Advice on New Stereo System

[Unregistered]

I would appreciate advice on a stereo system. I like the sound of ribbon speakers and use them in a HT set up. This is for a smaller room that I would use simply for stereo. My tastes run the gamut but I do like edgier pop music like the Replacements or Radiohead. I also listen to classical music. I need a stereo receiver and speakers and would like to not have a subwoofer. Am thinking about Rotel or NAD for the receiver and maybe Magnepan for the speakers. Don't know what models I should be looking at. Would like to keep the whole thing in the $2000 ballpark. Any suggestions. Much appreciated.

Jonathan

 

[MrKlister]

The NAD and Rotel are good choices for a receiver. However, the lower priced Maggies do not have great bass extention. So, depending on you preference for bass, you may break the $2K barrier or have to get a sub.

 

[cbraver]

Jonathan,
I'm interested in a similar setup on a similar budget. I was going to use two active monitors, but I didn't like my options. So, now I'm looking to do two bookshelf speakers, a powered 2-channel amp and a subwoofer. This system is going into an apartment at school I'm getting next year.

So, I'll share with you a bit of what I have found and maybe we can put our heads together and figure out some good options!

Rotel has the RX-1050, which is a 2-channel 100watt @ 8ohms. It's gotten pretty good reviews, but I have yet to find a place to demo it. I can't find MSRP on it, and the AudioReview reviews state everywhere from 400 - 800 bucks. I can't find a real price on it.

NAD has the C740 Stereo Receiver. 2-channels @ 40watts. MSRP is $499. That might be more affordable.

The Monitor Audio S2s I'm looking at have an RMS of 100watts, and the NAD only makes 40, so I sent MA an e-mail asking them their thoughts about that. I guess I could start with the 40 and then get a seperate amp later on. You should look at the MA S2's, but you might want to add a subwoofer with them if you like a good punch because these are just little bookshelf.

I'm interested how others will respond to your question.

Also, register! I'm new here and like it a lot.

-Chad

 

[Bicster]

Go for the Magenpan 1.6's, and look for a decent receiver on audiogon.com

 

[markw]

Being a Maggie 1.6 owner and lover,...

Go for the Magenpan 1.6's, and look for a decent receiver on audiogon.com

...I would add two cautions with this advice.

1) Depending on his definition of "small", Remember that they preform best with a few feet between themselves and any walls, either behind or alongside. Mine work best 3 1/2' from the rear wall and about 4' from the side. I would move them even farther away but the room size and furnishings don't allow this.

2) The 1.6's like a LOT of power. Even with a powered subwoofer, a NAD 214 (80 wpc @ 8 ohms) was frequently sucked dry, and my listening levels are not that extraodinarily loud.

If you can do with the space concerns in # 1, then the MMG's might be a better option. They still need room but not as much power. The 214 was quite happy when I had these. It was only when I upgraded to the 1.6's that the power became an issue and I went for a Rotel RB-991.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

The Monitor Audio S2s I'm looking at have an RMS of 100watts, and the NAD only makes 40, so I sent MA an e-mail asking them their thoughts about that.

Don't sweat the power (RMS) rating of the speakers. That figure is the (supposed) maximum they can take, not the size of the amp they need to drive them. And those speaker power ratings tend to be very conservative.

Your receiver will not necessarily be underpowered. It depends on the speakers' efficiency and the size/acoustics of your room.

 

[cbraver]

Jonathan,
I've heard from a number of people, and now one more, that those 1.6's like a ton of juice. Why not go with the smaller ones with less bass extention and add a subwoofer? There are some very affordable subwoofers out now... your not looking for pounding bass, just flat fill. Probably placed and setup, I think it would take so much stress of the mains that you would get a lot more out of them!

Don't sweat the power (RMS) rating of the speakers. That figure is the (supposed) maximum they can take, not the size of the amp they need to drive them. And those speaker power ratings tend to be very conservative.

Your receiver will not necessarily be underpowered. It depends on the speakers' efficiency and the size/acoustics of your room.

Hm, excuse my ignorance. Why in car audio is RMS basically what you need to power with and in home audio it's different? I had always assumed RMS in home audio meant recommended power too (even though I know the R doesn't stand for recommended, rudametric scale... something like that)...

-Chad

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Why in car audio is RMS basically what you need to power with and in home audio it's different? I had always assumed RMS in home audio meant recommended power too (even though I know the R doesn't stand for recommended, rudametric scale... something like that)...

I'm ignorant of car audio so I don't know! But RMS has nothing to do with recommended power. It stands for "root means square", the mathematical formula for determining the energy (in watts or volts) of alternating current (or half-wave DC...but never mind!).

When a speaker is rated at "100 watts RMS" it generally means that it can handle that amount of power without failure for a given period of time; usually a fairly long time. However, that's not the same thing as saying you can't safely drive it with a more powerful amp. Most of the time, even at loud listening levels, your amp is only puttting out a small fraction of its rated power. A speaker can handle short bursts of "peak" power far in excess of its rated RMS power.

To further muddy the waters, speaker power ratings are very imprecise. Rumor has it that they are arrived at by a combination of electrical measurement, mathematics, and the reading of entrails and tarot cards. Basically, I ignore them.

Oh, BTW, everyone here is right...Maggies and other full-range planar/ribbon speakers do tend to be power hungry. FWIW, my opinion of the lower priced Maggies I've heard is that they are somewhat "colored" (not flat in freq. response) and that the soundstage is artificially large. IMO, a really big soundstage (to crib from an audio writer I like) is kind of like breast implants: glamorous and attractive up to a point but artificial and silly after that. For instance, once when listening to an orchestral piece on Maggies the trumpets seemed to be coming from up near the ceiling! But of course this is purely my opinion and taste.

 

[Unregistered]

Thanks all. RVW, do you consider the 1.6 to be in the "lower priced Maggies" "breast implant" categories?

If the 1.6 is the consensus, what do you need to drive them? If a subwoofer is needed, what brands match well with the Maggies?

Jonathan

 

[Bicster]

The 1.6's are $1700. There is no speaker within $800 that can match it. I am pushing 4 of them with a 75wpc NAD receiver. Let me tell you its amazing. That they are "power hungry" is a bit of a myth. Would they sound even better with 125 wpc? I am sure. But 75 can bring you places you have never been. That their lower frequencies are a bit underwehelming is not a myth. I would go with the SVS PC Ultra sub. Good good stuff.

 

[cbraver]

His budget is $2000. Doesn't leave much for a reciever and CD player. For some reason I thought the 1.6's were less money....

Maybe he could try audiogon.com and see what's available.

 

[Unregistered]

This is all initial research. I also need to listen to the Maggies (there is a boutique shop that sells them) and see if there is any discount off the list price. I listened to one Magnepan set up but I don't know what speakers or amplification they were using (I had just dropped by for a couple of minutes). I can tell you I loved the sound. But having Martin Logan hybrids for my home theater already, that perhaps is just my taste.

Jonathan

 

[moverton]

Receiver?

Do you really need a receiver? If you're gonna just listen to CD/DVD-a/SACD, etc then why pay for video switching and all the other junk on a receiver?
Again, assuming just listening to recorded music, I would buy a used NAD or other high quality integrated amp (or even a NAD power amp that has volume controls). You can get an older 100-150 watt (with 6db headroom) amp like the 2400 or 7400 series for $200. It will outperform 90% of modern video receivers for straight amplification and power. Probably supplies triple the current.
Then spend your money on the speakers. Speakers have advanced much more than amplifiers.

I would appreciate advice on a stereo system. I like the sound of ribbon speakers and use them in a HT set up. This is for a smaller room that I would use simply for stereo. My tastes run the gamut but I do like edgier pop music like the Replacements or Radiohead. I also listen to classical music. I need a stereo receiver and speakers and would like to not have a subwoofer. Am thinking about Rotel or NAD for the receiver and maybe Magnepan for the speakers. Don't know what models I should be looking at. Would like to keep the whole thing in the $2000 ballpark. Any suggestions. Much appreciated.

Jonathan

 

[Unregistered]

Moverton, that is a good thought. I will check out that angle.