Marantz AV-7005, pre/pro (with balanced outputs and 1.4a HDMI);
Rotel RMB-1565, surrounds and center;
Rotel RKB-650, mains w/ bi-amping;
Martin Logan Motion 20, mains;
Martin Logan Motion 8 Center;
Klipsch SW-10, sub;
KEF iQ-5, surrounds;
Klipsch RS-41 II, surround backs
Alright y'all, here is your chance to help out the newbie with your thoughts and opinions. Thanks in advance for what you may offer. I have the above system, which is sounding really nice, with many of the qualities I've been looking for, but the upgraditis is creeping in, (again, sigh) and I am wondering which of the components may represent the weak link to my music listening nirvana? As some my recognize, I recently added the Motion 20's to the lineup, much to my satisfaction, but where might I go from here. I'm thinking my better half may let me get away with another $1500-2000 before I'm sleeping with the system and not her, LOL. Since I'm more interested in the musicality of the system, listening to a mix of female vocal, rock, and dipping into the ambient realm now and then, I'm considering the replacement of the Rotel RKD-650 with something in a nice stereo configuration, possibly 3-channel to pick up the center. I'm really looking to broaden and deepen the soundstage as much as anything. What do you think?
IMO, get timbre matching speakers from the same brand from the same line.
Your plethora of eclectic species of speakers is going to be a challenge to get it to sound "right". If you go Martin Logan, get all ML. Klipsch, all Klipsch. KEF, all KEF.
Considering the fact that your front soundstage is ML, try to find the matching surrounds if possible.
Also, with that Klipsch 10" sub, you will be longing for more really quickly.
Thanks, Bill. The surround sound is less of a concern as I primarily listen in stereo. I moved the Kef's from the main to the surround and they actually give the sound tracks a little more timbre and depth on the movies. I am concerned with voice matching the fronts, however, which is why I am parting ways with the Kef IQ2 center and got the Motion 8. Nothing wrong with the Kef's, I just wanted to move up a little from their entry level.
IMHO, you have your best amplifier driving the surrounds and center. Have you ever used the RMB-1565 for front, center, and surrounds, with the RKB-650 driving the surrounds backs? This should be better for 2 channel music as well. The Motion 20’s should sound better with 2 channels of the 1565 than 4 channels of the 650. I also agree with Bill about timbre matching speakers for movie surround and multichannel audio.
My music listening is primarily only through the mains, which is why I'm leaning toward a nicer 2 channel. Let me throw in some amps I've seen here; Mac, NAD, Classe, Marantz, Anthem, even Krell in the solid state classe, with a few stereo tube amps or hybrids in the mix as well. Much of my music listening is via Network services (Pandora, Media Monkey, etc.) but perhaps an upgrade to the Samsung Blu-Ray player is in order?
Thanks, tls 49, I started out that way, but for some reason I opted to use the 650, perhaps thinking bi-amping would make up the difference in power?? I will move things around a little and see what comes of it. Would you forego the bi-amping then? Or maybe keep the bi-amping and drive the mains with 4 channels (x 200) and use the remaining 2 for the surrounds? That would leave the 650 to put the center on a 100 watt output @ 4 ohms (unless I bi-amp) and the surround backs at 50 watts into 8 ohms. (I love experimenting, BTW.)
Bi-amping should be avoided unless it is done properly. This means you would need to bypass the speaker’s internal crossover, and use an external line level crossover. Just go back to your original hookup, like the one I stated in my post. Also, for 2 channel try turning off the Audyssey EQ. There is an AV-7005 review that says doing so improves the music presentation. You may need to do a little manual tweeking with the EQ off.
Thanks again, tls, I moved the amps around and went with the bi-amping (as you were responding, sorry) from the 1565 and put the center on the 5th channel. Threw in a little Pink Floyd and had voices and instruments from the phantom center with some 'air' behind them, also, after a small tweak to the speaker position (I gave them about a 5 or 10 degree tilt backwards, and slid the left speaker about 2 inches further left), I had a broader and somewhat deeper soundstage. I will double check on the Audyssey setting, but I don't believe I'm using it. I will reroute the cabling tomorrow to your suggestion without the bi-amping and check for any difference. Much appreciated.
One of the most common mistakes I run into and especially with home theater is speaker location. Have you tried radically locating your main speakers and considered Golden Ratio or the rule of thirds? In most cases these methods will cause great consternation among loved ones and friends. Even so to take a day clearing the listening area and experimenting with locating the mains and using an office chair as a mobil listening position your systems potential and the nature of your room may surprise you.
As to home theater I'm in the 7.1 camp using small identical speakers as equal distance and hight to the listening position as possible. No dipole or (WTW) center channel speakers unless they're all centers and a decent sub. Since its just TV a modern receiver using as little if any room correction as possible seems to be plenty.
your systems potential and the nature of your room may surprise you.
Hey m, thanks for your thoughts. I have the mains spread about 8' apart, about 2 ' off the front wall (with sound baffling along the baseboard to reign in the bass a little), leaned back about 10 degrees, and slightly toed in. My listening post is about 10' from each. I moved them apart slowly until the phantom center started to disappear. My mid surrounds are equidistant from the front wall and my listening spot. The Klipsh, while not a true dipole, fire left and right a little higher on the back wall, again, equidistant from my spot. I'm actually quite happy with the 7.1 setup, and movies on the 4k, 65" curved are pretty awesome. I made the tweaks above last night and spread the soundstage and added a little depth. I also agree that the room correction should be minimal if your setup is good.
Your plethora of eclectic species of speakers is going to be a challenge
to get it to sound "right". If you go Martin Logan, get all ML.
Klipsch, all Klipsch. KEF, all KEF.
Considering the fact that your front soundstage is ML, try to find the matching surrounds if possible.
Also, with that Klipsch 10" sub, you will be longing for more really quickly.
Hey Bill. I agree with your assessment. I am working toward adding some of the ML hybrids as the front mains, and moving the Motion 20's to the mid surround eventually. At that point, I will decide if the Klipsch need to go. So far, I am quite happy with those (and the rest for that matter). It's a matter of pacing my build, unfortunately, I tell my wife, 'millionaire John will have this amp, or these speakers' LOL. All in due time. So you're thinking the speakers are the weak link then?
Great point, elizabeth! I have a modest power conditioning strip that I purchased with the surround back speakers. I did not notice a big difference at that time, but by now, I'm sure it's helping. I have been using good shielded interconnects and cables all along, but noise (ac) is always a concern. I am in the unfortunate position of having all of the wiring 'piled' up behind the entertainment center and have always tried to be cognizant of the ac issue, but I am afraid there is only so much I can do. Perhaps a rack then should be considered?? Much less expensive than a Krell, eh?
Before doing anything else, listen in stereo to one of your better recorded tracks that inherently has good broad and deep soundstaging. Now try pulling your speakers out another foot (don’t worry about what it looks like for now) and about 6' apart and toe the speakers in so that they point toward your shoulders. Put on that same track and see what you think. My guess is you’ll get better imaging with an enhanced sense of space and depth, and you may also find the speakers disappear more as a sound source. Let’s start with that and go from there.
Ok, soix, I'll give that a try tonight. I had them closer, then spread them after I read the trick about moving them outward until the phantom center starts to dissolve then toe them in slightly. I will move them closer together and away from the front wall to about 3'. Bear in mind, these aren't the electrostats, but the bass port does fire backward, hence the sound dampening.
I am wondering which of the components may represent the weak link to my
music listening nirvana? ... Since I'm more interested in the musicality of the system,
listening to a mix of female vocal, rock, and dipping into the ambient
realm now and then, I'm considering the replacement of the Rotel RKD-650
with something in a nice stereo configuration, possibly 3-channel to
pick up the center.
Thanks everyone, but we are getting a little off topic, IMO. I have fiddled with speaker placement for several weeks to get to where I am with them, and I am not really interested in working on the surround system. Let me ask this, then, if I am going to replace the 650, would a foray into the world of tube amps/monoblocks be a worthwhile investment? I see the Prima Luna Prologue 7 for $1.7k, what are your thoughts on this matter?
Your biggest bottleneck to a broader and deeper soundstage from an equipment standpoint IMO (and assuming you've optimized speaker placement) is probably the preamp section of your prepro. A good dedicated stereo pre can really open up a system in so many ways, and although I won't go into it here it is very easy and seamless to integrate a stereo pre into a multichannel system where the prepro is out of the loop completely for 2-channel listening. In your situation you might even consider a good integrated as you'll upgrade both the amp (which you'll probably want to upgrade at some point anyway) and pre at the same time. Best of luck.
If you want proper 3D soundstage, I'd stay away from a center channel unless its a dialogue channel for the home theater; even then they can be marginal... If you want more 3D, tubes are something to try.
Thanks, soix. I went with the Marantz pre for the 1.4a HDMI in/outs. I have the 4k tv which looks very nice through the pre/pro (it also passively passes signal in standby) , and I actually just recently moved away from the (Onkyo) receiver for more flexibility. The other matter is that much of my listening is done through the DLNA feature of the pre with Media Monkey for the several thousand flac songs I have on hard disc. I need to check the DVD palyer tho, it may also have that feature. (I need to get a rack soon, LOL)
Thanks, atmasphere. I wouldn't need the 3rd channel for listening as it would be strictly a dialog channel for movies. I've been toying with the notion of tubes for awhile. I see several used options in the sub $2k range. Any I should avoid or consider more strongly?
I agree with soix on the pre/pro "premp section" argument. I also agree with many others that small tweaks in your system will help (such as placement, etc.) I also see that you've covered the idea that front 3 speakers need to match as closely as possible. However, I think that there are definitely a couple things on your equipment that you should know:
- The Marantz AV-7005 is very nice because Marantz uses discrete analog stages. However, the 7005 uses the older version of the HDAM discrete analog circuits. These have slow slew rates and are much warmer/slower and laid back. The result can be sound that is too warm/slow that does not have enough attack/detail. If you feel you are lacking attack/detail/resolution, maybe look at a newer Marantz. The AV7702 is the cheapest pre/pro that has the new HDAM circuits.
- Soix's idea of adding a high end 2-channel preamp is a good one if you don't care much about home theater and ALSO have different sources you listen to (such as an external DAC). If you use the Marantz AV7005 as a DAC, then adding a preamp won't give you much because you are still dependent on the Marantz for DAC/source. It would be much better to upgrade the Marantz 7005 is this case.
- It's great that you removed the RKB-650 distribution amp and the bi-amp configuration. The RMB-1565 is going to be better. However, it is Class D with a smallish power supply and it is my opinion that this amp sound rather flat and sterile. If you really don't care much about home theater (which it sounds like), then the Parasound A21 comes to mind. It is going to have much more punch, depth of soundstage, air and resolution than the Rotel RMB amp. If you do want home theater quality, it looks like there is a 3 channel Parasound A31 on audiogon for $2100 (which is just above your threshold).
Thanks, aux. Good stuff right there. I am going to look into the Parasound. I have seen them listed and read some reviews and they seem to be well received in the audiophile community. I am also considering upgrading the DVD to something better, which would then become my source for more of my listening.
So here are my takeaways. I really don't want to add another pre to the line-up,
and at the moment, the upgrade to the Marantz is off the table.
It seems that in order to not add to the complexity of the system, I can utilize the 'Pure Direct' (Source Direct) feature of the Marantz to get the best signal passed through the pre. If I then relegate the RMB-1565 to the surround channels for the digital work of theater and use a decent stereo tube or dual mono amplifiers for my front speakers for 2 channel listening, I should gain the most with the least amount of restructuring the system. Would you guys (and maybe gals) agree this a fair assessment?
Another thing you could do if you feel the Marantz is a bit slow or laid back is do a fuse upgrade. A Hi-Fi Tuning Supreme fuse will give more attack and detail to the sound, as well as improving overall solidness of the sound itself. You will have to take off the top part of the case to see what is on the main power supply board (just behind the power cord socket). Typically, a processor will have one fuse, usually about 1A in capacity. You can push this to 2A if you want a bit more punch/authority in the sound. Power cord upgrade can help as well.
It sounds like you have a plan. The decision between tube and solid state has it's own decision process. I would see if you could listen to some tube amps to get an idea on whether you would like them or not. The tube amps may have a nice texture and sound, but they will likely be warmer/slower sounding than solid-state and may lack the deep punch and power of bass compared to the large power supply of the Parasound A21. The A21 may seem lacking in the texture and bloom that tube amps have. It depends on what you want.
After reading some reviews it sounds like the ML Motion series may be geared to be more of a "front row" perspective rather than further back, so meaningfully increasing depth of stage may not be in the cards. Apparently pulling them out further into the room didn’t help too much, which would make sense if they’re designed more for an upfront presentation.
Since this is a system being used for both multichannel and stereo I’d shy away from tube amps. No sense burning up tubes to watch TV or movies IMO. Although your speakers are stated to be 90dB efficient they’re also rated at a nominal 4 Ohms impedance, which means they probably dip below that somewhere in the frequency range (the Motion 40s drop below 3 Ohms at around 100Hz so likely the 20s dip around there too). Anyway, for all these reasons I’d avoid tube amps. I’d also recommend a good stereo amp rather than monoblocks -- no strong reason to pay up for two boxes in this situation, again IMO.
Just FYI, adding a stereo preamp to your system wouldn’t add much complexity at all -- I know that sounds a little hard to believe, but it’s true especially if you get a preamp or integrated with a HT bypass. My best and most cost-effective advice, and what I’d absolutely do myself if I was in your situation, would be to add a good solid state integrated amp. You’re only adding one box to your system, and you’re killing two VERY important birds with one stone by adding a better dedicated stereo preamp and amp. Going direct from your Marantz doesn’t change the fact that the signal is still passing through the preamp section (and the rest of the electronic morass) of the prepro, and at that point the damage is done. Something like a Parasound Halo Integrated or a Hegel H190 (among others) would likely bring very significant improvements to your 2-channel experience. Here’s a link to an H190 review that actually uses your speakers in the review system: https://www.soundstagesimplifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/29-hegel-music-systems-h190-dac-integ...
Incidentally there’s an almost new H190 available here now at a $1000 discount. Best of luck in whatever you end up doing.
Again, great advice, thank you (all) for your insight. I am absorbing all the good info and will take my time and not rush into anything. Perhaps a little more tweaking before I pull the trigger on a bigger ticket item.
I'm a little unsure as to how an integrated would meld into the existing HT? It would replace the RKB-650 obviously, and serve signal to the mains from the DLNA feature or the DVD audio. but how would I switch to HT and the Marantz and RMB-1565? Sorry, but I said I was newbie ;-) Extra insight would be greatly appreciated.
sounds like the ML Motion series may be geared to be more of a "front row" perspective
I suspect that this could be caused by the ribbon tweeters of the Motion. I feel that ribbon tweeters can be bright/forward sounding. The same character occurs on the ribbon of the Monitor Audio Gold/Platinum series speakers. It is just too much and too forceful in the highs for my taste. They are just a little bit too hard edged for me. The conventional tweeters of the Monitor Audio Silver sound more natural to me. Just my personal taste.
In this sense, the warmth of the Marantz 7005 could be beneficial here. I would be careful of choosing the Hegel because they have very high resolution, but they can be a touch cold sounding, which might not be a good pairing with the forward sounding Motion speakers.
The Parasound Halo integrated is good, but keep in mind that it's just a A23 amp with a larger transformer. It's not going to match the performance of the larger A21 amp. I have read several comments that the smaller A23 amp is a poor performer in comparison to A21.
the idea of merging an integrated or a preamp into a HT system is called a "hybrid system". You would just take the left/right outputs of the Marantz processor and feed them into an input on the preamp or integrated. It would essentially be a "preamp for a preamp". Some preamps and integrateds have a HT mode or input which allows the sound to go through at full level (i.e. volume control doesn't affect anything). If it doesn't have an HT input, then you would just have to set the preamp/integrated volume to a specific spot (such as 75%) whenever you do a movie.
well, the idea is to use dedicated sources (such as a DAC or a turntable) connected directly to the preamp or integrated. In this situation, the Marantz processor would be "just another source". You would use the Marantz as the master preamp when doing movies that require 5 channel audio. In this situation, the left/right outputs of the Marantz would connect to the left/right inputs of the integrated (or preamp + amp). The preamp/integrated would act as a "pass through" audio connection.
When listening to 2-channel audio, the Marantz would be completely shutdown. The Integrated would be switched to another input, such as a dedicated DAC. This would, theoretically, give you better sound quality because the goal would be to use a better preamp than what is in the Marantz. In my humble opinion, I don't think the Marantz is really that bad because they use discrete HDAM analog circuits (instead of preamps). I would also make the assumption that the preamp in the Marantz is better than the preamp in the Parasound Halo Integrated. The Parasound integrated uses the same preamp circuit as the Parasound P5, which is based on op amps. It's not bad, but there are definitely better preamps.
@auxinput -- The tweeter wasn’t really the issue or stated as being more pronounced. In this case the entire soundstage presentation appeared more right in front and visceral -- much like sitting in the first row of a performance.
@wisciman99 -- Auxinput addressed the basic connection above, but since you’re new to this I’ll add some more detail in case it’s still a little confusing. The new integrated would be hooked directly to your front L/R speakers and your highest quality stereo source would also be routed into any line input on the integrated (let’s call it the "CD" input) -- really just as if it was a standalone 2-channel setup. Now, to incorporate the HT/Marantz into the system, everything stays exactly the same as it is now on the prepro (don’t even change the channel balance levels) except the front L/R RCA preamp outs from the Marantz get routed to the "HT Bypass" input on the integrated. Believe it or not, that’s it -- you’re done. And here’s the best part --to listen to stereo choose the "CD" input on the integrated, and to watch TV/movies just hit "HT Bypass" on the integrated. That’s it. Pushing just one button completely and seamlessly switches between 2-channel and multichannel, and ONLY the integrated is in the system for stereo (the Marantz is completely out of the chain). Best of both worlds. Almost hard to believe, right? I and many others on this site have done this with great success.
As for the Hegel (and I’d definitely choose the Hegel over the Halo Integrated), it really depends on your budget. The improvements in the 190 vs. the 160 seem to be more refinements than a complete overhaul from a sonic perspective, plus some added streaming/automation features that may or may not be important to you. Right now there’s an "as new" open box 160 available from a dealer for $1790 (maybe with full warranty) that I’d find pretty hard to pass up since you can probably sell it for little or no loss if for some reason you’re not thrilled with it. (If you’re interested in this I’d move quickly as it’ll likely go fast if it’s not gone already -- again, likely very little risk with this). The 190 is $2995 here, but whether it’s worth almost 70% more for the latest and greatest is up to you. Personally, I think you’ll be very happy if not thrilled with the improvements from the 160, so I’d do that and pocket the $1200 difference.
Ahhh, the light goes on. You guys are a TON of help. So, basically, it breaks down to either the Hegel 160 or the Parasound integrated dually sourced from the DVD/CD player or HT, or, if I want to use the Marantz pre, I've looked into the Bryston 3B-SST, with a 20 year warranty and wonderful reviews, or perhaps the Anthem MCA-225 as dedicated 2 channel amps. All of these are in that $1500-$2000 range, and I REALLY wish there was a way to audition them all, :-(
Just to be clear, you’d still be using the Marantz for HT (and multichannel music) duties, it just wouldn’t be involved in critical 2-channel music duties.
Well, I’ll weigh in with my own personal experience, which is why I responded to this post in the first place. First, especially among people newer to the audio sickness, the stereo preamp is possibly the most under-appreciated component as to how much it contributes to a 2-channel system’s ultimate performance. A while back I was using my Rotel RSP-980 prepro (not a bad piece in its day either) in the same way you’re planning to possibly use your Marantz, and it worked well with my McCormack DNA-0.5 Rev A stereo amp (pretty much comparable to a Bryston 3BSST BTW). But the first time I substituted a good stereo preamp for the Rotel for 2-channel listening there was absolutely no going back. Feeding a very good stereo amp with the stereo preamp section of a $1500 prepro is most likely going to cause a significant bottleneck in your 2-channel sound. Think about it -- you just can’t economically put high-quality (or properly shielded) parts into the stereo preamp section of a $1500 prepro, not to mention that the fragile, low-level source signal is going to be routed through a noise-polluting electronic obstacle course with all the additional electronics involved in the various functions of a prepro. Believe me, I get it how nice it would be to use the prepro to do it all. Been there done that. Audiophiles who want to do that spend many thousands more on their prepros to get a truly good stereo preamp section (think Krell, Anthem, Theta, Classe, etc.). A $1500 prepro? Sorry, just doesn’t add up. Please take it from someone who’s been there. Now, if you get a good stereo amp now with the intention of adding a good stereo preamp later, that could be a very good plan as well. But it will take longer, be considerably more expensive, and add yet another box to your system. This is why I thought a good stereo integrated was such a nice fit for your particular situation. One and done on the relative cheap. OK, I’m done. That’s all I got. Best of luck in whatever you decide.
Thanks again, and in the FWIW column, I am definitely leaning toward the Hegel. If I opt not to do that, I will eventually be upgrading the Marantz, for sure. I won't say cost is no worry, but I can find a little here and there when I need it (by selling something usually, lol).
I would agree that the Parasound integrated would not be as good as the Hegel. The Parasound Integrated is nice and it's at a great cost point if you need an integrated with all those extra features (i.e. subwoofer crossover, phono preamp input, etc.), but it's not going to be as clean/clear as Hegel.
That being said, the Hegel is a very clean and articulate sounding integrated. I don't know how good of a computer system you have, but I would suggest listening to some youtube videos. Look for ones with Hegel H160 and others with Parasound A21. Though the Hegel is extremely clean and articulate, it's my opinion that it can be slightly on the sterile or artificial side (much like Bryston used to be with their SST2 and previous series).
In my own opinion and tastes, the A21 is a much more natural sounding amp, but still has the clean sound and attack/detail. However, it's a pure amp (not an integrated), so you'd have to use the Marantz full time for now. You can still add a preamp in the middle for doing preamp duties on dedicated 2-channel sources (i.e. external DAC, etc.).
It is true that an integrated or a preamp/amp will likely sound much better than the Marantz pre/pro. Even though the Marantz has discrete analog output stages, it likely uses op amps for the input stage of analog sources.
soix and I have slightly different preferences on how we would proceed in such a system. I would probably be going after the A21 amp first. He would suggest going integrated first. One thing to know here is the A21 does have a much larger power supply than the Hegel H160. With your speakers that will drop down 3 ohms in areas for the woofers, having a larger amp/power supply will help provide stronger midbass and bass body. Not that the Hegel would be bad at all, but I've found that the amp power supply does have some heft in this area.
A21 is just one amp suggestion. There are others, like you have said (Bryston, Anthem, etc.). All have their own sonic character that they bring.
Thanks, aux. As I am going to sleep on this for a few days before I pull the trigger (and maybe sell a motorcycle in the meantime) it may come down to what's available and when. Hegel, Parasound, I believe either would be a definite step in the right direction. Anybody want a very slightly used RKB-650 for their office? Wait, maybe I do ;-)
Before you sell a motorcycle to buy a new component, try a decent power conditioner. That will improve just about ANY system significantly. If you later decide to upgrade components, the power conditioner will make THEM sound better too.
IMHO, with limited $$, that should be your fist step. Personally, I like Shunyata - effective and neutral.
Update:I talked to a dealer about the pre section of the Marantz and his comment was 'Marantz has gone a long way in making their pre amp section invisible', or something like that. That, and the consideration that I must keep the whole system as user friendly as possible for my wife, I went with the Parasound Halo A21 with the remote 12v trigger. Under $2k with shipping so it feels like I got a deal at least. The Classe` CA-201 was in the running right up until the end, great reviews, awesome piece, but the remote trigger was weird. An RJ-12 plug from the looks of it. Not certain if it was a momentary switch or required a constant 12v. The Bryston 3B-SST was also in the running, but is has some odd terminal posts. (What is it with these Canadians, eh?) No offense meant, no hate mail please ;-) aalenik- It is a 'spare' motorcycle, lol. I have a decent power conditioner that I bought from a local music store that was closing it's doors. Right around $300 MSRP if I recall. Not the best, but much better than a power strip ;-)
Crap. I saw this review for the Hegel H160 from Enjoy the Music and meant to post but just didn’t get around to it. It happened to compare the H160 to the A21 so thought it would be particularly interesting for this thread. I just flat out disagree with the dealer about the preamp section of the Marantz being "invisible." At the price point they can’t possibly use better quality parts or fully shield the stereo signal from the rest of the electronic hoopla that a prepro creates. It’s shortcomings are invisible only until you compare it to a good stereo pre and then, as it did for me, the differences tend to be anything but invisible. As I mentioned before and as many of us here have learned through personal experience, it is very unwise to discount the importance a preamp plays in good 2-channel playback. Here’s part of the review:
"Pass, Naim, Roksan or Hegel all deserve excellent reputations for adding, not detracting, from the music. Every time I hear a massive or even low power Pass amplifier, I am impressed with how much more detail, texture, soundstage and tone it provides. Raw, flat and boring accuracy can wear you out. The key is adding the proper neutral balance to the notes to give them more definition, shape, texture and tone. Good amplifiers do this. The Hegel does it. The Hegel is a really good amplifier. Rated at 0.2% Total Harmonic Distortion, the Parasound Halo A21 amplifier has 400 watts RMS into a 4 Ohm load! Up against the Halo on the Focal loudspeakers, the Hegel confirmed it was a different unit with a more European sound. Spyro Gyra is a 1970s American jazz fusion band. The band’s name is a misspelling of Spirogyra, a genus of green algae, which the sax-playing leader wrote about in college. Their music combines jazz with elements of R&B, funk and pop music. The band sold over 10 million copies of more than 30 albums. On the Spanish samba "Impressions Of Madrid," the Hegel is smooth, with relaxed confidence, reminding me of Yves Bernard André’s French YBA amplifiers. There is a polite patience to the casual edge of notes. Less Spanish snappiness, but major differences between the two amplifiers are quite hard to discern. There was no readily attributable color or feel to the amplifier. Yet the Halo is a very different sounding amplifier compared to the Hegel. It is harder, sharper, brighter, thinner, and lighter, with more of the solid-state feel. The Halo has very good dimensionality, but it is missing the warm fullness of the Hegel along the entire frequency response spectrum. The Hegel has clear, high treble on horns and rattle. On Tom Scott’s "Them Changes," for example, horns on the Hegel sound organic – subtle, like tubes – yet also imminently and immediately listenable."
I thought the sonic characteristics of the Hegel were more inline with what you were looking for, which is why I was so strongly recommending it -- along with getting a better preamp in the bargain. And FWIW, even my wife -- who is a total Luddite with these things -- had no problem using the HT pass through in our system. I sincerely hope the A21 works out, but if it’s not to your liking do you have a return option? Sorry I was so late with this.
The Absolute Sound magazine awarded the Halo
A21 its "Editors' Choice" recommendation for 2012. "Though not the last
word in solid-state amplification, the A21 comes close enough to the
very best, at such an affordable price…"
"Its luxurious appearance is more than skin deep. Parasound’s A21 dispensed truly sumptuous sound," notes England's Hi-Fi News
magazine for November 2011. "Demonstrating the control and grip of the
Bryston and Anthem but with the velvety midband richness of the ATC, the
Parasound’s ability to resolve detail, while remaining composed and
easy on the ear, proved the equal of my ‘reference’ Levinson amplifier."
I am certainly not going to experience any buyer's remorse on this. Sorry, soix. I will need something with a nice warm sound for the ribbon tweeters of the ML Motion 20's. But hey, everyone has their opinion, and I have seen that they are quite varied, especially on this forum. Should I need a pre/pro upgrade in the future, well, that seems to be part of what I enjoy as well ;-) And BTW, John Curl, so,,,,,,,,,,
yes, everyone has their opinion and that review that soix copy/pasted sounds very much like a magazine review. I actually completely disagree with it, if you are using Hegel H160 as a sample. Maybe if he was using the older generation Hegels because they were smoother and softer sounding. With H160 generation, they revised the preamp section and the sound is actually quite bright and exacting. While the Parasound A21 is definitely has a good fast attack, I would not call it brighter or thinner at all!!
Like we've said, everyone has their own opinions on what an amplifier or speaker should sound like.
Again, I appreciate all the input and opinions that were/are offered. The ear is a very intangible asset, and each has their own taste and level of sonic interpretation. I only wish (again) that I had a place to audition the gear without a $500 plane ticket. Even then, the likelihood that any store will have my exact setup for an a/b comparison is highly unlikely so one is still open to the possibility of making a choice which is regrettable. As I said, tho, I am convinced that either would be a huge step forward in my music adventure. And now, I can start the search for the better pre amp or speaker, or power conditioner, or room treatment/placement, yada, yada.
"Music with the AV7005 required a bit of reading. Being a musician, I
am picky when it comes to music. I know what instruments sound like
live and the nuances in sound from within a live ensemble. With the
Audyssey EQ engaged, I didn't get that full, wide, engaging sound stage
like you do with a live performance. While the music was detailed, the
sound was a bit cold and thin. I changed every parameter that I could
find and finally, turned the EQ off. After a few manual EQ tweaks, I
heard a renewed sound quality and presentation that totally blew away
any AV receiver that I have ever owned." Home Theater Review.com Apparently, the key is not letting Audyssey take the controls. I'm so looking forward to this.
I, personally, have never had luck with any sort of automated room correction. I had Dirac room correction in a Theta processor once. I really tried to work with it, trying all sorts of different calibrations and configurations. I could never get it to sound good. It always made the audio sound weird in some way or another. Most of the time it had a weird phasing effect. I have found that a very light EQ is great and then do acoustic room treatments for the stuff you can affect. In my own system, the only EQ I do is a -9db cut on the sub frequencies under 30hz. That keeps stuff from rattling too much in my room and you actually don’t hear stuff that low anyways.
Hey aux, what can I say. The Halo is sounding awesome. The soundstage has improved in height and depth, and the bass is well controled and tight. Mids are as you would expect and the highs are good as well. I'm probably not going to use any Audessey settings, in fact, I've been listening in 'Pure Direct' for the most accurate sound. The sub has almost become redundant as well and I also set the sub level at -9db in the speaker level settings on the pre/pro. It's amazing how deep those 5.5's can go on the Motion 20's. Very happy with it all.
That is awesome! I’m glad the A21 is working out. One thing you may try is to do critical
listening with “Pure Direct” turned on and then turned off. I had a scenario with a Yamaha receiver in which
the Pure Direct mode sounded worse. It
was just too solid-state sounding and bright/harsh. I think turning Pure Direct “off” basically
routed the audio signal through another set of op amps, which further smoothed
out the sound. I’m not saying this will
work the same way in your situation – everything is dependent on components
used and system synergy, but it’s something you can try in addition to turning
off Audyssey.
Here’s another thing I have found. Digital audio that is played using HDMI cable
as the source is not as good as using a digital COAX cable. It just does not sound as good. If you have not already done this, I would
recommend you at least get a Beldon 1694A digital cable for each source
(bluray, satellite, etc.) you have that can do a digital coax output.
I have found these Beldon cables work
excellent and are better than several other cables. At $20 each for a 6 foot cable, it’s an
excellent buy. I always recommend minimum
5-6 foot digital cables to prevent short cable signal reflections. You would have to pay $120-200 to get to the
next level, such as Audioquest Cinnamon/Carbon or DH Labs D-750 cables. These more expensive cables use silver-plated
conductors which are better for digital pulse transmissions.
I have found that there are only two
scenarios which require that you send digital audio over HDMI cable:
1. Sources that require Dolby Digital Plus
(such as streaming services from Netflix / Amazon / Etc.). For some reason, you cannot send Dolby
Digital Plus over normal coax.
2. Bluray movies that use the bluray high
resolution audio formats, either DTS-MA HD or Dolby TrueHD. The only way you can play DTS-MA/TrueHD is
over HDMI.
For normal old Dolby Digital and DTS, and
even 2-channel PCM (which you would get when doing normal audio streaming from
Pandora, CDs, etc.), it just sounds better to send this over digital coax cable
instead of using HDMI for the digital audio. You would still need to use the HDMI cable for video.
Since you would potentially need both HDMI
and coax digital audio from your Samsung Bluray player, you could try doing setting
up your inputs on the Marantz like this:
[HDMI] [DIGITAL]
[COMP]
BD
HDMI1 None None
DVD
HDMI1 Coax1 None
I’m not sure if the Marantz will allow you
to use the HDMI1 input for multiple sources, but you can try it out. Then select “BD” source when playing bluray
movies that use DTS-MA or TrueHD audio.
Select “DVD” when playing anything else (movies with normal DD/DTS, CDs,
Pandora, etc.).
It's a very cheap way to potentially increase the end result sound quality.
Thanks aux. I am sorry I’ve been away, I’ve been enjoying the tunes, surprise, surprise. What are your thought in using the Optical for the sources like Pandora? I have both a TosLink and Digital Coax interconnects in a box I could pull out. I am certainly going to try your setup. I’m breaking in the new Motion 35xt’s as the mains with biwiring at the moment, but look forward to the comparison. And may I add, I would also HIGHLY recommend the Motion 35’s, even as the mains for smaller rooms. They are borderline for replacing the Motion 20’s in large room, wow! Imaging is already impressive with only a few hours out of the box but I will most likely relegate them to the surrounds, since that is why I bought them. I am firmly in the voice matching camp at this point.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
