[Macpilot]

Hello all...

I have a friend who has a good chuck of cash to spend on a new home stereo system.

I have tried out the Bose systems and and am not too impressed. Some of the components seem cheaply built.

Does anybody here have suggestions on nice systems.

This won't be hooking up to a Mac or PC, just a stand-alone system for a home living room.

Thanks!

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

You want a system that comes all in a box or you want to mix and match?

Is it for home theatre?

[Gator Lager]

check here. http://www.audaud.com/audaud/OCT04/c...compindex.html

[Macpilot]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
You want a system that comes all in a box or you want to mix and match?

Is it for home theatre?

Pardon my ignorance, but is "home theatre" something unique?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Macpilot:
Pardon my ignorance, but is "home theatre" something unique?

Well if you want a system that supports 5.1 surround sound then yes. If you just want pure music you can get away with 2 speakers.

[george68]

How big of a room is he goign to put it in?

- Rob

[tooki]

"Bose: no highs, no lows."

Bose are well-marketed, so-so speakers. They're comparable in quality to similar Cambridge Soundworks speakers costing 1/4 the price. (Bear in mind, this is a condemnation of Bose, not Cambridge: I think Cambridge gives you exceptional bang for the buck.)

What do they want? Home theater for watching DVD movies? Stereo for listening to music? If music, what kind?

What kind of room is it going in? What room size? Do they have space for floor speakers? Bookshelf speakers? Satellites?

How loud do they need it to be?

Do they want to build a system a la carte or buy a "home theater in a box" kind of dealie?

What's the budget? (A "good chunk" means $500 to some people, $10,000 to others.)



In any case, my two cents, generally speaking: get a Denon or Yamaha receiver paired with Jamo, Boston Acoustics, or Polk Audio speakers. Note that almost without exception, the speakers should cost more than the receiver they're connecting to.



All of this audio stuff is fresh in my mind because I'm shopping for a home theater system right now. I'm tentatively thinking of getting a Denon AVR-1905 receiver (maaaaybe an AVR-2105 instead), Polk Audio RTi-series bookshelf speakers and matching center speaker, and a Pioneer DV-578A DVD-Video/DVD-Audio/SACD/CD player, for a total system cost of about $1500.

tooki

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by tooki:

All of this audio stuff is fresh in my mind because I'm shopping for a home theater system right now. I'm tentatively thinking of getting a Denon AVR-1905 receiver (maaaaybe an AVR-2105 instead), Polk Audio RTi-series bookshelf speakers and matching center speaker, and a Pioneer DV-578A DVD-Video/DVD-Audio/SACD/CD player, for a total system cost of about $1500.

tooki

What you said about bose it right, they are not good speakers.

If you are looking at a Denon have a look at Marantz. They are cheaper yet way more bang for the buck and overall better reviewed. I have a Marantz for home theatre and music and it is flawless.

Also, if you want incredible sounding and looking speakers give www.energy-speakers.com a try. They are my favourite thing about my setup.

[G4ME]

http://www.adireaudio.com/

http://www.gr-research.com/

http://www.acoustic-visions.com/

True bang for the buck up there.

get a pair of Kit 281 by adire built by Acoustic Visions and i will pay you for them if you don't like them, cause honestly i would love to have a pair, prob the best two speaker stereo setup for under $700.

Then for components, can't go wrong with Rotel, Outlaw, Crown, Krell. And if money is an issue, Denon or HK, Marantz.

[G4ME]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:

Also, if you want incredible sounding and looking speakers give www.energy-speakers.com a try. They are my favourite thing about my setup.

Quote from that site

Unlike most competitor subwoofers, the encore8 sub features an 8" long throw woofer instead of a larger 10 or 12" platform because smaller woofers are lighter and faster.


BULLSH!T

some one prove this as a correct statement.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by G4ME:

some one prove this as a correct statement.

Prove it is wrong

Or are you a bigger is better size queen type?

[IceEnclosure]

Originally posted by G4ME:
Quote from that site

Unlike most competitor subwoofers, the encore8 sub features an 8" long throw woofer instead of a larger 10 or 12" platform because smaller woofers are lighter and faster.


BULLSH!T

some one prove this as a correct statement.

well, i'm quite sure I've read that an 8" or 10" subwoofer would have tighter/more accurate sound reproduction than a 15" or so subwoofer. isn't this the case?

on a side note, I used to have those old Orion subs that didn't mind 500W continuous.. they were super, they hummmmed. and they were 10's in a sealed box in my truck at the time.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by tooki:
Note that almost without exception, the speakers should cost more than the receiver they're connecting to.

Wrong.

Crap in, crap out.

Every part of the audio chain (media reader, pre-amp, power-amp, and speakers) REMOVE part of the audio quality due to imperfect transmission. No part of the audio chain can ever add anything back that got lost at a preceding stage. If the preceding elements of the audio chain aren't top-notch, then top-notch speakers aren't going to sound any good.

A mediocre system through excellent speakers will sound mediocre. An excellent system through mediocre speakers will sound better.

(I did not believe this until I sold my Linn Nexus reference speakers and invested the $800 I got for them in a new subchassis for the turntable, while replacing the speakers with spectacularly craptastic three-way speakers I found in the attic when I moved in. There was no comparison; it was so much better.)

If you have $5000, I'd invest $2500 in the source (CD player or turntable), $1500 in the amp, and $1000 in speakers.

A couple points:

1. *Listen* to every component in comparison to others.

2. "BOOOOM" is not a measure of sound quality.

3. Avoid Sony. Like the plague.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by G4ME:
Quote from that site

Unlike most competitor subwoofers, the encore8 sub features an 8" long throw woofer instead of a larger 10 or 12" platform because smaller woofers are lighter and faster.


BULLSH!T

some one prove this as a correct statement.

Don't know about woofers, but it's certainly true for bass amps.

Less "oomph", possibly, but crisper and faster response.

4x8" > 2x12"

[dav]

i think much of this is personal preference, but i'd go with separates (pre-amp, amp) if you're primarily a music listener. and don't waste money on interconnects and wire. i also prefer silk dome tweeters.
i have rotel separates paired with vienna acoustics speakers which i'm happy with. for home theater i picked up a vantas dpa-s50 (processor/amp) that integrates nicely.
just demo and listen as much as you can.

[davidflas]

One of my favorite metaphors for sources vs speaker quality is the woman and and the window. The woman represents the source ie cd player, dvd, turntable, and the window represents the speaker. The question is: Would you rather look at an ugly woman through a clean window, or a beautiful woman through a dirty window? The clean window and ugly woman are a cheap source and expensive speaker. The beautiful woman and dirty window a expensive source with a cheap speaker.

[kikkoman]

Originally posted by G4ME:
Quote from that site

Unlike most competitor subwoofers, the encore8 sub features an 8" long throw woofer instead of a larger 10 or 12" platform because smaller woofers are lighter and faster.


BULLSH!T

some one prove this as a correct statement.

I think your are interpreting that statement out of context. In the case of the Energy Encore systems an 8" woofer is a appropriate choice because it will need to produce frequencies above 100 Hz since the 4" drivers on the satellites are too small to produce usable amounts of bass below that frequency. In such a situation both the subwoofer and satellites share a range of operating frequencies. Within this range the driver in the sub needs to "keep up" with the smaller driver in the satellite. All other factors constant, it's easier (and cheaper) to engineer a smaller 8" woofer to match the response of a 4" mid/bass driver than it would a 12" because it has less mass (lighter) which means better transient response (faster). In that context, I think their statement is true.

[zigzag]

If he's talking about Bose, I would guess that this person is probably a neophyte thinking of spending $1000-2000 on a home theater system, so the talk of Crown amps, turntables, etc. is probably moot. At that price level the electronics are for all practical purposes equivalent and are probably fabricated in the same plants in Taiwan. In that respect, I agree with Tooki: the speakers are the only component that will make a meaningful difference. So don't waste money on exotic electronics you don't need; get any Japanese receiver with the features you want, then any basic Japanese CD/DVD player, and put the bulk of the money into the speakers. Even then, speaker technology has advanced to the point where you can buy almost any prominent name and do well: Paradigm, JBL, Boston Acoustics, Cambridge, and so forth - there are dozens of them. And shopping for speakers is hit or miss anyway because the acoustic environment in the store will be completely different than the one in your home. Just get the ones you like.

I tell most people to get a system-in-a-box (except for Bose, which is overpriced). They're easy to set up, easy to use, and offer perfectly good sound for 99% of the population.

Whatever you do, do NOT let them sell you expensive cables on the basis that they will improve the sound. That is audio equivalent of snake oil and wrinkle cream.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by davidflas:
One of my favorite metaphors for sources vs speaker quality is the woman and and the window. The woman represents the source ie cd player, dvd, turntable, and the window represents the speaker. The question is: Would you rather look at an ugly woman through a clean window, or a beautiful woman through a dirty window? The clean window and ugly woman are a cheap source and expensive speaker. The beautiful woman and dirty window a expensive source with a cheap speaker.

I have to remember that one.

Finally a great analogy for what I'm trying to describe.

Thank you.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by davidflas:
One of my favorite metaphors for sources vs speaker quality is the woman and and the window. The woman represents the source ie cd player, dvd, turntable, and the window represents the speaker. The question is: Would you rather look at an ugly woman through a clean window, or a beautiful woman through a dirty window? The clean window and ugly woman are a cheap source and expensive speaker. The beautiful woman and dirty window a expensive source with a cheap speaker.

There's an element of truth to that, but I don't think it has much practical import anymore. When Linn introduced the idea that one electromechanical source (e.g. turntable) could sound significantly better than another, it really mattered. But few people use turntables anymore, and solid-state electronics and digital technology have reached a point where, for all practical purposes, a $100 CD/DVD player or receiver/amp is as good as a $500 CD/DVD player or receiver/amp. At best, spending more money on electronics gets you rapidly diminishing returns. The only component that remains electromechanical in nature is the loudspeaker, and in most consumer systems that's where the biggest differences in sound will occur. Thus my advice to most people that they focus on speaker quality.

[Shaddim]

My .04 (adjusted for inflation.)

One of my passions in life is home audio (HT included), and I spend far more money and time than I should on the damned hobby. That aside, there's a few things I've found to be "truths".

The most important aspect of any sound system is the speakers, they're also the most varied according to taste (and price). They vary in sound greatly; does your buddy want a "warm" or "bright" sound? how much does he have to spend? How big is the room he's placing them in? What kind of music does he most listen to? Lots of factors involved, perhaps the greatest of which is speaker placement. Have him go around to different shops and stores and see which he prefers. (BTW, the Adire recommendation is a good one, they do sound awesome for the price.

Also, while I agree that seperates are great, that's usually not the best way to break into the hobby. In many circustances a high quality receiver can sound just as good as seperates, and save you a bundle. Again, it depends on how much you have to spend. Some good quality brands that won't break the bank are Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, and Sony ES (and ONLY the ES line). A good quality receiver can be found for <$500, and will provide enough "oomph" for a fairly large room (20'x20'). Unless your buddy has >$5000 to spend on seperates, IMO, it's not worth it.

Personally, I've got as much money in stereo quipment as some people spend on a house. If he gets to that level of craziness though, he'll know what he likes.

Originally posted by zigzag:
and solid-state electronics and digital technology have reached a point where, for all practical purposes, a $100 CD/DVD player or receiver/amp is as good as a $500 CD/DVD player or receiver/amp. At best, spending more money on electronics gets you rapidly diminishing returns.

While I agree that you do get diminishing returns, a $500 CD player should sound noticeably better than a $100 CD Player, unless you are getting ripped off. I have Rotel CD player - it sounds noticeably better than any other CD player I've ever owned, including my Toshiba DVD player.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
But few people use turntables anymore, and solid-state electronics and digital technology have reached a point where, for all practical purposes, a $100 CD/DVD player or receiver/amp is as good as a $500 CD/DVD player or receiver/amp.

Woah there.

That kind of reminds me of the leading independent test magazine in Germany, who decided in the late 80s that they'd stop reviewing CD players, since they're all at the same digital CD resolution, anyway.

Whoo-kay.

At the low end and the major consumer brands, you are correct - the differentiation is features, not sound. They all sound crap.

It's quite misleading, however, to claim that there aren't $500 CD/DVD players out there that will easily stomp into the ground everything mass-market up to a multiple of the price. Compare a $500 Cambridge Audio CD player to a $500 Sony CD player - be prepared to walk out laughing.

To the original poster:

This stuff here comes highly recommended.

http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/independents.cfm

It's among the best bang-for-the-buck hi-fi you can get, and it's genuinely fun to listen to:

Find a dealer near you and have a listen.

-s*

[acadian]

I put together a very decent component system comprised of Sony ES Series components and Mirage speakers.

All for around 5000K Canadian

[Macfreak7]

What's the big fuss about bose speakers? I just bought a pair of 301s and they sound pretty good playing anything from classical to alternative.
I haven't heard too many speakers, so I'd like to knw what's wrong with the 301s in particular, if anything?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by hayesk:
While I agree that you do get diminishing returns, a $500 CD player should sound noticeably better than a $100 CD Player, unless you are getting ripped off. I have Rotel CD player - it sounds noticeably better than any other CD player I've ever owned, including my Toshiba DVD player.

I would challenge anyone who claims to hear differences to a blind test with the gain of the components matched within 0.15 dB. I'd be willing to bet the price of the most expensive component that they could not tell which player was which.

I don't want to argue with people who have a firm belief in the quality of their systems - if they enjoy them, more power to them - but IMO, with respect to electronic components of recent vintage, it's mostly wishful thinking.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by zigzag:

I tell most people to get a system-in-a-box (except for Bose, which is overpriced). They're easy to set up, easy to use, and offer perfectly good sound for 99% of the population.

God no. I have heard those systems and they are terrible. The bass is EXTREMELY boomy and corners are cut to save costs so they have physical switches that can be heard clicking all the time. Well at least in the sub $700 market.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I would challenge anyone who claims to hear differences to a blind test with the gain of the components matched within 0.15 dB. I'd be willing to bet the price of the most expensive component that they could not tell which player was which.

I don't want to argue with people who have a firm belief in the quality of their systems - if they enjoy them, more power to them - but IMO, with respect to electronic components of recent vintage, it's mostly wishful thinking.

I've taken similar bets, and won. It's not that hard. The main reason being the DACs that are used in mainstream consumer audio are crap. High quality outboard DACs are going to pummel the 1 chip solution in most cheap sources and receivers in almost any situation, especially when accurate monitors are used.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
God no. I have heard those systems and they are terrible. The bass is EXTREMELY boomy and corners are cut to save costs so they have physical switches that can be heard clicking all the time. Well at least in the sub $700 market.

Ditto. The HTiB solutions are terrible, and unless a person has no alternative whatsoever, these should be avoided like the plague.

[dav]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
What's the big fuss about bose speakers? I just bought a pair of 301s and they sound pretty good playing anything from classical to alternative.
I haven't heard too many speakers, so I'd like to knw what's wrong with the 301s in particular, if anything?

i think it's not so much that they are "bad" speakers, but that the value isn't the best. many people feel you could get higher quality speakers for the same or less price as the bose.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
What's the big fuss about bose speakers? I just bought a pair of 301s and they sound pretty good playing anything from classical to alternative.
I haven't heard too many speakers, so I'd like to knw what's wrong with the 301s in particular, if anything?

Nothing wrong with them if you enjoy them, just that you can probably do as well for less money.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by tooki:
Note that almost without exception, the speakers should cost more than the receiver they're connecting to.

Actually, I even heard that you should spend as much money on your speakers as you spend on ALL other pieces of equipment (amp / receive, DVD, CD...)

-t

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
What's the big fuss about bose speakers? I just bought a pair of 301s and they sound pretty good playing anything from classical to alternative.
I haven't heard too many speakers, so I'd like to knw what's wrong with the 301s in particular, if anything?

Just don't go to a friends house with better speakers for the same price or you will come home and be depressed.

[davidflas]

I think that most people could be taught to discern the difference between digital sources. To me its the same as the difference between different wines. I have three sources in my stereo system: A Technics DVD-A10 DVD Audio/video player, a SonyES SCD-C555ES CD/SACD Player, and a Samsumg DVD-HD541 DVD Audio/video, CD/SACD, MP3 yadda yadda yadda player. Each of them sounds different, both the Sony and Technics have much higher quality internal components, and put the Samsung to shame. I bought the Technics new for $500, the Sony new for $600, and the Samsung new for $200. I listen to them through a Creek 4330 MkII integrated amp driving a pair of Polk RT55i speakers....And yes, I've spent good money on the cables Kimber Kable Hero interconnects, and Audioquest Emerald speaker cables. If I had more to spend on my system I would....

One thing we still don't know is how much our original poster's friend has to spend on his system...

[Macfreak7]

In general their systems do seem over priced. I happened to get mine for cheaper since they were factory renewed. So in all I think it was a good deal.

[davidflas]

Let's not forget that above all else: don't focus on the hardware, focus on the software.... I am a recovering audiophile and I've met people who have $100k systems that they are never satisfied with.... People who spent all their money on hardware and have about 5 cds to listen to. To a certain extent sound quality is a matter of taste Many people feel that the most important component in any system is the room it is placed in. Anyway.. let's keep the discourse going..

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Woah there.

That kind of reminds me of the leading independent test magazine in Germany, who decided in the late 80s that they'd stop reviewing CD players, since they're all at the same digital CD resolution, anyway.

Whoo-kay.

At the low end and the major consumer brands, you are correct - the differentiation is features, not sound. They all sound crap.

It's quite misleading, however, to claim that there aren't $500 CD/DVD players out there that will easily stomp into the ground everything mass-market up to a multiple of the price. Compare a $500 Cambridge Audio CD player to a $500 Sony CD player - be prepared to walk out laughing.

To the original poster:

This stuff here comes highly recommended.

http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/independents.cfm

It's among the best bang-for-the-buck hi-fi you can get, and it's genuinely fun to listen to:

Find a dealer near you and have a listen.

-s*

I know - we've had this discussion before, but I stand by my comments. The person referred to in the first post would probably be wasting his time comparing $100 electronic components to $200 or even $500 electronic components. Unless he has money to burn, I think he should invest that money in the best speakers he can afford.

I'm familiar with Linn and own some of their products but I don't buy into the idea that they can translate making distinctive-sounding turntables into making distinctive-sounding CD players and amps. The same holds true for the other high end manufacturers. I think it's mostly marketing hype. But that argument will never end, so I'm not going to delve into it and I have to get going anyway.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm familiar with Linn and own some of their products but I don't buy into the idea that they can translate making distinctive-sounding turntables into making distinctive-sounding CD players and amps.

a) "distinctive"? "transparent" is the point.

b) they HAVE.

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
What's the big fuss about bose speakers? I just bought a pair of 301s and they sound pretty good playing anything from classical to alternative.
I haven't heard too many speakers, so I'd like to knw what's wrong with the 301s in particular, if anything?

If they sound good to you, nothing. But for the same money, you can get much better speakers.

I have 5 B&W 301s (or is it 303?) and an ASW-700 subwoofer for my home theatre. I couldn't be happier for the money I've spent. ($225 CDN per speaker, $450 for the sub)

Originally posted by davidflas:
I've spent good money on the cables Kimber Kable Hero interconnects,

Ha ha! "Interconnects" - the mark of the audiophile elistist! They're called cables, damn it!

[cenutrio]

NAD

http://www.nadelectronics.com/

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Ha ha! "Interconnects" - the mark of the audiophile elistist! They're called cables, damn it!

No doubt. Yeah, I got caught up in that a bit, but not to a ridiculous level. Luckily, I got a set of incredible (re. crazy damned expensive) speaker cables, Transparent Reference XL, when I bought my Wilson MAXX system (I bought the speakers from a friend and he threw in the cables for just a bit more). The rest of my interconnects are from CatCables ( www.catcables.com ), the SilverCat line is awesome, great quality.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by cenutrio:
NAD

http://www.nadelectronics.com/

[d.fine]

A B&W set would be nice. You can get the new 600 series, good price for the products. I'd recommend 604's or 603's as fronts, and 602.5's or lower as rears, add a center speaker, an ASW675 or ASW650 and you've got a system that'll kick ass.

Now the amp ... B&W works really well with Rotel amps. Rotel has integrated and pre-power surround setups, so you choose according to your budget. These will work great with Denon, NAD and Arcam amps as well. It's just a matter of which you like best, or which your ears like best.

B&W also has a speaker called LCR600, which can be used as fronts, surround and center, and combined with a sub as a pretty good system as well.

Revox has some really good design speakers as well. They look really nice plus they sound awesome. They are easy to hang up if your friend should require that. They have many different designs. You can see some here. They also have stereo and surround decoders. These work really well with Revox speakers.

Whatever you choose for I'd recommend you stick with one brand, so that all speakers work together, and not one sticks out. I would definitively recommend against Bose, there are many other products that are way better that have a lower or equal price.

Good luck.

[qnxde]

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

Yeah, Bose are really good...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by davidflas:
Many people feel that the most important component in any system is the room it is placed in.

With that I agree. People spend absurd amounts of time and money making essentially arbitrary comparisons between, for instance, amplifiers, when in fact the characteristics of the listening room have a much greater effect on the final result. But treating a listening room is relatively boring compared to buying shiny new components, and in most cases the wife/girlfriend won't let you.

The other problem is that people go from shop to shop comparing speakers in environments that are acoustically bad and/or totally unrelated to their own listening environment. So unless they let you borrow the speakers, you're often shooting in the dark. But we do it anyway because it's fun.

[SafariX]

Originally posted by d.fine:
A B&W set would be nice. You can get the new 600 series, good price for the products. I'd recommend 604's or 603's as fronts, and 602.5's or lower as rears, add a center speaker, an ASW675 or ASW650 and you've got a system that'll kick ass.

Now the amp ... B&W works really well with Rotel amps. Rotel has integrated and pre-power surround setups, so you choose according to your budget. These will work great with Denon, NAD and Arcam amps as well. It's just a matter of which you like best, or which your ears like best.

B&W also has a speaker called LCR600, which can be used as fronts, surround and center, and combined with a sub as a pretty good system as well.

Revox has some really good design speakers as well. They look really nice plus they sound awesome. They are easy to hang up if your friend should require that. They have many different designs. You can see some here. They also have stereo and surround decoders. These work really well with Revox speakers.

Whatever you choose for I'd recommend you stick with one brand, so that all speakers work together, and not one sticks out. I would definitively recommend against Bose, there are many other products that are way better that have a lower or equal price.

Good luck.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I have 2 pairs of B&W 6-series speakers and an ASW650 sub. They sound incredible.

[effgee]

NAD
T+A



My home theater setup is NAD and it sounds, uhm ... good. Friend of mine has a couple of stereo components mdae by T+A and they're uhm ... the bomb.

[Evan_11]

www.norh.com

I used to own a pair of the 4.0 speakers and they were great. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on the source. Unless you're big into vinyl where a good turntable makes a difference most new cd players have excellent dacs built in. CDs are a limited resolution format anyway and can only sound so good at least to my ears. If your goal is a stereo only, music system I suggest putting tubes somewhere in the stream.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

Second that . And those cables damn, you can even use normal electrical wires you use in your power outlets. Audiophiles are a bunch of tards, don't take it personally.