|
New member Username: JneufnashPost Number: 2 Registered: Jul-05 | This is cross posted from the amplifier pages. Perhaps this is a more appropriate place for it: I would like some comments on a plan that I am formulating. I am just embarking on building a new system, and have to cut corners initially for budgetary reasons. I would like to build a system with the fewest number of parts that I end up throwing away as possible. First, I will be putting it into a fairly small room (14x13). Second, the majority of my listening will be to music with a lot of detail (classical, chamber music, jazz), BUT, it will serve double duty with HT applications until I get some more money. I am thinking now that I will build the system around a pair of decent (used) monitors that will, in my dream scenario, become rears in a surround system. I have narrowed it down to Amphion Argon II, Quad 12L, and Revel M20. I am leaning heavily toward the Argon II's based on reviews--I have not been able to audition them yet. Next (here I cut corners and really need advice), I thought that I would get a stop-gap, sub-$500 surround receiver like a refurb HK AVRx35. I could then, as my budget permitted, hook up additional power amps (used NAD or Rotel?--advice here would be nice, too) in front for music-purposes. I would also consider spending a little more on the receiver and going with NAD 753 to get musicality and more power immediately, and couple it with a pair of Axiom M22Ti's. But this compromises BOTH speakers and receiver. Is there an obvious way to power the good front monitors in an upgradeable way that I am missing? I am worried that I will be disappointed with the performance of the HK and just waste the $300-400 that I will spend on it. Should I go with a low-power HK and immediately put the saved money toward a quality power amp? If I could get the whole shebang in under $1500 (I intend to buy everything used--I realize this pretty much rules out the Revels), I would be elated. Does any of this make sense? Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks a lot. jn |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4518 Registered: May-04 | I would suggest you consider how important surround channels/speakers are to your immediate enjoyment of the system. HT can be very satisfying with excellent stereo components only. The money saved can be spent on better stereo equipment and the HT system can be expanded when the budget permits. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Jet2001Post Number: 67 Registered: Mar-05 | The H/K 235 is fairly inexpensive and it has pre-outs. You are going to compromise bells and whistles with power...but adding an amp could solve that situation. I think you can pull it off, but you need to decide what area you can compromise and still be satisfied with your end product. |
|
New member Username: JneufnashPost Number: 3 Registered: Jul-05 | Thanks for the response, Jan. That is good advice, as I think about it more. The HT application really is not all that important to me, and I can use a good stereo receiver forever. Hmmm. Can you think of a better stereo receiver than a used Rotel RX 1050 for $500, or so? |
|
New member Username: JneufnashPost Number: 4 Registered: Jul-05 | I posted before seeing jet2001's post. Thanks. Another thing I hadn't considered very carefully is cables. Adding an amp to an HK adds cable expense that could be put toward higher quality in stereo goodies. OK. The more I think about it, the more it seems that the compromise should be in function (no surround), not in listening quality. This is an incredibly helpful forum. |
|
jvieux Unregistered guest | An alternative could be the NAD 720BEE. Are sure you need a receiver or will you consider an integrated or perhaps even separates? |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 275 Registered: May-05 | jneuf - I can't agree more that the compromise should be function, not sound quality. The previously mentioned 720BEE is a very good receiver, probably the best I've heard. If you don't need a tuner, you could try the NAD C320BEE. It is the same as the 720BEE, minus the tuner and a couple other functions (no extra set of speakers, 2nd zone, etc.) Because of your room size, you really shouldn't need more power than the 720BEE or 320BEE, unless the speakers you mentioned are very inefficient and low impedence (ie 4 ohm and 86db). Either amp will handle one or the other fine, but both together may not give the best results. I use the 320BEE in a room that is larger than yours and have never pushed it to it's limits. I've gotten to the point where it is way too loud, but never clipping. Another benefit to these is that they have pre-outs that will let you add power amps down the road. I haven't heard about the 720BEE's pre-amp section (but I'm pretty sure they're identicle), but the 320BEE's pre-amp setion has been highly praised. One professional reviewer said the pre-amp section alone was worth the retail price. The only other receiver I can think of is the Marantz. I don't remember the model number. It sounded pretty good, but to my ears the NAD's were far better. |
|
New member Username: JneufnashPost Number: 5 Registered: Jul-05 | I would consider anything I could afford immediately. On a budget of $1500, what combination of monitors (this I am pretty set on) and power would you recommend? I can't find any separates that fit the bill. An integrated amp would be fine, if it were comparable in quality and power. Bang-for buck wise, the Rotel receiver seems hard to beat--but maybe I am not looking hard enough? I would consider either the 320BEE or the 720BEE, if the price savings could be put toward something that would compensate the loss of power. The Amphions and Axioms are supposedly quite amp-friendly, and the Revels and Quads are less so but still not bad. I certainly won't need a lot of volume in such a small room, but I don't want a loss of depth because of a lack of power. There is nothing quite so irritating as good speakers sounding thin. I have listened to Rotel and NAD amps in different settings and like the sound quality of both (I lean toward what I take to be the precision of the Rotel over the warmth of the NAD, but this is very speaker-dependent). I think I now need to just audition each with equipment as similar to what I will end up with to see whether the extra wattage of the Rotel is worth it. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 279 Registered: May-05 | The only way to truly decide is to listen.I don't think anything you mentioned is really that much better or worse than the others in the same category, just different. Also keep in mind that NAD and Rotel are notoriously conservative with their power ratings. 50 NAD or Rotel watts go a very long way. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4520 Registered: May-04 | |
|
New member Username: JneufnashPost Number: 6 Registered: Jul-05 | Crap. This has become quite a can of worms. I was trying not to think too hard about this, and now I have a cornucopia of beautiful integrated amps to listen to. I was beginning to think that you all conspired to me to make my life harder when I realized that I started it. Just look at all of those reasonably priced used amps: NAD, Rotel, Naim, Musical Fidelity, Primare, McIntosh... Thanks a lot. It will be a miracle if I exercise fiscal discipline once I start listening. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3429 Registered: Dec-03 | jneuf, I went through such an "evolving" phase a couple of years ago and the start was a refurbished NAD T760 5.1 A/V receiver, using my existing speakers as mains, and then some old ones, previously put out to grass, for surrounds. The outlay was not great. Having been through all that, my advice is to hang on to any stereo gear you have and like. I ended up taking the front L and R channels from the player through a stereo pre-amp, and the tape monitor output from that into the L and R "Ext 5.1" inputs on the receiver. That gave excellent stereo, and was fully compatible with 5.1 when it was needed. When cost is an issue, it is sensible to prioritize. I personally think subs are over-rated, and even a centre speaker is not really essential for movies. With most DVD players, you can turn those channels off, and the sound they carry is redistributed to other channels. So 4.0 is not greatly different from 5.1. If you really suspect you are missing something with 4.0, you can add the other components later. Because of a move, I have spend some months now with a new stereo system which we use for everything. Even familiy members do not miss surround for movies. I would like to get back my DVD-Audio surround capability, though. Even there, 4.0 gives all the "surround sound" I think I need. Hope that helps! |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 791 Registered: Dec-03 | jneuf, Just hang in there and enjoy listening to many receivers - it's fun but an involving hobby - if you want to really get good sounds. If you put little time and effort in choosing the right one, your ears will thank you for years to come. It's worth the effort and money to go for little quality in audio I think. Brain doctors say they can measure the good effects of good music - also good for your children's intellectual development. Anyway, buying it used on www.audiogon.com is a great idea - you will get more quality for the buck, and you can even re-sell them when you upgrade. |