>
> Some people, not me, believe a computer can be a front-end for an audio
> system.
>
Well, maybe. Nearly all recording studio equipment is computer-based. The
battle isn't what stores or processes the audio, but the A-D and D-A
converters and preamps.
I know it's more psychological than real, but I can understand the dislike
of using PC-based equipment in a high-end system. Especially, if the
A-D/D-A device connects to the computer through the USB port. USB doesn't
seem logical to be any good--it's just soooo pedestrian.
I may accept a compromise regarding active loudspeakers - I can think
> of two brands only at the moment.
>
I'm a fan of self-powered studio monitors. Actually, one of the best is the
original Mackie 824. Specifically from the first year. They had to make a
change to the unit right away because of supplier issues, but if you can
find one of the very first ones with ultra-low serial numbers, they were
actually quite excellent. The new Mk2 recaptures the essence of the
original, so you really can't go wrong with them either. But my dream
speakers are the Genelec 1032A, but for mixing on, I prefer the 8050a. The
new DSP designs are great for setting things up and when you have great
temperature and humidity variability in your room. The beauty of the
Genelecs (and the Mackie 824) is the off-axis sound quality. The sweet spot
for listening is very wide. Genelecs are miserable for mixing on because
they reveal every flaw in your mix. But they do have just enough
colorization to them to give you a sense of how the mix will sound in the
real world. I consider the Mackie 824 to be a poor-man's Genelecs.
AG Ears
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|