Dummies guide on choosing monitors

[Z3NO]

I beg to differ... as you mention, the access to specification data (as well as test results) will be limited, and while a modern €150 integrated amp will have no problem driving most speakers, now you have two sets of specs and test results to take into account, plus, what I mentioned before that the spec parameters like impedance change both over frequency and current - characteristics that affect how the amp drives the speaker: how do you plan to factor that? Only in the measurement stage? Don't forget 3rd party speaker cable characteristics too.

With actives, the spec will include both amp and speaker and internal wiring, designed for each other. Far fewer unknowns.

Additionally, are you really saving money? With passives I'm paying an overhead for the amp cabinet, all the pre-amp stuff, plus probably a much higher specced (purely in terms of current) power supply and output stage.

I'm not really sure i'm following you here. What exactly is so difficult in matching an amp to a pair of speakers in regards to impedance and current?
The frequency response (and i'm referring to audio frequency, not current) of even a consumer quality amp will be almost completely flat and spanning the entire audible range, because it can rely on the stability of a current regulated closed circuit, unlike speakers which are subject to debilitating factors like air and physical movement of the cones to pump said air.
Cables? Really? on a budget monitor system? I will give you everything I own if you can tell me 10 times out of 10 the difference between an audio signal running on a £6 cable vs one on a £60 one.

Just as an open question: is the chasing of a perfectly flat frequency response the only objective here? Aren't there other characteristics of monitors that may be more important, as long as you recognise the imperfections in the frequency response? Just wondering...

Ultimately, every speaker under the sun (studio or not) is manufactured with the aim of achieving a flat response across the audible and dynamic ranges. What is more important? The resources allocated for production (and laws of physics) impose certain limitations, from which everybody suffers so it's down to manufacturers to choose what certain qualities to sacrifice in favour of what others to stay within budget, and to the marketing teams to play down such limitations and find effective selling points, so it's largely down to personal taste which road to go down on... but as i said, ye cannae polish shite!

[8O]

The frequency response (and i'm referring to audio frequency, not current) of even a consumer quality amp will be almost completely flat and spanning the entire audible range, because it can rely on the stability of a current regulated closed circuit, unlike speakers which are subject to debilitating factors like air and physical movement of the cones to pump said air.

It's very simple, it's flat playing a sine wave at a fixed volume into a fixed impedance load. As you change the frequency, the loudspeaker will not respond linearly. As you change the volume, the load distribution across frequency also changes.

An example (actually a poor example, but I couldn't be bothered to spend ages searching for graphs from "serious" reviews) -> http://nadelectronics.com/articles/hi-f ... s-C-315BEE

In this instance, the frequency response of the amplifier is also influenced by the buffering, and therefore, the position of the volume control. At 12 o'clock, the response is utterly flat from 20Hz-100kHz, but at both 10 o'clock and 3 o'clock there's a mild HF roll-off amounting to some -1.3dB at 100kHz. The impact within the audio band is very mild, but it might be audible, albeit indirectly with CD players that kick-out high levels of ultrasonic noise.

Note that this is at test-bed conditions and not connected to the cheap speakers which have their own impedance/frequency response which couples to the amp. Expect a lot more variation in real-life.

Edit: real-life example, my Dynaudio hi-fi speakers connected to my Audiolab amps have a definite sweet spot on the volume scale, turn them right down for nearfield listening and the bass drops out quite a bit and dynamics are different too. Conversely, my Genelecs sound much more linear as you turn the volume down for very quiet nearfield listening. Genelecs were way cheaper than my hi-fi system! /edit

The amp and the speakers are a constantly interacting system - it's not one way. And actives have the advantage that both the amp and speakers can be designed together. As someone who's built amps (from mV SMT ones to class AB stereo ones) I can assure you that the fewer unknowns you have in your system, the better (and often, cheaper) you can get closer to your target spec.

Cables? Yeah, I definitely agree with you that they make little difference, especially this high-end hifi snake-oil stuff, but it was more to point out the difference in additional unknown components in the active vs passive system.

Any thoughts on the cost question I posed?

[8O]

I am not sure in the universe of audio science, what is the most important topic ever to be discussed, but I do agree that matters can get very complex (not just when considering monitors, but all audio related subtopics).
The aim of my article is not to explore the depths of the 'monitor speakers' ocean in their entirety, it was just a 'quick start' guide to give new, home-studio producers a small but significant insight into some of the many factors that i think should be taken into consideration when making certain (potentially expensive) decisions, in the hope that future 10 page threads of people quoting nothing but their personal brand favourites can be avoided, and replaced by more constructive debates built on foundations other than collective bias or effective marketing campaigns.
There is also a lot to be said about these topics, spanning way beyond the remotest frontiers of the audio realm, with particular emphasis on the widespread stigma or hype surrounding particular brands, where opinions are often based exclusively on general consensus and unashamed bias, without even the shadow of a well-informed research, resulting in thread after thread of debates being filled in this way, often degenerating in pointless conflicts......................

.... And THAT is how babies are made

Agree 100% on avoiding marketing campaigns etc... Tbh, I used to be a bit prejudiced in that respect, but since hearing some fantastic sounding home-made hifi amps and speakers (also a lot of terrible ones though ), I'm hopefully cured!

[Z3NO]

Right, I'm with you now but...
All I'm trying to do here is find cover from the rain and you talk to me about barometers. I'm not saying it's not useful info to take into consideration or not relevant to the topic discussed, but all I need right now is just an umbrella, to stay within the analogy, and for now all I need to really know is how to open and close it without poking my own eyes out with it...
Like I said we can take the depths of audio technology, physics, acoustics or electronics to whole other levels, but that's not really the aim (or the scope) of my article.
Audiophile territory can get very intricate very quickly, and can be an intimidating landscape for someone just starting out and trying to grasp some of the basics of audio theory, so I think it's best to leave dilemmas revolving around details, which to an untrained ear are gonna be barely perceptible at best, to those who have the knowledge and experience (and interest) to investigate further. (perhaps in a follow-on article?)

Nice.