I'm with you 110%, we just have to make sure of compatibility. Not all Pro units can be slotted in a consumer system because of the different reference voltages. Some can toggle between the two references and some don't have that feature.
Audiophiles and our prejudices
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
I'm with you 110%, we just have to make sure of compatibility. Not all Pro units can be slotted in a consumer system because of the different reference voltages. Some can toggle between the two references and some don't have that feature.
PSI active monitors
at t.he. show in newport beach this year i stumbled onto the PSI A17-m in the simplifi room and was impressed to say the least. i've never heard the magico q1 but on the otherhand the q5s at the same show left me nonplused considering how 'special' they are - these wre show conditions so take with a grain of salt. i had no preconceived notions or expectations about either as id not heard of magico or PSI before the show and not picked up an audiophile rag or walked into a high-end store in ten years.
at t.he. show in newport beach this year i stumbled onto the PSI A17-m in the simplifi room and was impressed to say the least. i've never heard the magico q1 but on the otherhand the q5s at the same show left me nonplused considering how 'special' they are - these wre show conditions so take with a grain of salt. i had no preconceived notions or expectations about either as id not heard of magico or PSI before the show and not picked up an audiophile rag or walked into a high-end store in ten years.
I apologize for faulty memory Tim.
I disagree on the quote above though. Look at pro near field specs. The great majority have their tweeters mounted on wave guides precisely because of the short distances between points of the equilateral triangle. Then look at the bass response figures.
All I'm saying is that it's a horses for courses thing. Form follows function. If I were mixing a track, particularly the individual panning, I'd definitely go with near fields. There's a funny story when I was a student at Full Sail U. On the first day, we were taken on a tour of Studio A's control room which is used both educationally and commercially. The guy at the massive SSL 9000j console was tweaking using the near fields, I believe they were Haflers. I asked why he wasn't using the big ol' soffit mounted monitors. Our teacher said, "Oh, those are for impressing the clients". LOL
Perhaps you could comment on the plots for this monitor (Click on plots to see the graphs.)
http://emotivapro.com/products/powered_monitors/airmotiv6.php
Here are measurements for a monitor with a waveguide:
http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...ng_studio-monitors_nearfield-monitors_KH120A#
What do you see in these graphs that is different from measurements for consumer audio speakers?
Bill
What graph's? All I saw were tables. In any case I'm pointing to off axis response. If you want to see the strongest cases FOR directivity, the best place I've seen is Dr. Geddes site. When it comes to applications like mixing, like I said, this is the way I would go. Even for casual listening at my computer, it's also the way I DID go.
I'm an audio dealer and have 5 monitors in my product line up. Still, I went and bought a pair of nearfield actives for my workstation from someone else for the simple reason that they do a better job. I waited a long time for these babies too. Needless to say I love 'em and even wrote about them in our local forum. If I was some shill you'd think I'd be pushing the home monitors for that application.
If we go down this road we'll end up in a CD vs point source debate. There will be no resolution there. It's a matter of preference. My point is simple. Speakers are designed for narrow ranges of purpose. It may be a difference of degrees but it doesn't mean small degrees are of no aesthetic importance. If professionals found near field monitors to be as good at mid field, they wouldn't be buying midfields ALONG with their near fields and manufacturers would stop making them. That is unless you believe the pros to be suckers for artificially created needs cooked up by some sinister plot by manufacturers and marketers to part them with their equipment budgets.
I'm an audio dealer and have 5 monitors in my product line up. Still, I went and bought a pair of nearfield actives for my workstation from someone else for the simple reason that they do a better job. I waited a long time for these babies too. Needless to say I love 'em and even wrote about them in our local forum. If I was some shill you'd think I'd be pushing the home monitors for that application.
If we go down this road we'll end up in a CD vs point source debate. There will be no resolution there. It's a matter of preference. My point is simple. Speakers are designed for narrow ranges of purpose. It may be a difference of degrees but it doesn't mean small degrees are of no aesthetic importance. If professionals found near field monitors to be as good at mid field, they wouldn't be buying midfields ALONG with their near fields and manufacturers would stop making them. That is unless you believe the pros to be suckers for artificially created needs cooked up by some sinister plot by manufacturers and marketers to part them with their equipment budgets.
On the Emotiva page I cited, click on the word "plots" which is just above "Designed for Demanding Studio and Home Applications". You will find on-axis and off-axis graphs of frequency response.
On the Neumann page, click on the word "measurements" on the right side of the page. There are vertical and horizontal directivity plots.
I am aware of his site and have read some of the material on that site.
What nearfield monitors did you buy? What alternatives did you consider?
Speakers are designed for a target market segment. Then the marketing people concoct a way to characterize their product. Once a market gets structured with a set of categories like near-field and mid-field, it is advantageous to use those well understood terms to characterize any new product in that market.
Just because companies describe a monitor as a near-field monitor does not automatically mean that it has no value outside the segment the marketing people chose.
I can be convinced by arguments based on theory or arguments based on sound experiments. I am rarely convinced by reasoning not grounded on theory or experiment. And rhetoric like that in the last sentence is even less convincing.
Your logic doesn't show that near-field monitors would not be acceptable for listening at mid-field distances. Comparing near and mid-field monitors in a manufacturer's product line shows obvious advantages for the larger, more expensive mid-field models: higher peak sound levels (at 1m and thus higher levels elsewhere in the room), better low frequency response and more power in the included amps. A mid-field monitor may have advantages over a near-field monitor for mid-field use but that doesn't mean that a near-field monitor is not suited to uses other than near-field listening.
Bill
I went with Adams particularly because of their AMT implementation. I considered Genelecs and KRKs. I liked the Adams better. There were many I did not like. I will plead the fifth on those.
As per your last paragraph clearly you know the advantages so why pray tell should I be tasked to tell you what you already know. Except that you missed the part about the higher potential for comb filtering the closer loudspeakers are positioned relative to each other as would be the case in near field listening. Something wave guides do a heck of a job ameliorating. In my first post I said OPTIMIZED. Which by the way is what I think every body should be doing with their gear whatever that gear may be. ACCEPTABLE was never a part of my argument. So your dig at my logic is well, illogical.
As for you saying that speakers are made for target market segments. I don't buy your slant. WE make our decisions based on our own sets of criteria. I haven't the remotest desire to convince you of anything. In my case I choose speakers on the basis of what I want to use them for. I use actives at my work station, omnis in my living room and dining room for back ground music, monitors in my bedroom and large full range quasi point source loudspeakers in my dedicated music room, an ancient Sonic Impact thing for the beach, a modest full range speakers in my vacation home, etc. Don't get me started on headphones. I don't go to the gym wearing Staxes and a back pack carrying the amp with an extension cord for it just because they are the best sounding headphones I own. I go with what is comfortable and holds up to sweat. Form following function can not be faulted as a recipe for success. Manufacturers compete to fill the demands of the market. The market isn't made up of sheep to be herded. Now if you need voluminous data to convince you what's best for you, no hair off my back. Voluminous data will not make a square peg fit in a round hole. It will however tell you to either change the peg or the hole.
Besides as far as Pro and Consumer goes. I am a target market for both. While I am an audiophile, our core business owns recording studios, OB Vans, remote live recording facilities and soundstages. We buy what we need for these varying monitoring requirements.
As per your last paragraph clearly you know the advantages so why pray tell should I be tasked to tell you what you already know. Except that you missed the part about the higher potential for comb filtering the closer loudspeakers are positioned relative to each other as would be the case in near field listening. Something wave guides do a heck of a job ameliorating. In my first post I said OPTIMIZED. Which by the way is what I think every body should be doing with their gear whatever that gear may be. ACCEPTABLE was never a part of my argument. So your dig at my logic is well, illogical.
As for you saying that speakers are made for target market segments. I don't buy your slant. WE make our decisions based on our own sets of criteria. I haven't the remotest desire to convince you of anything. In my case I choose speakers on the basis of what I want to use them for. I use actives at my work station, omnis in my living room and dining room for back ground music, monitors in my bedroom and large full range quasi point source loudspeakers in my dedicated music room, an ancient Sonic Impact thing for the beach, a modest full range speakers in my vacation home, etc. Don't get me started on headphones. I don't go to the gym wearing Staxes and a back pack carrying the amp with an extension cord for it just because they are the best sounding headphones I own. I go with what is comfortable and holds up to sweat. Form following function can not be faulted as a recipe for success. Manufacturers compete to fill the demands of the market. The market isn't made up of sheep to be herded. Now if you need voluminous data to convince you what's best for you, no hair off my back. Voluminous data will not make a square peg fit in a round hole. It will however tell you to either change the peg or the hole.
Besides as far as Pro and Consumer goes. I am a target market for both. While I am an audiophile, our core business owns recording studios, OB Vans, remote live recording facilities and soundstages. We buy what we need for these varying monitoring requirements.
Last edited:
Oh I didn't answer the FR response of the Emotiva part did I?
Here's pretty much the same measurements (on and off axis response 0, 15, 30 degrees) of a domestic loudspeaker from 2003 c/o our friends from Soundstage Network and Canada's NRC. I own and sold a bunch of this speaker and I chose the Adam over it for use at my cramp workstation.
Here's the Emotiva's in the link you provided
Look at the variations from 85dB/2.83V input reference (allow some adjustments for this difference) between the two loudspeakers at 20 kHZ. In particular look at the variations at 30 degrees. That's a difference of about 15dB. One is more than twice as strong in perceived loudness than the other at the extremes. Am I making my point now?
I also said look at the bass response. Pay close attention to the frequency and dB scales. They are different. The Emotiva's drop off sharply at 300Hz (same as the Neumann. It is INTENTIONAL) compared to the gentler roll off of the other one beginning at around 100Hz (measurements more typical of a professional midfield, take a look at the Neumann O 410 midfield). This is a GOOD thing for near field monitors just as a bigger drop off in off axis response is.
What do I see from these charts? Same thing I ended up doing without looking but by listening. I'd still choose the Emotiva for my workstation over the other speaker but would choose the other one for my living room for reasons I already stated.
Here's pretty much the same measurements (on and off axis response 0, 15, 30 degrees) of a domestic loudspeaker from 2003 c/o our friends from Soundstage Network and Canada's NRC. I own and sold a bunch of this speaker and I chose the Adam over it for use at my cramp workstation.
Here's the Emotiva's in the link you provided
Look at the variations from 85dB/2.83V input reference (allow some adjustments for this difference) between the two loudspeakers at 20 kHZ. In particular look at the variations at 30 degrees. That's a difference of about 15dB. One is more than twice as strong in perceived loudness than the other at the extremes. Am I making my point now?
I also said look at the bass response. Pay close attention to the frequency and dB scales. They are different. The Emotiva's drop off sharply at 300Hz (same as the Neumann. It is INTENTIONAL) compared to the gentler roll off of the other one beginning at around 100Hz (measurements more typical of a professional midfield, take a look at the Neumann O 410 midfield). This is a GOOD thing for near field monitors just as a bigger drop off in off axis response is.
What do I see from these charts? Same thing I ended up doing without looking but by listening. I'd still choose the Emotiva for my workstation over the other speaker but would choose the other one for my living room for reasons I already stated.
Last edited:
As far as your particular speakers are concerned there is an explanation as to why they work both ways particularly in the higher frequencies even without the waveguides. Your speakers are mirror imaged pairs. With the tweeters offset and put on the outside edges, you'll get less crossing at the middle as compared to speakers with tweeters set in the middle of the baffles. Typically one finds mirror imaged speakers in markets where space is a premium. Are your speakers british by any chance?
Tim,
I am sure that you would love to listen to Quad ESL63 in near field . They seem perfect for near field as they emulate a perfect point source radiator, and have a very controlled dispersion.
Some of my preferred classical recordings were monitored using the ESL63 in this way and more than a few sound engineers use QUAD ESL63 PRO (a more rugged version) for mixing and mastering. But sadly they do not fit in the console desk...
Micro, I haven't had the opportunity to pull up a chair and listen to a pair of single driver electrostats at close proximity, but I'm sure it would work quite well. What Mark seems to be missing in his discussion with Old Listener, is that point sources, whether they are small two-way speakers with drivers in very close proximity, or single full-range drivers, including electrostats, can be much more coherent at close proximitiy than larger, multi-driver speakers. So can the right larger, multi-driver design. But this says absolutely nothing about how they will perform at greater distances. The two things are unrelated. Once sound from multiple drivers has merged into a cohesive whole (at whatever distance that happens), it doesn't somehow break up again over greater distance. There are, of course, other issues that can effect a speaker efficacy at a great distance, but they are a separate issue.
Tim
I don't hate hearing it, Frank. The myths that bother me are the ones I know are not true but have a bit of the scent of believability about them. In this thread that would be the idea that speakers "designed" for near field use don't function properly from a more normal listening distance. It's wrong, but it sort of sounds right, doesn't it? This notion of yours about driver coherence being a function of "sorted" electronics, regardless of listening distance or the physical spacing of the drivers is no threat to the truth; anyone with a fragment of logic should be able to sort this one out.
Tim
The bottom line is I've set them up in my living room and listened to them from normal distances and they image beautifully (more naturally, actually, than they do in the near field). The bottom line is that, through the internet, I know a good 50 people who own them, and I'm one of 2 or 3 I know of who listens to them near field. The bottom line is they are a fully integrated system with a built-in DAC and remote control preamp and what AVi is marketing with that picture is the ability to plug a digital source (the computer) directly into the speaker system and have a complete system. You are welcome to peruse their web site if you like, but I don't think you'll find the words "near field" or recommended listening distances anywhere.
The ADM 9.1 system is far from perfect. I'm well aware of it's limitations and would be happy to discuss them with all pride of ownership left behind. But you have not uncovered one of their limitations. You've made an argument out of a misinterpretation of a photograph and a misunderstanding of driver coherence.
Tim
How do you misinterpret a photograph? We’re not looking at photographs taken from a spy satellite and trying to discern what the images mean. The website shows 3 pictures of the speakers and two out of three pictures depict a computer setup. You can speculate why 2/3 of their pictures are appealing to computer desktop users. If you say they image great from 3’ and sound just as swell from 8’ that’s dandy. But please don’t tell me that your speaker company is not marketing these speakers to be used on a desktop as part of a computer stereo just like you are using them.
If my stereo system was going to be confined to the top of my computer desk and that was all I had to listen to, I would be in the market for a speaker that was expressly designed to be listened to in the near- field. If you or anyone else doesn’t think that a speaker will sound different the closer you get to it and the farther you move away from it, I really don’t know what to say. And this has nothing to do with “my misunderstanding of driver coherence.” The balance of sound that the designer of a pair of speakers wants you to hear is predicated on some minimum distances from side walls, rear walls, from each other, and the distance to your listening position. It’s usually covered in the owner’s manual under speaker setup.
If my stereo system was going to be confined to the top of my computer desk and that was all I had to listen to, I would be in the market for a speaker that was expressly designed to be listened to in the near- field. If you or anyone else doesn’t think that a speaker will sound different the closer you get to it and the farther you move away from it, I really don’t know what to say. And this has nothing to do with “my misunderstanding of driver coherence.” The balance of sound that the designer of a pair of speakers wants you to hear is predicated on some minimum distances from side walls, rear walls, from each other, and the distance to your listening position. It’s usually covered in the owner’s manual under speaker setup.
By making erroneous assumptions about what it means; in this case assuming a desktop shot means the speakers were designed for near field listening. There is no question at all that AVi is is targeting computer audiophiles with the 9.1s, but they were not designed for near field listening. I know this, and everyone who knows the company and the product knows this.
No need to struggle for words then, Mark. No one said that. I said, in fact, that they image a bit more naturally from 8 - 10 feet away than they do up close. It's this notion of speakers being designed for near field listening that makes me wonder what on earth you're talking about. I'll admit I assumed it was driver coherence, because I really can't imagine what else it is. What are you talking about? What would be the features/performance attributes of a speaker meant to work well at a four or five feet, but not at ten?
Tim
Similar threads
