What's new

new 5.1 speaker set-up, need advice (1 Viewer)

Madbavarian

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
6
Real Name
Doug
Hi, I currently have the boston acoustics classic series, cs226 floostanders and cs225 center with cr67 bostons as rears. for HT set-up. Im using a Denon avr 1612 as avr, Any recommendation an a speaker 5.1 upgrade under 600 dollars. I have been looking at infinity primus and the andrew jones pioneer 5.1 set-up. Or should I stick with my bostons, maybe what Im looking at wouldn't be much of an ugrade. I know the bostons I have are not exactly high end but I do like the sound of them. Any thoughts or suggestions? thks
 

schan1269

HTF Expert
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
17,104
Location
Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
Real Name
Sam
Primus and Pio AJ would be a lateral move.What are you not liking?(You are aware that, running 5 channels, the 1612 is only 40-ish wpc...)
 

Madbavarian

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
6
Real Name
Doug
One of my rear cr- 67 speakers woofer is starting to detoriate. Id like to keep my set-up timber matched and I had someone intererested in buying my CS front speakers. I could buy the cs26 bostons for my rears instead and keep the whole set timber matched I suppose. I have noticed towers strain a little when pushed louder, probably becuase of the lower wattage my receiver is putting out.

Do you think I would benefit more by getting a powerful receiver? 40 watts into five channels does sound like it wouldnt bring out the best in my towers.
 

schan1269

HTF Expert
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
17,104
Location
Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
Real Name
Sam
The X2000 by 5 probably coughs up 65-ish wpc. Will that make make an earth shattering difference? No...But...Blu Ray is predicated on a 20db dynamic range.Bottom end being 85. Quick math...assuming it takes 1 wpc to create 85db in your room(that would be 5 total watts)...105 takes 100wpc or 500 watts."Nobody" listens to movies that loud.The more headroom you got...the better.(I hooked up a power meter to a clients home theater last week to see how much juice his system used. Connecting the Pre-Pro, 7 Bryston mono-blocks(each roughly 125 watts) and his subwoofer (which he thought I was nuts connecting all that to one 20 amp circuit)...put on one of the most trying passages in movies...the overcooked audio in Days of Thunder at uncomfortable volume levels cooked along at...A whopping total of...4 amps. With 5 amp peaks.)
 

ArmSC

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
869
Location
Coastal SC
Real Name
Tony
Madbavarian said:
One of my rear cr- 67 speakers woofer is starting to detoriate. Id like to keep my set-up timber matched ....
The front three are the only ones that should be timbre matched. You can use different model/brand rears especially if you have an auto calibrating AVR. I'm still confused as to why are you looking to replace your setup if you like the sound it puts out? What sub are you running? Maybe just some new rears and a sub upgrade?
 

schan1269

HTF Expert
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
17,104
Location
Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
Real Name
Sam
Since when do the rears "not" need to be timbre matched?Is it as necessary as the front? No...but it should never be suggested otherwise.And by "deteriorate"...Do you mean the woofer surrounds you can buy on Ebay/Amazon for $15-$20 and have fixed in 30 minutes, ready to play once the glue dries?
 

Madbavarian

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
6
Real Name
Doug
I ended up buying a set of boston a25's for my rears. I got a like new pair for 120 shipped. Should have a close sound signature to my front three cs speakers. The woofer foam in one of my cr67 is cracking and getting worse. I like the idea of fixing the foam though. I will probably use the 67's on my upstairs avr for 2.0 channel listening.

Running an xb6 boston subwoofer, 12 inch. Your right, what I was looking at for speakers wouldnt be an upgrade in sound, Im going to invest in a new avr with more power, probably something along the line of the denon, Or the marantz receivers look very nice. Either way will shoot for something with at least 95 watts a channel, to channel driven or higher. I do like audyssey, and that is one feature I definitely want in my avr. My current 1612 has only audyssey mult eq, much difference stepping up to say the mult eq ext?
 

schan1269

HTF Expert
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
17,104
Location
Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
Real Name
Sam
I dont like auto EQ, personally. I liken them to turd polish. Essentially they correct for "lousy speaker placement/seating arrangement".Yes subwooder frequency can be hard to tame. There are three ways to it...1. Invest in tower speakers for all speaker positions(letting them all play the problem bass...all over the room).2. Two subwoofers(or more)3. EQAntimode is "the best" sub EQ.
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,847
Location
Rexford, NY
This is a good time/place for me to learn about this.

Sam: I've seen your use of the "turd polish" phrase a couple of times with regard to Audyssey. Educate me.

What's the alternative to Audyssey? Manual sound calibration (with an SPL Meter)?

Is Audyssey (which I have used without complaint, by the way) a "lazy man's" calibration tool?

I've often wondered about this. Audyssey is time-consuming enough as it is. But, I also usually find myself tweaking the results to my liking afterwards anyway. So maybe I should consider turning this into a lengthier DIY project. Is there a website that explains how to do this on one's own?

=================

By the way, Doug, I liked the looks/price of that Denon X2000 so much that I picked one up for myself a couple of weeks ago. But I can't tell you what I think of it until after Christmas. :biggrin:
 

schan1269

HTF Expert
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
17,104
Location
Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
Real Name
Sam
Auto EQ, by any name, is turd polish. Parametric EQ(YPAO, but still polish) is a different animal.I've said, many times, that I adhere to the ITU standards. I build all theatres...sound first. That is why I constantly bark out "are you using an AT screen?".You can look up ITU, but...in short...You sit(as in the sweet spot) an exact distance from every speaker in the room. Including the subwoofer.Yes, that means your couch goes in the center of the room(but if you do a perfect circle and let that circle be outside the room, the couch is as much as 60% towards the rear wall.)SACD and DVD-A are predicated on NOT using bass management. You simply place your 5/7/9/11 speakers where they are supposed to go...and let her fly.
 

Madbavarian

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
6
Real Name
Doug
I have a rectangular family room with a "L" shaped couch which isnt ideal for speaker placement. I do the best with what I have though and my surround speakers are to the side of where you sit. Because of the room shape though one of the surrounds is up front a little further (still facing seated positions) than the other. The subwoofer is placed in the front left corner of the room facing outward. I believe audyssey does the best it can with my odd shaped room.

I know there is a lot of debate on if audyssey is better or not, but to my ears its sounds more lively and engaging. Audyssey certainly isnt perfect, I still have to tweak the crossovers but I have listened with audyssey on and off and I like what it does.

Anyone using audyssey know if the multeq xt is much better than multeq to their ears?
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,847
Location
Rexford, NY
Madbavarian said:
I have a rectangular family room with a "L" shaped couch which isnt ideal for speaker placement. I do the best with what I have though and my surround speakers are to the side of where you sit. Because of the room shape though one of the surrounds is up front a little further (still facing seated positions) than the other. The subwoofer is placed in the front left corner of the room facing outward. I believe audyssey does the best it can with my odd shaped room.

I know there is a lot of debate on if audyssey is better or not, but to my ears its sounds more lively and engaging. Audyssey certainly isnt perfect, I still have to tweak the crossovers but I have listened with audyssey on and off and I like what it does.

Anyone using audyssey know if the multeq xt is much better than multeq to their ears?
I've got an irregular room/set-up, too, Doug. I'd say most people using their living room areas (and not a dedicated HT) probably do.

I, too, am curious to see what the difference in the multeq xt Audyssey will be. Wish I could tell you now! But, I've got to wait till the holidays! :biggrin:
schan1269 said:
I've said, many times, that I adhere to the ITU standards. I build all theatres...sound first. That is why I constantly bark out "are you using an AT screen?".You can look up ITU, but...in short...
Google tells me it's:

International Telecommunications Union

International Technological University

International Triathlon Union

Institute for Transuranium Elements

Information Technology University

Istanbul Technical University

Information Technology Unit

Yikes! :biggrin:

I guess it was the first one...although it seemed like some policy wonk institute tied-in to the UN at first blush.

A couple of links I found.

An honest-to-goodness government report on multi-channel sound in the home :blush:

AND

a website that explains some of what's in that report for a layman

I guess I've got some reading to do. Thanks! :thumbsup:
 

gene c

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
5,854
Location
Bay area, Ca
Real Name
Gene
I think auto eq's can be helpfull with dialog in movies/tv but I generally don't use them for music. I usually run the auto eq program and then gently re-adjust some of the frequencies until I get the vocals to sound right to me. The 250, 500 and 1000hz usually get then most attention, lowering each 1/2 to 1 decible. Music is listened to in Pure Audio or Direct Audio. My little Mordaunt-Short 902i's seem to sound just about right in my back bedroom without any eq at all. I can't believe how good those little buggers sound. I couldn't say that about Infinity's Beta's (to soft in the tweeter), Polk LSi's (to dark a midrange), Paradigm Studio 20's V1 (highs too "tingy") or even MB Quart Vera's (too detailed. How can that be? Crystal clear mid-range, though). They were all excellent speakers but just not quite right. My livingroom is an acoustical nightmare. Nothing seems to sound all that great in their. Not all that bad, just not right.

Anyway, that's what I like best about Pioneer receivers with Advanced MCACC. You get 6 MCACC presets to play with and copying one to another is as simple as a couple of buttons on the remote. I believe YPAO also has a few Manual Presets and Audyssey has at least one. EZSet eq has no user adjustments. You run it and you get what it gives you.

I suggest running the auto eq and deciding for yourself when/if to use it.

Istanbul Technical University...Istanbul??
 

David Willow

Babbling Idiot
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
2,555
Location
Mechanicsburg, PA
Real Name
Dave
If you build your theater room with the sound in mind, then I agree - there is no need for EQ. However, if your room is a normal family room built without sound in mind, Audyssey can work wonders. It can tame the room without the owner investing in room treatments.

Unless you are wiling to invest in room treatments and/or reconstruction there is no other way (not even with Disney WOW and your SPL meter as the author likes to tell you).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,388
Messages
5,137,315
Members
144,369
Latest member
UnthinkableSol
Recent bookmarks
0
Top