Minimum specs for a decent subwoofer ?

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

"Nath" wrote:
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

Thanks for the links, Nath, I'll have a careful look at them. So I
guess a should be better off not saving on power but adding some
spare margin. My previous comment was because I once heard a Marantz
model against a Yamaha and the latter sounded more powerful despite
being lower in nominal rating. This was some 4 years ago.

"Nath" wrote:
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

Thanks for the links, Nath, I'll have a careful look at them. So I
guess a should be better off not saving on power but adding some
spare margin. My previous comment was because I once heard a Marantz
model against a Yamaha and the latter sounded more powerful despite
being lower in nominal rating. This was some 4 years ago.

"Italo" wrote
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.

Got it. In general, sattelites would be more appropriate in small
rooms, right ?
Less volume been required and space being at premium. The usefulness I
see in sattelites is the easiness in tuning for movies, since their
response is totally parted from that of a sub. Trouble is they're not
great for music and even so they used to be very expensive, don't know
if this is something that's changed (I remember when Bose came up
drawing lots of attention as well as lots of hatred from demanding
music-listeners). In truth, coming from a musical background, I'd say
it all depends on how one listens to music.
In my brother's case, I've ruled off any music requirement right from
the beginning. But I had the feeling that even for movies a bookshelf
speaker would allow better response, if trickier to tune against a
sub.

"Italo" wrote
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.

Got it. In general, sattelites would be more appropriate in small
rooms, right ?
Less volume been required and space being at premium. The usefulness I
see in sattelites is the easiness in tuning for movies, since their
response is totally parted from that of a sub. Trouble is they're not
great for music and even so they used to be very expensive, don't know
if this is something that's changed (I remember when Bose came up
drawing lots of attention as well as lots of hatred from demanding
music-listeners). In truth, coming from a musical background, I'd say
it all depends on how one listens to music.
In my brother's case, I've ruled off any music requirement right from
the beginning. But I had the feeling that even for movies a bookshelf
speaker would allow better response, if trickier to tune against a
sub.

wrote in message
m...
Got it. In general, sattelites would be more appropriate in small
rooms, right ?

Generally yes, if only for the space issue.

Trouble is they're not
great for music and even so they used to be very expensive, don't know
if this is something that's changed (I remember when Bose came up
drawing lots of attention as well as lots of hatred from demanding
music-listeners). In truth, coming from a musical background, I'd say
it all depends on how one listens to music.


Well my Klipsch satellites are (were?) the smallest surrounds around and
sound superb (especially coupled with the new Marantz Amp and JBL sub), so
it's not always the case. But I'd suggest you stay right away from Bose.


In my brother's case, I've ruled off any music requirement right from
the beginning. But I had the feeling that even for movies a bookshelf
speaker would allow better response, if trickier to tune against a
sub.

Makes his decisions, and your suggestions, easier then. Have fun shopping
around :-)

cheers
--
Italo

wrote in message
m...
Got it. In general, sattelites would be more appropriate in small
rooms, right ?

Generally yes, if only for the space issue.

Trouble is they're not
great for music and even so they used to be very expensive, don't know
if this is something that's changed (I remember when Bose came up
drawing lots of attention as well as lots of hatred from demanding
music-listeners). In truth, coming from a musical background, I'd say
it all depends on how one listens to music.


Well my Klipsch satellites are (were?) the smallest surrounds around and
sound superb (especially coupled with the new Marantz Amp and JBL sub), so
it's not always the case. But I'd suggest you stay right away from Bose.


In my brother's case, I've ruled off any music requirement right from
the beginning. But I had the feeling that even for movies a bookshelf
speaker would allow better response, if trickier to tune against a
sub.

Makes his decisions, and your suggestions, easier then. Have fun shopping
around :-)

cheers
--
Italo

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

Got it. In general, sattelites would be more appropriate in small
rooms, right ?

Not necessarily. You could still buy bookshelf and standmounts, and set the
crossover to higher than that of the speaker frequency response. In fact
that's better than setting it exactly equal to that of the response of the
speaker, it'll most likely have better basss response than a 80hz-sat
speaker also set to 80hz, since at higher levels the 80hz speaker could have
alot more excessive cone movement, compared to the other larger speakers
(standmount, tower) for example, I have a centre speaker which has a F3
point of 55hz, another at 75hz, and another one of 85hz. There's a
noticeable difference that the 55hz centre goes deeper, despite the same
80hz crossover. Since the crossover is not a brick-wall cut-off, it's a
slope.

A 80hz speaker set at 80hz will not sound the same (bass depth) as a tower
speaker also set to 80hz

Less volume been required and space being at premium. The usefulness I
see in sattelites is the easiness in tuning for movies, since their
response is totally parted from that of a sub. Trouble is they're not
great for music and even so they used to be very expensive, don't know
if this is something that's changed (I remember when Bose came up
drawing lots of attention as well as lots of hatred from demanding
music-listeners). In truth, coming from a musical background, I'd say
it all depends on how one listens to music.
In my brother's case, I've ruled off any music requirement right from
the beginning. But I had the feeling that even for movies a bookshelf
speaker would allow better response, if trickier to tune against a
sub.

Avoid the smaller sats if possible, consider speakers with speakers that can
handle just under 80hz and below. If a HT system you'll most likely set the
crossover to 80hz all-round + subwoofer. So in fact a speaker that can go
lower than 80hz is a bonus, as the crossover it a slope anyway, the speaker
will be trying to reproduce ~60hz & 70hz, if a sat speaker is marginally
handling higher SPL at these

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

Got it. In general, sattelites would be more appropriate in small
rooms, right ?

Not necessarily. You could still buy bookshelf and standmounts, and set the
crossover to higher than that of the speaker frequency response. In fact
that's better than setting it exactly equal to that of the response of the
speaker, it'll most likely have better basss response than a 80hz-sat
speaker also set to 80hz, since at higher levels the 80hz speaker could have
alot more excessive cone movement, compared to the other larger speakers
(standmount, tower) for example, I have a centre speaker which has a F3
point of 55hz, another at 75hz, and another one of 85hz. There's a
noticeable difference that the 55hz centre goes deeper, despite the same
80hz crossover. Since the crossover is not a brick-wall cut-off, it's a
slope.

A 80hz speaker set at 80hz will not sound the same (bass depth) as a tower
speaker also set to 80hz

Less volume been required and space being at premium. The usefulness I
see in sattelites is the easiness in tuning for movies, since their
response is totally parted from that of a sub. Trouble is they're not
great for music and even so they used to be very expensive, don't know
if this is something that's changed (I remember when Bose came up
drawing lots of attention as well as lots of hatred from demanding
music-listeners). In truth, coming from a musical background, I'd say
it all depends on how one listens to music.
In my brother's case, I've ruled off any music requirement right from
the beginning. But I had the feeling that even for movies a bookshelf
speaker would allow better response, if trickier to tune against a
sub.

Avoid the smaller sats if possible, consider speakers with speakers that can
handle just under 80hz and below. If a HT system you'll most likely set the
crossover to 80hz all-round + subwoofer. So in fact a speaker that can go
lower than 80hz is a bonus, as the crossover it a slope anyway, the speaker
will be trying to reproduce ~60hz & 70hz, if a sat speaker is marginally
handling higher SPL at these

Italo and Nath, you're both great !
I feel much more confident now to making system decisions and defining
a sweet-spot for best cost-benefit. Once my brother has his stuff,
then I will be the one hunting for own solutions, and they will
certainly be more pickier as I will want decent results for both
movies and music, not something easy to accomplish I believe.
All the best to both you guys, what a pleasure to share thoughts on
this subject.