Speakers and power
July 23, 2004
Hi Wes,
I recently read one of your articles on power handling of
speakers, and after that, I thought of asking you for some advice on the matter. I'm
looking forward to buying a new A/V receiver and speakers (investment for the future),
mostly to hear good sound with movies in 5.1 or 7.1, but also to hear good music in
stereo. I was thinking about getting a Yamaha RX-V1400 or an alternative with less power,
like the RX-V750 or RX-V650.
What speakers or speaker package do I get to go with the
Yamaha receiver? I like the award-winning KEF KHT2005.2, but they only handle 100W. What
should I do (in your expert opinion)? Buy a less powerful receiver, or choose another set
of speakers?
One reason I prefer the Yamaha receiver is that it is THX
Select, but most of all I can get it for a very good price. Are these significant reasons
for buying it instead of another receiver? What about that set of speakers? Aren't they
short on power with a receiver like the Yamaha? Also, do they perform well in stereo, or
should I get another set (pair) of speakers like, for instance, the B&W DM602S3?
Nuno
As I said in "How Many Watts Is
That Speaker?," "The most honest answer is that speakers are not rated by
watts -- at all, ever." Loudspeaker manufacturers -- especially honest ones like KEF
and B&W -- have to give some kind of power rating just to alert consumers of the
approximate power it will take to drive their speakers, but the figure that you need to
pay attention to is the low end of the scale. That's generally a good estimate of the
minimum amount of power that it will take to drive the speakers without running into
trouble.
The upper end of the range is almost meaningless. It is
doubtful you will ever continuously put more than 50W through the speakers in your home
theater (assuming you're not very drunk or trying to provide "sound
reinforcement" for your backyard barbecue). On really dynamic material, you might put
a nanosecond's worth of 150W or even more through 'em, but they can take it in short
bursts.
In other words, buy either the KEFs or B&Ws based on
which you like most, don't worry that the KEFs are "only" rated to 100W.
And yes, they should sound fine in stereo -- either set --
because they are well engineered and accurate.
Wants a good tuner in his receiver
July 21, 2004
Hi Wes,
I want to buy a home-theater receiver, but I listen to a
lot of radio, too. I heard a few A/V receivers and they all sounded awful on FM -- and
even worse on AM. Doesn't anybody make a good-sounding radio section anymore?
Ferdie
A better question might be, "Doesn't anybody have a
good-sounding radio station anymore?" With compression and all the other processors
they're running the signal through, there are darned few stations that will sound good
with any tuner.
Still, there are a few good 'uns out there, so it's worth
having a good tuner. I was impressed with the radio section of the Harman Kardon AVR
330 I reviewed recently -- and also of the Integra DTR-8.2
I reviewed a while back.
Of course, you don't have to use the tuning section in your
A/V receiver. There are lots of very cheap used tuners on the market and you can listen to
one of those instead of the cheap'n'cheerful built-ins on most HT single-box units....Wes
Phillips
Arcam-based system
July 19, 2004
Dear Wes,
I have enjoyed reading your articles about Arcam.
I have an Arcam DV88 Plus DVD player and an Arcam
A90 amp, and I wonder which cables I should go for and which speakers I should buy.
Do you think that the DV88 Plus sounds like the
CD72, CD72t, CD82, or CD82t? I have read some articles about the CD72 and some reviewers
thought that the treble was almost too ambitious. Do you think that DV88 Plus is like
that, too?
Mats
I found that the DV88 Plus sounded extremely
natural on CD, better than almost any other DVD player I have auditioned (although I am
listening to a few universal players that give it a run for its money -- or better it.
You'll have to read the upcoming reviews to find out which and whether.)
I'm not sure what the reviewers meant by saying the
CD72 has "treble that was almost too ambitious," so I cannot comment on that.
I had good luck with DiMarzio, Kimber, and
AudioQuest cables with the DV88 Plus. Lately, I've been impressed with the Audience Au24
cables, as well.
As I've said before, speakers are perhaps the most
intensely personal of all audio choices, and I cannot choose them for you, especially
since you haven't told me anything about what you like. But look through my review archives
on and you'll get some idea of speakers I have thought highly of -- there are worse
starting places on your search.
Paradigm versus Polk
July 13, 2004
Hello Wes,
I have been entertaining the idea of adding the Paradigm Seismic 12 to my
home theater and was wondering how it compared to the Polk PSW650 (which it would be
replacing)?
Jonathan
The Seismic 12 replaced the PSW650 as my
reference. It's punchier, sounds more authoritative, and is smaller. The Polk's
front-panel-accessible loudness control is something I miss, as is its filter bypass, but
those are features that probably mean more to a reviewer who must change systems
frequently than to most HT enthusiasts.
Of course, Paul DiComo tells me there's a new
Polk subwoofer coming soon that may cause me to churn my reference once again.
One or two Quads?
July 10, 2004
Hello Wes,
I have a Rotel receiver with Polk Audio speakers.
Now I am adding a stereo power amp to improve the musical performance as well as to modify
to a 6.1 HT system. I am considering Quad amps and have two choices: (1) Just buy one
(Quad 909) stereo power amp to drive my front speakers, or (2) buy two stereo power amps
(Quad 909) and vertically biamplify my front speakers. I am already biwiring with Van den
Hul cable.
Please give your opinion and advice.
Thanks and best regards.
G. Chidambaram
I'd just buy one and see how it sounds. Adding
the second one only after you've experienced the difference it makes in your system
(assuming you're not so besotted with the sound of one that you can't even imagine two
being better). If you do decide to biamplify the front channels, I think you are correct
to consider using a matched pair of the same amplifier.
Better than the theater?
July 5, 2004
Hi Wes,
You've said that good home theater can be better
than a movie-theater experience a few times now. Do you really believe this? After all,
even HDTV has less resolution than film and DVD isn't even that good.
Or do you know something I don't?
Huddie
If you go to an Academy theater that is kept to
spec, you'll get better resolution than just about anything you can achieve at home --
I'll certainly grant that.
But how many Academy theaters are there in the
US? 25? 50? There aren't many -- and even if you live near one, what if you don't want to
see the film it happens to be showing? I usually end up seeing first-run movies based on
my schedule -- and that means that I end up seeing movies in places with crappy sound and
blurred focus, neither of which is the case at home.
And home is getting better, while movie theaters
are gearing up for digital projection, which at the moment, at least, means lower
projected resolution.
Add to this the fact that most theaters are too
air conditioned for comfort, too loud, and have improperly adjusted sound systems and yes,
I think most moderately good home theaters present a better theatrical experience.
And I'm just old enough to be grumpy about
movie-theater manners, too. Dear talkative audience members just STFU already -- I don't
care what you think about the movie. And turn off your cell phones while you're at it.
Yes, I like my home theater a lot more than most
movie theaters, but a good theater can still be a thing of joy, when you can find one.
Equalization in modern components
July 2, 2004
Hi Wes,
First, thanks for your time and the effort you put
into your site. I hope I am not covering old ground and wasting your time.
I am looking at replacing my 20-year-old system. I
am a bit of a tweaker. I have moved around the country a bit (collecting license plates
the hard way) over the years. I loved having the flexibility of having a one-third-octave
graphic equalizer handy for tweaking my system in all the different rooms in which I set
my system up.
I am quite surprised to find that this flexibility
has been phased out. I cannot find any surround receivers (priced $600 to $1000 range)
that offer a loop output of some sort to hook up some type of parametric/graphic EQ. I am
also surprised that with the use of DSP processors these days that most if not all are
limited to a bass and treble adjustment (shelving EQ?) in most cases only on the front
speakers. I would have thought that there would be room for all sorts of things.
I was just wondering if I am understanding this
correctly -- have things gotten so good that external adjustments to compensate for a
room's shortcomings are no longer necessary?
I was looking at some of the Polk Audio speakers and
have not decided on a receiver as of yet.
Roger
Graphic equalizers have fallen out of favor for a
variety of reasons, including the commoditization of home-theater equipment (leading to
ever-downward-spiraling prices and the phasing out of less-popular features, such as tape
loops). I suspect the biggest reason that graphic EQs have fallen out of favor is that
they didn't really work.
One-third octave equalizers simply aren't precise
tools and they tend to change too wide a swath to correct problems without affecting
adjacent frequencies as well. Where they do tend to work well (sort of) is in
cleaning up some of the room-related mud below 100Hz, but in HT settings at least, you can
frequently do more by moving the subwoofer (or your listening chair).
Parametric equalizers are a different story, but
they're more expensive and harder to use, and even they aren't that prevalent these days.
And yes, you'd think there would be more use made of
DSP's potential, but perhaps that will happen in the future.
|
