Stereo Speaker Choice

[beep]

Folks,

Iam in the process of setting up a Home Theater system and I do accord high priority to music. Music would be 70% of the time and the rest would be movies. So musical quality and fidelity is high on the list for me.
Of late I have been advised to get a dedicated Stereo Integrated Amp for music, like the CA740 or 840. Problem is there is no piece available for audition in Chennai among the dealers here. Question is it really worth going in for a dedicated Stereo Amp or would a high end HT receiver like the Onkyo TX-SR809 do (may be thats not high enuf??).
I have a bigger confusion with the choice of speakers and thats where I need advise from you folks.
I auditioned the Aviano8 with the 650 and it sounded pretty limp. :sad: The speakers were just out of the box with no run-in. Also probably because the 650 didnt have the muscle to drive the Aviano8. Pretty dissatisfied with that. There was no Aviano6 to audition either. :sad:
Then I heard the Energy CF30 in a HT configuration driven by an Onkyo608. The rears are smaller bookshelves with matching drivers. It sounded very nice. The highs were not too irritating, but very detailed and just about the right brightness. I would say neutral highs. The bass was real strong and tight too(listened in pure stereo mode without the sub by running the fronts 'Full Range'). The CF-30 has 2 drivers, one for mid and bass and the other for mid, plus a tweeter.
The CF-50 which would be a better configuration has 3 drivers, with one dedicated solely for bass. So then the bass would be better and more well defined. Could pair very well with the Onkyo809.
My question is has anyone heard the Energy CF-30/50? What are your opinions on these pairs? How do they compare to the Aviano6/8?
Guess that is a lot of questions I have put across.
All info and advise(even on the amp/receiver is much appreciated).

Cheers

 

[afj]

if youre listening habits is 70% music i would suggest you go with a pure audio set up. you will get MUCH better sound quality at a given budget. though you will not get sounds coming from all around the room you will get the same sounds coming out from your front two speakers and better quality for av. as for music it'll be much better.

whats your budget / room size / listening habits. theres a lot of brands out there and chennai has most of them

 

[beep]

Hi afj,

Thanks for your reply.
Listening habits are mostly music, though I would listen to movies too, ratio of 60:40.
And I would like good performance for movies too. But I agree, dedicated stereo amp will give better music reproduction.
My room size is 16 * 12 ft, not too large.
Music, I generally listen to Indian styles, filmi, pop etc. So fidelity is a big requirement.
And I like a generous helping of bass, sometimes even for stereo.
What would be your suggestions?

Thanks again,
beep

Edit: sorry, budget would be around 60K to 75K for the stereo setup. HT can follow.

 

[sdurani]

Question is it really worth going in for a dedicated Stereo Amp or would a high end HT receiver like the Onkyo TX-SR809 do (may be thats not high enuf??).

There are multiple advantages to going with an A/V receiver, like the Onkyo 809, even for a 2-speaker set-up.

One of the most important features on modern AVRs is room correction, which allows you to hear less of your room, but more of your speakers, and more of what is in the recording itself. Every room is an equalizer, and a simple stereo amp has absolutely no provision to compensate for that.

In the future, if you do decide to add an a subwoofer to reproduce the bottom octave that the CF-50 and CF-30 cannot, you'll really appreciate the bass management feature built into receivers. It will allow you to dial in just the right crossover to get the best blend between the speakers and sub. Can't do that with any of the CA integrated amps.

If you never end up adding surrounds to your set-up, the additional amps in the Onkyo 809 are still useful since you can configure the unused channels for bi-amping. If you look at the back of the CF-50 and CF-30, you'll see connections specifically for that. (You can even configure unused amp channels for a second zone: computer desk, patio, balcony, etc.) No such flexibility with the CA 650/740/840.

A/V receivers are also starting to expand connectivity, from the old analogue and digital connections to newer USB and network connections. HDMI connections will allow you to transmit hi-rez lossless audio from a BD player. By comparison, the CA integrateds have no digital connections whatsoever, not even for simple coax/optical connection from a DVD or CD player.

Finally, compared to Cambridge Audio's top of the line 840A, the Onkyo 809 has more powerful amps (not even counting bi-amping) and has 17dB greater signal to noise ratio (every 3dB is double the quietness).

That's a lot to give up if you decide get a stereo amp, especially if that decision is based on some audiophile belief that a stereo amp will somehow sound better because it is... well, stereo.

 

[afj]

beep
its not only the amp that makes the difference. its also that at a given budget (say 45k) if youre buying a surround set up you will need 5-6 speakers vis a vis 2 speakers. so the quality of speakers also increases tremendously. if you do decide to go the stereo route at that budget imo you should go for a good pair of bookshelves taking into consideration your room size as well. the monitor audio silver rx2 should do nicely. if you go to an outlet that sells monitor audio you will be able to also audition for yourself by listening to the bronze floorstanders versus the silver bookshelves. there are other speakers also out there but definitely monitor audio is amongst the best. once you decide on the speakers we can help with the amp. the other thing to take into consideration is that floorstanders will require a more powerful (which converts into more expensive) amp to drive it while maintaining similar sound quality.

 

[beep]

There are multiple advantages to going with an A/V receiver, like the Onkyo 809, even for a 2-speaker set-up.

One of the most important features on modern AVRs is room correction, which allows you to hear less of your room, but more of your speakers, and more of what is in the recording itself. Every room is an equalizer, and a simple stereo amp has absolutely no provision to compensate for that.

In the future, if you do decide to add an a subwoofer to reproduce the bottom octave that the CF-50 and CF-30 cannot, you'll really appreciate the bass management feature built into receivers. It will allow you to dial in just the right crossover to get the best blend between the speakers and sub. Can't do that with any of the CA integrated amps.

If you never end up adding surrounds to your set-up, the additional amps in the Onkyo 809 are still useful since you can configure the unused channels for bi-amping. If you look at the back of the CF-50 and CF-30, you'll see connections specifically for that. (You can even configure unused amp channels for a second zone: computer desk, patio, balcony, etc.) No such flexibility with the CA 650/740/840.

A/V receivers are also starting to expand connectivity, from the old analogue and digital connections to newer USB and network connections. HDMI connections will allow you to transmit hi-rez lossless audio from a BD player. By comparison, the CA integrateds have no digital connections whatsoever, not even for simple coax/optical connection from a DVD or CD player.

Finally, compared to Cambridge Audio's top of the line 840A, the Onkyo 809 has more powerful amps (not even counting bi-amping) and has 17dB greater signal to noise ratio (every 3dB is double the quietness).

That's a lot to give up if you decide get a stereo amp, especially if that decision is based on some audiophile belief that a stereo amp will somehow sound better because it is... well, stereo.

Sanjay,

Thankyou for pointing out all of those features, Iam aware of most of these.
There is tremendous flexibility with an AV receiver, not found in a stereo amp. But, like some audiophiles claim, is a good stereo amp, like the CA 840, really that much better with stereo audio than a good receiver? Iam not sure what to think.
The SN Ratio info you provided is very useful bit of info. It means 809 has a higher S/N ratio(110 dB (Line, IHF-A)), than the 840A(> 93 dB). But the THD for Onkyo is higher, at 0.08%(20 Hz-20 kHz, Half power) than the 840A, which is 0.01%(20 Hz - 20 kHz at 80% of rated power). Does this mean it plays music worse than 840A? Again, this is unclear.
Your thoughts will help here.

Thanks again.

beep
its not only the amp that makes the difference. its also that at a given budget (say 45k) if youre buying a surround set up you will need 5-6 speakers vis a vis 2 speakers. so the quality of speakers also increases tremendously. if you do decide to go the stereo route at that budget imo you should go for a good pair of bookshelves taking into consideration your room size as well. the monitor audio silver rx2 should do nicely. if you go to an outlet that sells monitor audio you will be able to also audition for yourself by listening to the bronze floorstanders versus the silver bookshelves. there are other speakers also out there but definitely monitor audio is amongst the best. once you decide on the speakers we can help with the amp. the other thing to take into consideration is that floorstanders will require a more powerful (which converts into more expensive) amp to drive it while maintaining similar sound quality.

Hi afj,

Thanks for those useful pointers.
Iam actually looking at floor standers bcos I need good full sounding music reproduction. Hence the amp will also need to be good, as you have said.
The monitors are good for the room size, but somehow my heart wants floor standers. Also, I will be using them for HT too.
I was narrowing down between MS Aviano6/8 and the Energy CF-50. Yes, the budget will have to be higher. These speakers in a 5.1 HT configuration are not less than 1 lac INR. If there are other brands in a similar performance / price points, pls do recommend them.
As regards the amp, Iam thinking a good Onkyo AVR, if not for a dedicated stereo amp.
What are your thoughts ?!

Thanks again,

 

[yahoo0212]

Folks,

Iam in the process of setting up a Home Theater system and I do accord high priority to music. Music would be 70% of the time and the rest would be movies. ..............
I auditioned the Aviano8 with the 650 and it sounded pretty limp. :sad: The speakers were just out of the box with no run-in. Also probably because the 650 didnt have the muscle to drive the Aviano8. Pretty dissatisfied with that. There was no Aviano6 to audition either. :sad:
Cheers

I hope u r referring to the Cambridge Audio Azur 650 Integrated 2channel amp....Its strange to hear that the 650 which is 75w /channel could not drive the Aviano 8... ?? wat was the sound like?? boomy or low powered?
please share yr audition experience....

Did u happen to audition the Aviano 6 anywhere?

 

[sdurani]

But the THD for Onkyo is higher, at 0.08%(20 Hz-20 kHz, Half power) than the 840A, which is 0.01%(20 Hz - 20 kHz at 80% of rated power). Does this mean it plays music worse than 840A?

Understand what those numbers mean: you're talking about eight one-hundreths of one percent vs one one-hundreth of one percent. Both are so far below the threshold of audibility (around one percent) as to be meaningless. It basically means the amplifier sections on both units won't have audible distortion under normal operating condition.

As for which plays music worse, that's easy: Audyssey room correction on the Onkyo will minimize the room's unwanted contributions to the overall sound, so you hear less of the room and more of what was on the disc. The CA is impotent when it comes to addressing frequency response aberrations caused by the room.

 

[ShaQ.Blogs]

sorry, budget would be around 60K to 75K for the stereo setup. HT can follow.

I read only part of the thread...

is this budget for receiver & speakers? For stereo nuthin beats a really good floorstanding speakers...and i just recently bought mine. You should strongly consider this...save up and buy rather than buying in a hurry cos of that uncontrollable urge to have one .
I would suggest one of the likes PSB Image T6, Dali Icon6, Monitor Audio RX6 B&W 683/684 (B&W is largely considered overpriced comparatively with respect to what the others deliver). These speakers cost around 65K. I have the PSB's and i will tell you the other two are equally good. B&W's I ruled out cos I didn't like the dealer's attitude.

But if you have a lower budget than this you should consider some good bookshelves.

 

[beep]

I hope u r referring to the Cambridge Audio Azur 650 Integrated 2channel amp....Its strange to hear that the 650 which is 75w /channel could not drive the Aviano 8... ?? wat was the sound like?? boomy or low powered?
please share yr audition experience....

Did u happen to audition the Aviano 6 anywhere?

Yes, the Azure from Cambridge. There could be 2 reasons, the Aviano8 were just out of the box and not run-in, or the 650 really didnt have the drive capability necessary for Aviano8, The Aviano8 has a dedicated bass driver and the bass was really bad. It was not boomy, it was simply under powered, there was no output. I raised the bass all the way on the 650, but to little effect. There was nothing to write home about.
Mids and treble were so - so. I kinda lost my regard for the CA and the Aviano.
What do u think might have happened??

Cheers..

Understand what those numbers mean: you're talking about eight one-hundreths of one percent vs one one-hundreth of one percent. Both are so far below the threshold of audibility (around one percent) as to be meaningless. It basically means the amplifier sections on both units won't have audible distortion under normal operating condition.

As for which plays music worse, that's easy: Audyssey room correction on the Onkyo will minimize the room's unwanted contributions to the overall sound, so you hear less of the room and more of what was on the disc. The CA is impotent when it comes to addressing frequency response aberrations caused by the room.

Yes, they are both below audible levels, but that is an indication of the amp's loyalty to fidelity.
However as you pointed out, the receiver can 'correct' for the room.
On the whole, the receiver may be a better sounding amp, given the SNR and an equalizer with about 6 frequency bands. It all probably depends on how you can extract the max. performance out of any amp.
Just curious, what gear do you use??

beep

I read only part of the thread...

is this budget for receiver & speakers? For stereo nuthin beats a really good floorstanding speakers...and i just recently bought mine. You should strongly consider this...save up and buy rather than buying in a hurry cos of that uncontrollable urge to have one .
I would suggest one of the likes PSB Image T6, Dali Icon6, Monitor Audio RX6 B&W 683/684 (B&W is largely considered overpriced comparatively with respect to what the others deliver). These speakers cost around 65K. I have the PSB's and i will tell you the other two are equally good. B&W's I ruled out cos I didn't like the dealer's attitude.

But if you have a lower budget than this you should consider some good bookshelves.

Thats only for the speakers, Iam still deciding on an amp.
I heard the Dali Icon6 and they sounded better than the Aviano8, more full bodied and alive. I will check out the PSBs too.
What do you think of the Energy CF-50? Are they in a similar league? I thought they were pretty impressive. The bass was strong, not boomy. The treble was bold, but not colored or irritating. The mids were just teh right amount.

 

[yahoo0212]

Yes, the Azure from Cambridge. There could be 2 reasons, the Aviano8 were just out of the box and not run-in, or the 650 really didnt have the drive capability necessary for Aviano8, The Aviano8 has a dedicated bass driver and the bass was really bad. It was not boomy, it was simply under powered, there was no output. I raised the bass all the way on the 650, but to little effect. There was nothing to write home about.
Mids and treble were so - so. I kinda lost my regard for the CA and the Aviano.
What do u think might have happened??

Cheers..

Aviano s and the CA amps are actually meant for each other... The only reason they din sound good was may be because of they were new and not burned in... Try auditioning the Aviano 8 s or 6s at some other store.. They shd nt disappoint u this time.. !!

 

[sdurani]

However as you pointed out, the receiver can 'correct' for the room.

Indeed, that one feature will make a far more profound difference compared to some meaningless THD spec. It all comes down to what your priorities are: listening to the room (CA) or listening to the source material (Onkyo).

Just curious, what gear do you use??

Oppo BDP-80 universal (BD, DVD, DVD-A, SACD, CD) disc player, Lexicon MC-12HD surround processor/pre-amp, Outlaw Audio Model 7700 power amp, seven of the Hsu Research HB-1 bookshelf speaker, a pair of Rythmik F12G servo subwoofers.

 

[sarge_in]

Just to add a different viewpoint, many (me included) do not care for what the Audyssey does to the sound (I didn't like it in my Onkyo SR707, I therefore never engage it). Passive room treatments made a much larger difference (in a good way). I do use the receiver to set speaker distances and levels manually using a sound level meter.

For speakers, I would look at Focals. Pick your model depending on your budget.

 

[ShaQ.Blogs]

Thats only for the speakers, Iam still deciding on an amp.
I heard the Dali Icon6 and they sounded better than the Aviano8, more full bodied and alive. I will check out the PSBs too.
What do you think of the Energy CF-50? Are they in a similar league? I thought they were pretty impressive. The bass was strong, not boomy. The treble was bold, but not colored or irritating. The mids were just teh right amount.

IMHO...Dont bother much about bass...get a gud sub from HSU/SVS/Rythmik. The problem with FS is placement of it. After this, the bass may not be great at that position. Bass usually needs a different placement, corners are best.

I dont think Energy is in the same league. When you get a receiver ensure it has audesssey. You seem to get the best deals for Marantz in India. I got 7005 for ~65K. Similar models from denon & onkyo were way way higher with less room to bargain.

 

[sdurani]

IMHO...Dont bother much about bass...get a gud sub from HSU/SVS/Rythmik. The problem with FS is placement of it. After this, the bass may not be great at that position. Bass usually needs a different placement, corners are best.

Agreed. I would rather buy a pair of bookshelf speakers and subs instead of a pair of tower speakers. This way, the bookshelves can be placed where they give best soundstage and imaging, while the subs can be located where they give best bass in the room. Can't do that with large towers (unless you're handy with a saw).

 

[captrajesh]

Iam actually looking at floor standers bcos I need good full sounding music reproduction. Hence the amp will also need to be good, as you have said.
The monitors are good for the room size, but somehow my heart wants floor standers.

Trust me, the guiding principles are very simple.

1. Bigger the room size, bigger must be the speakers to fill the room with same SPL levels. More so because, whatever you do, room does affect the sound. One can only minimise the effects; not eliminate them. (Unless you are making an anechoic chamber which would be costlier to implement than your whole system put together) A floor stander in a small room would sound like a sub-woofer. A bookshelf in a large room would sound tinny.

2. At a given price point, a Stereo amp would be way superior in SQ with its AVR counterpart simply because, the AVR needs to be provided with much more circuitry to do many of the things the Stereo amp doesn't do.

3. Always trust your own ears and no one else's. Hearing preferences, perceptions and idiosyncrasies of people vary widely.

 

[sdurani]

Bigger the room size, bigger must be the speakers to fill the room with same SPL levels.

Not necessarily. More efficient speakers will result in higher SPL. More powerful amp will result in higher SPL. Turning up the volume knob will give you higher SPL.

Besides, why do you need to "fill the room"? It's not like you're going to be sitting everywhere simultaneously. All you need is good sound at the main listening seats. It is a waste to worry about good sound or high SPL at locations where no one will be sitting.

A floor stander in a small room would sound like a sub-woofer. A bookshelf in a large round would sound tinny.

Doesn't that depend on the frequency response of the speakers? A floorstander that goes down to 60Hz is not going to have the kind of deep bass of a bookshelf speaker that goes down to 40Hz.

At a given price point, a Stereo amp would be way superior in SQ with its AVR counterpart simply because, the AVR needs to be provided with much more circuitry to do many of the things the Stereo amp doesn't do.

In what way will the stereo amp be "superior in SQ"? Frequency response? Audible distortion? Noise level (SNR)?

 

[ShaQ.Blogs]

Besides, why do you need to "fill the room"? It's not like you're going to be sitting everywhere simultaneously. All you need is good sound at the main listening seats. It is a waste to worry about good sound or high SPL at locations where no one will be sitting.

I wonder how many listen to music sitting at specific locations . Most of the time we do other stuff while we also listen to music. So listening position is outta the question for music in my opinion.
Room filling sound is everything....and its awesome. Its bugging when u play something and sounds different everywhere

I agree, u dont need bigger speakers, u need well built & designed speakers.

In what way will the stereo amp be "superior in SQ"? Frequency response? Audible distortion? Noise level (SNR)?

This is with respect to the price point...usually to get a good quality with AVR's you need to spend more as for the average models they dump it with *features* with compromises in quality.

 

[sdurani]

Its bugging when u play something and sounds different everywhere

It's going to sound different everywhere anyway. You can demonstrate this for yourself by walking around the room with a cheap SPL meter. Besides, basic calibration (levels, delays), room correction and speaker placement are based on a listening area, not everywhere in the room.

This is with respect to the price point...usually to get a good quality with AVR's you need to spend more as for the average models they dump it with *features* with compromises in quality.

What "compromises"? Can you be more specific?

 

[captrajesh]

Not necessarily. More efficient speakers will result in higher SPL. More powerful amp will result in higher SPL. Turning up the volume knob will give you higher SPL.

What you are stating about SPL levels is correct and elementary. I was mentioning about SPL levels of the complete sound spectrum. If you place a bookshelf in a large room and increase the SPL level by turning up the volume, it is likely to result in higher distortion levels than higher SPL levels of low frequencies.

Besides, why do you need to "fill the room"? It's not like you're going to be sitting everywhere simultaneously. All you need is good sound at the main listening seats. It is a waste to worry about good sound or high SPL at locations where no one will be sitting.

It is not that you sit at a large place and listen to the music in full glory from tiny bookshelf speakers. If you do not fill up the room with sound, how are you going to ensure that you are getting the full spectrum of sound?

Doesn't that depend on the frequency response of the speakers?

Of course yes. This is elementary too.

A floorstander that goes down to 60Hz is not going to have the kind of deep bass of a bookshelf speaker that goes down to 40Hz.

That is hypothetical situation in which you are right. My point is, in general floor standers are capable of going lower than mini monitors and mini monitors go lower than bookshelfs. There can be exceptions of course.

In what way will the stereo amp be "superior in SQ"? Frequency response? Audible distortion? Noise level (SNR)?

I don't know if I'm right or wrong but I have a feeling that you give a lot of importance to theory whereas I believe in hands on practical experience of what is on ground. Evidently we are from different schools of thought and twain shall never come to consensus. I rest my case here.