High Efficiency Tower upgrade for my Monitor 70

jerseybowler

I am running a 2.1 stereo system using a Yahama RX-797 100 wpc receiver hooked to two M70 plus a 12 inch Velodyne sub. The system sounds good, with big soundstage and tight base, but can be harsh in the mid-range. I would like to upgrade the towers. Everything I like requires substantial upgrades in the amp. Are there better towers than the polk monitors that will produce volume plus quality sound from a 100 wpc receiver?

cnh

+1. Your receiver has Pre-outs so the first thing you can do is get a USED power amp of 200 watts x 2 and slap it on the M-70s. Later you can upgrade from the receiver to a separate Pre-amp that will also bring gains in sound.

But frankly I'm a little surprised because I've never heard anyone describe M-70s as having "harsh mids". They can sound harsh like most speakers with a less than stellar digital source and cheap DACs.

So another question here is WHAT are you using as your music source?

cnh

jerseybowler

I understand. If I upgrade the power, I have endless possibilities. There must be a tower that will sound good with my current setup. I am considering TSX, but not sure they would be a big upgrade. Klipsch Rf62 is another possibility, but I have not heard them.

jerseybowler

Onkyo sacd

cnh

What model Onkyo SACD? Need to look at specs and DAC complement. Onkyo Wolfsons can be a little harsh IMO.

Polk Rti-A5s are probably somewhat more efficient than M-70s, I believe. More of a sideways move.

Klipsch are horn loaded speakers that can be VERY HARSH up high! Not everyone experiences them this way, though.

cnh

jerseybowler

The Onkyo is a C-S5CL. The M70s with the sub at times sound very good to me, sometimes not. I Have TSI500 upstairs as part of a 5.1 system, and they seem good, maybe a little warmer. I really did not want to add an amp at this point, just upgrade my 2 channel speakers if possible to do so without reinventing the whole system. I heard some B&W683 at BB that sounded great. The guy told me he was pushing them with a 90 wpc Pioneer. I have since read that they are very power hungry speakers, making me wonder if he was pushing them with more than 90 wpc.

jerseybowler

How do you guys feel about Emotiva?

cnh

That's a decent player by Onkyo in that price range. Probably OK there. B&W speakers "hurt" my ears so we must be hearing something different.

So you're saying the M-70s sound OK sometimes? Could it just be whatever the music format is or a badly mastered CD. Because that does happen?

cnh

drummer86

cnh wrote: »

So you're saying the M-70s sound OK sometimes? Could it just be whatever the music format is or a badly mastered CD. cnh

+1 here. Don't be so quick to blame the speakers. The problem could be coming from a number of places. The midrange is supposed to be the strong point of those Monitors. When I had mine the upper registers of the tweeter were what was really harsh at high volumes.

Not a fan of B&W speakers either. Can't stand that kevlar woofer. Sounds to much like... well... kevlar.

jerseybowler

Thanks everyone. Noww you have me thinking about an amp. BTW, my wife is agreeing with all of you, which makes life a lot easier for me. Which leads me back to Emotiva XPA-2 with 300w x 2. Opinions?

tonyb

Also look into a warmer sounding cable like Kimber cable, that generic cable you get for 20 bucks can sound harsh on the highs too.

One thing you'll learn, is that everything in the chain plays a role in the final sound you hear, not just the speakers.

jerseybowler

I know my CDs have a wide range of recording and playback quality. My hang up is that I have reservations on how good the M70 could be. After all, it is a sub $200 speaker. As I said before, when it sounds good, it sounds good. How much more is left. You are correct in implying that onceI buy the amp, the flood gate opens. there are a lot of speakers I have on my consideration list. That I know I can't drive with my current set-up. Some of them are being offered at incredible prices.

TNHNDYMAN

You can't drive anything with the current receiver. The 70's are only sub $200 4-5 after release thru newegg or polk direct. They were much more originally MSRP. THey can be very nice IF given some power. You will be wasting money buying new speakers with the current AVR. What do you have driving the 500's in the other system? Have you tried the 70s on that? If you just want loud, buy some Cerwin Vega's. If you want to lose some harshness then turn the volumne down and buy sold older vintage speakers where the highs were already rolled off and haven't gotten any better after 30 years....

aboroth00

As for amp $$$, I wouldn't buy an amp that costs more than my speakers. If you want to buy a used amp, there's a lot of older NAD/Rotel integrated out there that perform very admirably if you want to keep it very simple.

However it sounds like you don't like what you hearing and you're hearing the speakers. So odds are it's the speakers you don'tl ike as much. Best advice is to go out there, listen to some speakers, and most higher end audio shops let you bring in your own amp to audition with.

Hofy

You need to replace the weakest link in the chain. You receiver is the weak link, not the speakers. Buy a nice clean used Adcom or Parasound amp for less than new speakers or a new receiver would cost and you will be amazed at the sound.

Geoff4rfc

jerseybowler wrote: »

Thanks everyone. Noww you have me thinking about an amp. BTW, my wife is agreeing with all of you, which makes life a lot easier for me. Which leads me back to Emotiva XPA-2 with 300w x 2. Opinions?

Awesome match!!! I had M70's powered with an XPA-3, music was better than when just off the AVR.

I had upgraded my speakers to A9's and got the XPA-2 for them.

When it came time to sell my Monitor speakers, I demoed the M70's on the XPA-2 and heard them for the first time with that much power behind them. As I cranked the volume during some 2ch demos, I was quite impressed with what I heard, bass felt through the floor, very rich and deep, more detail than I'd heard before.

I got my asking price easy and to tell you the truth, I actually became a little hesitant on the sell.

aboroth00

DSkip wrote: »

This is something I don't subscribe to. I've got 3 times the money in my monoblocks that I have in my speakers. Monetary value shouldn't be the only deciding factor there - the quality of the speaker and the "weakest link" should be. While speakers give you a general idea of their sound on any speaker, you know as well as I do that some power amps make them sound anemic, whilst others open them up and really show what the design is capable of.

Are there better speakers than the M70? Hell yes. But if you aren't even tapping out their potential, what is the purpose to get another speaker that will have the same issue in your rig?


Starting in the hobby can really make those values you place on each object differ too. I only start to feel the % here vs. % there mentality when you have a solid baseline to work with. If you don't have that baseline, you upgrade what you can when you can as efficiently as you can until that component is solid. M70's are solid speakers...

IMO, sound comes from the speakers and most of the sound you hear will be a result of what the speakers are capable of. Bang for your buck in upgrading is going for better speakers, not better amps. A well designed amp will be capable of driving most efficient designs such as Polks. At ~85db/1watt up+ with no awkward impedance dips/phase angles, a capable amp will be able to drive the speaker to realize its potential. An amp change is much more negligible than a speaker change and IMO that's where the money should be going, especially in the price ranges he's looking at.

OTOH, if you found a speaker you really like and more expensive speakers will not satiate your appetite then sure, go ahead and spend more money on the gear around the speaker. But in his predicament, I would wholeheartedly endorse getting new speakers if he's not satisfied with what he has.

drummer86

Agree with Skip here. While you may find speakers you like you'll never be hearing their full capabilities without a quality amplifier. Don't put cheap gas and 70,000mile tires on a Ferrari right?

jeremymarcinko

+1 on adding an amp to the monitor 70's first. Probably cheaper too, if you buy used. I had a similar experience with the Monitor 70's before upgrading to rti's. The Monitors can sound really nice, mess with placement and add a power amp. IME with the 70's they did not like to be aimed at the listener much at all, as it would really muddy up the top end ( in my room anyways). I think I ended up turning them in a half in. or less.

I wouldn't discount their capabilities based what they cost, as it was mentioned they were much more expensive when they first came out. I am sure better speakers will undoubtedly sound better than the 70's, but the 70's will also sound better with a good amplifier. Furthermore, if you still not satisfied with the 70's after the addition of the amp, they are not hard to sell, given their low cost. Then at least you have an amp in place to listen to whatever is next, to its potential.

And +1 to better cables too.

cnh

I agree. M-70s used to sell, at the now defunct CC, for 399 each when they were first available with the occasional sale price of 299 which was considered a decent buy (2 for 599). After they went out of production the prices started to fall through the floor. First they dropped to about 399 a pair, then they were regularly available at newegg for 359 o less a pair. And now you can even find them for less.

Having GOOD amplification as well as a GOOD source, GOOD cables, etc. are ALL important in getting the best from what you have and are also, as Dskip, points out, a GREAT investment for future upgrades. You have NOTHING to lose in doing this!

cnh

aboroth00

DSkip wrote: »

Yes, sound comes from the speaker and yes, they are the biggest component of the system. But with that logic, would you not consistently just upgrade the speakers to get better sound? The M70's have a strong reputation around here for needing more than what a receiver, stereo or surround, usually provides. A $300 investment opens those speakers up to show their potential AND provides a solid baseline for any speakers that follow. Otherwise, you'll never be happy with ANY speaker. That also puts the amp in the same bracket as the speakers, which were what, $800-$1k when new? I really think you discount the M70 too much (this coming from a guy who doesn't care much for the Monitor line).

As I said, logically if you found a speaker you really like and more expensive speakers will not be a cost effective option to satiate your needs then spending on an amp is logical. Otherwise, the money is always better spent on a newer speaker. If I were to weigh getting a speaker from a line up or a better amp than my amp which can adequately drive the speakers, I'd pick the speaker from the line up every time.

Perhaps my experience is different but amps have always made fractional improvements vs. a speaker upgrade. Most speaker designs are efficient and sensitive without awkward impedance curves. It's not like we're using tube amps, we're talking about stout solid state.

For example if he wants to invest in a XPA-2, he can invest 500-600$ into speakers and get into the territory of Dynaudio Audience, Revel Performa, Focal Chorus which is LEAPS and BOUNDS above Polk Monitors with any kind of amplification.

aboroth00

DSkip wrote: »

Our experiences likely do vary. If you knew how bad those lower level, older yamahas sounded, you might understand my position more. Calling those amp sections atrocious could be viewed as a compliment.

Perhaps .

Considering what you can get on the used market these days, there's no shortage of decent amps out there. I got my NAD C352 for 150$ which will drive any speaker I have. Dan sold me a Rotel RX1050 which drove all my speakers as well admirably for ~200$. So as a point of comparison, do I think my Revel Ultima's sound much much better than my old Performa M22's on good amps, you bet!

Geoff4rfc

aboroth00 wrote: »

Perhaps my experience is different but amps have always made fractional improvements vs. a speaker upgrade. Most speaker designs are efficient and sensitive without awkward impedance curves. It's not like we're using tube amps, we're talking about stout solid state.

So far, my experience with Polk speakers is with the Monitor line starting with the M70's and below, and the RTiA line, A9's and below. I have achieved notable sonic changes in both series by adding power, and it was the amount of power that was crucial to make that point. For the M70, 200w did the trick over 135wpc, 300w brought new detail. For the A9, 200w was not enough to smear the sharp highs, 300w smoothed it right out, cymbal hits became more deliberate instead of a lingering fuzz, saxophone's lost the high shrill sound it once had and was now easy to listen to, it gained more warmth. Sonic changes just by adding the right amount to power.

aboroth00 wrote: »

For example if he wants to invest in a XPA-2, he can invest 500-600$ into speakers and get into the territory of Dynaudio Audience, Revel Performa, Focal Chorus which is LEAPS and BOUNDS above Polk Monitors with any kind of amplification.

Actually, a guy can acquire an XPA-2, used with transferable warranty for 5 to 550 and transform the M70 to a level you didn't think possible.

aboroth00

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

So far, my experience with Polk speakers is with the Monitor line starting with the M70's and below, and the RTiA line, A9's and below. I have achieved notable sonic changes in both series by adding power, and it was the amount of power that was crucial to make that point. For the M70, 200w did the trick over 135wpc, 300w brought new detail. For the A9, 200w was not enough to smear the sharp highs, 300w smoothed it right out, cymbal hits became more deliberate instead of a lingering fuzz, saxophone's lost the high shrill sound it once had and was now easy to listen to, it gained more warmth. Sonic changes just by adding the right amount to power.



Actually, a guy can acquire an XPA-2, used with transferable warranty for 5 to 550 and transform the M70 to a level you didn't think possible.

As I said 500-600$ investment. As for more power is better, ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Usually an amp with more wattage is better made and the improvements happen there. As for wattage, this game has been played over and over over the last couple decades of trying to get more wattage and to get people to pay more. It was 50 watts is not enough 10 years ago, 100 watts not enough, now 200 watts is not enough?

Most of your listening happens at less than 1 watt. What you don't want to happen is that on dynamic passages the amp to compress the dynamics and clip the amp. Otherwise the extra wattage is for moot. Any guy with tube amps, high bias class A amps, pure class A amps would know that it's not the quantity, it's the quality.

Geoff4rfc

aboroth00 wrote: »

As I said 500-600$ investment. As for more power is better, ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Usually an amp with more wattage is better made and the improvements happen there. As for wattage, this game has been played over and over over the last couple decades of trying to get more wattage and to get people to pay more. It was 50 watts is not enough 10 years ago, 100 watts not enough, now 200 watts is not enough?

Our experiences vary as well however, the Monitor and RTi/A series do have their own personality, and through experience, their personality can change to a degree. As my Monitors are now long gone, you are welcome to come over to see for yourself how the RTiA9 can change it's personality by going from 200w to 300.

aboroth00

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Our experiences vary as well however, the Monitor and RTi/A series do have their own personality, and through experience, their personality can change to a degree. As my Monitors are now long gone, you are welcome to come over to see for yourself how the RTiA9 can change it's personality by going from 200w to 300.

If you're comparing the XPA-2 to the XPA-3 then you're comparing a 2ch amp to a 3ch amp which isn't necessarily a fair comparison. The amount of wattage does not dictate the quality of an amp, period. A higher wattage amp might mean the amp is better built as is the XPA-2 is better built than the XPA-3.

jerseybowler

I am not sure I agree that the Yamaha amp is that bad. It will push ..the M70 to a pretty high crisp level, before it starts to distort. My Pioneer Elite will not push the TSI 500 to as good or strong a sound. Maybe the Pioneer is a warmer amp, it just doesn't have the pop that the Yahama/ M70 has? if I can find a good used amp, at a reasonable price, I will likely go for it. I have a call into the local audio store. I will also consider new Emotiva and Rotel. This all started because I wanted a pair of RTI 7 orRTI 9 , and I also found some energy veritas, all of which I knew I could not push with my current amp.

cnh

You mean Rti-A7s, A9s, right. Sure those will be a step up from your M-70s but you're going to need some more power there as well.

Personally, I think the Energy Veritas series has a nice sound, and I do believe that your current amp could probably drive a pair of their mid-towers reasonably well. So that might also be a thought. Will they sound better with more power, probably.

Some points made above are matters of debate. Certainly "quality" is important, but so are power reserves (storage capacitance) and dynamic response, damping, high current design, etc. In other words, compare a 1 or 10 watt load from an entry level AVR with, let's say the same load from a 250 watt x 2 Parasound amp and tell me that the Parasound is not cleaner, has deeper tighter bass, more refined mids and a lot more detail and spatial cues up top. Compare a lower wattage 60 x 2 watt Parasound to the 250 watt x 2 and you'll hear still hear the "difference" at the same wattage.

As for tube amps. Well, the rule of thumb is that a low wattage tube amp cannot be compared to the same amount of wattage as an SS amp. It's like comparing apples and oranges. You need more SS power to simulate the same pressure levels of lower watt tube amps. But that's not really relevant here for what you are asking and there are tons of threads you can search. No reason to review debates about power, watts and what they mean or don't mean here.

cnh

aboroth00

jerseybowler wrote: »

I am not sure I agree that the Yamaha amp is that bad. It will push ..the M70 to a pretty high crisp level, before it starts to distort. My Pioneer Elite will not push the TSI 500 to as good or strong a sound. Maybe the Pioneer is a warmer amp, it just doesn't have the pop that the Yahama/ M70 has? if I can find a good used amp, at a reasonable price, I will likely go for it. I have a call into the local audio store. I will also consider new Emotiva and Rotel. This all started because I wanted a pair of RTI 7 orRTI 9 , and I also found some energy veritas, all of which I knew I could not push with my current amp.

Your amp will drive most reasonably designed speakers out there, pretty much any speaker you'll buy. You do not necessarily need "more power," more refinement is a different issue.

aboroth00

cnh wrote: »

You mean Rti-A7s, A9s, right. Sure those will be a step up from your M-70s but you're going to need some more power there as well.

Personally, I think the Energy Veritas series has a nice sound, and I do believe that your current amp could probably drive a pair of their mid-towers reasonably well. So that might also be a thought. Will they sound better with more power, probably.

Some points made above are matters of debate. Certainly "quality" is important, but so are power reserves (storage capacitance) and dynamic response, damping, high current design, etc. In other words, compare a 1 or 10 watt load from an entry level AVR with, let's say the same load from a 250 watt x 2 Parasound amp and tell me that the Parasound is not cleaner, has deeper tighter bass, more refined mids and a lot more detail and spatial cues up top. Compare a lower wattage 60 x 2 watt Parasound to the 250 watt x 2 and you'll hear still hear the "difference" at the same wattage.

As for tube amps. Well, the rule of thumb is that a low wattage tube amp cannot be compared to the same amount of wattage as an SS amp. It's like comparing apples and oranges. You need more SS power to simulate the same pressure levels of lower watt tube amps. But that's not really relevant here for what you are asking and there are tons of threads you can search. No reason to review debates about power, watts and what they mean or don't mean here.

cnh

Bottom line is that a better amp will be better. Your amp will work fine for all purposes you will probably put it through. Go out there, listen to some speakers, get educated, bring your amp along with you to auditions. You might like another amp/preamp what have you. A lot of dealers let you audition their speakers with your gear if you're willing to lug it along. Considering it's a receive it's much easier than lugging around monoblocks and a preamp.

jerseybowler

Hi everybody. I took your advice, and decided the first step was to upgrade my amp. I have been going back and forth for weeks on which amp, and from what store. I did not see any used deals that excited me, and no where around here to audition anything. A few stores told me that mating the Yamaha RX797 to an external amp would be a compromized by using the Yamaha as the pre-amp. I wound up working a pretty fair deal where I am trading the Yahama for a new Anthem 225 integrated amp with 225 wpc. Most of the reviews I read are very good. I paid for it today, and expect to have it early next week. The best part is I bought it from a trusted local store, and if there is a problem, I don't have to ship it somewhere. I can't wait to hook it up and hear how my M70s sound. It's probably a matter of time before I upgrade the speakers. One thing at a time. At least I feel the Anthem gives me a pretty good base to start with.