Which speaker setup?
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 | Hi everyone, I apologize if this sort of question has been asked before, but after a brief search I could not find any conclusive info in the forums. Background: I`m a music lover who listens to everything: country, hip-hop, classical, punk rock and everything in between. my main audio system is my new iMac, hooked up to a small altec lansing 2.1 (two satellites flanking my computer and a 6-inch sub woofer next to my desk) computer speaker system. The speakers served me well in the small rooms i had them in for 5 years, but now i`m ready to invest in some better quality sound. my computer will remain my main music source, but i`m looking to buy a decent used tuner/amp, as well as a couple of speakers. budget will be about $600 - i know it's low, but i'll upgrade when i can. i figure i can spend $200 (even less?) on an older amp (really don't plan on connecting much more than my computer and perhaps a TV and DVD player in the future) and spend $400 on the speakers. This is a setup for my bedroom, as opposed to the living room. That said, it's a good-sized bedroom at 20' x 15', and i spend a lot of time there. the setup will be used for music 95% of the time and maybe watching a DVD on my computer the other 5%. my main question is with regards to the speaker setup: do i buy a pair of bookshelf speakers and buy a separate subwoofer, or do i look for a pair of decent used 3-way tower speakers, and forget about the subwoofer? i appreciate clarity and rich sound, but i also like a good bass response in the hip-hop and rock that i listen to. any feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance. Regards, Lebowski |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3044 Registered: Mar-05 | The receiver I'd get would be the digital Panasonic sa-xr55, just do a search for it on this and other audio forums, lots has been written about it. $230 shipped from Amazon.com but equals or beats analog receivers costing several times more. With the remaining $400 or so bucks, you could go with either 1. a pair of good towers (Athena AS-F2.2s, $400/pair at audioadvisor.com) or 2. a pair of great bookshelves like the Ascend 170s, $340 shipped from ascendacoustics.com though in mid-January they'll be coming out with an improved version that will cost about the same. Pair that with a Dayton 12" sub from partsexpress.com for $140 shipped and you're set, though a tiny bit over budget. |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 2 Registered: Nov-05 | Edster, many thanks for the advice. will look into the Panasonic. thanks also for the speaker ideas, will look into both...physical size notwithstanding, what would be the typical sound advantages to having 2 bookshelf speakers & a subwoofer vs. having 2 tower speakers without a subwoofer? UR |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3046 Registered: Mar-05 | The sub will go lower and cleaner than any floorstander in your price range. A $300-400 pair of bookshelves will generally get you better SQ than a $300-400 pair of towers, and also be easier to drive compared to towers which usually require a lot more power to sound their best. That said, some people who are happy with less bass find that getting all your bass from a pair of towers makes for a more integrated, "whole" sound. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 113 Registered: Jul-05 | At the price point you mention, it'd be tough to get full range floorstanders that could do the job well. So a sub bookshelf combination might be good. Floorstanders certainly don't mean less bass though. Not sure what Eddie is talking about on that one. Many floorstanders give full range meaning mid to low twenties as far as frequncy numbers, same as the mentioned HSU sub or better. I picked up an Onkyo receiver used for 80 bucks on Ebay and it works fine driving my Ascend 170s. That price point or similar for a used receiver brand of your choosing could leave you some more bucks by a bit. Good luck! |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 3 Registered: Nov-05 | Thanks for all the feedback. i'd imagine good bookshelfs + subwoofer might be a more affordable proposition than a pair of good floorstanders. i guess i'll have to go and listen to a few of both and make a decision then. i'll definitely check out the ascends - they might be what i'm looking for. thanks for the tip on Onkyo receivers - i'm now realizing that i don't even have to spend $200 to get a decent used receiver, so i'll keep researching those. will keep you posted. best, UR |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 119 Registered: Jul-05 | Cool. I am not plugging Onkyo receivers BTW- you can probably by any mainline brand on ebay used if you want. Its just that I am happy with my ebay Onkyo result for how I use it so I'd thought I'd share the info. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3050 Registered: Mar-05 | > Floorstanders certainly don't mean less bass though. Not sure what Eddie is talking about on that one. I wrote: The sub will go lower and cleaner than any floorstander in your price range. IN YOUR PRICE RANGE. Marc, not all of us have your audio wallet unfortunately! : ) |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 27 Registered: Oct-05 | Off topic here...but...Ed, I sent you a PM, how do I know if I get a PM back? I havent been on this forum for long. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3051 Registered: Mar-05 | Raj, haven't gotten any PM from you yet. Maybe my Yahoo account is just slow today... |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 4 Registered: Nov-05 | Right Marc, that's what I understood. I'm figuring anything from Onkyo, Yamaha, Panasonic, etc. will be good, as the features I'm looking for should be pretty basic and common with all of these brands. I'm gonna try and not spend more than $120-$150 if possible, and put the rest towards the speakers (and possibly a sub). The more i read the more i think bookshelfs will work better for me, though i think i was a bit seduced by the decidedly Spinal Tap ("it goes up to '11'") idea of having two big-@ss tower speakers in my room. UR |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3057 Registered: Mar-05 | keep in mind that Marc hasn't heard the digital Panny yet. It's a radical departure from your typical low-cost analog receivers, with a clarity and power you would normally have to pay upwards of $600-800 for from an analog receiver. My first AVR was an Onkyo 601, which I sent back for a Marantz 5400 because I hated the Onkyo's lifeless music presentation. Then moved up to NAD separates which was a big leap beyond the Marantz. Now both of them have been retired by this $230 Panny. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 122 Registered: Jul-05 | Eddie- The problematic comment you made was the second line-' Some people that are happy with less bass enjoy floorstanders for the integrated sound." A bit off eh? Floorstanders dont mean less bass but thats how the line reads- I am sure you meant differently. As far as audio wallets- also no clue what you mean. I'm the 80 dollar Ebay guy- you spent 230 bucks for a brand new receiver!!! I have a pretty wide breadth of product exposure I feel and so I just share what I know, and try to learn what other folks know as well. AS far as digital receivers- I havent finished forming my opinions yet. The first digital receiver you were kind enough to share with me was terrible. I do think digital receivers have a definite place for HT, but perhaps not in true high fidelity audio- but I am open to change. Its just that you are talking about a technology that cant play records or reel- to reel tape, still very important media to music lovers and musicians alike and most audiophile equipment with digital connections just gather dust at the digital side while their analog side is in use constantly. Of course anyone with a tube based amp, or who are into tube rolling, which is a large percentage of the amps out there by models, will simply laugh off a pure digital receiver altogether. I hope to focus more on this issue at CES in Vegas in January where I can talk to a lot of people and listen and compare hundreds of products over a period of several days. The concept of a digital receiver bringing something to life where an analog receiver is described as lifeless also is interesting to say the least. In 2 channel audio we are just passing signal and powering speakers; the concept of processing raises all sorts of potential problems. Of course in HT its all about processing audio code ( DTS, Dolby HD-DTS etc) its all processing!! Thats why I think digital receivers should have a place in HT applications over music. 2 totally different areas. Hope that makes sense. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3061 Registered: Mar-05 | > Eddie- The problematic comment you made was the second line-' Some people that are happy with less bass enjoy floorstanders for the integrated sound." A bit off eh? Floorstanders dont mean less bass but thats how the line reads- I am sure you meant differently. I guess what I meant is that if you compared a $1000 pair of floorstanders versus a $600 sub mated with a $400 pair of bookshelves, I would expect the second setup to bass that's lower, cleaner, and probably louder. I understand that there are floorstanders that are truly full-range but that's several price-stratospheres beyond $1000 and the original poster was talking about only a $600 budget anyway. > As far as audio wallets- also no clue what you mean. I'm the 80 dollar Ebay guy- you spent 230 bucks for a brand new receiver!!! Surely you jest, Marc! You own 5 systems, the total value of which most likely exceeds one if not both of the cars I own...remember? Finally buying a Yugo after amassing a stable of M-Bs and BMWs doesn't count! : ) Yes, I do remember you not liking that Onkyo 552. However, I also do remember one moment during our listening when you misunderstood something I said and thought I had already switched back to the NAD, at which point you immediately resumed telling me how much better the music now sounded, when in fact we were still listening to the Onkyo! (grins) We still have to do a blind AB test with the Panny though...which you did agree to that day, if you remember! You might have a point about digital being especially suited for HT over music...I'd say this is especially likely to be true for someone who's spent a lifetime around analog-amplified recorded and live music, and who has grown very attached to a particular set of sound characteristics which might not be present in a digitally amplified system. My take on HT all along is that since 80% of your attention is focused on the screen, all you need is for the sound to possess sufficient detail/clarity and for the receiver to have enough power for all the speakers equally. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 125 Registered: Jul-05 | Hi Eddie- hmm where to start? 1. I am not sure you are accurate with your comment here. heres the problem. The room you are listening in has not allowed you to appreciate a high fidelity musical listening experience, required to make several of the observations you are stating. Specifically- you cant get enough bass in that setting without getting overhang, sort of undefined boom. This is very common with ported subs like an HSU, when you need to increase either the gain/and or the sub output setting on a receiver to fill a room to achieve adequate SPL levels without loosing the accurate impact and decay times of bass frequencies. Your room size, quite voluminous coupled with an HSU sub at any level, simply cannot allow for appreciation of truely accurate musical reproduction. It's a mathematical impossibility. I know you are way into the equipment side of music so perhaps my straightforward honesty will actually mean something. You said you were moving, try setting up in a rectangular room with more reasonable dimensions. It will be a whole new world! 2. Audio Wallet Comment- Statements regarding people and perceived wealth are classless. And inappropriate! Besides, I am recommending that a purchase off of Ebay at 1/3rd of the cost of your recommendations might make sense for a sounds good system! I still dont get the audio wallet comment, probably because you dont know how well you can do with floorstanders under a 1000 used at Audiogon. I have collected audio equipment I own gradually over 30 years. This year I spent 43 dollars repairing a record player from 1977, an 80 dollar Ebay receiever, and one pair of AScend 170s and thats it! If I had big bucks I would be listening to Green Mountain Callistos , which I have auditoned at least, instead of the Ascends. I assure you that while the AScends please me greatly The GMA CAliistos are far beyond in audio quality. IN the end , I simply resent the implication you made about me being wealthy and insensitive, essentially a personal and unwarranted attack of sorts. Shame on you!!! I would recommend you think about why you made that kind of comment. 3, Auditioning the Onkyo Digital; I had heard enough and was late for band practice and wasnt focused. I was interested in making a point and made a mistake. I have no problem blindfolding testing. Bring your Ascend 340s as well. Please. 4. Analog/Digital; Eddie the Standard is reproduction of either intended audio engineer work or reproducing a live production accurately. It doesnt matter how you get there, digital or analog; nor does it matter how many years one has been used to a certain sound. I have been PLAYING live music for thrity years and listning to LIVE music longer. Thats the standard. Trying to somehow say that a person is used to one type of sound and imply that a digital Panny has some magic that cant be appreciated by someone "tainted" by too many years of analog listening is pretty ridiculous! Its not the equipment thats the focus my friend- its the sonic result compared to reference. I know what my reference is--Do you know yours? Again--its not about equipment as the end all be all. 5. HT- Well here we are really far apart. HT is not screen focusing. Its an immersive real-life looking through the window experience( hopefully). For me, Video and audio balance each other. We can take DVE, something like House of flying daggers, maybe Master and Commander, and perhaps BJORK Royal Opera House DVD and run it through your set up, mine, an 80,000 HT set up and maybe an audio concepts area 51 type deal and discuss. That will do it for now-- I really resent that audio wallet comment obviously. Uncool. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3062 Registered: Mar-05 | Whoa, no offense intended at all Marc, sorry if you took some anyways. 1. You may be right about my current room situation. However, I am also going by my experience listening to floorstanders under $1K in various shops, just have never heard anything that could satisfy me in the same way as a good sub does. (You might be right about $1K used floorstanders for all I know, but I thought the OP was mainly looking at new stuff.) I am willing to allow for the possibility that say a $3K pair of floorstanders could equal or surpass a pair of Ascend 170s paired with a Hsu STF-3 in a medium sized normal room IN BASS PERFORMANCE. 2. I really don't understand why you found this "audio wallet" comment so vexing...it was certainly not intended to be in any way, most certainly not a "personal attack" for Chrissakes. I definitely didn't mean to imply that you are "wealthy and insensitive"---lots of people spend a lot more on audio (and on cars, wine, dining, etc.) than they should, and lots of people also spend less on audio than they could, so it's really not a reliable indicator of wealth. To me, "audio wallet" is not a reflection of how much you CAN spend or SHOULD be spending, but simply an indicator of how much you HAVE spent and how much you are LIKELY to spend. As for you being "insensitive" that would not be the adjective I would use, more like "forgetful" and this is very common in audio circles---people often forget that others either lack the resources or the willingness to spend so much on audio. I thought this was a pretty straightforward question from the OP: he stated his budget to be $400 for speakers and I chimed in my comments with floorstanders IN THAT PRICE BRACKET in mind, which you seem to have misinterpreted to be a comment about ALL floorstanders in general. Honest mistake, so what's the deal? As for the GMA Callistos maybe they are "far beyond" the 170s for all I know, I have never said anywhere that the Ascends are the absolute pinnacle of speakers. (That'd be as silly as saying that a Honda Accord is the greatest car on the face of the planet, when it just happens to be one of the nicest cars under say $30K.) 3. OK, blind test the Panny we will, but why do you want me to bring the 340s? I have no ambition to prove that they're better or worse than your other speakers. But I'll bring them along if you wish, no worries. 4. You wrote, "Its not the equipment thats the focus my friend- its the sonic result compared to reference. I know what my reference is--Do you know yours." Well you've answered your own question right there: in a nutshell, personal preference = personal REFERENCE! Your "personal reference" is bound to be very different from mine since I have never played live music, nor have I listened to all that much of it since my 20s. However, does that mean that LIVE MUSIC (which is almost always analog-amplified, btw) is the *ONLY, UNIVERSAL* reference? You say you "know" how a piano, snare drum, etc. "really" sounds from being onstage with these instruments for tens of thousands of hours as a musician. Well that's all fine and dandy, but SO WHAT??? Let's say Joe Shmoe has never been near a live stage, and he loves the sound of a piano as played through his iPod. Why in God's name should Joe aspire to prefer your "real" piano? What if Joe does hear your live piano, and finds that he prefers the MP3 version instead? 5. Well if "House of Flying Daggers" and "Master and Commander" are the types of films I predominantly watched then I might be able to see your point. However for someone like me who watches film in order to enjoy the story, characters, dialogue, acting, and themes rather flashy special effects, spending $80K on an HT setup (let alone $8K) would be the height of absurdity. Movies like "Eternal Sunshine" or "I Heart Huckabees" would sweep me off my feet even if I watched them in mono, so how much difference could a state of the art HT system possibly make? *** Anyways, I'd offer to buy you a beer to make up for the unintentionally vexing "audio wallet" comment but you don't drink. : ) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 128 Registered: Jul-05 | Eddie- I was in the Pilsner beer factory, the real one, a month ago-getting it straight from the horses mouth.; the next day was wine tasting in Durnstein( 5 whites); I've got a bottle of wine from Tuscany, Italy we can split. Supposedly good stuff. I only recommended EBAY as a an 80 dollar consideration that works for me. It is less expensive than your recommendation by threefold. Very appropriate to the poster.I made no other specific recs so I still dont get the audio wallet thing. I really dont. You spend more than me on audio equipment but I dont really care actually. You are in that searching phase, buying and buying different receivers; Marantz, Panny, Onkyo, NAD. As far as standards, YOU know what a piano sounds like, and a snare drum too. We can all listen to a live performance. I didnt say I know anything, other than my own reference, we are looking for commonality to talk about what might be better or worse. WE can use graphs, frequency responses, subjective interpretation, the whole smeer.The audio engineer intent is harder of course. Do you think an IPOD is as good for listening as, well, AScends? WE are not talking about Joe Schmoe; we are providing information on an internet audio forum where people exchange information-- in that sense these type of discussions come up. My mentions of certain DVDs is to demonstrate and learn about audio/video performance that test extremes. WE can easily use Eternal Sunshine. When I demoed stuff I used " Dinner Rush"- for the silverware at a Italian restaurant for sound while eating and a body dropping dead in the snow. Anything can be used. Anyway- I cant actually follow your entire post and its late- so lets get lunch. The band has a fairly significant gig for a new band at Tailgate on December 16th so I hope you and Monica and your drinking friends ( we get a cut of the bar--!!!  ) will show. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 697 Registered: May-05 | Ed and Marc, I would just note that Ed outspent you on the Ascends by almost double. If anyone is the big spender here it's Ed, not us poor guys that have to "live" with little ole 170s. LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 131 Registered: Jul-05 | True- But I am passed the wealth perception stuff. The thing about sub/monitors vs floorstanders is interesting. It seems manufacturers of speakers are really focusing more on mid range and treble and less on really incorporating woofers that extend into the lower frequencies. Those floorstanders are out there still, but the emphasis on monitor/sub combos is really grabbing the market, perhaps supported by the big time emphasis on HT, which is largely sub territory anyway. Ideally, my vote is for two subs for an HT ( which two subs depends on a variety of factors) and fullrange floor standers for music listening. To me thats an optimum best case scenario. I am interested in listening to the Rel Strata 3 as well as that ERA sub Art talks about. My beef , if you will, with subs as far as music isnt really the sub itself as much as the crossover issue at the receiever level. I just feel that having an integrated floorstander allows for better tonal balance and full reproduction. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3064 Registered: Mar-05 | Marc, ah lucky you, Pilsner Urquell on tap in the Czech Republic is a hundred times better than the pasteurized, bottled version we get here. Careful, you may become a beer worshipper yourself! Obviously *I* don't think listening to music through an iPod is going to equal listening through some Ascends, but if someone heard BOTH and preferred the iPod I'd just shrug my shoulders and let them get on with it. Ditto with Bose---I have no problem with Bose fans who've listened to real speakers and decided they prefer Bose, it's just the ones who've only listened to Bose after moving up from some crappy minisystem that I feel sorry for. I guess what it comes down to is that if we are willing to accept that audio is to a large extent SUBJECTIVE then we should also accept that our own tastes and assumptions are very RELATIVE rather than absolute. I'll make a note in my PDA about your upcoming concert...last one I went to was a piano recital at the Rothko Chapel a few months back actually. Beautiful setting and pianist, though weird accoustics: http://www.jademedia.org/ Give me a call about lunch this weekend if you're free. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3065 Registered: Mar-05 | David, not to revive an old argument, but Marc's little Soliloquy bookshelves which he uses as surrounds probably cost more than the 340s. This dude is JUST LOADED LOADED LOADED, I tell you!!! (just kidding...) |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 132 Registered: Jul-05 | The SAt 5s you are mentioning were less expensive than the Ascend 340s. And they provide more articulate detail than the 340s. They lack the extension and fullness of sound of the 340s, but thats why they are satellites in a home theater. They dont have to do anything much below 80 hz and they do what they do very well. The Rothko Chapel is beautiful. BTW- Eddie- you live in a VERY expensive part of town-- if you lived out where I live, you would have gobs more cash to spend on audio- so stay put! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3078 Registered: Mar-05 | Guess we just have different tastes; I remember finding your Solis to be on the thin and bright side of things compared to the Ascend 170s which are a fairer comparison than the 340s. LOL, I'm afraid my aversion to suburbia is stronger than my fiscal common sense. |
|
Silver Member Username: TwebbzAnn Arbor, Michigan USA Post Number: 280 Registered: Apr-04 | Uncle Rico...you said your music source will be your computer...I have heard that there is less music data in music downloads than on CDs. If that is the case (I have no experience with downloads)then staying within your budget with used low level equipment is the way to go. Better equipment may reveal the inadequacies of the music source. |
|
FloridaSun Unregistered guest | My vote goes to the Orb Audio Classic One for $519, which you can upgrade incrementally to the Classic Two then later to full surround sound. Really big sound and the direct business model means you save $$ and get great product and service. I don't want to inflame the floorstander vs. bookshelf/sub controversy, but my vote goes to smaller speakers and a sub vs. less expensive towers. Cleaner sound to my ears and better bass. |
|
New member Username: Head_shotVisalia, CA Post Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 | Uncle Rico Since this will be all of $ 600, a pair of floor standing is the better choice for musicality sake. The floorstanding will tend to give a more fuller and less focused sound than bookshelves/subwoofer combo. This is the type of sound quality you seek for music. Later on you can always add a subwoofer to help fill in the lower end of the spectrum. Room treatment is also an issue to consider. Be sure the used amp powering these have similar ohm rating. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 133 Registered: Jul-05 | Hi Eddie- On the AScend 170/Soliloquy Comparison- You have to be able to separate out differences in frequncy extension versus the quality of what you hear. SO for instance. the Ascends 340s and 170s in my HT wouldnt sound as good as the SOliloquys if the only signal is 80 HZ and above; The SAt 5s are specifically for satellites in HT. the differences in drivers/internal wiring. and cabinet construction really define the result. Art was telling you the same thing when discussing good bass versus more bass. Give it some thought and keep listening to as much as you can-- gotta broaden those horizons a bit! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 134 Registered: Jul-05 | Uncle Rico- I'm still searchin for an addition to the great Recs you have already gotten thusfar. Have a good one. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3082 Registered: Mar-05 | > the Ascends 340s and 170s in my HT wouldnt sound as good as the SOliloquys if the only signal is 80 HZ and above; True, in addition if there was a nice monstrous sub in the mix to fill out the low end I think they wouldn't fare too badly. Am eager to hear your full size Solis though. BTW if you are planning to swing through AudioConcepts or Tweeter some time just for a listening browse I'd like to come along and hear what you have to say about their gear. |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 5 Registered: Nov-05 | once again, thanks for all the recommendations guys. good point about my computer's sound quality - true, most of my mp3's are encoded in 160 kbps, which, as i understand, effectively halves the sound quality from the original CD audio source. even with this "diluted" sound, however, i'm fairly certain that a better speaker setup will dramatically improve the listening experience. thanks for the tip on floorstanders, Head Shot, it appears forum members are divided fairly evenly on the floorstanding/shelf speaker issue. i think i'll just have rely on my own ears and see what works best. i'm going to run a search on them now, but what are your guys' thoughts on the Mission 751 bookshelf speakers? A local seller on craigslist is looking to sell a pair for $150 and thinking of checking them out. the orbs also look pretty sweet, but they'd be slightly out of budget, once i look to add a receiver, although i'll definitely take a closer look at these and maybe some used ones are floating around. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1305 Registered: Jun-05 | I hope you know Mark that Soliloquys has gone out of buisness,they have now joined Meadowlark,Bugtussel,and Dunleavy on the out of buisness line. |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 6 Registered: Nov-05 | well, just a quick update for those who are interested: failing to do any of my planned in-store research this weekend, i made a mini-trip out to my local big-box retailer (future shop) over my lunch break today to listen to some speakers in their "sound room". i know a lot of you guys insist on staying away from these kinds of retailers, but for a 1-hour lunch break it was the most convenient. so the ones i was most interested in were the Athena F1.2 and JBL E-series, both floor standing speakers of course. incidentally, the salesman said that, as others have said here, for my budget my best bet and for the biggest, most consistent sound would come from a pair of floor speakers, as opposed to the two bookshelfs + subwoofer. the guy may not have been an audio connoisseur of the highest order, but he seemed pretty sure of himself, so i kinda bought it. anyhow, the Athena F1.2's sounded really nice. and the JBL E80's, which i had at the top of my list due to 1)favourable internet reviews, 2) affordable price, and 3) big brand name, were a serious disappointment. compared to the Athena's, they sounded like a an AM radio. ok, obviously not that bad but the midrange and treble sounded lousy. the salesman and i agreed there must have been a defect with that particular speaker, so i will wait to reserve judgement. for now though, the athena's are looking pretty good. anybody have any experience with any of the JBL E-series? Thanks, UR UR |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3113 Registered: Mar-05 | I've never liked the JBL e-series towers, the Athena towers are much better IMO. How much were the F1.2s going for there? The F2.2s are $400 shipped from audioadvisor.com I still think that generally, floorstanders need a beefier amp to play their best, and lowend ones especially are not as high quality as bookshelves at the same pricepoint. |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 7 Registered: Nov-05 | The F1.2's were on sale for $350 (i'm up in Canada, so price was $429 Cdn., but i've been referring to US dollars throughout this thread in order to keep things simple). moreover, i think i can get them for less online. The F2.2's are on sale at the equivalent of $510 USD (normally $680 USD), so audioadvisor.com would be the way to go there, although shipping and handling would probably take a chunk of the savings out of that equation. The one thing that is disconcerting is that both the F1.2's and F2.2's are 2-way, as opposed to 3-way. now, the JBL's that i didn't like were 3-way, which proves to me that a decent 2-way speaker can easily beat a bad 3-way setup. Still, for what i'm paying should i not be looking at a 3-way speaker? also, since i haven't really thought of the amp yet, how beefy do you mean? would an older 5.1 amp with 100W/channel come up short and not do justice to a larger floor speaker? don't worry, i've by no means ruled out the bookshelves + subwoofer idea. i'm going to continue to browse around for the next few days. i'd really like to find a way to hear those Ascend speakers, but i'm not sure who would carry them. Thanks for the feedback, UR |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3117 Registered: Mar-05 | I tend to prefer 2-way, it's one fewer crossover to contend with, most 3-ways in the budget price range tend to sound less natural to my ears. |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 8 Registered: Nov-05 | ok, thanks, good to know. as an aside, i'm going tomorrow to check out a pair of Mission 751 speakers that a guy is selling off of craigslist. he's selling the pair for $160 USD, and he's throwing in a 12-inch sub he built himself. i have no idea what this will sound like, but they could be decent. UR |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3119 Registered: Mar-05 | very good deal if they are decent! |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 9 Registered: Nov-05 | that's what i thought. i'm kind of put off by the fact that they're 12 years old, according to the seller, but i guess a good speaker is a good speaker. will let you know. and thanks again for all the great advice! UR |
|
New member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 10 Registered: Nov-05 | Hey Edster - or anyone else, any thoughts on the Polk Audio FXi3? from all i've read this is strictly a rear surround speaker, but after spending some sound room time comparing these with the JBL's and Athena's (floor models) i feel like the Polks fill the room much better, and with richer sound. am i nuts for preferring the polks over a purpose-built stereo speaker? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 533 Registered: Dec-04 | Hey, Uncle! You are not nuts for doing anything that sounds good to you, fits your budget, makes your girl happy, or is in the rightcolour! Just pick what fits your requirements, and take advise here a s a grain of salt. Including this one! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 12 Registered: Nov-05 | thanks nuck, that makes sense; i should go for what sounds best to me - just wondering if there were any inherent drawbacks to having rear surround speakers used as mains, but i guess if they sound good to me, there shouldn't be any problem. fyi my girl actually likes it when i sing to her off key, so these speakers should hopefully be inadequate in that regard ;-p |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 542 Registered: Dec-04 | Hey Im glad more than one guy has luck with the vocals! Cheers |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 15 Registered: Nov-05 | Hey all - just an update for those who were interested: I went and checked out the Mission 751's that a local guy was selling and they sounded really nice. Being 12 years old, they seemed to be in great condition. He's selling them with stands for $200Cdn, ($170 USD). anyhow, the He's also willing to throw in a sub that he built himself. It wasn't connected but i figure i might as well take it as well, even if it's garbage. I also picked up a Pioneer VSX-412D off of ebay for $100, so I think I have myself a pretty good starter stereo system at $270. The more I listened to the Polk surround speakers, the more i realized that while they sounded fantastic, they weren't meant for stereo sound. They filled the room nicely but they didn't have the "directness" of a proper stereo speaker. Anyhow, I'll look at them again when I want to upgrade to a full HT setup. Thanks to everyone for your feedback and suggestions. Best, UR |
|
New member Username: DavidpaPortland, Oregon US Post Number: 9 Registered: Nov-05 | uncle rico, just had to respond after reading this thread. CAREFUL how you judge the sound of your system after downloading off the net! My son who is 13 is a music fanatic, and him and his ipod are (it seems) closer than we are! Anyway, he has made me quite a few CDs (which get listened to only while hes around) and I can tell you that you are not going to get even close to pure CD sound. The tracks will almost always have something missing, hissing, booming, or humming. You talked about a speaker you heard sounding like AM radio, Thats what ANY decent speaker will sound like with these recordings, what happens is all of the faults in the dowloaded music become more prevailant, and really just annoying. Now, this is my experience, I do have a pretty good system that tends to find faults in any recording, but the downloaded music, well, its just not fun to listen to. If you can, listen to songs you have on CD, then the same ones you maybe have downloaded and you will see the difference. The reason I had to write is because of your statement that with a better speaker, you thought the better speaker would dramatically improve the listening experience, QUITE THE OPPOSITE! better equipment will showcase whats wrong with recordings, not hide them. Hope that helps a little, sounds like your on your way. Good luck, Dave |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 16 Registered: Nov-05 | David, thanks for the words of caution. I have no illusions as to what sound quality a typical mp3 will offer, and your point about good speakers revealing the imperfections in an audio source is a good one. For what it's worth, the guy selling the Mission speakers was actually playing music through his iPod when he was giving me the demo, and when I was in the sound room of the electronics store, my demo cd was actually a collection of burnt mp3's...so I feel like the sound I got out of the speakers during my demo experiences will not be drastically different from when I connect my stereo to my computer. Moreover, in my speaker setup I'm looking more for a means to enlarge the sound and fill the room, rather than worry about professional-grade clarity (though of course that would be nice). I know there is a trade-off there, but if it really bothers me I'll buy a few more CD's and download a little less. Thanks again, UR. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 611 Registered: Dec-04 | Hey, Uncle, you listened the right way. Listen to what you normally will, and expect what you get. When you get more than what you expected, maybe thats the one! Very good! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 17 Registered: Nov-05 | Thanks Nuck, i will keep that in mind. Well I'm at the final stage in my listening odyssey, and I'm now torn between two speakers. I've decided to forget about floor standing speakers for now - bookshelf units really do have enough bass for me I think. The two that I'm torn between are the mission 751's that my friend is selling for $170, or a pair of Paradigm mini monitors - pricey - but great. Problem is I am unable to listen to these next to each other, and they both sound pretty decent. If I go for the Missions, should be wary of their being 12 years old, even if they look and sound like they're in good condition? And what are peoples thoughts on the mini monitors? Thanks, UR |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 18 Registered: Nov-05 | Final update: I went ahead and bought the Mission 751's. I gave them a listen last night, and I really found the sound to be good, and while the bass was a little lacking when I cranked the speakers up, i got a free subwoofer thrown in that the guy had built himself. If the sub sounds awful, I'll buy a new one (seeing as the speakers were $170 with stands and cables). Thanks again for everyone's input and I'll hope I can offer some advice of my own in the future. Cheers, RC |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uncle_ricoPost Number: 19 Registered: Nov-05 | Final update: I went ahead and bought the Mission 751's. I gave them a listen last night, and I really found the sound to be good, and while the bass was a little lacking when I cranked the speakers up, i got a free subwoofer thrown in that the guy had built himself. If the sub sounds awful, I'll buy a new one (seeing as the speakers were $170 with stands and cables). Thanks again for everyone's input and I'll hope I can offer some advice of my own in the future. Cheers, UR |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 630 Registered: Dec-04 | Keep in touch, Uncle |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics