New Surround A/V Receiver - Brand/model suggestions?

Originally Posted by alarmguy
Ok, so the Paradigm Mains, only frustrating thing is I do not know the model number
Post a picture and I'm sure someone will be able to identify them. I always wanted to try Paradigms, but stars just never aligned and despite owning a lot of speakers, I always ended up with something else for one reason or another... Monitor Audio, Jamo, PSB, DefTech, Polk, Mission... maybe one of these days it'll be Paradigm's turn. smile There are some nice Polk S20 bookshelves at a good price on Amazon right now, but I have too many speakers as it is. Majority of my listening is in front of a computer these days, and my PSB Alpha B speakers already look huge on my desk, and these Polks are even bigger.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Ok, so the Paradigm Mains, only frustrating thing is I do not know the model number
Post a picture and I'm sure someone will be able to identify them. I always wanted to try Paradigms, but stars just never aligned and despite owning a lot of speakers, I always ended up with something else for one reason or another... Monitor Audio, Jamo, PSB, DefTech, Polk, Mission... maybe one of these days it'll be Paradigm's turn. smile There are some nice Polk S20 bookshelves at a good price on Amazon right now, but I have too many speakers as it is. Majority of my listening is in front of a computer these days, and my PSB Alpha B speakers already look huge on my desk, and these Polks are even bigger.
ahh ... yes, I also had Missions tweeter was in the middle, below the woofer and above the passive woofer, before the Paradigms, now that I think of it, maybe these arent as old as I thought, I forgot about the Missions and before those were Boston Acoustics. BTW the first line in my other post should have been = "biggest surprise is the tight clean bass from a center channel speaker" and sure you saw the photo above as I posted it after your reply, just in time before the edit option timed out.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
OK, these look like Monitor 5se v2: https://www.usedvictoria.com/classi...phile-Stereo-834-2-Way-Canadian_29387317
Yes, looks like you found them, as far as the exact model, I cant be sure, there were two identical speakers that year, one was just a little bit less money and the ones I bought were one model number up for maybe $50 more, I cant remember exactly the difference, drivers may have been the same but maybe the one model up that I bought had binding posts and removable grills? Looks like those might be the ones though. Actually I am sure, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
OK, these look like Monitor 5se v2: https://www.usedvictoria.com/classi...phile-Stereo-834-2-Way-Canadian_29387317
Yes, looks like you found them, as far as the exact model, I cant be sure, there were two identical speakers that year, one was just a little bit less money and the ones I bought were one model number up for maybe $50 more, I cant remember exactly the difference, drivers may have been the same but maybe the one model up that I bought had binding posts and removable grills? Looks like those might be the ones though. Actually I am sure, thanks!
I edited my post. I believe they are actually Monitor 3se MkIII: http://stereonomono.blogspot.com/2010/09/paradigm-3se-mkiii.html
Quote
ahh ... yes, I also had Missions tweeter was in the middle, below the woofer and above the passive woofer,
Something like that. I still have these little ones in storage somewhere. They used to be my surround speakers at one point in time. [Linked Image]
 
Maybe you can provide links with your post, as the OP wants to spend under $400 or so, many of the replies in here do not reflect that. Mine does. He will be perfectly happy with a well made 5.1 but I have nothing against a 7.1 except these posts get out of control by some who buy higher end systems, yet a well put together and positioned lower end system can actually be and sound better then people who throw money at "Specs" and ignore common sense. Click for a quick example Another I just pulled up the above two links for the heck of it, not endorsing anything and rushing off to work but 5the OP would be thrilled with the above and maybe have some money for some good low cost speakers which are available by the boat load... As an example I just upgraded my center channel with this - its awesome... I paid direct from JBL $179.00 with free shipping and no tax ... off sale now, but there are deals out there when people watch. At the same time we were happy with our $79 center channel Sony from best buy that we bought on sale last year ... this JBL rocks though. Its now back to full price. Click [/quote] Op asked for a recommendation for a new surround av receiver for 400 or less and I said were to go and what I would get at that price. I figured if he were serious enough he would find what I was talking about--I don't usually post links but here you go. Denon for $400 It doesn't matter how "well made" the 5.1 is it is still only giving you 5 channels of discrete sound. 5.1 represents the very best of 1990s technology but things have moved on since then. Movies made today are frequently encoded with 7-9 channels of discrete sound. This means you will need more than 5 speakers in 5 locations to hear everything as intended. This is not "throwing money at specs", it is an objective reality. As others have said it does matter a great deal what type of content he is listening to. He only asked for a "surround av rec" at about $400 and that is what I gave him. JBL makes fine stuff but recommending speaker brands is so subjective I don't usually bother. He is buying a cheaper receiver that no matter the brand will not output much power (despite what the spec sheet says) so he should probably buy efficient speakers. So much we don't know though about how he will use them i.e., how far does he sit from the driver? What size is his room?
 
Originally Posted by Cardiobuck
... It doesn't matter how "well made" the 5.1 is it is still only giving you 5 channels of discrete sound. 5.1 represents the very best of 1990s technology but things have moved on since then. Movies made today are frequently encoded with 7-9 channels of discrete sound. This means you will need more than 5 speakers in 5 locations to hear everything as intended. This is not "throwing money at specs", it is an objective reality. As others have said it does matter a great deal what type of content he is listening to. He only asked for a "surround av rec" at about $400 and that is what I gave him. JBL makes fine stuff but recommending speaker brands is so subjective I don't usually bother. He is buying a cheaper receiver that no matter the brand will not output much power (despite what the spec sheet says) so he should probably buy efficient speakers. So much we don't know though about how he will use them i.e., how far does he sit from the driver? What size is his room?
I'll disagree, but if you notice, all the links I provided at the low prices do provide 7.1 so in that, your statement is less important. Where I disagree is that "more is better" Not sure if you made a mistake but I agree that 5 speakers is perfect. Which is 5.1 The average homeowner does not need 7.1 but because of marketing he/she is going to get a unit capable of it anyway. The problem with this is even in your statement, your saying "no matter the brand will not output much power" Not entirely true, if a manufacturer focuses on power into 5.1 and resists the marketing of other companies, the buyer of that product will be very happy with the dynamic range and power of a system with less features. HE will in NO WAY be missing any content of material encoded with 7-9 channels, its all marketing. By far the biggest most satisfying sound will be one with full dynamic range in the 5.1 vs a receiver with 7.1 and less power. Many in here might be much younger then me and too young to remember but the most powerful satisfying sound came from minimal designs mostly made in the USA, Europe and Canada, these companies still in business and yet many bought up by huge Asian companies where the standard of the world. We are in the day now of "snowflakes" walk into their Best Buy and let a salesperson show them all this cool stuff that adds nothing to the sound but adds to the profit of the store selling it. They do not research on their own. Nothing replaces brute power and you are way better off driving 5.1 vs 7.1 in a modest system even if capable of 7.1 as 5.1 will deliver more power to the 5 active speakers. One other note, for those that do not know, educate yourselves on actual power output, even high end components are getting strained by delivering power to so many speakers that they are breaking up the power output numbers and selecting one freq. instead of the full range, a trick used my the auto sound industry. Look for the full range output. One last thing, if deciding between lets say an amp that puts out 100 watts into 20khz/20hz with less then 1% distortion that is much more powerful then someone advertising a 200 watt unit that puts out 200 watts into 1khz. One, one, last thing lol .... You have to DOUBLE the output power of any amplifier to notice a SLIGHT increase in sound. So two amps of equal build quality and specs of lets say one at 100 watts and the other at 200 watts you will barely be able to notice a sound volume difference.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Yes I think that was Mission's trademark/marketing thing, placing the Tweeter lower on the enclosure. Nothing wrong with it and they stated their reasoning.
What was their stated reasoning for doing this? Just curious. BTW, other speaker brands also use this approach, including some of my Jamos. [Linked Image]
 
alarmguy, So we are down to a disagreement about the merits of 5.1 and going beyond that to say a 7.1 or a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X of say 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. My issue is you asserting your opinion that the average homeowner does not need anything beyond 5.1. And your original assertion that 7.1 was "bs" and just marketing. Of course we do not "need" these things. We are not talking about needs, these are wants. I don't know what "average" homeowner is. You seem certain OP will be happy with 5.1. Obviously you are happy with it, we can't say what OP would be happy with. For years I was happy enough with a 3.1 system and for a short time ran 5.1... Would I try to bring someone in here(I run 7.3.2), let them listen, and then tell them they can achieve the same thing in a 5.1 system--me telling them that would be bs! It is certainly not bs, there is a tangible difference when you allow bits of a soundtrack, namely in a movie, to come from more than just two surround locations. The goal of a theater is realism. In real life there are not two surround speakers dumping all surround material toward your head. Adding more surround speakers makes it much more difficult to localize the sound and thus makes it more immersive. It also brings more detail as sounds pan from side to side and front/back, and overhead. You don't have to spend a fortune to achieve this. So in a properly arranged Atmos system when someone in a movie walks overhead the sound actually comes from overhead. In a 5.1 system that sound is either not present, or has to be pushed to the only two surrounds which are probably off to your left and right. I have the Jason Bourne movie mastered in DTS:X and you would not believe the realism of the riot scene as people surround you and are throwing things in all different directions. Again too much content for a 5.1 system to realistically convey. Of course for the OPs budget of $400 he is better off focusing on 5.1. As you have said. I did not say otherwise. I only said that you are a fool for saying that going beyond is bs. As a person gets more serious into this as a hobby and can set aside a bit more money into it, significant gains can be had. You sidetrack the issue in a bit of a red herring fallacy to educate us on the merits of full bandwidth power vs 1khz power ratings. You are not wrong but amp ratings do not reduce the merits of going beyond 5.1. I would never ask a $400 receiver, or a $1400 dollar receiver to power my system. That wonderful dynamic range you speak of with 5.1 system of yesteryear is achievable today into 7, 9, 11 channels of sound if you have the amplifiers to run it. Of course you can't do this for $400. What if I had 10 times that to spend? Should I still just stop at 5.1? Next you are going to tell us how we do not "need" more than one subwoofer. And I respond by asking you to educate us on the wavelength of a 50Hz sound and then tell me how you can be sure no one is sitting in the trough of the wave. A bit of light reading. Dolby white paper Thoughts from Dr. Toole Ah heck, never mind all that. Move over I'm coming to your house and I'm bringing my Top Gun DVD,... Dolby Digital 5.1FTW!! Lets dig that old Bose Acoustimass system out of the garage and snuggle up to sonic nirvana! Just what us average homeowners need for a rainy Saturday morning.
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
[quote=Cardiobuck] ... One, one, last thing lol .... You have to DOUBLE the output power of any amplifier to notice a SLIGHT increase in sound. So two amps of equal build quality and specs of lets say one at 100 watts and the other at 200 watts you will barely be able to notice a sound volume difference.
the answer is 3...3db. If you can't hear the difference between 5.1, 7.1, or even 9.1, then buy what fits your ears. To me, there is a huge difference. I would still suggest someone buy as MUCH amp as they can afford. Buy an amp that can decode the most, then add external amps down the road as your hobby grows.
 
We agree with $400 you can't do this. Although with the current market most receivers are now 7.1. But you could still use the 7.1 Receiver as a 5.1 and spare a little extra power since you're only driving 5 speakers minus the sub which is powered on its own. I firmly believe on a limited budget you're much better off concentrating on quality speakers versus quantity. Also you might be able to find a more quality amplifier on a 5.1 system model that is being discontinued as it seems everybody is going to 7.1. Again we talking budget and in a typical living room the purchaser will be more than happy. long read... click
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DriveHard
Originally Posted by alarmguy
[quote=Cardiobuck] ... One, one, last thing lol .... You have to DOUBLE the output power of any amplifier to notice a SLIGHT increase in sound. So two amps of equal build quality and specs of lets say one at 100 watts and the other at 200 watts you will barely be able to notice a sound volume difference.
the answer is 3...3db. If you can't hear the difference between 5.1, 7.1, or even 9.1, then buy what fits your ears. To me, there is a huge difference. I would still suggest someone buy as MUCH amp as they can afford. Buy an amp that can decode the most, then add external amps down the road as your hobby grows.
Yes 3db exactly when power is doubled. It is a logarithmic scale where dBm=10 log(10) (mW) such that 90db of output comes from 1000 kW and 93db of output would be achieved with 1995.26 kw or almost exactly double the power to gain 3db. This is why I stated earlier that with a tight budget it is very helpful to focus on speaker sensitivity. More sensitive speakers give you a higher starting point at 1watt/meter. Many other things to consider here such as how far your head is from the driver, how big the room is. How loud you want to play content. Also 3db is not necessarily something to sneeze at. Compare two dishwashers, one that runs at 40db and one that runs at 43db. You will hear that. When it comes to speakers I find that extra power helps achieve loud volumes without distortion.
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
We agree with $400 you can't do this. Although with the current market most receivers are now 7.1. But you could still use the 7.1 Receiver as a 5.1 and spare a little extra power since you're only driving 5 speakers minus the sub which is powered on its own. I firmly believe on a limited budget you're much better off concentrating on quality speakers versus quantity. Also you might be able to find a more quality amplifier on a 5.1 system model that is being discontinued as it seems everybody is going to 7.1. Again we talking budget and in a typical living room the purchaser will be more than happy. long read... click
I don't really disagree with any of that. In fact if I were starting off and had say $400 to spend on speakers I would spend all of it on the best center channel I could find. And add the other speakers as the budget allowed. In a theater the center is the cornerstone, if you will. OP probable does not care about this but I would bump the receiver budget up to at least include pre-outs so that down the road you could add external amps. I am in the minority in my thinking on the external amp thing though.
 
Originally Posted by Cardiobuck
. I am in the minority in my thinking on the external amp thing though.
I'm in agreement. I use an external Bryston power amp to run my mains, my receiver only runs my centre channel.
 
Originally Posted by Cardiobuck
Originally Posted by alarmguy
We agree with $400 you can't do this. Although with the current market most receivers are now 7.1. But you could still use the 7.1 Receiver as a 5.1 and spare a little extra power since you're only driving 5 speakers minus the sub which is powered on its own. I firmly believe on a limited budget you're much better off concentrating on quality speakers versus quantity. Also you might be able to find a more quality amplifier on a 5.1 system model that is being discontinued as it seems everybody is going to 7.1. Again we talking budget and in a typical living room the purchaser will be more than happy. long read... click
I don't really disagree with any of that. In fact if I were starting off and had say $400 to spend on speakers I would spend all of it on the best center channel I could find. And add the other speakers as the budget allowed. In a theater the center is the cornerstone, if you will. OP probable does not care about this but I would bump the receiver budget up to at least include pre-outs so that down the road you could add external amps. I am in the minority in my thinking on the external amp thing though.
Oh, yes for sure on the center channel, wife and I are really blown away by our brand new JBL Studio 520C. Been into audio for decades now but will admit, not as much so the last decade, always respected the JBL "sound" but first ever that I bought one and I think it works great for sound tracks. I will admit, only in the last couple years did I realize how important the center channel is. Love this JBL. One tip for many who may read this, there is a mistake made in placement of the center channel on some. Example, if wall mounted TV with rack below the TV, the center channel speaker should always be at the front edge of the table or rack. The difference can be quite noticeable. You can experiment yourself, move the speaker to the back of the table or rack, then move it to the front edge, you should notice more clear vocals and crisp sound. Like the sound so much, who knows, maybe one day I get motivated for JBL front left and right speakers to replace the Paradigms yet its so true, as far as movies, how little sound comes through them compared to the center. . Wife and I always liked a "crisp" sound, we were never into the "warm". With that said, JBL, like all the brand names and being bought up, sold, traded, gutted by HUGE corporations, one never knows how long anything will be around anymore. BTW, not really promoting JBL, my first one and impressed, thats all. But I have Always been an American/Canadian/European value speaker buyer. Just to clarify previous posts about 5.1/7.1 Im always skeptical about "advances" until proven to be true (more so small room, limited budget) Much like 3d TV that has come and gone once again, in the old days "quad stereo" systems, we have gone big time backwards with MP3s and streaming music and even though we just bought a 65 inch Sony 900F TV god only knows when on earth I will be able to rent a TRUE 4k movie from REDBOX. Yes, you can now stream them but its not real, its more dumbed down, Im just as good relying on the up-scaling, that this TV does real well, anyway, next is the 4 K bluray player to buy, but what the heck, they are so rare still and ... coming soon is 8K TV ... but, wont matter to me, thats simply a way for manufacturers to keep selling a new product, get the 4K discs out :o) BTW - the 900F image, freaking AMAZING. Im not kidding, at times, so freaky perfect, almost 3D like the shows can look like a Video game, crisp and clean.
 
Last edited:
This is the setup - watching OTA when wife took this fuzzy photo ... :eek:)

IMG_20181130_223844.jpg
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Yes I think that was Mission's trademark/marketing thing, placing the Tweeter lower on the enclosure. Nothing wrong with it and they stated their reasoning.
What was their stated reasoning for doing this? Just curious. BTW, other speaker brands also use this approach, including some of my Jamos. ..
Ummm ... well, depends how you look at it I think. To put it this way, I still remember (decades ago) the review when I bought the Mission speakers by Stereo Review Magazine Jullian Hursh (or however you spell his name) I looked at it as marketing or a signature to make the product look different from the others, so the magazine praised the speaker for its performance but did state, as best I can remember, whether or not the "design" adds anything to the sound subjective or not they could not confirm other then the excellent performance. I think the manufacturers claim better "alignment" (phase?) of the sound between woofer and tweeter. I remember the Jamo name too, so many products and little time on this earth. :o) I did like the industry more when it was made up more of music lovers vs corporations looking for massive profits. They are still out there but getting harder to find and lets face it, much of the youth is happy enough with simple streaming quality vs state of the art. Music now is a bunch of digits to delete once you get bored with it, vs owning it and holding it in your hand and maybe learn a bit more about the music and the musician and why it was written.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Cardiobuck
. I am in the minority in my thinking on the external amp thing though.
I'm in agreement. I use an external Bryston power amp to run my mains, my receiver only runs my centre channel.
Bryston amps are very nice! Highly regarded. I use Emotiva and Outlaw Audio amps and have been very happy with them. Hardest thing was finding a rack to hold so much weight and still look decent in a living room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

92saturnsl2
Yamaha Aventage RX-A2A vs Denon AVR-X2800H AV receiver
Replies
19
Views
2K
tbm5690
1 SX
How do you keep your A/V receiver cool? Suggestions?
Replies
14
Views
1K
leadcounsel
Shel_B
Considering a Class B RV ... Suggestions?
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
The Critic
JavierH19
Buying a new tig welder kit
Replies
4
Views
1K
Lane
92saturnsl2
  • Locked
Home theater speakers
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
97tbird
Top