Your opinon on Studio Monitors with Auto Standby function that can't be turned off

[Honch]

No, that what I think is problematic, is that .... no or very few lists this as a pro or con, as it is of important thing that it is there or not.

Ah. Okay. You don't like inconsistency in reviews. Fair enough. Best to stick with a reputable and reliable source of information, like SOS then!

Yes, exactly. Regardless of anyones opinion. But the reviewer. If you take a look at the Music Radar ones, some of the other ones in their top 10 or 20 list does include auto standby too, but only on the Focal it is listed as a feature and as a con at that. Now, it would turn out very ambiguous if some other speaker and reviewer in the same list would point out auto-standy as a positive then. Some speakers have neg review about auto-standby, and some has positive. Then, when one reads the actual review in full, there's no mention of it at all, like if that auto-standby has a 4.5 second start up time and makes it a CON, or if it has 4,5 millisecond startup time, and - therefore - is considered a PRO thing.

[Honch]

The way stand by mode is implemented on Kali Audio speakers is annoying. They tend to switch off when listening at low volume levels. And they won't turn on unless you feed them a healthy single level by turning up the monitor controller.

See there, I am not alone on this. And it is NOT stated in the reviews. Mostly it is stated in a bypassing way, if at all.

Can you spot any mentioning of it at all, in this review ? (MusicTech is one of repute):

https://www.musictech.net/reviews/kali- ... -6-review/

[Honch]

I... In a professional situation that delay would disrupt the workflow in a negative way and would be undesirable...

See there, I am not alone. Since the EU directive is in the consumer side of things, I think this is an important feature to bring up in all reviews. Manufacturers do no think of budget monitors as a professional thing, but as a mere hobby side for amateurs, it seems.

I have friends that works in public service radio stations in Sweden, and they use small active monitors just to supervise the broadcast, to make sure there is no broadcast interruption (ever). They are left with working with these as "background noise" and if they go silent, THEN they view it as an "alarm bell" and rushes to their consoles and tries to find out what is happening. An interruption of more than 5 seconds is considered national security hazard. Like, someone deliberately is sabotaging something down the line. Reverse alarm bell so to speak. They've expressed serious concern about this, as they have to buy new stuff like every 5 years.

But whether I think it's a con (dislike it) or not, I do like more consistency in ANY review, and as we've heard with the Kali user above, who finds it annoying, he couldn't find anything of this in the reviews first. Neither can I. That you have to "scare" the monitor first with a burst of signal/volume, to wake it up.

So the headline of this topic, was opinion on standby that can't be turned off, as well as inconsistency of this mentioning in reviews. Since more and more of the new active monitors comes with this already implemented. I could just cram in so many words in the headline...it truncates automatically after it being too long.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am too, using the monitors for amp sims, Pianoteq software and numerous synth virtual software, and when I am tinkering and dabbling with settings visually, especially tuning up or intonation of guitars, the software automatically mutes output whenever the tuner is engaged. It can very well take more than 20 minutes, and when I turn off the tuner, it is muted and silent and I go "what have I now done...!?!?", thinking I've altered the parameters so much that it produces no sound, and just after whacking the guitar or keyboard with a strong signal it wakes up. The flow is interrupted. As well when I am mixing, one of the A1 formula, is to hear a complete mix at as low volume as possible. You turn it slowly up for detecting "what it the first sound that hits you?" and if it's the hihat, you know that you have to turn it down later in the mix, and so on. You all know that drill.

But now, you know my stance, but leave that aside for a moment, and concentrate on reviews of recent active monitors, which states or not states that auto standby occurs, and how it behaves. I think - if it's not possible to bypass it - the reviews must mention it if it works ok, or so so, or bad.

And I've found inconsitstent reviews of this, even in SOS reviews, as well as MusicRadar, and MusicTech reviews.

The main culprit is, that if you let me have a qualified guess at this, is that reviewers has a lot of things to do, and has no patience, and can't pass judgement on a monitor, with sitting idle, at 20 minutes silent, just to make it go into standby mode, and then firing it up again. They hit it with signals all of the time, to pass judgement on it. At loud and proud volumes. Eager, and no patience.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Yes, exactly.

Great. We're agreed. You must stop reading Music Radar reviews!

...reviewers has a lot of things to do, and has no patience, and can't pass judgement on a monitor, with sitting idle, at 20 minutes silent, just to make it go into standby mode, and then firing it up again. They hit it with signals all of the time, to pass judgement on it. At loud and proud volumes. Eager, and no patience.

I can't speak for reviewers in other magazines and websites... but I am confident that SOS reviews do have the time and patience to check every aspect of a speaker... including noting how it behaves going into and out of auto-standby when relevant.

But I think you've thrashed this particular personal grind comprehensively to death... I'm out!

[Honch]

Yes, exactly.

Great. We're agreed. You must stop reading Music Radar reviews!

Yes, me, but what about all others then? Many relies on just one, the first one they stumbles over.

I take all reviews as one big one, and make aggregate, reading in between the lines, and I review the reviews. One "sites" or magazine review is just another chapter on one topic. The topic is the studio monitors reviews. You know, just like movies reviews (yada yada film got 86% favorable reviews on "rotten tomatoes" and so on).

I do have read and still continues to read SOS reviews, and I have several times paid for single reviews, instead of waiting the time elapse before it has be let free of charge. And most reviews I can't make an aggregate verdict on until SOS have had their say.

But anyway, there are inconsistencies, in all reviews, as we have seen, regarding this particular feature of studio monitors. And others, that seems neglected and even bypassed.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Regarding energy savings for some pesky studio monitors to go into standby, for either current power savings, or else, I can't even think it would be measurable if you take all studios in the world into account. That is, even if you manually turned them off, each time you took a break, or didn't do anything for 20 minutes.

Today, they say that if you're into music production, the best CPU one can get right now, and it's even recommended for it, is the Intel i9-10900K 10 core 16 thread (or whatever) and can be boosted up to 5.3 Ghz given that the cooling options are optimal, and exotic (which runs at even more power), and to gain that cycle it runs at 95 degrees Celsius and draws a whopping 300 W from the computers power unit. Well, go figure. No standby exists there. Not speaking of the noise it will make due to maxed out cooling (air or fluid).

What you think you're gaining on some things, you'll lose at the other end. Anyway. No matter how you turn, you rear is at the back.

[The Elf]

Any gear that didn't allow me to disable its auto-power off here would be out of the door in short order.

[Honch]

Any gear that didn't allow me to disable its auto-power off here would be out of the door in short order.

Here comes the culprit. You said "out the door". If you've read it before in any review, that one alone would be the deal braker or deal maker, wouldn't it? You wouldn't even have to buy it in the first place, only to find out it should go out the door again (some have return policies though).

But again, if we should be anal retentive nit picky about saving energy, you have to spend energy to return the goods, if you're not satisfied, with the transport, time wasted, and the emission of all things related to global warming, "saving" electricity and yada yada.

I have yet to see any posts here, if people want it clearly stated in the reviews, that its possible to bypass the auto-standby, if present at all. And if, how the auto-standby works.

The reviews are inconsistent on this. SOS and others as well.

[Drew Stephenson]

Hmm. A review is not a substitute for a manual. I'm not really one for casual purchases but for anything serious I will read a couple of reviews but also download the manual. Something like a switchable power off i would expect to be detailed in the manual, i'd only really require it to be mentioned in the review if it didn't work as expected.
Obviously if there wasn't a manual available then a) i'd be less likely to buy it, and b) I would expect a little more from the review.

[Mike Stranks]

This is getting ridiculous.

The Elf made a throwaway comment about 'out the door' and you build a whole case based on that comment.

You are obviously very greatly exercised about this. I'm not sure why, but each to their own. The answer for you is simple. Checkout the specs of gear online, looking for this specific point. Look at photos of the control plates of prospective monitors to see if any auto-power can be disabled. If the spec says the monitor has auto-off and you can't see a way of disabling it then walk away.

Much as I admire and respect the reviews of Hugh Robjohns and Phil Ward I wouldn't be buying gear based solely on their reviews. I'd check out other opinions, read the specs etc etc.

It really is no big deal. Why you've found it necessary to post multiple times about such a relatively minor point is beyond me.

[ef37a]

Hmm. A review is not a substitute for a manual. I'm not really one for casual purchases but for anything serious I will read a couple of reviews but also download the manual. Something like a switchable power off i would expect to be detailed in the manual, i'd only really require it to be mentioned in the review if it didn't work as expected.
Obviously if there wasn't a manual available then a) i'd be less likely to buy it, and b) I would expect a little more from the review.

Yes Drew. I have mentioned before in the forum that do not buy anything unless I can (easily!) download a well written manual.
On the matter of auto-sby on monitors I would not care unless of course it was poorly designed and cut in at low volume levels.

Since cars were mentioned! I am always annoyed by the fact that people increasingly drive with headlights on, often the full gamut of their Chelsea Tractor's illumination in glorious sunshine in many cases. I have poor eyesight, legal to drive but poor, I no longer drive at night, but there are very few days when I would feel the need to waste 150 or so expensively won watts. Expensive not only in MPG terms but also C02.

Regarding valve amplifiers? Yes! When (not if) the "Greens" cotton on with their appallingly low efficiency there will be hell to pay (oh yes! YOU'RE gonna PAY!) The matter is further confounded with people smashing down a 50/100 watt amp to a few mW for recording purposes with a power soak!

I might add that there is a range of valve gitamps (cough!)up to 200W which hard bias the power valves off when the guitar is unplugged from the front jack. In the case of the 200 watter that is a saving of 60W and pro rata for lower powers.

Dave.

Dave.

[Mike Stranks]

Just a detour...

Since cars were mentioned! I am always annoyed by the fact that people increasingly drive with headlights on, often the full gamut of their Chelsea Tractor's illumination in glorious sunshine in many cases.

Most recent cars have 'headlights auto' settings when the lights come on if outside ambient light falls below a certain level. The headlights on my car will activate on a sunny day if I drive through a tree-tunnel. They can sometimes be lethargic in turning-off again... Also many cars these days have daylight running lights - mine does. Could it be those you're seeing when out and about? Jus' a faught...

[ef37a]

Just a detour...

Since cars were mentioned! I am always annoyed by the fact that people increasingly drive with headlights on, often the full gamut of their Chelsea Tractor's illumination in glorious sunshine in many cases.

Most recent cars have 'headlights auto' settings when the lights come on if outside ambient light falls below a certain level. The headlights on my car will activate on a sunny day if I drive through a tree-tunnel. They can sometimes be lethargic in turning-off again... Also many cars these days have daylight running lights - mine does. Could it be those you're seeing when out and about? Jus' a faught...

Yes Mike, my 'new' Megane has auto lights but they seem very intelligent. On even quite dull days they don't cut in but do light when I go into the covered car park at my local Sainsburys.

I am off out soon for bread and, being Tuesday my RT so I shall count the cars coming at me with lights on. Last time I did it it was 3 out of about 5, seems to have gotten worse.

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Daylight running lights have been a legal requirement for passenger cars and light goods vehicles since 2011, and HGVs and buses since 2012. And personally, I think they are a great aid to road safety.

Most modern cars -- especially the more upmarket ones -- now use LEDs for the purpose, so power consumption is much lower than it would have been with previous-generation light sources. Most modern cars also now have automatic headlight switching.

And remember that the headlights on 'Chelsea Tractors' are physically much higher than conventional cars so often appear brighter/dazzling to those seated lower down.

[The Elf]

I'm definitely with Drew on this. I don't expect reviews to cover my pet requirements (external PSUs are often not even mentioned, for example, yet for me that's a biggie), and I would definitely look at a manual before I made a purchasing decision.

[ef37a]

Daylight running lights have been a legal requirement for passenger cars and light goods vehicles since 2011, and HGVs and buses since 2012. And personally, I think they are a great aid to road safety.

Most modern cars -- especially the more upmarket ones -- now use LEDs for the purpose, so power consumption is much lower than it would have been with previous-generation light sources. Most modern cars also now have automatic headlight switching.

And remember that the headlights on 'Chelsea Tractors' are physically much higher than conventional cars so often appear brighter/dazzling to those seated lower down.

Your sure Doc? I just got back from a round trip of about 3 miles and some 90% of the cars and a few lorries had HEAD lights on. My 2008 Renault was not uselessly lighting up the place! As I say I have poor eysight. No central vision in left and on;y 'good enough' in the right but I cannot see any safety aspect to lights when even I could see the trees a mile away (if it wasn't for the 'ouses inbetween) *

Ok, some light are LEDs (still a few watts) but the vast majority of headlights are still Tungsten, 55W each IIRC (AND the b'tds have them on main beam some of the time!)

In any case it has occurred to me that auto standby is wrong-headed for monitors? A couple of years ago 'they' were banging on about NOT leaving kit on standby! What is needed is to tell peeps to turn the fekkin stuff off at the mains!

*I have a standard NHS chart test every 5-6 weeks and always get all but the last line, sometimes all but a couple of letters.

[Kwackman]

my 'new' Megane has auto lights but they seem very intelligent. On even quite dull days they don't cut in

If it's a quite dull day, surely the lights should be on?

Slightly further off topic, motorcycles from at least 2005 have dipped headlights (not driving lights) always on.
When I got my shiny new bike in 2006, I had an awkward conversation with the dealer, while pointing at a handlebar switch cluster where there was a blanking panel.
"Where's the on/off switch for the lights?"
"There isn't one",
"Well, how do I turn the lights off?"
"You haven't ridden a modern bike, have you? Your dipped beam is on all the time".

It took a while to ignore drivers flashing their lights at me..

[Hugh Robjohns]

I just got back from a round trip of about 3 miles and some 90% of the cars and a few lorries had HEAD lights on.

In a lot of older cars, the daylight running lights requirement was implement by running dipped headlights. More modern cars have dedicated LED arrays for the purpose.

I cannot see any safety aspect to lights when even I could see the trees a mile away

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think DRL helps a lot in making vehicles more obvious from greater distances under all lighting conditions -- and doubly so for motorbikes.

I've noticed how much easier it is to spot oncoming traffic with DRLs -- especially grey or silver cars on grey tarmac on typically British grey-overcast days!

But there's no accounting for those that have no idea whether their lights are on high-beam or not... Just like those who leave their intermittent rear wiper running days or weeks after the last rain! I guess they never use their rear-view mirrors (other than for checking their visage!

In any case it has occurred to me that auto standby is wrong-headed for monitors?

I agree... no real need for auto-standby at all. I turn everything off when it's not being used!

[Rich Hanson]

I cannot see any safety aspect to lights when even I could see the trees a mile away

The requirement for lights in the daytime is less to do with seeing where you are going and much more to do with making your vehicle easier to spot by third parties.

[zenguitar]

When I took my motorbike test 25 years ago the instructors were very clear about using dipped headlamp to ensure you were seen. But they did add one caveat, which was that on the very brightest summer days you might appear further away than you actually were to a car driver pulling out of a junction.

Andy

[ef37a]

Yes, I know the idea is to BE seen rather than see I just don't find it that helpful but then I am a very old driver of some 64 years on the rd (and bikes before that) and maybe more vigilant than most?

"Should light on a dull day?" No, there is a difference between lack of bright sunshine and poor visabilty such as fog.

Motrorbikes yes, they should have dipped heads (a) because there is little sectional area to see and (b) most of them are mad b*****ds! ( same goes for these scooters) But on even a dullish day 'I' have no trouble seeing cars coming much less a bloody great bus!

I am also very much against 'obvious' well meaning but ill researched legislation. Is there any evidence that this waste of megawatts throughout the land actually reduces RTCs?

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Is there any evidence it doesn't?

[ef37a]

Is there any evidence it doesn't?

Well I am SHOCKED Mr Robjohns! A man of science and engineering being against fact based laws!

There is much in this world that is counter-intuitive but I can give a car related example.

"Magic Roundabouts" You know the sort of thing, you have 3 or more mini rbs in a group and nobody is quite sure how to proceed? "Bloody dangerous" folks say "orta be a law".

Fact is I asked a traffic engineer several years ago about the one in the middle of Dunstable.

"Confusion was the whole idea" he told me. It seem people approach them with great caution and there are very few serious crashes.

OK I know the above is the inverse of this situation BYKWIM!

Dave.

[Sam Spoons]

Unfortunately road layouts and traffic laws have to cater for the lowest common denominator

There is a give way junction near here that enters the new road on the outside of a RH bend. The radius of the left turn exit combined with clear visibility for a couple of hundred yards from a hundred yards before the junction meant it could safely be negotiated at 25-30 mph. They have had to alter the layout so that the left turn is much sharper now and can only be negotiated at a more usual 10 mph or so. I'm assuming that is 'cos people were either failing to look and emerging into the path of oncoming cars (which will have been visible for at least 100 yards before the give way) or were misjudging the speed of the oncoming cars...

I've also seen roundabouts with large raised flower beds positions adjacent to the approach to prevent a clear view onto the roundabout...

[Hugh Robjohns]

Is there any evidence it doesn't?

Well I am SHOCKED Mr Robjohns! A man of science and engineering being against fact based laws!

Not at all. I just think it's up to you to prove your claims rather than for everyone else to disprove them.

[N i g e l]

I vaugely remember that the whole daylight headlamps thing was started by Volvo in the 70s or 80s ? That was based on safety research.
A side effect was Volvo drivers were forever getting flashed by oncomming traffic "your lights are on mate !".

The

"Confusion was the whole idea" he told me. It seem people approach them with great caution and there are very few serious crashes.

Yes, ive heard that. There is one town center where they rejigged the layout and removed the signs to be confusing. The accident rate went down.