Advice please: Q Acoustics Q7000i & Marantz SR6009

M

mr_zen256

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,608
After years of dutiful service my z5500's are slowly dying. Since there are no comparable computer speakers available I am opting to upgrade to the AV receiver / standalone speaker route.This is the set up I am considering.

Q Acoustics Q7000i

Marantz SR6009

I am looking at the Q Acoustics since they are small form factor and pack a decent punch for their size and good range. The Marantz SR6009 was the cheapest local AV receiver that has analog input connections.

I don't have a lot of experience with AV receivers and speaker systems and would just like to know if the following systems would be compatible with each other and if there are any other specifics I should consider before buying.

Thanks in advance!
 
900 pounds seems a ton to pay for some small satellite speakers. I bet if you go on ebay you could pick up a set of Klipsch Quintets or a couple of Klipsch RSX satellites for a fraction of that price that will perform 99% as well.
 
pippenainteasy said:
900 pounds seems a ton to pay for some small satellite speakers. I bet if you go on ebay you could pick up a set of Klipsch Quintets or a couple of Klipsch RSX satellites for a fraction of that price that will perform 99% as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are a bit steep in price. The small form factor is one of the main selling points for me however. I don't have a lot of desktop real estate to work with and they seem to be a solid performer for the size.

My main concern is the amp being 150w per channel and the speakers only rated at 100w.. Will that be ok as long as I don't crank em too high?
 
The 150W per channel rating is at 1% THD and in 2 channel mode only. If you want a see an example of a 150W per channel amp, look at the Yamaha RX-Z11. It's a 35kg amp :)

A 11kg Class A/B amp isn't going to be outputting 150W per channel anytime soon.

Here are the measurements for earlier models rated with the same amp from Sound & Vision Magazine:

Marantz SR6004: 73.4 watts per channel in 5-channel mode @ 0.1% THD
Marantz SR6006: 75.9 watts per channel in 5-channel mode @ 0.1% THD

Reference to Yamaha RX-Z11:

Yamaha RX-Z11: 153.2 watts per channel in 5-channel mode @ 0.1% THD

The SR6009 should be something similar, roughly a 70W x 5 amp.

I doubt you can crank these too high. Satellite speakers with 3" or so woofers will start distorting way before you blow them. They should start sounding seriously strained. As long as you are just using them in front of the computer and not using them as party speakers, it should be pretty hard to do any damage to them. Most of these speakers will also hit to ear splitting levels (90db+) with just a few watts of power. You won't strain the amp, ever, with satellite speakers.
 
Don't worry about amplifier power being too much. Not only is it overstated as pippenainteasy point out, but unless you go nuts on the volume dial it won't be a problem. Big amps have no issues outputting small sounds when asked to. More often speakers are actually blown out by having too small an amp, and pushing that amp too hard which causes a lot of distortion and that can damage speakers. Given that you are talking about having these things on a desk, presumably within arm's reach, you won't need much power. It is extremely unlikely you'll cause a problem. Goes double if you were happy with output levels of your z5500s. Those only have amps that Logitech claims are 60 watts on the speakers and computer speakers companies are notorious for overstating amplifier ratings.

Something else to note is that you don't have to use analogue inputs, if you don't want, you can have your graphics card send audio via HDMI to our receiver, that's what I do personally. That can let you look at cheaper receivers potentially.

Another option is self-powered speakers. You can't get them as small as those speakers you are looking at, but you don't have to have an external receiver sitting around since they have amps inside. Do think about where you are going to put the receiver, they aren't small. I can show you a picture with something for scale if you like.

Another potential option is to just get an amplifier, no receiver. This means controlling the volume level with your computer which isn't quite as convenient and something you need to be a little careful with as it can reset the setting, but it is simple and can save money. Emotiva has a reasonably economical 5-channel amp coming on the market next month you could look at.

Personally, I do the route of HDMI from graphics card to outboard equipment (a separate processor and amps in my case) to home theater speakers and I love it, but I also realize I'm nuts when it comes to audio and that is expensive and the equipment can take up a lot of space.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated. That's given me plenty to consider. I've heard some people mention that HDMI solutions can be problematic (forced ghost display??). What is the main benefits of going HDMI opposed to analog aside from zero electrical noise?
 
You do have to run a second display to use HDMI, since audio is transported in the hblank and vblank signals. You have three options:

1) You can pass the signal through the receiver. So long as you are using a monitor that is using HDMI and a resolution/refresh rate that the receiver likes, this works fine. It'll strip the audio and play that back and pass the video out without modification (unless you have it set to change the video).

2) You can clone your display. Again have to be running a resolution/refresh that the receiver likes. Works basically the same as the first solution, but no other issues. You never notice the 2nd display since it is just a clone.

3) Make another display in Windows for the receiver, and move it so that it is on a corner and thus you aren't likely to drag your mouse to. This is what you have to do to get it to work if you have a monitor that isn't a resolution your receiver supports, as I do. It is kinda a pain, but works fine overall.


The reasons to run HDMI are:

-- All digital connection, so no issues with ground loops or induced EMI or the like, which can be a real problem. Ground loops in particular are something I've fought with on a computer many a time.

-- More hardware options. As I'm sure you noticed a lot of receivers don't have analogue multi-channel these days, but everything has HDMI. So you get more options.

-- Ability to use the DSP on the receiver. Most receivers will only set volume and level trims on analogue inputs. However they are usually capable of a lot more, most important being delays and room correction, but only on a digital input. For me that is a major reason to use them instead of a soundcard and powered speakers.

-- No need for a soundcard. If you use speakers, you need a competent soundcard in your system because if you have something with bad DACs or crap filtering, it can hurt sound quality. With HDMI no issues, you use the graphics card.


Now I should add if you are only using 5.1 channels, not 7.1, and do not have a philosophical objection to compressed audio using Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect from a soundcard is another very valid way to do digital sound and works very well in many cases.
 
Cool, thanks Sycraft. That's some really helpful info. If I do end up going the analog route, is there any major reason to go for copper, gold or nickle plated RCA cables or is it really just over hyped marketing trash? Would it actually reduce signal noise?
 
The plating matters very little. Generally consumer stuff is gold plated since it looks pretty, doesn't tarnish, and is soft and works well for connections that are hooked up and left. Pro stuff is usually nickle and/or silver since it holds up much better when you repeatedly plug and unplug stuff. The only thing to really worry about is getting good coax cable with a good shield. It doesn't have to be large or anything, unless you are talking a long run, just proper coax cable with a good shield to keep any EMI/RFI out. Personally I tend to buy Blue Jeans Cables since they use really good cable stock and their manufacturing quality is superb, but they are pretty expensive. In general Monoprice does a fine job and if you get a faulty cable, whatever just replace it they are cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top