Most versatile audio solution to this application?

[jasauders 0]

I have a 12 year old shelf stereo from Aiwa that I've had hooked up to my computer since the beginning of time. It's loud, sounds decent, has a range of equalizer settings and presets, etc. All in all, it does the job done, and blows any 2.1 computer audio system I've seen completely out of the water. Well, I'm getting married in October, and in an effort to save some money we're doing the music ourselves with the help of my brothers to keep an eye on the pre-defined playlists. My computer will be there running Ubuntu + Clementine with everything set up ready to go. They just have to transition from "dinner" music to "dance" music and whatnot, which will be separated by playlists. Super easy.

 

The curve ball is, the Aiwa system I have I was planning on using, as I'm sure it would be enough for the venue we're having the reception at, but the one speaker is starting to have a baffle/mumble sound as it hits certain notes, which from my car audio days suggests the speaker is being clipped or in the beginning stages of failing. This, of course, kicks me into thinking about a replacement.

 

Three options are on the table.

 

1 - A newer, bigger shelf system. This guy here looks like it would be perfect. Pros and cons... Pros are I could re-use it as my replacement audio system for my computer, which is a pretty decent idea. Cons, well, maybe I could piece together my own more "professional" grade system with some PA speakers and a receiver? I don't know. It looks like that route is getting a bit pricier anyway, so this shelf system looks attractive. Several reviews have stated they've used this system for a similar situation, such as anniversary parties, etc.

Amazon.com: Sony Muteki 560 Watts Hi-Fi Stereo Shelf Audio System with Integrated iPod® Dock, 5 Disc CD Changer, Game SyncTM Mixing & 3 Way Bass Reflex Speakers with Dual 6.75" Woofers: Electronics

 

2 - A regular home audio system. This option is probably the one I dislike the most. The pro is, I could re-use it later for the living room as I have no stereo system there connected to the TV at all... it simply runs off of the onboard TV audio, which is okay, but not entirely optimal. I don't see how a living room home theatre system, even a higher dollar one, is going to be powerful enough to push enough volume/sound across the venue. The venue isn't absolutely large... but it's enough to fit 110 people.

 

3 - A pieced together PA audio system. I considered this option heavily, especially after being at my cousin's wedding this past weekend which had two large passive speakers on stands and a receiver, along with a laptop plugged in to control everything. The speakers themselves looked to be 200 a piece, based on what information I could see on the speaker and cross referencing that to online sites selling this equipment. The other thing is, I would need to get a receiver/mixer/whatever that thing is that goes in between two PA speakers (I have no idea if receiver is the proper name or not). Pros - it MIGHT offer more/better sound than the Sony system, but I'm not sure how confident I am in that. Cons, it's likely to cost more (which is okay, as long as I can re-use the gear) which brings me to the next con, I don't know how to re-use this gear. It won't just plug in to the TV over HDMI, and it won't be easy to adapt to my computer, which further isolates this option from being an optimal one.

 

Overall, I'm leaning more towards option 1. Best Buy had this system in stock for the same price as Amazon. It sounded decent when I quickly cranked it for a few seconds, certainly better than my Aiwa.

 

I'm still on the fence, and still have time to play. Figured I'd post here to see what you folks thought.

[the toss 0]

I have a 12 year old shelf stereo from Aiwa that I've had hooked up to my computer since the beginning of time. It's loud, sounds decent, has a range of equalizer settings and presets, etc. All in all, it does the job done, and blows any 2.1 computer audio system I've seen completely out of the water. Well, I'm getting married in October, and in an effort to save some money we're doing the music ourselves with the help of my brothers to keep an eye on the pre-defined playlists. My computer will be there running Ubuntu + Clementine with everything set up ready to go. They just have to transition from "dinner" music to "dance" music and whatnot, which will be separated by playlists. Super easy.

 

The curve ball is, the Aiwa system I have I was planning on using, as I'm sure it would be enough for the venue we're having the reception at, but the one speaker is starting to have a baffle/mumble sound as it hits certain notes, which from my car audio days suggests the speaker is being clipped or in the beginning stages of failing. This, of course, kicks me into thinking about a replacement.

 

Three options are on the table.

 

1 - A newer, bigger shelf system. This guy here looks like it would be perfect. Pros and cons... Pros are I could re-use it as my replacement audio system for my computer, which is a pretty decent idea. Cons, well, maybe I could piece together my own more "professional" grade system with some PA speakers and a receiver? I don't know. It looks like that route is getting a bit pricier anyway, so this shelf system looks attractive. Several reviews have stated they've used this system for a similar situation, such as anniversary parties, etc.

Amazon.com: Sony Muteki 560 Watts Hi-Fi Stereo Shelf Audio System with Integrated iPod® Dock, 5 Disc CD Changer, Game SyncTM Mixing & 3 Way Bass Reflex Speakers with Dual 6.75" Woofers: Electronics

 

2 - A regular home audio system. This option is probably the one I dislike the most. The pro is, I could re-use it later for the living room as I have no stereo system there connected to the TV at all... it simply runs off of the onboard TV audio, which is okay, but not entirely optimal. I don't see how a living room home theatre system, even a higher dollar one, is going to be powerful enough to push enough volume/sound across the venue. The venue isn't absolutely large... but it's enough to fit 110 people.

 

3 - A pieced together PA audio system. I considered this option heavily, especially after being at my cousin's wedding this past weekend which had two large passive speakers on stands and a receiver, along with a laptop plugged in to control everything. The speakers themselves looked to be 200 a piece, based on what information I could see on the speaker and cross referencing that to online sites selling this equipment. The other thing is, I would need to get a receiver/mixer/whatever that thing is that goes in between two PA speakers (I have no idea if receiver is the proper name or not). Pros - it MIGHT offer more/better sound than the Sony system, but I'm not sure how confident I am in that. Cons, it's likely to cost more (which is okay, as long as I can re-use the gear) which brings me to the next con, I don't know how to re-use this gear. It won't just plug in to the TV over HDMI, and it won't be easy to adapt to my computer, which further isolates this option from being an optimal one.

 

Overall, I'm leaning more towards option 1. Best Buy had this system in stock for the same price as Amazon. It sounded decent when I quickly cranked it for a few seconds, certainly better than my Aiwa.

 

I'm still on the fence, and still have time to play. Figured I'd post here to see what you folks thought.

 

 

It would be interesting to know if your option #1 is 560 "real watts" or chinese watts. To be honest most people now days would have no idea just how loud 100 real watts is. I think that for your venue ( & later domestic use) you should ensure you have a good graphic equaliser with whatever you end up with. The requirements at your wedding venue will be different to that in your loungeroom. Your loungeroom will be quite a bit smaller with lots of sound dampening soft furnishings. The bass frequencies will be heavily absorbed & the highs will not need a great deal of disperssion. On the other hand , at the venue the bass will echo & will need to be cut back while the highs will be lost to everyone not in front of the speakers. The highs are fairly directional & is why the horns are usually set up in a radial array in the large PA systems.

A good honest 150W amp , 32 band graphic & flexible speaker arrangement would be your best option. Congratulations on the marriage.

[jasauders 0]

I did think of that, however it's listed as RMS wattage, so I have to assume it's SOMEWHAT accurate and not like the Pyle amp days where they rate them as 5,000 watts MAX when they're lucky to RMS @ 250.

 

The thing that gives me a borderline panic attack is how I would go about setting up the actual system. Can you give me any sort of further direction on what you might piece together in terms of that 150w amp and what monitors/speakers/whatever to go with it? The thing that gives me a comfort zone with the Sony is I know it'll need some tweaking, but I also feel extremely confident it'll do the job. But I'm very open to other alternatives. I just don't want to have to worry about it.

 

Thanks for the insight!

[the toss 0]

I did think of that, however it's listed as RMS wattage, so I have to assume it's SOMEWHAT accurate and not like the Pyle amp days where they rate them as 5,000 watts MAX when they're lucky to RMS @ 250.

 

The thing that gives me a borderline panic attack is how I would go about setting up the actual system. Can you give me any sort of further direction on what you might piece together in terms of that 150w amp and what monitors/speakers/whatever to go with it? The thing that gives me a comfort zone with the Sony is I know it'll need some tweaking, but I also feel extremely confident it'll do the job. But I'm very open to other alternatives. I just don't want to have to worry about it.

 

Thanks for the insight!

 

Had a look at the specs for that amp & a few things stand out. I cant see a stated RMS power output only a TOTAL power output of 560W ( 2 x 280W @ 10% THD [total harmonic distortion] 120 - 10khz) The 10% THD is telling me that the stated o/p power is peak level not RMS & at 120 - 10khz it is hardly Hi-Fi. However all is not lost. 560Wpp equates to just about 400W rms or 200W rms per channel which is a fairly useable o/p but that is flat out at 10% THD. Drop that o/p back by 20% will give 160W rms /chan at close to 1% THD. Now we arrive at the realistic useable power. The unit as it stands is quite adequate for domestic use unless you are one of those "oxygen free copper" speaker lead types. The problem now becomes your speakers. Those 6" cones aren't going to move a lot of air & it is this that is critical in sound transferrence. This is the "sound pressure level" (SPL) & is usually a quoted spec for most speakers in db/metre @1W. It is a spec that manufacturers of units like yours are reluctant to provide & for domestic use it really doesn't matter very much. The victim of adequate o/p power but poor SPL is clarity, you will hear the sound but it will be hard to understand. Not what you want if there are to be speeches.

If you go ahead with buying this amp I would dump the speakers for your wedding & hire a set for the day from a PA/audio store. Find some boxes with a 15" bass , 2 x 12" mids & a reflex horn or a couple of piezo tweeters. Whatever the configuration of speakers it is important that each box is 4^ total load. Get 4 boxes (two for each chan). Cable each pair in series for a total load /chan of 8^. This will give you a lot of scope as to the placement of the speakers & ensure a good outcome.

If you go the hire speakers path you would be best consulting with the hire store, they will probably be only too ready to help.

[shockwave199 0]

The two most important things that make or break a wedding-

 

1- the music

2- the music

 

In that order. The food can suck but if the entertainment was great, your wedding is a hit. If the entertainment sucks but the food is great, your wedding still goes down as sucking.

 

Why people dick around with such an important thing themselves escapes me, but in the name of saving a buck, it's done often. And it usually sucks. They spend big money on dresses, tuxes, flowers, limos, the hall, the photographer, the video guy, and the food. But they cheap out on literally THE most important part- the music. The thing that carries the whole event along while you're all there stuck together for four hours or more.

 

Forget your home stereo. Forget renting or buying some setup. Forget handling this yourself on your own wedding day. Forget letting uncle Pauly, cousin John, or friend Barry handle it.

 

Hire a professional for christ sake.

 

If you haven't guessed by now, my third job to make ends meet and pay for hobbies such as my cctv system is a professional musician. We need to eat- you need a professional to handle the fun.

 

Hire a professional band or dj. Preferably- a band.

 

[thewireguys 3]

See Shockwave I told you we agree on a lot of things.

 

Coming from a former DJ for over 16 years I recommend a PRO DJ. It's your wedding day and last thing you should be worried about is the sound system or your computer crashing. How are you planing on connecting a mic for introductions and speeches? What about requests? Do you plan on spending this day with your new wife or in front of your computer at the reception?

 

If you do plan on running the music your self at least rent a proper sound system. A couple powered QSC or JBL speakers with stands will not cost you much for the day.

[jasauders 0]

Last year I was at a wedding. For majority of the time, the DJ and I talked about mountain biking. Did he do a good job? Absolutely. But all he did was let his playlist run and get on the mic when there was something worth announcing. Worth 2,000 bucks? Absolutely not.

 

Last Saturday I was at a wedding. The DJ ran everything from his laptop, there again using playlists with a timed transition to handle everything. I have no idea what his costs were, but it only gave more food for thought in regard to the fact that we indeed could handle this on our own.

 

Truth be told, I do have mixed feelings on the whole professional DJ or do it ourselves front. On one hand, it'd be nice to drop the change and not have to worry about it, but hiring a professional DJ also comes with a degree of risk. Two friends of mine got married last year. Both of them had different DJs, but each DJ played the "it's your show, you make the call, I'm there for you" card, but when it came down to being THERE and actually putting on the show, the DJ wouldn't take requests and simply said "It's my show, I got this." Yeah, no. At my wedding, if I want to hear a song, you can bet I'll be listening to that song. No high-horse egos like that would be tolerated.

 

That said, those accounts don't instantly equal what WILL happen on the actual day, and I understand that. I'm simply saying hiring a DJ does come with some sort of risk in that regard, but then doing things myself also introduces a different risk as well, because a DJ would likely be able to bounce back quicker should an issue arise.

 

Things aren't too easy right now. There was nearly 4k that was supposed to be available for our wedding that instantly wasn't, and due to a problem at our house, another 2.2k is gone with having to get certain things repaired. Our photographer is a student in college for photography, granted her pictures are amazing but her being a student inherently comes at a cheaper price. The food we're purchasing ourselves and a family friend who did catering a few years ago is helping us with the preparation. That same family friend is currently a baker, so there's the wedding cake as well. Some of the catering quotes we got were as high as 7 thousand, but with doing it ourselves, we'll squeak away for 1,200 easy.

 

Please understand... I really appreciate your opinion, but this wedding by design is going to be extremely home-brewed with in-house ideas, and I like that. I am going to continually pursue the do-our-own-music thing until it becomes an absolute wash, which right now, it's still very far from.

[the toss 0]

Go for it. Generally weddings become more about showing off as to how much it cost when the money could be better spent when starting a life together. When I got married at 40 I didn't need to cut on costs but we opted for a more informal reception. Hired an ex-ferry that was set up for catering & spent 5 hours cruising on the local lake with 70 family & friends. Total cost including catering $4000. Disadvantages - limited hot food , limited alcohol.

Advantages - set timeframe , limited alcohol

It remains the "best wedding I,ve been to" among my friends.

[shockwave199 0]

Last year I was at a wedding. For majority of the time, the DJ and I talked about mountain biking. Did he do a good job? Absolutely. But all he did was let his playlist run and get on the mic when there was something worth announcing. Worth 2,000 bucks? Absolutely not.

Unless a dj shows up with a full array of lights, a large flat screen hoisted up on overheads for the inevitable slide show of what's actually happening right before your eyes anyway, boxes of giveaways, and dancers...2k is too much for a file player on an ipad or laptop behind a baffle. The art of knowing how to properly run such an event rested, and for the most part still rests in the hands of the band MC. There are good dj's who know how to work a party right, but in my experience they are rare- but a good find when you find one. And all the dj schtick originally came from band MC's- it's just that simple.

 

Keep in mind a dj can play most anything, but what YOU want to hear the whole time may not be what's best for the party. We've been 'playlist dictated' so badly [mostly because of the dj phenomenon] that the bride & groom lose sight of the fact that they know zip about how a party should be run and they cut off the legs of the professional who's done it for years, perfecting it. What you want to hear playing all the time doesn't always make a good party. We've catered to that and had the worst affairs- where no one dances or has fun because of the 'must play' music selections. It's your day, yes. But consider your guests too. Outside of what you absolutely don't want played, consider the scope of all your guests and let them all have something to make it fun. And if possible, hire a professional. It's more than music selection that makes a wedding run right, and they know how to balance all the songs and concerns of the day. At least the good ones do. Congratulations, and good luck.

 

[jasauders 0]

The frustration my one buddy had was he wanted to play a specific slow song that the DJ didn't want to do. He wanted to focus more on "getting the party going". I get that, but seriously? It's things like that that I really want to avoid. I'm approaching this with an open mind... if this was music appreciation night, we'd hear Pink Floyd and Pearl Jam on the stereo for 5 hours straight. But it's not. It's a wedding. There will be rap music. There will be oldies. There will be 80s. I've already got a long list of "wedding acceptable" music that you would hardly ever hear me jamming to on a regular day, but music that indeed fits the persona of an actual wedding.

 

I have zero doubt that a good solid MC is going to tip the scale in terms of entertainment value. Things are just happening so fast that it's hard to look at the costs associated with some of these services. My fiance and I opted to do as much by ourselves as remotely possible, which is a big reason why we're going this route. But hey, like I said (going back to square one again), I just don't want to be an idiot in regard to what stereo to get, since I am essentially trying to do a 2 birds/1 stone thing here. If I can get a solid setup for a few hundred bucks that fits the wedding needs yet I can reuse with my computer later, then we have a winner.