Energy Owners Thread - Page 1214

Dayton SPA500 - 540W max into 4 ohms. Keep in mind the size of this box affects the amount of power required by the driver, and is actually a little more than is required, but I bought the parts first and changed my desgin later, to the 24" instead of 20" box.
As for my totals, I was going to do them this weekend but I guess I will try and figure it out now. I will round to the nearest $5 for ease.

• Parts: Trio12 driver, 2 PRs, plate amp, floor spikes, and all mounting hardware: $600 including shipping and taxes.
• Sheet of MDF: $40
• Glue sticks: $5
• Gorilla Glue: $5
• Primer: $10 (See Note 1)
• Duratex Cabinet finish: $80 with tax & shipping
• Say $10 for shop supplies (Carpenter's Glue, wood screws, sandpaper, nylon nuts, etc)
• Weatherstrip: $10

That's a total of : $760
.

I also joined the wood hobby club specifically for this, so my personal total would include:
Membership to wood hobby club: $75
.

My grand total: $835
.
Note 1 = Primer is not required. I wasn't sure how much duratex would be needed, but there is about 3/4 gal left over and it is self priming, so I could have used that instead.

Hey I have all towers.3 RC-70 up front. 2 C-9 for surrounds and 2 bose 701 for surround backs. I love it. I would never go back to smaller speakers.

Right now I put my CB-20s as surrounds instead of my CB-10s. I did not make before/after comparisons but listening to 5.1 sources, I didn't notice much difference acoustically. Esthetically though, the CB-20s look huge on bookshelves. I think I'd like smaller bookshelves. The RC-10s at least look smaller than the CB-20s even if they're actually a tad taller; but they're much slimmer.

So yeah maybe a pair of V-Minis could be interesting. The standard price in Canada (at FutureShop) is 250; not sure how low they go. That could be significantly cheaper than the RC-10s, available in Canada for a long time, etc. So it's definitely worth considering. Are they closer to the CB-10 in size or more CB-5 size?


Same thing here. I could probably put heights or wides but the WAF would be low on this -- the living room is sufficently cluttered as it is now. The problem for surround backs was that my couch was up against a bay window. But I managed to find a solution. I had two older, unknown quality bookshelves laying around. I decided to try them behind the couch, firing up. I find the end result excellent as the sound is reflected multiple times by the couch, wall and bay window, resulting in a very diffuse sound. Exactly what we're looking for in surrounds. They blend in very well with the surround sides; in 5.1 sources both sides and backs are sent the same content and the effect is very enveloping. In 7.1 sources (e.g. PS3 games), the content sent to surround sides and back is continually changing and the continuity is good. So if you have a foot of clearance behind your couch, this could be a valid solution for a 7.1 setup. I just don't thing this would be worth doing with expensive speakers though.


Interesting datapoint The voice of reason is generally well counter-balanced in this thread! So do you listen mostly to multi-channel music on that setup or do you find it improves movies / games significantly as well?

Consider this for heights or surround back:

Hey All - As promised, I have attached some pics of my v6.3 surround setup for you. I use the grills on them, but I took them off for the pictures (except for the first pic) so you can see more of the speaker.

Attachment 234777

Attachment 234778

Attachment 234779

Attachment 234781

Attachment 234782

Next step is to enjoy them!! Those are great speakers. Can't believe you were able to resit using them and have them sitting around They should shine on good music (the higher quality the better). For music you should just play in 2 ch mode and make sure they are playing full range and not using the sub.

Drool !

I'm envious!!!

Hello Energy fam. I love you guys.

Now. I'm looking to complete my audio upgrade, spanning 11/2010 through some time in 02/2012. It all ends on a stereo (2.1) pair in my guest room.

My question: How relevant is Audyssey in a small room that houses a 2.1 set? I am adamant about not filling up the room with speakers--it's going to be the only major room in my home without black boxes in every direction. I want to think that a simple, quality stereo receiver (with a dedicated subwoofer out) is the best choice. However, as you all know, it's nearly impossible to find a stereo receiver that has any built-in room correction.

So it's a conundrum. Do I spend an additional $300 on an above-entry-level, multichannel AVR-type receiver that has pre-amp out, or save my pennies on a basic but quality stereo amp? The stereo amp I'm looking at has all the network and other connectivity features that make modern AVRs so convenient. But no Audyssey. What do you guys think?

I know this really belongs in the Amplifiers section but that's a side of the site that I've not really explored, and I could take literally weeks scouring the threads for the info I'm trying to find. So I figured... since we's family and all...

masterkaj,

Hank has been extolling the virtues of the 1.8's for a while now, so any advice from him for you should be golden.

Your 608 should be fine for general listening, but if you want to get the most out of the 1.8's, you should at least consider getting a higher end receiver. I think the Denon 4311 and Onkyo 3009 or 5009 are well liked. I think Hank drives his 1.8's with a Luxman M-117 and an older Luxman pre-amp. Going with discretes is probably going to let you get the max out of those speakers. If you search a little bit, you will see a lot of the advice Hank has given to new 1.8 owners. The other consideration that Hank has noted is the fact that these speakers need a lot of room, around 4 ft or so. Don't place them close to walls.

I actually agree with jjl, and said as much when I discussed my experience with the V2.1's vs the RC-10's.

I don't think he was knocking the RC-10's, they are not muddy speakers, but they definitely can struggle to maintain that sense of clarity and separation with "complex" or "busy" rock type music. They are wonderful speakers but they aren't perfect, and to me that's their biggest flaw. Perhaps it's the 2-way design, the amount of bass output from the small enclosure size, the crossover design... who knows?

Personally, I do NOT think they are too laid back, I love a laid back speaker... but when you hear them a/b with a speaker that is even more transparent, it's pretty obvious. You can have a speaker that is as laid back but has even better clarity, transparency, etc. There is a "thickness" to the RC-10 sound that sounds absolutely luscious with acoustic music, jazz, female vocals, etc.... but to my ears gets a little TOO thick with the complex rockin' loud passages.

So anyway, I don't think it's an insult to them to point out their one major weakness I think we can all agree that the sound quality they deliver at the price point is fabulous (especially at the $300 sale price) and also that someone who prefers a speaker with "sparkle" may like something else better. Compare that review the one dude did with V5.1, Ascend Sierra, etc.... he clearly has a taste for clear, detailed, bright treble and he hated the RC-10's but loved the 5.1's.

awesome!

can you talk about the C-9's vs. the RC-70's? not many people have had the flagship model of both lineups in the same room to compare.

Audyssey can still very much help a 2.1 setup but it's certainly not as vital... without it you are basically hoping that the room + speakers interact well and sound good, which may mean futzing with acoustics and/or trying different speakers until you find a pair that works with the room.

But to me the more important question is how much CRITICAL listening will you be doing in this room? If it's just low-to-moderate volume background music type stuff while you are chilling on the room, I'd just get a cheap stereo receiver. If you are looking to make this your "dedicated" 2ch room, where you can sit there with a glass of wine and close your eyes and really LISTEN to music, then things are a bit different.

The one thing is that electronic room correction isn't a cure-all, and especially with a 2ch setup you can work on room treatments to get excellent results. If this will be your "critical listening" room and you want to make it into a project, it might instead make sense to invest $300 in something like OmniMic, and then start measuring things yourself. Then you would have a new project to keep you busy, trying to perfect the acoustics of your guest room

Thanks for your quick reply, Bats I'm still pretty green and I've never really gotten my hands dirty with manual config, but I want to think that a product like OmniMic is to be used alongside an equalizer. Pardon my ignorance: I don't see... equalizer function... included in the list of the item's features. Is it not listed because (manual) digital EQ is always there? Is there a chance that I could buy this and find out too late that there's no way for me to fool around with its EQ?

Hey guys. Just a quick question. As I mentioned earlier, I am using the onkyo nr809 receiver, which supplies 135watts per channel. With my current setup, my speakers have an RMS significantly above that (v6.3-250watts, v5.2c-200watts, v5.1-175watts) except for my surrounds (v-s-125watts). Do I need to be concerned/careful while turning up the volume of my amp? I would assume I would have to almost max out the volume for it to even be a factor, but I wasnt sure.

Is 10watts over the RMS of my 2 surrounds an issue given that it is only 10watts and they are the surrounds (not really used continuously) ? I would assume that the surrounds would be the bottleneck of most surround setups as the other speakers usually can handle much more. Any thoughts? Thanks guys!

Did you forget to attach something?

Thanks for the info on your sub. I assume there may have been the old canadian price hike on a few items? Any subs from your past that you can compare this one to? Enjoy.

zdoggz -- you don't actually use the maximum rated power at all times, it's not like you open the hose and 135 watts come pouring out. That's just a specific measurement at a specific threshold of distortion. Most of the time you will probably be using less than 10 watts per channel.

The speaker ratings are just giving you the specs for the MAXIMUM continuous power that you can feed a speaker before it can physically break from thermal/mechanical overload. But you will never actually DO that, certainly not continuously! Just because a speaker is rated to 150W RMS, even if a particular peak in a movie soundtracks calls for a short burst of 175W, it's not like the speaker blows up. You will NEVER feed it that much power continuously (unless you were in a humongous room, which you aren't).

in other words, don't worry about it. Here's the rule of thumb: if it sounds good, you aren't hurting anything.

first off, who says you have to get THAT product? Personally I would not pay for network features in a stereo receiver, there are so many other devices you can add that can provide the network functions you want, and receiver implementations of network features often suck. Stereo receiver tech hasn't changed much in years so they are just thinking of features to stuff in there to keep selling them... but you can find a nice, cheap stereo integrated on the used market and then add whatever you want (apple tv, ps3, DNLA blu-ray player, etc) to provide the audio / network feed.

second, you don't HAVE TO use an equalizer to accompany a measurement device. You could simply adjust room acoustics (furniture placement, speaker placement, drapes or wall treatments, and especially subwoofer placement) to see what impact the changes have. Not saying you have to go this route, but just a thought if you wanted to make it a fun project (assuming that actually sounds like fun to you ).

and you didn't answer my question: what is the PURPOSE of this setup? casual background music or critical 2ch listening room?

zdoggz,

Also, that 135 watts rating is most likely not measured with all channels driven. I would not be surprised if it was measured with two channels driven. Like Batpig said, it is most likely not a concern, unless you are doing a lot of listening approaching or above the reference volume.

Thanks. I guess my confusion came because I was thinking that if a receiver that can output 135watts per channel has its volume turned all the way up then that receiver would be continually sending 135watts of power (since the volume is maxed). That assumption didnt really make sense to me either since I knew that most of the time we dont use anywhere near that much power. So, i guess that the 135watts would be sent out if the volume was nearly maxed AND the content had certain points where it would require such power (ie huge explosions or whatever). Is that more of an accurate understanding?

Thanks for the help!

Oh interesting and good point. I wouldnt be surprised either if there really is no set standard/rule that needs to be followed. Every company wants to put the best numbers possible on paper to lure buyers. Gotta love when there are no real standards with rating systems! (similar to the ridiculous dynamic contrast measurments given for today's televisions)

there is a standard but it's loose and easy to "fudge" for marketing purposes. The spec is generally perfectly accurate when measured at the way they specify it.... but most people don't know enough to read beyond "watts per channel" and look at things like distortion, impedance, number of channels driven, etc.

That is basically correct. Higher volume setting equates to more wattage required to produce those volumes. If you normally listen at -15db or lower, you probably will not hear any distortion. When you are listening around 0db or higher, certain passages might cause distortion or clipping because they require more wattage than the receiver is able to supply.

Hm, well, I don't necessarily need those features--it just seemed like a good choice for my needs. Come to think of it, I may move my PC into that room, so some of those features could become redundant. I just really love the connectivity options in my Denon 891, and adding to them sounds like an awesome plan.

As for the purpose, I definitely aim to put together the best 2.1 listening system that I can afford on a modest budget. I'm going to deploy my barely-used VSW10, and I'll probably buy a pair of RC-70s. The room is 12x11.5, which I understand could cause some problems...?

I have two other home-theatery rooms for casual listening. These rooms are powered with receivers that use either 2EQ (bedroom) or MultEQ (living room).

I have my RC-50s for sale on eBay now. If anybody here is interested in them or has any questions, please shoot me a PM.

Forget to attach something?? You mean the one on the wall? Wires are all inside the walls where possible. The ceiling wires are now stapled up better too.
.
Well, I used to have HTiB. Not even worth comparing. Now I have a Monitor Audio RS-w12. very good performer for the size. Retail(ed) at $1,400. Since it is sealed, it can't dig as low as I would like. It does sound amazing for music, which is why it will compliment the RC-70's in the future.
.
as for price hike, I don't think so much. Everything is on the CSS website, and you get a deal if you buy everything as a package. $460 for a driver, 2 PRs and a 500W plate amp and some grill cloth seems like a pretty good deal (then add tax & shipping). The price is even lower NOW... $410.

Hey, I just wanted to confirm that your assumption was correct. The 135watt rating is based upon 2 channels driven. Actually, all the onkyo receivers are based on 2 channels (i'm assuming most receivers are this way)

The specs of the 809 (onkyo.com)
135 W (8 ohms, 20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.08%, 2 channels driven, FTC)

Great call. That's like when the honeymoon is over, lol.

More like the Take Classics in size.

V-minis = Dimensions: 4.72" W x 7.48" H x 5.51" D; Weight: 5 lbs.

Lol, just sent back my RC-10's, so we're both taking measures to get what we want.