I personally find Yamaha receivers bright and fatiguing to listen too. That is an....interesting choice to drive Maggie's. They are one of the harder speakers to drive and like lots of power.

The golden ear's are easier to drive, but the better quality amp you get the better they will sound. If you want to stay on the cheap, I like Denon receivers for inexpensive, neutral and relatively nuanced sound. They are a great value.

Alternatively, you could use an integrated amp. What are your inputs? Do you need a phono stage? Do you need a USB DAC or other features. Pandora streaming, AirPlay, etc.... That will dictate what the best unit is for you.

Each brand of AVR absolutely has its own sound signature. I find both Onkyo and Yamaha bright and a bit sterile sounding. The dynamic EQs soften the sound profile, but I still am not in love with either but that is my personal taste. I prefer Denon which is neutral and Marantz which is a hair warm. I own multiple Denon and Marantz devices.

Driving those GoldenEars with a $400 Yamaha receiver is like putting a Honda Civic engine in an Acura RLX. It is fine. You won't damage them, but you won't get close to getting the most out of them but that is also the audio snob in me saying that. You have a budget and you need to live within the budget.

If you like treble then Yamaha and Onkyo would be fine choices for you. I might look at one of Yamaha's stereo receivers. Take a look at the Yamaha R-N402. $399 at Crutchfield and the feature set is amazing. Bluetooth, WiFi and Apple's Airplay. You should be able to stream to it via UPnP or if you are using iTunes, you can stream to it via AirPlay. I am sure Onkyo has something comparable and probably with a virtually identical feature set.

Also, it has a simple treble control on the front making it a quick and easy adjustment if the treble is a bit to much. Like I said, I find Yamaha amps bright but if that is what you like, this is a nice receiver. Buying it from Crutchfield is nice because you will get 60 days and if you don't like it, you can return it.

An AVR will also work and you can use the internal EQ to make and adjustment. The Golden Ear's are pretty easy to drive, so you should get plenty of volume. The receiver you suggested will work.

If it was me, I would get an inexpensive receiver to tide me over like the Yamaha and save up for the right integrated and network streamer at a later date. I used an inexpensive Onyko receiver for a stretch until I had the money to get a Rega integrated and Marantz network streamer. You can always sell the receiver at a later date.

artemasad wrote:

Interestingly, I've just starting to look at the exact stereo receiver you mentioned 2 minutes before I saw this message!

One thing I'm utterly confused about - it looks like the 5.1 AVR (RX-V481) will do the exact same functions as far as streaming/WiFi plus more compared to it's stereo receiver counterpart (R-N402). And they're both $399. What am I missing here?

I recommend the Harman-Kardon HK3700 stereo receiver, which is $349 from Amazon.

I think you will get much better sound quality than with anything from Yamaha.

I caution you to totally discount and ignore any Yamaha power rating. They are obtained in a way that does not relate well at all to actual sound quality or ability to drive speakers.

I once bought a Yamaha integrated amplifier rated for 125 watts per channel, which should have been way more than required to drive my speakers, but it distorted terribly when asked to amplify the low frequency output from a pipe organ, or other bass.

A NAD amplifier was able to do an excellent job with those speakers, despite being rated for only 35 watts per channel. So much for Yamaha's power ratings!

@artemasad:

You want to drive a pair of Magnepan 1.7i with a Yamaha AVR RX-V481 so you can listen to MP3s via Bluetooth??

artemasad wrote:

GoldenEar Triton Three+, but yet.... I'm so sorry. I have a feeling that I've made some mistakes... like Biertfeld's analogy of driving Acura with Honda engine.

As I have said earlier, the type of music I listen to are a bit unique, and the lossless/uncompressed version are unfortunately not as easily obtained, so I'm stuck with mp3 format. I simply just want to enjoy the music as much as I can within my capability and budget so when time gets rough, I can just close my eyes and get lost in it. I have a budget of around $2500, and $2100 already went to the speakers, so I'm a bit stuck.

Please consider me incompetent at this, as I'm sure you obviously have noticed.

Well, what's done is done, but even if Bluetooth is an absolute must, it doesn't have to limit your selection.

Start by taking a look at these integrated amps:
http://www.crutchfield.com/g_344650/Integrated-Amplifiers.html?tp=34948&pg=1
(I recommend you select an amp with both optical and coax inputs. The compare feature should help make things easier.)

Save yourself $50 so you can get one of these to connect to the amp via optical:
http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=10248

I made a mistake and did not do my due diligence.

I would agree with commsysman that Yamaha's power ratings are crap. I have had the exact same experience he had listening to NAD vs Yamaha side by side in a store driving a ribbon speaker.

I just found some measurements on the Tritons though not your exact model. I found the Triton Ones and Fives here and to say they are "compatible with 8 ohms" is probably a poor statement since both have dips down below 4 ohms in relatively high frequencies. This would tell me that an AVR like the Yamaha or even a stereo receiver like the HK or the Yamaha will probably struggle to drive these well, particularly as you approach reference volumes.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/goldenear-technology-triton-one-loudspeaker-measurements#d7FzMWYF4X53xreh.97

http://www.stereophile.com/content/goldenear-triton-five-loudspeaker-measurements#3plJH0TGTEfbX183.97

Given the high sensitivity you don't need high, max power...you need high quality power. A high quality amp that handles lower impedance speakers will way outperform an AVR or modest stereo receiver like the ones we mentioned. Harman tend to make more serious equipment but that HK3700 is not the unit it replaced in Harman's line and I might be wary of it. If you do opt to go this less expensive route, make sure you buy it from a place like crutchfield so that you can return it if you are unhappy with the sound.

What will happen with an underpowered AVR is that at the particular frequency ranges where the impedance drops, the sound will thin and maybe even break up if you push the amp too hard. If you push the amp too hard, for too long you will eventually blow a fuse. Given the efficiency of the speakers, you will likely ever get to volumes where you would damage the speakers or amps, but that thinness will be obvious even at modest volumes.

Something like the Cambridge Audio CXA60 would have all the features you want or need and deliver a higher quality amount of power and be quite stable at 4 ohms. Despite the lower power rating, I would place a large wager that it is dramatically louder than the Yamaha units you would be looking at. At $799, it is a very strong value. NAD also has a new unit called the NAD C368 for $899. I have never heard it but it worth a demo if you can find a dealer that has it and I have a lot of faith in the quality of NAD amps.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you need to have more realistic expectations about the SQ yield by the Triton Threes that are driven by a sub-$400 AVR/amp, and MP3s over Bluetooth. I personally wouldn't expect to "get lost in it" if my eyes were closed.

You should seriously consider returning the Triton Threes and get a more right-sized and balanced system. $2500 is certainly good seed for a starter system.

artemasad wrote:

bertfeldt & mtymous1 - thank you. Both of what you are saying makes sense.

Seems like based on what you're saying, I have a feeling that my Triton Threes will be the strongest of the configuration, but will be severely bottlenecked by the music source (mp3, possibly Bluetooth, instead of from CD/uncompressed), followed by the amplifier (if I go with ~$400 stereo receivers or AVR).

Knowing that, I will most likely go with the most economical but reasonable stereo receiver around $400. Assuming the Yahama or HK is the best choice for that price range. And eventually in a few years when I can afford an integrated amp for around $700 - $1000, I will purchase one to pair with these Triton Three+.

Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do? Truthfully I thought I got everything planned out, but my findings of the past 2 hours is a bit of soul-crushing. Regardless, I'm glad I found that out now than later, thanks to you guys.

I personally do not have any recommendations to offer you in the sub-$400 range. I think that no matter what you elect, you'll always know that it isn't on par with the speaks. You might have a little better luck with second-hand equipment, but no guarantees there either. (Doesn't hurt to check Audiogon.)

As far as the "reasonable thing" goes, my recommendation is to return the Triton Threes and start from scratch.

Accessories4less is a clearance site for a few major manufacturers. Cambridge CXA60 for $599

Cambridge is no ideal, is it. The issue is integrated amps tend to be intentionally light on incremental features for a variety of reasons. First, there is a belief that the more stuff you have going on inside a single box, the more interference can occur. Additionally, all parts are run off of one power supply - amp, preamp, DAC, etc... where if you have these in separate boxes they will all be a bit more refined and simply sound better. There are a lot of integrated amps that are just amp/preamp with no other features.

Doing some digging, a few other options.

You could consider the Onkyo TX-NR747 7.2-Ch x 110 Watts Networking A/V

Available from accessories4less for $399. THX Select2 Certified. This matters because THX actually does bench tests and validates that the amp is stable at 4 ohms. In fact, I think that the THX tests require that it be stable at 3 ohms for Select2. This is a third party that validates the claims. I have used a THX Certified Onkyo receiver to drive a pair of very low impedance (1.8ohm was the low) speakers and it held up well.

INTEGRA DTR-60.5 9.2-Ch x 135 Watts Networking A/V if you could pull it off is even better. At $699 from accessories4less, this is a steal. Integra is Onkyo's pro line and this is designed to take a heavy load.

I think they will both be less refined for music than the Cambridge but will have all the features you need and will be more stable in dealing with the lower impedance speakers than the Yamaha or HK that we mentioned above.

I know that receiver was a recommended component here at Stereophile for a stretch (might still be) but I have never heard it.

As best I can tell, the new bluetooth is spectacular. Should be as good as an ethernet connection. Not sure if it is as good as an asynchronous USB.

artemasad wrote:

Thank you. Any thoughts on The Outlaw RR 2150 + Bluetooth adapter, versus your previously mentioned Cambridge CXA60 + Bluetooth adapter? If my understanding is correct, the Bluetooth adapters for both of these are aptX compatible, so the Bluetooth audio will be as good as the wiring directly for the source?

@artemasad:
*PLEASE* read up on Bluetooth and understand how it works. For now, all you need to know is that it's a compression technology for audio. This is why it doesn't make sense to utilize compression audio codecs in addition to already lossy-compressed MP3s.

Read some introductory info here:
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-gLiHr2NA7Ln/Learn/high-resolution-audio-guide.html
...and pay special attention to the charts.

I still recommend you return your Tritons and rethink your approach. Given your requirements and constraints, you may be better off with a headphone amp and a nice set of cans.

If you are using apple, as best i can tell they don't support aptX so although it looks like although aptx should be able to deliver CD quality, lossless sound it will only do that if you aren't using an apple device. You PC should support aptx.

Here is a cnet article on aptx

https://www.cnet.com/news/can-aptx-give-you-better-sound-over-bluetooth/

artemasad wrote:

Thank you. I previously understood Bluetooth as a mean to transfer digital signal directly from source wirelessly, much like WiFi, but at slower speed and lesser range. I did not realize that Bluetooth is a compression in and of itself. Though it seems that the aptX codec will allow Bluetooth to "wirelessly streaming CD-quality sound" - this is why I figured I would be able to get the same quality of sound from the weaker link - mp3 source.

I did talk to my boss (wife), and she will allow me to get an integrated amp. If I could get the newly-released NAD C 368 as bierfeldt recommended, would I be considered in an okay shape as opposed to scrapping the whole idea?

I can sense that I might be frustrating you because of my incompetence. And once again, 8 hours ago, I know right next to nothing about AVR/amp/stereo receiver. Yet, I just want to let you know that you guys are all teaching me greatly and I am learning much from all this. One day I hope I can become a better stereophiler and help others too. Really - I thank you.

The NAD C 368 *should* work well with the Triton Three+. (I say should because I've not personally auditioned that combo, but specs sound compatible on paper.)

The NAD is rated at 80 watts x 2 channels into 4 ohms (20-20,000 Hz) at 0.009% THD. That THD is impressive at that price point, especially for an integrated. Since I personally own more digital content than analog, I also like the 2-of-each of the optical and coax inputs.

You're in good shape... For now. ;-)

Tell me about how you plan on incorporating WiFi. Do you plan on connecting a laptop to this new system, or some other digital sources?

...don't beat yourself up. No one here thinks you're incompetent - you shouldn't either. No one here was born knowing this stuff.

We are all just very eager to help newbies avoid buyers' remorse!

Couldn't agree with mtymous1 more regarding buyers remorse. When I bought my first system, I bought speakers that had a very low impedance and my two amplifiers combined were incapable of driving them well. I blew fuses constantly and the whole thing turned into a $5500 debacle more than 20 years ago. If I had a forum like this, I wouldn't have screwed up so badly. This particular topic is one I am a bit sensitive too.

Having never heard the NAD, on paper it should work. It has an awesome feature set. Again, try and get it from Crutchfield. 60 days to decide if you like it. If you have buyers remorse, ship it back and we start over.

How about this parasound amplifier on audiogon.
Parasound Model 275 v.2 Stereo Amplifier
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/solid-state-parasound-model-275-v-2-stereo-amplifier-2016-10-18-amplifiers-52245-iowa-city-ia

Doesn't have the bluetooth features but at least not a total mismatch for the speakers and only $300.

It looks like they have 4 brands that sell stuff in your price range. Cambridge Audio who is the maker of the CXA 60, NAD, Denon and Marantz. They carry some awesome brands like Rega, Preachtree, PrimaLuna and Ayre Acoustics but they are either out of your price range or have some shortcoming like lacking a DAC that makes them less than ideal which woud drive up your price.

here is the scoop on Denon and Marantz. Both are owned by the same company, D&M holdings (guess what D&M stands for) and make exceptional equipment for the money. I own a Denon receiver (AVR-1912), a Marantz Pre/Pro (AV7005), 8 Channel power amp(MM8003), network receiver (M-CR510) and two network players (NA7004 & Reference NA-11s1). I am very familiar with there products and sound profile and am honestly a big fan. They not only make equipment, but manufacture and sell a lot of component parts to other manufacturers. They have a rich heritage and a strong reputation for producing good equipment.

If you haven't heard of NAD & Cambridge before today it is because they are more niche, audiophile brands and are not available in mass outlets like BestBuy while Denon and Marantz are.

Cambridge is a British Manufacturer that is approaching its 50th anniversary in 2018. They have a reputation for producing great DACs and high quality, fairly priced amplifiers. They don't compete in the high end of Hi-Fi with brands like Ayre Acoustics or McIntosh but produce great equipment for the money.

NAD is now owned by a Canadian company but was originally a British manufacturer who has produced some legendary amplifiers through the years. 2017 will be their 45th anniversary and they have a sterling reputation for producing great quality mid-fi amps and competes very directly with Cambridge. Their Master series competes at the low end of high end hifi with brands like Ayre and McIntosh and they have some amazingly good products.

Back to equipment - Marantz's line of integrated amps is generally pretty highly regarded. Year in, year out the PM600x is deemed the best in class integrated from WhatHiFi. The quality of Marantz's DACs are exceptional and the clarity of the amplifiers in the price range you are looking at is very good. They don't have built in WiFi so you would need to get an adapter and the power output tends to be lower than comparable NAD and Cambridge products. The PM6006 is 45w into 8ohms, 60w into 4ohms and at $699 + $100 adapter, you would get more power and have more headroom with either the NAD or Cambridge units. I think they sound every bit as good.

I like and the Cambridge unit at $899 with adapter would be a better value than the Marantz PM6006 at $799 with an adapter and can say I have heard both largely due to the extra power output. I have not heard the NAD so I can't tell you how it stacks up. Since this dealer carries all three, they may have a good POV.

One note, I can't advocate for a Denon or Marantz AVR. Neither is well suited to lower impedance speakers.

I was adjusting this text and didn't correct this - This is what it should have said

I like the Cambridge unit and at $899 with adapter would be a better value than the Marantz PM6006 at $799 with an adapter. I have listened to both units and like the Cambridge better due to the extra power output as I think they are comparable in clarity and detail. I have not heard the NAD so I can't tell you how it stacks up but have faith in it due to their reputatio. Since this dealer carries all three, they may have a better POV.

artemasad wrote:

Just making sure - you are still talking about CXA60, correct? I will have to see if they are carrying it.

And PM6006's 45W @ 8 ohms sounds awfully low, especially compared to NAD C 368's 80W @ 8 ohms. But then again, as of yesterday I would have thought that Yahama's AVR is as good if based purely on what's on the spec sheet.

I am trying to ask dealer if they are willing to let NAD C 368 go for $700. Probably very tough, but that would help me out a lot. I like the unit since it already has built-in Bluetooth with AptX. My phone also support AptX, as I have found out from the article you linked yesterday. Thank you for that by the way.

Feature-wise, is CXA60 + Bluetooth adapter very comparable to NAD C 368? Or will I be missing any important feature going from one to another?

Lastly, with these two guys, what do you suggest as the best option to listen to compressed format music, mp3/FLAC, from my phone/laptop? If I understand correctly, these amps have a superior DAC compared to phone's or typical computer, but one thing I'm not clear is the best method to get the best out of what I have.

One point that should be made is that "MP3" sound quality is rather imprecise.

In my experience, one can get very good sound quality with 320K MP3 files, but going to MP3s with lower bit rates gives you progressively worse sound quality.

The CXA60 mad by Cambridge is the same amp. They say they carry it and may not stock it but could be a special order. With a bluetooth adapter, it is the same price as the NAD C 368.

The internal DACs in the Marantz, Cambridge and NAD will be superior to the DAC in your phone or your typical soundcard. No question. You will get clearer, more detailed sound, even from compressed files like 256K MP3s. You can hear the difference and it is easy to test via and RCA cable with a headphone jack and sending data via bluetooth.

There are some differences. The NAD is a Class D amplifier which is relatively new technology. As recently as a few years ago I would have suggested avoiding class Ds like the plague but in the most recent 3 years or so, they have really broken out and are delivering superb sound. NAD using a Hypex UcD output stage which is fabulous. I have two Class D amplifiers - My Marantz M-CR510 which I use in a small bookshelf system and my Rogue Audio Hydra which is a hybrid Tube/Class D amp that is amazing. Class Ds are greener, run much cooler which is great for tight spaces without minimla ventilation and draw less power. WhatHiFi did a review and the only critique is that it isn't quite as lively as something like the Cambridge or Marantz for up tempo music. It is expandable and you can add a BluSound module to add internal streaming and some other capabilities.

The Cambridge is a more traditional, Class A/B amp. This won WhatHiFi's product of the year in its price range. It is a very solid, great sounding amp. It will run a bit warmer, draw a bit more power but is very musical. It is not expandable so what you see is what you get. I think the NAD will deliver slightly more power than the Cambridge and both should be adequate to drive your speakers.

The biggest issue is that both of the lack a Type B USB input so you can't connect a computer directly to them and need to stream via bluetooth.

The Marantz power at 45w into 8 ohms is low but this is less the absolute power and more about an amps ability to handle an impedance of 3.5 ohms. My Marantz MM8003 delivers 140w into 8 ohms and begins struggling below 6 ohms due to the amplifier design and would probably blow a fuse driving the GoldenEars. Alternatively, my little 50w Rega Brio R would probably sound fuller and deliver a bigger, cleaner sound and would barely strain driving them because of the amp design.

I went out to take a look at the peak SPL calculator. Given that the SPL on those speakers is 90db, if you were to use half the power of the Marantz (22w), at 10ft the volume would be 99.7dB which is very loud. At 40w, it will deliver 102.3 dB. This would be uncomfortably loud and would cause hearing loss after about 2 hours of exposure. You won't use a ton of power, you just need the amp to be able to handle the strain of the lower impedance. That is the problem with receivers like the Yamaha in that they are not well suited to handle low impedance speakers. They are designed to perform best at 6 and 8 ohms. This is largely because most mainstream home theater speakers that you are going to buy off the shelf at BestBuy are going to be easily driven.

If you are in the market for an integrated amp, you are most likely not looking to drive cheap speakers from Best Buy and there is an above average chance that those speakers will be more challenging to drive which is why these integrated amps are designed to handle tougher to drive speakers.

All that being said, I would still be a hair nervous with the 45w Marantz and would want to listen to it before I bought it.

I recommend you set up a machine with S/PDIF out and get the bits over to the NAD's coax or optical inputs. This would fit your current and future needs, and is out-of-the-box ready:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc5pgyh.html

(If you'd rather customize your own, look at the various models:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/products-overview.html)

But since the recurring theme of Bluetooth makes it seem as an "absolute must" for you, at least use one of these to connect to the amp via optical:
http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=10248

This recurring Bluetooth theme deserves a recurring counterpart, so I cannot stress enough to set realistic expectations with MP3s from a phone via Bluetooth. If MP3s from a phone are going to be your primary media source, you really ought to reconsider your components. It's possible to achieve a better value proposition with a desktop system. (Computer, reference / studio monitors, desktop DAC/amp, cans, etc.)

...so make sure the model you choose has it.

FWIW, I have this one: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/nuc-kit-nuc5ppyh.html
...and can confirm that it supports 24/192 over TOSLINK (and HDMI, for that matter).

Best method is always a wired connection. Historically, Bluetooth would be inadequate but they are saying the aptx is supposed to improve on the bandwidth issue. Compression is not impossible to reverse without loss of data. FLAC & ALAC are lossless audio compression that preserves 100% of the data. They are larger than further compressed MP3s where data is lost, but much smaller than the files that are sitting on the CD.

aptx is supposed to compress further while preserving all of the data and play back at the original resolution. It is decoded via the bluetooth adapter who then sends the MP3, ALAC, FLAC file to the DAC for further decoding. It is an extra step but some of the very best audio companies in the world are using it and saying it works. Thus, I have faith.

And yes, I am saying that if you connect a headphone jack => RCA to the back of your integrated from your phone the phones DAC is doing the conversion and vs. Bluetooth, assuming aptx works as well as advertised, then it will sound better. In fairness, I have never used an aptx unit and am going on spec and manufacturers statements.

Also, Here is a simple explanation of impedance.

http://www.prestonelectronics.com/audio/Impedance.htm

Based on my experience, I had a dealer tell me that 200w of power for 2 amps, bi-amped to my speaker would be adequate. The nominal impedance was 6 ohms with a sensitivity of 89 dB. The manufacturers recco said nothing about needing an amp that was stable a 2 ohms and the minimum recommended wattage was like 20w. Yet, a 2ohm stable amp was required to drive those speakers well. The reality is, the person I talked to at the dealer I bought them from simply didn't know what they were talking about. It was several years later, talking to another dealer that my issue was explained to me.

I am sure the dealer is not malicious but the text you typed above regarding the Yamaha receiver looks like a verbatim off of the website spec sheet. My hunch is, they were reading the specs saying it should be okay when in practice there are some challenges.

You could try the Yamaha and it might be okay based on your tastes, volume level needs, etc... and it might not. I simply strongly advise that if you opt for that path, you buy it from a place with a liberal return policy because there is a high likelihood that it will be inadequate.

artemasad wrote:

...so it's impossible for me to properly wire S/PDIF from my computer to where I am planning to place the receiver/amp now. Had I talked to you guys earlier, I would have purchased a long optical cable and run it behind the wall's frames before they drywalled it - thus having a hardwire connection between my computer and amp/receiver.

I wouldn't recommend a long run of fiber optic behind the wall. All you would really need is a run (or two) of CAT6. This cable is WAY cheaper than fiber optic and serves many more purposes. You should ask your contractor what the incremental cost would be to retrofit CAT6 cable and terminate it with CAT6 jacks (and wall plates, of course) at each location.

artemasad wrote:

I really did believe that WiFi would send original, no-further-compression digital format to the receiver/amp, then receiver/amp do the decoding, and I'd get as good of a sound as hardwiring it directly to my computer.

If you go the AVR route, ensure the selection is DLNA-certified. This will give you the ability to stream your music over your home network.
NOTE: any licensed, proprietary Apple tech like AirPlay is a waste of time and money - if an AVR selection has it built-in, stay away from it. You'll appreciate this if you ever get in to high-resolution audio since AirPlay downsamples anything above 24-bit/96kHz. Stick with DLNA.

That Yamaha RX-V481 is DLNA-certified - read up on its capabilities here:
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022RXV481/Yamaha-RX-V481.html?tp=179
(Click on the Details tab.)

artemasad wrote:

With pure luck, I incorrectly placed a wire and have CAT6 from computer to amp/receiver area (instead of router to amp/receiver). Can I make something happen with CAT6 from computer to amp/receiver? I have a feeling the answer would be no, given both CXA60 and NAD C 368 do not have any CAT6 connection in the back:

https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_enhanced/public/product/gallery/cxa60-gallery-4.jpg?itok=63539nWD

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_745C368/NAD-C-368.html?tp=34948&awcp=1t1&awcr=147090130448&awdv=c&awkw=nad+c+368&awmt=p&awnw=g#&gid=1&pid=3

I also just talked to the dealer. They can give me ~20% discount on either CXA60 + BT100 or NAD C 368 options. However, two things he mentioned:

1) I should consider NAD C338 because it supports WiFi. Even though it's 50 watts per channel, it should be "more than sufficient" to drive Triton Three+

2) Please help me verify this, but he mentioned that having a direct USB connection with asynchronus USB type B will "in some cases sound better than connecting with optical wire". If this is true, would this be the best option? As in forget all the WiFi and Bluetooth, but load all the music (mp3, FLAC, and future higher quality music) into the USB flash drive and get the best out of it.

You certainly could simply insert a thumb drive (or other USB storage) directly in to the unit, but unless specified, don't assume that the circuitry is asynchronous, or employs other counters against jitter. (Jitter is a huge can o' worms... Start here if you want to open it:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/usb-audio-gremlins-exposed-beyond-1s-and-0s-ifi-audio)

FWIW, most high-end DACs accept USB as input, but output as coax and/or optical. So for your local 'expert' to say that USB-connected sources "in some cases sound better than connecting with optical wire" is clearly a bunch of nonsense. (Given some of the feedback you've shared, why do you keep going to these guys?!?! *End rant.)

That fact that you waver between an integrated and an AVR is a clear symptom of requirement uncertainty. You need to step back and really itemize your current and future use cases.

DEFINE how you want to satisfy your listening today.
DEFINE how you want to satisfy your listening tomorrow.
IDENTIFY the necessary components and features to meet the defined requirements.
THEN you can consider a purchase from qualified selections.

Remember, those guys get paid to sell their inventory by creating needs you didn't know you had. No one on this thread gets a commission check for the recommendations given. That said, do you still trust the people who are just trying to sell you what they have within their inventory??

Just because no one mentioned them, doesn't mean they aren't good. In fact, if you were to go the route of AVR, I would encourage you to take a very good look at a Marantz AVR.

Use this link compare AVRs (not integrated amps) by NAD, Cambridge, and Marantz:
http://www.crutchfield.com/g_10420/Home-Theater-Receivers.html?tp=179&o=p#&nvpair=FFBrand|CambridgeAudio&nvpair=FFBrand|Marantz&nvpair=FFBrand|NAD

Again, if you go AVR, look for DLNA-certified. That way, your media receiver/play and media server/sources can talk to each other over the same network. (Which is why it's good that you have your CAT6.)

Another option would be to go ahead and bite the bullet on your desired integrated amp, and just tough it out with your computer or phone connected to it via RCA for a little while. Once you have some more scratch, the Oppo BDP-105D will MORE than satiate your digital needs. Read about it here:
http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-105/

PLENTY of glowing reviews about the Oppo and its ESS SABRE32 Reference Audiophile DAC.

Check out this thread on another audiophile's usage that is similar to yours:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/best-way-listen-digital-music-oppo-bdp-105d

Christmas and President's Day sales will be here soon enough.

...meets the requirements you've described thus far. Check out its specs here:
https://emotiva.com/products/amplifiers/pres-and-pros/ta-100

I didn't mention the NAD C 338 because it was on preorder at Crutchfield. Didn't know it was even available yet. Still haven't heard ant of these new NAD devices yet. Dealer is right in that it will be adequate, at least based on the specs. Having never heard it with the GoldenEars, can't say for certain.

The Oppo is a great bluray player and media player. ICan't say enough good things about it but that is a big increase in the budget. Both the NAD and Marantz units would be fine i am sure

artemasad wrote:

Doesn't look like it's capable of doing Wi-Fi?

Of all the integrated amps you've looked at thus far, how many of them have WiFi, regardless of price? C'mon man. To even FIND an integrated amp at $400 that isn't worth returning is a tough task in and of itself.

artemasad wrote:

Oppo is definitely way out of my price range. And I do not foresee myself ever needing a Blu Ray neither.

Didn't say you had to buy today, and I didn't mention it because it can also play BluRays. It would've addressed the WiFi part of your wish list PLUS a whole lot of other digital music features. Either you didn't read through the specs/features, or didn't understand them.

Best of luck in your search - do post whatever it is you decide. Am curious to hear about how you plan on driving Triton Three+'s with $400.

Happy listening!

mtymous1 wrote:

artemasad wrote:

Doesn't look like it's capable of doing Wi-Fi?

Of all the integrated amps you've looked at thus far, how many of them have WiFi, regardless of price? C'mon man. To even FIND an integrated amp at $400 that isn't worth returning is a tough task in and of itself.

artemasad wrote:

Oppo is definitely way out of my price range. And I do not foresee myself ever needing a Blu Ray neither.

Didn't say you had to buy today, and I didn't mention it because it can also play BluRays. It would've addressed the WiFi part of your wish list PLUS a whole lot of other digital music features. Either you didn't read through the specs/features, or didn't understand them.

Best of luck in your search - do post whatever it is you decide. Am curious to hear about how you plan on driving Triton Three+'s with $400.

Happy listening!

...the Audioquest Jitterbug in my last post. Read more here:
http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-jitterbug-usb-data-power-noise-filter

Peace out.

Given the sensitivity of the GoldenEars at 90dB, 25w of power will deliver over 100dB of volume at 10 feet. It will literally be deafening if you spent too much time exposed at those volumes. The key with the NAD or the Marantz is that it is the quality of the amplification and its ability to deliver on the lower impedances which fewer amps can do. Just for some comparisons, the max power output on the CXA60 and the C368 is 600w while max output on that yamaha receiver is listed as 250w. This is about quality amplification and headroom to handle more extreme draws in power which happen at certain frequencies and if you look at the impedance plots, it's not the bass. Those extremes happen at much higher frequencies.

There are plenty of speakers where that NAD would be completely inadequate but these are not one of them.