I have been an Audio guy for years, but recently with the addition of a Sony
Grand Wega HDTV, I am turning to the home theater scene. Unfortunately I do
not have the budget I use to have, so I would like to use some of the more
quality components I already have in my possession, and add to them to
create a good 5.1, or 6.1 system. I have talked to local audio/video stores
and they just want to sell me everything new, and tell me that my old
equipment (primarily speakers that I want to reuse) are just old technology
and are poor. My conjecture is that quality is quality, and if I liked the
sound for the past 20 years, and they are still in mint condition, what is
wrong with re-useing them. In additoon, since my budget is around
$2000-$2500, either I reuse the present and add a new receiver and
rear/center speakers, OR I get a new THIB, which I believe to be of poorer
quality throughout. Problem is, that I cannot get any recommendations as to
which new speakers would match my older speakers. The ones I want to reuse
are "Either" Dahlquist DQ-20's, or JBL 4311 Studio Monitors (Whichever I can
match better). I also have a JBL Pro 12" sub, that I will continue to use
for time being. Receiver will probably be a new Harman Kardon AVR 7300, or
equivalent.
So what are your thoughts and recommendations as to which rear, and center
speakers would be a match for what I want. For those who dont know about my
current brands, The Dalhquist are large floor speakers, and rather
inefficient with a very flat response and good spatial quality, the JBL's on
the contrast are large bookshelf and rather directional speakers with high
efficiency. Both have wide frequency range, although the JBL's are slightly
brighter in sound. SO is $1000 of my budget goes to the A/V receiver, then
that will leave about $1000-$1500 for Rears, a good Center, and possibly the
beginnings of a better sub. Ideas or Opinions ?

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:36:23 +0000, DMHenrie wrote:

snip
So what are your thoughts and recommendations as to which rear, and center
speakers would be a match for what I want. For those who dont know about my
snip

You don't *need* a centre or a sub. They are definitely optional and their
use depends on how well your front speakers perform.

The centre speaker helps to "tie" voices (in particular) to the action on
the screen. If you use one then it should be tonally similar to your front
speakers otherwise voices will sound very odd as they pass from one side
to the other. The main thing about a centre speaker is that it needs to be
magnetically shielded. You really need to get it as close to the screen as
possible otherwise there's no point in using one.

A sub is mainly useful where the front speakers are incapable of reaching
reasonably low frequencies. They are also used to reinforce extra low
frequencies (for he crashes & bangs!). Floor-standing front speakers can
often get away without a sub for most purposes.

You may be able to get away with fairly small rear speakers if they are to
be used for movie effects only. Anything half-way reasonable should do. At
the moment I'm using a pair of miniature Aristons that cost all of 10UKP a
pair!

IMHO the speaker positioning is more important for movies than the
quality of the speakers. It is surprising what you can get away with
tonally - it isn't like listening to music. You *will* notice locational
errors though; after all, your ears are designed just for that!

Have fun. :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

DMHenrie wrote:

SO is $1000 of my budget goes to the A/V receiver, then
that will leave about $1000-$1500 for Rears, a good Center, and possibly the
beginnings of a better sub. Ideas or Opinions ?

If your only planning 5.1 you don't need to spend $1000 on a receiver.
My Pioneer was $150 bucks and it works fine. Look at the VSX-515K,
its under 200 and supports 6.1 .

My first venture into surround sound was via DVD player with built-in
dolby and DTS decoders. No matter what the dumbasses in the consumer HT
stores said (Circuit City, Tweeter, Best Buy) I did surround sound with
a couple of Stereo amps and speakers, my TV and the DVD player. I
actually had the "DVD expert" tell me all the RCA jacks for center,
front and rear on the DVD player were "digital outputs" and I still had
to have a receiver. So I went and bought it off the net for $150 less
than Tweeter wanted.
Anyway, nothing matched and it wasn't awful. Total investment $400.
You can do that now for a lot less. Not very convenient setting levels
but I just wanted to see if I was interested in HT without spending
$2500. I've since added a center speaker (instead of TV, and I have
no problem with it positioned in front of the TV enough so shielding is
a non-issue foe rear projection IMO) and a receiver but still use my
mixmatched stereo speakers. I'll put my system up against any HTIB
anytime. Legacy Focus speakers up front and Mirage M5 rears bring
sound to my 65" Mitsu diamond. Movies are great.... concerts on TV
(still 5.1 digital surround) are Ok, but music is best in stereo so
don't toss your old stereo amps.

ScottW

DMHenrie wrote:
I have been an Audio guy for years, but recently with the addition of a Sony
Grand Wega HDTV, I am turning to the home theater scene. Unfortunately I do
not have the budget I use to have, so I would like to use some of the more
quality components I already have in my possession, and add to them to
create a good 5.1, or 6.1 system. I have talked to local audio/video stores
and they just want to sell me everything new, and tell me that my old
equipment (primarily speakers that I want to reuse) are just old technology
and are poor. My conjecture is that quality is quality, and if I liked the
sound for the past 20 years, and they are still in mint condition, what is
wrong with re-useing them. In additoon, since my budget is around
$2000-$2500, either I reuse the present and add a new receiver and
rear/center speakers, OR I get a new THIB, which I believe to be of poorer
quality throughout. Problem is, that I cannot get any recommendations as to
which new speakers would match my older speakers. The ones I want to reuse
are "Either" Dahlquist DQ-20's, or JBL 4311 Studio Monitors (Whichever I can
match better). I also have a JBL Pro 12" sub, that I will continue to use
for time being. Receiver will probably be a new Harman Kardon AVR 7300, or
equivalent.

I have JBL 4400 series monitors myself. Three things to know about
old JBLs:
1:The foam surrounds rot out and need replacing every decade or so.
Pretty easy to see, though.
2:The crossovers in the older JBLs were low quality to begin with
and useless by today's standards when you factor in their age.
(Ie - you'd need to get them redone)
3:The alnico magnets loose charge over a dozen or more years
and the speakers drop into the 80-85db efficiency range or worse.
(especially if you like music with loud bass in it)

Add in age, oxidation, and wear... Sell them for what you can.

I'd drop the JBLs and try to get sound to match the DQ20s.

So what are your thoughts and recommendations as to which rear, and center
speakers would be a match for what I want. For those who dont know about my
current brands, The Dalhquist are large floor speakers, and rather
inefficient with a very flat response and good spatial quality,

Get smaller "bookshelf" surrounds and center to match the DQ20s.
You have a sub, so that's 3 good speakers, which $1000 should
easily be able to accomplish.

mick wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:36:23 +0000, DMHenrie wrote:

snip

So what are your thoughts and recommendations as to which rear, and center
speakers would be a match for what I want. For those who dont know about my

snip

You don't *need* a centre or a sub. They are definitely optional and their
use depends on how well your front speakers perform.

The centre speaker helps to "tie" voices (in particular) to the action on
the screen. If you use one then it should be tonally similar to your front
speakers otherwise voices will sound very odd as they pass from one side
to the other. The main thing about a centre speaker is that it needs to be
magnetically shielded. You really need to get it as close to the screen as
possible otherwise there's no point in using one.

I forgot to mention. I use large full-range speakers in the
front(JBL 4410) and the center channel is optional. I only
got a JBL 4208 so that my son could listen to TV in the morning
without shaking the house. (it's not hooked into the
main A/V system)

Big towers also make a sub optional. You don't need it for
frequency response, so it works as it should - reinforcement
for deep, loud bass. I run my system without one just fine.
OTOH, I have 2 10 inch and 2 8 inch woofers. Heh.

My friends are shocked at my "4.0" system - that it sounds like
a typical 5.1. Then I tell them how little it cost(About $1600
or so today) and their eyes get glassy So, yes, keep the
towers if you can.

If you want to sell the DQ20s(which IIRC, you can get a good price
for), then also sell the JBLs and replace them with 4410s and 4408s.
Add in your JBL sub and you're set. Center channel is moot with
this setup. Running only 4 channels also is a bit less load on
your receiver. I have three old Yamaha CA-1000 amplifiers as the
power source(one just runs the center channel seperately, though,
so it's really 2 of them for HT). I may upgrade to 6.0, so I keep
the third amp.

In any case, even numbers is nicer as it means you can just get two
big amps and a processor if you want to later on.

www.musiciansfriend.com - best prices on these speakers.

You mentioned selling the DQ-20's originally to IIRC, I believe, What is
that?
I have been keeping up with foam rot on both the Dahlquist and the JBl's.
Didnt think much about the crossover capacitors changing value, hmmm, gotta
give that more thought. I doubt the magnets though lost anything.
Gave a good listen tonight to Both sets, with the JBL's using the sub, and
the Dahlquist standalone and switching back and forth with same material.
Dahlquists are definetly the more superior speaker in terms of flatness,
openess, and soundstage. Very similar to a Magnepan/Martin Logan sound,
without tinny transients. Very smooth, great respnose. What they do lack is
deep bass, and thats from the 10" woofer with no porting. The sub was
actually bought for them, as I believed, and still do, that they needed the
deep bass boost. The JBL sub is boomier than the bass from the Dahlquists,
so there is a mismatch there, that's why I ended up putting the sub with the
JBLs that are not only connected to main audio listening room, but to to TV
via Hafler stereo 280 watt amp. The Dahlquist I have placed correctly in
another room where there is more space, and I can go for serious listening.
Of course this can all change when I decide in my new master plan.
The Jbl's have a totally different sound, and with the sub attached, it is a
nice match, although (I guess this is good, when system is cranked up, the
bass with not only shake the floors and walls, it'll skip the disks. I don't
presently have them in a great location though, against wall, sitting on top
of 6 foot entertainment piers. They like to be away from walls and corners
to be at their best. I actually have been seeking Ebay for smaller vintage
JBLs for the rears, as they made some smaller 2 way bookshelfs with 8" wook
and same tweeter as mine. Cabinet matches as well, or at least close enough.
If I go that route, then the center speaker is the only problem.. DO the new
"good" JBL centers have same overall sound quality, or different. Hard to
tell going from my house, to a lousy Best buy or Tweeter place. I am not too
familiar with Theil speakers, but I'll check them out if the sound is of
similar presence as the Dahlquist.
Oh, and to whomever wrote, I can get away with a small amp, I doubt it as if
I use the Dahlquist, they will require some wattage. I also favor many
features of the upper AVR receivers as well. The Maratnz, Harman Kardons
have my eye now, but maybe that is my vintage background speaking there
also. They get good reviews, but they also place ads in the magazines that
review them, so I dont know the trustworthy aspect.


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...


DMHenrie wrote:
I have been an Audio guy for years, but recently with the addition of a
Sony Grand Wega HDTV, I am turning to the home theater scene.
Unfortunately I do not have the budget I use to have, so I would like to
use some of the more quality components I already have in my possession,
and add to them to create a good 5.1, or 6.1 system. I have talked to
local audio/video stores and they just want to sell me everything new,
and tell me that my old equipment (primarily speakers that I want to
reuse) are just old technology and are poor. My conjecture is that
quality is quality, and if I liked the sound for the past 20 years, and
they are still in mint condition, what is wrong with re-useing them. In
additoon, since my budget is around $2000-$2500, either I reuse the
present and add a new receiver and rear/center speakers, OR I get a new
THIB, which I believe to be of poorer quality throughout. Problem is,
that I cannot get any recommendations as to which new speakers would
match my older speakers. The ones I want to reuse are "Either" Dahlquist
DQ-20's, or JBL 4311 Studio Monitors (Whichever I can match better). I
also have a JBL Pro 12" sub, that I will continue to use for time being.
Receiver will probably be a new Harman Kardon AVR 7300, or equivalent.

I have JBL 4400 series monitors myself. Three things to know about
old JBLs:
1:The foam surrounds rot out and need replacing every decade or so.
Pretty easy to see, though.
2:The crossovers in the older JBLs were low quality to begin with
and useless by today's standards when you factor in their age.
(Ie - you'd need to get them redone)
3:The alnico magnets loose charge over a dozen or more years
and the speakers drop into the 80-85db efficiency range or worse.
(especially if you like music with loud bass in it)

Add in age, oxidation, and wear... Sell them for what you can.

I'd drop the JBLs and try to get sound to match the DQ20s.

So what are your thoughts and recommendations as to which rear, and
center speakers would be a match for what I want. For those who dont know
about my current brands, The Dalhquist are large floor speakers, and
rather inefficient with a very flat response and good spatial quality,

Get smaller "bookshelf" surrounds and center to match the DQ20s.
You have a sub, so that's 3 good speakers, which $1000 should
easily be able to accomplish.

DMHenrie wrote:

You mentioned selling the DQ-20's originally to IIRC, I believe, What is
that?

You might consider selling everytihng and getting a whole new matched
setup. Or just match to the DQ-20s. In any case, the old JBLs are
way past their prime.

I have been keeping up with foam rot on both the Dahlquist and the JBl's.
Didnt think much about the crossover capacitors changing value, hmmm, gotta
give that more thought. I doubt the magnets though lost anything.
Gave a good listen tonight to Both sets, with the JBL's using the sub, and
the Dahlquist standalone and switching back and forth with same material.
Dahlquists are definetly the more superior speaker in terms of flatness,
openess, and soundstage.

Which shouldn't happen. Normally, the JBLs should give the Dahlquists
a run for their money and then some. The problem is that JBL monitors
age very un-gracefully. The magnets do loose charge over time, though
it's easy to get them re-magnetized. The crossovers with that nasty
pot on the back - if you're lucky they used standard electrolytic
junk capacitors. If not, I've seen all sorts of cost-cutting junk
in old pairs. Capacitor and crossover sub-component selection
wasn't considered to be a factor at all back then by most firms.

Thankfully it's changed, but JBL Pro was one of the very last to
abandon their 1970's technology.(though they still use alnico, even
though it's a hopelessly outdated technology) The new ones have
proper binding posts and a crossover that is adequate, though.
Your Dahlquists have a decent, modern crossover and so on, so they
still sound very nice.

....
Based upon the rest of your post, though, you should match the DQ20s
up with some surrounds and get a good sub. I suggest a 10-12 incher.
The old JBLs were known for having a kind of one-tone sound due
to resonance and other factors. Most car stereo subs also suffer
from this. But, a good sub will run you $600-$1000. Selling the old
JBL sub and speakers as a set will get you a few hundred, though,
to offset this.

HSU makes decent subs(stick with their better models), as
does Velodyne(though I'd only recommend their servo controlled
subs). Properly done, you shouldn't be able to tell that there
IS a sub in the system - just that it goes lower and doesn't
trail off like before.

DMHenrie wrote:
Oh, and to whomever wrote, I can get away with a small amp, I doubt it as=
if
I use the Dahlquist, they will require some wattage. I also favor many
features of the upper AVR receivers as well. The Maratnz, Harman Kardons
have my eye now, but maybe that is my vintage background speaking there
also. They get good reviews, but they also place ads in the magazines th=
at
review them, so I dont know the trustworthy aspect.

Your Harmon Kardon choice is 110 Watts/channel in surround... the
Pioneer is 100. Their "high current" claim is bogus. Don't get me
wrong.. I'm sure the HK will sound great but it won't "sound" any
better than the Pioneer IMO and I did listen to Yamahas, HKs, Denons,
and Onkyos. The amp sections didn't sound any different. All that
extra processing takes power and some of them with all their features
packed into that box ran pretty hot. I see the HK does have individual
channel tone controls which might be helpful matching mismatched
speakers. I also see it needs a fan

Your also paying a bundle for the video upconverter and a couple
channels you won't use. Personally, I don't route my video through my
receiver. Just extra cables and I don't think upsampling video is
worth squat.

Maybe you ought to read these user review comments from someone who
owns one. He didn't like it at all and if you're a rookie in
surround... you'll never get it setup.

BIG TIME. Yes, AVR 7300 has great potential - the hardware is solid.
Sadly enough, though, its user interface and general usability leave
much to be desired. The EZSet feature is very inaccurate. I tried it
several times and it simply does not work correctly. I guess I will not
be retiring my RadioShack SPL meter any time soon. The receiver does
not have a "Master" channel level setup feature. To set up channel
levels, one has to go into each possible DSP mode of each input (it's
up to you to figure out how many possible combinations exist!) and set
channel levels there. And, in order to do this, one must make sure
there is an input signal present while adjusting the channels, since
there is no way to engage certain DSP modes when no signal is coming
in. For example, you cannot adjust the DTS channel levels unless there
is a DTS encoded DVD currently playing. What a nightmare! Sometimes I
wonder, do they even have an interface designer at Harman Kardon? I
mean, someone who actually "plays" with the new products and comments
on user friendliness (or complete lack of one) of their receivers? Is
there someone who would notice that there is no way to correctly
identify buttons on the front panel of the unit in a dark room? (Come
on! It's a AV Receiver. It's supposed to be used in Home Theater,
where it's usually dark, right?) Is there someone who would point to
the fact that two large round buttons on the remote (up/down/left/right
and channel/volume) are almost indistinguishable by touch? How about
someone who would be annoyed by the fan noise coming from the receiver,
even when no input signal is present (and therefore no extra heat
dissipation is required)? I bought AVR 7300 for its 7.1 capabilities.
Why does it always default to 5.1 decoding when a DD5.1 or DTS signal
is detected??? It allows me to store my preference of Dolby DPLIIx or
Logic 7 for two channel sources. Why does it insist on initially
selecting pure 5.1 decoding with 5.1 sources then??? To make matters
worse, when in DD 5.1 mode, it forces me to circle through six (6!!!)
absolutely useless Dolby modes (2-SP, 4-SP, etc) and only then allows
me to select "Movie" or "Music" post-processing (Dolby Digital PlIIx
"Movie"/"Music"). Needless to say, it not only takes time, but also
interrupts sound from the speakers every time a "Dolby" button on the
remote is pressed! And, try to find this bloody button in a dark (so
much for the "backlighting" they provided)! I went through the expense
of setting up seven speakers and a subwoofer (I am sure there are many
other consumers who either did or are planning to do the same thing). I
indicated to the receiver during the setup that I DO HAVE SEVEN
SPEAKERS connected to it. Wouldn't it mean that I am determined to
get most use out of this setup? How about implementing a simple logic:
A=2E When 5 speakers are connected, disable 7.1 modes B. When 7 speakers
are connected, remember the last 7.1 mode (or 5.1 or 2 channel stereo)
used per input PER SOURCE ENCODING TYPE (PCM or bitstream DD 2 channels
or DD 5.1 or DTS) unless the EX flag is present (perform a DD EX or DTX
EX decoding then). If this is not technologically possible then,
PLEASE, default processing of the 5.1 source to Dolby Digital Pl IIx
"Movie" when 7 speakers are connected. This way, when a DD 5.1 signal
is present and someone does not want to have 7.1 post-processing,
he/she can press the "Dolby" button on the remote once or twice and get
pure DD 5.1 as opposed to what was described by me above - the pain of
circling through multiple useless DD modes the other way around. The
receiver does not remember the Tone In/Out setting per audio input. For
example I, personally, prefer to listen to the music from a CD player
with Tone Out and watch DVD's with Tone In (-6 dB Treble to compensate
for the overly bright movie soundtracks - "Poor man THX cinema
re-equalization"). It appears that whenever I switch between inputs,
the Tone In/Out setting gets carried over. I would be hard pressed to
find an audio enthusiast who likes using the same tone settings both
for Home Theater use and for stereo listening of the music. Every audio
purist strives to exclude any tone altering circuits from the signal
path when listening to the music. It is a completely different story
with movies, since, as you probably know, the audio track there is
mixed with the intention of being reproduced in large theatre halls
where the high frequency would naturally roll off due to the fact that
the speakers there are much further away from the viewers then at home.
This is why THX standard calls for "Cinema Re-equalization," simply
speaking, reducing high frequencies to compensate for overly bright
movie soundtracks. Should H/K designers have chosen to implement
separate settings of the tone controls per input they would have
brought AVR 7300 a notch closer to the top of the crowd receivers
without a necessity to pay licensing fees for THX certification. As for
tone control, it is apparent that H/K designers are unaware that a
little consistency goes a long way. Look what is happening: In order
for someone to change the Tone In/Out settings using the remote he has
to press the Tone button, then find an Up/Down button, and toggle the
current tone mode. Meanwhile, all DSP mode changing buttons cycle
through the available modes without any need to move ones finger to
another place on the remote. It would be reasonable to expect the Tone
button to work the same way: press it once to see what current setting
is, press it second time to toggle the settings. Silly little thing?
Maybe. Can it be corrected? Sure! Does it leave a bad impression of the
overall design? It is up to you to decide! Speaking of the remote
control, for a flagship receiver to have a remote like AVR 7300 has is
simply humiliating. The buttons are absolutely indistinguishable in the
dark even with the "backlight" switched on. Most of them have the same
shape and size and the button names are written NEXT to them, not ON
them so they are not lit when "backlighting" is on. When a Phillips
Pronto can be had (refurbished) for $160 mail-order (meaning the actual
cost to make one is close to $100), why doesn't H/K license the
remote design from Phillips, slap an extra $100 on top of the
receiver's price, and package this remote with their products? I've
spent some time with Denon's RC-8000 LCD PC programmable remote
control and while it is still not a Pronto, the RC-8000 is light years
ahead of the piece of headache that comes with AVR 7300. Now, here is
another sad point of my story. I have a Scientific Atlanta Explorer
4200HD digital cable box connected to one of the component inputs of
the AVR 7300. Regardless of the cable box output settings (480i or 480p
or 1080i) the signal reaches my TV only when video processing in the
AVR 7300 is switched OFF. Otherwise, I get a blank (blue) screen. So in
order for me to take a full advantage of critically acclaimed Faroudja
video chip I have to remember to toggle video processing switch ON and
OFF every time I switch between my cable, DVD and VCR. Apparently, the
H/K "flagship" receiver is not smart enough to detect the HDTV
signal and automatically disable video processing circuits. So what
should I blame - technical limitations, or (again and more likely) an
oversight of the designers? As annoying the fact that video processing
blocks the 1080i HDTV signal is, I could have lived with it if they had
implemented a separate video processing ON/OFF settings memory per
input. But again, apparent lack of internal user interface critiquing
body handicaps this company big time. I decided to do some more tests
regarding the OSD: When I use my Toshiba SD6200 DVD player and I set
the DVD player output to "interlaced" (480i), the signal goes through
the AVR 7300 to my TV set both when video processing in AVR is switched
on and when it is switched off. With the 480i signal the OSD works
well, regardless of the video processing switch. When I use my Toshiba
SD6200 DVD player and I set the DVD player output to "progressive"
(480p), the signal goes through the AVR 7300 to my TV set both when
video processing in AVR is switched on and when it is switched off, BUT
(!) I can't get the OSD to work here regardless of the video-processing
switch. I spoke to the H/K tech support about this issue and they claim
that AVR 7300 overlays its menus over the 480i picture, then up
converts it if requested to 480p, and then sends the resulting signal
to the TV set. If 480p or higher source is used, then AVR 7300 can't
overlay the menu over the picture. Their designers did not even try to
find a workaround to accommodate thousands of the end users who have
the progressive scan DVD players and HD cable boxes! It appears that
they have chosen to deliberately impair a consumer's ability from
making any meaningful setup adjustments when the 480p source is used.
Why can't the receiver temporarily block the source when the OSD button
is pressed, then show its menus on a blank screen in 480i format and
then unblock the 480p source when the OSD is switched off? All other
high-end receivers go this route. (I called Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz
and double-checked with them before writing this review. I saw Denon
AVR 5803 doing it the right way too). Why H/K designers put their
product in this unfavorable situation is beyond my understanding. A few
more problems. The receiver (at least my unit) does not want to
recognize DD 5.1 EX flag on any DVD's I tried. It drops audio ever so
often for a second or so while watching some DVD's with DD 5.1
soundtrack ("Star Wars Episode I" is one of those, for example) and
I can't find an explanation for it. And again, the cooling fan makes
a distracting noise. Whatever... I am really very sad. The AVR 7300
reminds me a lot of a classic American Muscle car - plenty of raw
unadulterated power coupled with mediocre handling characteristics.
Sure, that car can cover =BC mile very fast but no one would use it in a
World Rally Championship to compete on a twisty mountain road...
Ironically, the H/K website has Dr. Sidney Harman's quote on their
website: "We were determined that our products should look pleasant and
be easy to use. I argued that if you could do it with one knob, what's
wrong with that. The one knob idea is that the engineering-the
technical part should be transparent. You use the brilliance of the
engineer to make the thing very simple for the user." I wish Dr. Harman
could have personally tried to use the "flagship" receiver of his
company and give a user interface related feedback to the designer team
(in strong words)... Anyway, H/K designers must roll off their sleeves
and spend significant time re-working all issues pertaining to AVR 7300
usability if they want to keep the sales on par with the flagship
receivers of other manufacturers. Until then - I give up. I returned
the unit to the dealer after exchanging more then 30 emails with
various H/K tech support people. I guess I'll be looking for a deeply
discounted now Denon AVR 5308 in a few days.

from http://reviews.designtechnica.com/user_reviews1880.html

After reading that... I wouldn't touch it.


ScottW

DMHenrie said:
He wants home theatre and has some JBL 4311's and som e DQ 20's.
He thinks the DQ20's are superior and that they are flatter in
response, although we don't know how he knows this.

Have you measured either of your speakers with an spl meter and a set
of test tones?

At any rate you should probably use the speakers that are most
efficient.

Good subs can be had from SVS, Hsu, Velodyne, Adire, and PSB. You can
also build a sub using Adire's superior woofers, although there are
others that will do. I like Adire becuase they have the most bang for
the buck IMO and they offer detailed info on how to build a good sub.
You can actually build as good or better as you can buy when it comes
to subs. Personally, I recomend building one from sonotube. It's
light strong and no standing waves, since it's a cylinder.

For surrounds check into Pro audio stores and look into some powered
speakers used for monitoring.

One last thought regarding center channel speakers.

One sees many center speakers desinged as MTM's that is mid bass,
tweeter, midbass, set up horizontally on a TV or whatever. Wrong, that
style speaker worksd best mounted vertically.

wrote:
One last thought regarding center channel speakers.

One sees many center speakers desinged as MTM's that is mid bass,
tweeter, midbass, set up horizontally on a TV or whatever. Wrong, that
style speaker worksd best mounted vertically.

Sockpuppet NYOB,

When are you going to get yourself a new newsreader?