New home owner needs new home audio

[MrBoat]

Do you even know what a budget is?

Yeah, it's a practice typically applied to the necessary and repetitive costs of living relative to one's income. In there is also a notion called "Saving." That's where you can trim the excesses elsewhere, and save up for more meaningful, quality purchases or even quality of life in general, instead of calling what cash one has available momentarily "budget."

Audio is not a necessary monthly expenditure. If I have a reasonably steady income and I have $600.00 today and it took me 3 months to save it, in 3 more months and with a little self discipline, I can theoretically have $1200. If I wait a year, I can get better still.

Just in case nobody thinks about it, but even two weeks can make a significant difference so they don't end up with box store shelf crap.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hello everyone! I just purchased my first home (well condo/apartment really) and I am currently furnishing what's missing and next on the list is a bookshelf/home audio setup. As I just made a large purchase, my budget isn't huge but I have been doing some research and narrowed it down to the options below. That is not to say that I am not open to other suggestions, as long as they fall within the price range reasonable to these, which seems to be somewhere between $600-$900. I pretty much have decided to go the powered route, with some wireless options thrown in, and one or two passive options thrown in the mix - in which I would need help finding a proper used receiver.
I stream majority of my music from Spotify & Pandora but I plan on picking up a vinyl player soon enough - more than likely one with a built in pre-amp.
Options in order alphabetically because thats how I had them lol:

• Audioengine HD6 - $699
• Audioengine A5+ - $499
• Kanto YU6 - $539
• KEF LSX - $699 (Found scratch & dent)
• Klipsch RP51PM - $450 on sale
• Klipsch The Sixes - $600 on sale
• PSB Alpha AM5 - $549 on sale currently
• Q Acoustics M20 - $499
• SVS Prime Wireless - $899 (high end of budget I would say)
• Fluance Ai81 Floorstanding Speakers + DB12 Subwoofer Package - $848 (this is really attractive to me considering the price however I suspect they aren't as high quality as some other options)

Non-Powered Option:

• Definitive Technology D9 - $599 on sale

In terms of brand names based on your list, I think KEF would be #1, followed by PSB.

In terms of ACTUAL SUBJECTIVE sound quality and just forget about brand name and all that, I think you might like the Fluance package the best.

I probably missed this, but how will you connect the powered speakers to your system? What's your preamp?

 

[MrBoat]

What are you trying to do? Get the poor guy in trouble?

I remember my first "budget" speaker system about 30+ years ago was $1,000 = 5 x $100 bookshelf + 1 x $500 sub.

My first 2 channel system purchase was $1000. Took me a year to save it. I was 20. No layaway plan, nada. Gave up partying and started making my own coffee and stuff at home. Never really felt the cost, but the wait was a little trying.

ETA: It was bigger and badder than what my friends had. I was happy I waited. I've pretty much used that approach to all of life's extras ever since and am surrounded by much higher quality than it seems like I should have. Cheaping out, just isn't fun past the instant fix.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, it's a practice typically applied to the necessary and repetitive costs of living relative to one's income. In there is also a notion called "Saving." That's where you can trim the excesses elsewhere, and save up for more meaningful, quality purchases or even quality of life in general, instead of calling what cash one has available momentarily "budget."

Audio is not a necessary monthly expenditure. If I have a reasonably steady income and I have $600.00 today and it took me 3 months to save it, in 3 more months and with a little self discipline, I can theoretically have $1200. If I wait a year, I can get better still.

Just in case nobody thinks about it, but even two weeks can make a significant difference so they don't end up with box store shelf crap.

Yeah, I put $250 per paycheck into my Play-Funds. Haha.

 

[Teetertotter?]

Suggestion: Select a Denon AVR and watch this review for mains:
Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52 Review - Try to Beat It... I'll wait - Bing video
Kings of Affordable Hi-Fi! Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52 Review - Bing video

 

[highfigh]

What are you trying to do? Get the poor guy in trouble?

I remember my first "budget" speaker system about 30+ years ago was $1,000 = 5 x $100 bookshelf + 1 x $500 sub.

My first system cost $315, including tax. I started improving it within a couple of months, after meeting someone at school who had started working at the stereo store where I got my start.

Me-->>>> rabbit hole.

 

[MrBoat]

Yeah, I put $250 per paycheck into my Play-Funds. Haha.

I gave up smoking. It ends up contributing about $15/day allowance towards more healthful pursuits if I choose.

It sounds like a condescending idea, in text, to suggest such things, but I hate suggesting sub-par compromises in the so-called "budget" range. The novelties of that performance level wears off the quickest, FME. Same with tools and everything else. So while others have already suggested everything to that end, I felt that the best advice is to level up a little. Maybe a couple weeks has gone by and the OP has found another hundred. . .

 

[TLS Guy]

Yeah, it's a practice typically applied to the necessary and repetitive costs of living relative to one's income. In there is also a notion called "Saving." That's where you can trim the excesses elsewhere, and save up for more meaningful, quality purchases or even quality of life in general, instead of calling what cash one has available momentarily "budget."

Audio is not a necessary monthly expenditure. If I have a reasonably steady income and I have $600.00 today and it took me 3 months to save it, in 3 more months and with a little self discipline, I can theoretically have $1200. If I wait a year, I can get better still.

Just in case nobody thinks about it, but even two weeks can make a significant difference so they don't end up with box store shelf crap.

That is absolutely true. Budgets induce people to buy junk. There is plenty of it out there, especially speakers, where there are far more bad than good ones.
Cheap gear bought to a budget is the most extravagant way to spend your money. You don't see my name on what new gear have you bought, and the reason is that I make few audio purchases over time. I will soon be three and a half years since my last audio purchase and that was my last AVP, and TV for the new AV room. A little before that I bought drivers and components for the in wall system, the rest of the gear I already had. Most years my expenditure for audio gear is zero. Go for quality every time. If it was a really good speaker 20 years or more ago, it will be a really good speaker now.

 

[sgtslappy]

I gave up smoking. It ends up contributing about $15/day allowance towards more healthful pursuits if I choose.

It sounds like a condescending idea, in text, to suggest such things, but I hate suggesting sub-par compromises in the so-called "budget" range. The novelties of that performance level wears off the quickest, FME. Same with tools and everything else. So while others have already suggested everything to that end, I felt that the best advice is to level up a little. Maybe a couple weeks has gone by and the OP has found another hundred. . .

Without addressing your very black and white view on money I am considered in the top 10-15% of earners in the US. I make plenty good money with 0 debt other than property. Saving up to buy something, at a certain price, still is a budget once your achieve that saved up amount, that is still a budget in the end. You can always spend more or less on something but in the end whatever you purchase is the budgeted amount as you had to save up for it, and had to "budget" to achieve that saved amount. Audio is just not in my knowledge base. It isnt about can't afford or saving or impatience its about having just bought my first property for myself instead of rental property for once and I am purchasing other items. For not knowing anything the option of going powered seemed better at the time. But as I learn that I will eventually plan on expanding the system, my size of living area, etc now I feel I will go passive and start with 2 Front Speakers and maybe a subwoofer. This "budget" is for speakers only I can spend on avr new or used if need be which going that route I assume I will go with a Home Theatre Receiver or an Integrated Amplifier.

 

[MrBoat]

Without addressing your very black and white view on money I am considered in the top 10-15% of earners in the US. I make plenty good money with 0 debt other than property. Saving up to buy something, at a certain price, still is a budget once your achieve that saved up amount, that is still a budget in the end. You can always spend more or less on something but in the end whatever you purchase is the budgeted amount as you had to save up for it, and had to "budget" to achieve that saved amount. Audio is just not in my knowledge base. It isnt about can't afford or saving or impatience its about having just bought my first property for myself instead of rental property for once and I am purchasing other items. For not knowing anything the option of going powered seemed better at the time. But as I learn that I will eventually plan on expanding the system, my size of living area, etc now I feel I will go passive and start with 2 Front Speakers and maybe a subwoofer. This "budget" is for speakers only I can spend on avr new or used if need be which going that route I assume I will go with a Home Theatre Receiver or an Integrated Amplifier.

"As I just made a large purchase, my budget isn't huge." Sorry but, as someone who has been dealing with a practical budget for a long time now, that statement just begged for some old-fashioned, "black and white" reasoning.

Common sense, is also black and white, more often than not. It was just a suggestion. Hope you find something that makes you happy within your budget.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Without addressing your very black and white view on money I am considered in the top 10-15% of earners in the US. I make plenty good money with 0 debt other than property. Saving up to buy something, at a certain price, still is a budget once your achieve that saved up amount, that is still a budget in the end. You can always spend more or less on something but in the end whatever you purchase is the budgeted amount as you had to save up for it, and had to "budget" to achieve that saved amount. Audio is just not in my knowledge base. It isnt about can't afford or saving or impatience its about having just bought my first property for myself instead of rental property for once and I am purchasing other items. For not knowing anything the option of going powered seemed better at the time. But as I learn that I will eventually plan on expanding the system, my size of living area, etc now I feel I will go passive and start with 2 Front Speakers and maybe a subwoofer. This "budget" is for speakers only I can spend on avr new or used if need be which going that route I assume I will go with a Home Theatre Receiver or an Integrated Amplifier.

If your plan is to get an AVR, which can be as good as anything else, there’s no point getting speakers with built-in amps where the internal amps can die on you.

I would get speakers without built-in amps like 99% of us.

Funny how subwoofers without built-in amps are like 1% of the population, but speakers without built-in amps are like 99%.

 

[fmw]

Why are modern home speakers driven externally and subwoofers driven internally? The release of subwoofers in the audio marketplace occurred in the 1960's. Those were the early days of stereo and there was no way to power a subwoofer with a typical audio system. They all had internal amps and crossovers with speaker wire binding posts that allowed them to be connected in line between the amplifier and the speakers. I think it just continued on until this day. Speakers were driven by an external amplifier and that also continued to the present day. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.

 

[highfigh]

Why are modern home speakers driven externally and subwoofers driven internally? The release of subwoofers in the audio marketplace occurred in the 1960's. Those were the early days of stereo and there was no way to power a subwoofer with a typical audio system. They all had internal amps and crossovers with speaker wire binding posts that allowed them to be connected in line between the amplifier and the speakers. I think it just continued on until this day. Speakers were driven by an external amplifier and that also continued to the present day. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.

What brands of subwoofers became available in the 1960s?

It's far easier and cheaper to include the amp in the subwoofer because adding the amp to the receiver or integrated amp takes space and adds a lot to its price. How much power should be provided by the receiver- should they have subwoofer power options for a 50W/ch receiver?

Being able to buy a sub with the amp built in is a lot more convenient and easier for a consumer to connect that buying a separate sub, amp and crossover. Plus, they don't need to read installation instructions. They SHOULD, but they don't.

 

[Kingnoob]

Why are modern home speakers driven externally and subwoofers driven internally? The release of subwoofers in the audio marketplace occurred in the 1960's. Those were the early days of stereo and there was no way to power a subwoofer with a typical audio system. They all had internal amps and crossovers with speaker wire binding posts that allowed them to be connected in line between the amplifier and the speakers. I think it just continued on until this day. Speakers were driven by an external amplifier and that also continued to the present day. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.

Yeah I didn’t know they had subs back then as regular speakers had up to 18” woofers.
Subs even cheap ones use lot of wattage, more so than an avr can dish out , so there’s that . Mid level ones use 300-1000 watts; high end even more . Not saying you often use that much watts.

 

[fmw]

Yeah I didn’t know they had subs back then as regular speakers had up to 18” woofers.
Subs even cheap ones use lot of wattage, more so than an avr can dish out , so there’s that . Mid level ones use 300-1000 watts; high end even more . Not saying you often use that much watts.

Yes but subwoofer drivers are designed to have more excursion (travel) than the bass drivers in a speaker system. Putting an 18" driver designed for a two or three way speaker system wouldn't do the job in a sub. More excursion, more air movement.

My father had his three way system mounted in a rock wall in the 60's. He used 4 15" Bozak woofers per side and the bass response was less impressive than my current 15" sub. So many years make a difficult comparison, to be sure, but I think I'm right.

 

[fmw]

What brands of subwoofers became available in the 1960s?

Arendal and JBL are a couple that come to mind. They didn't gain much popularity until well into the 70's. Today they are de rigueur for any home audio system. I consider subs to be the most important improvement one can add to an audio system. I love them.

Most of the power required from a hi fi amplifier is for the bass. If you use a powered subwoofer, your multichannel amplifier doesn't need to be very powerful, not that more power isn't good and fun.

 

[lovinthehd]

Arendal and JBL are a couple that come to mind. They didn't gain much popularity until well into the 70's. Today they are de rigueur for any home audio system. I consider subs to be the most important improvement one can add to an audio system. I love them.

Most of the power required from a hi fi amplifier is for the bass. If you use a powered subwoofer, your multichannel amplifier doesn't need to be very powerful, not that more power isn't good and fun.

I thought Arendal was a fairly new company....

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why are modern home speakers driven externally and subwoofers driven internally? The release of subwoofers in the audio marketplace occurred in the 1960's. Those were the early days of stereo and there was no way to power a subwoofer with a typical audio system. They all had internal amps and crossovers with speaker wire binding posts that allowed them to be connected in line between the amplifier and the speakers. I think it just continued on until this day. Speakers were driven by an external amplifier and that also continued to the present day. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.

My guess is because they could make more money on subwoofers with built in amps and also people didn’t care about subwoofers as much as speakers. The sub amps cost more money vs no amp. And the subwoofers died faster due to the built in amp, so people had to buy more subs.

But I’ve been using externally powered subs and speakers since the beginning of my audio journey, so I am never changing. Never had a passive sub or speaker die on me in 30+ years.

 

[highfigh]

Arendal and JBL are a couple that come to mind. They didn't gain much popularity until well into the 70's. Today they are de rigueur for any home audio system. I consider subs to be the most important improvement one can add to an audio system. I love them.

Most of the power required from a hi fi amplifier is for the bass. If you use a powered subwoofer, your multichannel amplifier doesn't need to be very powerful, not that more power isn't good and fun.

Those brands were in the consumer market? They were far from mainstream. I worked for a JBL dealer and we started carrying a couple of Walnut-veneered models, but they weren't an easy sell, partially because the end user needed to think about the crossover and amplifier that would need to be used. Granted, we were a mid-fi store, but most people weren't in the 'assemble a great-sounding system' market, they were in the 'walk in, pick something and take it home' group.

Someone here has one of the JBL subs- maybe they'll add to this thread (I haven't found the model, yet). Those definitely added a 'live' sound but were a bit too much for most speakers to call it a good match.

WRT the power needed for the subs, good system design includes consideration for the speaker sensitivity and blending the subs and main speaker output- however, a well-balanced system won't have enormous LF output with only a squeak coming from the main speakers. Subs that are efficient and sensitive don't need a lot of power.

 

[fmw]

Those brands were in the consumer market? They were far from mainstream. I worked for a JBL dealer and we started carrying a couple of Walnut-veneered models, but they weren't an easy sell, partially because the end user needed to think about the crossover and amplifier that would need to be used. Granted, we were a mid-fi store, but most people weren't in the 'assemble a great-sounding system' market, they were in the 'walk in, pick something and take it home' group.

Someone here has one of the JBL subs- maybe they'll add to this thread (I haven't found the model, yet). Those definitely added a 'live' sound but were a bit too much for most speakers to call it a good match.

WRT the power needed for the subs, good system design includes consideration for the speaker sensitivity and blending the subs and main speaker output- however, a well-balanced system won't have enormous LF output with only a squeak coming from the main speakers. Subs that are efficient and sensitive don't need a lot of power.

The subs in those days were used mainly in pro audio but they were available for home use.