Why ADAM passive better than ADAM active studio monitor in term of sound quality?

[benelli]

What about the NHT A or M20's that are technically self-powered - but the amplifier is separate? I like this concept a lot - because the amp is designed exactly for the speaker, but it's not tacked on to the back of the cab. Proprietary but not skimped for size. And they sound unreal. The Adam stuff is obviously fantastic but I have the same problem with them that I do with Genny's - it sounds SO good, I have no idea what the hell I'm listening to. Who the hell listens to music on ribbon tweeters, anyway? Only people with Adams! Certainly not anyone who is buying music nowadays, much less people who are downloading shit mp3's.


just my 2c

[Bryce]

Originally Posted by dubrichie

the problem that is being discussed and which does unfortunately exist is that a lot of active monitors are supplied with cheap / crap amps.

if they were to be supplied with high quality amps, say Bryston PowerPacs, they would indeed fulfil the potential of the active speaker approach.

but, this would of course be very expensive.

most people with good / great speakers power them with amps that do not do their speakers justice because they are not willing to pony up for really high quality amplification.

which is just daft in my opinion. but there you have it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course...however, you do realize that you're talking about not just ADAM, but Genelec, Dynaudio, ATC, Focal, K&H, etc as well. AFAIK, none of them use expensive power amps, do they? If they're all so inferior, why do so many people/facilities use them?

We used to offer passive versions of the S series, but we stopped for a very simple reason - only a few people were buying them. From what I understand from my friends at TC Electronic, there's not that many passive Dyns that are sold these days either. I'm actually hard-pressed to think of more than a few companies who still even make passive studio monitors.

Originally Posted by benelli

The Adam stuff is obviously fantastic but I have the same problem with them that I do with Genny's - it sounds SO good, I have no idea what the hell I'm listening to.

That's a very unusual perspective. Usually, we get the exact opposite - that ADAMS tend to show you what's there, and only sound good if the mix is good.

Who the hell listens to music on ribbon tweeters, anyway? Only people with Adams!

While that may be true, I honestly don't think it really matters at all. There do seem to be a pretty fair number of pretty well known (and not-so well known) engineers and facilities using the ADAMs, so perhaps you'll allow for the possibility that the work done on folded ribbons translates okay....

Check out the new Beatles "Love" record. It was mixed on ADAMs (specifically S3As). Not a bad sounding record, IMO.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by Bryce

There do seem to be a pretty fair number of pretty well known (and not-so well known) engineers and facilities using the ADAMs, so perhaps you'll allow for the possibility that the work done on folded ribbons translates okay....

When I took a 5-channel mix that I'd done on S2A's (and a well-respected subwoofer) over to Airshow Mastering and listened on Dave Glasser's Dunlavy rig with audiophile-grade mono blocs, I was pleasantly suprised at how well my work translated. thumbsup

Check out the new Beatles "Love" record. It was mixed on ADAMs (specifically S3As). Not a bad sounding record, IMO.

On my five-channel S2 rig, it sounds freekin' amazing!

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[Todd]

to the extent that's being discussed, a great mix, comes from
a great engineer, with great ears.
Wether he/she is mixing on passive or active ADAMS etc etc, is fairly
meaningless.
A great engineer knows which speakers he/she needs to get the results.
(based on real world expirience, not from reading forum threads)
The decisions they make from speaker selection, on through the whole
mix process are all counter dependant.
It has to all be there.
A great set of speakers and power amp alone, really doesnt mean squat.
Its all about the person in front of them, and the way they translate
what they're hearing. Which is completely subjective.

Sorry, but i think the "passive vs active" discussion is a pure waste
of time we could be using to learn our craft better, and ultimately decrease the endless G.A.S.
Just my opinion.
T

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by David Rick

When I took a 5-channel mix that I'd done on S2A's (and a well-respected subwoofer) over to Airshow Mastering and listened on Dave Glasser's Dunlavy rig with audiophile-grade mono blocs, I was pleasantly suprised at how well my work translated. thumbsup



On my five-channel S2 rig, it sounds freekin' amazing!

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

Though monitors are important I think also the biggest thing people forget to mention is Room. It is not uncommon to have +/- 20dB if not treated. So never mind -3dB at 30Hz.

[dokushoka]

Originally Posted by Bryce

I wish I were better educated, and better able to discuss this...but I'm not. However, ADAM designer Klaus Heinz swears up and down that active designs are not only more efficient, but are actually better sounding - so much so that he even makes active versions of the ADAM HiFi line available. Interestingly, I'm getting ready to translate a whole paper he wrote on why that is, which will hopefully give me a better understanding of this subject - I'll be more than glad to post some of it here when I'm done.

What I do know is that there are a whole bunch of people whose ears and opinions I respect that seem to think that working on active monitors (not just ADAMs) is the way to go. I have a difficult time believing that so many top engineers and facilities - all of whom can certainly pick and choose what they want to work on - are using active monitors for any other reason than that they believe these are the best tools for the job.

That being said, everyone has different ears and different tastes...and if passive designs work better for you than active designs, I don't think that's any more wrong than the people who prefer their active monitors.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

Hi Bryce,
Just for the record, I would buy some passive ADAMs if they included the newer woofer designs.

[Bryce]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

Hi Bryce,
Just for the record, I would buy some passive ADAMs if they included the newer woofer designs.

You mean the carbon fiber woofers in the A7s, I guess - they're the only ones that have a woofer that could be called new.

I don't believe ADAM Germany has plans to make passive A7s. We do sell some ANF10s, but I'm not sure it's enough to merit bringing another passive monitor to market - especially one that would be in the same approximate price range as the ANF.

Truth be told, I think the ANF's paper woofer is actually pretty great - I have a surround setup of them in my home entertainment rig.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

[dokushoka]

Originally Posted by Bryce

You mean the carbon fiber woofers in the A7s, I guess - they're the only ones that have a woofer that could be called new.

I don't believe ADAM Germany has plans to make passive A7s. We do sell some ANF10s, but I'm not sure it's enough to merit bringing another passive monitor to market - especially one that would be in the same approximate price range as the ANF.

Truth be told, I think the ANF's paper woofer is actually pretty great - I have a surround setup of them in my home entertainment rig.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

Sorry, I was meaning the drivers from the S3A or S4A as opposed to the drivers that currently offered in your passive models.

[Bryce]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

Sorry, I was meaning the drivers from the S3A or S4A as opposed to the drivers that currently offered in your passive models.

Not a problem - ADAM Germany will still make a passive pair of any S series monitor as a special order.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

[loaf]

Ok, so most good active speakers have inexpensive amps fitted to them, so again, if I wanted to go for some AF10's say, to be powered by a samson I have lying around would the compromise between that set up and A7's really be so great?

[Bryce]

Originally Posted by loaf

Ok, so most good active speakers have inexpensive amps fitted to them, so again, if I wanted to go for some AF10's say, to be powered by a samson I have lying around would the compromise between that set up and A7's really be so great?

It's just not that simple.

Like I said, the science behind this isn't my forte..but google is my friend:


Crossover

A major source of difficulty in designing a Passive loudspeaker system lies less in selecting the drive units or enclosure, but in designing and building the passive crossover. This device with its large capacitors and resistors receives the low impedance, full frequency output from the amplifier, and divides it between the two, three or more drive units. It is hardly surprising when taking a look at the size and complexity of these unpowered components that the passive crossover can absorb up to 20% of the amplifier's power output. And that's not the only problem!

The magnitude of the frequency response of both active and passive loudspeakers can be controlled, with good design, to be within 1dB of one another. However, the phase component of the frequency response will always be better in an active system. The active filters produce better filter roll-off characteristics at crossover. Combine this with the inclusion of a variable all-pass filter at each crossover point to correct the phase response of the drive units through the crossover regions and the result is a loudspeaker with much better group delay characteristics. The benefit to the listener will be improved polar response and therefore radiated power response. Such an active loudspeaker will have a large stable sound field with stable imaging and source location. Very difficult and costly to achieve with a passive loudspeaker system.

A passive crossover will only operate correctly into the load impedance of a particular loudspeaker drive unit. However, the impedance of a loudspeaker drive unit will change with the amount of power input. This is because loudspeakers are very inefficient and most of the input power is dissipated as heat in the voice coil. As a result the temperature of the voice coil will rise and because copper has a positive temperature coefficient of resistance the impedance of the loudspeaker drive unit will rise. The result will be frequency response errors as the filters move from their designed response with increased input power. This effect does not occur in active loudspeakers where the filter response is maintained independent of input power to the loudspeaker.

Active Vs. Passive Amplifiers

The Separates amplifier manufacturer, has no idea what is going to be hung on the end of his product. Hence the need to massively over-build to ensure that the amplifier will sound good with almost any speaker impedance and cable. It is not surprising that the massive amplifiers that typify the high end today are both costly and power consuming.

These problems of efficiency, size and cost are much reduced in the case of amplifiers designed for Active loudspeakers. Here the designer has the luxury of designing an amplifier pack containing separate mono amplifiers that only have to power one drive unit, whose every performance characteristic, bandwidth, frequency range, power handling, and shortcomings, are known to the designer.

Because the amplifiers in an active loudspeaker system are only required to operate over reduced frequency bands the intermodulation distortion products present in a passive system will be dramatically reduced, by typically 20dB, in an active system.

For a given amount of amplifier power, an active loudspeaker can be expected to produce approximately 6dB more level (twice as much) than the equivalent passive system. Furthermore, power for each drive unit may be more optimally specified in an active system. A tweeter, for example, requires much less power than a woofer to produce a balanced system performance.

A power amplifier designed specifically for the limited frequency range of an individual drive unit gains further benefits in efficiency, due to the fact that the wider the amplifier bandwidth, the less efficient it is. A well designed two or three way mono active power amp, for a given input and power rating, will always be capable of safely reaching higher peak SPL levels with less distortion than the equivalent single wide band power amp. This additional safety margin is now essential for coping with the wider dynamic range of DVD-Audio, SACD, DTS and Dolby Digital film soundtracks. In an active system the absence of both passive crossovers and long cable runs, together with a known amplifier damping factor, prevents the modification of the loudspeaker drive unit "Q" ensuring better controlled low frequency performance.

Source

Not an entirely unsubstantial argument...

dB
ADAM Audio USA

[dokushoka]

Originally Posted by Bryce

Not a problem - ADAM Germany will still make a passive pair of any S series monitor as a special order.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

Cool. Would that cost me more???

[Bryce]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

Cool. Would that cost me more???

Less, actually - no amps.

dB

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Bryce

It's just not that simple.

Like I said, the science behind this isn't my forte..but google is my friend:


Crossover

A major source of difficulty in designing a Passive loudspeaker system lies less in selecting the drive units or enclosure, but in designing and building the passive crossover. This device with its large capacitors and resistors receives the low impedance, full frequency output from the amplifier, and divides it between the two, three or more drive units. It is hardly surprising when taking a look at the size and complexity of these unpowered components that the passive crossover can absorb up to 20% of the amplifier's power output. And that's not the only problem!

The magnitude of the frequency response of both active and passive loudspeakers can be controlled, with good design, to be within 1dB of one another. However, the phase component of the frequency response will always be better in an active system. The active filters produce better filter roll-off characteristics at crossover. Combine this with the inclusion of a variable all-pass filter at each crossover point to correct the phase response of the drive units through the crossover regions and the result is a loudspeaker with much better group delay characteristics. The benefit to the listener will be improved polar response and therefore radiated power response. Such an active loudspeaker will have a large stable sound field with stable imaging and source location. Very difficult and costly to achieve with a passive loudspeaker system.

A passive crossover will only operate correctly into the load impedance of a particular loudspeaker drive unit. However, the impedance of a loudspeaker drive unit will change with the amount of power input. This is because loudspeakers are very inefficient and most of the input power is dissipated as heat in the voice coil. As a result the temperature of the voice coil will rise and because copper has a positive temperature coefficient of resistance the impedance of the loudspeaker drive unit will rise. The result will be frequency response errors as the filters move from their designed response with increased input power. This effect does not occur in active loudspeakers where the filter response is maintained independent of input power to the loudspeaker.

Active Vs. Passive Amplifiers

The Separates amplifier manufacturer, has no idea what is going to be hung on the end of his product. Hence the need to massively over-build to ensure that the amplifier will sound good with almost any speaker impedance and cable. It is not surprising that the massive amplifiers that typify the high end today are both costly and power consuming.

These problems of efficiency, size and cost are much reduced in the case of amplifiers designed for Active loudspeakers. Here the designer has the luxury of designing an amplifier pack containing separate mono amplifiers that only have to power one drive unit, whose every performance characteristic, bandwidth, frequency range, power handling, and shortcomings, are known to the designer.

Because the amplifiers in an active loudspeaker system are only required to operate over reduced frequency bands the intermodulation distortion products present in a passive system will be dramatically reduced, by typically 20dB, in an active system.

For a given amount of amplifier power, an active loudspeaker can be expected to produce approximately 6dB more level (twice as much) than the equivalent passive system. Furthermore, power for each drive unit may be more optimally specified in an active system. A tweeter, for example, requires much less power than a woofer to produce a balanced system performance.

A power amplifier designed specifically for the limited frequency range of an individual drive unit gains further benefits in efficiency, due to the fact that the wider the amplifier bandwidth, the less efficient it is. A well designed two or three way mono active power amp, for a given input and power rating, will always be capable of safely reaching higher peak SPL levels with less distortion than the equivalent single wide band power amp. This additional safety margin is now essential for coping with the wider dynamic range of DVD-Audio, SACD, DTS and Dolby Digital film soundtracks. In an active system the absence of both passive crossovers and long cable runs, together with a known amplifier damping factor, prevents the modification of the loudspeaker drive unit "Q" ensuring better controlled low frequency performance.

Source

Not an entirely unsubstantial argument...

dB
ADAM Audio USA

Right thats why at least one pair of my speakers can run loud on 8 watts of power. Yes tube power. On the other hand as much as people go off about the active being better passive xovers tend to do better at higher frequncies. Bass active is better as most inductors are where you really start to loose power. I have heard both good designs on either side of the fence but the whole over built bullshit people talk has nothing to do with the shortcuts many manufacturers take in their designs now of days.

I heard a pair of PMC's that where ran by a series of bryston amps a few years back and the sound was pretty damb amazing. IT was active Xovers. After I heard a pair of Wilson Grand Slams and driven by a pair of Audio Research Tube Amplifiers all passive and there was no comparison.

edit: good design is more important than anything else. Good talent is the only way to make good mixes but you are only as good as your tools.

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Bryce

Check out the new Beatles "Love" record. It was mixed on ADAMs (specifically S3As). Not a bad sounding record, IMO.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

I just got that today and was listening to it. Running a few classe amps with that on DVDA has been an experience. The track a day in the life was awesome. One of my new favorite DVDA and much respect to the engineer on that album.

[loaf]

thanks for your time on that Bryce, helped a lot

[Dan]

Isn't what Bryce is referring to mainly the difference between bi-amped, and mono-amped systems? I mean if you look at placing the crossover after the amplifier, of course it's less efficient. The difference between an active crossover, and a passive crossover is NOT if you put it before, or after the amplifier, although crossovers put after the amplifier are always passive.
However, this is an issue that's been discussed before, and I think ADAM could take advantage of it, whether it's real, or perceived. A partnership with Bryston, or similar amp maker could easily develop an amplifier with a crossover built in, that is specifically designed to go with ADAM speakers. Then ADAM would sell the package.
I've thought for some time that it would make sense for amp makers to have a slot for plug-in crossover cards, and I think Crown does it with their pip system (It's been a while since I done P.A.'s though) But at any rate, it would be an easy way for ADAM to apeal to the more quality conscious set of customers.

[dokushoka]

've thought for some time that it would make sense for amp makers to have a slot for plug-in crossover cards,

Man, that sounds like a great idea.

[Dan]

It's even cooler if they make it in a 500 series format!

[miqer]

Originally Posted by Bryce

Check out the new Beatles "Love" record. It was mixed on ADAMs (specifically S3As). Not a bad sounding record, IMO.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

Is that a fact? I'm seeing lot's of other (big) monitors on the picture of Abby Road 3 on the Adam website.

M.

[jamesblond]

've thought for some time that it would make sense for amp makers to have a slot for plug-in crossover cards,

Actually, d&b Audiotechnik does / did that in their P1200 and A1 amplifiers. Those were PA amps and the crossover modules were only suited for d&b PA-speakers. But the concept works brilliantly!

[jamesblond]

Originally Posted by Bryce

Not a problem - ADAM Germany will still make a passive pair of any S series monitor as a special order.

dB
ADAM Audio USA

Great!! I'm thinking about getting me a pair of HM3's, which are essentially P33's with Hexacone woofers from the S-series. Or are there other differences compared to the passive S3? And how would passive S3's or HM3's perform with a Quad 520f? Has anyone tested that?

I know that S4C's turn in to seriously amazing speakers with a Quad 520. But I have no idea about how they fare as a monitor with that amp...

Cheers!

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Vibrations can and often do effect performance.

So, you mean it's NOT a good idea to run active devices inside a vibrating box?


...just kidding.

[Duardo]

I'm surprised you think that the amps fitted to active speakers are of such high quality.

Saying they're better than a Samson or Alesis amp isn't really saying much...

[MIKEHARRIS]

The current d&b amplifiers...the D6 & D12 have onboard DSP and can select from a menu...settings for their speakers....or when accessed by their software program...can do whatever you wish.

Lab Gruppen has recently incorporated the Dolby Lake process into their new PLM10000 series. We have yet to try it is a studio monitor application....its primary application is large scale PA.
We did try the Lake standalone processor in a studio monitor application...the results were impressive..but unfortunately Dolby is discontinuing the standalone unit

[lowkey]

i have heard that the passive Dynaudio's with a good amp are better than the actives. and not all actives have equal quality amps. The BM6a's have mosfet amps built in, while the BM6a mkII's use op-amps...most prefer the originals.

its no surprise that amplifier manufacturers can make/source better amplifiers than speaker manufacturers

im pretty sure that the PMC's powered by Bryston arent technically actives. the amps just plug into the speaker which has a passive crossover inside.

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by danasti

...Adam amps are OK but they can't beat something delivering higher, more stable current. That's what opens up the speaker sonically - it makes perfect sense.

The speakers are designed from the ground up *with* the amp, so you're saying the amps are OK based on what, specs alone?

[ferenc]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

Man, that sounds like a great idea.

Actually MC2 Audio amps have crossover boards and a slot where you can put them. They can be high-pass, low-pass, etc anyway you want.

Bytheway, in the topic opener post there is a the MC2 1250 amp mentioned. It is one of the very best amp you can buy on any price. I have few friends, whom changed their much expensive high-end audio amps (Krell, Accuphase, Mark Levinson, Pass Labs, Fm Acoustics, etc) to the MC1250. I am using MC1250 with a ProAc response 4 and a Danley SH100B speakers as well, can not imagine any better.

The big 3 or 4-way Quested active studio monitors using outboard MC2 amps (750, 1250 branded by Quested) with XTA digital outboard digital speaker management system and they sound extremely good. But the big 3-way passive HQ210 passive studio monitor driven by the MC1250 is really extraordinary.

[jamesblond]

Originally Posted by cepia

The speakers are designed from the ground up *with* the amp, so you're saying the amps are OK based on what, specs alone?

As far as my knowledge goes, ADAM uses Hypex PWM amplifiers. A friend of mine has ADAM S4C's. I've heard them with the original Hypex amps and wasn't particularly impressed. A bog-standard Marantz already made a huge improvement in staging, depth, transparancy and low-end punch. Hooking them to a Quad 520 turned them into seriously amazing speakers, though with a little rough edge. At the moment they're hooked up to a Bryston 3B. Now the S4C's sound very open and natural, yet a little bright. But in my opinion they sound waaaaayyy better than they do with the factory-amp. Does that mean that I'm hearing something I cannot hear, since almost everyone seems to agree in saying that active monitors are ALWAYS better than passive monitors? I do agree that active monitors can be designed to present better figures on paper. But in the end it is the sound that counts for me, since mixing is about listening - not looking at numbers. This means that when a high-end monitor - like the ADAM S4C, for example - is designed with an inappropriate amplifier, just to keep the costs controllable, it may not perform as well as it can...

Personally, I really don't understand the choice for *ANY* PWM amp in a monitor system, since they just don't perform equal to a well designed traditional amplifier. The same goes for chip-amps, like the ampmodule in the Dynaudio BM6a MKII.

There are loads of options when choosing the right amp for a particular monitor, but in the end the search will most likely pay off even if you may spend more than when buying an actve system.