Some Buying Advice Please

[goldcrown22]

Anyone buy from jbl before directly? Speakers went frieght with an almost 3 week delivery time , even though when bought said Ups Ground with 1 week delivery., I had to call to even find out about that.

 

[KEW]

Anyone buy from jbl before directly? Speakers went frieght with an almost 3 week delivery time , even though when bought said Ups Ground with 1 week delivery., I had to call to even find out about that.

I have. They usually meet their estimated scheduled delivery.
My guess is they were running out of on-hand inventory, but had new stock scheduled to arrive which ended up getting delayed.
Disappointing, but just have some patience.
I would email them to ask for an explanation. They haven't been under the Samsung ownership for long, but their policies may be changing. However, I feel like Samsung is not a bad "overlord". Samsung has a good reputation (phones, tablets, and TV's) and they bought Harman (JBL) for their reputation for quality audio. It seems unlikely that they would dismantle the success that they bought. I think Samsung is playing a long game as opposed to some other companies who would milk a name while selling off the assets!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I am very curious about how AI is used!
Do you know of any good articles describing it? Does Yamaha have a white paper on it (a technical description of what it does ... as opposed to Yamaha marketing copy telling how great it is).

Gene said he was upgrading from the Yamaha CX-A5100 to the CX-A5200 and doing a full review of AI among other things.

I will wait for his review of the CX-A5200 and see what he thinks of AI.

I may be upgrading depending on his review.

 

[snakeeyes]

Gene said he was upgrading from the Yamaha CX-A5100 to the CX-A5200 and doing a full review of AI among other things.

I will wait for his review of the CX-A5200 and see what he thinks of AI.

I may be upgrading depending on his review.

What year would the following model probably called 5300 come out? Are these coming out every 3 years? 5200 is almost identical to 5100.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What year would the following model probably called 5300 come out? Are these coming out every 3 years? 5200 is almost identical to 5100.

Yeah, I think it's every 3 years. It seems to me AI was the only significant change.

 

[PENG]

Yeah, I think it's every 3 years. It seems to me AI was the only significant change.

I suspect they may accelerate the release of the 5300 to catch with the 13 (or more) channel thing.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I suspect they may accelerate the release of the 5300 to catch with the 13 (or more) channel thing.

I hope NOT - unless they will also remove most of the legacy Inputs/Outputs.

I wouldn't mind if they removed just about every I/O and just have HDMI and XLR.

Another reason I don't think they will increase from 11Ch to 13Ch is because they would also need to increase the MX-A5000s from 11Ch to 13Ch, which I don't see happening.

I hope Yamaha is all about Over-protection circuits, Reliability, and Compatibility. I hope they are not about cramming as many channels into the chassis as possible.

If they just cram more channels in the chassis like Denon, I will just keep the CX-A5100 and 5200.

Maybe they will also make a Pre-pro for 5.1.4. I will get that one. And no, I can't use an AVR for my main HT.

 

[KEW]

Anyone buy from jbl before directly? Speakers went frieght with an almost 3 week delivery time , even though when bought said Ups Ground with 1 week delivery., I had to call to even find out about that.

It'll be kind of fun to set up the B15's with your sub as a 2.1 while you wait.
They are true surround speakers and the standard recommended crossover is 100 - 120Hz! Don't think of that as a bad thing or serious limitation! The great thing about the B15 is they were designed from the start to be surrounds. This means they are easily wall mounted and you are not spending money on bass you would not use for surrounds!
As a 2.1, I might set up a 6' or smaller equilateral triangle between the 2 speakers and your listening position. At this distance you can listen fairly loud (since you are close). I suspect the B15 can play decently loud (they are, after all JBL),but I would wait on the Studio towers before really blasting things!
In the mean time, I think you will be pleased with the sound quality of those $107/pr surrounds coupled with your sub.
This will also give you the chance to get familiar with the Denon setup process so you will be able to set up your full system more quickly once they arrive!

 

[ryanosaur]

@PENG , @AcuDefTechGuy
Where does need/want and actual usefulness balance with what can be crammed into a little box? Obviously there is a point where extra channels become moot.

I'm mainly curious what your (and for that matter anybody else that cares to chime in) thoughts are on this.

With amplification and real estate in a metal box being the limiting factors... to me, at least, and the option to upgrade to a larger more specialized surround pre-pro +all the external amps you can want, it seems that 13 channels is bordering already for crossing that line. Especially if you still need external amplification to make it all work, such as most current offerings do to take advantage those last two channels (i.e. 9-channel amplifier/11-channel processing).

I think I would much rather see 11 fully-powered channels in an AVR with a more robust amplifier section tuned such that the front 3 are getting equal amplification, say at 100w each, then 60w each for the remaining 8-channels, say.

Thoughts?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

@PENG , @AcuDefTechGuy
Where does need/want and actual usefulness balance with what can be crammed into a little box? Obviously there is a point where extra channels become moot.

I'm mainly curious what your (and for that matter anybody else that cares to chime in) thoughts are on this.

With amplification and real estate in a metal box being the limiting factors... to me, at least, and the option to upgrade to a larger more specialized surround pre-pro +all the external amps you can want, it seems that 13 channels is bordering already for crossing that line. Especially if you still need external amplification to make it all work, such as most current offerings do to take advantage those last two channels (i.e. 9-channel amplifier/11-channel processing).

I think I would much rather see 11 fully-powered channels in an AVR with a more robust amplifier section tuned such that the front 3 are getting equal amplification, say at 100w each, then 60w each for the remaining 8-channels, say.

Thoughts?

Well, you definitely don't want @TLS Guy thoughts on having 11CH of Amps inside the AVR.

I think an 11Ch-AVR could still look clean if they would remove most I/O connectors and circuit boards. 100W x 3Ch and 50W x 8Ch Class-D amps would work for most people.

Make it so that there aren't a dozen circuit boards piled atop one another, which means removing a lot of connectors, boards, and junk features.

Going to smaller, lighter, cooler, more efficient Class-D amps would help a lot.

 

[snakeeyes]

@PENG , @AcuDefTechGuy
Where does need/want and actual usefulness balance with what can be crammed into a little box? Obviously there is a point where extra channels become moot.

I'm mainly curious what your (and for that matter anybody else that cares to chime in) thoughts are on this.

With amplification and real estate in a metal box being the limiting factors... to me, at least, and the option to upgrade to a larger more specialized surround pre-pro +all the external amps you can want, it seems that 13 channels is bordering already for crossing that line. Especially if you still need external amplification to make it all work, such as most current offerings do to take advantage those last two channels (i.e. 9-channel amplifier/11-channel processing).

I think I would much rather see 11 fully-powered channels in an AVR with a more robust amplifier section tuned such that the front 3 are getting equal amplification, say at 100w each, then 60w each for the remaining 8-channels, say.

Thoughts?

Think @PENG was going to try Atmos but he was thinking 7.x.6 might be a better balance than 7.x.4 in large rooms. Much like 5.x.4 is in smaller rooms. I’m thinking 9.x.8 would be a similar scenario.

 

[ryanosaur]

Being able to go all in on speakers would be great. I'd like to experiment with wides and heights. Marantz/Audyssey doesn't support wide channels as such in regards to the foundation level of the surround stage. So with their flagship AVR SR 8013, you could go single zone 7.2.6 with atmos, and presumably 5.2.8.

I will be building out 7.2.4 Atmos by mid-year, and in my little room, I can't imagine missing the Front and Rear Heights.

Admittedly, that's why I'm a little starry-eyed about the RMC-1. Dirac allows for Wides, and with the quasi-infinite modular expansion, you could truly hook it all up, including 4-subs if you want, without using y-splitters. Wheee! 16 channels native, but I think each modular pre-amp expansion is supposed to do an additional 4 connections. But at 5-Large, oof!

Truly a specialty-luxury product.

Which brings me back... what would you like to see in an AVR? Accessable to all, say with a ticket ranging btw $1300-2200? What do you wish you COULD'VE bought if it were available when you bought your last AVR??

(Just a fun exercise, considering I just bought everything over the last 6 mos.)

 

[Ridire Fáin]

I interpreted your statements as indicating that high dollar speakers need high dollar electronics. However, IME, once you reach competent electronics, as long as there is ample power, there is no reason at all to spend more money on electronics (unless it is for a specific feature). The least expensive AVR I have bought is a refurbished Denon AVR-1712 for which I paid $229 from A4L and it is still in service on a daily basis and sounds fine. I might Guess MSRP between $600 and $700-ish. So yes, I do generally believe AVR's matter. I look at it as don't cheap out and buy crap, but after that it is all about ample power, and having $10,000 speakers doesn't leave the $700 MSRP AVR wanting as long as adequate power is available. That said, you should never pay $700 for a $700 MSRP AVR!
I have two integrated amps of dubious origin and I must say that they sound fine for casual listening, but I have not yet set up an A-B comparison and listened critically.
One is the Klipsch Powergate which is 100WPC and lists for $500 and I paid less than $200 for it. The other is SMSL AD-18 which is 80WPC and sells for ~$140 (IIRC) I don't remember if there was a MSRP, but ~$140 is what it always is sold at.
I will not recommend these until I set them up with nice speakers and listen closely. I would currently only recommend either for casual listening / background music

My apologies, in order to keep my post from being pages long. I do not do a good job at fully expressing my views. Let me try to elaborate. Like you, I am of the opinion an well engineered $500.00 component, can be more than adequate to run an expensive speaker package with enjoyable results. Also, I would agree in that price category there would be little difference in sound between makes. Some could make a case that Pioneer and Marantz sound a bit different, but if I am truthful with myself I probably could not pick out which is which.

In the instance of the my friends HT setup the piece that serves as the weakest link, is his receiver. Which was originally part of an HT package. When mated with the speakers that came with it, it sounded fine. When paired with the new speakers that asked more from it. Its did not work as well.

Citing the Anthem MRX 720 as good choice for that speaker package was not to illustrate a certain starting pricepoit. The intent more was to provide an example of an well engineered product, that overachieves. I think there are much more moderately priced product that would do equally well.

 

[KEW]

My apologies, in order to keep my post from being pages long. I do not do a good job at fully expressing my views. Let me try to elaborate. Like you, I am of the opinion an well engineered $500.00 component, can be more than adequate to run an expensive speaker package with enjoyable results. Also, I would agree in that price category there would be little difference in sound between makes. Some could make a case that Pioneer and Marantz sound a bit different, but if I am truthful with myself I probably could not pick out which is which.

In the instance of the my friends HT setup the piece that serves as the weakest link, is his receiver. Which was originally part of an HT package. When mated with the speakers that came with it, it sounded fine. When paired with the new speakers that asked more from it. Its did not work as well.

Citing the Anthem MRX 720 as good choice for that speaker package was not to illustrate a certain starting pricepoit. The intent more was to provide an example of an well engineered product, that overachieves. I think there are much more moderately priced product that would do equally well.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we are in general agreement.
The recommendation of the Anthem amp was a point of contention.
I was reading more emphasis on the idea that if you had $30,000 speakers you needed to have very expensive electronics to go with it. For many, if you can spend $30,000 on speakers, why not spend $6000 on electronics, but I don't think you gain anything (much) as long as the power is there.
Certainly, the idea of retaining a HTiB receiver after buying "real" speakers is a bad plan! It could be a severely bad plan since many HTiB receivers are only really appropriate for use with the speakers in teh kit. I have seen HTiB speakers that get down to 2 ohms! That would be a serious problem for most AVR's, but I suspect the AVR with the kit was based on car amps/speakers which tend to be lower impedance and accomplish that inexpensively!

 

[Ridire Fáin]

The recommendation of the Anthem amp was a point of contention.
I see. Because an Anthem is so expensive @ $2500.00 retail it was never really an recommendation, but I would not have problem if I saw it in the system. However, it would be way overkill, and its benefit to the system would be questionable.

I was reading more emphasis on the idea that if you had $30,000 speakers you needed to have very expensive electronics to go with it. For many, if you can spend $30,000 on speakers, why not spend $6000 on electronics, but I don't think you gain anything (much) as long as the power is there.

Well first off, I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to discus amplification choices that come in at real world price points. The circle I hang with, an Audiophile that has any real pedigree has a system comprised of Audio Research, and paired with either B&W, Maggie's plus Sub, or Wilson's. You will see a lot McIntosh too but that brand is considered more of an "Blue Collar" compromise. Not really looked down upon, but not considered as something that gives you bragging rites.

I would not have a problem with someone powering a $30,000 (Talking 2 channel) speaker system with something from Outlaw, Audio by Van Alstine, or Bel Canto. As long as the components have the engineering
and parts quality to meet the speaker systems demands.

This is where we would differ. For a $30k speaker system I would choose an McIntosh 452. Mostly because it tends to put a slight emphasis on lower mid-bass. Being a Bass-Head my musical tastes are demanding. So I like having something that is overkill. (This is a personal choice not a recommendation)

If pressed for an recommendation AVA Fet Valve 400R or McIntosh MC302 would be on the shortlist. I cannot speak to the Outlaw because I have never heard it. Only the 2 channel receiver. Other considerations would be Bryston, CODA, and Moon by Simm Audio. There are also a host of others that I cannot think of.

This is an area where I am sure we will never see eye to eye.
The person that selects an Audio Research Reference 150 @ $15k to power the proposed speaker system would not be seen as a person that has wasted their money. In my eyes, that individual is one that can hear the benefit of an technology that uses tubes, and is willing to pay the premium for it. If he he/she can, who am I to judge? I will just kick back, poor myself a glass of sherry, and enjoy the music.

 

[PENG]

Being able to go all in on speakers would be great. I'd like to experiment with wides and heights. Marantz/Audyssey doesn't support wide channels as such in regards to the foundation level of the surround stage. So with their flagship AVR SR 8013, you could go single zone 7.2.6 with atmos, and presumably 5.2.8.

I will be building out 7.2.4 Atmos by mid-year, and in my little room, I can't imagine missing the Front and Rear Heights.

Admittedly, that's why I'm a little starry-eyed about the RMC-1. Dirac allows for Wides, and with the quasi-infinite modular expansion, you could truly hook it all up, including 4-subs if you want, without using y-splitters. Wheee! 16 channels native, but I think each modular pre-amp expansion is supposed to do an additional .)

Being able to go all in on speakers would be great. I'd like to experiment with wides and heights. Marantz/Audyssey doesn't support wide channels as such in regards to the foundation level of the surround stage. So with their flagship AVR SR 8013, you could go single zone 7.2.6 with atmos, and presumably 5.2.8.

I would expect the SR801X to be on a 2 to 3 year cycle like the AVR-7200wa and x8500h. So I doubt you will see a 13 channel SR8013 before 2020 or the 3rd quarter of 2019. Until then, if you want an avr to do 7.1.6, Denon is the only choice.

 

[ryanosaur]

I would expect the SR801X to be on a 2 to 3 year cycle like the AVR-7200wa and x8500h. So I doubt you will see a 13 channel SR8013 before 2020 or the 3rd quarter of 2019. Until then, if you want an avr to do 7.1.6, Denon is the only choice.

Sorry Peng... got my gear confused... I was thinking of the AV8805... though the SR8012 has a true 11-channel amp section, compared to the next two siblings down-line.
And yes, that Denon 8500 hits a lot of the right notes...

But I'm still not planning on upgrading.

What I see the general consumer doing is looking for something they can't generally afford. Which is always the case. I'm no different. But after wading into the pond... Hell, I think I've swam a few laps at this point... in my humble opinion, the missing link is something a little more stripped down than a marantz, similar to a Denon let's say, with slightly better amplification to meet the needs of a simpler style. @AcuDefTechGuy seems to get where I'm coming from. Had it been that easy... I wouldn't be here on this forum asking about input sensitivity and understanding subwoofer specs, and having philosophical conversations about the merits of a better AVR!

Cheers!

 

[PENG]

Sorry Peng... got my gear confused... I was thinking of the AV8805... though the SR8012 has a true 11-channel amp section, compared to the next two siblings down-line.
And yes, that Denon 8500 hits a lot of the right notes...

But I'm still not planning on upgrading.

What I see the general consumer doing is looking for something they can't generally afford. Which is always the case. I'm no different. But after wading into the pond... Hell, I think I've swam a few laps at this point... in my humble opinion, the missing link is something a little more stripped down than a marantz, similar to a Denon let's say, with slightly better amplification to meet the needs of a simpler style. @AcuDefTechGuy seems to get where I'm coming from. Had it been that easy... I wouldn't be here on this forum asking about input sensitivity and understanding subwoofer specs, and having philosophical conversations about the merits of a better AVR!

Cheers!

I think ADTG has been on pace to be at least half converted by TLSGuy lol.. To me, we should just enjoy the available cheap toys, thanks to manufacturer technological advances and cheap labor (sad in a way though..) to a point.. That, combined with the willingness to by yesteryear models, AVRs are becoming so attractively affordable that many can afford to try out the latest gimmicks in surround modes, and there is no need to think about upgrading to anything above $1000, much less the $3000-$5000 Marantz AVP and flagship AVRs.

Two more channels jammed in doesn't scare me any more after browsing many service manuals lately. If you want to know why I say this, PM me so I don't have to risk being attached.

For now, suffice to say, in terms of 7 vs 11 vs 13 channels, the main concern really should be heat. D&M attempted to address this by adding fan, and more fans, as evidenced in their latest models. They are all also smart enough to implement energy management modes to help reduce heat generations at the same time. So my prediction is that within two model years you will see 13 channel on the top two (SR801X/701X/AVR-X8X00H/X6X00H) and the AV880X/AV770X prepros. Unfortunately, or fortunately in reality, my room is ony 18.6 ft long so I am good with 7.1.4, that means I can continue with my plan to spend $1200 (C$) every 3 to 5 years, its in the budget. That, to me, in terms of performance, is better than spending $3000 (C$) on the AV880X every 5-7 years, with margin/questionable difference in terms of SQ. YMMV........

 

[KEW]

This is where we would differ. For a $30k speaker system I would choose an McIntosh 452. Mostly because it tends to put a slight emphasis on lower mid-bass. Being a Bass-Head my musical tastes are demanding. So I like having something that is overkill. (This is a personal choice not a recommendation)

Please explain this to me! Are you saying that McIntosh deliberately emphasizes lower mid-bass? I had a difficult time understanding why or even believing they would not design an amp with a flat frequency response! I don't want or expect an amp to alter the sound from the musician's performance!
Alternately, perhaps the speakers that were in play were very demanding (combination of impedance drop and phase angle) in that frequency range and the McIntosh was capable of handling the load (as compared to whatever amp was being used previously). But that goes back to having ample power for the speakers!

This is an area where I am sure we will never see eye to eye.
The person that selects an Audio Research Reference 150 @ $15k to power the proposed speaker system would not be seen as a person that has wasted their money. In my eyes, that individual is one that can hear the benefit of an technology that uses tubes, and is willing to pay the premium for it. If he he/she can, who am I to judge? I will just kick back, poor myself a glass of sherry, and enjoy the music.

I don't see them as wasting their money. If that is what they want, and the cost isn't a concern, that is what they should get!
You coach it in terms of "if he or she can hear the difference", but I would say "if he or she believes there is a difference". There have been too many instances where someone with "golden ears" participated in a double blind test (comparing two amps that they were certain they could hear a difference between) and without knowing which was which, they were unable to consistently pick which was their preferred amp.
My only concern is when someone is on a limited budget and spends 50% of their budget on electronics.
But your earlier point is not lost on me. The bottom line is competent electronics are not cheap (MSRP), but there are alternatives!
If someone comes here looking for a stereo system with $400 to spend, I would advise them to buy a pair of Philharmonic Audio AA plus speakers ($300) and look at Craigslist for a $100 used receiver (especially, you can often find a good AVR which lacks HDMI for a song, since they are obsolete). If they don't know much about electronics, we'll ask them to post a link to their Craigslist and find good options for them!

 

[Ridire Fáin]

Please explain this to me! Are you saying that McIntosh deliberately emphasizes lower mid-bass? I had a difficult time understanding why or even believing they would not design an amp with a flat frequency response! I don't want or expect an amp to alter the sound from the musician's performance!

Not sure I can . When I listen to speakers powered by a Mac there seems to be a tad more bass response. When compared to say from a similarly rated, Bryston, BAT, or Classe.

I would not say I am hearing voicing. Macs for all intents and purposes I consider neutral. I suppose what I hear could be the way it handles the speaker. Being so powerful they handle the damping of a system's woofer very well, which could be why I think I hear more bass output from a system when powered by one. This is subjective of course, but the reps at the Hi Fi shop I frequent make the same assertion without any confirmation/solicitation from me. I would concede to the more analytical and engineering minded that it is mass case of psychoacoustic effect.

In short, I like the way Macs handle Bass so I gravitate to them as amplifier of choice to handle the Bass heavy material I listen to.