Help me cobble together a decent budget system

[dav305z]

I'm 22 and low on cash and knowledge, but want to make my system better. I have collected a bunch of cheap pieces of the years (Bar Mitzvah presents, scavenged, etc.), and am trying to figure out how to best combine them. I was hoping you all might be able to make sense of what I have if I list all my components. My first priority is that is it sound good with my turntable.

Here is a list of my components. Keep in mind that not all of it is currently hooked up - I have to make a choice of what to use and what to trash/sell.

Receivers:
Kenwood VR - 605

JVC RX330VB. 2 Channels. 250W. Inherited it from my dad when he got one of those HT in a box deals.

Turntables:
Marantz 6170 DD Grado Black cartridge
Technics SL-220 Belt drive (would use the same cart)
I'm basically decided hear - the Marantz is the better table. But I listed them both in hopes of sparking a DD v. belt drive argument ;) .

Pre-Amp:
Radio Shack (the $30 unit that runs via 9-volt battery)

Subwoofer:
Yamaha YST-SW45 subwoofer.


Speakers:
Marantz RG150's: Big-ss floor speakers that I also scavenged from my father's old system. They've got 12" subs, 4" liquid cooled midrange, and 3" liquid cooled tweeter. They'll hold 8 OHMs.

Bose 101's: Little speakers I got for free when the previous owner of our house didn't bother to move them. They sell for about $100 I believe. They say they handle 4 OHM's

Bose 100's: First speakers. Pretty crappy little guys. It registers bass by making a horrible plastic death rattle. The only thing I was pondering was whether they merited packing with non-hardening clay.

JBL TLX Movie surround - My first surround sound setup. Has a center box, which I currently use, and two surround speakers, which I do not. They say they handle 8 OHM's.

So, what should I use, and what is total garbage? I know ultimately I'm going to just have to start swapping things around to see what works, but I want an educated starting point. For instance, does it matter that the Bose have a 4 OHM impedance, and the other speakers 8? What does that even mean?

I'd appreciate any advice you guys have to offer.

[Mr Peabody]

If it was me, I'd use the Kenwood receiver to drive the Marantz speakers. And, I agree the Marantz is probably the better table. If you want good turntable sound keep your eye out for a good deal on a better phono stage.

[dav305z]

How about out back? Does it really even pay to have five speakers for turntable listening if three of them are inferior? If so does the 8 OHM capacity of the JBL's make them the right choice?

[Mr Peabody]

The Marantz were 8 ohms also, weren't they? I thought the JBL were in a mini system of some type. The Marantz speakers sounded like the only full size set you own. 8 or 4 shouldn't really make much difference as long as the amp can drive a 4 ohm load. Rear speakers are only good for 5.1 movie or music, unnecessary for turntable unless you had some type of good Matrix surround mode. Also, some receivers offer digital processing or effects you might find you like, things like "club", "Jazz", "Rock", "Arena" etc. You're 22, fire up those 12's and live a little :)

[blackraven]

Check the woofers on the marantz speakers for rot.

[dav305z]

They did have rot, but I fixed it with that New Edge kit. Now my only concern is whether I lined up the cones correctly.

[pixelthis]

I have both the direct drive technics and belt, the direct is the one I am using now,
but cant tell much diff.
And the yamaha yst is one of those tall narrow subs right?
Used to have one, they are a very good sub, a hi-fi secret,
cheap and works quite well.
Whether or not the Kenwood is any good is based on how old it is, some of their
older stuff is quite good but they have gone down in quality teh last few years, its certainly better than the JVC, which is the joke of the industry.
AND even tho I hate Bose with a passion they might make decent rear channel speakers, the Marantz I have no experience with but, hey, they are marantz:1:

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]I have both the direct drive technics and belt, the direct is the one I am using now,
but cant tell much diff.
And the yamaha yst is one of those tall narrow subs right?
Used to have one, they are a very good sub, a hi-fi secret,
cheap and works quite well.

Whether or not the Kenwood is any good is based on how old it is, some of their
older stuff is quite good but they have gone down in quality teh last few years, its certainly better than the JVC, which is the joke of the industry:1:[/QUOTE

Yeah, it's almost like you can't even see Kenwood on the shelf anymore.

[dav305z]

Hmm. So just to start with a simple baseline, I hooked up the JVC to the Marantz speakers. I don't have my Marantz table here, because that's in college (with my Kenwood and Bose speakers), so I just hooked up an iPod, since I listen to that quite a bit on my Kenwood/Bose setup.

The Marantz/JVC is definitely a superior system. It's not even close. The bass is MUCH better than what I'd been getting from the small speakers and subwoofer. It's a bit muddy sounding, but I'm hoping the well-isolated turntable will fix some of that (I was just playing low-quality songs from an iPod). I'm starting to think that the other speakers will limit, rather than complement my setup.

So now I'm trying to weigh the difference between the Kenwood and JVC. The main difference between them, if I go with a two speaker setup, is that I'd need to use the seperate pre-amp on the Kenwood. Are integrated phono stages typically better than a low-end pre-amp?

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]I have both the direct drive technics and belt, the direct is the one I am using now,
but cant tell much diff.
And the yamaha yst is one of those tall narrow subs right?
Used to have one, they are a very good sub, a hi-fi secret,
cheap and works quite well.

Whether or not the Kenwood is any good is based on how old it is, some of their
older stuff is quite good but they have gone down in quality teh last few years, its certainly better than the JVC, which is the joke of the industry:1:[/QUOTE

Yeah, it's almost like you can't even see Kenwood on the shelf anymore.


THEY MIGHT not be on the shelf anymore, last I heard they came out with a line of upscale receivers, trying to get their street cred back.
But I havent seen "hide nor hair" of them for awhile:1:

[pixelthis]

Hmm. So just to start with a simple baseline, I hooked up the JVC to the Marantz speakers. I don't have my Marantz table here, because that's in college (with my Kenwood and Bose speakers), so I just hooked up an iPod, since I listen to that quite a bit on my Kenwood/Bose setup.

The Marantz/JVC is definitely a superior system. It's not even close. The bass is MUCH better than what I'd been getting from the small speakers and subwoofer. It's a bit muddy sounding, but I'm hoping the well-isolated turntable will fix some of that (I was just playing low-quality songs from an iPod). I'm starting to think that the other speakers will limit, rather than complement my setup.

So now I'm trying to weigh the difference between the Kenwood and JVC. The main difference between them, if I go with a two speaker setup, is that I'd need to use the seperate pre-amp on the Kenwood. Are integrated phono stages typically better than a low-end pre-amp?

You're comparing apples to oranges, a "phono stage" and a low end pre amp are two different things.
A phono stage used to be a requirement but more and more are leaving them out of their receivers, but both of your receivers are old enough to have them.
They only work with turntables, and are a requirement for me, because if you save
a few bucks by getting rid of the phono stage you cant be serious about sound q.
THOSE Marantze seem quite large, be sure your receiver can handle them, if not you might damage them with clipping:1:

[f0rge]

Hmm. So just to start with a simple baseline, I hooked up the JVC to the Marantz speakers. I don't have my Marantz table here, because that's in college (with my Kenwood and Bose speakers), so I just hooked up an iPod, since I listen to that quite a bit on my Kenwood/Bose setup.

The Marantz/JVC is definitely a superior system. It's not even close. The bass is MUCH better than what I'd been getting from the small speakers and subwoofer. It's a bit muddy sounding, but I'm hoping the well-isolated turntable will fix some of that (I was just playing low-quality songs from an iPod). I'm starting to think that the other speakers will limit, rather than complement my setup.

So now I'm trying to weigh the difference between the Kenwood and JVC. The main difference between them, if I go with a two speaker setup, is that I'd need to use the seperate pre-amp on the Kenwood. Are integrated phono stages typically better than a low-end pre-amp?

i would go with the JVC, i used to have an older kenwood (i think the 405) and it wasnt very good, some some reason it had an internal crossover than limited bass going to the mains and you couldnt change it, so you basically needed a sub and it neutered my big woofered speakers.

i wouldnt worry about 5.1 or surround sound right now, you dont need it. you should always start with a good 2 channel system, then build up from there to 5.1. anything can make 5.1 movies sound good (home theater in a box is a perfect example) but finding a system that can play music well is entirely more difficult.

[Mr Peabody]

It's hard to say which phono stage would be better, the Radio Shack vs mass market internal is a toss up, you'd just have to try them. Some high end manufacturers make a good internal phono stage but generally your better ones are external.

You always have to be careful not to clip but typically vintage speakers are higher sensitivity than today's speakers, so shouldn't present a problem for your receivers.

I feel the Kenwood will have more bottom end and drive over the JVC but if the 605 has that crossover deal then all bets are off.