Hello,

Im new in the world of top-notch audio, so Id like to ask you a
question by email about system design.

I dont have a very high budget, Im looking at spending about $1000 on
infinity beta 50 speakers (Ive tried these with different pieces of
equipment and like the sound), and also buying a Hsu subwoofer, and
then a CD player and receiver. For watching movies, Ill just do
2-channel sound with a sub, at least for now, as I dont want to spend
money on all of the 5.1 or 7.1 speakers and whatnot.

But where Im really tied up is in the receiver and Cd player choices.
I have quite a few CDs, and a lot of MP3 music. I like a wide variety
of rock, soul, jazz and classical type music. I dont know if for a
newbie, Im better off buying a stereo receiver or an AV receiver.

The stereo receiver at the same price (Im thinking Yamaha RX-797) as an
AV receiver (yamaha RX-V659) should have better component quality,
design quality, and sound quality, right? But that said, am I really
just splitting hairs, especially since I dont have speakers that cost
thousands of dollars each, nor do I have a super high quality component
for doing anything else?

One example of a tie-up that causes me to be unsure is picking a CD
player and receiver. Do I want to buy a CD player that has a top-notch
DAC, and feed it into a stereo receiver, or would I be better off just
getting a cd player that has digital out, and using a good AV receiver
(the RX-V659 for example, has 24 bit burr-brown DACs on all channels).


MP3 is another good example... If Im playing MP3 files from my ipod or
computer, am I better off processing them on the computer, then feeding
RCA into a stereo receiver, or am I better off sending in some data
stream into an AV receiver, and using their compressed music enhancer
to 'optimize' the sound?

While I can be sure that at a same price point, a stereo receiver will
have better innards than an AV equivalent, is 0.06% THD really any
different than 0.019%? I am an engineer, so understand design
tradeoffs, but Im not an electrical engineer... will the amps and DACs
that have to do multiple tasks in an AV receiver have a shorter life
because they do more, as compared to the supposedly better designed and
laid out components in a same price stereo receiver? If the AV
receiver has a 'pure direct' option, wouldnt either using that with a
decent DAC from a good CD player, or else sending coax digital in and
using the internal AVR
's burr-brown DAC create as good a sound as any stereo receiver that Id
buy for roughly the same price?

Any insight on such situations would be most appreciated. I want bang
for the buck, but given that I will use my sstem 85% for music and only
15% for everything else... I want to make sure that I make the right
choice. The AVR gives me long term upgradability if I want to do the
home theatre thing... but is only a good deal if it can do hi-fi for
newbies half decently...

What do you think?

Thanks,

JMH


--

JMH wrote:

Im new in the world of top-notch audio, so Id like to ask you a
question by email about system design.

I dont have a very high budget, Im looking at spending about $1000 on
infinity beta 50 speakers (Ive tried these with different pieces of
equipment and like the sound), and also buying a Hsu subwoofer, and
then a CD player and receiver. For watching movies, Ill just do
2-channel sound with a sub, at least for now, as I dont want to spend
money on all of the 5.1 or 7.1 speakers and whatnot.

But where Im really tied up is in the receiver and Cd player choices.
I have quite a few CDs, and a lot of MP3 music. I like a wide variety
of rock, soul, jazz and classical type music. I dont know if for a
newbie, Im better off buying a stereo receiver or an AV receiver.

The stereo receiver at the same price (Im thinking Yamaha RX-797) as an
AV receiver (yamaha RX-V659) should have better component quality,
design quality, and sound quality, right? But that said, am I really
just splitting hairs, especially since I dont have speakers that cost
thousands of dollars each, nor do I have a super high quality component
for doing anything else?

One example of a tie-up that causes me to be unsure is picking a CD
player and receiver. Do I want to buy a CD player that has a top-notch
DAC, and feed it into a stereo receiver, or would I be better off just
getting a cd player that has digital out, and using a good AV receiver
(the RX-V659 for example, has 24 bit burr-brown DACs on all channels).


MP3 is another good example... If Im playing MP3 files from my ipod or
computer, am I better off processing them on the computer, then feeding
RCA into a stereo receiver, or am I better off sending in some data
stream into an AV receiver, and using their compressed music enhancer
to 'optimize' the sound?

While I can be sure that at a same price point, a stereo receiver will
have better innards than an AV equivalent, is 0.06% THD really any
different than 0.019%? I am an engineer, so understand design
tradeoffs, but Im not an electrical engineer... will the amps and DACs
that have to do multiple tasks in an AV receiver have a shorter life
because they do more, as compared to the supposedly better designed and
laid out components in a same price stereo receiver? If the AV
receiver has a 'pure direct' option, wouldnt either using that with a
decent DAC from a good CD player, or else sending coax digital in and
using the internal AVR
's burr-brown DAC create as good a sound as any stereo receiver that Id
buy for roughly the same price?

Any insight on such situations would be most appreciated. I want bang
for the buck, but given that I will use my sstem 85% for music and only
15% for everything else... I want to make sure that I make the right
choice. The AVR gives me long term upgradability if I want to do the
home theatre thing... but is only a good deal if it can do hi-fi for
newbies half decently...

What do you think?

Buy the best speakers you can afford. Two high quality speakers will
sound better than a 7.1 or 5.1 system at the same price point. Movies
will still sound fine through the stereo system. I might forgo the
subwoofer in exchange for better quality speakers, but this is a
debatable point.

An AV receiver should sound fine, but all other things being equal a
stereo two channel receiver should be cheaper for the same quality or
better at the same price point. (Note that this is not necessarily true
when comparing components from small companies that do not have
economies of scale working in their favor.) The choice between AV and
Stereo mostly depends on the liklihood of installing surround in the
future - and you are the only judge of that.

CD players sound pretty similar - I won't say that they all sound the
same, but the differences (to the extent that there are any) are fairly
subtle. Go for features like multi-format playback capability. I'm
skeptical that the DAC in the AV receiver is really that different than
the one that comes with the CD player. Treat your CD player as
disposable - my experience is that few CD players last more than two or
three years so you should just plan on replacing it when it's time
comes. A less expensive CD player can free up money in the budget for
better speakers. See my first sentence.

As for the MP3's your question is like asking me if I want my cat food
broiled, baked or sauteed. Who cares? No matter what you do with it
it's still cat food.

Regarding distortion specs, if you've ever seen the specs for
loudspeaker distortion you'd know that 1% THD is pretty *good* for a
speaker. Few speaker manufacturers publish this spec, so you probably
haven't seen it. But the bottom line is that obsessing over 0.06% THD
vs. 0.019% is a bit silly when you are playing the signal through
speakers that are adding twenty to fifty times that amount.

You don't mention vinyl, so I'll assume you don't have an extensive
collection you want to continue to enjoy and that you're not interested
in acquiring one. This simplifies your choices since the tradeoff
between allocating funds between turntable/tonearm/cartrige and speakers
can be dicey. Since you don't face that dilemma, simply buy the best
speakers you can afford, and use reasonable affordable components for
the rest of the system.

You said you wanted bang for the buck. That's the recipe.

//Walt

P.S. Don't waste money on expensive cables.


--

Walt,

Thanks for the great reply, i really appreciate it!

I shall heed your advice fully.

Out of curiosity however, is therea straightforward way to add on
amplification capacity in the future with an external component, so
that if I wanted surround, I could get it while not loosing the money
Ive invested in a stereo receiver? For example, get a three channel
receiver that somehow increases in volume at the same proportion as the
stereo amp that drives the front two channels?

or is this just not a good idea because the proportionality is too
tough to maintain?

Thanks again!

JMH


--

Walt wrote:

Buy the best speakers you can afford. Two high quality speakers will
sound better than a 7.1 or 5.1 system at the same price point.

Up to a point. But there are diminishing returns to scale in speaker
quality (especially if you're using a sub), while the move from 2 to 5
speakers is a discrete step up.

Movies
will still sound fine through the stereo system. I might forgo the
subwoofer in exchange for better quality speakers, but this is a
debatable point.

The Beta 50s plus a Hsu sub should be a very fine system for well under
$2000. I'm not sure how much better he could do with a 2.0 system, esp.
given that he really likes the Infinitys.

An AV receiver should sound fine, but all other things being equal a
stereo two channel receiver should be cheaper for the same quality or
better at the same price point. (Note that this is not necessarily true
when comparing components from small companies that do not have
economies of scale working in their favor.)

Also possibly true of the major brands. They sell a lot more AVRs than
stereo receivers.

The choice between AV and
Stereo mostly depends on the liklihood of installing surround in the
future - and you are the only judge of that.

CD players sound pretty similar - I won't say that they all sound the
same, but the differences (to the extent that there are any) are fairly
subtle. Go for features like multi-format playback capability. I'm
skeptical that the DAC in the AV receiver is really that different than
the one that comes with the CD player. Treat your CD player as
disposable - my experience is that few CD players last more than two or
three years so you should just plan on replacing it when it's time
comes.

My first lasted 12 years. I'm on my second. There's a button that opens
the drawer. You don't need to use a crowbar. ;-)

A less expensive CD player can free up money in the budget for
better speakers. See my first sentence.

As for the MP3's your question is like asking me if I want my cat food
broiled, baked or sauteed. Who cares? No matter what you do with it
it's still cat food.

Regarding distortion specs, if you've ever seen the specs for
loudspeaker distortion you'd know that 1% THD is pretty *good* for a
speaker. Few speaker manufacturers publish this spec, so you probably
haven't seen it. But the bottom line is that obsessing over 0.06% THD
vs. 0.019% is a bit silly when you are playing the signal through
speakers that are adding twenty to fifty times that amount.

You don't mention vinyl, so I'll assume you don't have an extensive
collection you want to continue to enjoy and that you're not interested
in acquiring one. This simplifies your choices since the tradeoff
between allocating funds between turntable/tonearm/cartrige and speakers
can be dicey. Since you don't face that dilemma, simply buy the best
speakers you can afford, and use reasonable affordable components for
the rest of the system.

You said you wanted bang for the buck. That's the recipe.

//Walt

P.S. Don't waste money on expensive cables.

What Walt says.

bob


--

"Walt" wrote in message
...

Treat your CD player as disposable - my experience is that few CD
players last more than two or three years so you should just plan on
replacing it when it's time comes. A less expensive CD player can free up
money in the budget for better speakers.

Not my experience at all; Sony 302II (2/1986) Panasonic SL-P370 (1/90) and
Magnavox CDB 650 (unmodified, in the 80s era, date tag gone), all functions
of all players remain intact, all saw some heavy use.


--

JMH wrote:
Out of curiosity however, is therea straightforward way to add on
amplification capacity in the future with an external component, so
that if I wanted surround, I could get it while not loosing the money
Ive invested in a stereo receiver? For example, get a three channel
receiver that somehow increases in volume at the same proportion as the
stereo amp that drives the front two channels?

I am not aware of a straightforward way to do this. It can be done, but
I can't think of a way to do it that would be less expensive than just
buying an AVR. Maybe a stand-alone surround decoder that feeds the
stereo recever for L,R,sub and powered speakers for center and surround.

My advice is that if you think it's a better than 20% chance that you'll
want to go with surround in the not too distant future get the AVR.
See bob's comment about economies of scale and the relative number of
AVR to stereo receivers the major brands are making.

//Walt


--

If I were buying a 2-channel receiver, I would first look at Outlaw
Audio.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/rr2150.html

http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/306outlaw/

It's $599, and has a 30-day any reason refund.


--

JMH wrote:

Out of curiosity however, is therea straightforward way to add on
amplification capacity in the future with an external component, so
that if I wanted surround, I could get it while not loosing the money
Ive invested in a stereo receiver?

There used to be. For instance the old Yamaha DSP-E800:

http://www.yamaha-online.de/products...et=1&newsset=0

These days this sort of product doesn't make sense, since the complete
receiver is probably cheaper (economies of scale). And if you really want,
you can use a receiver as a pre-processor (turn off the main speakers,
send rec-out or pre-amp outputs to the other amplifier).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94


--

JMH wrote:

Out of curiosity however, is therea straightforward way to add on
amplification capacity in the future with an external component, so
that if I wanted surround, I could get it while not loosing the money
Ive invested in a stereo receiver?

There used to be. For instance the old Yamaha DSP-E800:

http://www.yamaha-online.de/products...et=1&newsset=0

These days this sort of product doesn't make sense, since the complete
receiver is probably cheaper (economies of scale). And if you really want,
you can use a receiver as a pre-processor (turn off the main speakers,
send rec-out or pre-amp outputs to the other amplifier).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94


--