M
maddrummer
New member
Event 20/20 monitors (not the powered ones), for 50$ but the HF drivers don't work so I would have to replace them and they are 35 a piece. So I am looking at 120. Let me know thanks
N
NuTT98
New member
Personally I would never use passive monitors or any passive crossed speakers for that matter. That does indeed look like a good deal however if you're looking to do some serious listening you should consider an active set.
M
muttley
New member
make sure the X overs in cabnet are good also. sometimes they get fried along w/drivers.da MUTT
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
NuTT98,
What?!!!
Consider active for some serious listening? What's your reasoning behind that? As the only real benefit is power efficiency.
What?!!!
Consider active for some serious listening? What's your reasoning behind that? As the only real benefit is power efficiency.
N
NuTT98
New member
No, theres a lot more to it.
First off, bi-amping. Rather than one amp driving both speakers, you have two individual amp channels. That means one doesn't interfere with the other. Eliminates problems such as the woofer eating up the tweeter's headroom. Much lower distortion at a given amount of power and greatly reduced phase shifting. Phase shifts even in an expensive passive system are problematic making it impossible to get a near-perfect sound stage.
You're splitting a low-current line rather that a high-current line, that's like splitting a little stream in two opposed to perfectly trying to split a big river in two flows.
On top of that a very inexpensive active crossover will outperform a passive one no matter what the cost. The passive 20/20s would have to cost many thousands of dollars to even come close to the performance of the actives.
There's quite a bit more to active crossovers. The amp has direct contact with an individual driver, that can lead to a virtually infinite amount of possibilities, which many companies have taken advantage of. God forbid a passive system had things such as an output limiter in a high-current line.
Perhaps some people won't notice a critical difference, I don't know but what I do know is I can't stand any passive system I have heard to date, even the classic signature titans after hearing things such as the YSMs or similar monitors.
First off, bi-amping. Rather than one amp driving both speakers, you have two individual amp channels. That means one doesn't interfere with the other. Eliminates problems such as the woofer eating up the tweeter's headroom. Much lower distortion at a given amount of power and greatly reduced phase shifting. Phase shifts even in an expensive passive system are problematic making it impossible to get a near-perfect sound stage.
You're splitting a low-current line rather that a high-current line, that's like splitting a little stream in two opposed to perfectly trying to split a big river in two flows.
On top of that a very inexpensive active crossover will outperform a passive one no matter what the cost. The passive 20/20s would have to cost many thousands of dollars to even come close to the performance of the actives.
There's quite a bit more to active crossovers. The amp has direct contact with an individual driver, that can lead to a virtually infinite amount of possibilities, which many companies have taken advantage of. God forbid a passive system had things such as an output limiter in a high-current line.
Perhaps some people won't notice a critical difference, I don't know but what I do know is I can't stand any passive system I have heard to date, even the classic signature titans after hearing things such as the YSMs or similar monitors.
M
mikeh
New member
While that sounds like a good deal (even with the repairs) I can't help but wonder about the abuse factor. If the speakers were abused enough to fry the drivers, how much abuse tdi this things really take.
But it does sound like a good deal, I think I saw new 20/20's going for about $300-$325
But it does sound like a good deal, I think I saw new 20/20's going for about $300-$325