Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Choosing components for M60's

Hello everyone,

Let me say I've enjoyed reading these posts and have gained good information. I have just ordered M60's -they're not even here yet!- and I'm basically starting from scratch with the rest of a system, wondering if anyone could help. Some points: I don't really want to spend over $2000, (that's including the $800 for M60's) and am just looking for stereo (2-channel) not home theater 5 or 6 channel. (Question: Should I be going for surround sound? Is it really that much more incredible just for music with no visual? I don't really have room for all those darn speakers everywhere, but if it makes a huge difference... please comment on this as well.) I have in mind an amplifier and tuner, (or receiver?) and maybe pre-amp. My CD player should work OK for now. Any suggestions on quality brands/models (think at least 100w necessary?) and also where to purchase them for cheap?? I have a 14x21 ft. living room, "lively" due to hardwood floors. Oh, and please, I just read a really long and heated debate on "do different brands sound brighter, warmer, etc?" and please dear God don't let me open THAT can o'worms again I'm more concerned with finding quality components for a good price. Sorry this is so long...and thank you!

Surround sound is (IMHO) a must for home theater. When it comes to music alone, the jury is still out. With all the surround format options that today's receivers, or separates, offer (Dolby Pro logic II, DTS Neo:6, DSP modes, etc.), I'd be surprised if you couldn't find a format that makes stereo sound good to you. I find that it depends on the source. One CD sounds great in Pro Logic II; the next sounds just awful and I put my receiver in good ol' stereo to listen to it. However, there are members on this forum who listen to all music in stereo ONLY. They just don't like what they feel is the unnatural effect of the surround experience. Can't predict how you'd feel.

One thing. Though you "don't really have room for all those darn speakers everywhere," a good subwoofer is a great addition, even for music alone, and even though the M60s have good bass response.

I'd be sure to get a receiver, or separates, that can handle, at least, 5.1 formats, in case you wish to expand in the future. If you get into home theater, you WILL wish to expand in the future.

On this forum you'll find Denon, Harmon Kardon, and Yamaha the most frequently mentioned receiver brands. Onkyo isn't mentioned all that often but I have the DX-TS797 and am quite happy with it. Some prefer one brand, some another. They're all respected manufacturers, with acceptable products, and you'd probably be satisfied with any of them. Browse through this forum for specific models mentioned, and look for the features that will float your boat in the price range you can afford. When you find a model(s) that you like, do a google.com search for that particular model(s) and you'll find a variety of prices, and places to buy.

Good luck, and keep us posted on how it goes.

Once again, Jack nails it!!

Your requirements put you in a nice place. With $1200 left in your budget after buting the M60s, you can get one of the receivers Jack mentioned. I'd suggest the Denon 2803, nice mix of features, price, power and quality. That leaves you enough for a HSU VTF-2 (or STF-2) or SVS PB1 (or 20-39 PCi). BTW - in today's HT environment, a sub is a necessity.

You will be very pleased with this mix and it will set the stage to expand to adding 2 surrounds and a center if you decide to go there (and you WILL )

In reply to:

---

Should I be going for surround sound? Is it really that much more incredible just for music with no visual?

---

The answer is clearly yes for well-mastered, well-mixed material, where the music style benefits from surround. I can't believe anyone who listens to the Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon multichannel SACD on a 5.1 Axiom setup could think stereo was better. It's a vastly improved experience.

Here are the catches -- (1) There's relatively little high quality surround music material. It's complicated and expensive to remix for multichannel, and the potential listening audience is relatively small. Most albums aren't available in multichannel and there's lots of junk that was poorly mixed.

(2) Not all musical styles benefit. E.g, simple vocal arrangements don't benefit that much. Forcing them to surround (except for ambience) can be unnatural. By contrast heavily textured instrumental material like Pink Floyd can benefit greatly if properly mixed. Surround provides a broader canvas for the engineer to place sounds.

That said, good stereo is better than poor surround. OTOH are you really planning *no* home theater use? Most recent DVD movies have 5.1 soundtracks.

I definitely wouldn't do 6.1 or 7.1, especially if you're on the fence. But depending on your music tastes and home theater plans, a limited surround setup can be beneficial.

You could get M60s plus a "minimal" surround setup of QS4s, VP100, and Hsu STF-2 for under $1730. That doesn't leave much for a receiver, but break your price limit a little and you could shoe horn one in.

The other direction would be just do stereo based on M60s and upgrade to surround later.

I hate to be a purist and an "old-fuddy-duddy" but stereo music is not meant to be surround. When was the last time you went to a concert of any type of music and the group was all around you? ( I think I saw a Pink Floyd concert that way in the late 60's.) Unlike HT, two-channel reproduction, along with a good sub, is the most faithful and accurate music reproduction. I guess I dont like special effects like DSP or equalization ( except to equalize listening room environments.) The soundstage of the m60's is more than sufficient to have the full music experience whatever your genre. Thats my two-cents.

Snowman

In reply to:

---

I hate to be a purist and an "old-fuddy-duddy" but stereo music is not meant to be surround. When was the last time you went to a concert of any type of music and the group was all around you?

---

That really depends on what you're listening to and how it was mixed. How is the Propellerheads "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" supposed to sound? Or anything by Underworld and Fluke? I understand your hesitance for a 5.1 mix of something like Nora Jones, but not all music is as simple as 2-4 people on a stage playing acoustic instruments. But...even then a 5.1 mix can work. The mix could simply add ambient room noise to the surrounds. There are also quite a few live discs that are mixed for 5.1. Sometimes they have two or more different mixes. Mix #1 can put you in the audience near the front. Mix #2 can put you more in the middle of the audience, further back from the band, and Mix #3 can sometimes put you right on stage with the band.

chafter, you're greatly mistaken.

Every single concert I've ever gone to -- whether it's classical, jazz, or rock -- there was reflected sound coming from the side and behind me. That ambient sound is not just crowd noise. It's the music being reflected off the hard surfaces of the arena/concert hall. When done right, a surround mix will capture this information and relay is convincingly. It helps bring the feel of the performance space into my living room.

I believe alan made a post recently about how Dolby Pro Logic II can accurately extract ambient information from regular stereo recordings and route it to the surround channels to recreate the ambient sound. Now I really want to upgrade my receiver to take advantage of that technology.

I've used Dolby PL 2 and have not been very impressed at all. SACD 5.1 is a huge upgrade over PL2. Then again, it could be that I use a cheapie Sony reciever.

I too have never been much of a fan of DPLII. The vast majority of cds I've played through DPLII pretty much used the center channel and nothting else. Sucked.

In reply to:

---

but stereo music is not meant to be surround. When was the last time you went to a concert of any type of music and the group was all around you?

---

BTW stereophonic comes from a Greek word meaning "solid sound", not "two channels".

Even the early Bell Labs sound reproduction experiments showed a need for three or more channels. Using two channels was a compromise based on available 1940's technology. They wanted to use three or more channels even back then, since tests showed it provided superior fidelity.

The goal of music reproduction isn't necessarily to mimic a live performance -- it's to improve upon that. Most live performances aren't acoustically as good as a two-channel stereo studio album reproduced on good quality equipment. Even using just two channels, the studio engineering tricks have already diverged from live sound, and usually in a better way. Surround is merely another step along that path.

Just putting "the band in front" isn't necessarily the most optimal listening experience. Sometimes it's better to be up on the stage with the band. That's not possible live, but with reproduced surround music it is.

Who's to say that's not better, at least for certain music types? If the artist and recording engineer mix for surround, they clearly intend this style of listening. Let's see -- the artist mixes for surround, and I want to hear surround. It seems like the only two parties with any voice in the matter have already decided.

Regarding Pink Floyd, ironic this was mentioned since they pioneered quad on Dark Side of the Moon back in 1973. The clock montage leading into "Time" was conceived by recording engineer Alan Parsons specificially to demonstrate quadrophonic sound. That said, by some accounts the band was initially against the quad re-mix, so it was controversial even back then.

What's not controversial is the stunning impact of well mixed albums like DSOM in 5.1 surround. It's just amazing.
http://www.axiomaudio.com/archives/stereo.html