I am considering swapping out my existing system for an active monitor system... 5.1 to start with. Does anyone have any good reasons (besides power outlets) why this would not be a good idea? Thanks :nerd:
You might want to make the thread title something more specific. People tend to ignore generic threads.
You have asked a very general question as well. The best answer that I can give is that it depends on the system. Mostly, the idea of active systems is a good one, but the execution can vary, just like with passive speakers. The biggest downside that I can think of is cost, perhaps followed by serviceability.
Active speakers, (self powered) tend to be designed for larger environments and in my opinion do not sound as good. That said Yamaha makes some nice studio monitors that are self powered so there are options out there I just dont think that for the money you are getting a better speaker system.
The traditional Receiver or pre-pro with speakers gives you alot more choice.
EDIT: I forgot to also mention that running line level signals over long distances (to speaker locations) is far more prone to interference than speaker wire plus the cost of XLR or good RCA cables is much higher than wire.
To answer some of those questions, :R the monitors in question are not for large scale reproduction and therefore don't have the limitations that "pro" audio has to deal with, such as a lack of sound quality. The monitors in question are from Focal, http://www.focalprofessional.com/en/cms-line/cms-65.php Not too pricey, at roughly $650 ea, and they are quite a bit less cash than the other Focal stuff that would be the alternative. I have some decent stuff now, but it just doesn't cut the mustard compared to the Focal Electra series, which would be the alternative. But part of the reason for the monitors is some pressure from the wife to "keep it simple", by which she means "as small as possible while still sounding good".... does that make any sense at all? lolol