| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system 16:43 - Aug 27 with 3592 views | hubble |
Okay good people this is one of those threads where I ask for your advice/opinions.
I want to get a decent/v. decent bluetooth soundsystem and I've been scrolling through the Richer Sounds website. The choice is bewildering. The reason I'm thinking active speakers over a soundsystem is that I want the full stero effect. So far, I really like the look of the ELAC Debut Connex DCB61s (not 41s), although they are fairly pricey at £700. I also like the look of the Triangle LN01As, which are significantly cheaper at £400.
Do you think that's a better choice than something like the Sonos Five (which isn't bluetooth, I note, but wifi - not sure how it works with a phone), which also sounds incredible from the reviews?
I guess the best idea would be to actually go to Richer Sounds and have a listen, but I'd appreciate your thoughts!
|  |
| |  |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 16:53 - Aug 27 with 2340 views | PastCaringNW2 |
I can highly recommend a pair of Ruark MR1 MK2s. Work well whether plugged in to a laptop headphone socket via a mini jack or connected to a phone (or any other device) via Bluetooth. Obviously depends on what you like but being a fan of a strong and realistic low end the Ruark scored bigger for me than the SONOS which I thought was a bit polite. Also depends on the size of the room and how much "crank" you want to be able to access.
Anyway ... review here.
https://www.whathifi.com/ruark-audio/mr1-mk2/review |  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 17:08 - Aug 27 with 2291 views | hubble |
Thanks a lot for that. I listen to a lot of classical, so I'm looking for accuracy, clarity, range and depth, but I also listen to plenty of rock, jazz and all sorts really. I don't need mega bass, but I would like proper bass definition.
Oh, and they're for a fairly large living room.
[Post edited 27 Aug 17:12]
| |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 17:59 - Aug 27 with 2194 views | PastCaringNW2 |
In which case the Ruark may well be what you are looking for but give them a road test first.
I am pretty fussy without being an audiophile and haven't yet found a genre that it doesn't compliment. Acoustic instruments and voices generally sound well rounded and natural. Can also handle either a King Tubby album or Mahler 2nd with no problem. Space wise we are using the unit in an open office that is probably 20' x 15'. | | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 18:13 - Aug 27 with 2167 views | Sonic_Hoop |
My own budget set up which performs pretty well to my ears is simply the SMSL A100 amp (Bluetooth) about £90 and a couple of 2nd hand Royd Minstrel speakers which you can probably pick up for around £250 in decent nick. |  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 18:20 - Aug 27 with 2143 views | JimmyR |
I worry with the blue tooth things they will update and stop working
I bought a sound bar for 200 quid and it’s okay, not great
So I’m going to buy and old rotel surround sound and and plug my existing power amp into it have 4 speakers and a sub
Good luck - I suspicious of anything Bluetooth/wifi that it won’t work in 5/10 yrs or sound as good because of no wires - I’m analog in a digital world |  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 18:28 - Aug 27 with 2099 views | FDC |
Yeah wired speakers will always sound better and be more reliable than Bluetooth or WiFi. If you for example listen to a lossless audio format like .wav or .flac (from say Tidal) and compare it to an .MP3 (from say Spotify) there is an audible difference in clarity and range over a decent wired speaker system, but no audible difference over a Bluetooth speaker, regardless of how good it is.
I've recently kitted out my living room with a surround system which I switch to stereo for music, although sometimes music sounds kind of cool if a bit unnatural over surround. But although wireless speakers for the back left and right would have been far more convenient i ended getting wired speakers, despite it meaning having to find a way to get them connected to the receiver at the front of the room without it ending in divorce. [Post edited 27 Aug 19:35]
|  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system. on 18:47 - Aug 27 with 2057 views | BlackCrowe |
I've got a pair of wired speakers into the kitchen and a pair into the living room. I invested (quite a lot) into the amp with a strong bluetooth range so i can play spotify from my phone or mac without having to go into the living room where the amp lives. It works really well and as said earlier, don't think there's a substitue for wired speakers.
Separately, the best travel/portable bluetooth speaker i've come across is Beoplay A1. The sound that comes out from something so compact is extraordinary really. |  |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 18:57 - Aug 27 with 2041 views | JimmyR |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 18:28 - Aug 27 by FDC |
Yeah wired speakers will always sound better and be more reliable than Bluetooth or WiFi. If you for example listen to a lossless audio format like .wav or .flac (from say Tidal) and compare it to an .MP3 (from say Spotify) there is an audible difference in clarity and range over a decent wired speaker system, but no audible difference over a Bluetooth speaker, regardless of how good it is.
I've recently kitted out my living room with a surround system which I switch to stereo for music, although sometimes music sounds kind of cool if a bit unnatural over surround. But although wireless speakers for the back left and right would have been far more convenient i ended getting wired speakers, despite it meaning having to find a way to get them connected to the receiver at the front of the room without it ending in divorce. [Post edited 27 Aug 19:35]
|
Exactly when I want to listen to music I can route it straight through the quad amp and speakers I already have that sound awesome | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 19:23 - Aug 27 with 1990 views | londonscottish |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 18:57 - Aug 27 by JimmyR |
Exactly when I want to listen to music I can route it straight through the quad amp and speakers I already have that sound awesome |
Quad. Excellent.
I've stuck with traditional amps and speakers over the years and just stuck a Google Chromecast Audio into the mix to modernise.
My main set up involves a Yamaha amp, some Monitor Audi Golds and a Tannoy sub.
The amp's the weak link and I really should stick a proper audiophile one in but, overall, it shifts a lot of air and sounds good enough for my needs. |  |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 19:49 - Aug 27 with 1940 views | NorrisGreen |
Pardon me for gegging in with little knowledge but the concept of streaming compressed/digitised music via a phone to really expensive kit seems a bit iffy?
Fair do's if the input is decent quality and any transmission via "casting" does not suppress or reduce the quality but I just wanted to sense check that the hardware end of the set-up was proportionate to the feed/input it gets. | | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 20:48 - Aug 27 with 1856 views | colinallcars |
Amazing how long high end audio lasts.
I have Cyrus amp and power supply, Wilson Benesch speakers and Linn turntable. Put together about 25-30 years back. Rocksan CD player, a mere stripling about 10 years old. |  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 21:07 - Aug 27 with 1820 views | colinallcars |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 19:49 - Aug 27 by NorrisGreen |
Pardon me for gegging in with little knowledge but the concept of streaming compressed/digitised music via a phone to really expensive kit seems a bit iffy?
Fair do's if the input is decent quality and any transmission via "casting" does not suppress or reduce the quality but I just wanted to sense check that the hardware end of the set-up was proportionate to the feed/input it gets. |
I had to look up “gegging”.
I prefer “interject”. | | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 21:46 - Aug 27 with 1754 views | thame_hoops |
I have a Marshall Wooburn 2, Bluetooth and it plugs into the mains. I think I paid about £500 4 years ago.
For the bedroom, I have the Marshall Kilburn 2, again, superb, much smaller but still packs a good punch. This one is rechargeable and doesn’t need to be plugged in. £180ish. Purchased from a stereo place in Birmingham. |  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 22:19 - Aug 27 with 1688 views | BlackCrowe |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 20:48 - Aug 27 by colinallcars |
Amazing how long high end audio lasts.
I have Cyrus amp and power supply, Wilson Benesch speakers and Linn turntable. Put together about 25-30 years back. Rocksan CD player, a mere stripling about 10 years old. |
Cyrus One amp for me, with KEF LS50s. Not the big floor standers of my younger years but they sound bliss. | |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 22:19 - Aug 27 with 1688 views | BlackCrowe |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 20:48 - Aug 27 by colinallcars |
Amazing how long high end audio lasts.
I have Cyrus amp and power supply, Wilson Benesch speakers and Linn turntable. Put together about 25-30 years back. Rocksan CD player, a mere stripling about 10 years old. |
Cyrus One amp for me, with KEF LS50s. Not the big floor standers of my younger years but they sound bliss nonetheless. | |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 05:38 - Aug 28 with 1544 views | FDC |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 19:49 - Aug 27 by NorrisGreen |
Pardon me for gegging in with little knowledge but the concept of streaming compressed/digitised music via a phone to really expensive kit seems a bit iffy?
Fair do's if the input is decent quality and any transmission via "casting" does not suppress or reduce the quality but I just wanted to sense check that the hardware end of the set-up was proportionate to the feed/input it gets. |
Yeah if you're broadcasting over Bluetooth you've lost fidelity immediately.
However Spotify Connect means you can control Spotify on your e.g. receiver if it is Connect compatible, or you can just control Spotify on your android box via Spotify Connect on your phone, no Bluetooth involved etc. Spotify is loss-y itself though since it's MP3, so if you have a high fidelity system Spotify isnt getting the best out of it.
I have a Yamaha receiver that allows control of Tidal (lossless audio) via the musiccast app on your phone. But the app is truly horrendous so I never use it, instead using the Tidal app on my android box. Less convenient because you then have to use your android box remote control to select music (or a wireless keyboard which is better but still needs you to be somewhere near your android box) but the musiccast app is laughably awkward to use.
Edit my in-laws are Scousers and the only people I've heard use "gegging, geg-head" 😁 In fact my mother in law grew up in Norris Green - a Nogger Dog as my wife sometimes says [Post edited 28 Aug 5:40]
| | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 05:52 - Aug 28 with 1526 views | FDC |
Fwiw, the set up I've settled on, that I'm quite chuffed with is:
Nvidia Shield running Stremio with Torrentio plugin for films and TV, Tidal and Spotify, IPTV for live sports etc.
That's connected to a Yamaha Receiver RX-V6A by HDMI (so no fidelity loss)
5.1 Surround Sound system with:
- Front L/R: Q Acoustics 3050 speakers
- Center: Q Acoustics 5090
- Subwoofer: Cambridge Audio X201
- Surround L/R: Polk OWM3 speakers
The Polk speakers are actually quite elevated and out of sight because having them too low down and intrusive would have been a deal breaker for my wife, and I've experimented with sending atmos / height to those channels , in a 3.2.1 configuration, but they actually sound better angled down with surround L/R sent to them in a 5.1, because more audio gets sent to those channels any way so they get better use, and they project to the sitting position quite well. The receiver has a calibration microphone that helps with this I think . [Post edited 28 Aug 6:07]
| | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 07:23 - Aug 28 with 1455 views | londonscottish |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 05:52 - Aug 28 by FDC |
Fwiw, the set up I've settled on, that I'm quite chuffed with is:
Nvidia Shield running Stremio with Torrentio plugin for films and TV, Tidal and Spotify, IPTV for live sports etc.
That's connected to a Yamaha Receiver RX-V6A by HDMI (so no fidelity loss)
5.1 Surround Sound system with:
- Front L/R: Q Acoustics 3050 speakers
- Center: Q Acoustics 5090
- Subwoofer: Cambridge Audio X201
- Surround L/R: Polk OWM3 speakers
The Polk speakers are actually quite elevated and out of sight because having them too low down and intrusive would have been a deal breaker for my wife, and I've experimented with sending atmos / height to those channels , in a 3.2.1 configuration, but they actually sound better angled down with surround L/R sent to them in a 5.1, because more audio gets sent to those channels any way so they get better use, and they project to the sitting position quite well. The receiver has a calibration microphone that helps with this I think . [Post edited 28 Aug 6:07]
|
Nice set up.
For my AV I've done something similar. I bought a s/h Yamaha Amp (RX-V3087) from AV Forums as it was from their premium range and added Monitor Audio Radius front L, R and centre speakers. They're great. I re-used some old (fairly average) Tanoys for the rear L & R and an MJ Acoustics sub.
Sounds great. | |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 08:20 - Aug 28 with 1397 views | FDC |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 07:23 - Aug 28 by londonscottish |
Nice set up.
For my AV I've done something similar. I bought a s/h Yamaha Amp (RX-V3087) from AV Forums as it was from their premium range and added Monitor Audio Radius front L, R and centre speakers. They're great. I re-used some old (fairly average) Tanoys for the rear L & R and an MJ Acoustics sub.
Sounds great. |
Nice. I've had the Q Acoustic floor speakers for years, and wanted to match them with a Q Acoustic centre channel, which i bought and then discovered is mismatched to the receiver's impedance... I spent a bit of time looking in to it and I think I'm ok if I don't push it too hard, which will hopefully be ok as I don't watch a lot of loud action movies, but we'll see!
Yeah for surround channels I don't think you need to spend much really, they don't receive a huge amount of audio, and it doesn't take much to provide the immersion you're looking for. The Polk were the best balance I could find of smallish and not too expensive, plus they're white so are fairly indiscrete which was part of the domestic negotiation. | | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 08:45 - Aug 28 with 1362 views | hubble |
Thanks for an interesting discussion gents, but I really am looking for bluetooth connectivity... not for the purists, I know, but that's what I want. So any other recommendations in this category - active speakers, or versus something like the Sonos Five - much appreciated :) | |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 09:48 - Aug 28 with 1273 views | FDC |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 08:45 - Aug 28 by hubble |
Thanks for an interesting discussion gents, but I really am looking for bluetooth connectivity... not for the purists, I know, but that's what I want. So any other recommendations in this category - active speakers, or versus something like the Sonos Five - much appreciated :) |
Apologies for derailing Hubble!
Can you just clarify what you meant in the OP by
"The reason I'm thinking active speakers over a soundsystem is that I want the full stero effect"
What do you mean by sound system here, I'm just trying get why you're making a connection between Bluetooth and stereo, whereas any two channel system will provide stereo? But I may have misunderstood! | | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 09:52 - Aug 28 with 1261 views | hubble |
Thanks FDC - what I mean is that I like the idea of having two speakers (which I will put on stands) on either side of the room. I know that systems like the Sonos Five (and many others) create a kind of soundscape that means you only need the one speaker, but not having any idea how good that is, I'm thinking the two active speaker idea might be a touch better. But maybe not. Either way, I need the system to have bluetooth connectivity and a built in amp. I don't want to go down the separates route. Hope that clarifies it! | |
| |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 10:09 - Aug 28 with 1225 views | robith |
I recommend the Edifer speakers. Cracking price range, bluetooth, and I run both my TV and my record player through them. Had them for a few years now, can't fault them, especially for the price |  | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 10:19 - Aug 28 with 1210 views | FDC |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 09:52 - Aug 28 by hubble |
Thanks FDC - what I mean is that I like the idea of having two speakers (which I will put on stands) on either side of the room. I know that systems like the Sonos Five (and many others) create a kind of soundscape that means you only need the one speaker, but not having any idea how good that is, I'm thinking the two active speaker idea might be a touch better. But maybe not. Either way, I need the system to have bluetooth connectivity and a built in amp. I don't want to go down the separates route. Hope that clarifies it! |
Ah got you. Yeah for proper stereo you definitely want two speakers.
The only experience i have with that kind of wireless set-up is Yamaha Musiccast 20 speakers (which connect over wifi to a receiver / amp if you want to connect them that way, but also have bluetooth connectivity). i tried them because they (supposedly) integrate easily via their Musiccast app to Yamaha products, and I was thinking about using them as an additional 'zone' in the garden or the kitchen or something. The set-up with the receiver ended up being a massive pain though so i returned them without giving them a proper listen, but I think they sounded pretty decent and get good reviews. They are designed to be portable so that you can use them in stereo but also carry one off somewhere else and use in mono. [Post edited 28 Aug 10:21]
| | | |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 11:07 - Aug 28 with 1135 views | JimmyR |
| Bluetooth active speakers v sound system on 08:45 - Aug 28 by hubble |
Thanks for an interesting discussion gents, but I really am looking for bluetooth connectivity... not for the purists, I know, but that's what I want. So any other recommendations in this category - active speakers, or versus something like the Sonos Five - much appreciated :) |
If I wanted this I’d buy the most expensive active KRK’s I could afford and a beringher audio interface - future proof and far more adaptable. Bit more DIY , but what your not paying for in convenience you will reap back in sound quality. I suspect that would wipe the floor with Sonos of the like but I don’t know cos I don’t own anything Sonos
I’ve got a 50quid John Lewis radio that you can Bluetooth anything into. I was really surprised how good the digital radio and even Spotify sounds wirelessly
As previously stated if you are steaming Spotify and expecting it to sound good you’ve lost before you’ve even started [Post edited 28 Aug 11:07]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
