upgrade path? (1 Viewer)

[Raptor382]

Looking to make some upgrades.

Currently have:

Yamaha RX-v871
Outlaw audio LFM1+
Infinity P363 (mains)
Infinity PC351 (center)
Infinity P163 (surrounds)

The Infinity speakers are a bit warm for me. They seem to not have good mid range to upper range. I like my speakers to be a bit more vivid than that. Perhaps I need to find a speaker that is a bit brighter? I used to have a pair of Paradigm monitor 9's that I remember that I liked.

I was thinking of just upgrading speakers, but now, i'm wondering if maybe I just need to put more power to them. Outlaw audio sells their model 2200 amps which are 200W each. If I were to buy a pair of them for my mains, then later get amps for my surrounds and center, would that make a significant difference in the way the Infinities sound, or would I end up just spending money and be disappointed? Eventually, i'd work on getting amps for all my speakers, then changing out the Yamaha for an Outlaw Audio 975 pre/pro, but, if the AVR isnt the problem, i may stick with that and just work on speakers first.

Im not able to spend a lot at once, so I plan on upgrading a little at a time. Right now, I have about $1000 to start with. In your opinion, would I be better just keeping the speakers i have and giving them more power or would it be best to upgrade the speakers first, then add amps and a pre/pro later?

If speakers, what would you recommend in my price range? $1000 for a pair of front main speakers.

Ive been looking at:

Klipsch RF82 II
B&W 684B
Polk TSX440
Polk TSX550
Polk RTiA7

Maybe there is another brand that would be equal or better than what I listed that would be within the same price range?

Anyway, just wondering what you think the best upgrade path would be. Speakers first, or amps first.

Thanks, your replies would be helpful.

 

[schan1269]

More power rarely helps speakers. Unless...you are clipping. Which is probably not the case...as the 871 is not a lightweight. TSX is a lateral move. Entry level Infinity to entry level Polk. The A7, RF82 and 684 couldn't be any more different...Unless you included something with a ribbon tweeter.

 

[Raptor382]

Thanks, looks like i'll be headed up to Frys this weekend to demo some speakers. If the TSX are a lateral move, then I would imagine the A7's would sound pretty good to me. When I demo'd the P363's, I listened to a pair of TSX440s and thought they sounded pretty good, better than the Infinities, but, due to price, I just went with the infinities. Should have spent the extra money. Being that the A7's are a higher model line, i'm assuming they'll be even better.

Right now, however, I'm actually thinking alot about those RF82's. For one, copper cones look cool , but, I owned a set of Klipsch quintet home theater speakers and I thought, for a small speaker, they sounded pretty good, I bet those RF82's sound pretty good as well. I'm curious, the Icon series is a lower series than the RF series, correct? Just wondering, Best buy sells the icon series, Frys sells the RF series.

 

[Type A]

Your impressions of the Primus line is very different than mine. Upgrading will likely get you more detail in the highs but it wont get you brighter. I also disagree with Sams general statement, especially in regards to the Primus. Maybe its just the book shelf design of the 162s I run in zone 3 but an outboard amp made a big difference in attack and impact, I seriously doubt my Yammy was clipping when pushing just them. Never underestimate the benefits of good power reserves, some speakers really shine when fed properly.

 

[schan1269]

I've never been a believer in "more power makes a speaker sound bc better" (I'll stop short of calling snake oil though).Quality amp is quality amp...regardless if that amp is 25wpc or 225wpc.I got a 35wpc NAD PE sitting around the house somewhere. Anybody gonna say it isn't a good amp?I used to run a pair of Magnepan SMG from a Denon 335r.

 

[Raptor382]

While I'm up here listening to speakers, I thought I'd ask. I'm going to listen to several speakers, but am thinking favorably of the rfII 82's and the rtia7's. Will the Yamaha rx-v871 have any problem properly powering either of those speakers? Granted, I plan on getting amps in the future anyway but just thought is ask. Also, how much does bi-amping speakers improve their sound? The infinities I have are not bi-ampable, the klipsch and Polk are.

 

[schan1269]

The Klipsch RF82 is 98db efficient.

You'd go deaf with those being ran by this...
http://www.amazon.com/Dayton-Audio-DTA-120-Digital-Amplifier/dp/B00HFG3FYA/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1395512613&sr=1-6&keywords=t-amp

The A7 is 89db.

The A7 needs 10 times the power.

Essentially....

At 1 watt the 82 is 98db. The A7 to get to 98 needs 10 watts(not exactly...as the difference is 9db...not 10).

Feed the 82 those 10 watts...it is at 108db(going deaf here). That 108 out of the A7 needs 100 watts.

Feed those 82 100 watts, you are at 118db(pissing off the neighbors)

 

[schan1269]

Oh yeah...no point in bi-amping, unless you do it with a crossover...and assuming the speaker manufacturer actually means bi-amp...or bi-wire(not the same thing. Although...bi-amp has never been properly defined from bi-wire...in a way that would sense...).

You'd have to remove the crossover, and know what you are looking at, to know which one they did.

Buy enough amp, for you, and forget the bi-amp.

 

[Raptor382]

Ok. So what exactly does bi amp do? I was under the impression that it allowed power to be delivered to separate sections of the speaker, giving each of those individual speakers more power and thus allowing them to perform better and perform individually. I.E having separate power sources for the mids and highs and another source for the woofers made the speaker perform better. From what I understand from you, if you have big enough power source, it will provide enough power for everything all at once with no loss of sound quality?Also, the way you explain wattage, it almost sounds like you really don't need a lot of power. Seems like a 30 or 40 watt amp will be enough to deafen you. Why then do they make all these powerful amps and such? I was always under the impression that more power equaled better sound. Essentially a set of speakers powered by 40 watts would sound weak and thin, but put 150 watts on them, they would sound full and powerful. I also used to think that more power also would provide better sound quality at lower volumes. Is this not the case? If not, does a person really need 100,200 watts or more?

 

[schan1269]

Ok. So what exactly does bi amp do? I was under the impression that it allowed power to be delivered to separate sections of the speaker, giving each of those individual speakers more power and thus allowing them to perform better and perform individually. I.E having separate power sources for the mids and highs and another source for the woofers made the speaker perform better. From what I understand from you, if you have big enough power source, it will provide enough power for everything all at once with no loss of sound quality?
Bi-wire and Bi-amp have never "been defined". Technically...all bi-amp means is "two amps are involved". They could be sending exactly the same information...just doubled. To me, that should be bi-wire.

Anyway. Properly bi-amping requires two things.
1. two amps
2. Knowing the crossover point in the speaker.

Your 871(I had the 6080) uses the internal crossover on bi-amp mode. Which means...the highest you can set it is 200hz. That is not the crossover the A7 or 82 would use woofer to tweeter/midrange.

As far as "Yamaha is concerned"...bi-amp for their AVR is nothing but a throwback measure to accommodate passive subwoofers.

Also, the way you explain wattage, it almost sounds like you really don't need a lot of power. Seems like a 30 or 40 watt amp will be enough to deafen you. Why then do they make all these powerful amps and such?
Because...some people need it. The Pio AJ speakers are 86db and lower. IF those are used in a room 20x25 and the room is full of carpet, paintings and "acoustically dead" furniture...then 120 watts per channel may be necessary to make up for the in-efficiency of the speakers.

I was always under the impression that more power equaled better sound. Essentially a set of speakers powered by 40 watts would sound weak and thin, but put 150 watts on them, they would sound full and powerful. I also used to think that more power also would provide better sound quality at lower volumes. Is this not the case? If not, does a person really need 100,200 watts or more?
See above, but.
Power rating itself is only half the story. The 2nd half of the story is power supply.
Take the Kenwood M2A(I mention this amp a bunch) is rated 220wpc. It pulls 6.9a off the wall.

220x2 is 440. The amp has 828 at its disposal. Even if you assume 50% efficiency...the amp has routinely been shown to cough up 600 watts into 4 own speakers for instantaneous peaks.

 

[gene c]

Thanks, looks like i'll be headed up to Frys this weekend to demo some speakers. If the TSX are a lateral move, then I would imagine the A7's would sound pretty good to me. When I demo'd the P363's, I listened to a pair of TSX440s and thought they sounded pretty good, better than the Infinities, but, due to price, I just went with the infinities. Should have spent the extra money. Being that the A7's are a higher model line, i'm assuming they'll be even better.

Right now, however, I'm actually thinking alot about those RF82's. For one, copper cones look cool , but, I owned a set of Klipsch quintet home theater speakers and I thought, for a small speaker, they sounded pretty good, I bet those RF82's sound pretty good as well. I'm curious, the Icon series is a lower series than the RF series, correct? Just wondering, Best buy sells the icon series, Frys sells the RF series.

The Icon's were a BestBuy exclusive. They're also a laterat move from the Infinity's (backwards imo). The RF's are sold elswhere besides Fry's.

I also think the Primus series is very bright, but mostly in the upper range and not the mid-range. But they might be considered warm all over when compared to some Polks and most (if not all) Klipsch speakers.

Besides the A7's, try and listen to some of the older RTi's Frys has had on sale recently. They are brighter then the newer models. The huge RTi12's were on sale a couple of weeks ago. But your store may not have any in stock.

General concensus is bi-wiring is a waste of time. As for bi-amping and external amps, you're going to get different opinions all the time even from very knowledgeable people. I really don't know much about either. But more power can't be a bad thing, except for the extra cost.

 

[schan1269]

IF you really want to give yourself a woody...

Look at the rear pic of this thing...(for the electrical draw and it is "only rated at 225wpc"...)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hafler-DH-500-power-amplifier-a-big-ol-amp-/121299681844?pt=US_Home_Audio_Amplifiers_Preamps&hash=item1c3e064234

 

[gene c]

A fuse for each channel? Keep that thing away from me!

 

[schan1269]

A fuse for each channel? Keep that thing away from me!

And notice that is 10amp output....not input.

That means it is for the safety of your speakers...not the amp.

 

[schan1269]

Oh yeah...one last thing...

If you have the room, think about doing your complete 5/7(well, except center...unless you want to put your TV on it) in all RF82 or A7.

No, I am not kidding.

 

[Raptor382]

well, room isnt a problem, but cost is. I came home with 2 RF82's and a RC52 center channel. I guess i got a good deal on them. Klipsch website lists them at $600 each and Frys has them listed at $599 each. The salesman thought one of the boxes might have been opened, but didnt really look like it, the tape was just stretched a bit, and he got them off the shelf from the warehouse. He took a knife and opened the other box and then gave me an open box discount and sold them to me for $455 each. I think the center was like $259.

He said he didnt have the RF42 surrounds in stock but could have them for me by next weekend. Gave me his number and told me to call him before I go back and he would get me a deal on the surrounds. This is actually what my question is now.

In the picture I posted, you can see that my living room, dining room, and kitchen all kind of go together. According to the Klipsch manual, the optimal placement for the surround speakers is directly to the side of the listening position, about 2 feet above and pointed inward toward the listener. The alternate method they mentioned is mounted behind the listener pointed forward.

With the way my living room is laid out, will dipole speakers work? Right now, I have the Infinity P163 bookshelf speakers for my surrounds, and it doesnt seem like I can really hear the surround effects very well. One of the reasons this might be is because I have them on speaker stands, which places the speakers pretty much ear level..but perhaps the back of the loveseat and the cushions might stick up a tad bit and block the sound a little? Don't know, but I may put shelves on the wall behind me and place my surrounds on them.

If I get dipole speakers, I can just place them flat against the wall, correct? If I get bookshelf speakers, do I need to toe them toward the listener, or should they be places facing forward. I have the front mains toe'd in to the listener, that is what the Klipsch manual says, and I guess according to the dolby website, this is what their diagrams suggest as well. Is this the correct method, or should they be all pointed straight?

Anyway, with my living room, can I use dipole, or will I need to use bookshelf speakers as my surrounds?

Also, you mentioned getting RF82's for my surrounds. In talking about wattage for surround speakers, I was under the impression that surround effects are not an "all the time" sound, but only in certain circumstances, depending on what is going on in the scene. Because of this, would putting a full size tower speaker as a surround not be a waste? Wouldnt it be more cost effective to just use surrounds? Wouldnt a bookshelf or dipole speaker provide pretty much the same sound quality and experience?

What is the break in period for the Klipsch speakers? I think I may like the overly bright sound of the horn tweeters. That is what I felt I was missing from the Infinities. For example, the 'tick' of the drum stick hitting the cymbal or hi-hat when music is playing. Things like that are the vividness and detail I was talking about before, and I believe that the Klipsch will give me that detail. So far ive just done YPAO and listened to them a little bit, but wondering what they will sound like after 100 hours of use..or whatever the break in period is.

Now then. Because I have a speaker setup that is 98dB efficient. This brings to question my future upgrades. Like I said, I was planning on moving to separate amps and eventually a pre/pro. First question is, do separates generally give better sound/performance, or does an AVR give pretty much the same thing? If separates are the way to go, is it possible that the 200wpc amps I was thinking of getting for my mains might be a bit overkill? Given the post you made previously about wattage and decibels, it would seem to me that 200wpc might be useless. Perhaps I should go with a 120wpc or 150wpc instead? And, would I put identical amps on the fronts and center, then put a lower wattage amp, such as an 80wpc on the surrounds?

And lastly, since it seems that outlaw audio is selling things at a pretty reasonable price, im looking to go with them for all my separates. I believe their 200wpc amps are selling at $349 each, and their 975 pre/pro is selling at $549. In your opinion, would the combination of amps and pre/pro give me a better sound quality and performance than the current 871 AVR I have...or any AVR? Is it possible to upgrade to a better AVR (such as an Aventage or such) and get better quality of sound through that, than through separates?

Again, thanks for all your help.

 

[schan1269]

If you want to know if you are missing out on a "tower rear speaker"...

Move your current 363 back there and see what you think.

As for separates vs AVR...

The benefit to separates, once you find a speaker/amp combo you like...the only thing you change in the future is the pre-pro.

Again, for me, watts is nothing more than "how loud do you need it".

I would, if I were you, pick up amps(2 channel) from 2-3 different companies. Run them from your 871...and see if you, and your ears, can tell a difference.

But...I have a hard time believing you'd ever need more than 100wpc with the 82.

Give me a bit to look at pics of the room(but for the record I'm not a fan of di-pole)
Edit:
Thought you had pics somewhere on one of your threads...????

 

[schan1269]

In the mean time...pasted from your post...

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'Merriweather Sans', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]Also, you mentioned getting RF82's for my surrounds. In talking about wattage for surround speakers, I was under the impression that surround effects are not an "all the time" sound, but only in certain circumstances, depending on what is going on in the scene. 1.Because of this, would putting a full size tower speaker as a surround not be a waste? 2.Wouldnt it be more cost effective to just use surrounds? 3.Wouldnt a bookshelf or dipole speaker provide pretty much the same sound quality and experience?[/color]

The "bold" area...
Immortal Beloved
The Guillotines
Underworld: Awakening
Gravity
Black Hawk Down
Dead Silence
Baraka
Transformers
Master and Commander
Pan's Labrynth
The Water Horse
Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Fugitive(the new release)
Jeff Beck: Live at Ronnie Scott's
Any Pixar(notably Cars...which is incidentally the "go to" for why to do height)
Fight Club(Dust Brother's EarGasm)

Watch those movies and "report back" about the "surrounds not doing anything"...

1. Nope. watch those movies I list.
2. "Surrounds" is a stupid word. Any speaker is a surround speaker if used in that location. Even if those speakers are Klipschorns.
3. No. Big speaker always wins over little.

Caveat. I listen to SACD/DVD-A. I am a sound first theatre person.

 

[Raptor382]

oops, forgot the pic.

so, a couple of questions about tower surrounds. first is the issue of height. ive read that in general, you want your surround speakers to be above you, about 2 foot. using towers would not be able to do this, unless you placed them on some sort of base.

second, isnt one of the advantages of a di/bi pole speaker that it spreads the sound around better? wouldnt a tower speaker be more directional and localizable?

and lastly, if the answers to all those questions is "no", then, does it have to be the exact same speakers? would using a smaller tower do the same job? looking at the RFII 42 for $300/ea, the RFII 52's for $375/ea, and might be able to get discounts on those. Would I be able to use those speakers and achieve the same effect, or does it have to be the same towers in the rear as in the front?

thanks again.

also, is using the tower rear speakers mainly for music, or does it also work better than regular surround speakers for movies as well?

 

[schan1269]

I adhere to the ITU speaker placement guidelines for SACD/ DVD-A.Those pre-date DD.But, the original ITU paper is the basis for DD, DTS, THX and "everything else since".Matter of fact, the ITU is how movie soundtracks are mastered. Home theatre adjusted ITU to match realistic room goals. (Google ITU and you'll find numerous articles and how the guidelines were adjusted to accommodate real world)Anywho...di and bi pole and Horn are complete opposite goals. Klipsch does not call their bi-pole surrounds...bi-pole.Essentially, the goal of bi-pole is to diffuse sound. The goal of horn is to localize it. So Klipsch puts horns on both sides of a speaker intended to be diffuse.Anyway...based on your pic, and proper speaker placement, you can't do bi/di-pole anyway...as you need walls to bounce the sound off of. That, and you need to move your couch off the wall as you "should be" closer to 60/40 split front speakers to rears(ITU calls for dead center...60/40 to 75/25 is the "realistic change" for DD/DTS)