I Want Better Sound...

[frenchmon]

I too have the Marantz sr 5500 and I think its a great reciever. I don't know what you mean by wanting better stereo sound in music.

If you are listening to music from a DVD or CD player you should use the digital inputs on the receiver seeing that DVD's and CD's are digital.

You should not worry about bi-amping your sr 5500. What I would do if I were you is to bi-wire my speakers.

You have more that enough power to drive 8ohm speaks...How effecient are ytour speakers

[L.J.]

I upgraded my entire system piece by piece throughout the year. My biggest difference in sound came from upgrading my speakers. HUGE difference. You can try repositioning your current speakers to acheive better sound. Experiment.

[markw]

My biggest difference in sound came from upgrading my speakers. HUGE difference. You can try repositioning your current speakers to acheive better sound. Experiment.

Ones choice of speakers and their positioning in ones environment have the most affect on the quality of sound of a system produces. Speaker wise, It doesn't take too much to acheive a satisfying HT experience. Heck, you can add a sub to any system.

But music takes a little more. As I've always said, I hear many people compilaining that they like their HT on movies but don't like the way it does music. I can't ever recall hearing anyone say they like the way their system does music but not HT.

The speakers impedance and power handling have virtually no arffect on the sound. Likewise, which input type you use is moot here. And, you can have the bestest, most powerful amp in the world and quad amp it, but it still funnels through the eweakest link in the chain, the speakers the room. Those last two are ones biggest limitation.

If music has any part in one's plan for a system, I strongly suggest the decision on equipment be made using music as the sample source, not HT.

Then again, maybe he could try a yamaha receiver. (inside joke )

[accastil]

Ones choice of speakers and their positioning in ones environment have the most affect on the quality of sound of a system produces. Speaker wise, It doesn't take too much to acheive a satisfying HT experience. Heck, you can add a sub to any system.

But music takes a little more. As I've always said, I hear many people compilaining that they like their HT on movies but don't like the way it does music. I can't ever recall hearing anyone say they like the way their system does music but not HT.

The speakers impedance and power handling have virtually no arffect on the sound. Likewise, which input type you use is moot here. And, you can have the bestest, most powerful amp in the world and quad amp it, but it still funnels through the eweakest link in the chain, the speakers the room. Those last two are ones biggest limitation.

If music has any part in one's plan for a system, I strongly suggest the decision on equipment be made using music as the sample source, not HT.

Then again, maybe he could try a yamaha receiver. (inside joke )

gosh, i just came from using a yamaha receiver and the reason why i replaced them is because it sounds pathetic in stereo music listening especially tracks requiring punching bass..never again will i buy yamaha products.

[GMichael]

gosh, i just came from using a yamaha receiver and the reason why i replaced them is because it sounds pathetic in stereo music listening especially tracks requiring punching bass..never again will i buy yamaha products.

HAHAHAH,

Accastil,

Your receiver is fine. It should do a good job. I have never heard your speakers so I just can't say if they are weak or not. But I think your best bet is to try moving your speakers around to find their best placement.
Has your system been calibrated?
Do you have a powered sub?

[accastil]

I too have the Marantz sr 5500 and I think its a great reciever. I don't know what you mean by wanting better stereo sound in music.

If you are listening to music from a DVD or CD player you should use the digital inputs on the receiver seeing that DVD's and CD's are digital.

You should not worry about bi-amping your sr 5500. What I would do if I were you is to bi-wire my speakers.

You have more that enough power to drive 8ohm speaks...How effecient are ytour speakers

i know it sounds fantastic already..i just want it better..all my speakers are already bi-wired. they are MS THX declaration series.

[accastil]

I too have the Marantz sr 5500 and I think its a great reciever. I don't know what you mean by wanting better stereo sound in music.

If you are listening to music from a DVD or CD player you should use the digital inputs on the receiver seeing that DVD's and CD's are digital.

You should not worry about bi-amping your sr 5500. What I would do if I were you is to bi-wire my speakers.

You have more that enough power to drive 8ohm speaks...How effecient are ytour speakers

i know it sounds fantastic already..i just want it better..all my speakers are already bi-wired. they are MS THX declaration series.

[accastil]

I too have the Marantz sr 5500 and I think its a great reciever. I don't know what you mean by wanting better stereo sound in music.

If you are listening to music from a DVD or CD player you should use the digital inputs on the receiver seeing that DVD's and CD's are digital.

You should not worry about bi-amping your sr 5500. What I would do if I were you is to bi-wire my speakers.

You have more that enough power to drive 8ohm speaks...How effecient are ytour speakers

hi frenchmon..after reading mixed opinions in this thread, i finally did what i wanted to do in the first place. i bought a rotel 70wpc stereo power amp to boos my front speakers and you know what? they did magic...try it..youre gonna love it

[frenchmon]

hi frenchmon..after reading mixed opinions in this thread, i finally did what i wanted to do in the first place. i bought a rotel 70wpc stereo power amp to boos my front speakers and you know what? they did magic...try it..youre gonna love it

Hi Accastil...Glad you did what you wanted to do. You beat me to the punch, I have not gotten me an external amp as of yet. I see you got the Rotel. I hear they are good amps. I did listen to a Marantz paired with a Rotel amp at 125 watts per channel last week. Tell me something. IF the Marantz is 90 watts and the Rotel is 70 watts, what does the Rotel do at 70 watts that the Marantz at 90 watts can not do.

[2bluechris]

Well , you've bought a better power amp with the Rotel RB-03 than the Behringers ..{in your other post / query} and its probably a better amp than those Marantz use in the Receiver - indeed it seems so as you notice the improvement ! Now you have a component that is worth keeping , if you decide something more is lacking in your system . Still hear a better CD player one day , best wishes , Chris . [INDENT] P.S. Frenchmon - thete is very little audible difference between 70 watts and 90 watts , but a lot of audible difference between some types of power amplifier circuits , and / or , how well the designs are implemented .

[accastil]

Well , you've bought a better power amp with the Rotel RB-03 than the Behringers ..{in your other post / query} and its probably a better amp than those Marantz use in the Receiver - indeed it seems so as you notice the improvement ! Now you have a component that is worth keeping , if you decide something more is lacking in your system . Still hear a better CD player one day , best wishes , Chris . [INDENT] P.S. Frenchmon - thete is very little audible difference between 70 watts and 90 watts , but a lot of audible difference between some types of power amplifier circuits , and / or , how well the designs are implemented .

hi bluechris, yes, i believe a better CD player would make things even better than as it is already today. do you have any suggested CD player in mind? would a good CD player be better in music reproduction than good universal players? or do you suggest that i must have separate players for music and movies? right now i am using a pioneer 655 universal DVD player...

[2bluechris]

I listed the CD players that I think are good value in the low to mid price ranges in my post above :- 12-24-2005 , 12:18 AM ------------ #110 . I recommend you take your Pioneer to the shop and compare it through the same amp and speakers with some of those CD players . Use the most challanging music CDs that you have - ones that you think are critical to reproduce well . As you have written you understand about design and parts , etc ... for Receivers versus dedicated Amplifiers , apply the same thinking to Universal players versus dedicated separates . Most people trust their eyes more than their ears , and Manufacturers know this , thus for lower priced Universal players most of the design and components budget is spent on the picture quality ; next is spent on "new technology" such as any included DVD-A or SACD , and least is spent on "old technology" CD audio . Denon ; Marantz : Pioneer : Sony : Teac , and some others , can make good Universals with good CD audio if they want to , but any such will be very expensive - for both the extra parts ; design ; assembley costs , and that only a small number of these will sell , because most people do not care , or know about such as better for CD audio . seriously , Chris . .................................................. ..................... P.S. :- as well as the Marantz's and NAD CD players I have heard and recommend in #110 above , listen also to the Rotel RCD-02 . I compared it to the NAD 542 and heard both got equal detail from my CDs and both played equally well in terms of rhythm and timing , but each had a different "timbre" {presentation of tone of instruments and voices} - both were equally good , but simply "different" in that aspect . The Marantz 6000oseLE version got more detail off the CDs than the NAD and Rotel , and replayed the lowest pitched bass notes with less of their "fundamental" filtered off than occurred with the NAD and Rotel-02 . You have wide-bandwidth speakers , so you may wish to consider these aspects , so chose your test CDs carefully and compare all the CD players through the best quality amp and speakers that the shop will allow you . If you can afford one , listen also to the more expensive Rotel RCD-1072 . I have not heard it , but some Rotel enthusiasts say it is better than the RCD-02 , and it should be at its price !

[accastil]

i can see that these dedicated CD players have better designs and performance to music as compared to universal players. now i am thinking if its worth the cost...is it gonna be that much difference? well of course ill be considering to buy one in the future but i guess not know..thanks a lot bluechris!

[accastil]

Hi Accastil...Glad you did what you wanted to do. You beat me to the punch, I have not gotten me an external amp as of yet. I see you got the Rotel. I hear they are good amps. I did listen to a Marantz paired with a Rotel amp at 125 watts per channel last week. Tell me something. IF the Marantz is 90 watts and the Rotel is 70 watts, what does the Rotel do at 70 watts that the Marantz at 90 watts can not do.

hi frenchmon, the 70wpc rotel sounds a lot like 100Wpc or more. i believe this is due to better amplifier design and component parts quality as those found in receivers. receivers are like everything else put in one box as compared to a dedicated amplifier doing nothing else but its sole purpose of amplification. not only will your system get louder, but the main selling point of improvement that youll be noticing is the big change in sonic reproduction quality. its gonna be more detailed, more balanced, and the bass a lot tighter.