Speaker stats

[2upFZ1]

I just finished the HT for our new house. I took Sound & Vision's Buyers Guide 2006 and threw a buttload of stats into an Excel file (attached). They include most bookshelf/surround/satellite/center speakers that had good performance for less than $500ea, and all subs under $1,200 I deemed "worthy" (don't slam me if I excluded a few, I was drained after typing in all the BS speakers).

Anyway, I wanted to share the file with anyone "In the hunt", and missed picking up that priceless issue.

And if anyone is wondering, here's what I chose.
Receiver: Sony STR-DE 998 (MSRP $499, paid: $290 electronicexpo.com)
Center channel: BIC DV62CLR-S (MSRP: $269, paid: $99 eBay)
Front/Sur/RR Sur: 3pr BIC DV62si (MSRP: $828, paid: $297 eBay)
Sub: Def Tech ProSub100TL (MSRP: $449, paid: $275 eBay)
All new except the sub. All paid prices are to my door.

Total MSRP: $2,045
Paid: $961
Wife being impressed with cost/sound: PRICELESS!

 

[vfash]

Wow! Great information in the spreadsheet. I know I'll use it. Thanks!!

 

[j_garcia]

Send that receiver back....

 

[2upFZ1]

It was the best deal on a 7.1 with more than 1 coax dig input that upgrades a composite input to component output.

The only regret so far is that you can't set the rear surrounds farther away than the front speakers. I do regret not getting one with an auto setup mic though.


Please enlighten me as to my mistake in choosing it?

 

[j_garcia]

It isn't bad for the price, but the Sony DE line is pretty universally considered to be rather substandard performance wise. Sure they have all the features, but for the same price you can usually get something from another manufacurer that is superior. Back in the day, I had a "top of the line" Sony DE too. Boy what a surprise when I picked up a used Marantz for the bedroom with less power at half the price and it absolutely destroyed the Sony in terms of sound quality and power. It was embarrasing actually, to find that I had spent more on something less capable. I have grown from the experience though

 

[2upFZ1]

Below was my "short list" of receivers other than the Sony, and the price I found it for online.

Yam HTR-5860 ($316)
Denon AVR-686S ($334)
Denon AVR-786S ($386)
Onkyo TX-SR603XM ($387)

I wanted to keep it under $400 (keeping the total system price around $1k).

If I get the chance (and $$$), I might pick up one of the other ones and compare them.

 

[Duffman-OOHYEAH]

The yammies are tough to beat. Every once and a while Ubid.com has refurbed 2500's for (if I recall correctly) 499$. I myself picked up a refurbed onkyo 602 from ubid for 199$ to power my Rocket 550's and it does superbly.

JR

 

[2upFZ1]

If one of the admins wants to throw the file into a "Info" forum, feel free.

 

[2upFZ1]

It sounds so good now, I can't wait to hear it once the room is dialed in.

I just got a spectrum analyzer off eBay, and the spl meter should be coming soon.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

It sounds so good now, I can't wait to hear it once the room is dialed in.

I just got a spectrum analyzer off eBay, and the spl meter should be coming soon.

Have you treated room acoustics yet? That is the most important step of "dialing in" any room.

 

[2upFZ1]

Not yet, but it is next on the list. I just have to identify what I need. I still need to buy the wall mounts for the surrounds (rear surr are on top of the kitchen cabinets) then I can get the little bit of visible wires concealed. Then it's on to the room treatment. With the system in the Great Room (living room, kitchen, dining room combo), I know my wife will balk at conventional foam products. I might get away with some acoustic panels as long as they are covered with fabric that complements the decor. Or maybe hang tapestries over them. And I might be able to hide bass traps up on the pot shelves. If they even work up there? Anyone help?

I just got an spectrum analyzer off eBay, and am looking for mic and spl meter today. I know that each bit of room treatment will need adjustments to the receiver to take advantage. I just found a guy that sells a modified mic for the cheap mic that comes with desktop PC's. I just have to see if it's compatible with the analyzer I bought.

 

[johsti]

Let me know what wall mounts you end up getting for your rears, and how they work out. I'm considering wall mounting my surrounds as well.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Not yet, but it is next on the list. I just have to identify what I need. I still need to buy the wall mounts for the surrounds (rear surr are on top of the kitchen cabinets) then I can get the little bit of visible wires concealed. Then it's on to the room treatment. With the system in the Great Room (living room, kitchen, dining room combo), I know my wife will balk at conventional foam products. I might get away with some acoustic panels as long as they are covered with fabric that complements the decor. Or maybe hang tapestries over them. And I might be able to hide bass traps up on the pot shelves. If they even work up there? Anyone help?

This is the route I took, and they look good too.
http://gikacoustics.com/product_info.html

Hanging panels in the corners for bass traps and flat on the walls at first reflection points will make a noticable improvement in your sound. You dont have to make it a complicated scientific project if you dont want to.

 

[2upFZ1]

I'll shoot some pics tonight and post them in a new thread for review/suggestions.

Thanks for the help.

 

[htprojsea]

I just found a guy that sells a modified mic for the cheap mic that comes with desktop PC's. I just have to see if it's compatible with the analyzer I bought.


Maybe a dumb question since I am unfamiliar with this process but...don't you need to know the frequency response of the mic? If it is not flat across the auible spectrum it will throw off your measurents.

 

[mulester7]

I just found a guy that sells a modified mic for the cheap mic that comes with desktop PC's. I just have to see if it's compatible with the analyzer I bought.


Maybe a dumb question since I am unfamiliar with this process but...don't you need to know the frequency response of the mic? If it is not flat across the auible spectrum it will throw off your measurents.

.....two different animals, imo....to me, the most important concerning a mic, would be it's frequency response range, like 20-20k, or 10-50k....whether or not +/- db variance top-to-bottom enters into a mic affecting it giving a flat response, would be another story....WmAx?.....

 

[htprojsea]

....two different animals, imo....to me, the most important concerning a mic, would be it's frequency response range, like 20-20k, or 10-50k....whether or not +/- db variance top-to-bottom enters into a mic affecting it giving a flat response, would be another story...

The very definition of frequency response is contained in the term itself. Knowing only the range provides little information unless you consider the response as well. If your amplifier has a frequency response on 20Hz-20kHz +/- 10db, it would not be considered a very flat gain amplifier despite the fact that it performs across the frequency range. As well the response on the mic would need to be flat (+/-1dB in order to provide meaningful data points across the desired range.

What I was curious to know is - do most mics have a flat response across the aubible spectrum?

 

[jaxvon]

The very definition of frequency response is contained in the term itself. Knowing only the range provides little information unless you consider the response as well. If your amplifier has a frequency response on 20Hz-20kHz +/- 10db, it would not be considered a very flat gain amplifier despite the fact that it performs across the frequency range. As well the response on the mic would need to be flat (+/-1dB in order to provide meaningful data points across the desired range.

What I was curious to know is - do most mics have a flat response across the aubible spectrum?

Measurement mics yes, many used in recording, no. A lot of mics purposely introduce distortion on humps/dips in the response in order to achieve a certain colored sound.

 

[WmAx]

.....two different animals, imo....to me, the most important concerning a mic, would be it's frequency response range, like 20-20k, or 10-50k....whether or not +/- db variance top-to-bottom enters into a mic affecting it giving a flat response, would be another story....WmAx?.....

It is common to use microphones for recording that have substantial peaks in the upper midrange band, or other anomalies. Very flat response microphones are available(even for relative low cost if you look around enough), and even if they were not flat, one could have the microphone measured and use this measurement data to apply a digital correction to make the response flat during the recording edit process. However, this is not a normal practice. Besides the raw microphone response, you must consider the polar response of the microphone. If a recording is made in a real environment(as opposed to a sound booth), the microphone pickup pattern will play a large role in the sound. Some microphones have very narrow polar response(cardioid), and as such, will greatly attenuate off axis sounds, including much room ambiance, for example. Then there is proximity effect which affects some microphones(where low frequencies disproportionately increase as you move close to the microphone), and then there is the recording distance perspective. A close-mic recording will not usually sound very realistic, as it has a boosted top end(high frequencies attenuate disproportionately in air as distance increases, but this does not get to happen when you close-mic), and it lacks room ambiance information. Generally, this type of recording is used in completely synthetic reconstructions(multiple tracks mixed together from sound booth recordings, then equalized and reverb/delay effects added to create ambiance). It is the most popular type of method to produce commercial albums. There is no standardization, and there is no chance to get an accurate result, as you can not begin to define accurate[unless you focus on single parameter and carefully define conditions], since it's a synthetic construct.

-Chris