Are you unsure about how much to spend on audio equipment?  Are you confused about what you need?  Do you know what brands are considered the best quality?

There are audiophiles who will tell you to drop $4k on equipment in order to have something worthwhile.  I’m not really an audiophile and I wouldn’t suggest spending that much unless music is your life (or some such rubbish).  I should also mention that all that follows is my opinion based on my experiences.  I’m certainly wrong about something and this could very well be it.  So…as I was saying, you don’t need to lay out four grand, but you also shouldn’t shop for audio equipment at Wal-Mart.

I will say that you do need to spend more than $500 for your entire system though.  Now, there are exceptions to this (eg., getting headphones instead of speakers, etc.).  For $500+ I’m talking about the traditional setup which includes (at minimum):

1. Receiver/amplifier (90 Watts minimum)
2. Two speakers that do well at mid and high range or headphones
3. One sub-woofer

Let’s look at each item in turn:

1. Receiver/amplifier

This is typically the most expensive single component you’ll buy.  It’ll probably cost about as much as a pair of good speakers.  The top brands tend to be Denon, Onkyo, Sony (in that order).  Some would insist to add Harman Kardon to the list.  While they make a really fine product, I don’t typically recommend this brand because I feel the price-to-performance ratio is a little higher than the others I mentioned above.  The used price on a good receiver is in the neighborhood of $250-$300.  Retail new is normally around $400.  You should keep in mind that receivers don’t last forever (those pesky transistors burn out) and newer products are always coming out, driving down the prices of last years sleek new products.  I would suggest that a receiver will last you from five to ten years depending on use, abuse and your desire for new features.

If you are shocked by the sticker price, I would suggest checking eBay and CraigsList.com for good items.  I purchased a Onkyo TX-SR604 a few years ago.  It was about 2 years old and still under warranty at the time.  I’ve been very happy with it.

You have some options.  You can use your computer and get a set of amplified speakers.  This isn’t as good, but will do in a pinch.  I highly recommend the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system.  It’s affordable new ($149) and even cheaper used or refurbished (look on eBay for used or buy a refurbished system directly through Klipsch.com) and it sounds fantastic.

OK, but you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel now.  Do you have an iPod or similar music player?  OK, we can work with that for now so move on to talk about speakers.

2a. Speakers

Speakers are another critical element of your sound system.  You can have a killer receiver but if your speakers are poor, you won’t be able to take advantage of that fine receiver.  Speakers will last you a long time (unless you abuse them) so I recommend buying the best you can possibly afford.  It’s likely that your speakers will last longer than your receiver.  Also, if you get speakers that do a good job in the low range (eg, ~80Hz), then you can get by without the sub-woofer.  Something like these speakers on the right would work well.  These are the Acoustech HT-75 speakers I have hooked up to my Onkyo receiver.  They do such a good job with the low end that I really don’t need a sub-woofer.  I paid just under $300 for the pair new.

The position of your speakers is important.  You should place them far enough apart that you get a good stereo effect.  If you’ll also be using these for TV or movies, then they should be near your TV (usually one on each side).  Also, remember that the higher the frequency, the more directional the sound.  That means that if your speakers aren’t pointing at you, you’re not likely to hear the high frequency sounds produced by the tweeter or horn (my preference).  Some receivers come with a microphone that allows it to run through an evaluation of your room to help you adjust the sound for the particular acoustic properties of the room.  This is especially helpful for those new to audio set up.

2b. Headphones

Are headphones a viable alternative to speakers?  Yes, but only if you do it right.  When I say headphones, I do not mean any of the following:

• earbuds
• earphones
• so-called “earhook” headphones
• wireless headphones
• anything that says “light weight”

Sennheiser HD 558 Audiophile Headphones

If you have any of the above, that’s fine, but I don’t consider them serious listening devices.  If you’re jogging, riding in an airplane or blocking out a coworker, then the above may meet your needs.  For this article, when I say headphones, I mean a device that is beefy enough to be a replacement for a set of nice speakers.  This falls into the professional quality headphone.  This is a set that will completely cover your ears and block out external sounds (circumaural).  Yes, they will be expensive.  I recommend no less than $100.  Sennheiser, Shure, Denon and Sony all have great models to offer.  You’ll want to pay attention though because all of these brands offer cheaper models as well as professional models of headphones. You’ll also want to watch for a good range of frequency response.  Something like 15-28,000 Hz would be a good range.

3. Sub-woofer

Acoustech H-100

Good sub-woofers aren’t cheap because they (should) have a built-in amplifier.  Don’t bother with a passive sub-woofer (ie., one without a built-in amplifier).  There are several things in a sub-woofer that affect it’s quality and it’s ability to create loud explosion sounds:

• Size of the driver (speaker cone).  10″-12″ is common for home audio equipment.  You can go a little smaller (ie, 8″) for small rooms but I wouldn’t go smaller than an 8″ driver.  The smaller driver just isn’t capable of producing the lower frequencies.
• Frequency response (how low can it go?).  Generally speaking, the lower the better.  You will often see something like 32Hz - 120Hz.  Personally, I don’t care about much above 80-90Hz.  You start getting sounds running through the sub-woofer that shouldn’t be there and it sounds weird.
• Size of the amplifier (how loud will the explosions be?).  Required amplifier size does depend on the size of your room.  Small rooms can get by with less ooomph.  I would suggest something in the neighborhood of 300 watts continuous but huge rooms may require more.
• Design of the box. This has something to do with person preferences.  There are multiple options, but unless you fall into the audiophile category, you’ll likely be happy with any of the popular designs.

Sub-woofers produce low frequency sounds (under 120Hz).  This frequency is omni-directional.  That means that you have a lot of flexibility on where you place the sub-woofer in the room.  Feel free to hide it behind a sofa or behind the TV stand.  You don’t want it too far from the other speakers, but you have more flexibility on this than with your main speakers.

It’s not unusual to spend $500 or more on a good quality sub-woofer.  Can you get by on less?  Yes.  I wouldn’t recommend spending less than about $250 on a new sub-woofer though.  Less than that and you call into question the quality of the materials.  As I mentioned before, you can get by without a sub-woofer altogether if your main speakers (or headphones) offer enough punch in the low end frequencies.

I would suggest that a good brand of portable MP3 player plus a great set of headphone would provide an adequate listening experience.  There are, of course, caveats to this statement.  This assumes you have good quality MP3s at a sufficient bit rate.  If you have 128k fixed bit rate MP3s, then you’ll be missing out.  When I rip my own MP3s, I use 245 kbps (VBR).

For a step up, I recommend a good quality receiver and a nice set of speakers.

To answer the question, “Can a registered Democrat be a Christian”? I say “Sure!” Christians do all sorts of things and take all sorts of positions. An opinion or position on an issue does not make or break a person’s salvation. We should not divide over a person’s political party. That is a great opportunity for discussion or debate over the merits of each position but it should never divide believers.

It’s interesting that you’ve brought up the Democratic party. Recently, I’ve seen a trend among evangelicals, especially younger ones. More and more of them are siding with the Democratic party. I was a little confused at first, but it seems that the migration is due to a few core issues: poverty, social justice, war and protecting the environment which the Republican party often fails to address. These issues seem to have replaced, or superseded, the traditional conservative issues of abortion & marriage. Several of my Christian friends have headed down this path and are supporting Barack Obama for president.

I wonder if this change has to do with separating themselves from the political “religious right” that has gained such a negative reputation? Certainly many of them are unhappy with the current administration and are separating themselves from that.

Regardless, I think we would all agree that poverty, social justice, unjust war and environmental issues ARE important to God and therefore should be important to us. There’s no doubt that the Bible speaks of caring for the poor and helping the weak. To act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God. There’s no doubt that we, as the church, need to be practicing these things regularly. We’re also called to be good stewards of the Earth. We should not overreact to the vocal environmentalists who tend to go too far. Just because they go too far one direction doesn’t mean that we should swing the complete opposite direction and do nothing to protect our environment. Could it be that the church is failing in these areas and that is why more and more young Christians are looking to the federal government to lead the way in these areas?

It seems to me that an important factor in this decision making process is what you think should be the role of federal government. Personally, I don’t think its role is to address poverty. That’s an issue that should be handled on the local level (preferrably non-governmentally if possible). Possibly some social justice and environmental issues merit federal government intervention. Generally speaking, I think the federal government should be MUCH smaller and less powerful than it currently is. From my reading, this is what the founding fathers intended.

Although the issues that are attractive to many Christians who are switching to the Democratic party (poverty, social justice, war and protecting the environment ) are very important, should these issues take higher precedence than abortion and marriage? In my mind, abortion is a significant evil that should be addressed legally. It should be made a crime equal with murder since that’s really what it is. A small human being dies as the result of abortion regardless of when you believe the “soul enters the body”. I really think it’s that simple. If the states were allowed to rule on this issue as they ought to be, that might be the beginning of the end of abortion.

Legal steps for ending abortion are vital but we certainly shouldn’t stop there. If abortion was ended today, the adoption organizations would likely be overwhelmed. Young women would need our help. This should not be a government issue though. This is something that the church and other non-profit organizations should handle. I wonder if we should be doing more today to support and encourage adoption options for these young women faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

Regarding the issue of marriage, I don’t have a concrete position. Part of me says that we’re trying to legislate a Christian principle (marriage = 1 man + 1 woman) on a non-Christian nation. On the other hand, much of our legislation does have Christian origins (eg, property ownership, murder, etc.) which benefit everybody. This is a tough issue.

So, overall, I do think that the issue of abortion outranks poverty, social justice, war and protecting the environment. It is the greatest evil perpetrated by the United States in recent history. This really is the “slavery” of our time.

At this time, the Republican party and John McCain still take a stronger stance against abortion than the Democratic party and Berack Obama do. It’s still a SIGNIFICANT difference in position even after the Democratic party recently updated/softened it’s official position on abortion.

Having said all that, I still think the other issues are important and we should be contacting our Congressmen regularly to tell them what we think about marriage, poverty, war, social justice and the environment. Our top priority should be ending abortion though.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I’m a registered Republican and plan to vote for John McCain. I’ve been somewhat hesitant about the Republican nominee due to his moderate stance on many issues but he does seem to line up more with my beliefs than Barack Obama does. I disagree with both candidates on several issues (eg, national health insurance, $700 Billion financial bailout, etc.).

-dougl