Upgradeitis

[RMK!]

This is a sad story but not an unfamiliar one in our addiction prone society. They say the first step in recovery is recognizing the problem. It is toward that end, that I submit the following.

Hi, my name is highdog1 and I am an audioholic.

Up until March of 2005 I had the following:

Audio:
Bose LS 12
Video:
LG 44” DLP

In early March of 2005 I had a problem with my Bose LS CD player. I looked at replacing it and came across Audioholics and several other AV sites. A friend who has a very nice HT setup convinced me to look at other audio options. I visited my local B&M and within a week had purchased the base system below. I have also included the all of the upgrades in the last 5 months for the original purchased components.

Electronics:

•Receiver: Denon 2805, upgraded to Denon 3805, upgraded to include Sunfire 200 5 Channel amp

•DVD Player: Denon 1910, upgraded to Denon 2910, upgraded to Denon 3910

Speakers:

• Main: Monitor Audio Silver S8’s, upgraded to MA GR60’s
• Center: Monitor Audio Silver, no upgrade due to size constraints
• Surrounds (rear speakers): Monitor Audio Bronze Surrounds, upgraded to MA S1’s (still have the S1’s), upgraded to MA S6 towers
• Subwoofer: Velodyne SPL 1200 II, upgraded to Velodyne DD-18

If there are others with similar stories please post. Perhaps we can start a self help group and begin the search for a cure.

 

[Vancouver]

My name is N (we wil leave it at that) and I to have a problem, but have found a band-aid for my problem and its called rotel.

Here is what I started with:
Denon 1803 Reciever
Denon 800 DVD player
B&W 300 series speakers
INterlaced toshiba 32 tv

I just started to randomly upgrade parts of my system. Video, audio, cables I had no real direction just money to blow.

Then by fluke I solved my video problem with a Pansonic HDTV plasma and DVDO iscan HD video processor. I am convinced that you can not get a better picture on a plasma with that combination.

The only good thing I had going for me with audio is I live in a loft, so bigger and lauder wasnt an option. I changed my focus to cool looking and great sounding speakers. Then without auditioning I dropped 6k on B&W FPM series speakers to match my plasma and compete with the cool factor my friend has with his B&O setup. The sound was better, but still not fantastic. With a final attempt at improving the sound I bought a Rotel RSX 1055 Reciever and WOW. The difference over the denon was so big I felt it gave me new speakers. The difference was 100% better.

For now I am happy and the rotel has acted like a band-aid. The only thing that can ruin things for me now is if I audition something better or move to a house.

 

[RMK!]

The Road to Recovery

My name is N (we wil leave it at that) and I to have a problem, but have found a band-aid for my problem and its called rotel.

Here is what I started with:
Denon 1803 Reciever
Denon 800 DVD player
B&W 300 series speakers
INterlaced toshiba 32 tv

I just started to randomly upgrade parts of my system. Video, audio, cables I had no real direction just money to blow.

Then by fluke I solved my video problem with a Pansonic HDTV plasma and DVDO iscan HD video processor. I am convinced that you can not get a better picture on a plasma with that combination.

The only good thing I had going for me with audio is I live in a loft, so bigger and lauder wasnt an option. I changed my focus to cool looking and great sounding speakers. Then without auditioning I dropped 6k on B&W FPM series speakers to match my plasma and compete with the cool factor my friend has with his B&O setup. The sound was better, but still not fantastic. With a final attempt at improving the sound I bought a Rotel RSX 1055 Reciever and WOW. The difference over the denon was so big I felt it gave me new speakers. The difference was 100% better.

For now I am happy and the rotel has acted like a band-aid. The only thing that can ruin things for me now is if I audition something better or move to a house.

Hi N,

Thanks for sharing.

Rotel amp = 100% better sound...hmmm

 

[Vancouver]

Hi N,

Thanks for sharing.

Rotel amp = 100% better sound...hmmm

For the B&W FPM 6's compared to the denon 1803...with out a doubt.

 

[Privateer]

The main reason I work is so I can have a HT/2CH system that is on the leading edge. My car is a 98 dodge stratus (I drive a dodge stratus) that I paid $6900 for and my Mcintosh XR27 center speaker I paid $7500 for so you can see what I perfer.

 

[nav]

The main reason I work is so I can have a HT/2CH system that is on the leading edge. My car is a 98 dodge stratus (I drive a dodge stratus) that I paid $6900 for and my Mcintosh XR27 center speaker I paid $7500 for so you can see what I perfer.

I take it a little farther. I don't own a car . To be honest, this isn't my only financially straining hobby, but it's the big one.

 

[Bevan]

I was thinking the other day to what degree the internet(and print media) contributes, or is wholy responsible for Upgraditis.

I've read it specifically stated by a print rag that one of their raison detre's is to 'inject excitement' into the industry. I can vouch for that as I await the new NAD Master Series and Dynaudio Focus line.

Do you think this disease was as widespread 20 years ago before the internet started rulling our lives? I doubt it.

Everywhere there seems to me to be people throwing their money away on things they are let to beleive they need from reading websites such as this, e.g(putting on flame-suit now)

1) centre channels (when for only one or two listners)
2) floorstanding speakers(when set to 'small' and used with a sub)
3) recievers(when the source is deccoding)
4) CD/DVD players(when the receiver is decoding)

when will the madness stop...

 

[tbewick]

Hi Bevan,

You need full-range speakers to go with a subwoofer, or you won't get enough bass. Good quality subwoofers are usually designed to go with full-range speakers.

Centre channels are necessary to get to full range of effects in Dolby Digital soundtracks. I love two channel stereo, but it is more limited compared to surround sound.

One of strengths of digital audio is that the channel should not affect the signal. I know that there are a few people who would disagree with me on this one, but it is possible for a signal to degrade via a digital electronic/optical cable. Remember that the channel itself, ie. the cable, will affect the signal, in that it will suffer from group delay, jitter, etc. The signal may be sent digitally, but will not be reclocked when in the cable, unlike in an electronic circuit. Of course, there are ways to try and code the signal so that these problems are avoided. I might be blowing this issue out of proportion, but I think you should know that there are these limitations involved. You shouldn't just think that because it's a digital source the sound will be reproduced perfectly.

 

[Bevan]

hi tbwick. maybe we can arive at an understanding if we swap opinions on this, even if it does lead the thread a bit off topic.

if a tower is set to small and crossed over at the typical point of 80hz i dont see how it can give more bass than a bookshelf speaker also crossed over at 80hz and run with a sub which is low passed bellow 80hz. both cases should ideally, with correct room placement, yeild a flat frequency response. if on the other hand the tower is run full range and rolls off at say 30 hz, the sub would be set to take over at 30hz. In neither of these cases does the tower and sub overlap in their outputed frequencies, hence a tower shoud not according to my understanding add more bass(its only advantage is that it can offer a slightly higher spl, provided the sub can also play at these volumes)

two channel is limited compared to multichannel I completely agree. what I advocate is a 4.1 setup. then in my opinion there is no need for a centre channel if one can claim the sweetspot. by not having a centre speaker one can spend 50% more on the front two, which if set up correctly should provide a phantom centre image no less vivid than that comming from a centre channel. i really enjoy the 'magic' of centre images floating in air as opposed to coming strait out of a speaker box in front of me. whats more, unless one is using a projector with transparent screen, the centre speaker will by neccessity be locating voices and instruments bellow or above the screen. this has me literally watching the centre speaker when i should be watching the screen during music dvd's. with a phantom centre image it is no problem at all to have the voices and instruments apearing in the middle of the screen where they are meant to be.

i'm not sure what you meant by your last parragraph, maybe you misunderstood me. all I was saying in my last two points was that most people are paying for reduntand DACs, either in the sourse component of in the receiver, because only one gets used. I favour decoding in the source. my setup for high-res audio and dvd is a universal player hooked up to an analogue multi-channel pre-amp via analogue cables. not only does this save a few extra DACS, but by not having video processing in my amplifier I dont compromise audio performance.

i just like to keep it simple.

in many cases i'm sure i'm wrong, but i just think that sometimes demand is created by manufacturers and advertizers where no real need would have existed. (granted some people will 'need' AV recievers for such things as contrived multichannel redbook and tv viewing)

cheers

b

 

[Bevan]

one more thing...

thinking about this thread i realized there is something else i've been pondering that might bear mention in this context.

i think the idea of 'upgrading to seperates' needs reviewing. and certainly manufacturers of amplifiers are not going to initiate this rethink as they are the pharmacologists not the doctors of Upgraditis. (othey happen to sell just whats needed to relieve the itch.)

i'll go so far as to say that i think buying seperates is the biggest 'waste of money' in audio today. let me first qualify this statement, as i'm not trying to antagonize anyone here.

i make this claim only in the situation of having very roughly $5000 to spend on amplification, and where a prefered manufacturer doest offer an integrated alternative. i also claim that this was not the case some years back, things have changed.

my logic is as follows: a manufacturer would typically offer an integrated amp for say $1000. it might then have ostensibly the same pre-amp and power amp in two seperate boxes together totaling say $1900. now although i'll admit seperates in this scenario will offer some audible advantage, i believe, after many such listning tests, that the advantage is extremely small. to the point of being neglegable. like swapping between similarly made interconects.

now buying the integrated for $1000 and putting the $900 towards the two front speakers(which should give one nearly 50% more to spend on speakers were one typically alloting a similar amout of money for source, amplification and speakers), i believe anyone here would have a hard time claiming the differences to be as barely noticable as between integrated and seperates. or if speakers are a given, put the $900 into an integrated from the same companies next-up line of amps, or into a 'higher end' companies integrated.

integrated amps have come such a long way the last few years i think, not only in terms of performance but also in terms of the flexibility that was once their downfall. i'm not the first to say this obviously, having read more than one professional review where was said just this. even the arbitrary sum of $5000 was mentioned. but i think it will be a long time before audio trends change and integrateds loose their stigma.

b

 

[jaxvon]

The only reason I could think of for buying separates would be the need for more power. That said, the feature sets on most receivers these days far surpasses a dedicated preamp at anywhere near the price.