like a prayer i want to take you there

March 31, 2008 7:44 AM

i'm sick of blowing out my audio system. please help me pick out an affordable but good sounding system.

i am looking for something quite basic: two front speakers and a receiver. i play dvd movies, ipods, etc out of the receiver and i don't really care about surround sound, dolby decoding, etc. i just want something that sounds good, will go pretty loud without too much distortion, and really have no frills i don't need. i'm certainly no audiophile but i listen to a huge range of music, from cumbia remixes to classical.

if anyone can help me wade through the oceans of reviews on different companies (ie which are overhyped, bose, etc and perhaps underrated (teac?)) i just want to order something and start listening to music again!

posted by yonation to shopping (14 comments total)

Without a budget this is veering into entirely unanswerable, so I'll just guess. I have no input on receivers, but a very good pair of powered speakers don't even need one. I'd recommend Tapco S5s which run about $300 a pair. If you want to have multiple inputs at the same time, cheap mixing boards can be had for under $100 from Tapco or Behringer or any garden variety receiver with unpowered outputs could serve as a frontend.

This is really more of a tiny recording studio setup, but IME you get better quality buying low-end pro gear than all but the very tip top consumer gear and at a better price.
posted by Skorgu at 8:08 AM on March 31

I have a Harman/Kardon HK-3480 receiver at home, and it's quite extensive. Here's an image of the front/back with all its inputs (that's actually the new(er) 3485, but it looks nearly the same. It's pretty powerful (2x120W). The 3485 pushes the same power, and it's on Amazon for $250. One thing I like about it is that you can hook up two sets of speakers to it and switch each set on and off. I have smaller speakers wired in my kitchen to listen to tunes while doing kitcheny things.

As for speakers, I really couldn't tell ya--I have a near prehistoric pair of Realistics. They still sound awesome.
posted by booticon at 8:36 AM on March 31

You need to tell us more about your budget and taste of music. "Pretty loud" could easily be interpreted as "very loud, and not much regard to fidelity", which would mean something like Cerwin Vega speakers.

If you want something better than powered speakers:
NAD amplifiers are cheap and very good. They get excellent reviews all over. Very popular in Scandinavia. They have huge dynamic power, so a 40W NAD is able to play much louder without distortion than typical 40W amplifiers.
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-receivers/C720BEE-Stereo-Receiver

For speakers, it depends on which kind of sound you like. Different brands of speaks color the sound differently. Very high fidelity in speakers is considered irritating by many people as they unmask all mistakes in the music, and can make it sound very rough. B/W speakers (bowers-wilkins.com) is well known for this. Scandinavians who like a more rounded sound often buys Dali speakers, but I don't think they're available in US (which I presume you're located in).

Paraphrasing an old advice: Adding $100 to the speakers get 100 times the improvement of adding $100 to the amplifier.
posted by flif at 8:40 AM on March 31

NAD 325 or 372 amp, used B&W 302s or new 685s depending on budget, done.
posted by nicwolff at 9:37 AM on March 31

i should probably clarify that i was looking for a combination that, used, would have hopefully run no more than $200. if this is totally undoable i understand, but appreciate suggestions on hidden gems that perhaps approach that price. in that light, the NAD amplifier (at $570) is not what I'd be able to afford, but it definitely sounds mouthwatering.

Re: the tapco speakers, i dont quite understand, if they are self powered, do i need an outlet for both speakers (ie two plugs) and a mixing board to plug them into, which i then plug the RCA outputs from, say, a dvd player into?
posted by yonation at 10:02 AM on March 31

IME you get better quality buying low-end pro gear than all but the very tip top consumer gear and at a better price

This is the exact opposite of my experience. A cheap Behringer/Mackie grade mixer has an enormous amount of junk in the signal path that can't be bypassed and usually fairly woeful internal grounding schemes. A used 20-year old Rotel or NAD receiver will outperform most entry-level 'pro' gear in the intended application.

$200 doesn't give you a lot to work with, but on that budget I'd try to find a pair of used Paradigms, KEFs, Tannoys or B&Ws. I would never buy speakers without auditioning them.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 10:16 AM on March 31

Not to derail, but I'm in a similar situation looking for a solid subwoofer. Any suggestions?
posted by pinto at 10:37 AM on March 31

the duck by the oboe: This is the exact opposite of my experience.
Yeah, audio is about as subjective as it comes. In terms of quality you might very well be right, I've not heard many good 'consumer' systems. For me the straw that broke the camel's back is balanced audio. Never having to worry about dit-dada-dit-dada-deeet when there's a GSM phone in the room is a very nice thing when you've got long cable runs. Which is pretty close to entirely useless in this context considering how far out of your way you have to go to run balanced audio. Definitely agree on listening to the speakers before buying. Most Guitar Centers stock the Tapco's and the sound-alike KRK RP5s that I'm using right now and they'll be happy to let you blast a CD through 'em.

did you just put Mackie and Behringer in the same quality bracket?! :)

yonation: "do i need an outlet for both speakers (ie two plugs) and a mixing board to plug them into, which i then plug the RCA outputs from, say, a dvd player into?"
Yes, the speakers have built-in amps so they take a signal (1/4" TRS) and power (standard computer IEC cord) each. I suggest the mixer because it's going to be cheaper than any decent new receiver.
posted by Skorgu at 10:49 AM on March 31

pinto: "Not to derail, but I'm in a similar situation looking for a solid subwoofer. Any suggestions?"

Tapco and KRK both make 10" powered subs, one of which is going to be the next loud-thing I buy. I haven't heard either yet so they might both be crap.
posted by Skorgu at 10:51 AM on March 31

Skorgu: in my experience the RF immunity on the low end stuff isn't that great anyway. I've heard Mackies pick up phone interference; I've never heard the dit-dada-dits on my home system, which has bottom of the line Rotel components.

I've found a lot of the home-studio gear at the budget end is just not good value compared to hifi stuff. There are exceptions, like some of the Tannoys, though.

Also, if you go for active speakers you rather limit your potential upgrade paths down the line. This may or may not be a problem here.

did you just put Mackie and Behringer in the same quality bracket?! :)

That was probably a bit harsh on Mackie, but it's all a matter of perspective.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 1:55 PM on March 31

duck by the oboe: is it useless to buy sony receivers? y'all have given great advice on speakers but nothing on the other end; what would be a decent one that could push the sound well?
posted by yonation at 3:59 PM on March 31

I would look for Rotel, NAD, Denon, Marantz, Technics, Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo or JVC off the top of my head. Sony not so much. YMMV.

Look for something as simple as you can get by with; tone controls (if any) should have a bypass switch.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 5:10 PM on March 31

Go listen to a Panasonic SA XR55, 57 or 70. Tremendous.
posted by gjc at 7:22 PM on March 31

the duck by the oboe: in my experience the RF immunity on the low end stuff isn't that great anyway. I've heard Mackies pick up phone interference; I've never heard the dit-dada-dits on my home system, which has bottom of the line Rotel components.

I'm fascinated how our two experiences can be so fundamentally different. My PC -> Mackie -> KRKs only picks up noise from the 2' of unbalanced ratshack cable from the PC's onboard sound card. Without that in the loop I can't even make the balanced legs pick up EM noise. My friend's (old) Maratnz setup (which is gorgeous, don't get me wrong) picks up GSM from across the room.

And yes, going active does complicate future expansion; if I decide to go to a surround-sound setup I have basically two "receivers" (really processors) that I can choose from, and the cheap one is $800. I think balanced audio is just qualitatively better than unbalanced so I'm willing to expand slowly and carefully and take the somewhat diminished choice in components that goes along with that.
posted by Skorgu at 8:34 AM on April 1