# How To Connect Amplifier To Receiver?



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

Hi, so I was looking into 4ohm speakers and found out that they need more powers to drive them.  So the receiver I am getting might be the Onkyo TX-NR609 or an Onkyo HT-RC260 depending on my budget.  The front channel speakers I am looking at are the Polk Audio LSi9.  Well, I thought it was as simple as plugging the Polk Audio LSi9 to the receiver I am going to get, but it seems like both the receivers I might get don't have enough power to drive the Polk Audio LSi9, which means that I have to get an amplifier.  I have searched on google on how to connect amplifier to receiver, but can't seem to find any tutorials.  I wanted a simple system at first meaning one reciever and 5 separate speakers and a subwoofer, but now I have to add a amplifier which is something I tried to avoid.

My Questions:
1. Since the Polk Audio LSi9 are rated at 4ohm, do I need an amplifier?  Will the two receiver I posted above be able to handle a pair of the Polk Audio LSi9 as front channel (I am also going to bi-amp it) as well as handle a set of 8ohm bookshelf speakers as surround and a Polk Audio PSW505?
2. Does anyone know how to hookup a amplifier to a receiver (can't find any on google nor youtube)?
3. JBL L830 or Polk Audio LSi9 as front channel speakers?



Thanks.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 28, 2011)

There's no point in getting a receiver if you are going to use one or more independent amplifiers.  In that case, you would get a pre-amp, not a receiver.  If you also plan to pick up radio stations, you would also get a stand alone tuner.

The recommended wattage on those speakers is 20-200 watts per channel.  So any amp will drive them, the only issues is how loud you want it to be.

If you still want to get a receiver, and use an amp, then you will need to find one that has pre-amp outputs so you can bypass the receiver's power amp.

I haven't listened to those speakers, but I have NHT classic 3's for front and center channels.  I think you get better performance with a traditional woofer, midrange, tweeter arrangement.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

I don't think you can connect a pre-amp or amp to the Onkyo TX-NR609 or RC260. you need a receiver with either phono or XLR pre-outs like the RC270.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

twilyth said:


> There's no point in getting a receiver if you are going to use one or more independent amplifiers.  In that case, you would get a pre-amp, not a receiver.  If you also plan to pick up radio stations, you would also get a stand alone tuner.
> 
> The recommended wattage on those speakers is 20-200 watts per channel.  So any amp will drive them, the only issues is how loud you want it to be.
> 
> ...




So if I am correct, the two receivers above do not support pre-amps. That means that I have find a receiver that does?  You recommended that I don't need a receiver at all, but where would I plug the HDMI cable to get picture and sound?  

My question:
1. Do I need a preamplifier, if not I prefer not to have one because I just want to use one receiver?  The reason I brought up amplifiers was that I thought the two receivers would not be able to handle the Polk Audio LSi9 which would then overheat and break the receiver.
2. Will the two receiver be able to handle the Polk Audio LSi9 at 4ohm without any overheating or conflict?


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

I think you should start with a basic setup that you can upgrade. your talking about pre-amplifiers and power amplifiers when you probably haven't even mounted a speaker on a stand before.  it sounds like your new to this so I suggest you read some material.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 28, 2011)

Not to be rude, but as BB mentioned, you don't really seem to have any idea of what's involved.  Even your questions don't make much sense.

A receiver is an integrated unit consisting of a pre-amp, tuner and power amp.  A pre-amp is what processes and manipulates the sound.  When you increase the treble or bass, that is happening in the pre-amp.  The tuner is just what it sounds like, it tunes in radio signals.  The power amp does nothing but amplify the signal from the pre-amp so that it can drive a speaker.

Clearly you don't understand any of this, so either you're not really serious about buying a system and you're just jerking our chain, or you are, but you are not prepared to do even basic research at this point.

I would start with a site like How Stuff Works and try to understand the basics.  Their explanations are usually quite good and also fairly brief.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

there is a lot of work that goes into mounting a speaker lol

- mounting plate, no mounting plate
- what materials make good stands
- how much weight the stand has
- keeping the speaker balanced
- positioning the speaker for proper imaging
- decoupling the stand from the ground
- what speaker wire to use
- what banana plugs to use


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jun 28, 2011)

*Buy something like this*

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003P2V52M/?tag=tec06d-20

You can try the onboard amp and see how that goes or you can use the pre outs to use any external amp you want that has RCA connections. It has everything you need.

For a shade over $350 you have a very good processor/pre amp and a chance for expansion. Take the KISS approach. Too many complicated wires leads to frustration. Give a decent receiver a try.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

You guys are absolutely correct, when it comes to the Home Theater, I am completely noob at it.  I know the basics of how wire a 5.1 system.  But what really troubles me is the speakers I am going to get.  If I am correct, people get preamplifiers or amplifiers to increase wattage which would mean having a louder sound. I have thought of starting with a basic setup at first ( Yamaha RX-V467 with Klipsch Home Theater 1000), but I realized it would be more expensive if I would start small and then throw out the cheap stuff to be replaced with expensive stuff (that's alot of money going to waste).  An example would be that I bought the Logitech z-5500 ( I know that these speakers are not really considered HT quality) but I feel that when I play music it just doesn't sound good at all.  Movies on the other hand (on the Logitech Z-5500 are great).  So I just want to "Go Big And Not Worry For A While".  As far as mounting the speakers and wires, I have already taken in consideration of how much and where the speakers will be placed.  Now all I need is the right type of speakers that I have debating for weeks.  I plan to use 12 Gauge wires and banana plugs so that the setup would look neat.  As far as mounting, I am going to mount them on the wall facing me regardless if the port hole is in the front or not.  I have found all these materials at a reputable store that is cheap and has great service (monoprice.com).  
I believe I know how to setup a basic 5.1 or even 7.1 speaker system solely using a receiver; however, I am noob when it comes to connecting preamplifiers and amplifiers.  I did research before asking, it is just that I can't seem to find the right answers or it is simply that I am asking the wrong questions.
As far as speakers, I have been researching extensively, reading reviews and comparing them with each other, but everytime I feel that I have found the right one I find another one that interest me.
To conclude, I do believe that I know the basics of hooking up a receiver and 5.1 or 7.1 system.  As far as "jerking your chain", I would never do, because I am actually in the process of building a new Home Theater system and I am very excited.  I actually do research before asking and then ask in the forums for suggestions as sometimes people don't really explain well enough.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

your asking questions on topics I am just learning and I have been designing my home theater for 2 months!

Logitech speakers are not very good. PC audio isn't engineered for high fidelity. Logitech doesn't use tweeters and their speakers have no resolution, detail and the bass is over powering and loose.

I don't recommend Monoprice Banana plugs. here is a nice little thread on making your own speaker cables.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/home-theater-construction/57127-speaker-cable-sleeving-diy.html


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

Two words:_ Impedance Matching. _

At this point, buying preamps and discrete (seperate) audio components may well be getting you in too deep. There's a lot of knowledge you need to have before you try to do anything in that route. Especially since you're talking about 4-ohm speakers. Almost all consumer-level equipment is 8-ohm

*If you use different impedance equipment (say 4ohm speakers with a receiver rated for 8ohms) without taking into consideration all the factors, you can easily damage or destroy your speakers and the amplifier* section of your receiver (or discrete amplifier, etc etc) It is possible to run mismatched equipment but speakers have to be hooked up in groups (bye bye 5.1, hello 2.0 on 6 speakers) and they need to be hooked up very specifically. There is such a thing as a bridgeable amplifier, but no, you can't hook two high-ohm receivers together to run a low-ohm speaker. As for how much power you need, 100-150 watts per channel is more than enough for most people's home theatre. Go much above that and you'll be getting the cops called on you for noise complaints.

You were asking me about running this system for listening to mp3s and downloaded movies off your computer. To be brutally honest, you're going way overkill. The Yamaha RX series receivers you were looking at were perfect for what you're wanting to do. Even they might be a bit overkill. Buying $10,000 worth of equipment is overkill, period. Let me tell you a secret: 50% of the price on this stuff (speakers especially) is brand name alone. Starting off with a quality receiver, and a nice set of floorstanding or bookshelf speakers is all you'll need. If you start messing with preamps and discrete components, you're going to be opening a can of worms. 

My advice is to buy an 8-ohm receiver and an 8-ohm speaker set. Why? It's the most common impedance.  You'll have a much easier time selling an 8-ohm set to most people if you ever do upgrade, or if you buy a new set and move the old set to another room, or replace a speaker or two it will be much easier to find compatible products.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with using preamps, discrete tuners, decks, and amplifiers if you know what you're doing, but that takes quite a bit of forethought and knowledge and gets REAL expensive, REAL quick. 


To sum it up: 

Don't go with the Klipsch HT1000 speakers, if you're worried about sound fidelity. Chances are you'll be missing some of the mids, and the only lows will be coming from the sub -  like your logitech system.

Don't buy the most expensive thing you can find, just because the reviews are great. It takes a trained ear to tell the difference between mid-range and high-end stuff, and it's near impossible to tell the difference between high-to-ultra high end stuff in terms of quality. Different brands and models will have a different sound *color* which might be easily distinguishable, one might sound "bright" another "warm", but most if not all should have a "good" reproduction of the sound spectrum. Unless you already have a very specific picture of what you want your speakers to sound like (and you've pretty much proved that you don't) then the price difference isn't worth it. This right here, the hopping around between reviews is why I recommended you go to a store to listen. You can't listen to the speaker online. *Look to be spending between $100-$200 per speaker. I really recommend 8-ohm speakers and equipment, or if not, at least buy impedance-matched equipment (4-ohm speaker to 4-ohm amp)*

When it comes to Preamps, preouts, etc... I don't think you need it. The amplifier section on any quality receiver should be more than enough, both in terms of power and quality. You aren't planning on running an actual cinema, are you? If you really really want the option to add discrete amps later, go for a receiver with pre-outs (such as the V667) like robert-the-rambler suggested. My vote, however, is to go with the RX-V471 you had picked out, (or the V571 if you want 7.1) I don't think you'll be disappointed.* It's important to note, you need a seperate amp (or at least seperate amp channel) for each channel of the 5.1* to use the preouts (not including the subwoofer, as that usually has a built-in amp). That's 5 mono amps or 3 stereo amps or a very expensive purpose-built 5-channel amp for 5.1 if you use discrete amplification.

Download some FLAC or other lossless audio to try out. Your music may very well just not sound good because it isn't good.



BumbleBee said:


> Logitech speakers are not very good.* PC audio isn't engineered for high fidelity.* Logitech doesn't use tweeters and their speakers have no resolution, detail and the bass is over powering and loose.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/home-theater-construction/57127-speaker-cable-sleeving-diy.html



Careful. A more accurate statement is: Devices marketed as "Computer Speakers" aren't engineered for high fidelity.

PC audio can very well be high fidelity, if done right. My father's Digidesign and Presonus PC-based studio audio recording equipment dispute your statement


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> your asking questions on topics I am just learning and I have been designing my home theater for 2 months!
> 
> Logitech speakers are not very good. PC audio isn't engineered for high fidelity. Logitech doesn't use tweeters and their speakers have no resolution, detail and the bass is over powering and loose.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the tutorial on how make speaker wires look nice.  That just seems like too much work and I would rather save the extra 2 dollars or so for a drink after I finish setting up my Home Theater.  As for the Banana plugs, why don't you recommend Monoprice's Banana plugs, the customer reviews raves that they are great.

Thanks.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 28, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> You guys are absolutely correct, when it comes to the Home Theater, I am completely noob at it.  I know the basics of how wire a 5.1 system.  But what really troubles me is the speakers I am going to get.  If I am correct, people get preamplifiers or amplifiers to increase wattage which would mean having a louder sound. I have thought of starting with a basic setup at first ( Yamaha RX-V467 with Klipsch Home Theater 1000), but I realized it would be more expensive if I would start small and then throw out the cheap stuff to be replaced with expensive stuff (that's alot of money going to waste).  An example would be that I bought the Logitech z-5500 ( I know that these speakers are not really considered HT quality) but I feel that when I play music it just doesn't sound good at all.  Movies on the other hand (on the Logitech Z-5500 are great).  So I just want to "Go Big And Not Worry For A While".  As far as mounting the speakers and wires, I have already taken in consideration of how much and where the speakers will be placed.  Now all I need is the right type of speakers that I have debating for weeks.  I plan to use 12 Gauge wires and banana plugs so that the setup would look neat.  As far as mounting, I am going to mount them on the wall facing me regardless if the port hole is in the front or not.  I have found all these materials at a reputable store that is cheap and has great service (monoprice.com).
> I believe I know how to setup a basic 5.1 or even 7.1 speaker system solely using a receiver; however, I am noob when it comes to connecting preamplifiers and amplifiers.  I did research before asking, it is just that I can't seem to find the right answers or it is simply that I am asking the wrong questions.
> As far as speakers, I have been researching extensively, reading reviews and comparing them with each other, but everytime I feel that I have found the right one I find another one that interest me.
> To conclude, I do believe that I know the basics of hooking up a receiver and 5.1 or 7.1 system.  As far as "jerking your chain", I would never do, because I am actually in the process of building a new Home Theater system and I am very excited.  I actually do research before asking and then ask in the forums for suggestions as sometimes people don't really explain well enough.



OK, I can respect that, but knowing how to wire the speakers doesn't mean anything when you start talking about what kind of architecture you're going to use.  IOW, do you intend to go all out with separate amps for each channel and $10-20K in speakers or do  you just want a good mid to high-end system that you can grow into.

I would suggest following Robert's advice and getting a very good integrated receiver with pre-amp outputs so you can play with bi-amp and separate channel amps and what not - when you've got the budget and inclination.  I seriously doubt that you will be able to hear a significant difference between a high end component amp/pre-amp setup and a very good receiver like a Yamaha or Onkyo.  In fact, I doubt most people could tell the difference at all.

But if you're setting up a home theater, then why are you only buying 2 speakers?  And why those speakers in  particular?  For that money I would be looking at a brand like Paradigm.  Not to say there is anything wrong with Polks, but I would want to see a detailed analysis from a source like Sound and Vision, Stereo Review, etc.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

I recommended Polk brand to him when he was still talking about the Klipsch HTIAB speakers, as a quality but not overly expensive brand, with the proviso that I had limited experience with speakers.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> Thanks for the tutorial on how make speaker wires look nice.  That just seems like too much work and I would rather save the extra 2 dollars or so for a drink after I finish setting up my Home Theater.  As for the Banana plugs, why don't you recommend Monoprice's Banana plugs, the customer reviews raves that they are great.
> 
> Thanks.



monoprice banana plugs will get the job done but there are higher quality and more convenient banana plugs available. there are a couple recommendations in that thread.

you're welcome.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> Two words:_ Impedance Matching. _
> 
> At this point, buying preamps and discrete (seperate) audio components may well be getting you in too deep. There's a lot of knowledge you need to have before you try to do anything in that route. Especially since you're talking about 4-ohm speakers. Almost all consumer-level equipment is 8-ohm
> 
> ...




I absolutely agree with you that I am going OVERKILL with this build; however, I do not want to regret it like before (buying the Logitech Z-5500, thinking that it would be the best for watching movies and listening to music).  I could have saved the $350 and added to this setup and I would have no problem of finishing this setup by this week.  But I have to wait about another week until I could finish the first part of my build (which is the Home Theater parts, not the computer).

As far as speakers, I have opted to solely look at 8ohm rated speakers to reduce more things that I will have to buy.  Well, I believe after all the questions I have asked, I could build this rig without any problems.

Final Speakers Build:
Front: B&W 685
Center: (will update once I have enough money)
Surround: (will update once I have enough money)
Sub: Polk Audio PSW505
Receiver: Onkyo TX-NR609 or Onkyo HT-RC260 (so I could bi-amp)

Thanks all for the help.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

twilyth said:


> OK, I can respect that, but knowing how to wire the speakers doesn't mean anything when you start talking about what kind of architecture you're going to use.  IOW, do you intend to go all out with separate amps for each channel and $10-20K in speakers or do  you just want a good mid to high-end system that you can grow into.
> 
> I would suggest following Robert's advice and getting a very good integrated receiver with pre-amp outputs so you can play with bi-amp and separate channel amps and what not - when you've got the budget and inclination.  I seriously doubt that you will be able to hear a significant difference between a high end component amp/pre-amp setup and a very good receiver like a Yamaha or Onkyo.  In fact, I doubt most people could tell the difference at all.
> 
> But if you're setting up a home theater, then why are you only buying 2 speakers?  And why those speakers in  particular?  For that money I would be looking at a brand like Paradigm.  Not to say there is anything wrong with Polks, but I would want to see a detailed analysis from a source like Sound and Vision, Stereo Review, etc.



The reason that I am only looking for 2 speakers are that I only have enough money for two as of right now, and I just setup the wires before hand and as I get more money I just simply buy the speakers and plug them in.  I plan to mount the front speakers which is the hard part, the surround and center are easy, when I have enough money I just buy the speakers and plug them in.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> I absolutely agree with you that I am going OVERKILL with this build; however, I do not want to regret it like before (buying the Logitech Z-5500, thinking that it would be the best for watching movies and listening to music).  I could have saved the $350 and added to this setup and I would have no problem of finishing this setup by this week.  But I have to wait about another week until I could finish the first part of my build (which is the Home Theater parts, not the computer).
> 
> As far as speakers, I have opted to solely look at 8ohm rated speakers to reduce more things that I will have to buy.  Well, I believe after all the questions I have asked, I could build this rig without any problems.
> 
> ...


Either of those receivers should be more than what you need. The one thing I'd caution is that Onkyo receivers tend to overheat in enclosed spaces. If you plan on putting this in a closed entertainment center, expect to be buying one of these.



Bi-amping is different than Bi-wiring.

Bi-amping is running a seperate amp for the high and low section of a given channel. It has its benefits. Your onkyo HT-RC260 can do this, but only on the front-left and front-right speakers, it seems.

Bi-wiring is running a seperate set of wires to the high and low section of a given speaker from a single amplifier channel. It's snake oil. Waste of money. They promote this to sell speaker cable.

I'm saying this more for anybody who happens to end up here from google than for your benefit. Clearly you meant bi-amping.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> Either of those receivers should be more than what you need. The one thing I'd caution is that Onkyo receivers tend to overheat in enclosed spaces. If you plan on putting this in a closed entertainment center, expect to be buying one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yeah and I believe that the two receiver I might get my uncle has too.  His receiver makes a very loud click noise when it chances decoding (what I mean is that if you watch blu-ray movies in the beginning where they show trailers, after every trailer the receiver clicks to change the decode format (I think).  I have  asked others is there suppose to be a click noise when it changes decode formats and they said yes.  But the click I hear is quite loud and annoying.  Does this happen in your reciever, or is it only Onkyo receivers?  If so I guess I might get the Yamaha receiver.

I am getting about 100ft worth of 12AWG cables, so if I do in fact have extra cables and banana plugs lying around, heck I will just bi-amp.


Thanks


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> Oh yeah and I believe that the two receiver I might get my uncle has too.  His receiver makes a very loud click noise when it chances decoding (what I mean is that if you watch blu-ray movies in the beginning where they show trailers, after every trailer the receiver clicks to change the decode format (I think).  I have  asked others is there suppose to be a click noise when it changes decode formats and they said yes.  But the click I hear is quite loud and annoying.  Does this happen in your reciever, or is it only Onkyo receivers?  If so I guess I might get the Yamaha receiver.
> 
> I am getting about 100ft worth of 12AWG cables, so if I do in fact have extra cables and banana plugs, heck I will just bi-amp.
> 
> ...



I'm running an older Onkyo, the only click I hear is when the receiver powers on or off, it's relays turning on and off in the powersupply. Sometimes you hear it too when changing between analog and digital inputs, or between multichannel, all stereo, and pure audio modes as the receiver turns unneeded portions of itself off to prevent introducing noise into the sound.

Oh, and, You're welcome.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> I'm running an older Onkyo, the only click I hear is when the receiver powers on or off, it's relays turning on and off in the powersupply. Sometimes you hear it too when changing between analog and digital inputs, or between multichannel, all stereo, and pure audio modes as the receiver turns unneeded portions of itself off to prevent introducing noise into the sound.
> 
> Oh, and, You're welcome.



Well, that is extremely strange as I think it might be the digital spdif connection then.  He connected his ps3 via the onkyo receiver with a spdif cable rather then the hdmi way.  Well when we watched blu-ray movies the clicking noise is most noticeble and loud during the transition between the trailers.  I think he did not configure his settings right.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

Its really hard to say. It may be exactly as you've been told with that one, or it may be that there is a little delay when the optical out on the PS3 is switching from two-channel uncompressed to the 5.1 DTS/Dolby that the receiver is picking up as noise.

 Is it coming from the speakers or the receiver itself?


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> Its really hard to say. It may be exactly as you've been told with that one, or it may be that there is a little delay when the optical out on the PS3 is switching from two-channel uncompressed to the 5.1 DTS/Dolby that the receiver is picking up as noise.
> 
> Is it coming from the speakers or the receiver itself?



It is coming from his speakers and receiver and it is very irritating when we crank the volume up from the receiver, the switching noise then emits to the receiver and the speakers (the noise from the speakers gives out like a oomph noise and the receiver emits a click noise).


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

I find that strange...

If it's the receiver itself, it should be coming from the receiver only, as it should be designed well enough that anything the circuitry does doesn't come out of the speakers as noise (not that that's law or anything, just best practices as a manufacturer)

Any noise in the audio stream would be on the speakers only.

Without hearing it myself I can't say. I'm not sure if the Yamaha would be any different, either, sorry.

Offtopic, I know, but when watching blu-rays via optical, you aren't getting the DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD audio track. SPDIF doesn't support it, all you can get is regular DTS/Dolby or 2.0 uncompressed. If his receiver supports it, use HDMI to get the high-def audio track.

EDIT - after re-reading that, it almost sounds like it might me oxidized contacts on the internal relays, if it only comes out when the volume's up. Nothing you can do about that though. Could still be a delay in the SPDIF signal causing the OOMF noise, but the click seems like relay noise from the receiver. Anybody else have any other ideas?


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

Thanks for trying to help m4gicfour, I am almost certain that his receiver is the Onkyo TX-NR609 which is fairly new (He also has very cheap plastic speakers).  Well anyways, I just wanted to make sure that if it was only his receiver that had such a weird problem or it was for all receivers in general that had this problem.  Actually even when the volume is down you will still hear that oomph from speakers and click sound from receiver. The click noise from the receiver remains at the same clicking volume.  As for the oomph it still emits, if the volume is turned down then the oomph will be less loud, but you will still hear it.

A side question, should I get this cable -->http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00006RHZG/?tag=tec06d-20 or this cable --->http://www.monoprice.com/products/p..._id=1023603&p_id=2680&seq=1&format=4#feedback for the subwoofer?

Thanks for trying to help...


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 28, 2011)

Monoprice's cables are quite high quality, at least all the ones I've gotten from them are. Make sure you get one that's long enough, and the longer it is, the beefier you want it to be. The signal from the SUB Pre-Out on the receiver to the Self-amplified subwoofer is analog and it's not at amplified levels, so it can pick up interference if you use a really crappy cable, but I would think that the monoprice ones are plenty good enough.

Going to bed now, good luck


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 28, 2011)

yes either cable looks fine.


----------



## blaznee (Jun 28, 2011)

So I've been reading through this and I'm confused as to what the final goal is..

Do you want a good system for Stereo playback, or do you want to end up with a good system for surround. Getting something that does both well can get mightily expensive.

The receiver you picked is sort of middle of the road, and the speakers are touching the lower end pricerange of high end bookshelfs.. And from what I'm seeing they would do poorly in a surround setup. You need clear detail at all soundlevels and the ability to match the fronts with a proper centerspeaker.. The Polks simply don't apply IMO..

IF you want to go for the surround setup but don't have the cash for a full 5.1 setup from the get go. Make sure you get fronts and center you like, and get any 2 old surroundspeakers (go used if you have to).. You will get a lot of the enjoyment from surround at a fraction of the price. And since you're a beginner you will get plenty of enjoyment from that until you can afford the real surrounds.

If you're mostly into stereo I suggest looking up the local HiFi geek forums, they usually have a buy/sell forum.. You will be surprised with the equipment that is suddenly in your pricerange, and a kick ass stereoamp that is 10 years old often play the pants out of middle-of-the-range modern stuff.. Don't be surprised to find Mark Levinson monoblocks and Sunfire surround pre-amps within your budget suddenly..

Lastly - a good tip for getting a good surround setup is going to a proper demonstration store. Have them setup a few systems that they can switchbetween as fast as posssible. So you really hear the difference.. Listen for sound positioning in space and general ambience.. A bad system will sound like a wall of sound arround you, a good system will have the sounds exist in a 3d space around you.. It will not sound like it's eminating from the speakers, but actually exist in the room itself..

The very best systems for that are crazy expensive, but I promise you you will go "whaaaaaat" when you get them demoed .. The system to beat for me is still a Lexicon pre-amp, Bryston Amp and M&K 150 speaker system..


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

I told him to look on Audiogon but he doesn't want second hand.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 28, 2011)

second hand is DEFIANTLY the way to go for speakers, i scored my system for $600.... its $1400 brand new, works perfectly.

speakers last a very long time and dont become obsolete like computer hardware does, i will likely be able to resell this system for $700-$750 when the time comes to upgrade again. i will have made a profit


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 28, 2011)

I tried to explain it to him. the older speakers get the better they sound and some people look for older speakers that were made outside of China so there is a second hand market.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 28, 2011)

blaznee said:


> So I've been reading through this and I'm confused as to what the final goal is..
> 
> Do you want a good system for Stereo playback, or do you want to end up with a good system for surround. Getting something that does both well can get mightily expensive.
> 
> ...



Well the ultimate goal is to be able to listen to music as well as play surround sound movies.  What would you suggest then for surround sound as well as stereo.  Because I have been trying to find the best speakers for my setup.  As for stereo amps I am probably just going to stay away from it as I just want a simple receiver to be my main source to control the volume and everything else and have a pc to be able to play the movies.  
I did find a JBL L830 bookshelf speakers that had great reviews for surround and music, but I was hesitant about the quality.

Questions
1. Why don't you think that the B&W 685s are not good for surround?
2. If I get the Yamaha receiver (YPAO) or Onkyo receiever (Audessey) wouldn't those equalizer equalize the speakers until it matches?
3. What receiver would you recommend then?


----------



## twilyth (Jun 28, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> Well the ultimate goal is to be able to listen to music as well as play surround sound movies.  What would you suggest then for surround sound as well as stereo.  Because I have been trying to find the best speakers for my setup.  As for stereo amps I am probably just going to stay away from it as I just want a simple receiver to be my main source to control the volume and everything else and have a pc to be able to play the movies.
> I did find a JBL L830 bookshelf speakers that had great reviews for surround and music, but I was hesitant about the quality.
> 
> Questions
> ...



Yamaha receivers come with a microphone that you use with the internal software to automatically set up your speakers.  You just have to tell it first what size the speakers are, but I think even that is optional.

The Yamahas will also give you the option to expand a stereo audio source to full 7.1 surround, as well as a couple of other options.  It has an EQ but you have to set it through the software using the remote and an onscreen display.  You can also do it with just the panel display, but the OSD is easier.

Any of the Yamaha RX line of receivers should be good for your purposes although if you don't need as much power and sophistication, you can get away with something from the HTR line.

If you're going to pipe music and video from your pc, use the HDMI pass through - my HTR receiver has 4 HDMI inputs and one output.  I have it connected to one of the DVI ports on my HTPC with other one going to a monitor.  They're set up so the desktop spans the 2 displays - and it works perfectly, even though the HDTV is an old 50" Sony.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 28, 2011)

i would spend the most on the Front 2 speakers and Receiver/amp followed by a matched center, you can cheap out on the surrounds to start with and get a sub-woofer latter on if you need more low end.


i would focus on Music first and movies second... but just me, movies are both an audio and video experience depending on the genre. if your watching drama movies you really dont need high end audio lets be honest.

Music is 100% audio experience. this is why i focus here first.




buy separate components as well, HTIB are often a bad choice.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 28, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> I absolutely agree with you that I am going OVERKILL with this build; however, I do not want to regret it like before (buying the Logitech Z-5500, thinking that it would be the best for watching movies and listening to music).  I could have saved the $350 and added to this setup and I would have no problem of finishing this setup by this week.  But I have to wait about another week until I could finish the first part of my build (which is the Home Theater parts, not the computer).
> 
> As far as speakers, I have opted to solely look at 8ohm rated speakers to reduce more things that I will have to buy.  Well, I believe after all the questions I have asked, I could build this rig without any problems.
> 
> ...



You might find that you can only bi amp the front speakers and if you do you might lose the front wide\ front high or limit how many rear speakers you can have.

So check ONKYO's site for the manual and make sure it has what you need.  All so i remember reading  in the manual for mine that 6-8 ohm.

And if you like your bass to fill the room make sure you get some nice front ported speakers. All so be aware of speakers that you have not heard or cannot return if your not happy with them too.

BTW polks are kinda forward sounding so shits in ya face.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 28, 2011)

i would not bother with bi-amping.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/speakers/56058-bi-amping-bi-wiring-research-material.html



its effectively useless unless your planning on spending Big bucks( over $3000 ) for a very tiny tiny difference if any.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 28, 2011)

slyfox2151 said:


> i would not bother with bi-amping.
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/speakers/56058-bi-amping-bi-wiring-research-material.html
> 
> 
> its effectively useless unless your planning on spending Big bucks( over $3000 ) for a very tiny tiny difference if any.



+2

yup even going for 7.1 is more worth it than bi amping speakers and that's not really worth it as most stuff is 5.1

I do wish more companys did the good old 8" woofer style speakers and less of this crappy 5 1/4 BS.


----------



## timta2 (Jun 28, 2011)

> Yamaha receivers come with a microphone that you use with the internal software to automatically set up your speakers. You just have to tell it first what size the speakers are, but I think even that is optional.



And I just would like to point out that usually the results are inaccurate and poor. It's a nice idea but it just don't work well in the real world. Sometimes it's like the mic is hearing impaired. You still have to go back in and make changes to everything if you want it to sound right. That goes for all manufactures that use this technology. "Left front speaker -5db, WTF?"


I would also suggest going out and listening to speakers and equipment before buying. Don't rely on someone else's opinion. You could probably get a thousand opinions of Polk and B&W here, but the only one that really matters is yours.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

timta2 said:


> And I just would like to point out that usually the results are inaccurate and poor. It's a nice idea but it just don't work well in the real world. Sometimes it's like the mic is hearing impaired. You still have to go back in and make changes to everything if you want it to sound right. That goes for all manufactures that use this technology. "Left front speaker -5db, WTF?"
> 
> 
> I would also suggest going out and listening to speakers and equipment before buying. Don't rely on someone else's opinion. You could probably get a thousand opinions of Polk and B&W here, but the only one that really matters is yours.


Good point.  I had a couple WTF moments to.  But at least it gave a baseline to start from.  For some reason, that made me feel more confident about making adjustments. {shrug}


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 29, 2011)

timta2 said:


> And I just would like to point out that usually the results are inaccurate and poor. It's a nice idea but it just don't work well in the real world. Sometimes it's like the mic is hearing impaired. You still have to go back in and make changes to everything if you want it to sound right. That goes for all manufactures that use this technology. "Left front speaker -5db, WTF?"



This was true with the first generation systems which used puck-style mics, that weren't very accurate. The newer generation receivers which come with "Steeple" mics do much better. You can not, however, use the newer style mic with the older receivers Link

It's also extremely important to follow directions to the letter. ANY ambient noise during calibration can throw it off, and the more sample positions you do, the more accurate the calibration becomes.


----------



## techguy31 (Jun 29, 2011)

blaznee said:


> So I've been reading through this and I'm confused as to what the final goal is..
> 
> Do you want a good system for Stereo playback, or do you want to end up with a good system for surround. Getting something that does both well can get mightily expensive.
> 
> ...



Well I basically since I do listen to music alot, it is better to have the B&W as front because they are great for music.  As far as movies, I believe that I have read they are good.  Since mp3's and lossless files, I believe are stereo (correct me if lossless files are not stereo) then wouldn't the B&W 685 simply be the best choice as of right now and what would bookshelf speakers would you suggest that are good for movies as fronts and bookshelf speakers for surrounds?  When ou said that the  "Polk simply don't apply IMO" did you mean the Polk PSW505?  I just need a sub that will deliver the low that the B&W are unable to do.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 30, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> Well I basically since I do listen to music alot, it is better to have the B&W as front because they are great for music.  As far as movies, I believe that I have read they are good.  Since mp3's and lossless files, I believe are stereo (correct me if lossless files are not stereo) then wouldn't the B&W 685 simply be the best choice as of right now and what would bookshelf speakers would you suggest that are good for movies as fronts and bookshelf speakers for surrounds?  When ou said that the  "Polk simply don't apply IMO" did you mean the Polk PSW505?  I just need a sub that will deliver the low that the B&W are unable to do.



yes, lossless is just the sound quality, it does not change weather its Mono, Stereo 5.1 or 13.1

most music is likely to be in Stereo. you can upmix it using receivers with Dolby pro logic and such but i do not use it as i think it sounds like crap.


----------



## CJCerny (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm gonna chime in here because I've owned home theaters that had over $10k+ worth of speakers (Paradigm Reference series) and home theaters that used only $300 (Energy Take 5 Classics 5.1) worth of speakers, so I've been at both extremes.

My advice is to start small and then upgrade as necessary. There is nothing embarassing about owning a $200 receiver like an Onkyo 509 and a $300 set of speakers like the Energy Take 5 Classic. This $500 system comes within 80-90% of what a $10k system can do. Buying expensive speakers is a waste of money unless you are able to audition them in person and are able to afford the upscale amplification that it takes to drive them and have the freedom and flexibility to build a room with sound dampening material around them. Buying expensive speakers and thinking that they will be magical without being able to do the other things that it takes to make them sing is like buying a Corvette but only being able to drive it on very congested roads--you're just much better off with a Geo Metro unless you really have the ability to go all out. The part you have to get over is mental health issue of thinking that a $500 speaker automatically sounds better than a $50 speaker. That isn't anyways the case, especially when you consider that amplification and environment play a huge role in that.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 30, 2011)

CJCerny said:


> I'm gonna chime in here because I've owned home theaters that had over $10k+ worth of speakers (Paradigm Reference series) and home theaters that used only $300 (Energy Take 5 Classics 5.1) worth of speakers, so I've been at both extremes.
> 
> My advice is to start small and then upgrade as necessary. There is nothing embarassing about owning a $200 receiver like an Onkyo 509 and a $300 set of speakers like the Energy Take 5 Classic. This $500 system comes within 80-90% of what a $10k system can do. Buying expensive speakers is a waste of money unless you are able to audition them in person and are able to afford the upscale amplification that it takes to drive them and have the freedom and flexibility to build a room with sound dampening material around them. Buying expensive speakers and thinking that they will be magical without being able to do the other things that it takes to make them sing is like buying a Corvette but only being able to drive it on very congested roads--you're just much better off with a Geo Metro unless you really have the ability to go all out. The part you have to get over is mental health issue of thinking that a $500 speaker automatically sounds better than a $50 speaker. That isn't anyways the case, especially when you consider that amplification and environment play a huge role in that.



already tried..

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2321125&postcount=7


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2011)

techguy31 said:


> Well I basically since I do listen to music alot, it is better to have the B&W as front because they are great for music.  As far as movies, I believe that I have read they are good.  Since mp3's and lossless files, I believe are stereo (correct me if lossless files are not stereo) then wouldn't the B&W 685 simply be the best choice as of right now and what would bookshelf speakers would you suggest that are good for movies as fronts and bookshelf speakers for surrounds?  When ou said that the  "Polk simply don't apply IMO" did you mean the Polk PSW505?  I just need a sub that will deliver the low that the B&W are unable to do.



It depends what you're after, yes MP3s are generally stereo, are you happy with that? It can be converted to DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 bitstreams using your HT Claro Plus using it's Dolby Digital Live or DTS connect feature.

However, if you're using your video card for audio, MP3s will be stereo which is fine if that's what you're after.

The B&W 685 looks good, definitely quality speakers. I would go for "floor standing" speakers as they tend to fill a room better IMO for stereo sources. Cheaper and lowend floor standing speakers typically sound better than high end bookshelf speakers, usually due to increased woofer and tweeter size and quantity. I would recommend getting bookshelves for the rears and/or side sourrounds and floor standing for the front.





> Thanks for your input, it helped me alot.
> 
> Well, I have done some research and have recently learned more about speakers and I have opted for bookshelf speakers.
> 
> ...



1.) You sort of already got a surround soundcard .i.e. HT Claro
2.) I'm not the best person to ask about SSD
3.) For music and movies, the motherboard is overkill. All you need is a low end basic board. Saying that the board is still solid and I'd keep it.
4.) Athlon II X4 620 2.6GHz @ 3.4GHz, 4GB DDR3 1600MHz @ 1800Mhz, Crossfire 4850's OC'd, ASUS M4785TD-V EVO, Auzentech X-Fi Forte, Pioneer VSX-516 receiver, KEF Cresta 20c center speaker, KEF Cresta 2 SP3303 front speaker. Not using any rear speakers ATM.

And yes I'd spend the extra $10 for the 2500k, even if you won't OC it's nice to have the option.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 30, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> It depends what you're after, yes MP3s are generally stereo, are you happy with that?* It can be converted to DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 bitstreams using your HT Claro Plus using it's Dolby Digital Live or DTS connect feature.*
> 
> However, if you're using your video card for audio, *MP3s will be stereo* which is fine if that's what you're after.



The Onkyo receivers have "all stereo" mode which plays the left channel on left-front and left-surrounds, and right channel likewise. It's not true 5.1/7.1, it's just stereo on all speakers (Hence the name). Upmixing via DDL/DTS connect generally does not much more than this anyway, it doesn't create true 5.1/7.1 either - it just fakes it so it sounds like it is, and if you leave it on with true 5.1 it destroys the true positional audio. 

If you want to use all your speakers with stereo media, you can use this feature of the Onkyo (or if you get a receiver without such a feature, the freeware Media Player Classic HomeCinema can do this - and a lot more - with software)


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> The Onkyo receivers have "all stereo" mode which plays the left channel on left-front and left-surrounds, and right channel likewise. It's not true 5.1/7.1, it's just stereo on all speakers (Hence the name). Upmixing via DDL/DTS connect generally does not much more than this anyway, it doesn't create true 5.1/7.1 either - it just fakes it so it sounds like it is, and if you leave it on with true 5.1 it destroys the true positional audio.



"All stereo" basically mirrors the sound, so it's sort stereo quadrophonic. Really depends how you like your music but I don't like the voices in the rears.

Slightly different from DDL/DTS connect. although it doesn't create channels, it still converts stereo into the DD/DTs bitstream and automatically applies Prologic IIx and DTS Neo in real-time ontop. Which is a closer implementation of surround, effects in the rears and fronts, and voices in the center.

Then again Prologic IIx and DTS NEO can be applied on the Onkyo itself.

Since the OP isn't gaming, the only advantage of DDL + DTS connect is for those file formats (audio/movies) which already have 5 or more decrete channels. It's easy to find movies on torrents with numerous channels, but audio is somewhat difficult to source.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 30, 2011)

It's all about options. Like you, some prefer the Neo/prologic way of doing things, some don't. Each method has its pros and cons. What's important is knowing when to use each, and what the downfalls of each is. 

For example, with Neo/prologic, sometimes with poor quality source files or poor implementations of the tech, it creates artifacts when trying to remove the voice from the surround channels. In those cases it actually is quite a bit worse quality than playing 2.0 

For people like you, who prefer the Neo/Prologic way of filling channels, when those artifacts occur it's a simple matter of choosing not to use it, and playing it with 2 speakers only. Like I say, the important part is being educated on what each of these things do, so when the tech doesn't work like it should, you know how to correct it or at least work around it.

Having higher quality source files (FLAC or some such), regardless of how many channels are present, can actually prevent many of these sorts of issues, since the noise floor is much lower, and the actual sound data is much more precise for the receiver/sound device to work with

As far as the DDL/DTS Connect, I believe he had decided to use HDMI, so that's really a non-issue as the data will be sent LPCM without the need for compression. However, if he opts to use SPDIF then the encoding would be important.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jun 30, 2011)

I think he is interested in rear channels that are bipole or dipole instead of monopole so music should be played in 2.0 otherwise the rear channels will destroy the image.


----------



## hblackheart (Jul 12, 2011)

You are not crazy.  Onkyo newer recievers click and loud when changing. I read this recently at the polk audio forums.  Unfortunatly I can not remember the tecnical reason exactly other than it has something to do with the specific high end parts it is using. It is quite anoying and putting me off buying an onkyo to drive some rti-12's.
   Look for some used gear at Canuckaudiomart.com.  You will save a lot of coin.   
   I have a paradigm 270 v.3 for a center channel.  This alone made a huge difference.  Picked it up used for under a hundred.
And to answer one of your questions as well as my own... lol...   ripped from a post at blu-ray forums from sj001 (This may solve your uncle's problems or reduce them.. Seems to work for many folks with Onkyo receivers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onkyo TX-SR-605: For those having "clicking" noise issues 

I noticed a lot of people posting that they are having problems with this, myself included. Well, I figured the issue out. It wasn't a firmware or hardware defect. It was just some simple settings.

It has to do with the default Listening Mode preset, which is "previous used" or something. This seems to be especially problematic with the PS3. 

If you go into setup, and to listening modes, and find you input that you are using, and switch it from the default to "direct" on all of them, the clicking issue will be gone!


----------



## m4gicfour (Jul 13, 2011)

hblackheart said:


> You are not crazy.  Onkyo newer recievers click and loud when changing. I read this recently at the polk audio forums.  Unfortunatly I can not remember the tecnical reason exactly other than it has something to do with the specific high end parts it is using. It is quite anoying and putting me off buying an onkyo to drive some rti-12's.
> Look for some used gear at Canuckaudiomart.com.  You will save a lot of coin.
> I have a paradigm 270 v.3 for a center channel.  This alone made a huge difference.  Picked it up used for under a hundred.
> And to answer one of your questions as well as my own... lol...   ripped from a post at blu-ray forums from sj001 (This may solve your uncle's problems or reduce them.. Seems to work for many folks with Onkyo receivers)
> ...



Changing the default to direct will remove the clicking only because the receiver doesn't "remember" what mode you last used with each signal type. It will still click every time you change listening modes manually, and you'll need to change modes manually every time you play something if you want to use any of those modes.

That said, it should definitely stop the receiver from spazzing out when things like the PS3 change signal types repeatedly. Then there would only be the click when you change the mode yourself.

He also mentioned an "OOMF" from the speakers when the clicks happen. That shouldn't happen ever when changing modes, by design of the internal circuitry, but it may be unavoidable (bad design or worn out/defective parts?) on that particular unit


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

If you really want a great sounding room, look into room treatment. It'll pay back huge dividends in sound quality.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> If you really want a great sounding room, look into room treatment. It'll pay back huge dividends in sound quality.



Yeah, maybe let the guy get his speakers first at least before you start selling him accoustic dampening and baffles  On the other hand if you're talking optimal speaker placement, and obstruction minimization, then yes. 

Room preparation (whether simple furniture and speaker placement or sound deadening, baffles, and other fancy shite) would definitely help on absolute sound quality, but what he has is borderline overkill for the source material he's using (downloaded movies and mp3s), and from the impression I got from him, I don't think he wanted to alter the room too much. (of course, that may change once he's set up... I think we all know how hearing it sound good makes us want to hear it sound "good + 1") Switching to Blu-ray movies and FLAC audio is a much cheaper way to vastly improve the sound, with an almost nil pricetag. To be honest though, I think he'll be happy just where he is now.


----------



## techguy31 (Jul 13, 2011)

You're correct, well maybe I listened to music on the Logitech Z-5500 that is why it sounds like shit anyways.  But when I listen to music on pro logic it sounds horrible.  Maybe it's just the Logitechs.



slyfox2151 said:


> yes, lossless is just the sound quality, it does not change weather its Mono, Stereo 5.1 or 13.1
> 
> most music is likely to be in Stereo. you can upmix it using receivers with Dolby pro logic and such but i do not use it as i think it sounds like crap.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 16, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> Yeah, maybe let the guy get his speakers first at least before you start selling him accoustic dampening and baffles  On the other hand if you're talking optimal speaker placement, and obstruction minimization, then yes.
> 
> Room preparation (whether simple furniture and speaker placement or sound deadening, baffles, and other fancy shite) would definitely help on absolute sound quality, but what he has is borderline overkill for the source material he's using (downloaded movies and mp3s), and from the impression I got from him, I don't think he wanted to alter the room too much. (of course, that may change once he's set up... I think we all know how hearing it sound good makes us want to hear it sound "good + 1") Switching to Blu-ray movies and FLAC audio is a much cheaper way to vastly improve the sound, with an almost nil pricetag. To be honest though, I think he'll be happy just where he is now.



Learn to understand this, most modern equipment offers nearly flat response from 20-20 . 

  Speaker placement etc, its all hoopla and BS, it trys to correct for bad room behavior. If you really want GOOD sound, fix the room. 

 Flubby bass is rarely a subwoofer problem, its a reflection and rining issues, smeared highs and inaudiable voice and other problems, mostly a problem with the room. 

  In fact any average 300-500 soround sound system is going to benchmakr pretty close to any 3000 system. The difference in quality will mostly be attributed to the room. 

  Theres alot of BS in the audio world. Most of it spurred by inattention to dealing with room response issues and the various attempts at magical fixs to correct it. 

  Diffuse, dampen and absorb.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 16, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Learn to understand this, most modern equipment offers nearly flat response from 20-20 .
> 
> Speaker placement etc, its all hoopla and BS, it trys to correct for bad room behavior. If you really want GOOD sound, fix the room.
> 
> ...



Sorry dude, but freq responses aren't flat, even with mid-range speakers.  If you're going by reviews in places like Sound and Vision (formerly Stereo Review), then sure that's true.  But that's only because they won't do a decent review with decay and frequency charts unless the speakers are at least $1000 per box.  For those prices the response damn well better be fucking flat.

But even if what you're saying were true in general, there is still a huge difference between speakers in terms of the decay rate at various frequencies - what would normally be called clarity or crispness.  My NHT classic 3's are significantly clearer than the Polk Monitor 40's.  Maybe the 40's are more low end than mid range, but they're still pretty good and the NHT's aren't infinitely better, but enough so that the difference is quite obvious.  And even those aren't as tight as I would like on the low end but they're still pretty amazing.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Speaker placement etc, its all hoopla and BS, it trys to correct for bad room behavior. If you really want GOOD sound, fix the room.



Are you saying that investing $10k upwards breaking walls and employing builders and architects is a better than spending a few hours positioning the speakers correctly?


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 17, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Are you saying that investing $10k upwards breaking walls and employing builders and architects is a better than spending a few hours positioning the speakers correctly?



lol, you don't have to go that crazy unless you are trying to isolate, some simple corner bass traps, a diffuser panel or to and some very rudmintary cloud diffusion techniqoues will net massive returns in performance in any listening enviroment. 

Only a studio would worry about isolation, do to errant noise getting into a microphone, you just want to control the room accoustics to reduce, smearing, flubby bass, sympathetic ringing, unintelligable voices the list goes on. Its doesn't have to be super crazy either, thats the best part. 

  So to recap some 703 fibergalss, some wood frame a bit of fabric and a stapler and some glue, you can make any room sound 100X better which conversly will make your experience more enjoyable.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 17, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Sorry dude, but freq responses aren't flat, even with mid-range speakers.  If you're going by reviews in places like Sound and Vision (formerly Stereo Review), then sure that's true.  But that's only because they won't do a decent review with decay and frequency charts unless the speakers are at least $1000 per box.  For those prices the response damn well better be fucking flat.
> 
> But even if what you're saying were true in general, there is still a huge difference between speakers in terms of the decay rate at various frequencies - what would normally be called clarity or crispness.  My NHT classic 3's are significantly clearer than the Polk Monitor 40's.  Maybe the 40's are more low end than mid range, but they're still pretty good and the NHT's aren't infinitely better, but enough so that the difference is quite obvious.  And even those aren't as tight as I would like on the low end but they're still pretty amazing.




  your totally full of shit. anytime you wanna throw down on a blind listening test in a proper accoustic enviroment for a serious bet, let me know. I'll test those golden ears. In fact I'd bet money that you couldn't identify your own speakers out of 3 pairs in a double blind test. 

  Your giving horrid advice, the answer isn't to blow more money on gear, its to get a handle on the enviroment, once you do that the gear works properly. 

 Most speaker system have sub 2db deviations across the bandwidth on average at normal 76db listening volumes.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 17, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> your totally full of shit. anytime you wanna throw down on a blind listening test in a proper accoustic enviroment for a serious bet, let me know. I'll test those golden ears. In fact I'd bet money that you couldn't identify your own speakers out of 3 pairs in a double blind test.
> 
> Your giving horrid advice, the answer isn't to blow more money on gear, its to get a handle on the enviroment, once you do that the gear works properly.
> 
> Most speaker system have sub 2db deviations across the bandwidth on average at normal 76db listening volumes.


No you're full of shit.  Anybody who has ever picked up an audio magazine knows what I've said is accurate.  And my hearing isn't at issue.  Your ignorance is.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jul 17, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Are you saying that investing $10k upwards breaking walls and employing builders and architects is a better than spending a few hours positioning the speakers correctly?



you can line the walls with neoprene or quietrock before they go up or buy panels, traps and risers. none of these solutions cost anywhere near $10,000.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 17, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> lol, you don't have to go that crazy unless you are trying to isolate, some simple corner bass traps, a diffuser panel or to and some very rudmintary cloud diffusion techniqoues will net massive returns in performance in any listening enviroment.
> 
> Only a studio would worry about isolation, do to errant noise getting into a microphone, you just want to control the room accoustics to reduce, smearing, flubby bass, sympathetic ringing, unintelligable voices the list goes on. Its doesn't have to be super crazy either, thats the best part.
> 
> So to recap some 703 fibergalss, some wood frame a bit of fabric and a stapler and some glue, you can make any room sound 100X better which conversly will make your experience more enjoyable.



Seems like a lot of effort, but fair enough I was under the impression you meant making the room bigger or something.



BumbleBee said:


> you can line the walls with neoprene or quietrock before they go up or buy panels, traps and risers. none of these solutions cost anywhere near $10,000.



You can do that I guess.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> No you're full of shit.  Anybody who has ever picked up an audio magazine knows what I've said is accurate.  And my hearing isn't at issue.  Your ignorance is.



Right, audio magazines that push the sales of equipment as a form of ad revenues are really reliable.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Seems like a lot of effort, but fair enough I was under the impression you meant making the room bigger or something.
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that I guess.



The effort is totally worth it, if you have poor performing equipment, it will make finding and fixing those deficencys pretty easy. 

First piece of advice I have, buy a cheap $200 room response measuring kit from Behringer, I know its behringer but there kit is really pretty good. Identify the problems, formulate solutions. The biggest ones I see are uncontrolled ringing in the upper mid range and complete lack of bass control. 

Its not rocket science and with a room measuring kit, you'll be able to pinpoint issues and make needed adjustments. 

Its likely the best $200 you'll spend in your quest for Great sound quality. 

think of room treatment like this, how intelligable is a stereo in a crowded subway train at 5:30pm ? its the background chatter ruins the audio with overarching noise. think of reflection and modal ringing the same way.

Same thing goes for a unctonrolled listening enviroment. all the reflective rining does the same thing. 

  It doesn't even have to be exspensive. I'd bet for under $1000 you could make the average room sound 10X better easily.

  Don't buy foam products, they don't work for shit. 

 fiberglass 703 panels and mineral wool. Very good, very cheap, very effective. 

 Foam works of if you have something way high up rining like 12Khz and up. Still 703 and mineral wool are better. 

 I have a treated room in my house that serves as a mixing and recording area. Surprising few notice the overly large sofas " filled with 703 inside" 

the corenr traps that look like Cd racks
The difuses on the wall behind the cloth I printed pictures on. 

Get creative. My basements has phenomenal sound, so good everybody comes to my house for the game.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Right, audio magazines that push the sales of equipment as a form of ad revenues are really reliable.


Really?  You think your opinion is the same league?  Pompous much?


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jul 20, 2011)

m4gicfour said:


> Changing the default to direct will remove the clicking only because the receiver doesn't "remember" what mode you last used with each signal type. It will still click every time you change listening modes manually, and you'll need to change modes manually every time you play something if you want to use any of those modes.
> 
> That said, it should definitely stop the receiver from spazzing out when things like the PS3 change signal types repeatedly. Then there would only be the click when you change the mode yourself.
> 
> He also mentioned an "OOMF" from the speakers when the clicks happen. That shouldn't happen ever when changing modes, by design of the internal circuitry, but it may be unavoidable (bad design or worn out/defective parts?) on that particular unit


Mine clicks when the sub-wofer goes into power saving mode.It is a pain but you get used to it,It also click`s when switching between cable/sat- BD/DVD- /Game modes,Has something to do with the HDPC encoding on the HDMI channels.Other then that it runs like a champ,I`m actually looking at a thx-609 or thx-709 series receiver to upgrade my 509 one.Yeah i need room shaker movies.


----------



## techguy31 (Jul 20, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> Mine clicks when the sub-wofer goes into power saving mode.It is a pain but you get used to it,It also click`s when switching between cable/sat- BD/DVD- /Game modes,Has something to do with the HDPC encoding on the HDMI channels.Other then that it runs like a champ,I`m actually looking at a thx-609 or thx-709 series receiver to upgrade my 509 one.Yeah i need room shaker movies.



I suggest you look into the Yamaha Rx-V667.  It looks and sounds pretty good.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Really?  You think your opinion is the same league?  Pompous much?



in this matter where I have exstensive experience in the audio recording and mixing sphere, yeah likely it does. I am not selling you anything but truth. the room is the biggest problem. the equipment is secondary. I have mixed more then one record on a set of $25 speakers.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> in this matter where I have exstensive experience in the audio recording and mixing sphere, yeah likely it does. I am not selling you anything but truth. the room is the biggest problem. the equipment is secondary. I have mixed more then one record on a set of $25 speakers.


So you're an expert then?  Tell me what the significance of a frequency decay chart is.  What does it tell you - you know, if it actually mattered that is.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> So you're an expert then?  Tell me what the significance of a frequency decay chart is.  What does it tell you - you know, if it actually mattered that is.



Great, tell me how modal ringing effect perception of bass in a porrly sized rom with a 1:1:1 ratio.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jul 21, 2011)

*Get a room guys!!!!*



Thatguy said:


> Great, tell me how modal ringing effect perception of bass in a porrly sized rom with a 1:1:1 ratio.



Preferably one that is sound proof...


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Great, tell me how modal ringing effect perception of bass in a porrly sized rom with a 1:1:1 ratio.



I don't speak gibberish and you're the one claiming to be the expert.  What's the matter?  No luck with google or wikipedia?


----------



## qubit (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Sorry dude, but freq responses aren't flat, even with mid-range speakers.  If you're going by reviews in places like Sound and Vision (formerly Stereo Review), then sure that's true.  But that's only because they won't do a decent review with decay and frequency charts unless the speakers are at least $1000 per box.  For those prices the response damn well better be fucking flat.
> 
> But even if what you're saying were true in general, there is still a huge difference between speakers in terms of the decay rate at various frequencies - what would normally be called clarity or crispness.  My NHT classic 3's are significantly clearer than the Polk Monitor 40's.  Maybe the 40's are more low end than mid range, but they're still pretty good and the NHT's aren't infinitely better, but enough so that the difference is quite obvious.  And even those aren't as tight as I would like on the low end but they're still pretty amazing.





Thatguy said:


> your totally full of shit. anytime you wanna throw down on a blind listening test in a proper accoustic enviroment for a serious bet, let me know. I'll test those golden ears. In fact I'd bet money that you couldn't identify your own speakers out of 3 pairs in a double blind test.
> 
> Your giving horrid advice, the answer isn't to blow more money on gear, its to get a handle on the enviroment, once you do that the gear works properly.
> 
> Most speaker system have sub 2db deviations across the bandwidth on average at normal 76db listening volumes.





twilyth said:


> No you're full of shit.  Anybody who has ever picked up an audio magazine knows what I've said is accurate.  And my hearing isn't at issue.  Your ignorance is.



I don't see how anyone can think speakers all sound nearly the same - come on Thatguy! :shadedshu There's absolutely _huge_ variations in frequency response and tone, all caused by objectionable resonances, poor materials and the like. It's way more than just having a flat response. You can equalize two different-sounding speakers within 1db of each other with some super duper graphic equalizer and they'll still sound noticeably different, because of these effects. The more expensive ones generally sounding better, of course.

On top of that, no speaker has a 2db flat response from 20Hz to 20KHz, except possibly for the odd exotic high end job costing thousands. And since one driver can't reproduce all frequencies, what happens at the crossover frequencies?

In my experience - in general - a good system always sounds good and a bad one bad. Even if you do stupid extremes like position your quality speakers behind the sofa. They'll sound muffled for sure, but will still retain their general quality sound. They'll still sound 'good' even if you turn the bass and treble controls all the way down, so you get lots of peaky mid and no extremes. Even if you screw up that graphic equalizer with wild, random settings. The sound will be unpleasant, but the basic quality of those speakers will _always_ shine through. And you don't need bloody golden ears to notice, either.

On the other hand, a shit speaker will sounds, err, shit, whatever you do with it and however good the signal being fed it is. It can simply be improved noticeably, but will still retain all its annoying faults.

And yes, optimising room acoustics will of course help to get the best from a decent system and matter sod all to a poor one.

Modern electronics on the other hand, can and will sound remarkably similar, being largely free of distortion and frequency response variations. However, the differences are still there and can often be clearly heard. I can tell you that I can easily hear the difference between my CD player, onboard sound and two Creative sound cards (budget and md price) despite them all having a nearly perfect frequency response. Why? Because of the different coloration and distortion they introduce, including that caused by impedance matching. That alone can make a very noticeable difference.

To clarify the obvious, the audible differences between these different devices all stem from their analog side ie D/A converter and associated analog circuitry, not the digital side. The data is the same, regardless of how you transmit it. If it wasn't, then the existence of digital computers would be impossible and we wouldn't have physics as we know it.

So yes, twilyth is right.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 21, 2011)

qubit said:


> I don't see how anyone can think speakers all sound nearly the same - come on Thatguy! :shadedshu There's absolutely _huge_ variations in frequency response and tone, all caused by objectionable resonances, poor materials and the like. It's way more than just having a flat response. You can equalize two different-sounding speakers within 1db of each other with some super duper graphic equalizer and they'll still sound noticeably different, because of these effects. The more expensive ones generally sounding better, of course.
> 
> On top of that, no speaker has a 2db flat response from 20Hz to 20KHz, except possibly for the odd exotic high end job costing thousands. And since one driver can't reproduce all frequencies, what happens at the crossover frequencies?
> 
> ...




  Well designed speakers sound the same, as they should. The goal is not to color sound, it is to accurately reproduce it. that siad some speaker have certain EQ slopes, but they all sound relatively the same, as they should. 

  Its a bogus argument, if 2 sets of speaker sound different, one of them is broken. Room accoustics impact the listening enviroment more then the speakers do, some baffles just have near field interactions that some fine more preferably then others. 

  That siad, all good speaker of reasonable quality, sound the same. As they should. By design. 

 Twylth is wrong and so are you.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Thanks man , but this guy, or rather thatguy, wouldn't know a cross over from a light switch.  Don't waste your time.  I just want to see how far he can go before he has to bail.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Well designed speakers sound the same, as they should. The goal is not to color sound, it is to accurately reproduce it. that siad some speaker have certain EQ slopes, but they all sound relatively the same, as they should.
> 
> Its a bogus argument, if 2 sets of speaker sound different, one of them is broken. Room accoustics impact the listening enviroment more then the speakers do, some baffles just have near field interactions that some fine more preferably then others.
> 
> ...



I'm still waiting for an answer to my very simple question Mr. Expert.  Are you too lazy or look it up, or is it just beyond your capabilities?


----------



## qubit (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Thanks man , but this guy, or rather thatguy, wouldn't know a cross over from a light switch.  Don't waste your time.  I just want to see how far he can go before he has to bail.



You're welcome. 

It always cracks me up the way discussions about sound quality foment argument as vehemently as politics, religion... and, err, graphics cards on TPU. 

Do you remember all those CD player reviews where they compared the jitter from identical recordings/data on different CDs, with fancy noise graphs and claimed to hear a difference in clarity between the different discs? Yeah, I never bought that, either.

The sound is buffered into a RAM chip and streamed out via a highly accurate clock signal. Any CD player worth its salt will have the data streaming off the CD (with all its irregular jitter and many read errors) completely decoupled from the error-corrected output data stream. What a load of bullshit those reviews were.

I did my own tests at home, by ripping audio discs and then burning them to CD-R's and CD-RW's. I have Plextor burners, so I was able to measure the physical recording quality on the disc using the Plextools software. I made sure to burn some very poor copies with a great deal of errors along with the high quality copies - in fact, some of these measured even better than the original pressed disc.

The result? They all sounded the bloody same! I played the discs on the PC's drive and my cheap CD player and got the same results each time. Yup, unless the disc skipped or popped, there was precisely _no_ discernable difference between any of them. I even subjected a couple of friends to them and they couldn't tell either.

Tell me, now that CDs are a dying format, do they still do reviews like this?


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Dude, I barely followed what you were saying.  But no, I never heard of anything like that.  I was perfectly happy with my NHT Zeros for the rare occasions I would listen to music.  It's just recently that I've got back into music.  And I never thought I would do a home theater setup.

I'm definitely not audiophile material.  Just because I might be able to hear a difference, doesn't mean I think it's worth the extra $xxx to buy the equipment that can reproduce it.  When it comes to audio, I'm more a bang-for-the-buck sort of consumer.


----------



## qubit (Jul 21, 2011)

Hey, no problem. 

I myself tend to get the front end right and then worry about the final reproduction later. Now, with digital sound formats, 99% of my music is in lossles WAV format, so that takes care of the front end.

I used to use a small Aiwa midi amplifier (not audiophile by any means) along with some high quality 1970s B&W 3-way floor standing speakers I got for cheap from a friend. This was connected to my PC and sounded very good - and the system couldn't half kick out some bass, I tell you!

However, it was always a pain with having to switch the amp on and off separately from the PC and having to keep the volume down to avoid bothering the neighbours. Then I got my current Iiyama monitor which came with two tiny rear-facing speakers. To put it bluntly, they sound shit and have zero bass. However, with some severe cranking up of the treble via the Creative control panel and a little extra equalizing, they sound remarkably tolerable and ok (but still rubbish).

I initially tried them for the novelty of it, but then ended up keeping my system like this for the shear convenience. I can't believe I've made this trade-off, because I really care about sound quality!


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Do you think Bowers and Wilkinson are still as good or have they gone downhill now that their featured in the Best Buy Magnolia sound rooms?  They were out of my budget, but I was looking at a pair before I settled on the NHT classic 3's for the front and center.

Living in an apartment (I'm guessing that's what you meant by 'neighbors') does indeed suck.  You're stuck with cans if you want to crank it and it's just not the same.  Plus I think it's a little claustrophobic.


----------



## techguy31 (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Do you think Bowers and Wilkinson are still as good or have they gone downhill now that their featured in the Best Buy Magnolia sound rooms?  They were out of my budget, but I was looking at a pair before I settled on the NHT classic 3's for the front and center.
> 
> Living in an apartment (I'm guessing that's what you meant by 'neighbors') does indeed suck.  You're stuck with cans if you want to crank it and it's just not the same.  Plus I think it's a little claustrophobic.



I went to Bestbuy Magnolia and auditioned the CM9s and they sound absolutely great.  I couldn't audition the CM1s or the 685 but I figure it would be pretty good.  I managed to get the CM1 and CM2 all for around $1400 which is a pretty good deal.  Some may say the CM2 may be an overkill for my setup, but for the price I got it is pretty good and is in brand new condition and not used (well that's what it said on the description and the seller said).  Will be getting them by the end of the week.


----------



## BumbleBee (Jul 21, 2011)

only nice thing about living in an apartment is I live next door to the super which should be a nightmare but she is cool and goth


----------



## qubit (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Do you think Bowers and Wilkinson are still as good or have they gone downhill now that their featured in the Best Buy Magnolia sound rooms?  They were out of my budget, but I was looking at a pair before I settled on the NHT classic 3's for the front and center.
> 
> Living in an apartment (I'm guessing that's what you meant by 'neighbors') does indeed suck.  You're stuck with cans if you want to crank it and it's just not the same.  Plus I think it's a little claustrophobic.



I'm sorry, I can't give any specifics about the current audio scene, as I just don't know. While I've read lots of hi-fi magazines, mainly in the 80s & 90s and understand all the principles, I've never gone out and splashed big money on hi-fi. The most expensive piece of hi-fi was a Denon 3 head cassette deck (DR-M 33HX) way back in 1986 for a cool £300 (a nuts purchase in hindsight).

I'm kinda like you in going for bang for buck components, hence those used B&W speakers. As long as the sound is clear, with good bass and treble and without too much coloration from the speakers, I'm happy. In fact, you could call me an audiophile's nightmare: I've always liked punchy dance and electronic music. This sounds _so_ much better with the bass and treble turned up high! I don't give a shit about a 'balanced' sound, just as long as it's pleasing to my ears.

In fact, my little Aiwa amp (just 30W RMS per channel) has a special bass boost button called Dynamic Super Loudness (DSL) that adds serious punch*  to bass and with bassy speakers and the right music, it can really make the room pound and shake!  Luckily, my Creative X-Fi ExtremeMusic sound card has a similar function and this version has adjustable gain! Yeah, audiophiles hate me. 

Yes, I do live in an apartment, but I'm also happy wearing headphones. Speakers and headphones both have their pros and cons and one isn't really better than the other, just very different listening experiences.

*I had an oscilloscope many years ago and I tried to figure out how this DSL circuit actually achieved its effect, because the bass still sounds natural, but now you can really hear and feel it and the speaker cones move a lot more. It's sort of like breast enlargement for bass.

Anyway, I put a pure 50Hz sine wave through the speakers and viewed the waveform on the oscilloscope, carefully noting it's amplitude. I then turned on DSL and brought the amplitude back down to its previous level. The result? The bass still sounded deeper, even though the waveform looked the same. So heck, I dunno how it pulls off this trick, but it's awesome.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jul 21, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> only nice thing about living in an apartment is I live next door to the super which should be a nightmare but she is cool and goth



Sexy times?


----------



## BumbleBee (Jul 21, 2011)

not unless she is into stroking lobes.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jul 21, 2011)

lol. Good one.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I'm still waiting for an answer to my very simple question Mr. Expert.  Are you too lazy or look it up, or is it just beyond your capabilities?



I am not going to delve into your indulgence, first off becuase your ignoring the primary factor in a statement like this. 

 Why does my $500 set of speakers sound like shit. 


Becuase your listening enviroment is garbage !

If you wanna debate the sound coloration and EQ slopes of particular brands of loudspeakers, thats fine. thoe diffrences do exist, but those minor variances are largely much less pertinent then the problem of the room creating all sorts of issues. 

  If you want good hifi sound and have zero budget for any room treatment, buy some near field monitors. and sit in the sweet spot.

 oh and turn down the volume, adding amplitude only makes room problems worse, not better.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 21, 2011)

qubit said:


> I'm sorry, I can't give any specifics about the current audio scene, as I just don't know. While I've read lots of hi-fi magazines, mainly in the 80s & 90s and understand all the principles, I've never gone out and splashed big money on hi-fi. The most expensive piece of hi-fi was a Denon 3 head cassette deck (DR-M 33HX) way back in 1986 for a cool £300 (a nuts purchase in hindsight).
> 
> I'm kinda like you in going for bang for buck components, hence those used B&W speakers. As long as the sound is clear, with good bass and treble and without too much coloration from the speakers, I'm happy. In fact, you could call me an audiophile's nightmare: I've always liked punchy dance and electronic music. This sounds _so_ much better with the bass and treble turned up high! I don't give a shit about a 'balanced' sound, just as long as it's pleasing to my ears.
> 
> ...



Then your results are baised by your expectation. 

It sounds better becuase I paid more for it. 

 Placebo effect.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> I am not going to delve into your indulgence



Just the answer I would expect from someone who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 21, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Just the answer I would expect from someone who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
> 
> Thanks for playing.



The funny part is, that the ignorance is not mine. the ignorance is yours.


----------



## qubit (Jul 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Then your results are baised by your expectation.
> 
> It sounds better becuase I paid more for it.
> 
> Placebo effect.



Which bit are you referring to? This is hardly a meaningful response, is it? Regardless, there's no placebo effect, whichever bit you're referring to.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> The funny part is, that the ignorance is not mine. the ignorance is yours.


You keep believing that.  It must be pretty where you are - all rainbows and skittle shitting unicorns.


----------



## m4gicfour (Aug 24, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Learn to understand this, most modern equipment offers nearly flat response from 20-20 .
> 
> Speaker placement etc, its all hoopla and BS, it trys to correct for bad room behavior. If you really want GOOD sound, fix the room.
> 
> ...



I just wanted to address this since now it seems everybody is finished bashing each other.

Saying modern speakers and/or audio equiptment have an essentially flat response is a massive oversimplification. But generally, yeah, in the scheme of things, once you get out of the crap section and into the quality products, the difference drops significantly and ultra-high-end stuff will make less than 1% of the difference that going from "computer speakers" to "speakers" does.

Speaker placement is not at all hoopla or BS. It does correct, prevent or work around, bad room behavior - not eliminate it. Here too, some things make much more of a difference than others. Not mounting your speakers behind the back of the couch such that they're firing into it and being baffled by it, or in a cabinet or shelving unit, and not pressing it right up against a wall makes a lot more difference than some of the highly praised techniques used by some. Same with the audyssey system, it *corrects* (by definition you can't correct unless there's a fault), as much as possible with EQ and other synthetic factors for bad room behavior, and just as importantly, for unmatched speakers - both in response but also in loudness. This stuff was never meant to be a magic bullet and anyone who tells you it is - is either lying or deluding themselves.

The point I was trying to make is that he should attempt to familiarize himself with his system, and the operation thereof, then learn the proper placement of speakers relative to furniture and walls, and the DON'Ts of Home theater, etc... essentially he should do all the kind of things that *prevent* problems, before he starts worrying about enhancing things.

Part of the tone of my comment came from having discussed the situation in depth with him via PM where I, perhaps incorrectly, gleaned that he sort of had a set space he could use, and as he said himself - is a little confused and just beginning to learn a lot of the things involved. So yes, the room *IS* one of the biggest factors there is, but to really get a room to behave right you have to do more than treat it, you have to purpose-build a space. It has to be designed from the beginning with audio in mind. Selection of building materials and construction technique makes a big difference, not as much as room dimensions, but it's a big factor still. Even in the best of soundrooms, if you take your subwoofer and put it in the corner backed right up against the wall, with the gain set way up and the lowpass set way off, it's going to boom to some degree. If you're not going to purpose build a theatre room, the first thing to know is how to prevent from causing problems yourself, and then one can worry about optimizing further. At the point you made your statement, he really was overwhelmed with info and I was just trying to make sure he had the fundamentals down before spending money on something he didn't quite understand the implications of. I wasn't calling you stupid. Honest.

Qubit and Twilyth seem to have that under control


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Aug 24, 2011)

Im thinking i need to do a home theate setup now.. i'm using an old sony str-de545 lol.. and i thought it was loud and sounded good...


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 24, 2011)

I start building my home theater next week.

by the way acoustic foam is great because it's inexpensive and efficient at absorbing high frequencies. I am not sure why Thatguy said it was useless.. fiber glass is more efficient but it's expensive. I would definitely use acoustic foam over nothing at all.


----------



## m4gicfour (Aug 24, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I start building my home theater next week.
> 
> by the way acoustic foam is great because it's inexpensive and efficient at absorbing high frequencies. I am not sure why Thatguy said it was useless.. fiber glass is more efficient but it's expensive. I would definitely use acoustic foam over nothing at all.



Take pictures.


----------



## qubit (Aug 24, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> I am not sure why Thatguy said it was useless.. fiber glass is more efficient but it's expensive.



Thatguy was banned recently, so that might explain it? He made quite a few trolls in my threads and was quite unpleasant.


----------



## m4gicfour (Aug 24, 2011)

Yep. Makes sense. He wasn't COMPLETELY full of shit ALL the time, but he sure liked to think he knew everything there was to know about everything. Too bad, if people like that would learn to take themselves a little less seriously and argue in a constructive/collaborative manner, they could actually be a plus in the forum instead of, well, what he was.


----------

