Stereo Speaker Choice

[yahoo0212]

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.. !!

Deviating the discussion..:indifferent14:
but could anyone shed some light on this part... Aviano 6 and Marantz PM 6003...how well would they go.... :licklips:

 

[sdurani]

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.

That's never been my experience. I've recently listened to bookshelf speakers by Infinity, Totem Acoustic and Hsu Research; all of which play down to the high 40Hz range. When played back at loud volumes, they didn't distort in the low frequencies (below 40Hz), they just didn't reproduce those frequencies.

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?

Let's not confuse volume level with frequency response. Filling up the room with sound has to do with getting high SPL everywhere, whereas getting the full spectrum of sound (20Hz to 20kHz) has to do with reproducing low frequencies. Most floorstanding tower speakers don't go down to 20Hz; you typically need a subwoofer for that. If you are going to use a subwoofer to get the full spectrum of sound, why do you need your main speakers to go into the low bass range?

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.

So let me get this straight: you claim that a stereo amp will be "superior in SQ", I ask what aspects will it be superior in, and rather than answer you deflect to some "feeling" you have that I'm into theory while you are a hands-on practical type?

Is asking for specifics really that difficult to answer? If you truly believe that a stereo amp is superior to an AV receiver, then there should be something audible, something tangible that you can point to. Anything.

If you cannot point to one single parameter that makes a stereo amp superior to an AV receiver, then that's enough evidence to rest my case as well.

 

[darshanjoshi]

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,

Energy made very good speakers in the past, particulary C and RC series. People who have heard C and RC series dont like CF much since they are a little degrade. I have heard all of them and they sound very good.

You should atleast look of CF-50 / 70. CF-30 lacks lows. Marantz goes very well with these speakers.

I personally own RC-50 (Very happy with them) which were Energy's top of the line but now replaced by Veritas line which are not available in India.

 

[Audiodoc]

The previous post is absolutely true NORMAL individuals can't perceive a THD of less than or equal to 0.1.

 

[beep]

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). 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.

Awesome, some high end separates you got there !

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.

Thanks Shaq,
I kinda have an inclination for Onkyo. But I have heard that Marantz amps are more musical. Wonder what musicality is.
The subs you mentioned the more expensive types i guess. Is 30K a good price for good sub? What subs will fall in that range?
Thanks for your pointers.

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.. !!

Not many dealers carry the Aviano here in Chennai. The only place that had it did a bad job at demoing them.

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).

Positioning is an advantage with bookshelves, but i doubt they can give the full range of a floorstander, since FSs usually have dedicated drivers for frequency ranges, while the BSs have to do with one driver. That said, BSs like MKSound are really good.
Thanks for the pointers.

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.

I have never experienced Audyssey, so I cant say I dislike them.
I guess by passive you mean glasswool and stuff.

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 round 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.

Hi Rajesh,

Thanks for your pointers.
Your first point: probably Audyssey would help correct those inherent problems you just described.
Point 2: Thats why I was looking for a really good AVR, so that the stereo amplification does'nt suffer.
Point 3: True, but the problem with auditioning multiple gear is that at any instance, there is more than 1 variable. To compare 2 speaker models, the rest of the stages(source, pre-amp, amp) have to be exactly the same. Likewise for any stage. Most showrooms dont give you that flexibility to audition. They have some combinations wired together and its not easy to wire as one would like. Moreover sound in audition rooms is seldom reproduced in a living room, unless it is a dedicated HT room. :sad:

Cheers

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.


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.

So Shaq what would be a good / better AVR? I agree with the point you make on quality of an AVR at a given price point? Are the Onkyos good AVRs? If not all of them which are the better ones (models)?
I guess SNR, THD, power are the factors to look for.
And I agree, theres nothing better than room filling high fidelity sound.

Deviating the discussion..:indifferent14:
but could anyone shed some light on this part... Aviano 6 and Marantz PM 6003...how well would they go.... :licklips:

Does anyone have a Aviano6 or 8 in a 5.1 configuration? What is the amp / receiver used? How do they sound??
Eager to know....

Energy made very good speakers in the past, particulary C and RC series. People who have heard C and RC series dont like CF much since they are a little degrade. I have heard all of them and they sound very good.

You should atleast look of CF-50 / 70. CF-30 lacks lows. Marantz goes very well with these speakers.

I personally own RC-50 (Very happy with them) which were Energy's top of the line but now replaced by Veritas line which are not available in India.

Darshanjoshi,

Energy made good speakers, I had a Take5 long time back. The company shut down or went into hibernation, thats why we havent seen them the last few years. Now they are a Klipsch group company. I have read that Klipsch is casting its influence on Energy's speakers, like the highs are very shrill / coloured as in Klipschs(horn tweeters).
The CF and Veritas are their new range. Can you pls be more specific why you think the CF is a downgrade from the RC? I havent heard an RC so I dont know. Yes, the CF-50 should sound better. I heard the CF-30 and liked it. The CF-50 can only sound better with better bass.
BTW, Veritas is available now in India.
Thanks.

The previous post is absolutely true NORMAL individuals can't perceive a THD of less than or equal to 0.1.

Audiodoc,

So then why should one go for a dedicated Stereo amp, if its fidelity is not discernible. And you get better SNR in a good AVR too.
Any thoughts??

 

[manoj.p]

Audiodoc,

So then why should one go for a dedicated Stereo amp, if its fidelity is not discernible. And you get better SNR in a good AVR too.
Any thoughts??

faith.

 

[beep]

faith.

i really hope its more than that

 

[manoj.p]

Positioning is an advantage with bookshelves, but i doubt they can give the full range of a floorstander, since FSs usually have dedicated drivers for frequency ranges, while the BSs have to do with one driver. That said, BSs like MKSound are really good.
Thanks for the pointers.

This could be a genralization. Most bookshelfs are two way. A tweeter and a midrange. I have seen many entry level floorstanders which are also two way and employ one tweeter and one or two midrange drivers. Then they have the big internal volume of FS's, and can tune the port lower. But again, they can go down to 30~40 Hz range. Mind you, that's also -3db from their normal freq response. For music it can be good enough, no doubt about it. There are few floorstanders which are 3 way or even 4 way. A 3 way has a tweeter, midrange and LF driver. A good 3 way floorstander can cost quite a good money.

I have heard certain bookshelfs, which go down to about 45 hz range (again -3db point) and at one point I was amazed to see those play without a sub. It almost felt like no sub was needed but I am sure, a sub would have definitely helped.

Anyway, so you can see its a very generic understanding. I had JBL balboa floorstanders. Those were 3 way and went down to 47Hz. From that, I went to Ascend Acoustics CMT340's. Ascends were 2 way, MTM speakers and went down to 45Hz. Both were used without the subwoofer. When I compared both for music and HT, I retired Balboa's. Ascends were that better.
Then I got the JBL 4410a monitors. These are 3 way and can go down to 40. This was a big jump in audio quality because the studio monitors are very flat. But what separated these from JBL Balboa or Ascends, is overall better drivers, better design and better crossover. even though I can use these by themselves for music, I still use subwoofers and cross these over at 60Hz. So, I get flatter response down to 20Hz.

So, a floorstander will not always be better than a bookshelf or MTM. All it depends upon how the speaker is designed and built. Thats what will determine how it will sound, be it a small room or big room. When we say FS's can fill a room, meaning its low frequency sound level will be good enough to hear it throughout the room. If that's the objective, then a FS may or may not do that. A bookshelf can not do that. But a Bookshelf + subwoofer will always beat that that. You get the subwoofer placement options, where it can be made sound loudest by taking advantage of room gain. Or if you get multiple, then you can place both in such a way to take care of dips and peaks and you can get consistent seat-to-seat response. You can never get that with a floorstander.

 

[yahoo0212]

Does anyone have a Aviano6 or 8 in a 5.1 configuration? What is the amp / receiver used? How do they sound??
Eager to know....

http://www.hifivision.com/members/haisaikat.html

and a few of his hifivision frnds purchased d Aviano s few months back

chek out this thread http://www.hifivision.com/speakers/...ences-kolkata.html?highlight=kolkata+audition

U can see deir reviews...
Did u audition the Aviano @ Cressida zone @ chennai or??

 

[sdurani]

i really hope its more than that

Typically that's all it is. When people tell you that 2-channel amps have better sound quality than receivers or that all the features of a receiver compromise its sound compared to a 2-channel amp, try asking them for specifics and see what happens.

 

[captrajesh]

Hi Rajesh,

Thanks for your pointers.
Your first point: probably Audyssey would help correct those inherent problems you just described.
Point 2: Thats why I was looking for a really good AVR, so that the stereo amplification does'nt suffer.
Point 3: True, but the problem with auditioning multiple gear is that at any instance, there is more than 1 variable. To compare 2 speaker models, the rest of the stages(source, pre-amp, amp) have to be exactly the same. Likewise for any stage. Most showrooms dont give you that flexibility to audition. They have some combinations wired together and its not easy to wire as one would like. Moreover sound in audition rooms is seldom reproduced in a living room, unless it is a dedicated HT room. :sad:

Cheers

Hi, sorry for the late reply; I was a little busy and needed some time to get you some links about some previous discussions in this very forum which you might find useful. In addition, see what some experts opine about sound. There could be many more but pardon me, I'm short of time.

http://www.hifivision.com/surround-amplifiers-receivers/12849-amps-avrs-vs-dedicated-amps.html
http://www.hifivision.com/amplifiers/13877-stereo-amp-bookshelf-speakers-bedroom.html
http://www.hifivision.com/amplifiers/16623-should-amplifiers-transparent.html
http://www.hifivision.com/speakers/16878-fs-only-larger-space-bs-smaller.html
AUDIO FILE

Unfortunately, there are people like Peter Aczel trying to question well established facts in hifi audio citing half baked theoretical information. They give so much importance to specs that they lose sight with reality. No point arguing with them

I'll give a hypothetical example. It is like measuring a cubic feet blocks of a chalk and cheese with a tape and weighing machine. Can they be totally analyzed using the above two machines? I as a layman would taste it and say they are different. If you ask me how they are different, well my mouth is neither a chemical laboratory nor a spectrum analyzer to quantify the entire parameters, assuming that all the parameters have been worked out and there is nothing else to measure. But unfortunately, IMHO, the existing parameters are grossly inadequate in measuring and describing music in its totality.

All that I can say is, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that's why I had invited to listen to my setup. I hope I've addressed your pointers. I reiterate, at a given price point, a Stereo amplifier would be definitely better than similarly priced AVR because of this; period.

 

[sarge_in]

^ Big +1. If specs were everything, we won't have to listen to speakers / amps etc to see what each one likes best, and we know different people likes different things. In fact, a few established quality manufacturers do not even publish all the traditional specs for the same reason (and no, I am not refering to Bose). Specs, as they exist today, cannot quantify the various audible differences in components. Heck, there are some differences you can't even tell right away but only after living with a component for a longer period.

And yes, I agree a dedicated stereo amp will be better than the amp at a given price point - power supplies, slew rates etc are some parameters that come to mind immediately. But whether that difference is worth the difference due to missing functionalities is a personal decision.

 

[Audiodoc]

Dedicated stereo amplifiers have a lesser stereo crosstalk which really sounds better. This is my experience. I have a Denon 7.1 setup and a cheaper Norge 1000 setup. The cheaper Norge setup sounds better for music.

Though a good avr with a pure stereo passthrough switch does help and the difference is not night and day.

Secondly, one has to think in this way:

Say you have 50000 bucks for a amplifier setup /AVR:

A 50000 AVR has a single transformer, DD DTS decoding circuitry, elaborate source selection circuitry, AC to DC conversion circuits, smoothing capacitors, protection circuits and then the active components. So for that money the companies will use relatively cheaper single chip IC amplifiers which tend to sound poorer as compared to

A 50000 Stereo amp which has 2 dedicated transformers for each channel going through 2 bridge rectifiers higher capacitance smoothing capacitors, no decoding circuitry, smaller signal path, multiple transistor based active elements.

It is just like dividing 50000 by 2 or 50000 by 7 channels. A two channel amplifier will have higher wattage and better quality at the same money.

This concept is conceptually and factually CORRECT in most cases.

 

[sdurani]

Dedicated stereo amplifiers have a lesser stereo crosstalk which really sounds better. This is my experience. I have a Denon 7.1 setup and a cheaper Norge 1000 setup.

What is the difference in stereo crosstalk between the Norge 1000 vs your Denon?

How much less crosstalk does the Norge 1000 have compared to the Onkyo 609 being discussed earlier. (For the record, the Onkyo is 10x more quiet than the Norge.)

Any evidence you can offer to support your claim that "dedicated stereo amplifiers have a lesser stereo crosstalk" will be helpful.

 

[beep]

Dedicated stereo amplifiers have a lesser stereo crosstalk which really sounds better. This is my experience. I have a Denon 7.1 setup and a cheaper Norge 1000 setup. The cheaper Norge setup sounds better for music.

Though a good avr with a pure stereo passthrough switch does help and the difference is not night and day.

Secondly, one has to think in this way:

Say you have 50000 bucks for a amplifier setup /AVR:

A 50000 AVR has a single transformer, DD DTS decoding circuitry, elaborate source selection circuitry, AC to DC conversion circuits, smoothing capacitors, protection circuits and then the active components. So for that money the companies will use relatively cheaper single chip IC amplifiers which tend to sound poorer as compared to

A 50000 Stereo amp which has 2 dedicated transformers for each channel going through 2 bridge rectifiers higher capacitance smoothing capacitors, no decoding circuitry, smaller signal path, multiple transistor based active elements.

It is just like dividing 50000 by 2 or 50000 by 7 channels. A two channel amplifier will have higher wattage and better quality at the same money.

This concept is conceptually and factually CORRECT in most cases.

Audiodoc,

What you have stated in terms of cost vs features is a no brainer. It makes total sense that for a given price, a dedicated stereo has lesser components than an AVR.
Question is, what does the difference aurally translate to?
We have seen some numbers in this thread earlier, SNR at 101 dB for AVR vs 89 dB for a comparable stereo amp, THD at 0.08% for AVR vs 0.05% for a stereo amp. Frequency response is the same usually from 20 Hz to 20Khz.
What exactly does one 'hear better' in a stereo amp compared to a similarly (or higher) priced AVR?
Or is it that numbers are not that important, it is what you hear thats important. OK, in that case what do the stereo amp rooters 'hear better' that in an AVR ? Iam trying to understand.
Looking forward.

Cheers

Hi, sorry for the late reply; I was a little busy and needed some time to get you some links about some previous discussions in this very forum which you might find useful. In addition, see what some experts opine about sound. There could be many more but pardon me, I'm short of time.

http://www.hifivision.com/surround-amplifiers-receivers/12849-amps-avrs-vs-dedicated-amps.html
http://www.hifivision.com/amplifiers/13877-stereo-amp-bookshelf-speakers-bedroom.html
http://www.hifivision.com/amplifiers/16623-should-amplifiers-transparent.html
http://www.hifivision.com/speakers/16878-fs-only-larger-space-bs-smaller.html
AUDIO FILE

Unfortunately, there are people like Peter Aczel trying to question well established facts in hifi audio citing half baked theoretical information. They give so much importance to specs that they lose sight with reality. No point arguing with them

I'll give a hypothetical example. It is like measuring a cubic feet blocks of a chalk and cheese with a tape and weighing machine. Can they be totally analyzed using the above two machines? I as a layman would taste it and say they are different. If you ask me how they are different, well my mouth is neither a chemical laboratory nor a spectrum analyzer to quantify the entire parameters, assuming that all the parameters have been worked out and there is nothing else to measure. But unfortunately, IMHO, the existing parameters are grossly inadequate in measuring and describing music in its totality.

All that I can say is, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that's why I had invited to listen to my setup. I hope I've addressed your pointers. I reiterate, at a given price point, a Stereo amplifier would be definitely better than similarly priced AVR because of this; period.

Thanks Rajesh, those are good pointers. I will find them useful.

 

[Audiodoc]

Basic number jargon of amps!

Basic Amplifier Measurement Techniques — Reviews and News from Audioholics

For those who don't believe in crosstalk:

Pros and Cons of Dual Mono Amplifiers | eHow.com

Dual mono's > stereo > low priced AVR.

Secondly you cannot compare a Norge at 11.5 K to SR609 almost 4x the price.

You could compare it to the 309 where the Norge may win (My opinion). Don't have a Onkyo 309 though.

ALSO CHECK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_system_measurements

HOPE this answers the cross talk query!

I believe that both numbers and hearing tests matter to a certain extent and never claimed that a higher end AVR will not sound better than a poorly designed stereo amp but within a fixed price range the stereo will perform better due to the reasons cited. THD differences less than 0.1 are hardly discernible (IF EVER) though SNR values matter.

 

[sdurani]

For those who don't believe in crosstalk:

It's not a question of believing in crosstalk, just a matter of whether you can back up your previous claim: "Dedicated stereo amplifiers have a lesser stereo crosstalk which really sounds better."

So far, you've provided absolutely zero evidence that stereo amps have lower crosstalk than AV receivers. None. As an example, you pointed to your Denon receiver vs a Norge 1000, yet have no crosstalk figures for either device to support your claim.

Do you have something (anything) objective to back up your claim, or are you asking that it be accepted on faith?

Pros and Cons of Dual Mono Amplifiers | eHow.com

Dual mono's > stereo > low priced AVR.

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion from the article when the author never ever mentions "low priced AVR", let alone compares it to dual mono and stereo amps. As for dual mono being better, even the author of the article has to admit: "it may also be difficult to notice any discernible difference in sound quality compared with a system with a stereo amplifier".

 

[Audiodoc]

Check my second link.

Crosstalk
The introduction of noise (from another signal channel) caused by ground currents, stray inductance or capacitance between components or lines. Crosstalk reduces, sometimes noticeably, separation between channels (eg, in a stereo system).

A crosstalk measurement yields a figure in dB relative to a nominal level of signal in the path receiving interference. Crosstalk is normally only a problem in equipment that processes multiple audio channels in the same chassis.

Regarding the specification of the Norge 1000

http://www.norgeaudio.com/apr06.pdf

And the Denon 1507

Denon AVR-1507 - AV receivers - CNET Archive

Unfortunately none provide Crosstalk details and I did not compare them on numbers.

I just commented that stereo crosstalk (which relates to stereo imaging of the music being played) is better in stereo amplifiers than AVRs. The proof can be seen in the Wikipedia audiophile link I posted earlier. Hope it answers your question.

Then again I am not commenting that the difference between stereo amps and AVRs is night and day and if you are planning to buy a Onkyo 609 go with it. Even I am contemplating a new AVR purchase around 50K and Onkyo's are high on my list.

 

[sdurani]

Unfortunately none provide Crosstalk details and I did not compare them on numbers.

Exactly. But despite that you still made the unsupportable assertion that stereo amps have less crosstalk than AV receivers, using your Denon and Norge as examples even though you have no idea how they rate on crosstalk.

I just commented that stereo crosstalk (which relates to stereo imaging of the music being played) is better in stereo amplifiers than AVRs.

Again, how do you know that? What is your comment based on? Do you have anything objective to back it up?

The proof can be seen in the Wikipedia audiophile link I posted earlier.

What proof? You linked to a Wikipedia article on audio system measurements. As such, it describes what crosstalk measurement is. But nowhere in the article does it mention AV receivers, let alone compare their crosstalk to stereo amps. Did you actually read the Wiki article?

This is like your previous assertion on sound quality (Dual mono's > stereo > low priced AVR), which was based on an article where the author himself admits that it may be "difficult to notice any discernible difference in sound quality". Again, are you actually reading the articles you link to? Because they're not saying what you're saying.

 

[Audiodoc]

Crosstalk is normally only a problem in equipment that processes multiple audio channels in the same chassis.


You are no getting the point doesn't the article mention that stereo cross talk is a problem with devices which have multiple channels and it is a no brainer that a AVR has at least 5 channel if no 6 or 8 channels than the two channels in a stereo amp.

Secondly good stereo amps have separate transformers, separate rectifiers and filtering capacitors sometimes even separate grounds thus behaving as two monoblocks for each channel which decreases the stereo crosstalk.