receiver for 90% music for less than $700??

[zumbo]

so you recommend $700 on an amp to drive $200 on speakers? Especially when he could get something like a pair of Ascend CMT-320 (6db more sensitive - the equivalent of going from a 60w amp to 250w amp, except less heat, twice the radiating surrace area, more wide dispersion profile, and presumably higher thermal power handling)


But before that i'd appreciate if OP would do the tweaks I asked. It's possible he has all the tools to be satisfied without spending a dime.

Nothing wrong with that suggestion. Not the direction I would go, but nothing wrong with it.

Fact is, receiver and speakers need to be upgraded. But, $700 would buy the BEST option for a receiver @ that price for a 2.1 work-out room system. To me, that is an upgrade.

 

[markw]

Eh?

I posted:

I'm not a CV fan but, for this application, I think they, without a sub, would be a great solution. At least they would cleanly handle the volume levels desired.

You replied to me:

Did IQ's suddenly plummet around here? The CV's are simply a recommendation for a work out room. You know clanging weights, running on a treadmill etc...

Now, here's the original post:

I'm looking to purchase a receiver for 85-90% music in my workout room that is less than $700, and was looking for some suggestions

So, what are you trying to say to me here? Did my post offend or even contradict you?

Don't confuse this issue any more than Zumbo is already.

 

[zumbo]

Well, you did. Most of knew even back then that they, well, "lacked".

I was 13. Kick@$$ for a 13(actually 14) year-old kid to have Cerwin D7's rocking some VH!

True, but as you're showing here, yours are totally skewed against all logic.

Nothing skewed about buying a very powerful 2.1 receiver with bass management for a 2.1 system with an existing high rated sub.

 

[zumbo]

Don't confuse this issue any more than Zumbo is already.

I'm looking to purchase a receiver for 85-90% music in my workout room that is less than $700, and was looking for some suggestions

RR2150 Stereo Receiver

Who is confused?

$699 badd @$$ 2.1 receiver.

 

[markw]

I was 13. Kick@$$ for a 13 year-old kid to have Cerwin D7's rocking some VH!



Nothing skewed about buying a very powerful 2.1 receiver with bass management for a 2.1 system with an existing high rated sub.

You really don't know how to adjust a sub without bass management, do you?

With variable low-pass and level controls, all it takes is a little know how and time to do a fine job, something many seem to lack. ...kinda like driving a stick shift.

I guess you couldn't handle adding a sub to a (gasp) stereo system without a sub out. ...pity.

 

[markw]

Who is confused?

$699 badd @$$ 2.1 receiver.

leaving exactly $1.00 for the speakers he really needs to solve his problem!

 

[zumbo]

You really don't know how to adjust a sub without bass management, do you?

With variable low-pass and level controls, all it takes is a little know how and time to do a fine job, something many seem to lack. ...kinda like driving a stick shift.

I guess you couldn't handle adding a sub to a (gasp) stereo system without a sub out. ...pity.

Now what, you are recommending a stereo receiver for the sub to be ran line-level?

Oh, this can't miss!

 

[jinjuku]

I posted: You replied to me:

Now, here's the original post:

So, what are you trying to say to me here? Did my post offend or even contradict you?

Don't confuse this issue any more than Zumbo is already.

Mark, I wasn't speaking to you. I was quoting you as an example as a backing of my opinion. Sorry I posted that w/o a qualifier to limit it's scope.

 

[markw]

Now what, you are recommending a stereo receiver for the sub to be ran line-level?

Oh, this can't miss!

Before making a bigger *** of yourself, I suggest you get some idea of what connection options thats ub offers.

On that note, I'm done with you. You can continue to play with yourself, but that's better done in private.

 

[zumbo]

Before making a bigger *** of yourself, I suggest you get some idea of what connection options thats ub offers.

On that note, I'm done with you. You can continue to play with yourself, but that's better done in private.

Well, that was rude.

You posted the statement of running a sub without the .1 channel. Honestly, I don't even see the point of posting such an option. No matter how the OP would make the connection. Line-level, or through rca.

 

[Adam]

You posted the statement of running a sub without the .1 channel. Honestly, I don't even see the point of posting such an option.

I think that using speaker-level connections can work quite well, especially when the sub will apply a high-pass filter to the speaker-level outputs.

 

[jinjuku]

Now what, you are recommending a stereo receiver for the sub to be ran line-level?

Oh, this can't miss!

Dear god, give me an Ice Pick so I can end my suffering:

Attached is a pick of the Dayton SP 250 plate amp. Notice all the connections and knob like devices. Two Words: SUB MANAGEMENT.

Now I'm POSITIVE people shouldn't listen to you

 

[jinjuku]

Well, that was rude.

You posted the statement of running a sub without the .1 channel. Honestly, I don't even see the point of posting such an option. No matter how the OP would make the connection. Line-level, or through rca.

He doesn't need .1 on the receiver. He could even do a sub with the tape monitor loop. You know like in the oldy time days when you were 13 with your CV 7's. Holy Cow...

 

[zumbo]

My goal is to help the OP. Any time there is a debate, a good option usually rears it's head.

If we all agreed what the best option was, y'all would all have my system.

To me, there is just no sense in getting an attitude over another persons honest opinion.

And, I don't believe the Cerwin recommendation was honest.

 

[Adam]

I'd say play nice, guys, but all this testosterone might be fitting for a thread about a workout room.

Besides,

Dear god, give me an Ice Pick so I can end my suffering...

Had me laughing so hard that it hurt.

 

[avnetguy]

Sorry to distract from the intense finger pointing here but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Given the OP's listed equipment and use I'd have to say the first cost effective upgrade I'd recommend would be a set of more efficent (>= 88db anechoic) bookshelf speakers. Afterwards you could even try adding in the pioneers as surround speakers and see how all four would sound in the workout room.

After that, go for a receiver upgrade with something cheap like a RXV667 which should still keep you under $700 with the new speakers.

Steve

 

[zumbo]

He doesn't need .1 on the receiver. He could even do a sub with the tape monitor loop. You know like in the oldy time days when you were 13 with your CV 7's. Holy Cow...

To my knowledge, powered subs were not a popular thing in my area in 1986(actual year I got the CV's).

Used the tape loop for mile long graphic EQ.

Just no reason to skimp on the .1(IMO) It's the best piece he has.

 

[jinjuku]

My goal is to help the OP. Any time there is a debate, a good option usually rears it's head.

If we all agreed what the best option was, y'all would all have my system.

To me, there is just no sense in getting an attitude over another persons honest opinion.

And, I don't believe the Cerwin recommendation was honest.

The Cerwin was an honest recommendation. So are the eDesign and CHT. It's up to the OP to make the final determination.

What I have to wonder is how you can be so mis-informed about sub woofer integration after six thousand posts here. I mean you are flat out factually incorrect in this matter. Period.

It's not testosterone at work here, it is battling misinformation.

 

[jinjuku]

To my knowledge, powered subs were not a popular thing in my area in 1986(actual year I got the CV's).

Used the tape loop for mile long graphic EQ.

Just no reason to skimp on the .1(IMO) It's the best piece he has.

You were 13, what did you know? With CD's there is NO DISCRETE .1 channel. That is what the .1 means in a modern AVR: a discrete, separately mixed channel of audio.

 

[zumbo]

What I have to wonder is how you can be so mis-informed about sub woofer integration after six thousand posts here. I mean you are flat out factually incorrect in this matter. Period.

Just don't see a reason to skimp on the sub output from the source, weather or not anyone thinks it matters. His sub is his best piece of gear.


My recommendation is solid, valid, and 100% answers the question of the thread.

Can any of you imagine the shear disappointment someone may feel when you change their mind from buying a new receiver, to buying new speakers? I wouldn't want to be that guy.