|
why powered?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| inconspicuous |
I've never seen any sort of reviews/opinions on regular ol' passive monitors either on here or other edm-related forums. I'm looking, at least for now, to do the mixing in ableton w/ some sort of midi controller(s) [see: other thread], so not going to a regular ol' mixer at this point. If that was the case, obviously the 1/8 connection is a better idea, since receivers don't have 1/8 inputs, so you'd wind up screwing everything up with adapters if you tried to go that route, even if you had one with a/b outputs from different inputs concurrently. However, if you just wanted a functioning set of monitors in a bedroom setup (and just the one other cueing line, so not a bunch of different ones to feed into a mixer), is there a reasonable way of doing this with a normal audio setup?
The reason I ask is that I can now get a lot of incredible stuff at giant discounts, but that selection doesn't include a lot of powered options, & the ones that are aren't exactly designed to be studio monitors. If I decided I wanted to add on more equipment later (like CDJs) for which I'd need a traditional mixer, obviously the powered monitors would be a far better route to have gone, but I won't be doing that any time too soon, and just in terms of speaker quality, I know I can do far better for my money by going the passive route.
So, is there a reason, aside from the connectivity, that people only look at powered monitors, or is that an unconquerable obstacle? |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| From that, it just sounds like the downfall is the cost of an amp (of sorts) that also matches the level of quality of the speakers, at least in a scenario like this one, where the speakers would never be moved (let alone the fact that it would all be connected as well as possible without going to Pear cables or something), and there would be no need to adjust the volume often, if ever. |
|
|
| DJChrisB |
| Well, there's obviously a reason why both types are made. You know the pros and cons of each and now you can just decide what's best for you. |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| Went with a receiver with pure direct, & some exceptional bookshelf units, then threw on a few other pieces. Better monitors & top-knotch surround sound (dts-hd ftw) when needed. The way to go, imo. |
|
|
| MERiDiAN5i2 |
Only reason I'd go with powered speakers is if I was looking for very flat frequency response for production/studio monitoring kind of things... Like the Mackie HR824s, etc.
As far as live sound work goes, passive all the way. Allows you to keep all your amplifiers (read: high current draw) close to the AC source and together in a rack, and you don't have to worry about signal quality issues with long runs of line-level cable. Also easier to run one cable to each speaker rather than power and signal to each speaker.
All depends on the application :) |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
Active (Powered) monitors are generally better for a handful of reasons, obviously space is one issue but you will have to pay a little more.
The key reason though is that with an integrated amplifier you actually get an amp that has been built to handle the specifications of the speakers.
Contrary to popular belief, getting the right amp for a set of speakers can be a lot tougher than you might think.
At home at the moment I use a set of Alesis actives just for referencing and general listening and for mixdowns I use my Yamanha MSP5's (For the price range they are pretty spot on).
Production monitors in comparison to reference monitors will give a very different image of the sound.
The Alesis are a little too Hi Fi to be able to do any real track mixdowns due to sound colouration. But are perfectly fine to mix DJ mixes on.
Active monitors in my mind are the better option.
cheers
Nem |
|
|
| echosystm |
| unless you're building the speakers yourself (or already have a suitable amp), active is alot cheaper. |
|
|
|
|
