New 6xx series setup

[sleekblackroads]

I'm a new guy moving upwards in my quest for audio setups that please my ears and my income. i'm no 'phile yet. nor am i full noob. just looking for some helpful advice.

i recently got a new setup in my car which consists of some alpine electronics (cda-9887 hu and pdx-4.150 amp) driving some focal 165k2p front components and a 10" jl w3v3 sub. this was a huge upgrade for me from my honda s2000's crappy stock system and i did a fair amount of research putting it all together. it has sparked up my interests in audio and now i've got the home theater itch..

i'd never heard much about b&w speakers until i started doing some digging around looking for the use of kevlar in home theater speakers (since i was so impressed with focal's polykevlar driver but i noticed focal doesn't seem to use them in the home audio lines) and b&w were one of the first brands that caught my eye. well now after some initial reading i'm so blown away by the endless positive reviews of pretty much anything b&w builds (the subs seem less stellar i guess) i've decided to feel out a system that could fit my needs. the 8xx and 7xx and even cm series all look great but i just cannot afford to piece together a setup using any of them so the new 6xx series is the right spot for me to look. and on paper (and in pictures) they look beautiful.

I'd like to keep costs around $5k and i want a setup that will work great with ht use as well as recreate beautiful music. so right away i have to start playing with the numbers. what i've found quickly is that the electronics will have to be the weakest link in my setup and i will not be able to implement classe or mcintosh gear here and even the likes of rotel would be very tough to involve. this is due to the fact that i would like to make use of the new dolby truehd and dts master audio.

so this leaves me looking for a japanese 'big brand' black box and the receiver i've gravitated most towards so far is the yamaha rx-v3800. it would give me 140w x 7 channels. they retail around $1600 or $1700.

now i have a big choice to make and this is where i am looking for my first pieces of imput from you guys..

5.1 or 7.1?

i have worked out my basic set of choices with the b&w 6xx line to be:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

for 7.1

htm61 for center

683 towers for front

any combo of 4 from:
2 htm61's stood upright
685 bookshelves
ds3 dipoles

asw610xp sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

for 5.1

htm61 for center

683 towers for front (bi-amped)

either:
2 htm61's stood upright or 685 bookshelves or ds3 dipoles

asw610xp sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

now it would be helpful to have some info on bi-amping because i only understand the basics of it.

the main thing i think about here is the towers. when i have 140w driving each of the components as it would be in 7.1 all the speakers except the towers are rated for 100w so they should have plenty of overhead. the towers however are rated 200w. so if they were only getting 140w and the other components in the system are getting over overpowered when the towers are underpowered is that going to make the towers sound pretty quiet when its all playing? or would there be a way to increase the volume of just those front channels independently of the rest to get them matching the volume modulation from the rest of the speakers?

this confusion leads me to an interest in bi-amping and using a 5.1 speaker setup. as far as i understand it would entail using the extra 2 surround channels to drive a part of the fronts (on the 683, which seems like a true 3 way speaker i don't know if they would split the power up having one amp drive the tweeter and fst mid and the other amp drive the alum midbass drivers or what.. i think they are only bi-ampable as opposed to tri-ampable however) so i could have a total of 280w drive the complete speaker. it seems like this would allow for enough power to keep the towers outputting loud enough to match 140w going to the other pieces. and we all know that extra power is going to help keep the sound clear as well. i don't know how the receiver works it all out but it seems that it would be smart enough to allow for the bi-amping to work well on the towers if i switch to a simple stereo mode for some music playback music.

the other part is the center channel which is rated for 150w. i have thought about using them as replacements for the 685 booksheleves or ds3 dipoles as the surround speakers to keep an fst in every part of the system but at the same time i know the surrounds won't matter as much and prob any choice will work fine for filling the rear.

so what do you guys think? the ones who actually read through that (i hope it was easy enough to follow)

thanks so much for any insight!

[PewterTA]

Okay, first thing to know... HT/Audio is much different from car audio. So *most* stuff you learn about Car Audio, throw it out the window.

5.1 or 7.1 - To be honest, you have to have a decent sized room to do 7.1 correctly. If you don't, a 5.1 setup will almost always sound better (due to reflections in the room).

You might want to also look at the Integra line of Receivers as they have also gotten a lot of quality reviews (DTR-7.8 for example). I was a Yamaha person and I went to Rotel, so for me to offer a look at Intergra, definitely don't skip out on demoing it if you can.

Even though Yamaha states 140w/ch x7... it's not really that. The power transformer in *most* receivers never equates to the true power you're getting to the speaker. I'd take a Rotel RMB-1077 (100 watts x7) any day and it will play cleaner and louder and drive your speakers better than the Yamaha. So to say something has X amount of watts is useful, but not the whole story either.

The Yamaha will drive them well (so will the Integra), so basically no matter what receiver you'd buy, you'll get enough sound to go to near ear bleeding levels. But most of the time, you will want "quality of sound" over the "quantity of sound."

I use the 600 series (S3 - 604s/602s/LCR600), so you speak to my hear with the speakers you are looking at.

I'd go for a 683 L/R, 685 Rear L/R, and the HTM61. Right there, that's all you need. They will all be Timbre matched (meaning the sound stays the same on all speakers), so you'll have a good HT experience. The 683s are decent stereo speakers so you'll definitely enjoy music listening!

Biamping... is really a mis-leading thing. You aren't truly biamping the speaker, you're passively biamping. You are still only sending Y watts to the bass drivers and Y watts to the mid/high...so are you gaining. In some respects yes, you're getting a clean/full x watts to each of the two ranges, but you aren't doing Y x 2 to the whole speaker. I found little advance in passively biamping the 604s and actually found that my sound stage expanded to the point that it didn't sound right (instruments were no longer imaged correctly on the sound stage). Now this could be due to the fact that my Rotel RMB-1095 changes the sound on the L/R vs. Rear L/R and created a weird placement within the soundstage. I can't say for sure on that. But it's better to get a better AMP, then to bi-amp two weaker amps.

[sandalsocks]

hmm, a budget of 5k. First off I say go for the 5.1 setup because that will allow you to maybe buy better front speakers which is what your whole setup will revolve around. You sound like you made great research. If you don't need hdmi, you can get a rotel 1057 (no hdmi audio pass through) for ~$1400 or get a NAD (which also match well with b&w speakers from what I've read) for even cheaper. They will be a vast improvement on any receiver you can get a major retailer as they will provide more cleaner and accurate power (wattage).

You can still get the newer HD dts and dolby audio without hdmi, thats a whole different story as tons of people are still confused about it


I'd not sure if you need 2 centers. The 683's and the center look great. Get the DS3's if you're going to do HT as they will give you a great sound envelope. If you're going to do multi-channel music bookshelves maybe better. For a sub, I've read to go with another brand. Not that b&w subs are bad but they are pricey and you don't need to match the sub with anything. I'd go for velodyne, SVS, or HSU based on reviews.

If you know you're the type of person who just wants and needs the best it maybe better to just spend your money on the best fronts (and sub if you're doing alot of HT) and electronics to power it. You can add to the system down the line.

If you go up the b&w line you can maybe use a lower b&w speaker model for the rears. Matching the rears may or may not work for you, some thing you gotta listen for yourself. Purist will scoff at the idea. I don't mind as rears are 15-20% of the sound, mostly non dialog in HT.

[Briz vegas]

Couple of additional points

1. Don't throw out everything you know from car audio. Home stuff has its fanatical followers as well, just in a different way. There is lots of new stuff to learn and plenty of info out there. Peoples knowledge varies greatly so take it all with a pinch of salt and read widely. You will discover your own truths over time - the only true knowledge comes from lots of experimentation yourself and trusting your own ears.

2. The volume of a speaker is determined by its sensitivity not its recommended amplifier power. Small variations in sensitivity and distance between speakers can be adjusted through receiver settings so don't worry about the relative volume. Sensitivity of 90db will give you 90 decibels volume from one watt of amplifier power at one metre (after that it gets complex and power requirements skyrocket - just like trying to go from 200 to 250 mph in a car the engine needs to be massively more powerful to overcome the mounting wind resistance - hey I just thought of that analogy - I think it works pretty well)

3. Some speakers are easier loads on the amplifier than others. The main thing you will find quoted is the nominal impedance (8ohm, 6ohm, 4ohm etc). Unfortunately what is rarely quoted is the minimum impedance. The 683 impedance dips fairly low so it needs an amp that can deliver not only the 100 watts or so but also alot of current. Receivers are typically poor at the current side of things which is why many folks will add a power amp down the track. This will work better than biamping as you will be adding an amp with a decent power supply, taking the load off the receiver so it can run the other 3 channels better.

I had a friend that was keen to get the 683 but he found the 685 sounded better with the modest Cambridge Audio amps he could afford. 683 with the FST presents a fairly difficult load for an amp.

4. All 100watt amplifiers are not created equal. 100 watts into 8 ohms in a Classe or krell (for example) has lots of current, low distortion and high quality components. A 100 watt receiver (with probably 3.5 times the channels for a fraction of the cost) will have many more compromises in the design. Receivers can still sound good but if that is as far as you intend going you may want to consider their limitations and look for speakers that are not too demanding

5. Although my comments are in good faith I suggest you take note of dot point one - listen to many opinions and many more systems before making a decision.

[kobestonecold]

Just save some more money until you can buy 7xx or 8xx series man. Trust me.

[jack667]

Just save some more money until you can buy 7xx or 8xx series man. Trust me.

£900 retail for 705 or £899 retail for 683 in the UK. You'd have to be barking mad to choose 705 over 683 for sound quality imo.

[Briz vegas]

oh yeah :M - says the guy who owns a pair of 705s.

Where did you get your psychiatric qualifications from - What Hifi ?

705 will very likely be superior in a number of applications. What if I love my jazz and want to run a single-ended triode amplifier for example or if I want a small speaker for my small room and my existing 50w amplifier that I love the sound of. 683 is not for everyone.

[jack667]

Sure, in your opinion. Thanks for sharing!

[sleekblackroads]

so say i just start to build the system up slowly instead of all at once and go for higher end electronics.. what would i be looking at to make a system come together nicely in the end?

say i start with a dedicated stereo amp for the front channels like a rotel rb 1080 (200w x 2) to match with the 683 fronts.. i could live with stereo for a while if the sound is going to be that much better with a higher quality amp. i would need a pre-amp tho right? would it have to be fancy and able to process 5.1 or 7.1 if i'm going to want to add more amps/speakers down the line? don't know much about how the rotel gear mates up to form a complete system.

[PewterTA]

Yes, this is the route of "Separates." Basically you will have a Pre Processor (essentially same thing as a Receiver minus the Amp section). You will then connect the Pre/Pro to an Amp (either 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 channels) depending on your specific application.

The 1080 is a very nice amp and will drive a large amount of speakers. It'll even drive the B&W 802Ds, however, it's not NEAR the best choice, but it will be able to make use of them. Also see if you can find a used RB-1090, should be roughly in the same price range with a lot more power to it.

You might want to look into the RSP-1068/69 for a surround sound Pre/Pro. Not sure if those are out of your price range or not. Note, that neither will provide decoding abilities for the new HD formats, so you'll have to find something else later down the line.

The nice thing about going the separates route is you can change any piece out that you want at any time. Yes, at points it may not "sound" the best because you have different equipment mixed together, but in the end you can get the exact sound that is pleasing to your ears.

[sleekblackroads]

as far as i can see the rb 1090 is spec'd at the same output (200w x 2) as the 1080 but it looks a lot bigger. what's the real difference here and why did they discontinue the 1090?

you say you run an rb 1095 which is also rated at 200wpc. this unit is the same list price ($2000) as the rb 1090 but adds 3 more channels. wouldn't that be a far better buy? or are the rb 1095 internals similar to the rb 1080's being somehow inferior to the 1090's 200wpc?

i'd think i wouldn't want to buy used i'd rather get new stuff with full warranty.

[Gump]

as far as i can see the rb 1090 is spec'd at the same output (200w x 2) as the 1080 but it looks a lot bigger. what's the real difference here and why did they discontinue the 1090?

you say you run an rb 1095 which is also rated at 200wpc. this unit is the same list price ($2000) as the rb 1090 but adds 3 more channels. wouldn't that be a far better buy? or are the rb 1095 internals similar to the rb 1080's being somehow inferior to the 1090's 200wpc?

i'd think i wouldn't want to buy used i'd rather get new stuff with full warranty.

I believe the Rotel RB-1090 is rated at 380wpc. Mucho' power :E . It's a fairly popular amp. A lot of people were sad to see it go away when Rotel brought out their "digital" amps.