Home cinema - Minimum specs for a decent subwoofer ?

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- UK home cinema (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - Minimum specs for a decent subwoofer ? (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=19352)

wrote in message
m...
"Italo" wrote:

I see. In which way do you feel the 250p would make a difference,
since the power rating isn't considered a major spec and they have the
same driver size?

That's incorrect, the 250P has a 12" driver and the 150P has a 10" driver,
also the amplifier of the 250P is rated at 250W RMS Vs the 150P rated at
150W RMS, the frequency range is also (barely) lower.

Is there any tuning control on the 250p that is
lacking on the 150p, or is it basicaly a subjective impression that
the overall low end would sound more natural in the 50p?
Thanks for shariung your very useful experience.
all the best

For a standard loungeroom the 150P is more than sufficient, though if I had
a dedicated HT room the 250P would also have been a good buy. Either way
it's a great sub.

--
Italo

"Italo" wrote:
That's incorrect, the 250P has a 12" driver and the 150P has a 10" driver,
also the amplifier of the 250P is rated at 250W RMS Vs the 150P rated at
150W RMS, the frequency range is also (barely) lower.
For a standard loungeroom the 150P is more than sufficient, though if I had
a dedicated HT room the 250P would also have been a good buy. Either way
it's a great sub.

That pretty much wraps it up for me then. I'll tell my brother to get
the 250p if he has the money and the space, or else get the 150p and
still enjoy.
I'll tell him to build his system around whichever sub he gets. Would
you suggest any decent receiver among mainstream brands such as
Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony ? Speakers should be easier since the purpose
isn't music listening. BTW, I've noticed that recent models are "6.1",
what is the purpose of the extra channel ?
Thanks again.

wrote in message
m...
"Italo" wrote:

That pretty much wraps it up for me then. I'll tell my brother to get
the 250p if he has the money and the space, or else get the 150p and
still enjoy.

He won't be disappointed with either. I'm pretty picky in terms of sound for
both music and movies and the JBL is a superb sub and excellent value for
money.

I'll tell him to build his system around whichever sub he gets. Would
you suggest any decent receiver among mainstream brands such as
Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony ? Speakers should be easier since the purpose
isn't music listening. BTW, I've noticed that recent models are "6.1",
what is the purpose of the extra channel ?
Thanks again.

All the brands you mentioned are excellent and I would also add Marantz to
the list but it really comes down to your brother's budget and specific
needs. 6.1/7.1 refers to the numbers of speakers being driven by the amp.
Most mid-to-high range amps are either and allow you to use an extra 1/2
speakers as back surrounds to bolster the panning sound effects.

The Yamaha range amplifiers give great value for money, especially at the
midlevel point, and even their bottom of the range amplifiers have separate
subwoofer levels for DD and DTS soundtracks. Surprisingly this important
feature is only found in the upper level models of other manufacturers if at
all.

Tell your brother to read some reviews of the amplifiers he's interested in
and make sure the amplifier he finally chooses has all the inputs/outputs he
needs.

--
Italo

"Italo" wrote:

The Yamaha range amplifiers give great value for money, especially at the
midlevel point, and even their bottom of the range amplifiers have separate
subwoofer levels for DD and DTS soundtracks. Surprisingly this important
feature is only found in the upper level models of other manufacturers if at
all.

This is one more interesting tip, although I'm not capable to evaluate
how it affects the system's performance. But I'll add that to an
Yamaha choice. I also remember that Yamaha used to be "conservative"
in their power ratings, something like 80 Watts RMS corresponding to
about 100 Watts in other brands. Anyway, for a room the size we're
talking about, what would be the minimum power rating for a good
receiver, would 60 Watt per channel be enough, or should he definitely
get 80 or more to be sure?

And yes, Marantz would be great but it's not really a mainstrem brand
where I live so I can foresee potential hassles in case of eventual
servicing.

About 6.1 and 7.1, would one really miss something by finding a good
older 5.1 model, would 6/1 or 7.1 really make a difference in the real
world aside from demonstration movies?

Tell your brother to read some reviews of the amplifiers he's interested in
and make sure the amplifier he finally chooses has all the inputs/outputs he
needs.

Yes. I remember once reading (about 4 years ago when I had more time
to dedicate to the subject, before becoming a father) that a receiver
should have all different types of IO connections, analog and digital
and even some provision for future formats. Is it still so, or has it
evolved to some kind of standard these days about DVD-audio, SACD, etc
? I also wonder if things have evolved to some closer relation between
receivers and computers, other than SPIDF ? My guess is it SHOULD,
since computers nowadays have all the capacity to handle video and
24-bit audio easily.

I'm sure this thread will be very useful to others as well.

wrote in message
m...
"Italo" wrote:

The Yamaha range amplifiers give great value for money, especially at the
midlevel point, and even their bottom of the range amplifiers have
separate
subwoofer levels for DD and DTS soundtracks. Surprisingly this important
feature is only found in the upper level models of other manufacturers if
at
all.

This is one more interesting tip, although I'm not capable to evaluate
how it affects the system's performance. But I'll add that to an
Yamaha choice. I also remember that Yamaha used to be "conservative"
in their power ratings, something like 80 Watts RMS corresponding to
about 100 Watts in other brands. Anyway, for a room the size we're
talking about, what would be the minimum power rating for a good
receiver, would 60 Watt per channel be enough, or should he definitely
get 80 or more to be sure?

It seems Yamaha are one of the poorer amps to actually reproduce rated or
better than rated output..and use bottom link to work out approx amp
requirements.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.c...alculator.html

wrote in message
m...
"Italo" wrote:

This is one more interesting tip, although I'm not capable to evaluate
how it affects the system's performance.

Frankly to me it's a crucial feature since otherwise the sub level is always
severall Db higher when playing a DTS track, what people always refer to
when they think a DTS soundtrack sound 'better'.

I was disappointed recently when I replaced my 3 year old Yamaha surround
amplifier and bought a Marantz 7300 amp which did not have this feature and
I had to buy myself a graphic equaliser to achieve a consistent sub level
when playing DVDs. This feature is standard on all Yamaha amps, even the
bottom of the line models.

But I'll add that to an
Yamaha choice. I also remember that Yamaha used to be "conservative"
in their power ratings, something like 80 Watts RMS corresponding to
about 100 Watts in other brands. Anyway, for a room the size we're
talking about, what would be the minimum power rating for a good
receiver, would 60 Watt per channel be enough, or should he definitely
get 80 or more to be sure?

The power rating required really depends on the speakers he's planning to
use. If they're highly efficient satellites combined with a powered sub I'd
say any amp delivering 60+Watts per channel is sufficient. If he's driving
full range speakers, rated less than 8 Ohms, in a large room he definitely
needs to up his budget and look for a stronger amp driving all channels at
the rated power setting.

About 6.1 and 7.1, would one really miss something by finding a good
older 5.1 model, would 6/1 or 7.1 really make a difference in the real
world aside from demonstration movies?

No, in general it would not make any difference at all. The current standard
for DVD soundtracks is 5.1 DD and/or DTS (5.1 is also the standard for DVD
Audio and SACD surround tracks) and likely to stay that way for the foreseab
le future. 6.1 soundtracks have appeared in a few discs (Gladiator, Star
Wars etc...) but they are not the norm and they are fully compatible with a
5.1 system. There are no discs with a 7.1 soundtrack.

Unless he's planning to use the HT system in a very large room then a 5.1
system is fine, he might even find some very good deals on a top of the line
amplifier from a couple of years back.

Yes. I remember once reading (about 4 years ago when I had more time
to dedicate to the subject, before becoming a father) that a receiver
should have all different types of IO connections, analog and digital
and even some provision for future formats. Is it still so, or has it
evolved to some kind of standard these days about DVD-audio, SACD, etc
? I also wonder if things have evolved to some closer relation between
receivers and computers, other than SPIDF ? My guess is it SHOULD,
since computers nowadays have all the capacity to handle video and
24-bit audio easily.

No generally amps have pretty much stayed the same. Biggest improvements are
generally invisible like better power supplies; better chipsets; video
upsampling; and RS32 connections for upgrading firmware on certain models.

Buying a new mid-level amplifier from a reputable brand is usually a good
bet but I repeat, even then many lack turntable inputs and other important
features, so your brother really needs to take a good look around. All part
of the fun!

--
Italo