Help me blow $3000 (for complete system) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 08:31 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
motomatto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SD, CA
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello. I'm looking for suggestions on how to blow 3K (okay, you twisted my arm, maybe 3.5K)

I want a nice hi-fi stereo system. That means AMP + DAC + SPEAKERS + STREAMING TRANSPORT + TRANSPORT. Primarily for streaming (FLAC/MP3 over DLNA or Async-USB) and a blu-ray player for CD's.

How do you suggest I split my money up (2K for speakers, 500 for DAC, 500 for amp, etc...)?

Here's my current plan:
SPEAKERS: 1.5-2K on a pair of bookshelves (delay getting a sub until I can afford a good one).
DAC: $500. Can I get a high quality DAC that will handle Async USB and digital inputs for that price. Suggestions?
AMP: $500.
STREAMING TRANSPORT: $250. (Squeezebox with iPeng)
TRANSPORT: Cheap blu-ray using the above DAC

What do you think?
Thanks, Matt (motomatto)
motomatto is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 09:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 5,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Much of your proposed list and proportion seems misguided. Spend the most on speakers, and maybe some room treatment. If you get powered speakers they'll already include a good amplifier. I don't see why you need an outboard DAC either.

--Ethan

RealTraps - The acoustic treatment experts
Ethan's Audio Expert book

Ethan Winer is offline  
post #3 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 09:20 AM
ap1
AVS Special Member
 
ap1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
You can go with just two components - receiver and universal player. Example Onkyo 3009 and Oppo 93. They will do everything for you other than being USB dac. But you won't need one - either receiver or player will work with files on your computer. This pair can be got for $1900 today. It can become a base of your surround setup too (once you hear SACD or BD-Audio will likely be hooked).
ap1 is online now  
post #4 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 10:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by motomatto View Post

Hello. I'm looking for suggestions on how to blow 3K (okay, you twisted my arm, maybe 3.5K)
I want a nice hi-fi stereo system. That means AMP + DAC + SPEAKERS + STREAMING TRANSPORT + TRANSPORT. Primarily for streaming (FLAC/MP3 over DLNA or Async-USB) and a blu-ray player for CD's.
How do you suggest I split my money up (2K for speakers, 500 for DAC, 500 for amp, etc...)?
Here's my current plan:
SPEAKERS: 1.5-2K on a pair of bookshelves (delay getting a sub until I can afford a good one).
DAC: $500. Can I get a high quality DAC that will handle Async USB and digital inputs for that price. Suggestions?
AMP: $500.
STREAMING TRANSPORT: $250. (Squeezebox with iPeng)
TRANSPORT: Cheap blu-ray using the above DAC
What do you think?
Thanks, Matt (motomatto)

I see no reason for 2-channel integrated amps when far more reasonably-priced AVRs scale themselves back to 2-channel operation so nicely. They have the DAC built in. Now you are down to speakers and as Ethan intimates, room treatments.

I'm going to take a radical step and suggest that you specify the acoustical part of your system and work backwards. Figure out what it will cost to treat your room's response for speakers with the best bandpass you can afford, given the costs of absorbers for the lowest few octaves of bass. If it turns out that you need to spend $1000 getting the room right, less than $500 for the players and AVR will still leave you $1500 for speakers and that is a reasonable balance.
arnyk is offline  
post #5 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 10:39 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
motomatto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SD, CA
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for all the replies. I am a bit confused though (maybe I posted to the wrong forum).

I don't think I need room treatments; I don't have a dedicated room so my main priority is flexibility.

I wanted to stay away from AVRs because 1) I don't need that extra capability 2) that extra capability is susceptible to obsolescence and 3) I don't like the looks of them. I figure buying a separate DAC allows me to upgrade that easily (as technology changes) but keep everything else (speakers/amp).

What am I missing here???

Thanks!
Matt
motomatto is offline  
post #6 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
I don't think I need room treatments; I don't have a dedicated room so my main priority is flexibility.
Everybody needs room treatments. (You owe me money, Ethan!) But not everybody wants them. Given your room and your, ahem, domestic situation, you may not have much choice about that.
Quote:
I wanted to stay away from AVRs because 1) I don't need that extra capability 2) that extra capability is susceptible to obsolescence and 3) I don't like the looks of them.
1) Maybe not, but you're not really paying that much for it.
2) So what, if you're not using it?
3) I'm with you there. But Marantz makes a low-slung one that isn't so bad.

But there's a key capability of modern AVRs that really will benefit you: room correction. It's not room treatments, but it's better than nothing.
Quote:
I figure buying a separate DAC allows me to upgrade that easily (as technology changes)
Modern DACs, even really cheap ones, are sonically transparent. You won't ever have to upgrade.

Beyond that, the most basic rule applies: Put most of your budget into speakers. Nothing else makes more than a fractional difference.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #7 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 11:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

But there's a key capability of modern AVRs that really will benefit you: room correction. It's not room treatments, but it's better than nothing. .

Agreed. In addition to the the benefit of room correction software (which is a big plus), AVRs also have bass management capabilities that allow you to select from a variety of crossovers points for your bookshelves to integrate with a sub. Most subs only have a low pass filter built into their crossover, limiting you to choosing a crossover near where your bookshelves roll off in bass response.

cel4145 is online now  
post #8 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 11:58 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
motomatto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SD, CA
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks!

Now for the next line of questioning...
1) Pound for pound (aka price), doesn't an Integrated Amp give you better audio quality than an AVR? At the price I'm looking at ($1000), I would think a solely-dedicated device (int. amp for audio) would be better than a multi-purpose device (AVR to audio, video).

2) I agree that good DACS are easy to come by. What I meant about obsolescence is for new technology and standards (mostly streaming-related). A few years ago it was USB and 24/96. Today it's a-sync USB and 24/196. Next year it's by 32-bit, ultra-super audio CD's, and a resurgence in beta-max. smile.gif

I'm not trying to be a pain, but these questions is why I brought up this topic. smile.gif
motomatto is offline  
post #9 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
1) Pound for pound (aka price), doesn't an Integrated Amp give you better audio quality than an AVR? At the price I'm looking at ($1000), I would think a solely-dedicated device (int. amp for audio) would be better than a multi-purpose device (AVR to audio, video).
You would think so, wouldn't you? But when we match their output levels and throw a cloth over them so you can't see them, it suddenly becomes very difficult to tell which is which.

It's not that dedicated amp aren't often better, in some technical sense. It's that the differences between amps, even very cheap and very expensive amps, is pretty tiny, and our ears just aren't good enough to make such fine distinctions. There are some exceptions and conditions here, such as that some speakers present very difficult loads, and one amp or another might not be able to handle it. (But just because an amp is expensive doesn't mean it'll be better, either.)
Quote:
2) I agree that good DACS are easy to come by. What I meant about obsolescence is for new technology and standards (mostly streaming-related). A few years ago it was USB and 24/96. Today it's a-sync USB and 24/196. Next year it's by 32-bit, ultra-super audio CD's, and a resurgence in beta-max.
I see your point, and it's possible. But even the hi-rez formats we have now are not obviously better than standard CD-quality audio. So the danger of obsolescence is more theoretical than real.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #10 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stevensctt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by motomatto View Post

Thanks for all the replies. I am a bit confused though (maybe I posted to the wrong forum).

You did. Get out now, like the OP for the DAC thread. This is headed in the same direction.
stevensctt is offline  
post #11 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 01:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by motomatto View Post

Thanks!
2) I agree that good DACS are easy to come by. What I meant about obsolescence is for new technology and standards (mostly streaming-related). A few years ago it was USB and 24/96. Today it's a-sync USB and 24/196. Next year it's by 32-bit, ultra-super audio CD's, and a resurgence in beta-max. smile.gif
I'm not trying to be a pain, but these questions is why I brought up this topic. smile.gif

Sure. They may change in the next five years. But if you go this route with the separate DAC, integrated amp, and networking solution, then you need to budget for a room EQ solution. That is not cheap, and it will require some time investment in learning on you part to take the measurements, use the software, and implement the corrections. Whereas the room correction software and EQ filters in the AVR will do this almost automatically for you.

The other thing is that if you are worried about changes in networking technology and streaming, then you will have to upgrade regardless, and you can plug a new networking device into an AVR as easily as into an integrated amp.

cel4145 is online now  
post #12 of 64 Old 08-12-2012, 02:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by motomatto View Post

Thanks for all the replies. I am a bit confused though (maybe I posted to the wrong forum).
I don't think I need room treatments; I don't have a dedicated room so my main priority is flexibility.

You'll never know unless you try.
Quote:
I wanted to stay away from AVRs because 1) I don't need that extra capability

Huh? You need a DAC, an AVR has one.
Quote:
2) that extra capability is susceptible to obsolescence

Not having the capability in reserve is somehow worse than having it?
Quote:
and 3) I don't like the looks of them.

That I choose not to try to help you with! ;-)

Frankly, I think HiFi gear is ugly. All of it. The only good thing about it is that it does what it does. Mine is behind smoked glass. The doors stay shut as much as I can keep them that way. That's what remotes are for - keeping the ugly stuff out of my sight.

Quote:
I figure buying a separate DAC allows me to upgrade that easily (as technology changes) but keep everything else (speakers/amp).

On that topic of DAC obsolescence, it is fair to ask whether there will ever be a mainstream standard beyond 24/192. I think not. Even 24/96 is vast overkill.

Also, $250 will get you a good AVR with 100 wpc and a 24/192 DAC. Can you really get a better stand alone DAC for less? I don't think so.
arnyk is offline  
post #13 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
keyboardcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Some integrated amps I feel like have bigger transformers in them and bigger power supply sometimes. If you ever decide to stream music on Pandora slacker radio or other sites a network Audio Video Receiver might be for you. Some bookshelf speakers have good bass for the small size. You might like them and not need a subwoofer. Some people like flack files. Other people think that it doesn't sound much better. I don't have a dac and I think that my stereo sounds fine, but a lot of people do feel like dacs make a big difference in the sound. What kind of music do you listen to? Any brands in integrated amps or avrs that you are interested in? A lot of people like being able to run Audyssey on a AVR to equalize the speakers. Have you got to visit any hifi stores in the area to see if you like any certain brands? I have heard cheaper speakers that sounded better to me then more expensive brands sometimes. I may like a speaker that everyone else hates. It will be hard to say what speaker brand is best for you. You have to demo several brands and see which one sounds the best to your ears.
keyboardcat is offline  
post #14 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 12:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyboardcat View Post

Some integrated amps I feel like have bigger transformers in them and bigger power supply sometimes.

This is definitely true. But, it misses the point - do the larger transformers and power supplies make an audible difference? The answer is generally no because bench tests of audio amps put a far heavier load on the amplifier than music. The ratio of the power for a bench test using steady signals as compared to even the most demanding real world music is about 3:1. IOW the bench test puts a far heavier load on the power supply and transformer than real music. Considering speaker loads has a similar consequence. Speakers are typically rated in accordance with their minimum impedance, but this minimum impedance exists over only a narrow band of frequencies. In general speakers are easier loads then the resistors that are used in amplifier bench tests.
arnyk is offline  
post #15 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
keyboardcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I heard that in some bench test a cheaper pioneer receiver says 100 watts per channel, but is really only giving 30 watts because of the smaller power supply. Rotel dealers and NAD make a big deal about the transformers being heavy. You do make good points though.
keyboardcat is offline  
post #16 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 01:49 PM
Member
 
Greg121986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyboardcat View Post

I heard that in some bench test a cheaper pioneer receiver says 100 watts per channel, but is really only giving 30 watts because of the smaller power supply. Rotel dealers and NAD make a big deal about the transformers being heavy. You do make good points though.

That is in terms of "all channels driven" or not. A smaller power supply would not be capable of supplying the power to all channels in a multi-channel amplifier, so the number drops if you load more channels. If you are running only 2 channels from the amp then you may get the fully rated power output. Some manufacturers list "all channels driven" and some continue on to say the power output of the amp as you add more channels if it were to drop.
Greg121986 is offline  
post #17 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 02:13 PM
Newbie
 
jours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Speakers are typically rated in accordance with their minimum impedance, but this minimum impedance exists over only a narrow band of frequencies. In general speakers are easier loads then the resistors that are used in amplifier bench tests.

Is this true? I remember looking at plots on speaker reviews that seemed to show the opposite, that many speakers drop substantially in impedance at certain frequencies.

For example these are 8 ohm nominal speakers:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
jours is offline  
post #18 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 03:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyboardcat View Post

I heard that in some bench test a cheaper pioneer receiver says 100 watts per channel, but is really only giving 30 watts because of the smaller power supply. Rotel dealers and NAD make a big deal about the transformers being heavy. You do make good points though.

Some receivers are grossly over-rated in their marketing materials; some not. Check out the test measurements for these two

Denon 1612
Pioneer VSX-1012

The budget level Denon pretty much does what Denon says it will do with 5 channels driven. The Pioneer is a disappointment.

Meanwhile, the Anthem MRX 300, which is an "audiophile brand" receiver, is not that impressive with 5 channels driven in comparison to the 1612, even though the Anthem has a $1000 MSRP price tag. Maybe the advantage is how it will handle 4 ohm loads, but you have to wonder if paying 3 or 4 times as much is worth the extra cost for that amplifier for anyone using speakers with 8 ohm impedance.

cel4145 is online now  
post #19 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 04:27 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jours View Post

Is this true? I remember looking at plots on speaker reviews that seemed to show the opposite, that many speakers drop substantially in impedance at certain frequencies.
For example these are 8 ohm nominal speakers:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
When distinguishing the word "typically" vs "occasionally", then yes, that is true. http://www.stereophile.com/category/floor-loudspeaker-reviews
diomania is offline  
post #20 of 64 Old 08-13-2012, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
keyboardcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
cel4145 I guess that it depends on if you are running dificult 4ohm speakers like older 4ohm cerwin vegas or magnepan speakers. I hear that monitor audio is sometimes to much for a receiver to handle. for some people they went into protection mode.
keyboardcat is offline  
post #21 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 04:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Some receivers are grossly over-rated in their marketing materials; some not. Check out the test measurements for these two
Denon 1612
Pioneer VSX-1012

This looks good and matters:

"This graph shows that the VSX-1021’s left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 106.3 watts and 1 percent distortion at 136.4 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 119 watts and 1 percent distortion at 168.1 watts.

This looks bad, but doesn't matter:
"
Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 46.1 watts
1% distortion at 56.7 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 44.5 watts
1% distortion at 53.7 watts"

Your complaint is justified by the following from Pioneer's spec sheet:
"
120W x 7 (1 kHz, THD 0.05% @ 8 ohms)
90W x 7 (20 Hz – 20 kHz, THD 0.08% @ 8 ohms FTC)
"

It don't do that! Pioneer does not seem to be telling the truth!

The good news is that it will never ever even have to try.

If you want to spend money for capacity that is guaranteed to sit on figurative bench for the life of the receiver, be my guest!

If you want to express angst on AVS over it, I'm going to try to cheer you up with the relevant real world facts. ;-)

Most of the power in a surround system goes to the front 2 or 3 speakers, but if you don't buy that, there is a more compelling story to follow. While the 45 or so wpc capacity looks bad on paper, its only 3 dB down with continuous sine waves.

But here is the critical point: Like I keep saying here over and over again, (and can demonstrate on the drop of a hat) music has at the very worst less than 1/3-1/2 the power of sine waves. Often the ratio is as much as 10:1!

In the real world, if you drive any receiver with music peaking at digtial FS on all 7 channels simultaneously, all 5-7 outputs will clip north of what it does into just 2 channels on the test bench with sine waves.

The difference in the power in sine waves versus music makes up the difference. Actually, its not the fact that the signal is music that is the root cause of this - this happens with any signal that isn't a pure sine wave. You don't even have to factor in the transient and impulsive nature of music. You get the benefit even with hypercompressed and clipped music. All that audiophile rhetoric about listening to music and not sine waves applies.

Where's the beef, except on paper?
arnyk is offline  
post #22 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 04:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by jours View Post

Is this true? I remember looking at plots on speaker reviews that seemed to show the opposite, that many speakers drop substantially in impedance at certain frequencies.
For example these are 8 ohm nominal speakers:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements

This isn't "many speakers", it is just one, and probably one of the worst I've seen among modern speakers. I can easily post 10 curves that are far easier loads for every one you post like that. Want to try me? ;-)

I studied this issue by looking at over 100 speakers (mostly Stereophile tests) when I was designing my loudspeaker simulator. By the way my speaker simulator turned out to be twice as tough as the wimpy one that Stereophile uses. My belief is that JA doesn't want to use a more representative speaker load because it would make many vacuum tube amps look even worse than they do.

But that more extreme impedance curve for the 802D still supports my claims. It goes above 20 ohms around 3 KHz. It is above 8 ohms around 15 Hz, 50 Hz, and 3 KHz. Its goes just below 4 ohms in a narrow trough around 25 Hz and from 60 to 600 Hz.

That all said, I have a low cost Yamaha AVR that is speced for over 100 watts into 2 ohm loads. An owner of a larger Yammy AVR in the same series didn't believe it, but I quoted line chapter and verse from the owner's manual for his model. Due to the improved capacity of modern output transistors, it is reasonably inexpensive to provide this sort of capability as long as you don't have to back it up with a power supply that will run all 7 channels into 2 ohm resistors all day long. As long as you stick to listening to music, you'll never bring your AVR even close!
arnyk is offline  
post #23 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 04:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyboardcat View Post

cel4145 I guess that it depends on if you are running dificult 4ohm speakers like older 4ohm cerwin vegas or magnepan speakers. I hear that monitor audio is sometimes to much for a receiver to handle. for some people they went into protection mode.

That's an interesting anecdote, but where are the details, and what justifies turning it into a general rule that applies to every AVR in every situation?

What I see is that one person under totally undisclosed circumstances pushed his AVR into protect mode. I used to do this a lot with my previous receiver, but when I investigated the situation it turned out that it was getting too hot inside the unventilated cabinet. I cut a 4" hole near the top of the rear panel of the cabinet where it was blocked from view by the equipment. The temperature inside went way down, and that was that.
arnyk is offline  
post #24 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 08:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Your complaint is justified by the following from Pioneer's spec sheet:
"
120W x 7 (1 kHz, THD 0.05% @ 8 ohms)
90W x 7 (20 Hz – 20 kHz, THD 0.08% @ 8 ohms FTC)
"
It don't do that! Pioneer does not seem to be telling the truth!
The good news is that it will never ever even have to try.

And the bad news is that people use those numbers to compare receivers.

Whether or not hometheater.com's testing of receivers with all channels drive is useful for comparing potential real world performance between two receivers is another issue (which I'm not qualified to evaluate). In other words, does it help for making relative comparisons? This, BTW, is also different from saying the channels will not all be driven this way at the same time, which is part of your argument. After all, CEA-2010 testing data for subwoofers similarly uses artificial measures that do not necessarily reflect ACTUAL usage, but the test data does help to compare subwoofers for projecting the POTENTIAL of one to better than the other.

cel4145 is online now  
post #25 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 11:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

And the bad news is that people use those numbers to compare receivers.
Whether or not hometheater.com's testing of receivers with all channels drive is useful for comparing potential real world performance between two receivers is another issue (which I'm not qualified to evaluate). In other words, does it help for making relative comparisons?

Executive summary of my post 21: NO!
Quote:
This, BTW, is also different from saying the channels will not all be driven this way at the same time, which is part of your argument.

I mentioned that, but my other comments include the possibility of that happening. The big picture is that steady sine waves are an unrealistic way to test amplifiers for amplifying music.
Quote:
After all, CEA-2010 testing data for subwoofers similarly uses artificial measures that do not necessarily reflect ACTUAL usage, but the test data does help to compare subwoofers for projecting the POTENTIAL of one to better than the other.

To my way of thinking, potential that can't be exercised in a useful way is worthless unless you are talking about things like bragging rights.

If someone bought the car and paid for fuel, insurance and maintenance I wouldn't mind having a car that could go 200 mph. Other than that I have to admit that I've never ever driven faster than 120. A lot of fairly inexpensive cars can do 115 mph (like my current V6 Milan) which is close enough for me.
arnyk is offline  
post #26 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 03:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

To my way of thinking, potential that can't be exercised in a useful way is worthless unless you are talking about things like bragging rights.
If someone bought the car and paid for fuel, insurance and maintenance I wouldn't mind having a car that could go 200 mph. Other than that I have to admit that I've never ever driven faster than 120. A lot of fairly inexpensive cars can do 115 mph (like my current V6 Milan) which is close enough for me.

Based on this analogy, if I am understanding your right, then you are arguing that these receivers have plenty of power for real world use and the point is moot?

cel4145 is online now  
post #27 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 06:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
Based on this analogy, if I am understanding your right, then you are arguing that these receivers have plenty of power for real world use and the point is moot?
I'm not so sure it's moot if you're running 4 ohm speakers all around, but if you're doing that you ought to know you have to choose an AVR very carefully.

But for 8 ohm speakers (or just a pair of 4 ohm speakers):

—measured differences among AVRs aren't all that great (recall that a doubling of power only gives you an added 3 dB of headroom)

—measurements/specs substantially understate the power available when playing music or movies

—specs (as opposed to independent measurements, which you often don't have) aren't always 100% accurate, as you noted earlier

Put that all together, and there's not that much value to an AVR's power spec.

OTOH, most spec sheets are probably more accurate than the Pioneer example you presented earlier, and there's nothing wrong with extra headroom, all else equal. So I wouldn't say someone who chooses a 100-watt AVR over a 50-watt AVR is wasting his money.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #28 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drewTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 1,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Another thread ruined. OP asked for advice, not for your individual crusades of what you believe. It's getting really old in this section of the forum....
drewTT is online now  
post #29 of 64 Old 08-14-2012, 06:47 PM
Member
 
EnderOSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey there. I am a big fan of Peachtree Audio, the built in DAC is awesome, and it also has power so this is either a 2 or 3 for 1 option. I think they make some incredible stuff and would highly recommend looking into their integrated receivers. Specifically you can get the Decco 65 for $899 (http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/decco65-amplifier-with-dac.html) or if you wanted to save some cash you can get their last generation Decco 2 for $549 (http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/decco2-refurbished.html). I have the Decco 2 (40wpc @ 6ohms vs. 65watts @ 8ohms on the Decco 65). When I got mine a couple years ago it made such a difference to my digital music that I was jumping around the room. Incredible stuff. On top of that you can use the Apple TV or Apple Express to Airplay your music to the device (another $99) and always get any kind of amplifier you'd like if 40wpc or 65wpc doesn't suit the speakers you are eyeing.

I think from there you have enough room to play around with the other components as much as you want. I have had Aperion speakers (T5 towers) for 4+ years and have been very pleased with them. Great looks (piano black is very sleek) and great sound too (My buddy who got me into audio equipment has Linn Ninka's pushed by a Linn amp and Decco 1 and complimented them on the sound when he first came over to check them out). They have released their new Verus line this past year that looks really interesting (http://www.aperionaudio.com/catalog/Verus-Speaker-Family,89.aspx). Again, this is a value buy IMO compared some some of the other more name brand speakers but I love mine and think they are worth looking into.

Look into these two brands. I have been extremely pleased with both over the last few years. I have basically used them as the foundation of my system so I can make other incremental upgrades (Shunyata power cables, Transparent speaker cables, and just bought a NAD 214 amp today off eBay for $130 bucks) as I see fit.
EnderOSC is offline  
post #30 of 64 Old 08-17-2012, 02:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
lulimet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perkasie, PA
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 53
lulimet is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off