[Shaunyboy]

If you got a set of actives then you dont need a reciever or separate amp it would be a one time 350 deal, or did I miss something?

 

[gopanthersgo1]

If you got a set of actives then you dont need a reciever or separate amp it would be a one time 350 deal, or did I miss something?

Would $350 passive, and an amp not be better?

 

[Shaunyboy]

well actives are more practical, from research back when I was looking to upgrade my  friend advised me to look into actives I read and I got my krks and they sounded better than my passive set up.

 

[gopanthersgo1]

OK, any good recommendations for some actives then? And how would I go about hooking up a sub?

 

[cel4145]

Quote:

well actives are more practical, from research back when I was looking to upgrade my  friend advised me to look into actives I read and I got my krks and they sounded better than my passive set up.

 
Actually, actives are less practical in many ways. You get way more flexibility out of a passive speaker/receiver setup like the OP is considering. If the electronics break, you have to repair it or throw out the speaker, too. You can't decide to upgrade just the speakers or the amplification--have to pay for it all again to upgrade. I don't think most have headphone jacks. They don't have a pre-amp with a phono stage and plugins for other audio devices. No remote control. Actives are also designed strictly for nearfield listening, with a neutral sound that is designed for mixing--not something that is for everyone. To me, they sound kind of flat. Because of their design, not the best choice for repurposing the speakers for other uses either. So it really depends on what kind of "practicality" one is looking for. 
 
I have a pair of Energy V5.1s and an HK 3490 which I paid under $500 for, and from demoing active monitors in that $500 to $600 range, I couldn't find something that I like better. So there's a lot of hype right now about actives being categorically better. I think a lot of that comes from individual taste preferences--some people have tried both and liked them better (sure makes sense)--and there are people who have never owned or demoed anything different. 

 

[gopanthersgo1]

Actually, actives are less practical in many ways. You get way more flexibility out of a passive speaker/receiver setup like the OP is considering. If the electronics break, you have to repair it or throw out the speaker, too. You can't decide to upgrade just the speakers or the amplification--have to pay for it all again to upgrade. I don't think most have headphone jacks. They don't have a pre-amp with a phono stage and plugins for other audio devices. No remote control. Actives are also designed strictly for nearfield listening, with a neutral sound that is designed for mixing--not something that is for everyone. To me, they sound kind of flat. Because of their design, not the best choice for repurposing the speakers for other uses either. So it really depends on what kind of "practicality" one is looking for. 

I have a pair of Energy V5.1s and an HK 3490 which I paid under $500 for, and from demoing active monitors in that $500 to $600 range, I couldn't find something that I like better. So there's a lot of hype right now about actives being categorically better. I think a lot of that comes from individual taste preferences--some people have tried both and liked them better (sure makes sense)--and there are people who have never owned or demoed anything different. 

I'm back to passive again, it's like if I ever need to upgrade an amp or something, I can use it in the movie/tv/console/game room as a preamp with the remote, so I can switch from DirecTV/PS3/Blu-ray/whatever else I get (Nexus Q?)/and maybe a turntable with only a remote!

EDIT: How will the Kef's and HK 3390 actually sound together? (Hopefully great mids, and warm)

 

[cel4145]

For that matter, you could end upgrading your desktop computer speakers and use those kef's in another room as the rear speakers for a surround system. You can repurpose components much easier. 
 
The HK should pair up nicely with the iQ30s. 

 

[gopanthersgo1]

For that matter, you could end upgrading your desktop computer speakers and use those kef's in another room as the rear speakers for a surround system. You can repurpose components much easier. 

The HK should pair up nicely with the iQ30s. 

Okay, yeah, that's exactly why passive appeals to me, that and there isn't a circuit board in each speaker like beats

 

[Destroysall]

How about the KRK Rokit 6 G2? It has excellent lows and mid-range.
 
Destroysall.

 

[Kawai_man]

Well having been a tube amp enthusiast and still being one but to a lesser degree. Ive owned several separates systems and its an expensive road its hard to be satisfied, as one who not an expert in this its hard to know if the speakers to get will sound good or match the amp. Ive had several missses,eg. I bought speakers for a particular amp and the sound was not good when reviews said they would sound good. I disovered actives at my job  and bought several sets and decided to keep a set of Dyaudios to replace my hifi system. The fact that actives are neutral is good its how most speakers attempt to be , a nuetral speaker doesnt add or subtract anything from the sound so one type of genre will not sonund better it will come out more exact like the artist meant it . Usually when people say actives are cold or flat it is because theyve heard them through a mixer or at guitar center where they split the signal into many this sucks tone which gives a thin lifeless sound.
 
 
I beleive you have a point in what practicality one is looking for but I add this bits of info to add to that consideration
 
 

1. Studio Speakers are usually built like tanks and they have protection circuits inside eg circuits that will shut down the speaker if there is too much current or if the signal is too loud.
2. These are built built for professionals so there is not as much smoke and mirrors as there is in speakers that re advertised for youre average audiophile.
3. You can get an in Inexpensive preamp or switcher if you need to connect differnt sources.
4. Active crossovers this is the main reason actives sound so much better, passives have passive crossovers that reduce clarity in comparison to active crossovers that preserve the sound clarity.
5. The amplifiers are matched to the speakers
6. They are biamplifed
7. They are less expensive 
8. Take up less space 

 

[cel4145]

Quote:

Well having been a tube amp enthusiast and still being one but to a lesser degree. Ive owned several separates systems and its an expensive road its hard to be satisfied, as one who not an expert in this its hard to know if the speakers to get will sound good or match the amp. Ive had several missses,eg. I bought speakers for a particular amp and the sound was not good when reviews said they would sound good. I disovered actives at my job  and bought several sets and decided to keep a set of Dyaudios to replace my hifi system. The fact that actives are neutral is good its how most speakers attempt to be , a nuetral speaker doesnt add or subtract anything from the sound so one type of genre will not sonund better it will come out more exact like the artist meant it . Usually when people say actives are cold or flat it is because theyve heard them through a mixer or at guitar center where they split the signal into many this sucks tone which gives a thin lifeless sound.
 
 
I beleive you have a point in what practicality one is looking for but I add this bits of info to add to that consideration
 
 

1. Studio Speakers are usually built like tanks and they have protection circuits inside eg circuits that will shut down the speaker if there is too much current or if the signal is too loud.
2. These are built built for professionals so there is not as much smoke and mirrors as there is in speakers that re advertised for youre average audiophile.
3. You can get an in Inexpensive preamp or switcher if you need to connect differnt sources.
4. Active crossovers this is the main reason actives sound so much better, passives have passive crossovers that reduce clarity in comparison to active crossovers that preserve the sound clarity.
5. The amplifiers are matched to the speakers
6. They are biamplifed
7. They are less expensive 
8. Take up less space 

 
The Dynaudio professional monitors that you use are a different class of speaker than the OP's budget. So what you describe regarding the quality of the electronics does not necessarily generalize to the $600 price range he is looking in if you are comparing your speakers. 
 
As far as some of the other comments, some of this is the "smoke and mirrors" of why studio monitors are better.
 
There is an an advantage in clarity with biamplification and active crossovers, but that's generally at the crossover point and may be a minimal gain depending on the quality of the speaker drivers and tweeters themselves, the quality of the amplification, and the quality of the crossovers. So it offers some enhancement benefit, but it is not a magical guarantee that equally priced setups will sound better. 
 
Your experience with tube amps is true. They color the sound, which is why people choose them to try to enhance the speakers by matching the sound. This idea that the solid state amplifiers in studio monitors are "matched" is more myth than reality. The solid state amps in both active monitors and good separate amps/receivers normally should not be coloring the sound. 
 
Studio monitors are not "less expensive" unless one can buy equivalent audio quality for less money. So that's a perceived difference of whether or not one setup sounds better than another, not a fact about studio monitors. 
 
The protection circuits in professional studio monitors should not be necessary for nearfield listening unless one is working on developing rapid hearing loss. For room filling sound, one just has to practice reasonable use of not running speakers to levels where they audibly distort. Meanwhile, for room filling sound where more volume may be needed, active monitors don't offer the kind of imaging and soundstage creation of passive speakers. 

 

[gopanthersgo1]

I saw that the Kef's run from 15-120 watts into 8 ohms, should I get a cheap ($50) amp first, then get the HK 3490 which has 120 watts into 8 ohms? I know I'm getting a good DAC later, but I could use this with my other devices until I get a good DAC with multiple inputs (AudioGD 1.32).

 

[cel4145]

This Lepai t-amp works very well given how much it costs. You would be pleasantly surprised at how well it drives those speakers. 

 

[gopanthersgo1]

I was looking at that too!

EDIT: Any good $5 power supplies for the Lepai to make shipping free?

EDIT 2: Also, how much better would the 120 watt be than the 80 watt one?

EDIT 3: BUMP

 

[cel4145]

If you are not going to buy the receiver until next year after you get the speakers, I would worry about it then. Could be there will be some new product on the market or some deal on another receiver or integrated amp that will make it a better deal. 
 
Do you have speaker wire? Do you need a cable to connect your computer to the amp? You could get one of those from Amazon to put your order over $25. I bought two of those Lepais about a year ago, and they came with a power supply. A recent review says it has it, too.