Upgrade from Pioneer (and especially Bose)

[rsharp]

Hello all. Brief history to get things started. During my Army days, really got into AV gear. Though brands we could purchase at the time were extremely limited (overseas). I ended up going with Pioneer (receiver, CD, laserdisc, TV) and Bose for speakers (301s and 601s).

Fast foward to today... I have a Pioneer Elite receiver (SC-91; class D) and Pioneer's last plasma they made (Kuro). Speakers are now a mix-and-match. Bose 601s for mains, 301s for surround. A Bowers & Wilkins XTC center channel and their PV1D sub. I really hate the Bose. I can tell I'm missing certain frequencies.

After much research and self-education (and also kicking myself for going with Bose), I want to move to Bowers & Wilkins for all speakers. Their XTC is I believe is an MTM config with the tweeter dead center. I'm hoping to move to their 700 series HTM71 S3 which is WTMW. For mains, I am looking at the various 700 S3 towers and for surrounds, most likely the 705 S3.

Both the current and new system will be 5.1 (not possible for 7.1). And maybe 5.1.4 in the future; at least I'd like an upgrade path for that.

Just today, it appears my receiver is now on its way out. Apple TV 4K can no longer be connected to its original HDMI input on the receiver. Older Apple TV has the same issue. Receiver's on-screen GUI for its setup is no longer output at all over HDMI. This leads me to believe issues with the HDMI circuitry.

I would like to either replace the receiver with another Pioneer Elite or switch brands to Marantz. We still need component video inputs for an older component, so for Pioneer, I'd only have a single choice (VSX-LX505). For Marantz, I'm looking at several solutions: SR6015, SR7015, SR8015 and even separates (AV7706 paired with the MM7055).

Finally, some questions and other notes:

1. Knowing that I'll eventually have all B&W speakers (most likely their 700 S3 series), what would you propose be the better receiver? Or should I really go with separates? Assume that whatever combo of speakers I get, their sensitivities would be within 1 to 2 dB of each other.
2. My room is not acoustically treated in any way. Hardwood floors. 14 feet wide, 21 feet deep, 9 foot ceilings. Only a partial wall along the back (around 6 feet wide; this is why not possible to have a 7.1 setup). Is this space too small for the 700 S3 series? Would you propose the 600 series instead?
3. We primarily watch movies (have a ton of Blu-ray conent which are preferred over streaming due to better audio/video; even though Bose speakers are not doing that any justice). Though 2-channel music would be great to have as well. I think all the new equipment I'm looking at has a mode where you can just have 2-channel audio? I think I've also seen that there are presets you could use as well (one for movie viewing, one for music)?
4. The Pioneer VSX-LX505 would come with Dirac-Live. So far, the above listed Marantz models would not get that at all (think their DSPs wouldn't allow for it). Should having Dirac-Live sway me more towards the Pioneer?

Thank you!

 

[fmw]

1. Knowing that I'll eventually have all B&W speakers (most likely their 700 S3 series), what would you propose be the better receiver? Or should I really go with separates? Assume that whatever combo of speakers I get, their sensitivities would be within 1 to 2 dB of each other.

Any modern receiver will do just fine. Separates are for people who want them, not need them.

2. My room is not acoustically treated in any way. Hardwood floors. 14 feet wide, 21 feet deep, 9 foot ceilings. Only a partial wall along the back (around 6 feet wide; this is why not possible to have a 7.1 setup). Is this space too small for the 700 S3 series? Would you propose the 600 series instead?

I haven't heard either model so I have no comment on that. The B&W's I owned were the higher end 800 series which were excellent. Your room is likely to be pretty lively acoustically. You can treat it or not as you see fit. I would recommend that you put some space betweem the speakers and listening position and the walls. Your room is certainly large enough to accomodate that. Whatever speakers you choose need to be supported by a subwoofer. The sub is the single biggest audible benefit you can add to an audio system

3. We primarily watch movies (have a ton of Blu-ray conent which are preferred over streaming due to better audio/video; even though Bose speakers are not doing that any justice). Though 2-channel music would be great to have as well. I think all the new equipment I'm looking at has a mode where you can just have 2-channel audio? I think I've also seen that there are presets you could use as well (one for movie viewing, one for music)?

Every AV receiver can accomodate stereo music listening. The Pioneers have or at least had a selector switch to choose an input. The one for listening to stereo music is called "stereo" so you just need to park the selector switch there. It will play through the main speaker pair and the subwoofer if you have it enabled.

4. The Pioneer VSX-LX505 would come with Dirac-Live. So far, the above listed Marantz models would not get that at all (think their DSPs wouldn't allow for it). Should having Dirac-Live sway me more towards the Pioneer?

Over the years the manufacturers have added all kinds of electronic features. I view most of them as marketing rather than important technology. I use a Pioneer Elite receiver and it doesn't have Dirac. At least I don't think it has it. It wouldn't affect my decision but I am not you.

 

[everettT]

I wouldn't limit yourself on speakers till you've heard a few, FYI. Also, don't go for a B&W sub if you choose to go with them. They only have two subs that are competitive and both break the bank compared to so many others.

 

[rsharp]

@fmw thank you for your reply; that really helps.

@everettT , I already own a B&W sub (the PV1D). There is a local store that carries numerous speaker brands to include the B&W lines. Will def listen before doing the final purchase.

 

[everettT]

@fmw thank you for your reply; that really helps.

@everettT , I already own a B&W sub (the PV1D). There is a local store that carries numerous speaker brands to include the B&W lines. Will def listen before doing the final purchase.

Unless it's SVS, which is aviable via retail outlets now, you won't be able to demo most of the popular subs. You'll have to rely on the consensus of the community and more importantly the measurements.

 

[rsharp]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I already own a sub and will be keeping it. For the mains, surrounds and center speakers, will make sure I hear a demo of those.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I would absolutely consider adding a subwoofer to the shopping list. I can’t see that little guy doing very much in 2600cuft. It’s like a toy lol.

 

[rsharp]

I have no doubt there would be better subs for my space. Though I feel the PV1D does ample for our current needs. Definitely happy with it.

For now, I want to focus on getting off of the Bose to improve our sound.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Understood. One thing at a time. Upgrading from bose will be a good first step in the right direction. I’m sure the B&W sub is ok for now, but it’s really expensive and for that money, you’re right, there are much better options out there. You have to take the upgrade path that makes sense for you though.

 

[everettT]

I have no doubt there would be better subs for my space. Though I feel the PV1D does ample for our current needs. Definitely happy with it.

For now, I want to focus on getting off of the Bose to improve our sound.

I having feeling you would change your definition of ample with a real subwoofer for your room size.. $2k is wicked expensive for (2) 8" woofers. I'm sure it is fine for music under most circumstances, it just won't pull it's weight for HT duty... Good news is if you do decide to sell it, B&W fan boys will pay a premium for it or you can keep it and use it for near field effect.. but one thing at a time, speakers first.

 

[fmw]

@fmw thank you for your reply; that really helps.

@everettT , I already own a B&W sub (the PV1D). There is a local store that carries numerous speaker brands to include the B&W lines. Will def listen before doing the final purchase.

I use a 12" B&W sub in my bedroom system. There is nothing particularly outstanding about it but it is competent. I have owned it for quite a while and don't remember it being all that expensive. Now that I know how to build subwoofers myself I don't need to rely on the name brands.

 

[TLS Guy]

Any modern receiver will do just fine. Separates are for people who want them, not need them.



I haven't heard either model so I have no comment on that. The B&W's I owned were the higher end 800 series which were excellent. Your room is likely to be pretty lively acoustically. You can treat it or not as you see fit. I would recommend that you put some space betweem the speakers and listening position and the walls. Your room is certainly large enough to accomodate that. Whatever speakers you choose need to be supported by a subwoofer. The sub is the single biggest audible benefit you can add to an audio system



Every AV receiver can accomodate stereo music listening. The Pioneers have or at least had a selector switch to choose an input. The one for listening to stereo music is called "stereo" so you just need to park the selector switch there. It will play through the main speaker pair and the subwoofer if you have it enabled.



Over the years the manufacturers have added all kinds of electronic features. I view most of them as marketing rather than important technology. I use a Pioneer Elite receiver and it doesn't have Dirac. At least I don't think it has it. It wouldn't affect my decision but I am not you.

Some of us do need separates. I do. I absolutely could not do without an AVP and separate amps to power my system. It has 18 power amp channels for one thing, and a receiver would not even get close to the ball park of the power demands of this system.

I think the OP also need separates if he is considering the B & W 700 series. the 702-S has a minimal impedance of 3.1 ohms and a very negative phase angle. That will blow any receiver unless played at low volume. Even the bookshelf of that series has a minimal impedance of 3.9 ohms.

 

[rsharp]

@TLS Guy This is why I'm glad to have re-discovered this forum. The additional insights of things to be aware of are super useful.

Now, when you say the minimum impedance is 3.1 Ω, does that mean that even though the speaker is simply rated as 8 Ω, that in reality there's a range (min to max)? All I've been going by is how many watts per channel I could have (I do like Marantz' 70% guarantee in this regard) and then to look at the range of wattage for that speaker. I'm hoping they're would exist some equation then to lead one to know what speakers would work best for a given amp/receiver.

So I can start to get an understanding of this, lets say I have the volume a bit over half and lets say that is going to produce 80 W to a single speaker. When the speaker is an 8 Ω load, lets say all is well. But when the speaker drops to being a 3 Ω load, that will end up wanting to draw too much power from the amp/receiver and thus causing it to trip?

Side note: I will definitely start researching this minimum impedance value (and I have no idea yet what a negative phase angle means). And then start a new thread if I don't find one that answers the general question of "given receiver/amp X along with all its values, and speakers Y with their values, will that cause issues?".

 

[rsharp]

I just checked out the B&W 600 series and the only tower speaker in that line also has a minimum impedence of 3 Ω. Randomly sampling other brands (e.g. Revel, Polk Audio), for at least the speakers I looked at, they don't publish this minimum value in their specs. So how does one know that a given set of speakers is just a poor match for an amp/receiver?

If it's recommended to go with the external amp (I'd be looking at the Marantz MM7705), how would I know if that would drive either the B&W 600 or 700 line?

 

[rsharp]

Hmm.. something is amiss. I just found one video (YouTube) going over impedance values. And how there's supposed to be an industry standard of not dipping below 80% of the nominal impedance.

I rechecked the Polk Audio, Revel and B&W specs I found before:

• Revel mentions 8 Ω nominal. They don't publish a min. If they go by specs, that shouldn't dip below 6.4Ω
• Polk Audio only says "Compatible with 4 and 8 ohm outputs". Is that nominal? Who knows. Assuming it is, the mins should be 3.2 and 6.4 Ω respectively.
• B&W though (700 and 600 series floor standing speakers) say 8 Ω nominal, but then quote the 3 Ω value as the minimum. So isn't that out-of-spec? Or, is that minimum value relating to a 4 Ω output (where 80% is now 3.2 Ω; which is now very close to the 3.0 and 3.1 Ω published values). If the B&W really could dip down to 3 Ω, I can definitely appreciate the concern of needing more powerful equipment.

 

[TLS Guy]

@TLS Guy This is why I'm glad to have re-discovered this forum. The additional insights of things to be aware of are super useful.

Now, when you say the minimum impedance is 3.1 Ω, does that mean that even though the speaker is simply rated as 8 Ω, that in reality there's a range (min to max)? All I've been going by is how many watts per channel I could have (I do like Marantz' 70% guarantee in this regard) and then to look at the range of wattage for that speaker. I'm hoping they're would exist some equation then to lead one to know what speakers would work best for a given amp/receiver.

So I can start to get an understanding of this, lets say I have the volume a bit over half and lets say that is going to produce 80 W to a single speaker. When the speaker is an 8 Ω load, lets say all is well. But when the speaker drops to being a 3 Ω load, that will end up wanting to draw too much power from the amp/receiver and thus causing it to trip?

Side note: I will definitely start researching this minimum impedance value (and I have no idea yet what a negative phase angle means). And then start a new thread if I don't find one that answers the general question of "given receiver/amp X along with all its values, and speakers Y with their values, will that cause issues?".

Nominal impedance means absolutely nothing and comes out of the backs of the necks of the marketing department. Honest engineers quote the minimum impedance and the dumb marketers are too stupid to know what that means.

A good rule of thumb is that the true impedance is likely to be nearer the minimal impedance plus 10%. That is because the minimum impedance is usually right in the region where the speaker takes maximum power. The relationship of the phase between current and voltage also comes into play and we get into the concept of true and apparent power. When this angle goes negative then apparent power exceeds true power, BUT the current for the apparent power still has to be provided by the amp. So a low impedance coupled with a negative phase angle is recipe for receiver busting and a requirement for a beefy amp. The 702 s at four ohms has a negative phase angle of almost 60 degrees. This does not mean it is a bad speaker. However in my designs I do try to avoid that. When the model shows those situations I change gear. That is just me, because I am trouble averse.

 

[lovinthehd]

@rsharp you might like to review this article https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/loudspeaker-sensitivity

Volume scales in avrs are generally dB based these days so a position on the volume dial isn't particularly relevant (takes a doubling of power to gain 3dB spl so 50% power is just shy of top operating levels. Usually only a handful of watts are used at normal listening levels; 80 watts would generally be quite a high level. Try this spl calculator http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html to estimate your amp usage. I'd look at more powerful amps for an external amp than that Marantz 7055 in any case, that's just more an avr amp in a separate case.

 

[everettT]

I just checked out the B&W 600 series and the only tower speaker in that line also has a minimum impedence of 3 Ω. Randomly sampling other brands (e.g. Revel, Polk Audio), for at least the speakers I looked at, they don't publish this minimum value in their specs. So how does one know that a given set of speakers is just a poor match for an amp/receiver?

If it's recommended to go with the external amp (I'd be looking at the Marantz MM7705), how would I know if that would drive either the B&W 600 or 700 line?

The BW 600 series wouldn't be on any list of mine. The measurements and sound are brutal and difficult load to drive at moderate volume.

As for the minimum phase, some manufactures will note it, others won't, so you're dependent on
a) customer service, which is hit or miss. A company like Revel will provide that information and usually provide internal spin measurements.
b)3rd party measurements, which is what most of us go by.

There are 5 or 6 good reviewers out there, Audioholics being one, that you can count on. A few have measurement equipment that provide more data then the others, but the necessities are generally covered by all.

 

[fmw]

Some of us do need separates. I do. I absolutely could not do without an AVP and separate amps to power my system. It has 18 power amp channels for one thing, and a receiver would not even get close to the ball park of the power demands of this system.

I think the OP also need separates if he is considering the B & W 700 series. the 702-S has a minimal impedance of 3.1 ohms and a very negative phase angle. That will blow any receiver unless played at low volume. Even the bookshelf of that series has a minimal impedance of 3.9 ohms.

Most people, like me, have no use for 18 channels so you are an exception. My listening room is about the size of the poster's except for the high ceilings. I can play uncomfortably loud with a receiver. He may also be an exception. I think my comment is correct for the serious majority of people with separates.

 

[rsharp]

@fmw Thank you. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm also an exception.

Here's what I did:

1. Measurements taken of speakers from the MLP:
   • 14 feet from mains
   • 12 feet from center
   • 6 feet from surrounds
   • 13 feet from sub
2. I played a chapter from Interstellar at the same level as we did a week ago. For my wife, son and I, we will play things loud, but not too loud. I put the Pioneer receiver's volume at the -25.0 dB mark. The particular scene as measured by the "dB Meter" iOS app running on an iPhone 14 Pro (I realize this may not be the best way to measure, but what I had access to). Phone was placed just in front of my face. Levels were:
   • Minimum (whispers): 31 dB
   • Maximum (rocket takeoff): 83 dB
3. Subwoofer, though mentioned it was too small for my space (14 feet wide, 21 feet deep, 9 foot ceilings), did quite well for my needs. I definitely physically felt things. And to be honest, I really don't need to go beyond that.
4. I read the Audioholics speaker sensitivy article and brushed up on related materials. I was an electronics technician in the Army around 30 years ago and now do software. Also very familiar with photography lighting dealing with inverse square laws. So while I am nowhere near an expert for home audio/video, I do love to get into the technical aspects of things and enjoy honing my skills for better understanding.
5. Finally, I visited the SPL calculator site and did two sets of calculations:
   • Stereo: B&W 702 S3 speakers are rated at 90 dB sensitivty, so set that value, set Amp power to just 1 watt, distance of 14 feet and num speakers to 2. Speaker placement set to corner (18 to 24 inches from walls). The results here gave me 86.4 dB at the listening position.
   • Multi: With the above mains, the other B&W speakers I'm looking at are rated at 88 and 89 dB sensitivty. So I took the lowest value of 88, set amp power again to just 1 watt, distance of 14 feet, num speakers to 5 and same close to wall placement. The results here gave me 88.4 dB at the listening position.

So my own conclusions from this are:

1. Assuming the sound level was correct and that at my ears was around 83 dB. Lets say it was even higher at 86 dB. Then for both stereo listening and movie watching, 1 watt of power would be enough.
2. Even if things are off by say 12 dB, the amp would need to be at 16 watts per channel to compensate. Let's say that's for an 8 Ω load. And then if that drops to 2 Ω (I'm going below the B&W min here of 3 Ω to overcompensate and to keep math simplier), the amp would now need to be at 64 watts per channel.
3. A Marantz SR7015 is rated at 125 watts per channel (2 channel driven), and if we believe the 70% value for 5 channels driven, that would be 87.5 watts. I realize that this is not much headroom, but I've really tried to exaggerate values here.

Am I missing something?