[kid vic]

Really? ~400$ is not a reasonable amount to pay for good sound?
One would expect that with all the price drops that we see in electronics, during the years (due to competition, eastern mfrrs, etc), it would be a good amount for a good 2.0 set..

BTW, why did you mention specifically vintage amplifiers?

Modern big box gear is mass produced with a thousand bells and whistles crammed into a small enclosure. With all the extras forced in there, actual sound quality is often sacrificed.

Vintage gear was made to perform one duty only,make music sound good. Period.
If you were to spend 400.00 on a new amp/receiver vs. the same amount on a vintage piece,the SQ difference would greatly surprise you.

For passive speakers $400 doesn't buy you much of anything brand new, they will probably have an odd sound signature (probably muddy bass and thin midrange) and will not compare to anything good that you can get as studio monitors in the same price range. $400 is a reasonable amount but this is a hobby that is not about reasonableness in the new market.

Monsterzero basically explained one of the key differences in the vintage vs new debate. The other reason vintage amps are tough is because they will often need some servicing to correct age related issues and that will bump the price up.

 

[spaceman5]

For passive speakers $400 doesn't buy you much of anything brand new ...... and will not compare to anything good that you can get as studio monitors in the same price range.

This is interesting,,
So you say that for the same amount, Active Speakers (Monitors in this case) will give a better result than passive speakers...
(and ironically the passive speakers will need additional hardware, in order to work, what the monitors already have built-in)

This is quite opposite to what common-sense would suggest

 

[kid vic]

This is interesting,,
So you say that for the same amount, Active Speakers (Monitors in this case) will give a better result than passive speakers...
(and ironically the passive speakers will need additional hardware, in order to work, what the monitors already have built-in)

This is quite opposite to what common-sense would suggest

The reason being that passive speakers are generally designed for home theater/hi-fi use whereas actives are for studios/hobby musicians. I can't think of many good hi-fi brands that are selling well respected speakers in that price range but almost every studio monitor brand has speakers in that range hoping to encourage people to move up the line later on. Again, your not saving money by buying a $400 set of passives, you now have to buy an amp and everything else.

Separates are often better (YMMV) but cost a lot more. A good class amp driving excellent passive speaker is still closer to a $1,000+ pricepoint than a $600 pricepoint brand new.

 

[spaceman5]

That's a real surprise.

A good class amp driving excellent passive speaker is still closer to a $1,000+ pricepoint than a $600 pricepoint brand new.

Wow, 1K$ for an amplifier?


OK in that case Studio Monitors would be the appropriate choice..

 

[theveterans]

Happy with my Yamaha HS7+HS8S as my computer speakers (2.5' away from my ears). It sounds better than any IEM on the market IMHO.

 

[spaceman5]

Great.
What is IEM?

 

[genclaymore]

Great.
What is IEM?

In-ear Monitor

 

[kid vic]

That's a real surprise.

Wow, 1K$ for an amplifier?

OK in that case Studio Monitors would be the appropriate choice..

Not exactly what I meant but your not fully wrong; what I meant was that it's not impossible to buy an amplifier for passive speakers for $300 but you'll probably need a pre-amp (many amplfiers don't have volume control). Therefore, even if you spent $400 on the speakers, $300 on a good power amp you'd still have to get a preamp to hook everything up with. You could buy an integrated (some of the brand new Yamaha 2 channels are good) but thats still a minimum of $300+.
Mackie MR624/KRK Rockit 6/JBL LS305/[insert budget monitor] + JBL Nano patch is just going to be cheaper and easier.
You could use the Nano patch inbetween the amplifier and source but with the questions your asking I don't think it's worth while.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Thanks..



What do you mean? that one should buy a subwoofer in addition?

Yes, if you want bass and don't have neighbors. 6.5 inch woofers are just not physically capable of producing deep bass.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Not exactly what I meant but your not fully wrong; what I meant was that it's not impossible to buy an amplifier for passive speakers for $300 but you'll probably need a pre-amp (many amplfiers don't have volume control). Therefore, even if you spent $400 on the speakers, $300 on a good power amp you'd still have to get a preamp to hook everything up with. You could buy an integrated (some of the brand new Yamaha 2 channels are good) but thats still a minimum of $300+.
Mackie MR624/KRK Rockit 6/JBL LS305/[insert budget monitor] + JBL Nano patch is just going to be cheaper and easier.
You could use the Nano patch inbetween the amplifier and source but with the questions your asking I don't think it's worth while.

I agree with this overall. If you don't already have an integrated amplifier it's worth considering active monitors. Personally I dislike the idea of active monitors and integrated amps are much more generally useful, and I prefer passive monitors. But it's getting harder and harder to find passive monitors, so... kinda what you said

 

[spaceman5]

Thank you all.

OK I purchased the Yamaha HS7 monitors (White).

I should get them soon.

Even tho, I am still curious about an integrated amplifier, should I ever switch to passive speakers.

kid vic wrote "(some of the brand new Yamaha 2 channels are good)",
Can you please write an example of one that is considered good?

(for 2.0, or 2.1, if I add a sub in the future)

 

[theveterans]

Thank you all.

OK I purchased the Yamaha HS7 monitors (White).

I should get them soon.

Even tho, I am still curious about an integrated amplifier, should I ever switch to passive speakers.

kid vic wrote "(some of the brand new Yamaha 2 channels are good)",
Can you please write an example of one that is considered good?

(for 2.0, or 2.1, if I add a sub in the future)

Don’t evaluate the sound right away. Just burn them in for a week and the sound should open up dramatically

 

[spaceman5]

Right.
I am aware of burn in, regarding audio equipment. Thank you.

BTW,
I heard the term "preamp" several times already, but never really understood why it's needed..
Also I always heard it mentioned as a chip, in an amplifier circuit, and not as a device on its own..

Why is a preamp needed?
Why can't the Amplifier itself do the work, without needing the help of a preamp?

 

[theveterans]

Right.
I am aware of burn in, regarding audio equipment. Thank you.

BTW,
I heard the term "preamp" several times already, but never really understood why it's needed..
Also I always heard it mentioned as a chip, in an amplifier circuit, and not as a device on its own..

Why is a preamp needed?
Why can't the Amplifier itself do the work, without needing the help of a preamp?

Analog volume control and input switch. The fancy ones have tube stage (the one I have for example) to alter the sound so it sounds like a tube amp

 

[spaceman5]

Analog volume control and input switch

Hmm
Is this the reason why the following DAC (which is ES9018K2M based) has a volume potentiometer?
For acting as an Analog volume control?

SE2 Pro DAC:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-SE2-PR...23X2-USB-DAC-decoder-amp-machine/272598934462