About to build the most basic high quality 2 channel system from scratch. Video series to follow

[WookieGR]

My wife and I are about to convert a spare bedroom that rarely ever gets used and is mostly just a storage room into a full fledged listening room. I posted part one of the video series here but will also go over it briefly below with pics if you won't watch what I had detailed out.

To start, I'm working from the ground up with nothing purchased yet. The intent to create a video series documenting the progress from design to final finished room with reviews and unboxing videos along the way.

I will be starting with the spare room that measures 11'-8" x 14' x 9' High.

Next, I will clear this room out, paint it. The following are renders I did to plan out the space. A full 3D walkthrough and narration of the room is in the video.

I've chosen to be absolute minimal in equipement by going with an AVR, a turntable and two tower speakers. This setup is designed around high resolution playback with no MP3's. CD audio will be at a minimum unless there are no other high resolution options. Luckily, modern receivers can stream these files unaltered with ease and sound incredible.

When the room is ready for furniture I'll need to get something that can store enough gear on top as well as the record collection below. Here is a basic mockup without knowing what exactly I'm getting yet.

For now, the AVR will be the Marantz SR5015 because it offers 100 watts into 2 channels and provides all the necessary high res streaming options. Plus it has a phono input.

My turntable of choice is the Fluance RT85... at least for the moment. It's been getting nothing but positive reviews in its price range.

The speakers might be the SVS Ultra Towers. I wanted these a few years ago when I was designing my home theater but the Klipsch RF7 III's and the Reference Premier line beat them out due to Klipsch's lower cost and better sensitivity. If you watched the video, you'll understand why I'm moving away from Klipsch for now.

I'm expecting to also buy subwoofers for the room. I want to feel the bass in my chest from the kick drums and to do that, I have to get away from the ported subs I'm so use to. I typically build my own subs but I've always wanted some SVS and will consider a couple SB-2000 Pro's for this project.

I will be building my own sound panels again. These new ones will likely have mineral wool for the reflection points and others will have acoustic foam to eliminate echo. There will be panels all around the room.

All the music will be streamed through the HEOS app either my phone or tablet and the Marantz can do it without any transcoding.

I've always been a multichannel guy but this room gets me excited to revisit my collection. I don't normally ask for advice or opinions but I am at a stage where I have a clean slate. Can anyone spot any problems or concerns or perhaps red flags on the equipment of choice?

 

[shadyJ]

I wouldn't overtreat the sidewalls. A good rule of thumb is to use a lot of absorption on the front and back wall, but for a two-channel system, use some sidewall reflection to your advantage. I would remove some of those sidewall panels and mount them on the front and back walls.

I also would not put the subs next to those speakers. One of the main advantages of the SVS Ultra towers is that they can play deep bass very competently. In fact, the SB-2000s probably wouldn't have much advantage over them if you give the Ultras enough amplification. I would place them elsewhere throughout the room where they will yield the flattest overall response. I would not high-pass the speakers. I would equalize the system for the overall flattest bass response. Dirac's bass control system would be really useful to you at this point.

Also, it's weird that you are badmouthing MP3s and then use a system that incorporates a record player. A high bitrate MP3 is a much higher fidelity medium than a record. Vinyl has 12 bits of depth on a good day, and most records wouldn't go near a redbook CD sampling rate. Records also tend to have a much higher noise floor as well as all kinds of audible artifacts. Records can be a fun media, but they are a low-fidelity media.

 

[WookieGR]

I wouldn't overtreat the sidewalls. A good rule of thumb is to use a lot of absorption on the front and back wall, but for a two-channel system, use some sidewall reflection to your advantage. I would remove some of those sidewall panels and mount them on the front and back walls.

I also would not put the subs next to those speakers. One of the main advantages of the SVS Ultra towers is that they can play deep bass very competently. In fact, the SB-2000s probably wouldn't have much advantage over them if you give the Ultras enough amplification. I would place them elsewhere throughout the room where they will yield the flattest overall response. I would not high-pass the speakers. I would equalize the system for the overall flattest bass response. Dirac's bass control system would be really useful to you at this point.

Also, it's weird that you are badmouthing MP3s and then use a system that incorporates a record player. A high bitrate MP3 is a much higher fidelity medium than a record. Vinyl has 12 bits of depth on a good day, and most records wouldn't go near a redbook CD sampling rate. Records also tend to have a much higher noise floor as well as all kinds of audible artifacts. Records can be a fun media, but they are a low-fidelity media.

Good tips on the panels and subs. I have a whole video planned during this series on exactly why vinyl is not a prefered medium. I get it. But there's a reason it's incorporated and I'll cover all that at a later date. I expect 90% of all my content will be 24Bit/96kHz or better. I'm really just focussed on the room treatments and placements right now. Maybe even if the Ultra Towers are not all they're cracked up to be.

 

[CajunLB]

I’m curious about the comment about going to seal Subwoofers because you want more kick then the ported subs that you are used to.
I didn’t know that sealed subs kicked harder.

 

[MalVeauX]

Hi,

Hrm, I don't think I'd call this basic. I think basic would be a receiver and two speakers and that's it. Expanding to have all these inputs, multiple subwoofers, etc, is quite a bit more than basic. Not arguing it, just thinking out loud. I would think two full range tower speakers and a simple single source like the receiver with the turntable would be pretty basic. The room is not basic at all of course, but that's a good thing (treat is good!).

Speaking of room treatment, I will second, don't over-treat the room. Treating the room is about treating the issues, not making an anechoic chamber. Maybe just treat the SBIR with 4 inch thick appropriate acoustic broad absorption material behind your front stage speakers. Treat the rear wall. Maybe treat the ceiling and walls for the first reflections, softly. Assuming carpet in the room (if hard floor, treat the floor in front of the speaker). Treatment placement is based on your listening position relative to the speakers of course, so maybe keep it modular so you can move it around if you change seating positions.

I wouldn't go for the SVS Ultras if you want subs. They have 8 inch drivers for bass already and largely the extra cost of them. If you want subs, maybe just go to the Prime Pinnacles and then add subs. With the Ultras, unless you set the crossover very low, you'll probably not even get use of those 8 inch drivers. That means you could have more money to get better and bigger subs. If you want to feel bass, go bigger on cabinet volume with modern drivers and design. Monolith is making some really great subs right now. HSU Research deserves a look too.

Are you completely sold on SVS towers? You have a lot of options in this budget range that are excellent, better than SVS and lots of beautiful cabinet options.

For the same budget, you could go for some really nice end-game speakers, like some Philharmonic BMR's or Salk SongBirds, with beautiful finishes of your choice. And compliment with good subs only if you want to.

Very best,

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I’m curious about the comment about going to seal Subwoofers because you want more kick then the ported subs that you are used to.
I didn’t know that sealed subs kicked harder.

YeH I think there’s something missing in the equation here.

 

[lovinthehd]

Well some sealed subs do have higher output in the upper sub range to an extent....don't know if that's what the "kick" referred to is, tho.

 

[TLS Guy]

I wouldn't overtreat the sidewalls. A good rule of thumb is to use a lot of absorption on the front and back wall, but for a two-channel system, use some sidewall reflection to your advantage. I would remove some of those sidewall panels and mount them on the front and back walls.

I also would not put the subs next to those speakers. One of the main advantages of the SVS Ultra towers is that they can play deep bass very competently. In fact, the SB-2000s probably wouldn't have much advantage over them if you give the Ultras enough amplification. I would place them elsewhere throughout the room where they will yield the flattest overall response. I would not high-pass the speakers. I would equalize the system for the overall flattest bass response. Dirac's bass control system would be really useful to you at this point.

Also, it's weird that you are badmouthing MP3s and then use a system that incorporates a record player. A high bitrate MP3 is a much higher fidelity medium than a record. Vinyl has 12 bits of depth on a good day, and most records wouldn't go near a Redbook CD sampling rate. Records also tend to have a much higher noise floor as well as all kinds of audible artifacts. Records can be a fun media, but they are a low-fidelity media.

Records are NOT low fidelity media. A really good turntable properly set up will best an MP3 file any day. If you were here I could find many LPs in my collection you would not know were not CDs you were listening to. A dbx encoded LP actually beats CD, but they are an unusual exotic. I do have over a dozen dbx encoded LPs.

The problem with the LP is disc care and it is highly equipment dependent, along with requiring obsessional set up.

When I play a good LP via turntable and preamp over half a century old, people are astounded. When you get to basics, what we have achieved is operational simplicity and far greater quality uniformity over a larger price range.

I have a feeling Shady, you have never heard really good LP reproduction. That is just one reason why the equipment I have preserved is so important. It shows in so many ways, high quality audio has been obtainable for a very long time.

 

[shadyJ]

Records are NOT low fidelity media. A really good turntable properly set up will best an MP3 file any day. If you were here I could find many LPs in my collection you would not know were not CDs you were listening to. A dbx encoded LP actually beats CD, but they are an unusual exotic. I do have over a dozen dbx encoded LPs.

The problem with the LP is disc care and it is highly equipment dependent, along with requiring obsessional set up.

When I play a good LP via turntable and preamp over half a century old, people are astounded. When you get to basics, what we have achieved is operational simplicity and far greater quality uniformity over a larger price range.

I have a feeling Shady, you have never heard really good LP reproduction. That is just one reason why the equipment I have preserved is so important. It shows in so many ways, high quality audio has been obtainable for a very long time.

I agree that vinyl can sound good, but, from a technical perspective, it won't have the bit depth, channel separation, or noise floor that a high bitrate MP3 would. Those are problems inherent even with the best vinyl pressings and highest quality turntables. After a few plays, it wouldn't have the high-frequency loss that can occur with vinyl. A 320kpbs mp3 done by a decent encoder can sound pretty good. Now that digital storage is plentiful and cheap, I agree there is no real point in not having lossless storage like MP3, but it's ridiculous to be bothered by the limitations of MP3s but not the limitations of vinyl.

 

[WookieGR]

Mp3's are good and dandy, not using them in this system.

 

[lovinthehd]

Might be best to refer to vinyl in most cases to simply less capable or to different taste or relevent to a particular collection of recordings....I certainly wouldn't start over in vinyl these days but YMMV.

 

[WookieGR]

Not to offend anyone that enjoys compressed audio but I thought this was funny.

 

[WookieGR]

Might be best to refer to vinyl in most cases to simply less capable or to different taste or relevent to a particular collection of recordings....I certainly wouldn't start over in vinyl these days but YMMV.

I started a vinyl collection for all my favorite records because I love the packaging and the overall experience of having the artwork and stuff they pack in with the records. There's a ton of cool stuff inside those slip cases beyond just a vinyl disc.

 

[TLS Guy]

I agree that vinyl can sound good, but, from a technical perspective, it won't have the bit depth, channel separation, or noise floor that a high bitrate MP3 would. Those are problems inherent even with the best vinyl pressings and highest quality turntables. After a few plays, it wouldn't have the high-frequency loss that can occur with vinyl. A 320kpbs mp3 done by a decent encoder can sound pretty good. Now that digital storage is plentiful and cheap, I agree there is no real point in not having lossless storage like MP3, but it's ridiculous to be bothered by the limitations of MP3s but not the limitations of vinyl.

Shady, you are applying analog tests of S/N to lossy audio. They are the wrong tests, as S/N ratio in lossy algorithms is NOT linear.

This is easily tested by listening to random noise of which the best example is audience applause, which becomes increasingly weird as bit rate is reduced. In a 128 Kbs file is sounds nothing like audience applause. There is a lot of random noise in orchestral sound, especially from the percussion section.

So yes a turntable will have a much better and more natural sound than a compressed MP3 file.

The take home is that the wrong parameters have been applied to testing lossy algorithms. The defects of lossy algorithms are serious and bother me far more than the defects of vinyl.

 

[WookieGR]

If anyone's still watching, I'm in the process of trying to get the Philharmonic BMR towers in piano black from Dennis Murphy right now. Apparently, all April pre-orders are sold out and he's not 100% confident the next batch of pre-orders slated for August/September will be on time. These are tough to get!

 

[ryanosaur]

The BMR towers will be a legit 2-channel and 2.1 option! Very worth the wait. I know we talked about this before. The Towers are very similar in performance to my Phil3s.
On their own for most Music, these will perform astoundingly well. A good Sub for Organ and deep electronica is likely necessary.
Dennis Murphy and his partner have had to deal with epic shipping problems for pretty much all their gear, from the cabinets to the drivers.
I think you will be blown away.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Now that digital storage is plentiful and cheap, I agree there is no real point in not having lossless storage like MP3, but it's ridiculous to be bothered by the limitations of MP3s but not the limitations of vinyl.

I feel like there is a typo here: I think you meant to say "lossy storage like MP3"

 

[WookieGR]

The BMR towers will be a legit 2-channel and 2.1 option! Very worth the wait. I know we talked about this before. The Towers are very similar in performance to my Phil3s.
On their own for most Music, these will perform astoundingly well. A good Sub for Organ and deep electronica is likely necessary.
Dennis Murphy and his partner have had to deal with epic shipping problems for pretty much all their gear, from the cabinets to the drivers.
I think you will be blown away.

I'm certainly looking forward to it. typo fixed.

Everyone seemed to squash the SVS Towers right away. I assume the Marantz SR5015 is acceptable. I honestly can't see why not. I'm creating a modest listening room that sounds good and I know the Marantz should sound good at a fraction of the price of tubes and separates and all that other foo foo.

 

[WookieGR]

Does anyone know where I can find high quality pictures of the piano black BMR Towers?

 

[ryanosaur]

I'm certainly looking forward to it. typo fixed.

Everyone seemed to squash the SVS Towers right away. I assume the Marantz SR5015 is acceptable. I honestly can't see why not. I'm creating a modest listening room that sounds good and I know the Marantz should sound good at a fraction of the price of tubes and separates and all that other foo foo.

Marantz should be fine, especially just driving 2 channels. If you were to ever want to Amp them, Hypex and Purifi seem to be very good options. (I'm waiting on my Chassis from Ghent to finish my NC-400 Amps... of course Shanghai locked down 2 days after I placed my order. ) Regardless, I think you are on the right path.

(FWIW, I didn't join the party, but agree that the Ultras wouldn't necessarily have been the best. So good choice! )