Advice for two speaker and sub setup.

[RHD]

I basically want to listen to music on iPod or iPhones 98% of the time, plus be able to listen to the college football game on tv. I actually have no use for surround sound. I currently have a subwoofer and looking at Klipsch RP-160m speakers (rated 100/400) for the right and left channel. Will a Yamaha integrated amplifier take care of these needs? Would a 60w x 60w work, or should I go with 80w x 80w?

 

[Leemix]

A lot of 2 channel integrated amps make it difficult to integrate a sub so might be cheaper and better to buy an older model or used reciever even if only using 2 of the channels.

Which sub do you have?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RHD]

A lot of 2 channel integrated amps make it difficult to integrate a sub so might be cheaper and better to buy an older model or used reciever even if only using 2 of the channels.

Which sub do you have?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

LOL, it’s actually a old (at least 15 years) RCA powered sub with 6” woofer still going strong! I actually like the look of the Harmon Kardon HK 3770 stereo receiver. It’s 120w x 2 with a sub output. Has iPhone plug in front and Bluetooth capability. Just wondering if that’s to much for the Klipsch rated at 100w continuous?

 

[Leemix]

LOL, it’s actually a old (at least 15 years) RCA powered sub with 6” woofer still going strong! I actually like the look of the Harmon Kardon HK 3770 stereo receiver. It’s 120w x 2 with a sub output. Has iPhone plug in front and Bluetooth capability. Just wondering if that’s to much for the Klipsch rated at 100w continuous?

The only too much is from the volume knob. The power of the amp isnt what can damage a speaker, lack of power can as it clips the signal earlier and thats usually what is dangerous. Unless you go totally nuts and go full volume and then its still safer with a beefy powersupply. At normal listening levels only a few watts are used but with short peaks of more power. (Power rarings on speakers is a fairly pointless stat as it doesnt really say much at all, efficiency numbers are much more important)

A sub out will be very practical for you if your sub has a line level RCA input.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RHD]

The only too much is from the volume knob. The power of the amp isnt what can damage a speaker, lack of power can as it clips the signal earlier and thats usually what is dangerous. Unless you go totally nuts and go full volume and then its still safer with a beefy powersupply. At normal listening levels only a few watts are used but with short peaks of more power. (Power rarings on speakers is a fairly pointless stat as it doesnt really say much at all, efficiency numbers are much more important)

A sub out will be very practical for you if your sub has a line level RCA input.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Klipsch are rated for 100 cont/400peak with a sensitivity of 96. So, the 120 x 2 channel would be better than 85 x 2 channel?

 

[Leemix]

The Klipsch are rated for 100 cont/400peak with a sensitivity of 96. So, the 120 x 2 channel would be better than 85 x 2 channel?

The klipsch are very efficient speakers which is good. If you like the klipsch horns then they can be very nice speakers.
I dont really know the amps in question so cant say which would be best. Its not a given that the 120w one is actually more powerful then an 85w one but they should both do a good job. Sub integration is probably what should decide for you, which of them has good bass management/connectivity.
And make sure they have the inputs you want for stuff you want to connect to it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KEW]

One of the advantages of Klipsch/horns is their efficiency.
The amps you are looking at are more than enough power for those speakers - any typical amp or receiver is!
(people who make 5W project tube amps like Klipsch because 5 Watts will do pretty well with them)
A 6" sub is not going to give you much additional lows to the 6" drivers in the Klipsch, but they will probably add a little. Experiment - You may decide not to use the sub.

If you are looking for other options, give us your budget.
But if you decide to get a bit more sub on a tight budget, this is one option that would add some "umph" to the Klipsch (although not at the level most of the guys here consider legit subwoofer performance):

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-sub-1000l-10-100-watt-low-profile-powered-subwoofer--300-639?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pla&gclid=Cj0KCQjw5J_mBRDVARIsAGqGLZCCvwv7uwPbbmn7ebUCukoty4utEr9zwhqUNWBKVFf7_Xkn3fjvPwUaAqaoEALw_wcB

This sub does a decent job for most music content, but would definitely miss a lot of the HT LFE experience!

 

[2channel lover]

I basically want to listen to music on iPod or iPhones 98% of the time, plus be able to listen to the college football game on tv. I actually have no use for surround sound. I currently have a subwoofer and looking at Klipsch RP-160m speakers (rated 100/400) for the right and left channel. Will a Yamaha integrated amplifier take care of these needs? Would a 60w x 60w work, or should I go with 80w x 80w?

As my screen name implies...I'm a huge fan of 2-channel music and have been for over 40 yrs. That said...now that my new system is complete and I'm more in music collection mode...maybe 2 out of every 4 music content purchases have been multi-channel audio. It's not just better than I expected, it's way better than I ever imagined it would be.

So...if I were in your shoes instead of an integrated amp, I'd just find a comparably priced AVR and build from there...maybe you eventually get to multi-ch music, maybe you don't, but the front end cost of an integrated amp vs an AVR shouldn't be the reason that you don't.

FWIW, 60w is more than enough power for Klipsch unless you intend on routinely rocking the house .

 

[lovinthehd]

So you were just thinking about the Denon 1500 you mention in the other thread? It has good bass management compared to many integrated amps in any case. A 6" driver in a box doesn't mean it's a subwoofer, something like that as was said may not add much at all to the RP160Ms. Maybe you need to experience an actual sub.

 

[Kasperlab]

I basically want to listen to music on iPod or iPhones 98% of the time, plus be able to listen to the college football game on tv. I actually have no use for surround sound. I currently have a subwoofer and looking at Klipsch RP-160m speakers (rated 100/400) for the right and left channel. Will a Yamaha integrated amplifier take care of these needs? Would a 60w x 60w work, or should I go with 80w x 80w?

As my screen name implies...I'm a huge fan of 2-channel music and have been for over 40 yrs. That said...now that my new system is complete and I'm more in music collection mode...maybe 2 out of every 4 music content purchases have been multi-channel audio. It's not just better than I expected, it's way better than I ever imagined it would be.

So...if I were in your shoes instead of an integrated amp, I'd just find a comparably priced AVR and build from there...maybe you eventually get to multi-ch music, maybe you don't, but the front end cost of an integrated amp vs an AVR shouldn't be the reason that you don't.

FWIW, 60w is more than enough power for Klipsch unless you intend on routinely rocking the house .

I too come from the 2 channel school, but took the plunge into multi-channel a few years ago with a Denon AVR.
The prices for AVR's are very good and the flexibility is great, especially if you use the room equalization/speaker set up and bass management is great.
Some of the electronic listening modes can really enhance some content.
And the great bonus is the ability to play blu-ray concerts.
For my 2 cents, an AVR is definitley a great option.

 

[2channel lover]

I too come from the 2 channel school, but took the plunge into multi-channel a few years ago with a Denon AVR.
The prices for AVR's are very good and the flexibility is great, especially if you use the room equalization/speaker set up and bass management is great.
Some of the electronic listening modes can really enhance some content.
And the great bonus is the ability to play blu-ray concerts.
For my 2 cents, an AVR is definitley a great option.

I'm pretty deep into SACDs now, and just about all of them that I also have a regular redbook CD, the SACD is better, but I've learned the true wow factor comes with multi-channel audio SACDs, Bluray.

I had a good friend over a couple of weeks ago and we played some classic rock staples that I have on SACD multi-channel...Hotel California, Rumours, etc. and he was floored. I think I hit the replay button about 4 times on Hotel Cali for him.

 

[JerryLove]

I'm pretty deep into SACDs now, and just about all of them that I also have a regular redbook CD, the SACD is better, but I've learned the true wow factor comes with multi-channel audio SACDs, Bluray.

Multichannel (don't forget DVD BTW) yes. But I'd be willing to bet that you could not tell a difference between an SACD in 2-channel and a rebook of the same mix.

That said, like albums now, the SACDs were generally mixed for a different target audience than the CDs and so often have better level sets.

I had a good friend over a couple of weeks ago and we played some classic rock staples that I have on SACD multi-channel...Hotel California, Rumours, etc. and he was floored. I think I hit the replay button about 4 times on Hotel Cali for him.

Assuming there aren't multiple versions, I was underwhelmed on Hotel California after the opening. Vocals were playing in L/R rather than from a single speaker (presumably center).

It was suggested that the mastering may have been for quadraphonic.

I recommend giving the DVD-A of "Goodbye Yellowbrick Road" a shot. The acoustic "Candle in the Wind" is especially nice.

 

[2channel lover]

Multichannel (don't forget DVD BTW) yes. But I'd be willing to bet that you could not tell a difference between an SACD in 2-channel and a rebook of the same mix.

That said, like albums now, the SACDs were generally mixed for a different target audience than the CDs and so often have better level sets.


Assuming there aren't multiple versions, I was underwhelmed on Hotel California after the opening. Vocals were playing in L/R rather than from a single speaker (presumably center).

It was suggested that the mastering may have been for quadraphonic.

I recommend giving the DVD-A of "Goodbye Yellowbrick Road" a shot. The acoustic "Candle in the Wind" is especially nice.

While that might be true in general because I have experienced it.

That said, I would pull out 3 or 4 and I would take you up on that bet....a few that jump off the page...Abraxas by Santana. The new Jimi Hendrix SACD, Bold As Love, Miles Davis Kind of Blue.

This might be because the redbook SQ was not very good, but the Salk midrange/treble are so detailed that you will hear subtle differences.

To date I don't have any DVD-A, but will give that Elton John some thought...I have Madman Across The Water on SACD and like it a lot.

 

[JerryLove]

While that might be true in general because I have experienced it.

That said, I would pull out 3 or 4 and I would take you up on that bet....a few that jump off the page...Abraxas by Santana. The new Jimi Hendrix SACD, Bold As Love, Miles Davis Kind of Blue.

The challenge, of course, is getting a WAV of the SACD so we can burn the CD.

I don't doubt that there's a difference between the recordings on the SACD and CD; but I assert that the [audible] difference is a matter of mastering, not a matter of the medium.

This might be because the redbook SQ was not very good, but the Salk midrange/treble are so detailed that you will hear subtle differences.

They are beautiful indeed. I own a pair of Salk SCSTs.

To date I don't have any DVD-A, but will give that Elton John some thought...I have Madman Across The Water on SACD and like it a lot.

I have heard good things about that SACD but have not gotten my hands on it thusfar. SACDs are expensive these days; sadly out-of-print in favor of vinyl.

 

[2channel lover]

The challenge, of course, is getting a WAV of the SACD so we can burn the CD.

I don't doubt that there's a difference between the recordings on the SACD and CD; but I assert that the [audible] difference is a matter of mastering, not a matter of the medium.


They are beautiful indeed. I own a pair of Salk SCSTs.

I have heard good things about that SACD but have not gotten my hands on it thusfar. SACDs are expensive these days; sadly out-of-print in favor of vinyl.

Those few titles that I mentioned off hand I've had friends over that know next to nothing about audio and a simple A/B blind listen and the SACD was picked every time....still a small sample, but something I have experienced.

At the end of the day we're talking about file size so obviously any audible difference should be in the remastering...agreed.

SACD cost...they can be pricey, especially imports which I have a few. At the same time I've paid $20-25 for about a 3rd of my SACD/BR collection. A lot of my SACD library is acoustic jazz, and there seems to be a lot more of those in the SACD format, but I'm quite content with redbook CDs as well.