or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › What is the Best "Bang for the Buck" Sound-Quality Upgrade?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the Best "Bang for the Buck" Sound-Quality Upgrade? - Page 5

Poll Results: What is the best "bang for the buck" sound-quality upgrade?

 
  • 52% (315)
    New speakers
  • 11% (70)
    Upgrade AVR
  • 27% (168)
    Acoustic room treatment
  • 7% (44)
    Multiple subwoofers
  • 1% (8)
    Replace generic cables
605 Total Votes  
post #121 of 264
Two most important things have been overlooked. Clean power and professional AV calibration.

You can have all the equipment and acoustic panels in the world but with dirty power and non-calibrated A/V, everthing is nothing.
post #122 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Two most important things have been overlooked. Clean power and professional AV calibration.

You can have all the equipment and acoustic panels in the world but with dirty power and non-calibrated A/V, everthing is nothing.

"Pro" AV calibration is a boon for visuals, sure. For sound? Not so much. "Clean power" is a particularly snake-oil ridden category. The notion that those are the "two most important things"? IMO, definitely not... unless the user is unwilling or unable to learn the basics.

Correction: If a system is very advanced and the owner is only interested in the final product, not how you get there, then pro calibration is likely to yield the most bang-for-buck.
Edited by imagic - 7/21/13 at 6:21am
post #123 of 264
I voted room treatments.
I think in most cases, it really depends on where you are at. Everyone approaches their needs differently.
Me, I built my room, (acoustic treatments / decoupled from the rest of the house / sightlines) then added gear.
When people ask me for sound advice, I always tell people to look at room treatments. You can have the most basic equipment, but upgrading the acoustics in your room will always make those cheap speakers sound better.
post #124 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by fokakis1 View Post

The question said "Bang for the Buck." In my theater, acoustic treatments control reflections, smooth response, improve vocal and dialogue intelligibility, and reduce decay time. I don't believe that acoustic treatments make the single biggest impact on my system's performance. However, since they are the cheapest upgrade, I do believe that they are the best "Bang for the Buck" in my case.

I agree, assuming there are no faulty components the return for the cost in acoustic treatment is simply the best payoff.
post #125 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Two most important things have been overlooked. Clean power and professional AV calibration.

You can have all the equipment and acoustic panels in the world but with dirty power and non-calibrated A/V, everthing is nothing.

Well I guess it depends on what kind of calibration and clean power you're referring to. For most If it's an entry level Monster or Panamax power conditioner combined with the receiver/preamp doing calibration then yes, it's cost effective. If you're referring to something more I guess it depends on what's invested. Acoustic treatment, no matter how simple, can have a great effect on sound quality. It can make average to below average speakers sound better. Same with calibration. Those two are my choices for bang for the buck improvements. A separate amp would be third.
Edited by pcweber111 - 7/21/13 at 2:17pm
post #126 of 264
Understand the small room acoustic model you will follow first, then:
Quote:
Knowing that for “best” audio/sound in a listening room, these parameters are tackled in prioritized order:
1. Speaker location, 2. Listener position, 3. Acoustic treatments, 4. Electronic correction.
via http://www.avsforum.com/t/1312693/diy-construction-methods-of-hang-able-acoustic-panels-not-fixed-frames#post_19947420

So I have to clearly say before you upgrade from what you have, where are you in relationship to your small room acoustic model and the 4 items above?

It's a systems approach that must be taught and understood, not a piece meal approach!
Edited by mtbdudex - 7/21/13 at 2:33pm
post #127 of 264
Measurement gear for...

Help place next most important room treatments (especially lots of bass traps), which may lessen the need for multiple subwoofers, and will help speakers (especially if poor off axis reponse) sound like new speakers, and will lessen the need for room correction from new avr, which may be enough to power efficient speakers
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1481388/amplifier-power-output-rms-vs-peak-as-it-applies-to-home-theater-soundtracks

and heck you can use them to cover your generic cables to boot. cool.gif
post #128 of 264
Ear wax removal solution.
post #129 of 264
Actually that is so true!!
post #130 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Actually that is so true!!

Does that stuff really do anything?
post #131 of 264
Yeah, it will remove your ear wax. As a result you'll get better high frequency response for your ears.
post #132 of 264
Who needs that new amp, we just need less wax biggrin.gif
post #133 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Yeah, it will remove your ear wax. As a result you'll get better high frequency response for your ears.

And an ear infection while you're at it. tongue.gif
post #134 of 264
Heehee. Not if you do it right.

I usually go to the doctor to do it twice a year and test my hearing once a year. Also test my vision once a year too.
post #135 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Yeah, it will remove your ear wax. As a result you'll get better high frequency response for your ears.

I'm willing to test the hypothesis. A long, long time ago my friends and I tired ear wax removal... back when when were young and just getting into audio. I can't say I think it makes a difference but it is easily tested. I will perform a series of blind listening tests of high-frequency hearing acuity, then I will repeat the tests after ear wax removal. I'm curious what the results will be.
post #136 of 264
I'm surprised multi-subs don't have more votes. I mean, I don't think it's the highest on the liste, I think speakers make the biggest difference. But considering it's hovering around the same place as a new AVR rolleyes.gif

Perhaps people aren't aware of the multi benefits of multi subs wink.gif
post #137 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

I'm surprised multi-subs don't have more votes. I mean, I don't think it's the highest on the liste, I think speakers make the biggest difference. But considering it's hovering around the same place as a new AVR rolleyes.gif

Perhaps people aren't aware of the multi benefits of multi subs wink.gif

You're probably right, most aren't aware. I've advocated dual subs for years if you can accommodate them. I think most see a sub as a necessary evil and don't like having one box sitting around much less two of them. Unless you have a dedicated room WAF is going to be hard to overcome. wink.gif
post #138 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post


I'm willing to test the hypothesis. A long, long time ago my friends and I tired ear wax removal... back when when were young and just getting into audio. I can't say I think it makes a difference but it is easily tested. I will perform a series of blind listening tests of high-frequency hearing acuity, then I will repeat the tests after ear wax removal. I'm curious what the results will be.

And if it doesn't work, they can always put the wax back in.

biggrin.gif

post #139 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

And if it doesn't work, they can always put the wax back in.
biggrin.gif

Huh? What?
post #140 of 264
I think it's more due to the space constraints (the multi sub thing) people don't mention it more. At least that's the reasoning my usage of only 2 subs instead of 4.
post #141 of 264
-if one does not have an AVR with an "auto set up" microphone, then that is going to be the answer for "biggest bang-for-buck equipment upgrade. It is hugely important to have all of the speakers the same apparent volume, time delay, and equalization at the primary listening position. You can do this now with receivers as low in cost as $400. And it is very much worth it. - If we're talking about things that can be done for free, then of course getting the chairs centered in front of the screen, reducing reflective surfaces, and even moving the chairs closer for a more immersive "big screen" experience, are all good to do to. But an auto AVR is the way to go. "Go AUTO or go home!"
post #142 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

I think it's more due to the space constraints (the multi sub thing) people don't mention it more. At least that's the reasoning my usage of only 2 subs instead of 4.

I wouldnt even know where I'd fit a second one.
post #143 of 264

Show us a floor plan - WE'LL find the room for it!

wink.gif

post #144 of 264
Speakers are THE biggest improvement for a system my personal stereo sounded like sh** before I bought my current speakers. Here is the problem though; most people buy those mini systems which have sh** amps so in that case buying speakers won't be much of a improvement.

If you have a good amp then speakers will always be an improvement BUT if you don't buy a receiver with a decent amplifier then buy speakers. High fidelity is a never ending game of upgrading equipment, I bought a pair of headphones which sound fantastic and that made me want a good stereo 300$ dollars later (all of my equipment I bought used or got for free from a friend) I'm still wanting to improve my system. 20 years from now I'll still be improving my system.

Getting back on topic looking at the results I'm now going to do acoustic treatment. Cables never really made a difference for me but I like to use gold plated cables with good insulation just for peace of mind, the only exception is speaker wire which I think everyone one should use 18 AWG or thicker I shelled out and bought me some high end 1.50$ 18 AWG lamp cord.
post #145 of 264
Well i've had my Marantz sr5004 reciever for many years and i finally upgraded my speakers and subwoofer, i got the Fluance sx series bookshelfs and ordered a monoprice subwoofer, i have the Swan M200MKII, and the Swan M50W so i know what sound is, and i've used the klipsch hd 300 very terrible speakers and i can really say is just wow big difference room space is becoming not much of an issue anymore so i plan to get some fluance tower speakers maybe something else idk still a limited budget, a better blu ray player too, i've heard the oppo series really excellent, i'd like to separates eventually, getting your ears cleaned out and putting ear wax removal drops do really help. If you haven't upgraded in a long time then it comes to upgrading slowly or everything at once if you have the cash.
post #146 of 264
It was a difficult question to answer. I voted AVR because I assumed someone was coming from a non-audyssey AVR to one with XT-32 with subwoofer control. That makes a huge difference in most rooms.
post #147 of 264
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

It was a difficult question to answer. I voted AVR because I assumed someone was coming from a non-audyssey AVR to one with XT-32 with subwoofer control. That makes a huge difference in most rooms.

Audyssey is not the only product out there, it's just the only one that claims to be the only one that actually works... which is silly. Room correction is fairly standard these days. My Pioneer Elite sounds great, and I've heard plenty of non Audyssey-equipped systems that also sound great. I happen to only EQ my subs with dedicated DSP on my external Crown XTi-2002, so I have EQ set to off on the receiver.

What do you think Audyssey does, that makes it better than competing room correction systems? So far, all I gather is that Audyssey has a supremely confident marketing department.
Edited by imagic - 7/23/13 at 7:52am
post #148 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenP View Post

I vote acoustics.

Better sounding speakers, in an untreated room, will not perform as well as average speakers in a treated room, IMHO.

The room, and therefore the acoustics, has to be first.

You're spot on even though I voted for speakers. I wrestled with the fact that a truly horrible room will make any speaker sound like grunk but took into account that a lot of living and media rooms have carpet and furniture that tames them down.

So room treatments would be #1 IF the room is total garbage for Audio.
post #149 of 264
If bass EQ that's you're looking for, no need to get Audyssey. Just get DSPeaker Antimode 8033 Cinema (about $350, I think), a 24-band IIR parametric EQ w/ auto calibration function.
post #150 of 264

Again, it depends on what you have and what would be an "upgrade." 

Like everything else here, the best bang for your buck is addressing your weakest link.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › What is the Best "Bang for the Buck" Sound-Quality Upgrade?