Recommendations for Starting from Scratch
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 1 Registered: Mar-06 | Hi! Looking for the recomendations of this esteemed group for the following scenario: After a lucky bonus from work, I've decided to trash my existing home entertainment setup and build a new one. I have about $5K for the entire setup. I'm thinking of a budget of about $1500-2000 for a Plasma HDTV, $1500 for a Windows Media Home Audio/DVD server, and $1500-$2000 for a reciever and speakers. I'd like to be able to do both surround sound and good stereo music. But as between the two, I care MUCH more about the music. Part of my reason for building from scratch is that my current system is a "Home Theater in a box" that never had the power to make my music sound good. The room is 15x27 with lots of fluffy furniture and carpet, and a wall that opens into a 15X15 kitchen, so I need some power. I don't have much space for speakers, so smaller is better (as long as I do not have to compromise on sound). Ability to manage audio in other rooms (in the future) is a plus. I realize this forum is for Recievers, so I posted here, because along with speakers that is the component I most care about. However, I'll take advice on budget allocation and other components if you care to give. Thanks so much for your time! I've been out of the audio buyer world for 10 years, so I'm drowning trying to keep track of everything. DGR |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1865 Registered: Dec-04 | DGR...Outlaw 2150 receiver and a pair of Emma's from Alegria.For openers. Next? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1866 Registered: Dec-04 | DGR, my opinions expressed are from NO personal experiencs, only whay I have read. However, I read a lot. The Outlaw is among the most coveted of all receivers and is powerful enough to drive any speaker you choose, of any impedence, all day long. I suggested the Emma's because of the depth of your room. The Emma's should be able to fill your room partly due to the planar tweeters, and their robustness of cabinet. In a room that size, a cheap cabinet would ring like a bell. No matter your end choice,DGR, keep cabinet integrity in mind, as the box will foreshadow the bass. Happy shopping! |
|
Silver Member Username: EldTexas Post Number: 128 Registered: Dec-05 | DGR, I recommend you go out and listen to as many speakers as you can, then choose a receiver that matches well with the speakers you prefer. Some of the speaker brands to listen to along with Nuck's recommendation are: Paradigm Epos Totem Polk Audio JMLab PSB B&W Dynaudio They all make excellent speakers and should serve you well. Just do some research on the series that you would like to audition base on price and dealer availability in your area. Keep in mind that a decent subwoofer will run about $500, and a decent receiver will be around $300-600. Happy shopping! |
|
Bronze Member Username: MofoknowsPost Number: 17 Registered: Mar-06 | "DGR, my opinions expressed are from NO personal experiencs, only whay I have read" Nuck How much is this advice really worth? Elderion, good job. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1876 Registered: Dec-04 | Well, It's worth what it cost.Both suggestion are internet only, with returns in 30 days. I have not read anything bad, anywhere about he outlaw(product and support). I visit the site often in the hideout. The speakers, are a different matter, and much more difficult to guess anyones opinion on. They are made by a forum member, have been mostly very possitively reviewed, and seemed a good fir for your room and budget. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 879 Registered: Dec-03 | If you want a stereo receiver the Outlaw RR2150 is an excellent choice. If you want an AV surround receiver the Yamaha RX-V657 can be gotten at around $400 and is an excellent AV receiver at this price point and has their YPAO speaker balancing system. The new Vizio 42" plasma is tough to beat in the under $2,000 price range. Of course, if you pay more some of the Panasonic 42" models are better--not to mention Pioneer models which are even more expensive. There are a lot of speakers to coose from. Paradigm, PSB, and Monitor Audio make some excellent ones. Also, online speaker companies such as Axiom, Ascend, Aperion, and Onix make some excellent ones. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Dfantom32Irvine, CA USA Post Number: 77 Registered: Feb-06 | DGR, Just my opinion if your budget on your TV is around 2k check on Vizio like what greg recommend 'coz I have one at home and it looks great, also if you plan to buy one buy it from costco they have a nice return policy and dont forget they have a good refund...  Try to audition all the speakers that you can and if its possible in one store (which is very difficult to see one) so that you can compare it side by side and also test it with the receiver that you want. From there you will know which one you like and remember that your EAR is your best testing gadget IMHO. Good Luck! |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 726 Registered: Dec-03 | DGR: First, I note you have a large room. You did not mention if you have high ceilings or not, but 15 x 27 (with lots of soft, sound absorbing materials) makes for a big room. So, don't bother with any small speakers with 5.25 inch woofers or smaller for your main speakers. They will be too small (unless it is something like the NHT M-5s or L-5s, which have two 5.25" woofers, which would be sufficient mass). Now, I am going to go out on a limb here because I have been putting together a system for a friend and I have a located some deals that are not going to last long, but represent a solid, top performing system for your budget: 1. Front Speakers: Check out Audio Advisors (www.audioadvisor.com) who are closing out their stocks of Energy Conneisseuer loudspeakers at an incredible buy--a pair of C-3 fronts will set you back $250 (look under the "Hot Buys" tab) , and the matching C-1 center is $150 (look under the "Clearance" tab). It is critical to get speakers that are "voice-matched" across the front--the rear surrounds are not as important. Plus, Audio Advisor will let you try them in-home for 30 days, so you can listen for yourself and if you don't like them, send'em back. Finally, as they are very efficient speakers (rated at 90 db/1 watt/1 meter), you don't need a gargantuan amp to drive them. Audio Advisors also has the Energy speaker stands for only about $60-70, so you can mount them properly. 2. For a receiver, you need something a little warm and laid back. Energy speakers can be just a bit bright (metal dome tweeters will do that), so a receiver that is warmer will be a good match. Check out Accessories4Less (accessories4less.com) for a Marantz SR5500 for $399.99 or the SR6400 for $499.99. Either would be perfect for the Energy speakers and both make wonderful sound for music. Just stay away from the SR4xxx receivers--they are cheap price point models that do not live up to the Marantz name. 3. Subwoofer: for your budget, they is only one sub to get. Go to www.hsuresearch.com and check out the Hsu STF-1 for $299. It is one third the price of the Carver and it blows it away. Again, comes with a 30 day in-home trial, so you can't go wrong. You may not have heard of Dr. Hsu, but he is The Man when it comes to subs--there are none better for the price. 4. Surrounds: You can go a number of different ways here as surrounds do not need to be voice matched, but you want something that will not stand out. I recommend the Ascend Acoustics HTM-200s as surrounds. They run $278/pair and you can get them directly from the manufacturer with, yes, a 30 day in-home trial. They are small, wall mountable, and have a sensitivity close to the Energy speakers. Check them out at www.ascendacoustics.com. Now, my alternative system would substitute KEF Q1s for the front speakers for $350/pair, the KEF Q9 center speaker for $280, and the KEF Q Compacts for the surrounds for $200/pair, all from Accessories4Less (accessories4less.com). I would stick with the Hsu for the sub (can't beat it). With this system, I would be inclined to suggest the Outlaw 1070 for $899 (not the 2150 suggested by Nuck--that is a stereo receiver, not an AVR). Now, I have not heard this receiver, but I heard its predecessor, the 1050, and I understand the new one sounds the same, so I am very comfortable recommending it. The KEFs are not as forward as the Energy speakers, so a receiver that is a little more forward is a better match. Check out the receiver at www.outlawaudio.com. Another good choice with the KEFS would be the NAD T753, available from either Kief's or Saturday Audio Exchange for under $800 (www.kiefs.com or saturdayaudio.com). BTW, what size plasma are you looking for? |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 2 Registered: Mar-06 | Excellent. Thanks for the advice. I'm travelling now, but I'm clearly going to have a busy shopping/listening weekend when I get home (although I am a major on-line shopper, so Hawk's post appeals to me). I don't want a plasma that is too big. Probably 42 is as large as I would go. Maybe 40 or 32. DGR |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 741 Registered: Dec-03 | DGR: Plasmas--ahh, they are sweet. But you will be very hard pressed to find any below 42". Panasonic has about 4 models in the 37" size, and they are very good. If that is the size you want, a Panasonic would be great. If you want 42", you have a lot more choices. However, suggesting a size of 32" or 40" suggests you are looking at LCD, a far different technology as no one makes a plasma in those sizes. LCD can be very good too, but each technology has its own trade-offs (I currently have two LCD displays, one 26" and the other is a 32"). For example, LCD is a lousy system if it is used in a brightly lit room, that is, one with a lot of sunlight. If you have a bright room (such as my family room), stick with plasma, and go with the 42". If the room is fairly dark, LCDs look fantastic (especially in Hi Def). Look at the Sharp Aquos line--they are superb. I bought a Phillips about 6 months ago and it is a fantastic display, especially for the money, so I also recommend Phillips (I bought mine at Costco, but I have also seen the same 32" Phillips at Target--it is a great buy). Now, generally speaking, if you do go with plasma, there are a number of good vendors such as Panasonic, Pioneer and Hitachi, but Panasonic is probably the best plasma value. I am aware that Panasonic is about to release a new series of plasma displays that are better than the current line, but will be priced about $500 less than the current model (should be rolling out the end of April, early May). So, for instance, the current 42PX50 model (a 42" plasma with a 720p resolution) is priced at $2999, but the new 42PX60 will MSRP at $2499 I suspect this model will be a street price of about $1995 around Labor Day, perhaps less online). These prices do not reflect any street discount, but you can see they would be priced well below these figures. So if you are itching to buy something, you have some leverage to get a good deal as the current models have now been discontinued. If you want to wait about 3-4 months, the new models will be discounted and be even less than what you would spend today. Since you like shopping on line, I suggest you check out the TV Authority here: http://www.tvauthority.com If you check out the menu on the left of their homepage, near the bottom of the menu is a link to products labelled "Coming Soon." They have very good prices, as well, so worth shopping at online. Check it out. |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 3 Registered: Mar-06 | Yes, I should have been more clear. I planned to go down to an LCD if I went with the smaller size. I've heard some concerns about burn in on plasma? Looks like the Energy C-1 center has cleared out so I may go with the KEFs. I still need to spend a day listening, and then go pricing on line. Since I'm not in a rush, I'll probably miss any short term sales, but do better in the long run. Good news is that I have plenty of time to watch what prices do with the new Panasonics. Although I care most about stereo sound on music, if I can get a set up with comparable performance in a surround system, I'll go for that. Thanks again for all the advice! This is just what I needed. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3761 Registered: Mar-05 | DGR, I would also pick plasma over LCD any day, for both picture quality and value---check out Panasonic's *professional* line of 42" EDTV plasmas, sold online for around $1500 shipped: http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Panasonic_TH_42PWD8UK_42_Plasma_Display,__1043757 4/search=panasonic+42%2522+edtv+plasma The only catch is that they don't come with a stand so you'll have to add about $150-200 for that, on the other hand if you were planning on a wallmount you don't have to pay for it. I also like that they don't come with any speakers so you're not paying extra for more useless crap that you'll never use, plus it makes for a smaller sleeker package. The consumer line of 42" Panny plasmas costs about an extra $200-400 and actually has lesser PQ as I understand it. I also like EDTV since my usage is about 90% DVD and for that medium there is no visible improvement with HDTV and even with cable/sat I doubt that it's a significant improvement. IMO the savings are better spent on speakers, sub, etc. Check out the "Displays/Monitors" section of avsforum.com and hometheaterforum.com for more recs and opinions. Most of your budgeting should be based on a realistic assessment of YOUR usage habits. For instance, if you love watching a lot of big-budget action flicks I would spend at least $500-800 on a hefty sub like a Hsu VTF-3 or SVS PB12. If you are more into sports, dramas and comedies then an entry level sub like the Hsu STF-2 that Hawk recommends will be plenty, just make sure you get the best center channel you can afford. If you are planning on doing multi-channel SACD/DVD-A music then you want quality surrounds, otherwise I'd go cheap with something like Athena AS-B1.2s ($120/pair at audioadvisor.com). |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 915 Registered: Apr-05 | Edster why would you recommend an EDTV? You are disappointing me man. I agree that for the current technology in broadcast or even DVD there may not be much visible difference between EDTV and HDTV, but when real HDTV production and broadcast starts soon and the HD DVD's start to roll out, that EDTV is not gonna look very good. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3762 Registered: Mar-05 | > but when real HDTV production and broadcast starts soon and the HD DVD's start to roll out, Now how would you know this, Stof? If "real HDTV" and "HD DVDs" have yet to come out, how are you so convinced that they are so much better than EDTV? Have you actually seen the two side by side? I mean, how do you know that these aren't just the newest "latest and greatest" horsesh*t gimmicks pumped out by the industry to get consumers on an endless "upgrade-every-couple-years" treadmill? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2961 Registered: Feb-05 | Their resolution is a matter of fact not fiction Eddie. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 919 Registered: Apr-05 | 480 vs. 1080. Of course you know that already Eddie. Now the reason you are not seeing much difference between them is that most programming is not shot in and/or not broadcast in hi-def 1080, therefore the lack of true differentiation in the department store displays. Now the way of getting around the gimmicks is to do some homework which will tell you for sure that EDTV is an in-between gimmick and HDTV, though improving, is the standard they are shooting for in the next 5-10 years. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3763 Registered: Mar-05 | Guys, this is like computer makers hyping today's 3.5 GHz Dual-Core Pentium 4 vs. a 1.6 GHz Pentium 4 from 4 years ago vs. a 800 Hz Pentium 3 from 8 years ago. YES, of course on paper and in tests with super-intensive programs/games/video-editing the 3.5GHz Pentium 4 is FOUR TIMES FASTER than the 800Hz Pentium 3...but guess what? In real life, with the applications that 90% of users use 90% of the time (Internet, word processing, spreadsheets, Outlook), ALL THREE of those computers perform at pretty much the same PERCEPTIBLE speed. So why in God's name should those 90% users pay for the 3.5GHz Pentium 4? Same goes for consumer video/audio. How many users are overpaying for imperceptible differences today merely because they buy into all the industry's hype machine? |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 921 Registered: Apr-05 | Your analogy is incorrect to this case since DGR is moving up from a standard def to a HD. If you are moving up then you are better of with an HDTV for the longer run then a EDTV. If someone already bought an EDTV then there is no reason to upgrade for a while. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3764 Registered: Mar-05 | > If you are moving up then you are better of with an HDTV for the longer run then a EDTV. Again, how do you know this? Have you ever seen "true HDTV" side by side with EDTV? Are EDTVs going to be unusable with "true HDTV?" I would be very surprised if so---my guess is that "true HDTV" will probably just offer a marginal-at-best visible improvement which an EDTV will not be able to replicate. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 922 Registered: Apr-05 | If you can't see it, then you don't buy it. I agree that in a side by side comparison in a store with littel actual Hi-def content for them to display you are not going to see much difference. At this point you are more likely to see the difference in the electronics show. However if you are going to pluck down $1500 - $2000 would you settle for a product that will be closer to obsolescence because production and broadcasting is gearing towards 1080? |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 923 Registered: Apr-05 | Just because you can't see the side by side comparison at this point does not mean the technology behind it is rubbish. Again my point is right now you If you attend the electronic show you will see the difference between regular DVD players and HD dvd players. Unfortunately I don't know if there will be many EDTV's left in the stores by time the HD-DVD's come out to do a side by side comparison. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3766 Registered: Mar-05 | > However if you are going to pluck down $1500 - $2000 would you settle for a product that will be closer to obsolescence because production and broadcasting is gearing towards 1080? what exactly do you mean by "gearing towards 1080?" Are you saying that in say 10 years we will not be able to view DVDs or HDTV broadcasts using an EDTV or SDTV set *at all*? I find that a little hard to believe. And I don't know if HDTV technology is "rubbish" or not, what I do know is that the picture on an EDTV plasma is more than ample quality for my eyes and cannot imagine how much better picture quality is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of becoming --- or to put it another way, how much further improvement the human eye is physically capable of seeing. It seems to me that HDTV is like a stereo speaker, amp or cd player that claims to extend up to 90Hz, when the human ear (and a fairly young one at that) can only hear up to 20Hz. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 925 Registered: Apr-05 | "what exactly do you mean by "gearing towards 1080?" Are you saying that in say 10 years we will not be able to view DVDs or HDTV broadcasts using an EDTV or SDTV set *at all*?" With SDTV absolutely. You can't see anything now unless you have the converter. With EDTV it will depend on its signal processor. My guess is it will show the picture, but not to the resolution intended. Trust me in that resolution difference is real. Smaller dots on the screen produce better picturess. As I said before we should not confuse the resolution we see today because of production and broadcasting limitations with the capability of the TV. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoBC Canada Post Number: 897 Registered: Oct-04 | The difference between 1080i and 480i broadcasts is enormous. The difference between DVD's EDTV playback and HDTV is enormous. Currently only 9 channels are available in high definition in my area, and only 20% of shows on those channels are truly HD. When movies are on an HD channel the difference between them and the DVD version is huge. Lord of the Rings 3 was on in HD, all I can say is WOW. I have a PVR and record only HD shows, once you start watching them, the rest of the channels and shows are almost unbearable. Within a few years everything will be in HD, and HD-DVD or Bluray will be the standard. Buying an EDTV is the wrong move. I think you need to check out some HD material on a quality set Edster, your pure speculation annoys me! Heh! |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoBC Canada Post Number: 898 Registered: Oct-04 | All resolution will be down-scaled to 540i if you do not have the right equipment. You may also NEED HDMI to view HD sources from HD-DVD or Bluray, but this is yet to be confirmeed. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1079 Registered: May-05 | "...and cannot imagine how much better picture quality is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of becoming --- or to put it another way, how much further improvement the human eye is physically capable of seeing." I'm pretty sure that a lot of people thought this when a few new technologies came out such as the original Nintendo, VCR's, DVD players, CD players. Just when you think something can't get much better, something comes around and makes the "best ever" technology obsolete. A few years later, the same thing will happen all over again. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 926 Registered: Apr-05 | Actually that is not that hard to visualize now. The standard to some degree is the movie theater. I have a pretty decent projection system. Sitting back about 12 feet it looks pretty good. However when you get close the dots look huge. Same goes with the TV. When we get to a point when we can see no dots even close up when have reached some level of resolution that is pretty decent. Of course then you have to still worry about color clarity and detail, black levels, and the most annoying feature of most large HD tv's right now which is screen flicker or dissolution when there is too much motion. So there is still some ways to go. |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 928 Registered: Apr-05 | And don't even get me started on true 3D display. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3767 Registered: Mar-05 | > I think you need to check out some HD material on a quality set Edster, your pure speculation annoys me! Heh! LOL, fair enough...now if I go to a high end HT shop and see a DVD played through an upconverting player to give me 1080i on a 1080i-capable display, will that be a fair test? Or will I have to see a BlueRay or HD-DVD disc to "truly" experience it? I'm willing to go out and assess it with my own eyes, but am not willing to simply swallow the industry hype to "buy it now and when the future finally arrives you'll be in visual nirvana." |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3768 Registered: Mar-05 | > I'm pretty sure that a lot of people thought this when a few new technologies came out such as the original Nintendo, VCR's, DVD players, CD players. Just when you think something can't get much better, something comes around and makes the "best ever" technology obsolete. A few years later, the same thing will happen all over again. heh, I have to say that I actually PREFER playing the old Atari 2600 games over the latest greatest Nintendo/Playstation/Xbox crap despite the prettier graphics and sound. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3769 Registered: Mar-05 | > And don't even get me started on true 3D display. Sigh... Let me guess: 1. Holographic projection? 2. Imax-type curved screens? 3. Gotta wear some bi-color glasses or some other special eyewear? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3770 Registered: Mar-05 | > With SDTV absolutely. You can't see anything now unless you have the converter. Now this is evil...the manufacturers, in cahoots with the cable companies, are COERCING consumers into getting rid of their perfectly good SDTVs? I guess the consumer never stops getting it in the @ss these days... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3771 Registered: Mar-05 | That is, I hope those converters are provided free of charge or at least heavily subsidized by the cable companies... Are the non-cable broadcasters pulling the same crap too? |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 930 Registered: Apr-05 | The government has actually subsidized some money for the converter boxes so that people can watch HD broadcast when they shut off the regular analog in 2009. Remember that the govt had a lot to gain from this. Broadcasting in HD has opened up a ton of terrestrial public bandwidth that they are able to resell to the private sector to a tune of about $15B so it was actually them that forced the broadcasters into HD. "Sigh... Let me guess: " No that's why I said true 3D. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoBC Canada Post Number: 899 Registered: Oct-04 | "now if I go to a high end HT shop and see a DVD played through an upconverting player to give me 1080i on a 1080i-capable display, will that be a fair test?" No way, I have an upconverting player and IMO it looks washed out and crappy. I thought all the HD channels were doing was upconverting the regular channels, far from, it's completely seperate and the quality is amazing. The best HD source now is to watch an HDTV feed of a football game, or a show that is in full HD. Right now ABC and NBC seem to be leading the pack with the best shows, one of the best to check out in HD is Jay Leno believe it or not. Or check out the Xbox 360 in HD |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 4 Registered: Mar-06 | So I finally got a chance to go out and do some listeing today. The audio shop near me was all Rotel, Yamaha, B&W and Paradigm. I liked the Rotel RSX-1056 paired with the B&W DM603S3's and a B&W LCR60 S3 and ASW600. But that was more expensive than anything mentioned here (and more than the budget I suggested). Has anyone had a chance to compare a setup like that to the Outlaw 1070 with the KEF's? I'm tempted to just order that setup on line (and would have if accessories4less had the whole set of speakers in Cherry) and audition them in home. However, before I pay for all that shipping I was hoping to get a feel for a comperable soud. Did I just listen to the next step up or to something comperable? BTW, the B&W's sounded "right" to my ears. The paradigms sounded like they were trying to punch up the high midrange and lost precision in the process. Thanks again for everyone's feedback! DGR |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 763 Registered: Dec-03 | DGR: I think you will find the Outlaw receiver sounds very much like the Rotel products. Someone posted recently that Outlaw was started by a buch of former Rotel people. I don't know if it is true or not, but to my ears, they sound a lot alike. Now as to speakers, The KEFs are similar to the B&W 600 series, except the KEFs sound a touch warmer to me (not much, but something I noticed). I have never had the chance to demo them back to back (never in the same dealership), but that is my recollection. Certainly, you need to hear them before you buy them. I was intrigued by your description of the Paradigms. Do you remember what amplification was driving them? Also, it is hard to know if you were listening to the "next step up" or not without knowing which Paradigms and which B&Ws you were listening to. I think the KEF Q series is very comparable to the B&W 600 series, for example, but the B&W 700s are definitely a step up. Likewise, Paradigm Monitor series is roughly comparable to the KEF Qs, but the Paradigm Studios are a step up, IMHO. |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 5 Registered: Mar-06 | It was the B&W 603s v. the Paradigm Studio 40s. The power was Rotel, but I don't recall which one. Both sets of speakers sounded great. However, I play and record alot of acoustic guitar, and the paradigms sounded, to my ears, like they had an EQ punch up between 250-600 HZ (maybe even as high as 1000 HZ?) That sounds good (great) in many situations, but I'd rather have a pure reproduction. But, again, it may have been me, in that room on that day. Both were selling at around $1000 PR, which is substantially more than the KEF's online. Thus, if the KEFs are about the same quality, it's worth it to test drive them in the house. Unfortunately, I do not have a KEF dealer in my state, so I have to order them to try them. Thanks again for the feedback. DGR |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2985 Registered: Feb-05 | Like many speaker manufacturers I believe that Paradigm's 2 ways sound better than their other speakers. I prefer the Mini Monitor to any othe speaker in the Monitor series and I prefer the Studio 20 to any other speaker in that line. They just sound right. When I downsized from multichannel to 2 channel I let go of my Studio 40's in favor of the 20's. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1288 Registered: Sep-04 | DGR, Pardon me for sounding stupid, but if music is that important to you, why not stay with your HTIB and buy yourself a decent 2-channel system that actually plays music rather than looking at a Home Theatre system for music duties? By all means go for the big TV for the fun that it brings, but if you spend the other $3k on just a good CD player, amp and speakers, you will reap far more rewards musically in my view. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 772 Registered: Dec-03 | Art: I had the same impression about Paradigms that you have--I much prefered the sound of the Studio 20s to the sound of the 40s--I think DGR may have a good point in that that I do think the 40s are a bit too strong in the lower midrange/upper bass region. The 20s simply sounded a bit smoother to me. JMHO, of course. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 773 Registered: Dec-03 | DGR: I have been rethinking my suggestions to you in light of your most recent post. Each post tells me a little more and knowing you do not have a KEF dealer in your state makes it tough because I am a firm believer in trying before you buy (would you buy a car without a test drive?). Also, there is some merit in Frank's suggestion, although I do believe you can accomodate both HT and great stereo music in the same system. IMO, the Outlaw is good enough as a stand alone stereo amp (as are Marantz and NAD) that I have no problem recommending them for music listening. It is the speakers that are more problematic. I do believe the range of KEF Qs are roughly equivalent to the B & W 600 range, but the little Q1s were meant to meet your price constraints and are not going to sound as good as the 603s, which are a tower speaker that goes much lower into the bass region without strain. The KEF Q1s are much more analogous to the B & W 601s. Big difference. Therefore, I might suggest a different strategy that borrows the spirit of Frank's suggestion, but stays within your original concept. Since you like the sound of the 603s (and with good reason), why don't you get them with the Outlaw in a stereo system arrangement to begin with. For HT you can run what is known as a "phantom center" (some people actually prefer this arrangement), but have a great stereo music system in the meantime. Then, in a little while you can add the B & W LCR600 for the center as your budget allows (don't try to go cheap and get the LCR60 instead--you need the LCR600 with the 603s). You can use a pair of your current HTIB speakers for the surrounds, knowing you can get a pair of 600s or even a pair of 303s later for the surrounds. The 603s are a good speaker for your room size, so if you are willing to go the tower speaker route, it is better to get better mains first and then add the rest of the speakers later as you budget allows. Certainly, the greatest cost of a HT system is the receiver and the mains, so the biggest expense by far will be out of the way. Doing it this way, you are at about $1900 for the Outlaw and the 603s, which is within your budget. BTW, I did not insert myself in the plasma discussion as both points of view have their validity. Certainly, EDTV looks better than an HDTV showing standard definition tv today (HDTVs can look very grainy showing standard def), and will look very good showing a high definition channel, but not as good as an HDTV will. I have Comcast cable with a paltry 10 high definition channels--hardly worth having an HDTV when you realize that even the high def channels show about half of their progamming in standard definition (CBS is really bad about this). But, the promise is that there will be more high def programming in the future along with more high def channels. But never, ever, confuse digital signal with high def--the two are not the same. Even though everyone must now convert to digital signals by 2009, most will remain standard def, probably for some time. Not enough satellite bandwidth to allow them to all go high def. In sum, there is no right answer, IMO, as to whether to get an EDTV or an HDTV. Good luck! |
|
Silver Member Username: EldTexas Post Number: 142 Registered: Dec-05 | Nice choice in speaker, DGR. Very neutral and sweet. Second Hawk's recommendation of going with Outlaw 1070 and the 603s. I would recommend you get a sub next and let your fronts play phantom a little longer. This will really make your system shine in both HT and music. Nothing like adding a quasi EQ and Bi-amping with a power sub. Don't forget to ask for a discount on the 603s, usually 5-10% is what you can get from a dealer. Good luck, DGR. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1292 Registered: Sep-04 | Loads of reasons to dislike the sound of 603s: * Cabinet resonances cause big bass with no definition * Midrange clarity seriously reduced due to smearing * Treble sounds harsh easily (depends on the amp) * They don't time at all well (probably due to the afore-mentioned crap cabinet causing bass smearing) Sorry guys. Here in the UK 603s retail for the same price as Dynaudio Audience 42s on stands. I'd take the Dyns any day. They don't go as deep as the 603s but they have far more resolution in the midrange, better pace and timing, and are actually engaging rather than overwhelming. Just my $0.02 of course and I can see I'm in the minority here. Please go easy on me... Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: EldTexas Post Number: 143 Registered: Dec-05 | Frank, We all love the Dyns. Just not everyone favorite color is green like mine. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 530 Registered: Nov-05 | And yet Stereophile gave the 603's their budget floorstander of the year award Frank. http://www.stereophile.com/news/011606awards/index.html Must be the English climate. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1297 Registered: Sep-04 | Stereophile are deaf! |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 780 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank: I was thinking of you last night as I listened to some absolutely fabulous music (seriously). My study has become my listening room with a Rotel 1050 receiver and Rotel RA-02 CD player playing through Dynaudio 42s (huge step up from my old Heybrook 2Rs which are probably worn out). I know you like the Dyns a lot, and you would have loved the sound--I could swear I was in a club with Michael Buble and Frank Sinatra putting on one heck of a show! I am now listening to New Grass Revival and I can hear both the full impact of Sam Bush on the Mandolin and Bela Fleck's incredible riffs on the banjo. Man, I love these speakers! I do have to disagree somewhat about the 603s, though. I am sure I haven't spent as much time as you have with the 603s, but I was pretty impressed with what I heard. As we all hear things differently, if it is the speaker that sounds "right" to DGR, then I think it is the speaker for him. The Dyns work best in smaller spaces (like my study), and not as well as DGR's rather large room. |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 7 Registered: Mar-06 | First, you guys rock! Very much appreciate all the feedback and guidance. Second, have continued to listen around. I'm in no rush, and when I spend this much money, I like to enjoy the buying experience. Listened to the Studio 20s, and liked them alot. Felt like they needed some bass help, but I presume a proper subwoofer would fill that in. Need to go back and A/B the the 603s v. the 20s. Still pretty open minded on where I end up. These are just the best two among what I have heard. Third, I very much appreciate everyone's help picking a system at the prices I mentioned. I guess I should be cleared that those prices are "targets." I'd like to be in that range, but have the resources to go higher if needed. What has struck me as I listen is that throwing another $1K on the fire might produce a significant gain in the overall system. I am especially thinking (although I know I originally posted this in the recievers forum) that I may need to move to an amp & pre combination. One benefit of the Rotel is that it is easy to slap a two channel amp on the receiver. I've read a bad post or two on the outlaw (950?) pre. I ramble. Here are my current questions: 1. If I go Paradigm 20s, what sub, center, and receiver/pre/amp would you recommend? 2. If I go B&W 603s, I'll most likely pair with a Rotel. What sub, center, and receiver/pre/amp would you recommend? 3. Can you get a decent music system in HT setup, or should I just spend all my money on two channel? and 4. Would the extra kick of spending, say $3500, on amp & speakers be worthwhile? Thanks again! |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1165 Registered: May-05 | DGR - A couple of questions - How important is surround sound? Do you like multichannel music? What type of movies do you watch? A few years ago I was going to buy a home theater system. A very good and honest dealer opened my eyes to a couple of things. If you watch a lot of movies with sound effects, explosions, etc. and want to feel like you're in the movie, surround sound may be the way to go. If you're like me and watch a lot of comedy movies, sports, and shows like Seinfeld, surround sound may not be worth it. I have a 2 channel system connected to my tv and can honestly say that it's more than suffecient for me. IMO, 2 channel gives you the most for your money. Using round numbers, if you were to spend $1000 on speakers, you're going to get a mediocre 5.1 or even 7.1 speaker package at best. If you're only buying 2 speakers or 2 speakers and a sub, that same $1000 will get you significantly more quality. Also, I've yet to find a multi-channel receiver or amplifier that sounds anywhere near as good with music than a similarly priced 2 channel set up. Their are some AVR's that are very good with music - Arcam and B&K - but they don't sound as good as most any 2 channel rig for the same price. In my opinion, 2 channel set ups do one thing, and do it extremely well. Most surround sound set ups are a jack of all trades, master of none. All things being equal, a $1000 pair of speakers will sound better than a $1000 5.1 package, a $1000 2 channel integrated amp or seperates will sound better than a $1000 AVR, and $1000 cd only player will sound better than a $1000 DVD player. Their may be an exception to this, but they're very few and far between. It's all about what you value most. If you like surround sound more than anything else, that's the way to go. If you like music and can live with watching tv from a 2 channel set up, that's the way to go. Everyone's different. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3062 Registered: Feb-05 | I would like to kick in an opinion here but don't have time here at lunch but will post after work. |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 8 Registered: Mar-06 | Good points Stu. Mostly my wife uses the TV for Oprah and the cooking channel. When I watch TV, it is for movies featuring frequent large explosions and extended, albeit pointlessly predictible, car chases. Sound effects galore. Having said that, ruminating on your post makes me think that I will go with a Home Theater System downstairs. As I mentoned in an earlier post, I have a home studio upstairs where I do my serious recording and listening. For absolute personal musical purity, I will continue to use that system. The system downstairs needs to be cross purpose. It needs to give my movies some kick, handle background music for parties, and have the musical performance not to bother my ears. I think, however, that I will spend more money up front to get better musical quality out of three channels and a sub, then add the surround in a few months. Other opinions still welcome, Art. I wouldn't want to cut into your productivity at work ;-) DGR |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3068 Registered: Feb-05 | It is my opinion (biased as it may be) that the Studio 20v3's outperform the B&W 603's by a considerable distance. If you get the the Studio 20's I recommend the CC470 center and a Hsu VTF2 or 3 sub. I would have recommended a different sub if music were the priority. I also think that Rotel would work beautifully with the Paradigm speakers (I used to own Paradigm/Rotel HT and loved it). I have gone the opposite direction, going away from multichannel for the first time in years. If I had a bigger home I would likely build a noisy HT. With limited space music is the priority here and 2 channel can provide a pleasant movie experience. The only time I miss my HT is for big action flicks. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3833 Registered: Mar-05 | DGR, You might find this speaker shopping thread interesting: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=591331&page=1&pp=30 VERY long but well worth the read, imo. |
|
New member Username: Dgr69Post Number: 9 Registered: Mar-06 | That was an excellent thread. If only I was straight out of college and had the time to shop like that... On the other hand, now I can afford the cool toys... :-) So, I've done a good deal of listening and I'm pretty much down to the B&W 603s of the Studio 20s. I need to go this weekend and A/B them and go from there. The guy at the store will want to sell me the Rotel RSX 1057. He'll also try to pitch a Paradigm Sub. Any thoughts on whether the cost/benefit analysis still says go with the Outlaw and the HSU (Since I haven't heard either)? Also, still curious as to whether people think it would help to spend the extra money and have seperate amplification from the receiver. Since I'm still pretty much a newbie, there's a part of me that just wants to turn the technical matching over to the guy at the store and give him my checkbook. On the other hand, I'm still a cheap geek at heart. Your group advice, as always valued and appreciated. DGR |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3892 Registered: Mar-05 | I think Art Kyle has had a number of Paradigm subs, and he was quite impressed with his Hsu VTF-2 though of course he said it could not compare with his REL sub for music performance, but the REL does cost at least double. I don't think there is such a thing as "subwoofer matching" unless you're dealing with unusual speakers like Maggies. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3148 Registered: Feb-05 | My Sub is an Era, other than that you nailed it on the head Eddie. I did however hear the new $800 Paradigm Ultracube the other day and must say that I think Paradigm is finally getting it. It still ain't the Era (or REL)though. DGR, separates are the best way to go if you can afford it. For subs the Studio 20's require a fast sub for music. The B&W's less so as their bass is a little exaggerated anyway. I would look at the Era Design 8 if you can still find one (they may have discontinued it). Call kevin at Upscale Audio he will be able to help you out on that. http://www.upscaleaudio.com/ |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3149 Registered: Feb-05 | If your tastes run more to the boom I would ignore my last post as I was posting info on a very musical sub. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 62 Registered: Mar-06 | Art, that jumpin' kid on the products page of the site you provided is hilarious! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3897 Registered: Mar-05 | Era, REL, for some reason I think I started to imagine that one was the manufacturer and the other the model name since you and others usually mention the two names in the same breath...lol! |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1332 Registered: Sep-04 | I have to say I have been very impressed with the Velodyne subs. The SPL800R is just a peach. I have had great difficulty selling REL now that Velodyne and M&K are in the shop. That said, I haven't had the new range from REL yet. Hopefully that'll restore REL to the top but it'll have to be very good indeed to outdo the other subs. Regards, Frank. |
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