Monitor 70s in small apartment, Overkill?

somenumbers

Right now my setup consists of:

Harman Kardon 2600(65wattsx7)
Monitor 40s as fronts
CS1 center
PSW 101
Sony satellites as surround

I only have one speaker setup so I'm looking for a 50/50 music/HT setup. I'm much more concerned about quality on the music side of things. I know the 70s will overpower the CS1 but I listen to music with center and surround turned off. As the 2600 doesn't have pre-outs I'm looking for a setup that will "round out" this receiver and one day end up as a pure home theater setup (CS2, 40s as rears, projector, etc). But until I have the space to have a separate music only setup this is my only possibility.

So my questions:
Will the 2600 give the M70s enough power if it is only pushing those two speakers, or would a cheaper M60 give me the same sound quality for music?

Do I even bother upgrading? The M40s do sound great. How much of a sound upgrade am I looking at by simply adding the M70s?

Is it worth the money to consider upgrading from the Monitor line to something like the RTiA7? I wont be purchasing a receiver any time soon so I don't want to waste much potential of higher end speakers.

Thanks in advance if anyone has experience with a similar setup.

bklynNupe

Welcome to the forum somenumbers!
A friend of decided to order the monitor 70's after hearing my Rtia9's. His place is a modern condo with open kitchen and living room on one floor. It has a large loft feel. The M70’s are pretty powerful with a great full sound. You might want to consider a avr with pre-out so you can add an amp in the future. It’s not about loud volumes but rather the external amp will help to provide more detail as lower volumes than simply your current avr. Currently my friend is using a Pioneer sc 35 with the M70’s and they sound fantastic. The Rtia9's and Rti12 are also highly regarded for towers. If space is a concern, you might want to consider a bookshelf like the Rtia3's along with a psw 505 sub or any of the polk Micropro's. You can get great deals on most of this stuff through polk's ebay site an perhaps newegg.

hochpt21

I was running Monitor 50's off an HK avr 240 (50w x7) and then switched in some Monitor 70's. I was MUCH happier for music with the 50's in that set up.

If you are not looking to change your reciever, and want to stay in the Monitor line. I would recommend the 50's or another pair of 40's.

IMO of course.

somenumbers

hochpt21 wrote: »

I was running Monitor 50's off an HK avr 240 (50w x7) and then switched in some Monitor 70's. I was MUCH happier for music with the 50's in that set up.

If you are not looking to change your reciever, and want to stay in the Monitor line. I would recommend the 50's or another pair of 40's.

IMO of course.

So you actually preferred the 50s to the 70s with that receiver? From what i understand the 50s sound almost identical to 40s on a stand, correct? My wallet thanks you.

So this is what I was afraid of, I'm looking for that balance between not getting the most out of my speakers (with 70s) and not getting the most out of my AVR (with current 40's). I know pre-outs would make this setup more versatile, but without upgrading my AVR are the 70s (or even 60s) going to sound significantly better than my 40s?

The 40s are currently sitting on stands that make them about the same size as the M70 so size isn't a concern there, however moving them in the future is. Size is limited where I have my surrounds placed, at least until I move I doubt I could even make room for a pair of M30's back there.

I guess I'm trying to squash the upgrade bug and just feel that I have "rounded-out" this 5.1 system. Like I said in the first post I look at 5.1 as a great added feature to what I mostly use for stereo music. I'd like to have the pieces to "complete" this HT system and then start a new 2 channel system for my vinyl and lossless digital music in the future but I would want to do this right and don't have the money to do this currently.

If I can find a pair of 70s or 60s used it certainly would sound better than my 40s even if they aren't amped as well as they could be, right?

Thanks for the advice and keep it coming!

hochpt21

I preferred the 50's, that doesn't mean that you would. I listen to a fair amount of deatiled (vocal, acoustic etc) music and when I put the 70's in the system, I lost a lot of that detail. I remember being super pumped about swapping in the 70's, and then very dissapointed with the very first song.

If your listening tastes differ, the 70's may work better as they do supply a "fuller" sound, but I wasn't willing to give up the detail. I kept the 70's in the system and upgraded to a stereo receiver and then added an amp. Once they had better power, they were a much 'better' speaker than the 50's.

michael1947

Welcome. I feel you're pretty well rounded out right now. If you want to double or triple your investment and irritate your neighbors then change it out. I still use a pair of Monitor 40's and like them a lot. The Monitors will hold right in there with many other speakers twice their price. At low to mid volumes the M40's will handle music and theater quite well and as far as your little Sony's I have no experience so no comment other than to say that I feel in a smaller system like yours just about any speaker will work in surround duty. As far as a recommendation for sound quality consider up-graded cables. Speaker cables and interconnects and HDMI of better than "normal" quality will make a difference. The starting place here would be: http://bluejeanscables.com There is a wealth of information on their site and if you mention you are a club Polk member you will get a discount. After blue jeans you can go to the very bottom of your wallet, credit cards and check book as I have seen speaker cables costing $36,000.00. Another lower cost area is room treatments. You can buy them or make them from stuff from Home DEpot...and no discount. Start exploring the room treatments here:p:http://www.enjoythemusic.com/diy/1109/room_treatments.htm Best wishes and report back from time to time.

michael1947

I forgot to mention: Give your system time to "burn in" as it will take at least 100 hours to reach full potential of your new stuff and that goes for new speaker cables and interconnects when you get them also. regards, michael.

somenumbers

Thanks for the advice. I'm new to the forum but not to Polk, these 40s have been playing music about 4 hours a day for the past 2 years so burn-in shouldn't be an issue, but I'm waiting for the CS1 to catch up. I have RCA 16 gauge wire all around, I've spent a lot of time lurking here as well as other boards so I'm pretty familiar with the easy upgrades I can make.

somenumbers

So it seems most are saying the 70s will be underpowered and I don't want to lose detail in my music, I listen to anything from folk to rap to indie rock in 3 albums, but I want the sound to be as accurate as I can afford.

I think ill stick with my set up for now and eventually add a pair of 60, and a new TV/projector (whole other ballgame).

RamZet

Never!
Monitor70s are some fun speakers and cant be beat for the price.
I say buy them.

Mystery

I have SDA-2B, JBL L100T, Boston A400 in a 11 x 13 living room so never overkill. :cheesygrin:

Geoff4rfc

Overkill is highly underrated and does not exist in my vocabulary in the form of admission.

When I first purchased my Monitor 70's, I ran a 7.2 system consisting of; M70's, M40's, M30's, a CS2, 807 AVR, XPA-3 amp, two crappy subs all in a bedroom set up. So please, never ask me if something is overkill

P.S. I was newly married and my wife never DID cut my sack

scoyne88

I have Monitor 70's, CS2 Center, RM8 Surrounds and a PSW10 Subwoofer hooked up to a ONKYO TX-sr608 in my 600sq ft apartment, and I could not be happier. The only downside is the 70's are pretty big when compared to the size of my place, as far as the audio goes I have never felt "over powered".

zingo

With speakers like the Monitor 70s, the larger speakers should just buy you a little better dynamics and less compression for the same volume. Assuming you won't be playing them super loud, they should fill your place with the same volume of music as the small speakers, but with less effort, thus possibly sounding better. Large speakers do need to be a considering with small rooms, but certain designs of speakers need more room to breath over others, and the Polk's should be fine.

vinyladdict

RamZet wrote: »

Never!
Monitor70s are some fun speakers and cant be beat for the price.
I say buy them.

I agree , I just got my Monitor 75T's today and they sound awsome! I am only running a 50 W stereo Onkyo receiver with a equalizer behind it and at a little over 1/4 volume the paint is starting to come off the walls. They are made to work with as little as 20 watts though I wouldn't ever go that low. Wonderful speakers with unbridled clarity and for music no sub is needed . These things are tall though so take that into consideration .

cnh

scoyne88 wrote: »

I have Monitor 70's, CS2 Center, RM8 Surrounds and a PSW10 Subwoofer hooked up to a ONKYO TX-sr608 in my 600sq ft apartment, and I could not be happier. The only downside is the 70's are pretty big when compared to the size of my place, as far as the audio goes I have never felt "over powered".

The 608 can power those but even my much larger Onkyo 805 barely does the M-70s justice and it can put out a lot more than 130 watts per channel in two channel stereo. Just saying. Stick a power amp on those and "watch out"!

cnh

hochpt21

I think the 70's are a great speaker, but I was looking at the OP's whole situation. Small apt, 65w receiver, CS1.

I think the 70's would require a CS2 and a better receiver/amp. He mentioned not wanting to upgrade receiver anytime soon.

Just my opinion with a similar setup.

Will the 70's be good? Sure...

I'd go for the 50's, though.

somenumbers

I guess I should have worded the title different, I don't mean overkill in the sense that it will play so loud it'll blow my eardrums. I know having a larger speaker is just as much about clearer sound at low-mid levels. My current setup can play MUCH louder than I like to listen.

I guess my question is: how much of an upgrade would I see without upgrading my receiver? I'm strictly talking about sound quality when listening to stereo music with all other speakers turned off. Does the wattage increase when you are only making the receiver power the fronts or would it still put out around 65watts per channel.

I thought when I bought the 2600 I would have plenty of extra power to upgrade to hungrier speakers later on... I'm gathering that everyone has a different idea of what "enough" means when it comes to power.

somenumbers

I swear I'm good with computers, but took 3 tries to get a picture to be upright..

zombie boy 2000

Hate to complicate the issue, but I've had my ear on the entire Monitor line-up and the 60's are the clear cut winner IMO. Not as muddy as the 70's and provide a little more oomph then the 50's. Just a better all around performer and somewhat of a hidden gem among Polk's entry-level series.

somenumbers

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

Hate to complicate the issue, but I've had my ear on the entire Monitor line-up and the 60's are the clear cut winner IMO. Not as muddy as the 70's and provide a little more oomph then the 50's. Just a better all around performer and somewhat of a hidden gem among Polk's entry-level series.

The more I read the more I'm starting to think that the 70s just aren't worth it without a much beefier amp. Monitor 60s are $279 on the Polk ebay store, very tempting. I honestly LOVE the sound of the M40s but I haven't listened to a ton of higher end speakers. I think I will chose to remain blissfully ignorant until I can afford more high end equipment.

Tankman

scoyne88 wrote: »

I have Monitor 70's, CS2 Center, RM8 Surrounds and a PSW10 Subwoofer hooked up to a ONKYO TX-sr608 in my 600sq ft apartment, and I could not be happier. The only downside is the 70's are pretty big when compared to the size of my place, as far as the audio goes I have never felt "over powered".

Sweet set up Bro!Clean very nice!

Tornado Red

I have the M75s with the 25c center, 550 sub in a 7.1 system. Even after buying a Pioneer SC-61 AVR I didn't feel I was getting all the 75s had to offer. I've added a 3 channel amp and it's made a huge difference like others have said. I do have a nicer high end now, but the clarity and musicality at lower volumes was a real surprise and much welcomed. I'm happy, but that's just me. Initially you seemed sort of "content" with what you have. Since you're in a small space, but don't sound like you will be forever, maybe set up a cookie jar, dedicated bank account or sock under the mattress and just funnel some extra cash there from time to time for new equipment and when you move out to a bigger space, you can really move up as well.

cowtrimmer

I started out with a cs20 center, 40's for the front and 30's for surrounds with an onkyo 609. Later I added the 70's to the front, moved the 40's to the rear and moved the 30's as front wides. It sounded a lot better, but certainly underpowered and muddy. I later replaced the 609 with an 809 and things improved a lot in the two channel music dept. I thought that if the 70's liked that much I would add a 200 watt per channel amp for the 70's. It was a night/day difference for HT use. Its not the end all for HT systems, but long story short the 70's respond well to added power for clarity.

Toolfan66

No such thing as overkill.. Go big or go home.. LOL!!!

vinyladdict

somenumbers wrote: »

The more I read the more I'm starting to think that the 70s just aren't worth it without a much beefier amp. Monitor 60s are $279 on the Polk ebay store, very tempting. I honestly LOVE the sound of the M40s but I haven't listened to a ton of higher end speakers. I think I will chose to remain blissfully ignorant until I can afford more high end equipment.

The newer 65T's can be had at Newegg for $149 a piece. I maybe should have opted for the 65T's , the 75t's are very tall . 65's are about 5 inches shorter. The 75t's sound great though. I think I thought the 6.5 inch speakers versus the 5.25 inch speakers in the 65T's would sound better so that's why I went the 75T route. Thought the 6.5 would replicate the bass notes better.

amgala

The 75T's were recently $199.99 a piece on Newegg. That being said, if it will be a while before you to move into a bigger place, I'd just keep what you have and wait to upgrade later.

cnh

Nice setup. Weird room! Either really small or strange angles there? M-60s are OK, certainly better than the 50s but they are NO match for M-70s on a 200 watt x 2 powe amp. The M-70s win! That said, anything short of that. I can imagine the 60s sounding very good. Heck, I remember the old Circuit City showrooms and the complete line from M-50s to M-70s run off an Onkyo 80X series. In that context the M-50s blew everything away, and I mean everything (every other speaker they had in there--and there were NOT many gems in that collection, sorry to say!). The reason. The M-50s didn't need gobs of power and when fed "properly" put out an almost unreasonable amount of mid-range frequencies that are MOST noticed by the human ear at lower power than most other towers in the showroom. The M-70s sounded "muddy" by comparison (but run a power amp on them and watch the entire sound field, including those MIDS, expand beyond anything the M-50s can do!).

So, POWER, M-70s. Less than FULL power, M-60s. Shortage of power, DEFINITELY M-50s or the equivalent!

cnh