Active monitors vs passive + amp

[Tonio]

Hola,
Any opinions on whether passive + amp would be a better choice for initial budgetary reasons? It seems this type of set up is in decline due to active monitors being "in", and looks attractive.
I have read opinions about active is the way to go in the case of any problems you just send in the whole deal. IN contrast I have heard opinions that in a passive situation, you would only need to repair the part that needs repair. It seems this would be more advantageous to a professional set up where the studio would have back up equipment.

I do not have the overhead to have a back up system in the latter case, and obvisouly would like to possibly go for the passive system in a frugal sense.

Am considering the Dynaudio BM6 with a power amp vs the BM6A which would amount to about a $400 savings. Is this worth the savings?
Another note on the freq specs:
BM6A 41hz-21khz
BM6 43hz-20khz
Seems BM6 has a narrower response, allthough the amp in question would be large part of the overall result. Any suggestions on a good amp to match?

T

[James Steele]

I think part of the reason powered monitors are "in" is very practical. With powered monitors the manufacturer can be sure the monitors will meet certain performance specs because they control what amp the user will employ. With passive monitors, they manufacturer has no idea what sort of amplifier will be used... anything from a cheap stereo receiver to a high end dedicated amp.

I know you're very knowledgeable however, so I suppose if you can get a decent amp and still save money, perhaps passive + amp makes sense.

[markwayne]

Also, keep in mind that active monitors give you all the advantages of bi-amping without the expense of a true, bi-amped system using passive monitors (active crossover, two amps etc). This is also why specs for active monitors often spec better than their passive counterparts.

Wayne

[Tonio]

James, MarkWayne,
Thanks for the reminder about matching the amp to the passives does make a difference-especially in the crossover scheme and not just the beef department.
Not to mention more cables, power source, possible hum/buzz issues.
hmm, maybe biting the budget bullet may be a better.

T

[mhschmieder]

Well, I'm biased in favour of powered monitors since my company (well before I got here) invented them and holds the patents , but having said that, the advantages are only evident if the job is done right.

Even though the BM5's and BM6's are some of the best-values under-$2000 monitors in the marketplace, I have heard many say the passive versions are better. I can't speak from personal experience unfortunately, and though I have been considering upgrading my KRK Rokit 6's to Dynaudio at some point, I honestly don't know if I'd go for the powered or unpowered unless I could do a direct A/B test.

What I do know is that the model appended by lower-case "a" is said to have some problems that affect the frequency response unfavourably vs. the earlier rev. I have the details written down elsewhere, so don't remember if it has to do with the cone manufacturing process having changed, the materials used (including the glues and how this affects the transient response due to "looseness" in the later revs?).

Anyway, this is rather vague, but it's just meant to alert you that this is a case where the latest rev might not have the best response (imaging and overall frequency response) as the earlier revs (including the powered vs. unpowered issue); whereas the usual assumption would be that the latest model is always the best buy. The earlier rev is now hard to find though.

As for powered vs. unpowered, I can point you to some white papers on the topic but don't want to directly include my own company's website in a privately-posted forum reply (I do not officially wear my company's hat when posting here), so send a PM if interested. I am primarily a software engineer and not an acoustician, so would do disservice to the argument by trying to paraphrase beyond a few simple statements. The main point is that power-matching (and power regulation) is very important, very difficult to achieve with separates, and additional cabling (as with separates) introduces a number of problems that actually are probably more critical in a live situation than in a small home studio FWIW.

[BradLyons]

James and others are right on the money--active monitors provide the manufacturer the ability to best match-up their monitor to the appropriate amp, or vice versa. By incorporating this design, it allows a synergy in the design itself and therefore provides a better design, value and COST to the consumer. Of course, this is all thrown out the window should they choose a cheaper amp design v/s what really best-suits the quality of the speaker itself. In the mastering realm, there is still an advantage to an old Bryston (spelling? I forget!) amp and some great passive monitors such as the Earthworks Sigma's. BUT, this comes at a cost.

But one issue is the fact of true bi-amplification and cross-overs between active and passive. This is a HUGE advantage to active---because it's there, it's cheaper,it's better quality (in theory) because less external components are needed, everything is properly balanced and optimized, etc. Personally, I only use active monitors for mixing. Playback, who cares.... but mixing, active for me.

[bolla]

Powered monitors are great if they are well engineered and suit your room.
However you are generally buying one sound with little or no ability to change that sound.
One advantage of separate spkr/amp combos is being able to tame or tailor a spkr's response by choosing a different amp or amplification method. Bi-amp etc. Valve vs solid state.
This may be slightly more expensive but there are also bargains out there. One old combo I quite like are old Tannoy 10" with an even older BGW amp. Both bought cheaply but (to me)
they are great to work on all day without fatigue.
(Warning NS10 example following)
NS10's at the large studio I used to work in were always slighty better through an old quad 405 than the standard Perreax amps most people used.

Remember too - any speaker/amp will sound different in your room.
If it's possible do try to audition the speakers /amp in your room.
Cheers, Bolla

[mhschmieder]

Well, this is one reason why active vs. non-active isn't as much of a slam dunk in the home studio as it is in venues and outdoor arenas.

As you say, one has to balance the convenience and safety factor vs. flexibility. It ends up being a similar argument at that point to ITB vs. OTB for colouring one's sound (multiple preamps, outboard EQ, plug-ins, etc.).