monitor question

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

So I'm on a mission to discern, by listening this time, how the
individual elements in my chain of gear sound . To be scientific about
it I plan to have at least two of each of the following: mic, preamp,
soundcard, amp, monitor. Right now I monitor on a pair of Yamaha
NS-10Ms.

My question is this: what's the word on passive and active monitors.
Is one generally favorable to the other? Is it a matter of taste? Is
it not worth an amateur like me worrying about such stuff? If using
passive speakers like mine, what is the best approach to amping them?
(I'm not asking for a "best of " on this.)

Thanks guys,

gary

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

what would you suggest for an amplifier for NS1000M's? I am stuck between a
25 watt class a transistor amp and a 100 watt tube amp.

Bob

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cjsora$k97$1@panix2.panix.com...
> gary <memjaychims@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >So I'm on a mission to discern, by listening this time, how the
> >individual elements in my chain of gear sound . To be scientific about
> >it I plan to have at least two of each of the following: mic, preamp,
> >soundcard, amp, monitor. Right now I monitor on a pair of Yamaha
> >NS-10Ms.
>
> As mains? Not just for check mix monitors?
>
> >My question is this: what's the word on passive and active monitors.
> >Is one generally favorable to the other? Is it a matter of taste? Is
> >it not worth an amateur like me worrying about such stuff? If using
> >passive speakers like mine, what is the best approach to amping them?
> >(I'm not asking for a "best of " on this.)
>
> Pick monitors you like the sound of. If they are passive, get amps for
> them. Many people find active speakers more convenient. Some don't.
> It's not a big deal and manufacturers have made much more out of it than
> needs to be made.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:19:07 GMT, "sycochkn" <sycochkn@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>what would you suggest for an amplifier for NS1000M's? I am stuck between a
>25 watt class a transistor amp and a 100 watt tube amp.

I had a pair back when they were current, and never found a really
great amplifier combi. If I were to try again today, I'd probably
start by bringing wiring out from the crossover (which is fine)
in order to drive the woofer and the mid-'n-tweet from separate
amplifiers, possibly with a small time delay.

The drivers are good enough and the box is (even more surprisingly)
good enough to consider their use with modern crossovers and
separate (sub)woofers. I'd start by memorizing everything on
Linkwitz's webpage; all is appropriate to the era.

But back to your immediate question, no amplifier is perfect for
everything, just as no speaker (to a much greater extent) is
perfect for everything. FWIW, trying to make a tube amplifier
for use on woofers is probably wasted effort. Can be done, but
why bother?

Midrange and above... now you have a horserace.

Good hunting,

Chris Hornbeck

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gary,

> what's the word on passive and active monitors. <

Active monitors offer many advantages, in addition to a simpler hookup with
less pieces to carry if you ever do remotes:

Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound
with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the
crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive components.
Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have a
fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping.
But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies anyway,
is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's
feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount.

--Ethan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Raymond <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: "sycochkn" sycochkn@earthlink.net
>>
>>what would you suggest for an amplifier for NS1000M's? I am stuck between a
>>25 watt class a transistor amp and a 100 watt tube amp.
>
>There's a lot of those older single rack space Crown (I forget the model
>number) amps floating around. You can get them for a low price and there good
>solid amps. They come in 75watt and 150watt flavors if I remember right.

You mean the D75 and D150. They have very soft top end with no detail at
all to them. With the NS10, that's actually a good thing, and I think they
tame the treble problems on the NS10 a lot. On less shrill speakers they
might not be so good a choice. The D150 is a bit larger than the single
space D60 and D75, but it has the same wacky Raytheon dual op-amp circuit
inside.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The actual definition of "Active Monitor" is that the output of the
amplifier is connected direct to the driver. This then means that all
individual drivers have their own amp.

In active monitors the crossover is usually active and always before the
power amps. This allows for steeper filters and more control over the
over-all system.

Buying an active monitor will give you all of these things in one package.
With a passive system you buy the passive speakers, then you need to get an
amp that'll work with them, maybe you buy active crossovers to go infront of
the power amps. All this leaves much more room for error. I'm not saying
that you can't get excellent results out of passive systems, because you
can. You just have to know what you're doing.

You can argue the active vs passive point till you're blue in the face. The
only true way to determine which is technically better is to measure them
properly. As most people don't have these facilities then you have to buy
what you think sounds best. Lets face it, if you have a monitoring system
that you hate the sound of, you're going to hate the mixes that you do on
it.

In my opinion, if you want a "ture" monitoring system (you hear everything
reproduced exactly how it is on the tape/disc/etc) then go with an active
system.

But remember, it doesn't matter what you by, It needs to be set up correctly
in your room as the room is the biggest factor in the sound that comes out
of the monitors.

Rik


"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
news:FtadnfqiC_2gD__cRVn-og@giganews.com...
> Gary,
>
>> what's the word on passive and active monitors. <
>
> Active monitors offer many advantages, in addition to a simpler hookup
> with
> less pieces to carry if you ever do remotes:
>
> Active speakers are typically bi-amped, which often yields a cleaner sound
> with less distortion. And bi-amping offers more ways to optimize the
> crossover performance because it uses active rather than passive
> components.
> Also, the power amps will be well matched to the speakers, they won't have
> a
> fan, and the wires from amp to speaker are shorter which improves damping.
> But to me the overwhelming advantage, as implemented in the Mackies
> anyway,
> is that the woofer cone's motion can be included within the power amp's
> feedback loop to reduce distortion by a significant amount.
>
> --Ethan
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <VVy8d.258$yw6.177@read3.inet.fi> itstricky10@hotmail.com writes:

> The actual definition of "Active Monitor" is that the output of the
> amplifier is connected direct to the driver. This then means that all
> individual drivers have their own amp.

Really? A speaker with a passive crossover and a single power
amplifier can't be called an "Active monitor?" Sez who?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cjvirr$qbk$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>
> Of course not. An active monitor is a really big lizard that zooms around
> a lot.
> --scott

Wouldn't that be an over active monitor?

--
cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<cjsora$k97$1@panix2.panix.com>...

>
> As mains? Not just for check mix monitors?
> --scott

Thanks everyone for the input. First of all I would like to get some
further discussion on Scotts point above. I use my monitors for both.
Actually I use my home stereo speakers to double check my final mix
(my NS10s have the tendency to give me a really bassy mix.) What is
the word on monitoring mains and mix? Do most of you use separate
speakers for each? If so, why? Because I record and mix in the same
room I have to monitor a lot of stuff with headphones.

Another question: the point was made that narrowing down choice of
monitors is less important than the room. If this is so how do I make
an educated guess at what monitors best suit my room before buying
them (without running the risk that they sound completely different
when I get them home.) Again, I record and mix in the same room.

Thanks,

gary

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ck24df$jum$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> gary <memjaychims@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Thanks everyone for the input. First of all I would like to get some
> >further discussion on Scotts point above. I use my monitors for both.
> >Actually I use my home stereo speakers to double check my final mix
> >(my NS10s have the tendency to give me a really bassy mix.)

If you want the bass to be more accurate be sure you are sitting in an
equilateral triange with your head and the 2 speakers.



> There's just a lot of stuff that you can't hear on them, and
> it's not just the low end. Try your home stereo speakers and the NS-10s
> and listen to how much EQ you need to make before you can hear it happening.
> You can make some big changes and still not hear them on the NS-10, where
> with more analytical monitors you can hear them well.


Now now, Scott ragging AGAIN on ns-10's. (btw thanks again for the 78
rpm info.)

I make my living with them. They work wonderfully well once you get the
hang of them. You have to get the hang of *any* small monitor.

If you are making big changes in eq and don't here them on your
ns-10's, it's either cuz a) you are muddling with very low bass stuff
no small monitor can help your with, b) you are deaf, or c) you are not
cut out for this field.


Also, a great amp for ns-10's is a Bryston 4b, as others here can
attest. I previously powered them with a Crown Macrotech 1000. Very big
difference. The Crown became our headphone amp, which of course I don't
have to listen to ;>






David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<ck61e5$ab7$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> david <ihate@spamo.com> wrote:
> >In article <ck24df$jum$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
> >
> >> There's just a lot of stuff that you can't hear on them, and
> >> it's not just the low end. Try your home stereo speakers and the NS-10s
> >> and listen to how much EQ you need to make before you can hear it happening.
> >> You can make some big changes and still not hear them on the NS-10, where
> >> with more analytical monitors you can hear them well.
> >
> >Now now, Scott ragging AGAIN on ns-10's. (btw thanks again for the 78
> >rpm info.)
> >
> >I make my living with them. They work wonderfully well once you get the
> >hang of them. You have to get the hang of *any* small monitor.
>
> It's a shame Fletcher isn't here, because Fletcher is better at defending
> the NS-10 than anyone I know. He uses a bunch of weird little tricks, though,
> some of which I find a little disturbing. But he gets great results working
> with the things. And he won't use the big monitors much at all.
>
> >If you are making big changes in eq and don't here them on your
> >ns-10's, it's either cuz a) you are muddling with very low bass stuff
> >no small monitor can help your with, b) you are deaf, or c) you are not
> >cut out for this field.
>
> I disagree and I think it's time for a monitor shootout party.
> --scott

ok, so considering I will be making my A/B test (see original post)
using the NS-10s, what would be a fitting B speaker. I will make any
gear buying decisions based on the "get what sounds good" plan but to
make it an educational experience what monitors would, in relief,
demonstrate what is generally found lacking in the yamahas and maybe
lacks where they shine?

gary