Not happy with sound - Looking for basic advice.....any takers? :) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 Old 10-20-2013, 11:21 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Flark33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

My ears are not particularly happy with the sound I'm getting from my setup despite playing around with all the settings... I feel like I'm not getting an appreciable mid-range, (if that's the term?) . Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material.

 

I have an HK - AVR-1600, connected to a old small pair of Energy EX:L 15 speakers, and an EX 8inch subwoofer, which I use to listen to a range of music, from classical instrumental to classic rock, with this 2.1 setup.  The room size is about 16ft/20ft.

 

I was considering going to my local big-box store (I'm in Canada) and picking up a pair of Energy CF-30's or 50's to replace the EX:L's.  -as they are in my wife-imposed budget. I'd continue running the eX sub.

 

Would buying these larger speakers be the right path to take, or are there any other considerations I've overlooked? I'd appreciate any comments!

Flark33 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 Old 10-20-2013, 11:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
afrogt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 23,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 417
the CF-30 or preferably the CF-50s are better speakers than your EX:L15 speakers.

The easiest way to get better sound would be with better speakers so you should see a significant improvement.

Afro GT
afrogt is offline  
post #3 of 30 Old 10-20-2013, 11:38 AM
Member
 
screener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
What crossover setting are you using?
screener is offline  
post #4 of 30 Old 10-20-2013, 11:50 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Flark33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

What crossover setting are you using?

 

 I've experimented between 80 and 100.. haven't found a "sweet spot" that has worked for my ears, anyway. Would you recommend I try out of that range?

Flark33 is offline  
post #5 of 30 Old 10-20-2013, 11:52 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Flark33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt View Post

the CF-30 or preferably the CF-50s are better speakers than your EX:L15 speakers.

The easiest way to get better sound would be with better speakers so you should see a significant improvement.

 

 That was my initial thought - that perhaps the combination of a small speaker and a sub just doesn't do enough to replace the range of a floorstanding speaking for my ears.. so you figure the CF-50's are worth the extra $? I hope my receiver is strong enough to power them.

Flark33 is offline  
post #6 of 30 Old 10-21-2013, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
With as little power that your AVR puts out, I would go with the 30's. That is unless you plan to get something with a lot more oomph later on.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #7 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

With as little power that your AVR puts out, I would go with the 30's. That is unless you plan to get something with a lot more oomph later on.
The 30's are 90db sensitive. The 50s are 96db sensitive. If you are worried about 60w being too little, you'd want the CF-50.

To get the same volume the 50 gets with 60w (about 114db BTW) with the CF-30 would require 240w
JerryLove is offline  
post #8 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 06:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flark33 View Post

My ears are not particularly happy with the sound I'm getting from my setup despite playing around with all the settings... I feel like I'm not getting an appreciable mid-range, (if that's the term?) . Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material.

I have an HK - AVR-1600, connected to a old small pair of Energy EX:L 15 speakers, and an EX 8inch subwoofer, which I use to listen to a range of music, from classical instrumental to classic rock, with this 2.1 setup.  The room size is about 16ft/20ft.

I was considering going to my local big-box store (I'm in Canada) and picking up a pair of Energy CF-30's or 50's to replace the EX:L's.  -as they are in my wife-imposed budget. I'd continue running the eX sub.

Would buying these larger speakers be the right path to take, or are there any other considerations I've overlooked? I'd appreciate any comments!

Your best price performance for sound quality improvement would come from improvements to room acoustics, possible changes to speaker placement, system tuning, and a better subwoofer.

Your basic symptom - " Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material." suggests that system response in the room is uneven. This is often due to room acoustics including excess reflections and standing waves.

Check this out:

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/listening-room-acoustics-1
arnyk is offline  
post #9 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 06:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 10,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 1684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flark33 View Post

I'd continue running the eX sub.
That's the weakest link in your system, so it should be the first thing to replace, once you've made sure of your room acoustics.

Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design

The Laws of Physics aren't swayed by opinion.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
post #10 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

The 30's are 90db sensitive. The 50s are 96db sensitive. If you are worried about 60w being too little, you'd want the CF-50.

To get the same volume the 50 gets with 60w (about 114db BTW) with the CF-30 would require 240w
I'm skeptical of the claimed sensitivity. There are quite a few manufacturers out there that artificialy inflate their specs. Here's a quote from one of the CF-70's reviews:
Quote:
The CF-70 presents a nominal 8 ohm load with a very high 96dB efficiency. However, the CF-70 didn't perform well with average power sources, and the sound improved a lot with better quality power. In other words, the performance and power needs ran counter to the 96dB rating. Adjust your power sources accordingly.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #11 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

I'm skeptical of the claimed sensitivity. There are quite a few manufacturers out there that artificialy inflate their specs. Here's a quote from one of the CF-70's reviews:
It doesn't matter. Both specs are from the same manufacturer for the same line of speakers.

Unless you believe they lied on one (by 6db) and then didn't lie on the other; the comparison remains valid.

Lacking specific evidence: I will assert that Energy used the same standard for determining sensitivity on both speakers and therefore the 50 is 6db more sensitive than the 30.
Quote:
The CF-70 presents a nominal 8 ohm load with a very high 96dB efficiency. However, the CF-70 didn't perform well with average power sources, and the sound improved a lot with better quality power. In other words, the performance and power needs ran counter to the 96dB rating. Adjust your power sources accordingly.
This doesn't support your thesis at all. There's no quantification for "didn't perform well" and "improved a lot".

If it's a sensitivity issue, it should read "could not get loud enough with" and "got louder when more power was applied". And as above, it does not address differences between the 50 and 30.
SaviorMachine likes this.
JerryLove is offline  
post #12 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
It addresses my assertion that the claimed Energy specs are an exaggeration just like many manufacturers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #13 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

It addresses my assertion that the claimed Energy specs are an exaggeration just like many manufacturers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yet given the question "should I get the 30's or the 50's", and given the stated concern "volume", the 50's remain better than the 30's regardless of how Energy measures.
Quote:
50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.
90db gets you 106db@1m@40w. That's considered "low sensitivity".

THX sustained is 85db. Even if I consider 50W the absolute maximum, and even going as low as 90db sensitivity, you are still only about 1db shy of THX requirements (105db peak) at 50w.

Since 50W should be 50W x 7 RMS, we should actually be able to peak higher. Since the 50's are rated at 96db, they should be >90db. But even if not, they are still a better choice (from the perspective of volume) than the 30's.
JerryLove is offline  
post #14 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kini62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 3,316
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

It addresses my assertion that the claimed Energy specs are an exaggeration just like many manufacturers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.

100 watts is not a whole lot either and would make little difference- 3dbs max. I run the same AVR with little NHT SuperZeros rated at 85db efficiency and with blu-ray movies I rarely get above -10db on the receiver because it's REALLY loud by then. 90- 95db at the LP (about 9ft).

Unless the room is huge AND his LP is far, that AVR has plenty of power for most. What the OP needs to do is get a real subwoofer first.
SaviorMachine likes this.

Klipsch RF-62II, RC-500, RS-400, SVS PC12+,
Def Tech SC8000
Harman Kardon AVR 1600
PS3, Apple TV, Sharp 70" Qattron
Kini62 is online now  
post #15 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 08:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Yet given the question "should I get the 30's or the 50's", and given the stated concern "volume", the 50's remain better than the 30's regardless of how Energy measures.
90db gets you 106db@1m@40w. That's considered "low sensitivity".

THX sustained is 85db. Even if I consider 50W the absolute maximum, and even going as low as 90db sensitivity, you are still only about 1db shy of THX requirements (105db peak) at 50w.

Since 50W should be 50W x 7 RMS, we should actually be able to peak higher. Since the 50's are rated at 96db, they should be >90db. But even if not, they are still a better choice (from the perspective of volume) than the 30's.

50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist. Also, you're not taking into account the loss of output for the distance to the LP.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #16 of 30 Old 10-22-2013, 09:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
This was your old argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.
When I responded, you changed to this argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist.
But fine: When you benched the HK 1600, how many WPC did you get?

What? You didn't bench it? Do you have a link to someone who did? No? So you have no idea, but you assume it must be less than 50wpc by some amount?

Did you notice the OP is running 2.1, not 7.1? So I guess the x7 number is something of a straw-man?

Actually: the HK AVRs have measured *higher* than rated in what I can find (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/amps-pre-pros-receivers/59072-help-understanding-harman-kardon-avr-power-ratings-5.html)
Quote:
Also, you're not taking into account the loss of output for the distance to the LP.
Yes I did, though I assumed 6ft as a listening distance. If he's 12ft, he's gonna lose some volume from the peak... except that a 50W x7 RMS AVR, even if liberally rated, should be able to do 2-channel peaks that are considerably higher.

Also: the speakers being discussed are 96db, not 90db
SaviorMachine likes this.
JerryLove is offline  
post #17 of 30 Old 10-23-2013, 04:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
And once again, you're assuming that Energy is being truthful with their specs.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #18 of 30 Old 10-23-2013, 07:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
simp1yamazn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist. Also, you're not taking into account the loss of output for the distance to the LP.

Denon 1913? 100 x 2, 70 x 5, 50 x 7 It's pretty easy and cheap to get 50 x 7

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures
simp1yamazn is offline  
post #19 of 30 Old 10-23-2013, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

And once again, you're assuming that Energy is being truthful with their specs.
You are assuming that they are not, when you lack anything to establish that. You are assuming *how* dishonest they are being without evidence. You are making different assumptions about the 30's and the 50's without evidence.

You have made assumptions about the volumes 90db speakers can be expected to reach that I have proven wrong. You have made assumptions about amp output that have been proven wrong.

Your batting record is poor here. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
JerryLove is offline  
post #20 of 30 Old 10-23-2013, 05:31 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Flark33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Wow, I thought I had all the advice I was going to get earlier on in the thread, so I bought the CF-50's after the post advising them based on the sensitivity. I guess I should have waited a bit to read the more recent responses, but it seems to have worked out.

 

My experience after setting them up has been overwhelmingly positive. I understand now from several posters that my subwoofer is of low standard, but perhaps the added bass from the larger speakers has helped to reduce the dependence on it; my AVR1600 seems to power the CF-50's more than adequately - lots of volume even at fairly low power.

 

Sound now is definitely fuller and more "rich", with less separation between highs and lows between the speakers and the sub. I'm happy, and expect it will get even better as I understand the speakers will break in after awhile.

 

Really appreciate the responses and advice -thanks to all. I will also experiment with the placement and acoustics etc as per the article.

Flark33 is offline  
post #21 of 30 Old 10-23-2013, 09:54 PM
Member
 
ah_1014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flark33 View Post

Wow, I thought I had all the advice I was going to get earlier on in the thread, so I bought the CF-50's after the post advising them based on the sensitivity. I guess I should have waited a bit to read the more recent responses, but it seems to have worked out.

My experience after setting them up has been overwhelmingly positive. I understand now from several posters that my subwoofer is of low standard, but perhaps the added bass from the larger speakers has helped to reduce the dependence on it; my AVR1600 seems to power the CF-50's more than adequately - lots of volume even at fairly low power.

Sound now is definitely fuller and more "rich", with less separation between highs and lows between the speakers and the sub. I'm happy, and expect it will get even better as I understand the speakers will break in after awhile.

Really appreciate the responses and advice -thanks to all. I will also experiment with the placement and acoustics etc as per the article.


What was your budget for the speakers? If it was close to $800.00 I would have probably recommended the RC-70's instead. Excellent speaker for the price, That's if your budget allows. Check out the Energy thread, and Congrats on your new speaker!

Television: Panasonic TC-P65VT60
Receiver: Yamaha RX-A2010
Speakers: RC-70's, RC-LCR, RC-10 (2), Velodyne VDR-12 (3),
ah_1014 is online now  
post #22 of 30 Old 10-24-2013, 07:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

You are assuming that they are not, when you lack anything to establish that. You are assuming *how* dishonest they are being without evidence. You are making different assumptions about the 30's and the 50's without evidence.

You have made assumptions about the volumes 90db speakers can be expected to reach that I have proven wrong. You have made assumptions about amp output that have been proven wrong.

Your batting record is poor here. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Oh really? Energy claims an in- room sensitivity of 96dB for their RC-70, but S&V measured the specs at 89dB. A huge, 7 dB gap. So yes, lots of manufacturers inflate their specs. Just do a little looking around and you'll see its rampant in the industry.

Same goes for low end AVR's. You want to talk about me throwing out speculation? Do a little research before you start throwing out accusations.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #23 of 30 Old 10-24-2013, 08:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

Oh really? Energy claims an in- room sensitivity of 96dB for their RC-70
Nope: 95db in room 92db anechoic (http://www.voxxintlcorp.com/docs/common/RC-70/RC-70_OM.pdf)
Quote:
but S&V measured the specs at 89dB. A huge, 7 dB gap.
Pseudo an-echoic.

"The sensitivity measured approximately 89dB/2.83V/m—a comfortably high value but slightly less than the specification." - http://www.soundandvision.com/content/energy-reference-connoisseur-rc-70-surround-speaker-system-measurements

So a 3db difference, some of which is less likely exaggeration than it is measuring differences (for example: if Energy measured at 1w rather than 2.83V (which only sync at 8ohm)).
Quote:
So yes, lots of manufacturers inflate their specs. Just do a little looking around and you'll see its rampant in the industry.
I'm definately seeing some rampant dishonesty; but I'm not sure it's from the industry.
Quote:
Same goes for low end AVR's. You want to talk about me throwing out speculation? Do a little research before you start throwing out accusations.
You mean your earlier quote "Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist."?

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/amps-pre-pros-receivers/59072-help-understanding-harman-kardon-avr-power-ratings-5.html

So let's get back to your first post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

With as little power that your AVR puts out, I would go with the 30's. That is unless you plan to get something with a lot more oomph later on.
Energy rates the 50's at 96db. Energy rates the 30's at 90db. If energy exaggerates: how is the 30 better than the 50 for a 50w application?

Exaggerates; doesn't exaggerate, doesn't matter. Unless Energy used *very* different standards for the 30 and the 50, a claim with absolutely *zero* supporting evidence, then the 50 is more efficient than the 30.
JerryLove is offline  
post #24 of 30 Old 10-24-2013, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flark33 View Post

My ears are not particularly happy with the sound I'm getting from my setup despite playing around with all the settings... I feel like I'm not getting an appreciable mid-range, (if that's the term?) . Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material.

I have an HK - AVR-1600, connected to a old small pair of Energy EX:L 15 speakers, and an EX 8inch subwoofer, which I use to listen to a range of music, from classical instrumental to classic rock, with this 2.1 setup.  The room size is about 16ft/20ft.

Do you use Direct Mode to listen to music or do you use the HK's Room Correction?

What kind of music do you listen?

Have you listened to something like "Yo-Yo Ma Plays Ennio Morricone" or "Mindy Gledhill Anchor" or "Dave Mathews & Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City Hall"? How do these sound to you?

I may like Audyssey XT Dynamic EQ, but I absolutely hate the HK's room correction when I tried that.

And some songs will sound like CRAP no matter what kind of systems you have. biggrin.gif

As far as amps/AVRs is concerned, I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. Most AVRs, even a $300 Sony or Pioneer or Denon, can output 120 WPC x 2 CH into 8 ohms and 160 WPC x 2 CH into 4 ohms and will be just fine in most rooms and volumes (except for more unusual cases).
AcuDefTechGuy is offline  
post #25 of 30 Old 10-25-2013, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Talk about rampant dishonesty, this is right from the forum you posted a link to:
Quote:
Again, I fully agree with your reasoning but HK simply specifies high instantaneous current while others choose not to bother providing yet another number that is vague at best if not totally meaningless. I mean, what is instantaneous, 1 micro second, or 1 millisecond, who knows? In fact if you look at their 4 ohm bench test results you will come to my same conclusion that HK models cannot sustain high current. I would not recommend any of the current HK models for 4 ohm speakers regardless of their phase angle vs frequency curves. Remember the S&V lab test in which the AVR-330 activated the protection mode when asked to produce only 25W into 4 ohms? How is that high current?

Once again I was talking about low end AVR's. Obviously I would expect the more high end ones to perform more to spec because more knowledgable buyers will be spending the money on a higher end product and will scrutinize the specs more.

High end HK's I would expect them to perform well, low end ones not so much.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #26 of 30 Old 10-25-2013, 12:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

Yet given the question "should I get the 30's or the 50's", and given the stated concern "volume", the 50's remain better than the 30's regardless of how Energy measures.
90db gets you 106db@1m@40w. That's considered "low sensitivity".

THX sustained is 85db. Even if I consider 50W the absolute maximum, and even going as low as 90db sensitivity, you are still only about 1db shy of THX requirements (105db peak) at 50w.

Since 50W should be 50W x 7 RMS, we should actually be able to peak higher. Since the 50's are rated at 96db, they should be >90db. But even if not, they are still a better choice (from the perspective of volume) than the 30's.

50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven.

If you are talking bench tests with pure sine wave test tones, then you are probably correct. Very few AVRs put out the typical ca. 100 wpc on all 5,7 or 9 channels into resistive loads, with a pure sine wave test signal. However, if you make the test more realistic with music and actual speaker-like loads, then many do so.
JerryLove likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #27 of 30 Old 10-25-2013, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

Talk about rampant dishonesty, this is right from the forum you posted a link to:
Once again I was talking about low end AVR's. Obviously I would expect the more high end ones to perform more to spec because more knowledgable buyers will be spending the money on a higher end product and will scrutinize the specs more.
25W into 4ohms is about the max rated power on that amp (27.5w technically is the rating). So... a fraction of 1db?

At ~$500 (a bit less than 2x the cheapest they make), this is one of Denon's "low end AVRs" http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures
JerryLove is offline  
post #28 of 30 Old 10-25-2013, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you are talking bench tests with pure sine wave test tones, then you are probably correct. Very few AVRs put out the typical ca. 100 wpc on all 5,7 or 9 channels into resistive loads, with a pure sine wave test signal. However, if you make the test more realistic with music and actual speaker-like loads, then many do so.
While that may be true for music, the specs still state RMS continuous power rating. If it isn't capable of that, then I think it is misleading to say it can.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #29 of 30 Old 10-25-2013, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flyng_fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

25W into 4ohms is about the max rated power on that amp (27.5w technically is the rating). So... a fraction of 1db?

At ~$500 (a bit less than 2x the cheapest they make), this is one of Denon's "low end AVRs" http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures

That just serves to support my claim. Denon claims 90 W per channel at .08% distortion at 8 ohms. The bench test shows it puts out about 50 watts with 7 channels driven at .1% distortion, which is an exaggerated claim. Although it's two channel power output seems to do rather well. It would be nice if the manufacturer would how much power it puts out depending on how many channels are being driven,so the consumer is fully informed as to the actual performance of their product.

Television: Mitsubishi WD65737 DLP
Processor: Emotiva UMC-200
Amps: Carver AV 806x/Behringer EP4000
Mains: DCM TimeFrame 600 Center: AT 453C
Surrounds: AT 251.1 Sub: Danley DTS-10
Blu Ray: Panasonic DMP-BD655
flyng_fool is offline  
post #30 of 30 Old 10-25-2013, 09:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool View Post

That just serves to support my claim. Denon claims 90 W per channel at .08% distortion at 8 ohms. The bench test shows it puts out about 50 watts with 7 channels driven at .1% distortion, which is an exaggerated claim. Although it's two channel power output seems to do rather well. It would be nice if the manufacturer would how much power it puts out depending on how many channels are being driven,so the consumer is fully informed as to the actual performance of their product.
"Rated Power (Watts per channel): 90 into 8 ohms, two channels driven; 125 into 6 ohms, two channels driven " - http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-specs

"Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 0.1% distortion at 102.3 watts " - http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures

I agree with you that the spec can be misleading to someone who doesn't understand the parts that aren't clearly stated.
and: Yes, I agree with you that it would be better to see manufacturers put out a matrix which covers number of channels driven.

But no, I don't agree that a reader not understanding what is being claimed makes the claim false. The amp does output to spec.

Which brings us back to your original post recommending the Energy 30's instead of the 50's based on "limited power". Regardless of whether Energy exaggerates, measures differently, or is brutally honest: the 50 is more efficient than the 30. Do you agree that the 50 is a better choice based on efficiency?
67jason likes this.
JerryLove is offline  
Reply Speakers

Tags
Harman Kardon Avr1600 50w 7 1 Channel A V Receiver Black , Energy Cf 30 Floorstanding Tower Speaker Black Each , Energy Cf 50 Floorstanding Tower Speaker Black
Gear in this thread

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