Phono Preamp and Powered Speakers vs. Receiver and Passive Speakers

[Tommy]

My current setup consists of an MCS 6700 TT, Vintage Pioneer receiver and some decent passive speakers. I have been seeing more people go the route of phono preamp and powered speakers and I am starting to get curious. I have searched VC and YouTube for some explaination about the two setups and can't find much.

VC - what are the pros and cons to each setup (phono preamp and powered speakers vs. vintage phono receiver and passive speakers)? I would think you would get two totally different sounds from each. Anyone have experience with both?

[allenh]

You are going to get two completely polarised answers on this but I expect that's what you thought when you asked the question.

 

I'll say upfront I'm not a fan of powered monitors in the same way as I'm not a fan of receivers over integrated amplifiers but also you don't say how big your room is or what your speakers are now.

 

Don't get me wrong there are some stunningly good powered monitors and some piss poor passive speakers and amplifiers around and vice versa so the rules are general at best

 

The reasons for choosing powered monitors over separate amplifiers and passive speakers is convenience, so a powered monitor would be used to save on space and the amount of equipment and they were originally intended as nearfield monitors in outside broadcast vans or low end studios and recording spaces where space is at a premium and as such they are an engineering compromise. The reason being the noise floor, in the same way as putting a radio receiver in the same box as an amplifier makes for problems in overcoming noise the same is true of putting a power supply and amplifier in the same box as a speaker makes for the same if not worse problems.

 

with a powered monitor you have the advantage of a simple neat and small solution but you have the drawback of a potentially noisier signal path especially in the home environment and also most of the good ones of these are still near field monitors so intended to be used that way in small rooms or cheap and nasty ones intended as effectively computer speakers and still near field monitors. There are bigger ones intended for PA use and again to save on space and equipment and some bigger monitors that do have a wider range of usage but I still wouldn't recommend them for home hifi use unless space really is an issue.

 

With true hifi you end up splitting things up into as many boxes as possible and this is in an effort to lower the systems noise floor and pick out as much recorded information as possible. By splitting it all up you are screening each power supply from the others and not allowing unwanted signals in from other items in the audio chain.

 

We have for years compromised quality in a quest for convenience and although not as bad as something like an MP3 player the powered monitors are another example of this.

 

Obviously I'm talking about ideal conditions but in any good quality audio system if the fundamentals are not right you are dealing with compromises that you are not dealing with in a lesser quality system that has the fundamentals right.

[Tommy]

Allen, thank you so much for this detailed response. You have confirmed my suspicion that the powered speaker option, while seemingly convenient, is not the best option for me. I had a set of AV40s for studio monitoring and was not a fan.

I'm going to start research on integrated amps now since I was only looking at phono receivers before. This widens my options. Thanks again for being so kind.

[Cpaskous]

What's the difference between a receiver and an integrated amp? I'm new to this sort of stuff, and I thought they were essentially the same.

[allenh]

What's the difference between a receiver and an integrated amp? I'm new to this sort of stuff, and I thought they were essentially the same.

A receiver is an integrated amplifier with the addition of a radio tuner in the same box. Convenient but an engineering compromise.

[Tardcore]

A receiver is an integrated amplifier with the addition of a radio tuner in the same box. Convenient but an engineering compromise.

 

It's worth noting that this is the original and strictest definition.  Today, any modern receiver is going to primarily function as an AVR and be loaded with chips to handle surround sound codecs, etc.  The licensing fees associated with decoding those codecs are significant and add to the cost of the receiver in addition to the engineering comprimises.

 

By contrast, an integrated amplifier is purpose-built to perform the relatively simple task of handling 2 channel audio (music) and free of the cost/complication involved with processing surround codecs and so forth.

[allenh]

It's worth noting that this is the original and strictest definition.  Today, any modern receiver is going to primarily function as an AVR and be loaded with chips to handle surround sound codecs, etc.  The licensing fees associated with decoding those codecs are significant and add to the cost of the receiver in addition to the engineering comprimises.

 

By contrast, an integrated amplifier is purpose-built to perform the relatively simple task of handling 2 channel audio (music) and free of the cost/complication involved with processing surround codecs and so forth.

 

Very true yes I should have put a bit of detail in about that.

 

It's also a fair point that a modern multi channel receiver because of all the processing and extra channel decoding going on inside is not designed for proper stereo audio as it's primary function and therefore won't be as good at it as a comparable 2 channel integrated amplifier.

 

Basically you need to work out what you want the primary function of your amplifier to be so if you want to shake the room with big explosions from your films then get a modern AV receiver but if you want to listen to music from any 2 channel source get an integrated amplifier.