I think I'm ready to build my first serious music (stereo) hi-fi system.
Most of my collection is digitized (.flac, .ape) so the source will be played from my computer.
Originally, I thought I would need a dedicated DAC, a stereo amplifier and a pair of speakers.
As some people pointed out in my other thread (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,116700.0.html (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,116700.0.html))
I may as well use a DAC that is built in the amplifier as most modern amplifiers and receivers have very good DACs.
I would like to hear what you guys recommend for my setup. My budget is the following:
$2000-2500 for speakers and $2000 for everything else (integrated amplifier or DAC+amp).
One important piece of information about me - I prefer to listen to music at moderate volume levels... Jazz and soft rock are my two favorite genres.
I heard that some speakers play well only at higher volumes while others can do well at low volumes as well. That's what I would probably like to have...
I heard that some speakers play well only at higher volumes while others can do well at low volumes as well. That's what I would probably like to have...
A speaker that sounds good at high volumes should also sound good at lower volumes. i.e. There's no reason for frequency response, or distortion, or anything else to get worse at low volumes.
Sorry, I don't have any recommendations for you. I would suggest you listen for yourself and some dealers will allow you to "audition" speakers at home so you can hear how they sound in your acoustic environment. ...Different people have different preferences and different tastes and manufacturer's specs are mostly worthless unless you are comparing specs from the same manufacturer.
$2000-2500 for speakers and $2000 for everything else (integrated amplifier or DAC+amp).
You get more bang-for-the-buck with a receiver. You might have to get a home theater receiver if you want the built-in DAC, and it may be more economical since they are mass-produced and marketed competitively.. You don't have to use all of the "extra" channels.
Does your computer have HDMI or S/PDIF?
If it was me I'd probably bias the budget more toward speakers, but that's up to you.
My budget is the following:
$2000-2500 for speakers and $2000 for everything else (integrated amplifier or DAC+amp).
A $4500 budget should make room for a decent full-digital active speaker setup. A quick eBay search for a 2nd hand located in North America (since you quote "$") brings me this set within your "speaker only" budget frame, and then you have included amps after the DAC after the digital crossover: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Five-Meridian-DSP5000s-96-24-complete-5-0-System/142950434535
I don't know the 5000s, but I have used their big brothers for fifteen years, and they are here to stay - no matter how much of a beating Meridian deserves for their "MQA" shit.
Edit: These are quite old, they only have s/pdif input. Newer ones have USB and ethernet. IDK how this works with the average BluRay player, I don't have any.
Downside: You need an ADC for analogue sources. But that won't cost much, if the bar is that it shouldn't degrade your FM radio signal.
If I were building a new system to play computer-based files, I would not connect my computer directly to the hifi. I would put my music files on a server in a closet with both local and off-site backup. For server software, I'd use Daphile (https://www.daphile.com/); and for my player I'd buy a pre-built unit from Allo (https://www.allo.com/sparky-plug-and-play.html).
As for hardware, I'm also partial to the amplified speaker approach (e.g. Meridian), but there's nothing wrong with any number of transistor or tube electronics and a pair of passive speakers. For this, you have to visit some shops and/or friends and listen until you decide what you like. Be sure your supplier offers a home demo period so you can confirm what you like in the shop also sounds good in your room. Sometimes, it doesn't.
Actually, what I might do if I wanted minimal fuss is purchase an NAD C 368 with optional BluOS module (https://nadelectronics.com/product/c-368-hybrid-digital-dac-amplifier/) and a pair of PSB speakers (http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/imagine). I like the fact that NAD and PSB are sister companies and said to be "voiced" for one another. The BluOS feature means you need not run a server, but instead can keep your files on any PC, hard drive, or NAS that is accessible on your network. (You still need a local/off-site backup plan, however.) As time goes by, you can add more Bluesound (https://www.bluesound.com/) devices to extend your music to other zones within your home. Bluesound offers TuneIn for internet radio, and the NAD has a MM phono section and a sub out. Of course, you control the whole thing with an app. Not much it can't do.
I think I'm ready to build my first serious music (stereo) hi-fi system.
I may as well use a DAC that is built in the amplifier as most modern amplifiers and receivers have very good DACs.
My budget is the following:
$2000-2500 for speakers and $2000 for everything else
I prefer to listen to music at moderate volume levels... Jazz and soft rock are my two favorite genres.
I heard that some speakers play well only at higher volumes while others can do well at low volumes as well.
The last part most likely from folks who don't understand Fletcher Munson and human perception vs level.
No one can advise you better than you for such a personal choice, like speakers that are going to fit your room and tastes.
As noted, modern amplification/dacs, etc are commodity pieces. Pick one with the features you need, a user friendly remote, etc, etc. For simplicity, a 2ch receiver, integrated or maybe dac-pre/power amp combo should set you back 500-1000 at most. Spend the rest on speakers. Keep in mind that simplicity may also limit future expandability if that is a concern. A more complex AVR will have a lot of features you don't need, but possibly some you can use that won't be present in 2ch electronics.
No one here knows your room layout and tastes in loudspeaker sound better than you. Nor where you live, as to suggest possible auditions.
Btw, I also use Foobar for 2ch++ direct from laptop via a wireless DAC at stereo
but there's nothing wrong with any number of transistor or tube electronics and a pair of passive speakers.
1950's tube technology is ridiculous. Tube amps can be as good as solid state amps, but they are expensive. McIntosh makes some fine tube amps (I owned an old mono McIntosh amp once) but they are not economical. They are also not energy-efficient.
(Guitar players seem to prefer tube amps driven into distortion but that's a different topic.)
Are you okay with some fairly easy DIY? Speakers from the late S. Linkwitz ought to be wonderful picks.
http://linkwitzlab.com/LXmini/Introduction.htm
I have the older Linkwitz Plutos and have been much pleased. It may seem strange to build speakers from plumbing supplies, but they work! If I had a larger space and didn't seem to move apartments every few years, I might have opted for the larger LX521s.
Tubes?? Well, for those with computer audio and who walk upright, perhaps a network receiver may be a bit more prudent.
500-1000 at most
If that doesn't mean that the expense could well be below $500 and will definitely be below $1000.01 then I will go ahead and say it.
A 2-ch ADC/preamp/amp over $1000 is for suckers. As it is, $500 is easily getting into the area of diminishing returns.
500-1000 at most
If that doesn't mean that the expense could well be below $500 and will definitely be below $1000.01 then I will go ahead and say it.
A 2-ch ADC/preamp/amp over $1000 is for suckers. As it is, $500 is easily getting into the area of diminishing returns.
I am thinking of going with Cambridge Audio CXA80 amplifier. It has a decent DAC, USB input plus 2 independent amplifier channels.
Had a chance to listen to it coupled to a pair of Paradigm Premier 800F speakers today - this combo impressed me quite a bit.
By the way, is it normal for speakers of this class to have such high low end frequency (50 Hz)?
I'd say the speakers are what impressed you.
Making a competent amplifier to drive them is a trivial task and has been for decades now.
I'd say the speakers are what impressed you.
Making a competent amplifier to drive them is a trivial task and has been for decades now.
Perhaps. Unfortunately, I don't have much of experience or other speakers that I listened to, to make this conclusion.
What I learned though is that I prefer a "warm" sounds rather than harsh. Any other brand recommendations I can audition that might produce warm sound? I hear B&W speakers are "warm". Is that true?
I hear B&W speakers are "warm". Is that true?
A bit of those characteristics you hear around are plagued by audiononsense that should be taken with a grain of salt, but I guess everyone has a gut feeling of what "harsh" and "warm" means - everything is relative, but there is some history to what was could be a yardstick. Back in the day when there were way more compromises necessary, there was an "English sound" tradition. Which throughout the seventies was influenced by this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A . For this use, the BBC first and foremost needed to get voices right.
B&W arrived to the game a bit later, with some speakers that - compared to a lot of shoeboxes found in UK homes - could deliver some proper bass. Is that "warm"? Maybe.
(Then, to every European dish there is an American copy with waaaaay more fat, right? Oops, did I say that?)
500-1000 at most
If that doesn't mean that the expense could well be below $500 and will definitely be below $1000.01 then I will go ahead and say it.
A 2-ch ADC/preamp/amp over $1000 is for suckers. As it is, $500 is easily getting into the area of diminishing returns.
Well, one can spend <$100 on amplification...and get something with no features and inability to drive some low impedance/low sensitivity speakers. I don't agree that >$1000 is for suckers, when that buys you an amp powerful enough to drive any speaker you choose and/or have features, like advanced auto EQ with microphone etc.
Yes, it's possible to get a <$500 AVR with all that...but not any stereo one that I'm aware of. If you know of one post a link.
For auto
2 channel auto room EQ, the least expensive option I'm aware of is the Yamaha N-803 network receiver....$600-750.
You (or I) may not find auto-eq a useful feature, someone else like the OP might....and might also want only a 2ch system, not a million buttons AVR.
I am thinking of going with Cambridge Audio CXA80 amplifier. It has a decent DAC, USB input plus 2 independent amplifier channels.
Had a chance to listen to it coupled to a pair of Paradigm Premier 800F speakers today - this combo impressed me quite a bit.
By the way, is it normal for speakers of this class to have such high low end frequency (50 Hz)?
Buy what you like, but the Cambridge doesn't strike me as worth anywhere near $1k and no, at $3k for speakers you can certainly get <50hz. However if you really like those Paradigms @ $2k/pr, adding a sub or 2 for <50hz can be done for <$1k and go lower than any passive speaker can.
A Yamaha R-N803 (https://www.google.com/search?q=yamaha+stereo+r-n803&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS784US785&oq=Yamah&aqs=chrome.2.69i59j0j69i59j69i57j0l2.3842j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), a USB to Coaxial S/PDIF Converter, the Paradigm 800Fs and a/or pair of Rythmik L12s is within $4k budget.
The Yamaha has plenty power, can be networked to untether you and has useful features like YPAO for dealing with your room modes without you having to buy/learn how to measure. Unless you want to, then there may be other options.
cheers,
AJ
500-1000 at most
If that doesn't mean that the expense could well be below $500 and will definitely be below $1000.01 then I will go ahead and say it.
A 2-ch ADC/preamp/amp over $1000 is for suckers. As it is, $500 is easily getting into the area of diminishing returns.
Well, one can spend <$100 on amplification...and get something with no features and inability to drive some low impedance/low sensitivity speakers. I don't agree that >$1000 is for suckers, when that buys you an amp powerful enough to drive any speaker you choose and/or have features, like advanced auto EQ with microphone etc.
Yes, it's possible to get a <$500 AVR with all that...but not any stereo one that I'm aware of. If you know of one post a link.
For auto 2 channel auto room EQ, the least expensive option I'm aware of is the Yamaha N-803 network receiver....$600-750.
You (or I) may not find auto-eq a useful feature, someone else like the OP might....and might also want only a 2ch system, not a million buttons AVR.
Why must it be 2-channel. Casually browsing with google, it doesn't look like the entry fee for AVR receivers with room correction is $500.
Of course you may need to plunk out a lot more for the ability to drive any speaker in any environment.
What I learned though is that I prefer a "warm" sounds rather than harsh.
:D I used to
think I knew what "warm" means, and it had a clear meaning to me... :D But after I read
this (http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/whaddya_mean_the_sound_is_fluffy/P0/) the meaning is not so clear, and It's not what I used to think:
while “warmth” could be thought of as “a feeling of rich intimacy, fullness and sweetness of sound."
So... I try to stick to scientific/engineering terminology like frequency response, distortion, and noise. But, sometimes I fall-back into old habits and I'll say "bright" or "dull" in reference to high-frequencies.
Why must it be 2-channel.
First sentence of the thread... :D
it doesn't look like the entry fee for AVR receivers with room correction is $500.
< symbol means it can be had for less! I think even the 200-300 range (new) has now.
Along with 800 button remotes ;-). Man said 2 ch, so sticking with wishes...plus I don't think the auto optimizers w/ mic for MCH work quite as well with only 2ch present. Not sure though.
Of course you may need to plunk out a lot more for the ability to drive any speaker in any environment.
True, though as we both know, wise choice of speaker can be driven by even the least expensive amps. Unfortunately, an actual impedance measurement, as Toole/Olive lament, is almost never part of the info. Shame.
What I learned though is that I prefer a "warm" sounds
Bass controls are still available for non-idiotphiles
I don't know what the features are of the CXA80 and I have to admit I'm not well versed in the Hi-Fi market. Haven't been for some time.
I don't know what the features are of the CXA80 and you're right and I have to admit I'm not versed in the Hi-Fi market. Haven't been for some time.
CXA80 has a ‘dual mono’ design to eliminate the cross-talk between the two channels, it has USB-audio input and a 24-bit/192kHz WM8740 DAC chip from Wolfson. It also features a subwoofer output in case I ever want to add that extra-base :-)
I don't think it has the ability to adjust to the room acoustics like Audyssey by Denon...
Have we determined that crosstalk in non-dual mono amps is a legitimate problem? It smells like marketing to me.
How much does that Wolfson chip cost and are there any double-blind test studies that indicate that it is audibly superior under non-pathological scenarios?
Again, I have to question whether this is just fueled by marketing and name-brand recognition.
Based on your requirements and assimilating what AJ has said, it would seem power and an adequate output impedance to drive the chosen speakers are left as the likely thing that makes or breaks the amp amp you choose. The rest of it is pretty much standard equipment.
CXA80 has a ‘dual mono’ design to eliminate the cross-talk between the two channels
Irrelevant marketing fluff
I don't think it has the ability to adjust to the room acoustics
Relevant to sound and price, as in why the f does it cost $1k then, when said featured slightly less powerful amp is just over 100 bucks? (https://www.google.com/search?q=Topping+TP32EX%2B&oq=Topping+TP32EX%2B&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
I think I'm ready to build my first serious music (stereo) hi-fi system.
Most of my collection is digitized (.flac, .ape) so the source will be played from my computer.
Originally, I thought I would need a dedicated DAC, a stereo amplifier and a pair of speakers.
I suppose the first thing would be to make sure you aren't overlooking anything basic. How big is your room? What sources do you anticipate listening to? And have you looked around to see what features are available, perhaps ones that you don't use now but might use if you had them? I went through this process a few years ago and ended up buying a TOTL (at the time) Marantz receiver. I suppose one reason I chose that is I was replacing a 35-year-old near-TOTL Marantz receiver with more power than any receiver available today. It was within your budget , but even that really was overkill. I use it as an AVR as well and it looks nice, so I don't necessarily regret the purchase.
So, these AVRs (by no means limited to Marantz) have features such as DLNA, Internet Radio and streaming services that are very handy--far better than any DAC/Amp combo. I use mine in conjunction with a custom HTPC, but I end up using the HTPC as a server for music and actually play it using the AVR. Same for internet radio and streaming. This eliminates the computer from the audio stream entirely. I still have a separate connection via TOSLink so that I can use Foobar, Audacity, etc and send it to the AVR. One thing most AVRs do not lack is a multitude of connections. I even have a phono stage. In any case, there's no sane reason, IMO, to have a bunch of separate units when the AVR will do everything and much more in one handy device. And AVRs with all of the relevant features can be had starting below $500. The DACs will be fine, just determine how much power you need and which features are relevant to you. It can be a lot of work--figuring out which one will work best for you will be an adventure. You'll need to learn about them so you don't miss out on something you may not currently even know about. For me, it was the ability to set up 1-button favorite radio stations from around the world. Currently my favorite classical music channels are in Chicago, Los Angeles and Copenhagen--all just a button away. Finally, if you are not using the video features, AVRs go out of style pretty quick as new video features come along, but the audio(stereo) angle of it remains the same. This makes used AVRs an excellent option in your situation. If you don't need 4K, the options available at $500 will blow you away.
Speakers are a little more frustrating, IMO. The type of music you listen too is actually among the least demanding as far as speaker systems go--at least that's my opinion, which may be disputed. You may want "accurate", or you may want something with a sense of spaciousness and brightness. For example, Bose 901s or Ohm Walsh speakers might just be your thing. The only way to know for sure would be to try them all in your room for an extended audition--and that after running the room correction on your AVR. That would take many years, given the vast number of options out there. I don't know how to quickly narrow it down, either. You should at least consider using two smaller speakers with 1 or 2 subs--and if you get better AVRs, they will have good sub correction and integration. Mine, for example, has separate Audyssey room EQ for 2 separate subs.
Last, keep in mind that if you haven't had a "serious" music system before, it's hard to go wrong (although not impossible) by buying some better stuff. Just don't blow your budget on power conditioners, exotic speaker cables, expensive damping feet and gold-plated USB cables and you should be OK.
I don't think it has the ability to adjust to the room acoustics like Audyssey by Denon...
Processing to handle room issues, that could certainly make a difference. But which ones do more than simple EQ?
But which ones do more than simple EQ?
Audyssey and Dirac claim to. Audyssey talks about time and frequency "transforms", but it is proprietary and they are short on details. On my AVR it represents the correction with a simple EQ-looking graph with no mention of other factors, other than speaker-to-LP distance. I've no experience with any other system.
Are you planning on replacing this AVR, and if so why?
On my AVR it represents the correction with a simple EQ-looking graph with no mention of other factors, other than speaker-to-LP distance.
Is there an option for running front LR only correction?
(https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0617/12/audiosource-eq-one-10-band-graphic_1_fd469721018507bc469d1ff1fcab04d2.jpg)
Are you planning on replacing this AVR, and if so why?
Not for the foreseeable future. And if I do, it will likely be only because I decide I need some feature or another, probably video related. Or it breaks or gets stolen...
Is there an option for running front LR only correction?
No, but there is an option for doing just the opposite, it's called L/R Bypass. It runs the correction, but you have five output modes (Off, Graphic EQ, Audyssey Flat, Audyssey [not flat] and L/R Bypass). The first two disable correction altogether and give you tone controls instead. The last disables the correction on the front main speakers.
It also gives you the flexibility to use different modes for different inputs, so for example you can set the correction to "OFF" while listening to your SACD in full DSD, then to "Audyssey" when you select the Blu-Ray player for movies.
bdunham7, thank you for your input. That's certainly something to consider.
I just always thought that AVRs are made for processing video and having so many channels (6, 8 or even 10) would sacrifice the quality of the components, especially considering how inexpensive those AVRs are... At least for me it's hard to imagine that a stereo amp that cost $1000 would have the same components as a 7.1 receiver that costs only half of that. Or am I wrong?
Also, question about adding a sub to a stereo system? Back in the day, i believe this was frown upon by most audiophiles. Did the view on this topic change?
bdunham7, thank you for your input. That's certainly something to consider.
I just always thought that AVRs are made for processing video and having so many channels (6, 8 or even 10) would sacrifice the quality of the components, especially considering how inexpensive those AVRs are... At least for me it's hard to imagine that a stereo amp that cost $1000 would have the same components as a 7.1 receiver that costs only half of that. Or am I wrong?
There are economies of scale to an AVR, since they're mass-market items. Stereo amps, on the other hand, are (nowadays) the preserve of a minority, relatively speaking. You may get better components in a $1000 stereo amp versus a $500 AVR and they may make a difference, audibly. Likewise the reverse is also possible and even IF they are better components they may not be audibly so. There's a huge amount of snake-oil in "better" components so I'd do your homework.
Also, question about adding a sub to a stereo system? Back in the day, i believe this was frown upon by most audiophiles. Did the view on this topic change?
Depends on your definition of "audiophile". If you mean the sort with golden ears that frown on tone controls or solid-state devices and so on, yes, probably they still do. However, who's listening to this system, you or them? If there's a benefit to a sub and you can afford it, who cares about the audiophile's approval?
Listening to or looking at?
The most vocal audioplacebophiles I've encountered are older men who are lucky to hear up to 10kHz.
It is all too often that people who have tasted the idiotic "audiophile" koolaid come here with preconceived notions. Quality being proportional to price is perhaps the most common.
Depends on your definition of "audiophile". If you mean the sort with golden ears that frown on tone controls or solid-state devices and so on, yes, probably they still do. However, who's listening to this system, you or them? If there's a benefit to a sub and you can afford it, who cares about the audiophile's approval?
Fair enough :-)
You may easily hear better than they do and with any luck you'll realize that their subjective opinions usually aren't born from reality.
At least for me it's hard to imagine that a stereo amp that cost $1000 would have the same components as a 7.1 receiver that costs only half of that. Or am I wrong?
The answer is marketing. I don't know if the $1000 amp would have the "same" components as the $500 AVR, but the issue is performance, not components. The market is such right now that $500 or $1000 (or in my case, $2000) AVRs are very competitive and they have to give value for the money. Stereo amps, on the other hand, are often sold for much, much more than their performance would seem to merit, and are marketed based on other factors. The receiver vs separate components (amps) has been going on for as long as receivers have existed. The audiophile line is that putting the components in one box cheapens the product and introduces interference and noise between the systems. That hasn't been true for high quality receivers for 40-50 years now.
Also, question about adding a sub to a stereo system? Back in the day, i believe this was frown upon by most audiophiles. Did the view on this topic change?
I'm not an audiophile, despite trying to be one once, and I'm not the least bit concerned with what they frown upon. I've realized the idiocy of that crowd since they "frowned" upon linear tracking turntables. Audiophiles have historically frowned on new technology, such as 33RPM vinyl LPs, transistors, digital audio, etc etc. If they had gotten their way, today we'd be debating over which organically grown cactus needles worked best for our 78RPM shellac records and if electrically driven turntables were good enough to replace mechanical windup drives. The true 'philes would insist on hand cranks.
Subwoofers can be a good way to go, depending on your room. Most of your audible frequencies are somewhat directional, meaning the speakers generally need to be in front of you and positioned in a certain way. Subwoofer frequencies (80Hz and below) are omnidirectional, but they often excite "room modes" and it is very handy to be able to position them separately from the main speakers. In other words, the ideal location for your LF speakers may be different than for the MF-HF speakers, but if the two are attached, your options are limited. Having a sub or two doesn't mean you have to have small satellite speakers, either. My full-range speakers have a (corrected) in-room response down to 18Hz, and I'm considering building a separate sub. So, it may or may not work for you, but don't hesitate to consider it. Just don't go too small--you want the sub crossover point as low as practical, IMO.
I have a very big room actually. The room is connected to the hallway and the kitchen (open floorplan) so it's not purely rectangular, plus very tall ceilings (15 feet and sloped)...
I should probably get a sub and see how it works in my space. Not sure why I haven't tried it yet :-)
Where are you (geographically)?
Where are you (geographically)?
Midwest
Midwest
OK, then you have no problems getting stuff! I'm not sure what else to advise you, other than to keep an open mind and check out as many alternatives as possible before you throw down your cash. Do you currently have a system in this space and if so, what is it?
For what it's worth, I recently purchased a Marantz NR1608 cinema receiver, and it has a number of useful features:
It's Audyssey room correction can be used with as few as 2 speakers.
Speaker-minus outputs are all tied to chassis ground, and chassis isn't tied to earth - am thinking this may be particularly helpful combination of features when pairing with active speakers via home made speaker-to-line adapters such as those suggested by Genelec here. (https://www.genelec.com/answers-library#qid-926)
I got mine at a considerable discount because a newer model had just been released. I could have saved even more by opting for the less expensive NR15xx-series which supports a maximum 5.1-channel configuration, but I thought I might like to fuss with Dolby Atmos at some point, so I opted for the NR1608. Current NR1609 adds Amazon Alexa (ugh) and a phono input, neither of which seemed like they were worth a $250 premium.
Do you currently have a system in this space and if so, what is it?
Currently I have Denon AVR-1613 receiver with Klipsch F-30 tower speakers. To be honest, I do not like the way they sound. I can't really explain it but they sound a little harsh...
Currently I have Denon AVR-1613 receiver with Klipsch F-30 tower speakers. To be honest, I do not like the way they sound. I can't really explain it but they sound a little harsh...
OK, so you already have a 'real' system, but you aren't happy with it. That's actually a good place to start.
So, a bunch more questions:
1) Do you have a carpet in the room?
2) Have you run the Audyssey room correction?
3) If so, do you have the option of viewing the results in a menu (it will look like a sort of rough EQ graph) and
4) Do you use the Audyssey, Audyssey Flat, L/R Bypass or Off settings? (if you have them)
5) To the extent you can tell, is the harshness in the upper-midbass region 150-250 Hz or midrange 1-2Khz? Or elsewhere?
6) Does it change if you get up and walk around, sit on the floor, etc?
7) Lastly (for today), how old are you and do you have any hearing problems (tinnitus, etc) or are you exposed to loud noise?
So, a bunch more questions:
1) Do you have a carpet in the room? No carpet. But there is another smaller room that is carpeted that I could move my music system to.
2) Have you run the Audyssey room correction? Yes, and it does seem to help a little.
3) If so, do you have the option of viewing the results in a menu (it will look like a sort of rough EQ graph) and No, my AVR doesn't seem to have this option...
4) Do you use the Audyssey, Audyssey Flat, L/R Bypass or Off settings? (if you have them) Just Audyssey
5) To the extent you can tell, is the harshness in the upper-midbass region 150-250 Hz or midrange 1-2Khz? Or elsewhere? Highs
6) Does it change if you get up and walk around, sit on the floor, etc? I don't know as I usually don't walk around while listening.
7) Lastly (for today), how old are you and do you have any hearing problems (tinnitus, etc) or are you exposed to loud noise?
Mid 30s, no hearing issues other than my ears are very sensitive - hence I prefer to listen to music at low to mid volumes :-)
Klipsch F-30 tower speakers.
I don't know anything about those but Klipsch has a good reputation. There's probably nothing "wrong" with them, but it might be a matter of taste.
I'd suggest you either take your speakers to the audio/video store so you can A/B them with other options. Or better yet, see if you can take one or two pair so you can compare at home. When you compare,
make sure to match the volumes as best as you can!
5) To the extent you can tell, is the harshness in the upper-midbass region 150-250 Hz or midrange 1-2Khz? Or elsewhere? Highs
Have you tried simply turning-down the treble? I don't know anything about the EQ/tone controls on your receiver but that would be a good place to start and it costs you nothing..
1) Do you have a carpet in the room? No carpet. But there is another smaller room that is carpeted that I could move my music system to.
2) Have you run the Audyssey room correction? Yes, and it does seem to help a little.
3) If so, do you have the option of viewing the results in a menu (it will look like a sort of rough EQ graph) and No, my AVR doesn't seem to have this option...
4) Do you use the Audyssey, Audyssey Flat, L/R Bypass or Off settings? (if you have them) Just Audyssey
5) To the extent you can tell, is the harshness in the upper-midbass region 150-250 Hz or midrange 1-2Khz? Or elsewhere? Highs
6) Does it change if you get up and walk around, sit on the floor, etc? I don't know as I usually don't walk around while listening.
7) Lastly (for today), how old are you and do you have any hearing problems (tinnitus, etc) or are you exposed to loud noise?
Mid 30s, no hearing issues other than my ears are very sensitive - hence I prefer to listen to music at low to mid volumes :-)
OK, first, I want to be clear that I'm not an audio engineer or professional acoustician or anything like that. I certainly wouldn't want you to buy expensive equipment or remodel your house on advice from me! However, I've solved similar issues on my own -- a perception of poor sound quality from a system -- and the solutions usually surprised me a bit. Some of those solutions would have been nearly impossible to find by trial and error, but others I discovered accidentally--or mistakenly. So I'll ask questions and give you suggestions.
1) First suggestion--you need to have some way of evaluating the frequency response of your system at the listening point. You said you don't see an Audyssey results menu, but could you look again? On my similar (Marantz) AVR, you would go into the setup menu, then "Speakers", then "Audyssey Setup", then "Check Results" and finally "Equalizers". Also, you use a PC attached to the system, right? Go to www.audiocheck.net and www.onlinetonegenerator.com, bookmark those pages and have a look at them. There's no need to get to sophisticated right now, but see if you can try the tone sweeps and see if there are spots that sound harsh to you, or have sharp dips or peaks in volume.
2) Second suggestion--check your ears. This is a common insult among the audiophool crowd, but the reality is that anyone my age (mid-50s) that thinks their ears are still golden is either delusional or exceptional. Exceptionally delusional, that is. Between military service and too much Van Halen, my ears are a bit ragged and roll off over 8kHz. At 10kHz and up I can't hear anything at any volume below painful. However, while that isn't a really a problem, certain midrange frequencies will sound like broken glass in a garbage disposal if they go over a certain volume. Your statement that you avoid loud volumes because your ears are sensitive leads me to think you may have a similar issue. So you can see what it is that your ears are sensitive to by running the tone sweep tests at the links I provided. Run them at a volume somewhat higher than your normal listening level to find your upper hearing limit and see if any points sound exceptionally harsh. If you find a point that irritates your ears, recruit a test subject to listen and see if they hear the same harshness.
3) Last suggestion for today--reflections. I wouldn't move the system to a different room, but you might try throwing a rug or pillows or something on the floor in front of them, between your chair and the speakers. Your room is odd-shaped, so it may be difficult to evaluate for reflections, but if there are hard surfaces that will reflect sound directly back to the listening position (a "first" reflection), this may cause a perception of harshness. I would also try moving the speakers around a bit, just to see if things change a lot or not. For example, I think Klipsch recommends pointing the horns directly at the listening position. You can try that and then toeing them out a bit at a time to see what changes. If there are radical changes with each repositioning , reflections may be an issue.
You aren't the only person I've heard observe that the lower line of Klipsch seem "harsh", so there may be new speakers in your future. I would just suggest that you use what you currently have to learn as much as you can. I cringe to think what an audiophoolish hi-fi salesman might try to sell you given your concerns and your budget.
Foobar has a 31 band eq plugin that can easily be used to nip the highs a bit. 8k centered and then a bit above is a prime target for reducing "harshness"
Speaking of speakers... The biggest difference in "sound character" between different speakers is frequency response, and you can adjust that (to an extent) with equalization. (AJ might have a bit more to say about on-axis & off-axis response, etc., and he's more of an expert than I.)
There are limits to what EQ can do, especially at low frequencies where the laws of physics come into play. i.e. When you boost the bass, you can end-up overdriving the speaker or amplifier. And, there are room acoustics issues that can't be corrected with EQ.
Speaking of speakers... The biggest difference in "sound character" between different speakers is frequency response, and you can adjust that (to an extent) with equalization.
Yes, the frequency response
s aka polar response, the FRs in every direction, are the most correlated to SQ. We hear a combination of direct (on axis) and indirect (off axis/reflections).
EQ is a sound power adjustment. Whenever you cut or boost, both the on and off axis is affected. Beware, especially if based off single point pressure measurement.
There are limits to what EQ can do, especially at low frequencies where the laws of physics come into play. i.e. When you boost the bass, you can end-up overdriving the speaker or amplifier. And, there are room acoustics issues that can't be corrected with EQ.
The key is not trying to fill any nulls by boosting. Cutting peaks, judiciously, is fine. Boosting the overall bass a bit for lower volume listening is fine. As a matter of fact, the Yamaha I mentioned earlier has a clever variable loudness control for just that. Also, boosting the low end of a tower to extend it a bit at low to medium volume is fine. You could counter by cutting say <20hz to keep excursion in check, especially with vented systems which most home speakers are.
cheers,
AJ
Those Yamahas ostensibly have 4 tone controls.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,116626.msg963615.html#msg963615
The loudness control on the remote for the RX-770 is a bit of a joke since I've found the treble control also needs massaging while adjusting the loudness control. The bass control can be helpful, but really only when the volume is at either end of the scale.
If we listen digital audio files, why we can't use digital devices, not hardware, eg. "Equalizer APO" and "Room Acoustics Software" to dramatically improve the sound quality, limited only by the speakers performances? This powerful equalizer is simple amazing! Better than many analogic expensive hardware devices... and free (donations welcome).
2) Second suggestion--check your ears. This is a common insult among the audiophool crowd, but the reality is that anyone my age (mid-50s) that thinks their ears are still golden is either delusional or exceptional. Exceptionally delusional, that is. Between military service and too much Van Halen, my ears are a bit ragged and roll off over 8kHz. At 10kHz and up I can't hear anything at any volume below painful. However, while that isn't a really a problem, certain midrange frequencies will sound like broken glass in a garbage disposal if they go over a certain volume. Your statement that you avoid loud volumes because your ears are sensitive leads me to think you may have a similar issue. So you can see what it is that your ears are sensitive to by running the tone sweep tests at the links I provided. Run them at a volume somewhat higher than your normal listening level to find your upper hearing limit and see if any points sound exceptionally harsh. If you find a point that irritates your ears, recruit a test subject to listen and see if they hear the same harshness.
Thank you so much for your input and a special thank you for those links. I actually never conducted tests like these so it was all very useful.
I learned that I pass the mosquito test (17.4 kHz) at my regular listening volume level and can still hear 18 kHz but it's a lot quieter. And I cannot hear 19 kHz and above.
17 kHz was somewhat hurtful to my ears whereas 18 kHz did not. I guess that's where my sensitivity really rolls off - at 18 kHz...
P.S. I will try implementing your other suggestions a little later.
Oh boy, oh boy. Apparently I like expensive speakers...
Went to another hi-fi shop in the area where they played Paradigm Prestige 85F speakers vs Focal Aria 936. The Arias blew Paradigm out of the water. The price though is significantly more than I originally decided I would spend on speakers...
Listening sighted or blind? How was the room? How will your room compare to it?
Listening sighted or blind? How was the room? How will your room compare to it?
Sighted. The room was much bigger than mine (in width) and slightly bigger in depth, height the same. Plus, they have sound-proof treatment on the walls.
Pic is attached.
(https://imgur.com/fQk3GiY.jpg)
I like their wall! Did you happen to notice what it was made out of?
As for the budget, don't rule out negotiating with them a bit--Focal Aria 936 (https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/focal-aria-936-tower-speakers). And you could upgrade your receiver to something like the Marantz SR7012 (on closeout) and still be close to your original budget.
I like their wall! Did you happen to notice what it was made out of?
I believe they were made out of foam. I can check tomorrow.
Thanks for the other suggestion as well )))
As for the budget, don't rule out negotiating with them a bit--Focal Aria 936 (https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/focal-aria-936-tower-speakers).
Well, I'm a lucky owner of Aria 936 now )))
Next, I shall focus on the amp and the DAC.
Well, now I'm jealous! My suggestion for your amp/DAC would be this:
https://www.crutchfield.com/p_642SR7012/Marantz-SR7012.html
along with this:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/audyssey-multeq-editor-app/id1210584625?mt=8
and this:
https://www.marantz.co.uk/uk/products/pages/productdetails.aspx?catid=hometheatre&subcatid=avreceiver&productid=marantz2016avrremoteapp
and an old iPad.
Then I'll be really jealous--my older version has crappier versions of both apps. The ability to meaningfully tailor the room EQ curve is huge--many systems lack any sort of tone control when using room EQ.
nm.