Looking for simple 2 channel home stereo receiver
- Thread starter TGates
- Start date
imported_Griz
New member
It should just be doing the exact same thing as if you're using the briding plate and one set of wires. Bi-amping is a different story - in which case you might want to seek as an option when upgrading.
the other pc
New member
Might exist, but I don’t remember any.BlackSunshine said:
“Back in the day� it was normal to sandwich a line-level crossover between the preamp and amps. That’s still the way it’s usually done for pro audio but for consumers it’s almost always included in a receiver or sound processor these days.
Does your current unit have preamp outputs? If it does try listening for the hiss with headphones. If the hiss is there through the speakers but not headphones it’s probably in the power amp stage and you may be able to lose it while getting the oomph you need by just adding and external power amp (assuming you do have pre outs).
Amp power, like engine power in a car, is only one of many physical characteristics. It’s related to sound quantity but has little to do with sound quality (unless you’re operating beyond the machine’s normal output range, in what electronics types call “clipping� or “overload�).BoxsterCharlie said:
Just as the performance of a car is related to the car’s weight, chassis design, suspension, tires, transmission, differential, etc, etc and, yes, engine power, the performance of an amplifier is related to many factors, some of which are only poorly understood (or not understood at all) and very, very few of which are listed in spec sheets.
Also, just as cars work differently on a drag strip, verses a road course, verses a high banked oval, amplifiers will work differently with different speakers. A speaker’s nominal load impedance (8 Ohms, 4 Ohms or whatever) is also only a single number approximation to a very complex behavior, just as “10 miles of driving fast� is different on the banks of Daytona than on the flats at Bonneville or the curves of LeMans.
:har:Tasty said:
I was at the Consumer Electronics Show many years ago and the guys from Rotel had stacked a whole bunch of cans of Ro*Tel around their demo room. Coming from England they had never seen it before and got a big kick out of finding it.
They offered to gives us some cans (they couldn’t carry too many back to the UK) but we didn’t want to lug them around the convention center for the next few hours.
PC.
BlackSunshine said:
A 2.1 receiver... can't say as I've seen one of those. Would be an interesting find- but I don't think anything was ever recorded in 2.1 with a separate LFE channel.
Does your sub have in internal/adjustable crossover or low-pass filter? If so, I'd think any ole pre-out would suffice (for music) & there has always been stuff made with pre-outs. My roommate in college had a 70s vintage Sansui receiver with a pre-out.
If no crossover or low-pass filter, you could always go with an active crossover.
If you're looking for something more recent, check out a Technics SA-AX7. It came out in '99 I think & was packaged with a SH-AC500 (I think) digital processor for dolby digital & DTS signals. The receiver was actually quite interesting, as it had bi-wire capability for the main channels & active/passive sub-outs. Power is 5x100. It's neither high-end nor bargain basement, but it IS somewhat unique. Check out that certain auction site & you may stumble across one.
There are tradeoffs to be made. Need to decide what you want your sub to do- 2 channel bass augmentation, or 5.1 channel LFE. I have one of the above Technics SA-AX7 on my system in the living room, & have a 1000 watt Infinity 15" sub supplying LFE for the digital processor on the theater system, but that channel does not function when in stereo mode- so the sub is worthless for music because it's run through the digital processor.
You can really get carried away in the details. When I bought my current set of mains for the 2 channel system, the previous owner had lost the jumpers & had them bi-wired. His wiring job wasn't the greatest, so I went ahead & bi-amped the system- using one amp to drive the R&L ribbons & one amp to drive the R&L bass panels. They're very power hungry anways, so the extra juice (4 x 500) made driving them a little easier. Kinda fun to crank it up & watch the lights in the house start flickering.
But whatever... you can configure it any way you want depending on your needs. There's a veritable cornucopia of gizmos & gadgets that'll get you where you want to go!
Happy Hunting...
Slick61 said:
It's funny you mention the Technics receiver... I have an older Technics receiver that isn't even Dolby Digital or DTS, just Pro Logic, that has a knob on the front for adjusting the gain and/or filter for the sub, I don't remember for sure which. I really liked that feature, but my current Yamaha does the same thing digitally, without a knob. I may have to get it out and play around with it a bit. My sub doesn't have a filter or crossover. It's just got one jack to plug in a sub cable, a volume knob, and a phase knob. That's it. Nice and simple, which is why I liked it so much. I don't remember the model name of the receiver, but it had two blue lights running across the front, horizontally, behind the dark smoked plastic flip down cover that covered the controls for bass, treble, balance, etc. The only problem there is I don't think it will play 6 ohm, whereas my Yamaha will... and my speakers are rated at 6 ohm nominal impedance.
I guess 2.1 wouldn't techically be what I want, since like you said, there weren't any discs recorded in a 2.1 format.... it would be GREAT if there were. I don't exactly know how the receiver sends the signal and what signals it sends to the sub, since there is no crossover or filter, etc. I can adjust for main speaker size, and direct the bass to the main speakers only, the SW, or both, and then I have a level adjustment from -20 to 0 dB for the sub through the receiver. Depending on my mood, I either run the settings at main speakers LARGE and bass out MAIN ONLY or main speakers SMALL and bass out SW only, set at -5, because I find if I run the bass through both, I actually lose some quality possibly because of cancellation issues with my sub and speakers so close in proximity.
I'd actually like to have a little more control over my sub through my receiver, as in a crossover, since there isn't one on my sub, soI can adjust it to pick up on some higher frequency sounds from, for example, the deeper toms on a trapset.
Maybe what I REALLY need is just a badass set of mains that can produce subwoofer level bass within themselves, since I don't actually need a sub for LFE in DD/DTS recordings...... hmmm.... If there is such a speaker, I haven't heard it yet. The B&W's I auditioned sent shivers down my spine with their highs, but they lacked on bass... same with the Wilson Audio speakers I heard. Victoria's I believe they were? The Klipsch RF-7s were nice, but again, lacking in real thumpy bass... same with the KEF's. My Monitor Audio's are the closest I have heard to fulfulling my bass craving in 2 channel in all honesty, although I'm SURE there are other speakers out there that can blow them out of the water... I just haven't heard them yet.
I really just want the best receiver for my speakers, that has plenty of power, and that will allow me to connect my sub for 2 channel augmentation with the help of the sub. No LFE necessary as I literally only have two speakers connected, and the sub. I've got the HT in a box downstairs for occasional movie duty.
the other pc
New member
2.1 would be the correct nomenclature for what you're talking about.
2.1 would only be an amplifier/speaker configuration, not a recording format, just like 5.1 (which doesn't have a recorded ".1" channel either). Whether stereo or multichannel surround there's no point recording a separate subwoofer channel since all the low frequency information is captured in the main recording channels.
The ".1" is a "derived" signal that's extracted from the recorded channels and brought out as a convenience because it's common practice (but not mandatory) to have a separate subwoofer. It would be entirely unnecessary if it were common for main channel speakers to have sufficient low frequency extension.
I believe most surround sound receivers, preamps and processors can be configured as 2.1 so that's the most straightforward approach. That old Pro-Logic Technics of yours might just have it.
You could buy an active crossover but it would probably eat up too much of your budget even before buying the necessary amps.
Before hifi became a mass production industry it was common for enthusiasts to build their own gear when they couldn't find (or afford) what they wanted. The realities of mass production have made that quite uncommon today as most things people want are available and it's generally (much) cheaper to buy gear than to build it. There are still some projects that are practical for the soldering iron enabled and I would consider an active crossover one of them. Somebody who's electronically inclined can probably build a nice active crossover for somewhere between $50 and $150 (depending on how many parts are purchased vs. scrounged). Marchand Electronics for example, sells parts and kits ranging from $10 for just the bare circuit board to several hundred for a fully assembled and tested units.
PC.
2.1 would only be an amplifier/speaker configuration, not a recording format, just like 5.1 (which doesn't have a recorded ".1" channel either). Whether stereo or multichannel surround there's no point recording a separate subwoofer channel since all the low frequency information is captured in the main recording channels.
The ".1" is a "derived" signal that's extracted from the recorded channels and brought out as a convenience because it's common practice (but not mandatory) to have a separate subwoofer. It would be entirely unnecessary if it were common for main channel speakers to have sufficient low frequency extension.
I believe most surround sound receivers, preamps and processors can be configured as 2.1 so that's the most straightforward approach. That old Pro-Logic Technics of yours might just have it.
You could buy an active crossover but it would probably eat up too much of your budget even before buying the necessary amps.
Before hifi became a mass production industry it was common for enthusiasts to build their own gear when they couldn't find (or afford) what they wanted. The realities of mass production have made that quite uncommon today as most things people want are available and it's generally (much) cheaper to buy gear than to build it. There are still some projects that are practical for the soldering iron enabled and I would consider an active crossover one of them. Somebody who's electronically inclined can probably build a nice active crossover for somewhere between $50 and $150 (depending on how many parts are purchased vs. scrounged). Marchand Electronics for example, sells parts and kits ranging from $10 for just the bare circuit board to several hundred for a fully assembled and tested units.
PC.
Late 70's is where it was at:
I had a sansui G-22000 for a while. It will drive anything. They also made a G-33000
Sansui G-8000 would get it done for you I bet.
Pioneer Sx-1280 a friend still has his that he bought a few years ago.
Also do a search for a Pioneer SX-1980. It was pioneers big boy.
I had a sansui G-22000 for a while. It will drive anything. They also made a G-33000
Sansui G-8000 would get it done for you I bet.
Pioneer Sx-1280 a friend still has his that he bought a few years ago.
Also do a search for a Pioneer SX-1980. It was pioneers big boy.
SpoiledMan
New member
BlackSunshine said:
I don't know if they're still made but if you can find some Cerwin Vega AT15 cabinets that may need a woofer replacement they will challenge speakers costing much more for bass shaking. I used to DJ parties with them.