I was thinking about buying a receiver. I didn't want to spend a lot of money but wanted the biggest bang for my buck. Is it even worth it to spend money on a surround system? I'm looking for positive and negative opinions on all this digital technology out there today.
I might be in the market too, so would love to hear about EASY to use 5.1 receivers. I have some Pioneer ones where the interface was designed by Satan crossed with a monkey. I DID ask this a year or so back so might be able to look up the answers, but what the heck?Originally Posted by Fracktured
I'm wondering if I should just get an amp and forget the receiver.
I *HAVE* a 5.1 receiver but only have it hooked up as a 2.1. Been thinking I need to explore surround sound again. Last time I investigated it, 3-4 years ago, there wasn't anything worth listening to. What I had sounded like shite.
IMO, you shouldn't bother with 5.2. Bass frequencies are omnidirectional, so having 2 sub-woofers won't give you much of a stereo effect. Save your cash by not buying that second sub-woofer.
I would recommend a receiver over just an amp. That will give you HDMI inputs for various Blu-ray players, and what not. My Sony Blu-ray players transmit much higher quality audio over HDMI out than they do the coaxial audio out.
As far as recommendations, I would recommend a Yamaha receiver. They have a discrete amp for each channel, and a high quality Burr Brown DAC. They also come with a small, tripod mounted microphone for extremely easy setup. Just place the mic where you normally sit, plug the mic into the front of the receiver, and it automatically sets speaker distance and level, and EQ. All this for a very reasonable price.
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama
The point of multiple subwoofers is not stereo; it's to counteract room nodes and provide better distribution and bass extension throughout the room. It may or may not be worthwhile, depending on room acoustics and budget.
I'm impressed with the user interface on the current Denon receivers, which also have a good reputation for reliability. You can get excellent deals on factory-refurbished units from Accessories4less.com. Examples: a full-featured consumer-grade 7.2 AVR S-720W for $300; or the similar premium version, the X-1300W, for $340. This vendor is well-regarded by the denizens of AVS Forum, and by me.
Of course, five decent matched loudspeakers and a subwoofer are going to cost a lot more than a receiver. Something like this is often recommended as a decent entry level rig, although most would suggest ditching the subwoofer and substituting a better one.
Surround sound is wonderful. I highly recommend it for contemporary movies and TV. Even more for many concert videos. And especially for the remixed classic prog albums by Yes, Tull, etc that are being released regularly.
I recommend AVSforum.com for discussion and advice on this topic.
Buy used.
It's all good, but for the best bang for your buck, buy something a few years old.
For use mostly with music, I would agree. But there are a couple of features that are only available on newer units that may be inportant in video-centric applications, notably 4k compatibility. In addition, as an iPad owner, I'd find Airplay a difficult feature to live without (although that started appearing on some receivers 5 years ago or so). In a "connected" household that has a music/video server, lots of mobile devices, and routine use of Internet audio resources, a receiver with robust networking features can be a real benefit. My Denon pulls music from my media server, my iPad, an attached hard drive, or multiple Internet music services, in addition to switching my Blu-ray, PS3, FireTV, and TiVo.
If you do look at used digital equipment, look hard at the unit's reputation for reliability of the digital processing boards. There was a very high failure rate in earlier generation HDMI boards and digital video processors in receivers, particularly in units from Pioneer and Onkyo, made around 5 to 7 years ago.
If you're not planning to spend a large amount,I recommend you purchase a basic 5.1 receiver, two nice tower speakers and at least on decent sub. Make sure you run your LF and RF speaker connections to your sub, and from your sub to the towers. Set your front speaker setting to large and turn off LFO if that is an available option.
Unless you really plan to go all out with the other speakers, or if you want a high end stereo only system, it is best to go with a basic 5.1 receiver. You will spend more for a better perfoming stereo receiver unless you happen to find one used in great condition.
The other reason for doing this is if you change your mind, you can still add on speakers.
Good point. I recently bought a small stereo SPECIFICALLY because it would connect (via Bluetooth) with my iPhone and iPad, and would play USB memory sticks.
Denon would be my second choice. Like Yamaha, Denons have a discrete amp for each channel, and a high quality DAC. For me though, Yamaha has the edge. The entry level model will natively decode a DSD stream.
If you're into classical, surround is a must for pieces like Respighi's Pines Of Rome, and Aho's Symphony No. 12. Pieces where extra instruments are placed in the audience section of the hall. The effect can be very dramatic.
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama
My last two receiver purchases have been Yamaha, and I love them both. Got a 5.1 in the living room, and an earlier 5.1 in the music room, though I use that for stereo only at this time.
"And this is the chorus.....or perhaps it's a bridge...."
Interestingly, it's possible that the most profound audible differences between receiver brands is not due the quality of their internal components, but rather to the type of room-setup/correction software they use. Yamaha (YPAO), Pioneer (MCACC), DCAC (Sony), and Audyssey (Denon, Onkyo, and others) are all different from one another, particularly in the sound they yield when attempting to generate equalized response within the listening room. This is further complicated by the various grades and generations of each of these systems that you get depending on the receiver you buy, and how they interact with your particular room and speakers.
One could easily make the case for these systems being responsible for all audible differences between equivalent receivers of different brands, at least when they're not being stressed, since the ear has a great deal of trouble distinguishing between one amplifier with inaudible noise and distortion and another.
The problem is that comparison is impossible for ordinary humans. Any of these systems produces results that improve the receivers' performance compared to not using them, so how can you ever know if choosing a different brand might have produced preferable results?
For this, and other reasons, I tend to discount all comparisons between receivers based on assessment of sound quality. I do not believe that valid comparisons are possible outside of a lab, and even then it's rare to see any attempt to actually measure the results of a room-correction system, let alone compare them with a competing one.
Learn what features are available, then decide what features you want. Know what performance levels you require. Know your budget. Think about reliability and warranty. Visual aesthetics. Ergonomics. Interoperability with your otther equipment.
Sound quality (aside from having sufficient amplifier power for your needs) is not something you can really use as a criterion, IMO. There are too many variables.
Indeed. HOW YOU SET UP YOUR MUSIC ROOM is about 10x more important than the equipment you use.
I see an awful lot of $200,000 audiophile rigs in tiny bedsits.
My last three units have been Yamaha, but I have great respect for Denon as well...!
It can enhance the experience for TV and movies.
It is a negative for music.
That said, a new-ish receiver with HDMI inputs is very useful to have, so you should probably get one even if you don't plan on doing a surround setup.
One thing I forgot to mention: My Yamaha receiver has a dynamic enhancer option, which gives CD and DVD audio some of the more open and vibrant sound I hear in analog and Hi-Res.
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama
I wonder: is the "dynamic enhancer" actually a compressor? Because CD and DVD audio has much more capability for dynamic range than analog sources... not less.
When you get into digital sound processing, every brand has its own algorithms and labels for them. And one man's meat is another man's poison. Personally, I seek to hear what's recorded, reproduced as accurately as possible, and not re-interpreted by my electronics.
Has anything ever been released in 5:2 or 7:2 formats ?
Never really understood why some receivers are manufactured to give those options?
Would definitely recommend a 5:1 set up with a ' powered ' Subwoofer as apposed to one that just hooks up via a speaker cable. I've always had to 'upgrade' the subwoofer when I've bought a 5:1 speaker system.
Last edited by Rufus; 01-19-2017 at 06:18 AM.
I'm sure the ".2" just means the same ".1" signal is sent to both subwoofers.
In lower-priced AVRs, ".2" just means there is an internal Y connector that splits the signal to two subs. In more advanced receivers, the two outputs are processed separately, each with its own levels, EQ, delay, etc.
There is no digital audio format with two separate bass channels in the recording. Occasionally a full-range recording will have some bass separation in the primary channels, but generally if it's audible it will be because it extends into the range that can be reproduced by the main speakers.
".2" then is not a "format." It simply designates the equipment's capability to handle two subwoofers. As mentioned previously, the benefit of multiple subwoofers is in their ability to aid bass extension and counteract room nodes (standing waves); they often sound better in acoustically difficult rooms.
Agreed that there is no ".2" format, and even if there was, it would be of little use as lower bass is not directional in character.
The issue with using the LFO (Low Frequency Outputs) is that the subwoofers will only function if the source has a LFO channel.
If you want the system for movies (BluRay, DVD) only, then using LFO is fine. If you want those subwoofers to play all formats (vinyl, CD, Digital players, Cable or Satellite TV, Tuner, etc.), you are better off hooking up the Left Front and Right Front speaker outputs to your sub(s) first and use the crossover to block everything below the roll off point of your front speakers. If you have tower fronts, this will be anywhere between 80-120 hz. Oh, and don't forget to hook up the subwoofer outputs to your front speakers!
The main issue for doing this is making sure your subs are used for more than just movies.
All modern AV receivers include settings for subwoofer crossover as part of the basic setup process. You select a crossover frequency for your speakers in pairs or globally, and the set the x-over on the sub itself to "off" or to its highest value, and let the receiver handle the process. This routes to the sub bass from all sources, not just the LFE (low-frequency effects, or ".1") channel on movies.
Indeed, many modern subs don't even have speaker-level connectors, because in a multichannel system they are of marginal usefulness. Of course, if you are using a pair of speakers with a non-AV amp of some sort, you need to get a sub that does have speaker connectors.
Using the AVR's bass management features is very important in a multichannel system, of course, because it's rare to have full-range center-channel or surround speakers, so low bass directed to them would cause extreme distortion, or even damage.
There's more than one type of dynamic range. There's the dynamic range of each instrument within a mix, and the dynamic range of the entire mix. In music production, low ratio "per track" compression is used for the former. High, or "infinite" ratio limiting is used for the latter, mainly in post-production and/or mastering. Music production aside, the latter would be a function of overall loudness and softness, and is medium dependent. I will concede that analog has less of the latter, but 16/44.1 (CD quality) and 16/48 (DVD quality) have less of the former.
In CD/DVD quality audio, some individual, mainly background instruments have a tendency to get lost in the mix. Recording my own, and/or work music, I've often dealt with the frustration of having a mix sound great in original hi-res, but then after down-sampling it to CD quality, suddenly not being able to hear the piano in this section, or the acoustic guitar in that section. Dealing with 16 bit audio, background instruments are either too loud and too far forward in the mix, or they're barely audible. There doesn't seem to be an in-between.
I find the same true with most recordings. Take Yes Relayer for example: in the CD version, even recent remasters, it's difficult to make out all of Patrick's keyboards in all their complexities. They turn into just a mush of sound. On the original vinyl however, every single last one rings out clear as a bell.
.....but I digress.
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks