AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › setting up a new 2 channel HIFI system --need advice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

setting up a new 2 channel HIFI system --need advice

post #1 of 21
1/11/08 at 8:29pm
Thread Starter 
I am pretty new to the audiophile stuff and so would appreciate all advice. I am setting up systems in two rooms ---one will be a home theater (i will post questions on that in a different thread) and one is the Living Room where my wife and I listen to music---Mostly Classical, Jazz, and Vocals. For the Music (2 channel) system I have a pair of KEF XQ40 Floor standing speakers. Our music sources will be CD's (regular, not SACD for now).

1. My audio pro is advising the purchase of an integrated amplifier, and specifically the Marantz PM7001. I am wondering if this is a good choice? Alternatively I have considered simply using an older Marantz A/V receiver that I own (SR-585) or, getting the more expensive Denon PMA 2000IVR.

I am not looking for the absolute highest end audiophile reference system, but I am interested in a very good quality sound. I also want the components to be well matched and compatible in quality.

2. I also need to decide on a CD player to go with this system. He is recommending the Marantz SA8001 which seems like an excellent, if not (for me) pricey choice. Would I be served just as well by the less expensive CD5001? Or would I really hear the difference and should go for the higher end one. What parameters are key in this decision? And, I originally thought of getting a 5CD player like the CC40001., Would this be a mistake and not serve the system well?

3. Finally, I am perplexed by all of the audiophile terminology. Like what does "soundstage" mean? Is there a good glossary for this.

Once again, i am very grateful for any of the replies and help that you all give. I know I am crazy to get started because it is clear that there is no end in sight

Larry
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 21
1/11/08 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lreinstein View Post

Alternatively I have considered simply using an older Marantz A/V receiver that I own (SR-585) ...

That sounds like a good idea. By the time you've filled out the rest of your system and done some listening, you'll have a better idea of whether and how to replace your old receiver.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 21
1/12/08 at 6:46am
I agree with Greg, that using the receiver might be the best bet for now--it's probably sufficient for what you need. If you find it's not, then you can upgrade to the integrated amp. As for soundstage, I think I'd describe it as the ability of a speaker to reproduce accurately and consistently the positions of the performers. In other words, even though there are two speakers, you should be able to hear sounds that seem to be coming from between the two of them (like a lead vocalist) and from either side of the speakers. Speakers that project a good soundstage should kind of disappear, so that it doesn't sound like you are hearing two point sources at the same time--but rather you are hearing a live performance.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 21
1/12/08 at 7:16am
Don't worry too much about "audio terminology." What you need to ask yourself is, does this sound like real music to me? Soundstage--the spread of instruments between and around the speakers--is part of that. It's a function of the speakers and their interaction with the room. Your choice of amp (or CD player) won't have much of an impact there.

The Marantz integrated is fine; your AVR is probably sufficient. Don't expect a world of improvement if you upgrade.

There's a raging debate going on right now in the CD forum about whether expensive CD players even sound different (let alone better) than cheap ones. I'm in the no-difference camp, so if you're not you don't want my take on CD players. But my take is it doesn't matter what you use.

Speakers are what matter most, and you have a fine set of speakers. Everything else is trivial by comparison.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 21
1/12/08 at 8:59am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Don't worry too much about "audio terminology." What you need to ask yourself is, does this sound like real music to me? Soundstage--the spread of instruments between and around the speakers--is part of that. It's a function of the speakers and their interaction with the room. Your choice of amp (or CD player) won't have much of an impact there.

The Marantz integrated is fine; your AVR is probably sufficient. Don't expect a world of improvement if you upgrade.

There's a raging debate going on right now in the CD forum about whether expensive CD players even sound different (let alone better) than cheap ones. I'm in the no-difference camp, so if you're not you don't want my take on CD players. But my take is it doesn't matter what you use.

Speakers are what matter most, and you have a fine set of speakers. Everything else is trivial by comparison.

**I really would like your take on the differences between the high-end CD player and the "only good" CD player. It is tempting to want a 5CD turntable (convenience), but I am being told that since I have bought (not yet arrived) such high quality speakers, that I am cheating myself and not getting its full potential if i dont get a very high quality CD player. There are 3 players by Marantz under consideration--their best single play, their one step down single play, and their 5CD model.

Do you think I would be able to tell the difference on these speakers between the integrated amp and the receiver? and, if so what would it be?

Since CD Players have digital (optical) outputs, and the Receiver has a digital input, is this an advantage? The Amp does not have a digital input, so am I correct in thinking it is a question of which unit (the CD player or the Receiver) has the best DAC?


ANOTHER QUESTION AND CONSIDERATION:

For casual listening I have purchased the Squeezebox and intend to listen to my digitized music this way. Eventually I will re-rip my CD's in a lossless format... I wonder whether I will be able to tell the difference between the Squeezebox playing a lossless digitized CD, versus the CD player itself? Any opinions? Again, is this simply a matter of which unit (in this case Squeezebox3 or the CD player ) has the best Digital to Analog Converter? Anyone tried this ?

Thanks to all.

Larry
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 21
1/12/08 at 9:04am
Thread Starter 
If that is what "sound stage" means, then what does "image" mean? are they the same?

I really do think that i need an audiophile dictionary. How would you explain to me (an audio newbie but somewhat technically proficient) the words and meaning of the following random clip that i found on some forum:

"what I look for in a digital source is the rendering of a back stage, of depth, of deepness and darkness of what is behind the music, its canvas, or better said the sense of the space where the music is being reproduced, and the unit presents it blacker, more profound and dense than the Saturn"

canvass?
darkness behind the music
deeper?
blacker?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 21
1/12/08 at 9:51am
Stereophile magazine has a glossary
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 21
1/12/08 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lreinstein View Post

canvass?
darkness behind the music
deeper?
blacker?

Audiophilean is used to convey the sophistication of the listener. You can use it freely to describe any aural experience.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 21
1/12/08 at 8:44pm
Thread Starter 
.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 21
1/13/08 at 8:20am
lreinstein: You asked for my take, so here it is. The differences among competently designed CD players are far smaller than the differences that can be discerned by human ears. And cost is unlikely to be a factor, as good DAC chips can be had in bulk for well under $1 apiece.

Now, if you go to an audio shop and audition CD players, you might very well "hear" differences between them. Two things you should know:

1) People have a tendency to observe differences even between absolutely identical units, which is why scientists (and anyone interested in what you're really hearing) use blind tests to judge sonic differences.

2) Differences in output level (which are common) can sound like differences in sound quality, but they're not. Do you really want to spend 5 times as much for a CD player, when you can get the same sound from a cheaper one just by tweaking your volume control?

No, I don't think you'll notice any real difference between the integrated and the receiver, although that's not as cut and dried as the CD question. On paper, your KEFs don't look too hard to drive, and a decent AVR should be able to handle two of them just fine. (Driving 6 low-efficiency 4-ohm speakers would be another matter.)

Quote:


Since CD Players have digital (optical) outputs, and the Receiver has a digital input, is this an advantage? The Amp does not have a digital input, so am I correct in thinking it is a question of which unit (the CD player or the Receiver) has the best DAC?

Yes, it's a matter of which has the best DAC, but my comment about DACs above still applies. There's no real advantage here either way.

Quote:


I wonder whether I will be able to tell the difference between the Squeezebox playing a lossless digitized CD, versus the CD player itself?

The Squeezebox is a pretty good unit, and I would expect it to perform about as well as the original CD. When John Atkinson measured it for Stereophile, he found it a little noisier than a good CD player, but you're unlikely to notice that in normal listening.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 21
1/13/08 at 2:22pm
Thread Starter 
Mcnarus--

I really appreciate your helpful and direct response, but have a few additional questions.

I think I will take the advice and try the Marantz receiver (SR585) that I am replacing ( it is now in my Loft which is our Home Theater and being upgraded) and see how it sounds downstairs with the KEF Speakers. (we listened to these and they sounded pretty amazing in the showroom...I hope they will be good choices). A funny drawback of the Receiver, however will be the Aesthetics.... it is in our Living Room and I think the integrated amp has fewer lighted readouts and looks cooler .

As far as the CD player goes, I think my reasoning will be as follows: when I want to listen to alot of music in a playlist I will probably use my Squeezebox, therefore I do not think I should get a turntable CD player. I will reserve the CD player for the occasional single CD that has not been ripped, or when I want to compare what the "best" sound would be like. So I am thinking of the now...out of stock Marantz CD 5001 rather than the super expensive
Marantz SA8001. I dont think I will be listening to SACD's ....

My only other question about this Music Listening Room is whether I will want a subwoofer added, but I think i can decide that later.


I wonder if you have any thoughts on our plans for upgrading the HT in the loft. I am replacing a very old set of speakers with some in-wall speakers and behind the wall wiring...again this is a matter of aesthetics and pleasing my wife. My hope is that we can have a single HDMI cable going to the wall mounted Plasma TV. Our primary source of entertainment is the DVD movie, with HD TV on an HD Tivo running second. We will not be listening to music on this one.

I would appreciate your opinions and rationals on the following--

The Pro is recomending B&W LRC7's for the front 3 speakers, and some other B&W's for the surrounds. He also recommends the Velodyne SPL1000R for the subwoofer. I understand this to be very good sub with alot of aesthetic appeal. Perhaps these are overkill?

He also wants me to upgrade my very cheapo SONY DVD player with a $300 DV4001 Marantz unit--- I think I will say no to that and wait for a real upgrade whenever Blu-ray units become more available. WHat do you think?

Also, recommends the Marantz SR7002 A/V receiver. Do you think this is a reasonable unit for the HT use I have described? Will I be able to use it when I get Blu-ray for a 1080P? I know Denon units have many more features, including better automated setup... I am wondering if one of them might be a better value?


Final question (maybe)... My current TV is a good Panasonic 50 inch plasma but is only 720P (1080i). If I get a Blu-Ray DVD player, how much better will it look on a 1080P than on my current unit? I know that is a tough question to answer but I wonder how much better and sharper it can look than HD TV broadcasts do....especially when sitting 9 or 10 feet away.

Thanks again.

Larry R.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 21
1/13/08 at 7:25pm
Larry,

I hear you on aesthetics. I use a integrated, not a receiver, myself, in part because I like the clean minimalist look of the thing.

I'm really a neophyte when it comes to HT, however, so I suggest you post your questions on the appropriate forum. The one thing I'll agree with is that Blu-Ray isn't quite ripe yet. Hopefully now that they've "won" the format war they'll get down to finishing product development.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 21
1/13/08 at 7:54pm
Thread Starter 
hi again mcnarus,

i got this reply from someone on a different forum--- do you think he is right? is the marantz integrated amp not worthy of my speaker choice? would the Denon PMA-2000IVR be a better choice?

thanks
larry

see below:

>specifically the Marantz PM7001<<br />
That's an odd choice if you are broadly matching the price of the system components, a cheap amp between expensive speakers and middle-range CD/SACD player.

<<br />
How about Musical Fidelity kW 250S All-in-one? It'll have the power (250W/channel) to control the big speakers and drive the dynamics necessary for classical music, plus you have amp/cd/radio combined.

The Arcam Solo combines the same at a lower price point.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 21
1/13/08 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lreinstein View Post

Mcnarus--

I really appreciate your helpful and direct response, but have a few additional questions.

I think I will take the advice and try the Marantz receiver (SR585) that I am replacing ( it is now in my Loft which is our Home Theater and being upgraded) and see how it sounds downstairs with the KEF Speakers. (we listened to these and they sounded pretty amazing in the showroom...I hope they will be good choices). A funny drawback of the Receiver, however will be the Aesthetics.... it is in our Living Room and I think the integrated amp has fewer lighted readouts and looks cooler .

One thing at a time always does seem easier, doesn't it? FWIW, I liberally use window tint for bright displays (just don't cover IR sensor), and even used black electrical tape for the really bad LEDs.
Quote:
The Pro is recomending B&W LRC7's for the front 3 speakers, and some other B&W's for the surrounds. He also recommends the Velodyne SPL1000R for the subwoofer. I understand this to be very good sub with alot of aesthetic appeal. Perhaps these are overkill?

Overkill is a very subjective thing, especially at AVS! For HT, I would consider some ID brands. Perhaps SVS, since eD, Epik, and HSU don't look so hot. Velodyne makes great subs, so I don't think you will be going wrong.
Quote:
He also wants me to upgrade my very cheapo SONY DVD player with a $300 DV4001 Marantz unit--- I think I will say no to that and wait for a real upgrade whenever Blu-ray units become more available. WHat do you think?

I agree. Some BD players are already available at that same price.
Quote:
Also, recommends the Marantz SR7002 A/V receiver. Do you think this is a reasonable unit for the HT use I have described? Will I be able to use it when I get Blu-ray for a 1080P? I know Denon units have many more features, including better automated setup... I am wondering if one of them might be a better value?

If my guess at understanding your questions is correct, I'd worry about this a lot later. The *new* stuff can either upscale or handle new codecs. Maybe a couple of other things. If your video is already good, why bother. The new audio formats will only be subtle improvements compared to many many other things, including some of the issues you are investigating. (I myself am waiting to implement the codecs, but you have to remember, Im one of those ubiquitous AVS addicts ). Ok, one of those "other" things that I would LOVE to try is the best version of Audyssey I could get my hands on.
Quote:
Final question (maybe)... My current TV is a good Panasonic 50 inch plasma but is only 720P (1080i). If I get a Blu-Ray DVD player, how much better will it look on a 1080P than on my current unit? I know that is a tough question to answer but I wonder how much better and sharper it can look than HD TV broadcasts do....especially when sitting 9 or 10 feet away.


I'm not one to answer this question. I think it will depend on how much of a videophile you are. If you don't have eagle-eyes, I think the difference will be subtle to the extent of distant backgrounds having more detail. Again, don't listen to me. IIRC, I think resolution might be around #5 in priority according to ISF, contrast, color accuracy, color saturation, black detail, iono stuff like that are more important.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 21
1/13/08 at 9:48pm
I'd like to add a couple of things. Im a big fan of BW speakers, but there still is no substitution for comparative auditioning.

Also, the need for a greater amp section depends on too many things. As with video, various factors can affect your outlook.

-volumes desired
-how far you sit from speakers
-speakers' efficiency
-speakers' nominal and/or minimal impedances
-size of room
-use of sub
-xover level chosen

yada yada. Regarding cdp, I agree to add that last. However, I ended up spending a lot on mine, oh well. It was the very last thing I added. I didn't intend at first to buy one. I will also add that I was hoping a $200 receiver could power $11k msrp speakers that drop to 0.7 ohm. Well, I also dropped decent coin these electronics too, but only on "entry-audiophile" stuff as refurbished.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 21
1/14/08 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Speakers are what matter most, and you have a fine set of speakers. Everything else is trivial by comparison.

I could not disagree more. As an audiophile for the past 25 years it is my opinion that any audio system (and video system) is only as good as its weakest link. You can have the worlds greatest speakers but if you have crappy electronics or a crappy source; i.e., digital or analog, guess what you're going to hear out of those speakers? Yep, crappy sound.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 21
1/14/08 at 8:29am
Quote:


That's an odd choice if you are broadly matching the price of the system components

Sounds like someone who thinks the most important spec is the price tag.

The idea of "balancing" component costs made sense back in analog days, when your source component could vary widely in quality, and when good, powerful amps were pricier than they are today. I once asked an equipment tester for an audio magazine what he would do with $5000. He recommended a 6.1 Paradigm system ($4000) and a $200 Pioneer receiver. That's a bit extreme, but it's not crazy any more.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 21
1/14/08 at 1:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

...Speakers are what matter most, and you have a fine set of speakers. Everything else is trivial by comparison.

Room treatments matter as much as speakers. Average speakers will sound great in a well treated room. Fantastic speakers will sound horrible in a reflective room. Concerning electronics, I generally agree.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 21
1/14/08 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdsnumbers View Post

I could not disagree more. As an audiophile for the past 25 years it is my opinion that any audio system (and video system) is only as good as its weakest link. You can have the worlds greatest speakers but if you have crappy electronics or a crappy source; i.e., digital or analog, guess what you're going to hear out of those speakers? Yep, crappy sound.

Not always true. Great speakers in a well treated room will "usually" sound pretty damn good, even with marginal electronics.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 21
1/14/08 at 2:45pm
Absolutely agree on room treatments (a fancy term for a simple idea). But the subject hadn't come up in this thread, and "among components" is often implied, as it was in this case. Also, the original poster used those two deadly terms--"living room" and "wife"--that in combination generally preclude formal room treatment.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 21
1/14/08 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

...But the subject hadn't come up in this thread, and "among components" is often implied, as it was in this case. Also, the original poster used those two deadly terms--"living room" and "wife"--that in combination generally preclude formal room treatment.

That's why I brought it up . The most frequently overlooked, cost effective upgrade anybody could hope to make. I do agree that electronics are at the bottom of the list. Not saying that they won't make a difference but, most times, should be the last thing looked at. ANd frankly, in most cases, an amp is an amp just as a transport is a transport. If properly engineered there really shouldn't be any difference in sound quality.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › setting up a new 2 channel HIFI system --need advice