Separate power amp vs. Active monitors

[shagfu]

I picked up a Hafler TA1100 yesterday to power KRK Rokits. I was using a little mini hifi JVC CDplayer/radio/tapeplayer as a power amp to power them before that.

Needless to say, the Hafler really made a big difference. I can now hear things I didn't even hear before when using the silly little JVC mini deck to power them.

So, if using a good quality power amp to power some low cost passive monitors can make a such a dramatic difference - are active monitors even better since the power amps in them are designed specifically for the speakers they are housed with?

Would I be better off returning the Hafler and getting some powered monitors? Like some KRK V4's/with a sub (or other active monitors).

I like the Rokits, but something like the V4's are nice and portable...which would match well with mobile recording with my iBook.

thanks.

[knightfly]

Haven't heard the V4's yet, but HAVE heard good things about them. A sub would be necessary in most cases, IMHO - (I use KRK K-ROK's, kind of a big brother to the RoKits, and like them a lot. I have a Yamaha dual 8" sub tied in also)

You're right about the matching of amps to drivers - Also, almost all good powered nearfields use higher order filters than passives. Most passives are 12 dB/octave, vs. 24 dB/octave on many of the powered bi-amped nearfields. This has the added advantage of reducing "mud" near the crossover point by limiting the band of frequencies that BOTH drivers are trying to reproduce. When both drivers are doing the same thing, the possibility of comb filtering/phase cancellation is much worse... Steve

[shagfu]

Originally posted by knightfly
Haven't heard the V4's yet, but HAVE heard good things about them. A sub would be necessary in most cases

One of the V4's they had set up sounded like it was blown. The guy demoing the unit for me didn't seem to keen on them, but they seemed pretty "revealing" to me. But it definitely seemed like it would need a sub. I was tempted to pick one up yesterday (and another one later on) since they were on sale for $249. If I had the money, I would have picked up a KRK V8 for around $4-500 (I think it was a demo unit).

[barefoot]

I design and build speakers and I'm of the opinion that under normal circumstances amplifier performance has only a marginal effect on the sound. It's only when you compare decent amps to the cheap consumer designs that you hear any significant difference - as you did.

Optimizing the amp to the speaker can make a small difference. One of the normal tradeoffs in amplifier design is high frequency response versus gain. Tweeters are typically more efficient than woofers, so you can use an amplifier with slightly less gain and slightly higher frequency response. An active crossover is probably the main advantage of an active speaker. Active crossovers work more closely to the ideal and are not influenced by the complex speaker load. As Steve said, higher order slopes are also easier to implement with actives, but steeper slopes have their disadvantages. Higher order filters create more phase distortion and transient degradation than shallower slope filters.

barefoot

http://barefootsound.com

[JuSumPilgrim]

The active vs passive debate generally greatly exaggerates the advantages of active speakers and "active crossovers." Id say 90% of the active speakers out now have much coloration around the crossover points 2.5-3k. About as much as passive speakers. The coloration at the crossover points should be the least of your problems. Other things like overall linearity, imaging and transient response are much more important. Couple a good pair of passives with a good amp (hafler P-series, crown) and youll stomp on any active pair under $1200. The active vs passive debate is more relevant at higher price levels where youre dealing with speakers that are incredibly detailed and truly *approaching* linearity and then having active crossovers becomes an issue.