers is a bit overblown, at least in practice. Like in my little test of the SVS speakers vs the Presonus speakers. Personally from my experience I find the "active vs passive" question to be more one of what is the most useful in your given setup, not one of absolute superior sound quality.

 

[|Tch0rT|]

Unless you have actual data to back it up, stop making these blanket statements. You keep saying that there are all of these complications for passive filters, but active filters have their own complications.

It's been known for a long time that active is superior to passive.

http://audioundone.com/8-advantages-of-active-crossovers-douglas-self

Active's "complications" are only it's more expensive initial cost with having to buy more equipment and having the knowledge to set it up correctly. It's advantages outweigh it's downsides. Passive's advantage is an initial reduced cost in having less equipment to buy upfront and end user convenience as the only setup knowledge they need (but is often ignored) is correct placement.

Moreover, my MS Aviano 2's, as well as most high end speakers... iirc let you just utterly bypass the crossover and feed whatever you want into both the woofer and tweeter... at least that's why I think it has 4 knobs...

That's not active, that's passive bi-amping which has no benefit. You'd have to open up your speakers and disconnect the passive crossover to make it active.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

From your previous posts you go into being "locked in" in regards to active setups, this is only in the case of active studio monitors with built in amps. With designs that aren't active studio monitors one would generally buy the amps once and only replace an amp if one needed more power or the amp died.

I don't think it is necessarily that passive filters are more complex, as in have more components or the like, it is that they need higher quality components and are more fiddly and expensive to design right. Good passive crossovers are usually pretty simple for a circuit layout standpoint. However the components they use are often pretty pricey. As expensive as a good opamp is, they just don't compare to the cost of the high end caps you'll see in a nice passive crossover.

That said, I think the hype on active speakers is a bit overblown, at least in practice. Like in my little test of the SVS speakers vs the Presonus speakers. Personally from my experience I find the "active vs passive" question to be more one of what is the most useful in your given setup, not one of absolute superior sound quality.

Passive filters are much more complex. There's a lot of design, testing, measuring and redesigning repeat... It's time consuming and expensive especially if you're not already proficient in designing passive crossovers. With active you can test and measure the differences in real time until you reach the set it and forget it point. Also the benefit when testing and measuring with active (obviously not with active studio monitors or others with built in amps and active crossovers that aren't user definable) is you're more than likely in the room that you intend to listen to the speakers in whereas with passive they were designed in the manufacturers testing chamber. Sometimes people forget or don't know that the room is just as important as the speakers themselves.

Active isn't overblown, it's the next step towards uncompromised sound quality if that's your goal. If you want a state of the art speaker system, active is the only way to go.

Once my warranty is up on my ML's I plan to convert my L & R ones to active. I think I have 2 years to go. I would've done it already but I don't feel like footing the cost for replacement panels if they happen to fail in what would've been during my warranty coverage.

 

[Bluesun311]

I don't think it is necessarily that passive filters are more complex, as in have more components or the like, it is that they need higher quality components and are more fiddly and expensive to design right. Good passive crossovers are usually pretty simple for a circuit layout standpoint. However the components they use are often pretty pricey. As expensive as a good opamp is, they just don't compare to the cost of the high end caps you'll see in a nice passive crossover.

That said, I think the hype on active speakers is a bit overblown, at least in practice. Like in my little test of the SVS speakers vs the Presonus speakers. Personally from my experience I find the "active vs passive" question to be more one of what is the most useful in your given setup, not one of absolute superior sound quality.

This has that moderate ring of truth to it.

 

[Sycraft]

I'm just saying in my experience, there is not this big step up some people make it out to be. Maybe at higher (or lower) levels of spending but with what I have, I haven't found any active speakers that amaze me and I just gave a set a try in home.

Remember the question isn't "is it better in theory" or "is it electrically superior" it is "does it produce an audibly better result." I'm not arguing that it is easier and cheaper to build an active, small signal, device that is better objectively. Hell look at DACs vs amps. Even bad DACs are really good these days, it is just easy to do. I'm just saying that in actual implementation, I'm not finding the massive improvements people claim, at least in the mid range of things ($1000-2000ish per pair of speaker). I've been in a few studios, and seen many more, that choose passive speakers for their main or exclusive monitoring and the results have been impressive (all were expensive speakers, to be sure).

Hence why I say overblown. Not because it is a bad idea, but because it doesn't seem to be this thing that is just some massive step up. If it was, I should be able to grab pretty much any competent $1500ish/pair set of active monitors and say "wow, that is a lot better than what I have." However, I find that's not the case. If I stepped up to something like the Event Opals, ya probably be better. But then I could get better passive for that price as well.

Perhaps at the low end it is more distinct, maybe a $300 pair of active monitors stomps a $300 set of passives on average. But at the level I've bought in to, I don't find an improvement.

 

[Bluesun311]

See but I would like to believe that at the low end in particular it's more about the quality of the components than anything else. I think I know what you mean about the, "wow, that is a lot better" feeling.

All I can do is use my recent experience choosing a 2.1 system for myself. I haven't auditioned many speakers like these but:

Going from the $140 Promedias to the $500 BlueSkys (Klipsch's 2.1 satellites use passive crossovers and Blue Sky's are active) I got that "oh boy" kinda feeling. The Klipsch system just sounds basic by comparison. There's no trick going on besides just changing the speakers out. Do you think it's the crossovers that are making everything better alone? The BlueSkys are more than 3 times as much and I bet Klipsch is still making more profit per set because they are cheaping out at every junction they can. How much do you think it costs them to make a Promedia 2.1 set? Some MDF, some simple electronics specifically chosen for low cost, some tiny satellites, and a fairly low quality D-class amp. Blue Sky really went to a great deal of effort by comparison and the active crossovers for the separately amplified monitors (each monitor has an amp) are a really small part of that huge bump in sound quality. The fully active crossovers essentially require the bi(tri) amplification, right? That's a MUCH more complex system, in my way of thinking. The digital crossovers are more "complex", in my mind, because they are... digital lol. A more simple system for a crossover is based on physical components which, as Sycraft astutely pointed out, are often quite expensive--the fact that these analog crossovers are sometimes difficult to properly configure for the R&D department doesn't take away from the fact that they are much more simple for the overall system layout.

You only need 1 amp for the passive system. That's nice and simple.
For the active crossover system, you need an amp AND a DAC for each output band. That's not as simple at all. It is *probably* going to sound better, though. But not if the manufacturer ended up having to cut corners on the materials and electronics to get it all done.

 

[|Tch0rT|]

Hence why I say overblown. Not because it is a bad idea, but because it doesn't seem to be this thing that is just some massive step up. If it was, I should be able to grab pretty much any competent $1500ish/pair set of active monitors and say "wow, that is a lot better than what I have." However, I find that's not the case. If I stepped up to something like the Event Opals, ya probably be better. But then I could get better passive for that price as well.

The problem is you're comparing apples to oranges. You can find examples of X-brand and model passive speakers that are better than X brand and model active speakers and vice versa until the cows come home. To be able to reliably hear the difference between active and passive you need to have the same speaker drivers in the same cabinet in the same position in the same room etc and then compare the passive vs the active versions. As long as they're both setup properly the active version will always be better. It's kinda like lifting a veil. Once you experience that you'll see it's a massive step up.

I don't rule just rule out passive because it's passive. If I was comparing different brands of active and passive speakers I'd pick the one that does sound better regardless of the crossover. However if it was a passive design you can best bet I'm thinking of converting it to active at some point in the future.

You only need 1 amp for the passive system. That's nice and simple.
For the active crossover system, you need an amp AND a DAC for each output band. That's not as simple at all. It is *probably* going to sound better, though. But not if the manufacturer ended up having to cut corners on the materials and electronics to get it all done.

Uh no you don't need a DAC for each output band. It can go like:

Source -> DAC -> Pre-amp
Source w/ internal DAC -> Pre-amp
Source -> Pre-amp w/ internal DAC

After the pre-amp the active crossover filters it for each amp like so:

 

[Bluesun311]

After the pre-amp the active crossover filters it for each amp like so:

See that part where the Active crossover network gets split out to 2 amplifiers? The active crossover network is digital and the amplifiers aren't. So you need a DAC to feed each amp. Guess how many DACs a 3-way active crossover network has in it!

 

[|Tch0rT|]

Not all active crossovers are digital. Back when I first got into active most active crossovers where analog. Popular ones like the Behringer DCX2496 or miniDSP's have the digital network and go from analog to digital, then the adjustments are all in the digital domain and then digital back to analog. Not a big deal though, some people don't like it do the multiple D/A conversions but if you got a quality one like a miniDSP you won't even notice the conversion (you'd be surprised how many conversions are needed before there's an audible effect, see my note below). Besides it's not like you have to buy a separate DAC for each channel the crossover has them built in usually.

Note, while this isn't the exact same thing Ethan Winer ran a recording through a sound card, recorded that recording, ran the new recording through the sound card again and recorded it again, he did it 20 times, this more or less would simulate multiple D/A conversions. Please see Sound Blaster Generation 1 - 20,
http://ethanwiner.com/aes/

 

[Bluesun311]

No one said D/A conversion was lossy. I said it's complex, from a certain perspective, to use active crossovers--particularly when you are trying to make a cheap integrated system, when all of these separate amplifiers and redundant DACs start to eat away at the budget, leaving very little for the speaker cone material and amplifier components.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

It's been known for a long time that active is superior to passive.

http://audioundone.com/8-advantages-of-active-crossovers-douglas-self

Active's "complications" are only it's more expensive initial cost with having to buy more equipment and having the knowledge to set it up correctly. It's advantages outweigh it's downsides. Passive's advantage is an initial reduced cost in having less equipment to buy upfront and end user convenience as the only setup knowledge they need (but is often ignored) is correct placement.

I'm not sure whether the disadvantages outweigh the downsides. As to what you're discussing here, this is getting into the DIY realm where you're talking about an active crossover circuit that you set up once and then modify for subsequent speaker purchases. That isn't really what I'm going after. But no seriously, does someone have some lab tests that show THD, gain, etc. for active vs passive crossovers at given price points? That's all I'm really trying to get out of you folks. I don't mind admitting that active is superior (I would hope it is, you need an extra +/-15v source for powering all of those op amps), I just wanna see some actual data. I'm an engineer, I don't believe things unless I see the tests.

That's not active, that's passive bi-amping which has no benefit. You'd have to open up your speakers and disconnect the passive crossover to make it active.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bi-wire_bi-amp.htm

I didn't dig too deep into it, thanks for the link.

From your previous posts you go into being "locked in" in regards to active setups, this is only in the case of active studio monitors with built in amps. With designs that aren't active studio monitors one would generally buy the amps once and only replace an amp if one needed more power or the amp died.

But that is what the TC was going for, here. He was wanting essentially studio monitors. What you're talking about here imo isn't fully active speakers. You're discussing what I would essentially see as hybrids. Powered crossover with an otherwise passive speaker. Which isn't an idea I'm really against by any means, in fact I was going to suggest it several posts back.

Passive filters are much more complex. There's a lot of design, testing, measuring and redesigning repeat... It's time consuming and expensive especially if you're not already proficient in designing passive crossovers. With active you can test and measure the differences in real time until you reach the set it and forget it point. Also the benefit when testing and measuring with active (obviously not with active studio monitors or others with built in amps and active crossovers that aren't user definable) is you're more than likely in the room that you intend to listen to the speakers in whereas with passive they were designed in the manufacturers testing chamber. Sometimes people forget or don't know that the room is just as important as the speakers themselves.

Active isn't overblown, it's the next step towards uncompromised sound quality if that's your goal. If you want a state of the art speaker system, active is the only way to go.

Once my warranty is up on my ML's I plan to convert my L & R ones to active. I think I have 2 years to go. I would've done it already but I don't feel like footing the cost for replacement panels if they happen to fail in what would've been during my warranty coverage.

Again I don't necessarily doubt any of that. The problem is the context.
- There's a person here wanting to buy speakers.
- What is the best for the price?
AFAIK, there aren't many hybrid designs out there, so the question is given current and subsequent upgrades, which speaker technology is superior in terms of cost savings while having superior audio quality?

No one said D/A conversion was lossy. I said it's complex, from a certain perspective, to use active crossovers--particularly when you are trying to make a cheap integrated system, when all of these separate amplifiers and redundant DACs start to eat away at the budget, leaving very little for the speaker cone material and amplifier components.

Exactly. Succinctly stated, this is the crux of (or is similar to) my question: what is superior (sound quality wise) given a price point? Buying a speaker with part of its cost given to various active filtering and amplification structures, or investing in a speaker where the cost is only split between a passive crossover and the speaker itself? That's essentially the buyer choice here, because with passive speakers as long as you have a good amp you could in all likelihood reuse it for ages.

 

[|Tch0rT|]

No one said D/A conversion was lossy. I said it's complex, from a certain perspective, to use active crossovers--particularly when you are trying to make a cheap integrated system, when all of these separate amplifiers and redundant DACs start to eat away at the budget, leaving very little for the speaker cone material and amplifier components.

Why do you keep implying that active crossovers need the end user to also buy separate DACs before outputting to the amps? I'm not trying to be mean so please don't take it that way, I'm just trying to be clear regarding active crossovers. I mentioned the multiple DA conversions thing because that's one the of the arguments against DSP's that people get all anal about. In your regards to "redundant DACs" if you use any DSP options like PEQ, time delay, etc that are done in the digital domain then the multiple DA conversions no longer redundant.

As to what you're discussing here, this is getting into the DIY realm where you're talking about an active crossover circuit that you set up once and then modify for subsequent speaker purchases. That isn't really what I'm going after.

It doesn't matter if it's DIY, studio monitors, or otherwise the principles for sound reproduction are the same.

But no seriously, does someone have some lab tests that show THD, gain, etc. for active vs passive crossovers at given price points? That's all I'm really trying to get out of you folks. I don't mind admitting that active is superior (I would hope it is, you need an extra +/-15v source for powering all of those op amps),

Ah maybe I missed the part active vs passive crossovers at given price points previously in the thread... Sorry, to me it seemed to me as an attack on active designs and I was defending it. Yeah so that criteria makes it much more subjective. I've never seen a comparison like that before but then again I don't usually look into studio monitors (though they've come more into my radar the last few years since they seem lack the bullshit snake oil voodoo baggage that poisons some speaker discussions). Sycraft mentioned Gearslutz, that'd be the first place I'd look or some other studio/home recording forum maybe they might have some studio monitor shootout like that.

I just wanna see some actual data. I'm an engineer, I don't believe things unless I see the tests.

LOL I can understand that. I'm not an engineer but the older I get and the more proof I require for extraordinary claims, especially in audio... maybe I should've been one... hmmm heh

 

[Sycraft]

The problem is you're comparing apples to oranges. You can find examples of X-brand and model passive speakers that are better than X brand and model active speakers and vice versa until the cows come home. To be able to reliably hear the difference between active and passive you need to have the same speaker drivers in the same cabinet in the same position in the same room etc and then compare the passive vs the active versions. As long as they're both setup properly the active version will always be better. It's kinda like lifting a veil. Once you experience that you'll see it's a massive step up.

I don't rule just rule out passive because it's passive. If I was comparing different brands of active and passive speakers I'd pick the one that does sound better regardless of the crossover. However if it was a passive design you can best bet I'm thinking of converting it to active at some point in the future.

True, I'm not looking at an identical setup with different implementation. Thing is, I am looking at things from a consumer point of view, which is how most people look at it and that is not an option near as I've seen. I am not aware of a company that says "Here is Speaker A and B, they are the same except for being active and passive." So my question is for a given amount of money, what kind of sound quality do I get?

In my testing, it seems about the same. Now I'll grant you, the passive solution I have is slightly more expensive when you add in the amps (maybe $200 more), and supposedly the SVS speakers punch way above their price class. However, the Sceptres and Adams likewise are supposedly hitting above their weight. Net result is they all sound good, with a slight edge going to the SVS speakers in my room on account of they don't hiss, and they have deeper bass (since they are towers).

Similar sort of experience at studios. The studio on campus uses Dunlavy SC-IVs as their control room monitors and man, what a great sound. Now that is a set of like $6000 speakers hooked to an amp that is probably another $1000, but compared to the also pricey active units (can't remember what) in the studio itself they were clearly better.

Personally I like the concept of active speakers, particularly ones like the Sceptres or JBL 4300s where it is a digital crossover and in the JBL's case with a digital input so you don't have to faff about with outboard converters (I haven't had a chance to listen to them though). However, in my testing while they are competitive with the passives I have, they are no better. About the same amount of money for about the same quality of sound. Similar to my experience elsewhere, and similar to the feelings to the few audio engineers I know.

Hence my statement about it being a little overblown. Active crossovers are the more correct design from an electrical standpoint, no question, but in practice it seems that good passive design, combined with the fact that our ears suck, mean that passive speakers can be plenty competitive.

Also there can be issues that you can potentially solve with a passive setup. Like I noted, the stupid Sceptres hiss. I've confirmed this is what they do, nmto a flaw on the ones I have. It isn't loud, 20-25dB where I sit maybe, but audible. Nothing that can be done, it is either something to do with the amps, or the gain stage, and you can't alter those since it is an active setup.

Well, if I hook my MTS speakers in to the receiver directly, they also hiss, however only at higher volume settings, higher than I usually use. I can reduce the gain much more. But I don't even need to deal with that. Just stick a dedicated amplifier that is better suited to their quite low impedance curve (dips below 3 ohms in one place) and there's no audible hiss, even at theatre reference volume settings.

I would never steer people away from active speakers, I think studio monitors are the #1 go-to for a stereo setup on a computer. However, I just don't buy in to the hype from companies like Genelec about them being they clearly superior solution.

 

[HammerSandwich]

I am not aware of a company that says "Here is Speaker A and B, they are the same except for being active and passive."

Behringer B2030A vs. B2030P?

The studio on campus uses Dunlavy SC-IVs as their control room monitors and man, what a great sound. Now that is a set of like $6000 speakers hooked to an amp that is probably another $1000, but compared to the also pricey active units (can't remember what) in the studio itself they were clearly better.

While I am highly biased here, I believe Dunlavy holds a strong claim for being the best crossover designer ever. Stereophile published an interview with him way back in 1996, & Dunlavy's comments on active systems & DSP are worth a look. A true shame the Magnus never made it out of the prototype stage...

A few opinions:

1. Specific technologies NEVER trump implementation. IOW, you can't state that a speaker with, say, active crossovers or Kevlar cones will outperform one without that feature.
2. (Corollary) One reason that Dunlavy speakers are so accurate is that each speaker received hours of crossover tweaking in an anechoic chamber to address component variations, etc. This clearly cannot be done with a $300 speaker.
3. DSP + active can offer better performance (mostly by providing more tools for the designer), but...
4. ...passive crossovers don't necessarily cause major response variations, etc. through difficult loads. Designers should assume a transistor amp with low output impedance or tell you otherwise. Heck, Firstwatt has done this for years from the other direction.
5. Any adverse interactions between a passive speaker & separate amp are compatibility problems. These are easily addressed.
6. Crossovers with textbook slopes might work in certain cases, but most drivers require tweaks such as notch filters to perform accurately. Replacing SC-IV crossovers with line-level active units is NOT as simple as changing the wiring & selecting a slope.
7. We've gone WAY off-topic. Again...

 

[Sycraft]

Didn't know Behringer did that. I may have to see if I can find a set of each to listen to as that would be interesting.

Dunlavy was a hell of a designer and ya, the crossovers were amazing. 1st order only in his stuff, which necessitated lots of drivers and a big 'ole box.

For that matter, SVS hired Phil Bamberg to do the crossovers for the M series, and he is supposedly an amazing crossover designer.

And believe me, I like the idea of active crossover. Actually, I really like the idea of digital crossovers. I think you whack in a big ole' DSP and have it do crossover, driver correction, room correction, and the whole thing. I'm a fan of throwing DSP at all problems .

Just saying that thus far in life as a consumer I find that at a similar price point active and passive speakers seem to be able to produce sound around the same quality. I see many people, particularly on places like Gearslutz, sell active speakers as the One True Way(tm) and just so amazeballs superior it'll blow your mind, but my mind remains unblown.

Thus my advice to people is to buy what you like and not worry about it. Whatever works well for your setup, go for it. If you have a HT type setup and passives are easier, don't fret over trying to make actives work. If you've a PC and want to hook right in to it, just use some actives and call it done.

Speaking of active speakers, I really wanna check out some Event Opals. I don't know if I'm willing to spend that much on speakers, but I am very intrigued.

 

[Bluesun311]

Why do you keep implying that active crossovers need the end user to also buy separate DACs before outputting to the amps?

Yeah you're not reading carefully. The DACs are IN the crossover. ALL digital crossovers require a DAC... The point is its pricey.

 

[B00nie]

It's obvious that the naysayers here haven't built a single active crossover in their lives (perhaps not even a passive one) so it's a waste of time to try to explain them anything.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

If you consider the filters I've built for my circuit classes, it's been quite a few... but I don't see how that's relevant. I asked you for evidence. Some kind of lab tests. Some comparison of price performance. You have none of this. Just theory.