Receivers vs. separates?

[GMichael]

Receivers vs. separates? OK, so this one has been beat to death. But a few more questions please. If I were to go to separates, do they have auto setups like my Yamaha? If not, what is needed to do this manually? My Yammie measures several aspects.

Distance: ok, I can use a tape measure. Next.
Level: Radio Shack sell meters for this. Think I can handle it.
EQ for each speaker: 9 speakers plus sub? Don't know what kind of meter I need for this but I could find. A little work but doable.
The last one? Don't even remember what it's called: No clue. WTF, how do I go about this one?

Is there that big of a difference between my Yammie's processor and a separate's processor?

[L.J.]

Wow. Talking about reading my mind. I was going to post the same thread with similar questions. I have been following the recv dilemma thread closely. I will follow this just as close. If I could be so rude and just throw one more question in there, I was wondering would amping your mains off balance your HT setup? Since more power would be going to the mains than the rest of your speakers. Just curious. Sorry for butting in....

[paul_pci]

Any adjustment to one's set up, including adding a 2-channel amp, repositioning, changing furniture arrangement necessitates a recalibration of the speaker level. Even fits of boredom call for recalibrating your system.

[GMichael]

Wow. Talking about reading my mind. I was going to post the same thread with similar questions. I have been following the recv dilemma thread closely. I will follow this just as close. If I could be so rude and just throw one more question in there, I was wondering would amping your mains off balance your HT setup? Since more power would be going to the mains than the rest of your speakers. Just curious. Sorry for butting in....

No problem. Add all the questions you can think of.

My Yammie's auto set up would measure the total volume level coming out of each speaker including the mains with or without an additional amp's help. So I think that would not matter. But they may end up being turned down.
I already have my system set up 2 ways. One for HT and another for 2 channel listening. I can switch back and forth with a touch of a button thanks to it's 6 memory settings. So I would set up the 2 channel as to not turn the mains down.

Good question. Add that to my list of "will a separate do this for me?"

[swgiust]

You have a nice system put together. The first question is are you unhappy with the
way it sounds now? It doesn't sound like you are.

Second, is what level of performance can you expect from what you have?

Good quality receiver,
Good quality speakers.

Nice balance.

Adding separate amps and pre/pro's would be to your advantage IF you are going
to upgrade you Primus speakers. If not, you would NEVER hear the difference in
the system you have.

Take the time, set it up right, and enjoy.

[L.J.]

So the benefits to amping the mains would be for musical purposes since HT requires a calibration of the speaker levels?

Would lets say 200 watts at the same level of 100 watts make a huge difference than overall sound?

I was also wondering whats the difference in using a pre/pro+amp combo vs. using a avr with preouts+amps?


Please understand the I come from a world of BB,CC and Gguys and all this is extremely new to me.

[GMichael]

The Outlaw 950 7.1 preamp comes with a microphone. You plug it in to the front and sit the mic where your head would be and the levels, distance, and I think even crossover points (it has independant crossovers for EACH channel!) are all done for you. It don't get no easier than that.

The 'memory settings' are pretty much a standard feature of any good AV receiver or preamp so that's not a problem. And if I'm not mistaken the Outlaw allows you to have custom settings for each source. So instead of having a blanket 'ht' setup and a blanket 'music' setup, you can set it up for each individual source.

I knew I could count on you Nab. Thanks a bunch!

By the way, sorry I left you off of the most helpful link. My poor a.s oversight.

[N. Abstentia]

The Outlaw 950 7.1 preamp comes with a microphone. You plug it in to the front and sit the mic where your head would be and the levels, distance, and I think even crossover points (it has independant crossovers for EACH channel!) are all done for you. It don't get no easier than that.

The 'memory settings' are pretty much a standard feature of any good AV receiver or preamp so that's not a problem. And if I'm not mistaken the Outlaw allows you to have custom settings for each source. So instead of having a blanket 'ht' setup and a blanket 'music' setup, you can set it up for each individual source.

[GMichael]

You have a nice system put together. The first question is are you unhappy with the
way it sounds now? It doesn't sound like you are.

Second, is what level of performance can you expect from what you have?

Good quality receiver,
Good quality speakers.

Nice balance.

Adding separate amps and pre/pro's would be to your advantage IF you are going
to upgrade you Primus speakers. If not, you would NEVER hear the difference in
the system you have.

Take the time, set it up right, and enjoy.

hahahaha, You are so riiiight. I do love my system. Thank you for saying it's nice.
But I made a HUGE mistake a few months back. I walked into a high end stereo store. They had a pair of maggies on the wall. Couldn't believe my ears. They sounded like the band was in the room with me.
Eventually my current system will end up in my new basement (after that's built) and a new system will be needed for upstairs. No budget at this point but it never hurts to think ahead. If I build a system from scratch it will end up with Maggies. I saw the new RX-V4600 came out and has the amps to drive maggies. Would still add an extra amp for the mains. But if a sepperate "sounds" better, then I want to at least consider it.

[nick4433]

The Outlaw 950 7.1 preamp comes with a microphone. You plug it in to the front and sit the mic where your head would be and the levels, distance, and I think even crossover points (it has independant crossovers for EACH channel!) are all done for you. It don't get no easier than that.

The 'memory settings' are pretty much a standard feature of any good AV receiver or preamp so that's not a problem. And if I'm not mistaken the Outlaw allows you to have custom settings for each source. So instead of having a blanket 'ht' setup and a blanket 'music' setup, you can set it up for each individual source.

NaB, do you mean the Outlaw 990?

[nick4433]

Receivers vs. separates? OK, so this one has been beat to death. But a few more questions please. If I were to go to separates, do they have auto setups like my Yamaha? If not, what is needed to do this manually? My Yammie measures several aspects.

Distance: ok, I can use a tape measure. Next.
Level: Radio Shack sell meters for this. Think I can handle it.
EQ for each speaker: 9 speakers plus sub? Don't know what kind of meter I need for this but I could find. A little work but doable.
The last one? Don't even remember what it's called: No clue. WTF, how do I go about this one?

Is there that big of a difference between my Yammie's processor and a separate's processor?

OK, the Yammy 2500 is a pretty good receiver but being a receiver means it will not compare with an amp when it comes to clean power. However before getting into seperates you should try adding an external amp to the Yammy and see the difference, if any.
That would be my first step.

[N. Abstentia]

NaB, do you mean the Outlaw 990?

Yes I do mean the 990..sorry about that :)

[mazdamanic]

hahahaha, You are so riiiight. I do love my system. Thank you for saying it's nice.
But I made a HUGE mistake a few months back. I walked into a high end stereo store. They had a pair of maggies on the wall. Couldn't believe my ears. They sounded like the band was in the room with me.
Eventually my current system will end up in my new basement (after that's built) and a new system will be needed for upstairs. No budget at this point but it never hurts to think ahead. If I build a system from scratch it will end up with Maggies. I saw the new RX-V4600 came out and has the amps to drive maggies. Would still add an extra amp for the mains. But if a sepperate "sounds" better, then I want to at least consider it.

Hey GMichael, if you are considering Maggies in the future forget about receivers and consider some serious and clean amplification like Rotel, Parasound, B&K etc but above all you have got to have a top notch line stage to realize the full potential of maggies.

[MyThingIs23InchesFlacid!]

Yamahas are WEAK receivers; if you want to go receiver get a Denon. Separates will sound better given a good amount to spend, but for a "moderate amount" of money, you'll noitice nothing different.

Want a difference in sound, Krell will do it. Sunfire Sigs, Bryston, etc along with a good processor like a Lexicon, Krell, Meridian (over-p;riced in my opinion) also are good.

Yamaha is a weak piece for the money. A poor man's Denon is what we call it and you'll be pissed you bought it withion a month.

It's only my humble opinion.

But remember, this is ALL opinion!!!!!!!!

[GMichael]

Yamahas are WEAK receivers; if you want to go receiver get a Denon. Separates will sound better given a good amount to spend, but for a "moderate amount" of money, you'll noitice nothing different.

Want a difference in sound, Krell will do it. Sunfire Sigs, Bryston, etc along with a good processor like a Lexicon, Krell, Meridian (over-p;riced in my opinion) also are good.

Yamaha is a weak piece for the money. A poor man's Denon is what we call it and you'll be pissed you bought it withion a month.

It's only my humble opinion.

But remember, this is ALL opinion!!!!!!!!

Yeah... right....

Month+ is up. Still love it. Try again..

[kexodusc]

The choice of receiver vs. separates isn't as easy as we often make it out to be. Application is the key.
While it is true that modern a/v receivers don't include the same large internal amplifiers that you'd find in separates, this doesn't instantly give an advantage to separates.
If you only ever listen to music or home theater at 70 to 80 dB in a medium size room or smaller on relatively efficient speakers or say 90 dB, a lot of receiver will have absolutely no problem effortlessly driving 5 and even 7 channels. 20 watts per channel would be adequate, 30 or 40 would provide more headroom than you could use. Having extra power available would be wasted. Again, IF moderate volumes in small rooms with efficient speaker is the situation.

Problem is, once you start altering things, including how far you are sitting from each speaker, the speaker's sensitivity, you listening preferences, number of speakers, etc, you can eat up a receivers power reserves fairly quickly. At louder volumes musical peaks can push an amp into clipping. With most modern avr's, as you add speakers to the initial 2 stereo speakers, the power available drops to all speakers drops. These are just some power capacity concerns.

Buying a bigger, more powerful avr will help, but power itself is only one consideration. Amplifiers have their own tonality characteristics (which can vary from speaker to speaker too). When I bought my RX-V1400, I demoed a few models of receivers in my home over a period of 3 weeks or so. Immediately, I noticed that the Denon (2803 or 2703? if memory serves - was $100 more than my 1400 at the time)and the RX-V1400, sounded incredibly similar. In fact, I couldn't hear any noteworthy differences for music at all. The H/K 630 receiver was a bit different, but it wasn't my cup of tea....great unit though. All of these were plenty powerful...it was the other features in the end that led me to buy the Yammie. I also had NAD receiver during this time. It was by far the most powerful and also very obviously the best sounding of the bunch. It had it's own sound again, different from the Denon, Yamaha, and H/K...

I attributed the differences to the higher quality pre-amp stage of the NAD. This contributes a lot to sound as well. H/K, Denon, Yamaha, Marantz, etc make good receivers, but compromises are made. NAD builds their receivers off the same platforms as their separates and integrateds. A good step up on quality, especially the pre-amps side of things. It was too much money for me to justify at the time because I was also buying a new 2-channel stereo system. This is an example where receivers aren't necessarily inferior to separates, because they use the same quality of components, just in one box...add some external power to meet your needs, and you shouldn't notice a difference.

Adding power to the Yamaha (which I've done in my system) will result in significant improvments in sound quality, but only to a certain point. The pre-amp stage is still only so-so in these things. A good separate pre-pro will have a leg up here. The differences aren't night and day, in fact at first they can be hard to hear. Without being snobby, I think there's a certain plateau for speaker performance you should be at before bothering. When I was shopping, I had a complete 7.1 Paradigm Studio speaker system. I borrowed a few pre/pros and amps after my Yamaha purchase (Bryston and Arcam). I could tell an immediate difference in the finer resolution over my receiver's sound. When I hooked up my Wharfedale Emeralds or Axiom M3ti's though, there wasn't much difference to be heard. I don't think the speakers could do the electronics justice.

My point here is that I think separates can add significant performance improvements, but don't get carried away. Great speakers on a decent avr should sound better than decent speakers powered by great separates.

I think the choice to go to separates should be made with long-term planning in mind. If you own your gear for 7-10 years, and are happy, there might not be much point in upgrading a receiver in favor of separates. If you're trading up more frequently though, I think you can achieve better performance and save money while adding flexibility long-term. Quality amplification is cheap these days...especially if you buy used (which I've been doing). They last for decades. So upgrading is a matter of buying a new pre/pro every few years (and maybe some common minor adjustments you'd do for receivers and separates). If you were to spend $1500-$2000 or so on a good receiver, spending that same amount on just a pre/pro should capture a bit more quality and performance for the money...I wouldn't lie and say it's 20% better, it's not...maybe 5% or so if you want to quantify it. But it's there and you can really appreciate it over time.

Naturally, as you increase your budet, you can buy better electronics (to a point IMO, diminishing returns and all). I think there's a certain stage though, were if the budget is there, that separates will provide better value and performance for the same price as high-end receivers. Especially during the first upgrade.

Back to application - if you plan to use your system more for movies than for music, buying a mid-level receiver AND external amplification might be a better way of spending your money. You won't find too much difference (if any) in the way a $400 Denon processes DTS and a $3000 Bryston Pre/pro processes DTS. If you're on a tighter budget for your audio needs, using a receiver as a pre-pro is a pretty good way of incorporating a control box into your system that captures most of the performance at a reduced cost...

There's a lot of value in receivers, I think we as audio enthusiasts tend to look down on them too much, and too harshly. They're probably not in anyone's "dream system", but that doesn't mean they can't serve a very useful purpose and deliver fantastic results.

[kexodusc]

So the benefits to amping the mains would be for musical purposes since HT requires a calibration of the speaker levels?
Not exactly...more amplification adds more headroom and better sound and control over the speakers for any purpose, music or home theater. At lower volumes the differences will be very small, maybe not noticeable. But as you start to go louder you can hear notice improvements rather quickly.


Would lets say 200 watts at the same level of 100 watts make a huge difference than overall sound?
No. IMO, double the power isn't really enough of an improvement. IF a 100 watt amp is at its limits where sound quality starts to deteriorate, a 200 watt amp isn't really that far away. It's more of a small difference. For some speakers though, 200 watts will be enough where 100 watts might not be. Usually people are advised to at least double power when upgrading amps (all other things equal), but a factor of 2 X isn't that much when it comes to power.


I was also wondering whats the difference in using a pre/pro+amp combo vs. using a avr with preouts+amps?
Pre-pros generally should have a better pre-amp stage, especially for analog sources. Just a bit finer musical quality. Amps amplify signals they receive from the pre-amps, so if the pre-amp signal is better, the output from the amp should be better. For digital sources, the differences are much smaller usually. For analog they can be significant, especially if you're connecting a turntable with phono inputs in my experience. Huge difference.

[shokhead]

Yamahas are WEAK receivers; if you want to go receiver get a Denon. Separates will sound better given a good amount to spend, but for a "moderate amount" of money, you'll noitice nothing different.

Want a difference in sound, Krell will do it. Sunfire Sigs, Bryston, etc along with a good processor like a Lexicon, Krell, Meridian (over-p;riced in my opinion) also are good.

Yamaha is a weak piece for the money. A poor man's Denon is what we call it and you'll be pissed you bought it withion a month.

It's only my humble opinion.

But remember, this is ALL opinion!!!!!!!!

Who is we?

[shokhead]

Any adjustment to one's set up, including adding a 2-channel amp, repositioning, changing furniture arrangement necessitates a recalibration of the speaker level. Even fits of boredom call for recalibrating your system.


Its just not that hard to do. I think there's to much todo about auto setup. I wouldnt let that be a selling point,at least not for me.

[kexodusc]

Its just not that hard to do. I think there's to much todo about auto setup. I wouldnt let that be a selling point,at least not for me.
For the most part I agree...Except in the case of onboard Parametric Eq's included in Auto-Setup....they sometimes can make a reasonable improvement in system performance. Especially systems that don't have all identical speakers.
In my situation, there's some moderate EQ'ing to compensate for each speaker's environment, though I can't tell by listening to it. I can hear the adjustments made to perfectly blend my matching center channel to my mains though. Not a night day difference for me, but I can see where it could be useful for some.
They are fairly accurate and do save quite a bit of time...nice feature that simply shoudl be standard on all receivers at this point.

[GMichael]

Thanks Kex,

A very thorough explanation. I think I have most of it now.

Pre-pro = better for music (especially analog) (5 to 10%, maybe a little more)?
Pre-pro = a little better for HT & digital. (less than 5%)?
AVR = better for your wallet, most of the time.
Variables = brand & model of pre-pro, speakers, amp(s) & receiver.
Budget & personal preferances = biggest difference.
Your experience & assistance = invaluable!

By the way, I do like the system I have now very much. I'm still amazed at how good it sounds each time I turn it on. But if better is available? Sure would like to have it. (if it doesn't bust my budget)
Time will tell on the budget. System number 3 will be based on that when the time comes.

[kexodusc]

GMichael: Don't put too much stock into the exact % figures I use...Just trying to make a point it's not a 2 X or 1.5 X difference....Still well worth it in many cases to many people...

[GMichael]

No problem. Somewhat better for somewhat more depending on a lot of variables.

Thank Kex

[MyThingIs23InchesFlacid!]

Who is we?

My HT Club members and me. 3 people with a passion for the HT life and we speak regularly. Nothing formal and nothing other than guys trying to watch each others' back, provide support/help with new gear as needed, and helping to do research when it comes time to buy new gear.

As for the guy with the Yamaha, nothing personal and don't mean to be so opinionated about Yamaha vs Denon.

Like I mentioned in one of my posts, "it is all opinion". I just apologize for coming across as a jerk. In reading it now, I see your point!

[L.J.]

Not exactly...more amplification adds more headroom and better sound and control over the speakers for any purpose, music or home theater. At lower volumes the differences will be very small, maybe not noticeable. But as you start to go louder you can hear notice improvements rather quickly.


No. IMO, double the power isn't really enough of an improvement. IF a 100 watt amp is at its limits where sound quality starts to deteriorate, a 200 watt amp isn't really that far away. It's more of a small difference. For some speakers though, 200 watts will be enough where 100 watts might not be. Usually people are advised to at least double power when upgrading amps (all other things equal), but a factor of 2 X isn't that much when it comes to power.


Pre-pros generally should have a better pre-amp stage, especially for analog sources. Just a bit finer musical quality. Amps amplify signals they receive from the pre-amps, so if the pre-amp signal is better, the output from the amp should be better. For digital sources, the differences are much smaller usually. For analog they can be significant, especially if you're connecting a turntable with phono inputs in my experience. Huge difference.


Thanks for the reply Kex. It all makes perfect sense.

[GMichael]

My HT Club members and me. 3 people with a passion for the HT life and we speak regularly. Nothing formal and nothing other than guys trying to watch each others' back, provide support/help with new gear as needed, and helping to do research when it comes time to buy new gear.

As for the guy with the Yamaha, nothing personal and don't mean to be so opinionated about Yamaha vs Denon.

Like I mentioned in one of my posts, "it is all opinion". I just apologize for coming across as a jerk. In reading it now, I see your point!

No problem. Welcome to a link with lots of people with a passion for the HT life, and who speak regularly.

The Yamaha vs Denon thing has been beat to death on this forum. Both seem to have equal numbers of supporters. When I auditioned both I found that I liked both. There were small differences and I ended up liking the Yamaha a tini bit more. I have no regrets. It's a great unit. If I had bought the Denon I'm sure I's still have had no regrets. They make a class unit as well.

[Lexmark3200]

I have been following this thread with much eagerness and anticipation as it has provided a MASSIVE deal of information and insight from all of (us) who share this obsession and way of life that is home theater and/or home musical reproduction; fascinating observations are made here and I have to applaud Mr. G for beginning this thread as I was getting ready to do the same thing as I ponder over receivers vs. separates and lose sleep over the question of whether I did the right thing by going with a receiver as the heart of my system ---- especially one without preamp outs to add an amp.

At any rate, let's get back to the issue at hand. I have to be honest: there are moments when I feel like my Onkyo receiver is just pumpin' out plenty of ear splitting audio when playing back a DVD and its subsequent 5.1 soundtrack of some kind --- in fact, it is almost always too loud for the other family members even walking near the home theater room, entering the kitchen, etc; I am usually bombared with yells of "LOWER THAT!" if I'm watching a film with a lot of onscreen action and a kick-ass DTS track or such. And this is coming from a receiver that is ADVERTISED to be "delivering" 80 watts x 6 (well, X 5 in my case) according to my speaker ohm situation-----but we all know how "accurate" that could be.....*rolls eyes*

Still, I cannot help but think, as I scrutinize DVD soundtracks as I listen to them through this Onkyo TX-SR600, that alot of the time, even as I approach high volumes on the receiver's display screen, I COULD in fact be needing or wanting more power --- MOST of the time, the power output (and the receiver is totally calibrated and balanced correctly) for a modern-day action blockbuster seems to be plenty from this receiver --- sure, it's not theater-ear-bleedingly loud, but then again I'm not running three thousand watt per channel amps here-----but there ARE times when I feel like a receiver wasn't the best way to go to fill this home theater listening area; it is a very strange phenomenon that we walk amongst here as enthusiasts, the receiver vs. separates issue: because on one hand, I wanted (as all receiver owners want) the absolute convenience of having all the processors and decoding abilities in one chassis, along with the power to amplify the signals to the speakers-----hence, the decision for the A/V receiver. Yet, I STILL wanted those house-breaking SPL levels during certain films that you never seem to achieve with receivers, especially in the TX-SR600's price range. THEN AGAIN, like I said, MOST of the time, if I get that volume to a comfortable level, this unit SEEMS to be giving off very nice power----nice enough to get members in the household to constantly tell me to lower it when they enter the home theater area.

So is there any final concensus about this? Are receivers "good enough" in some of your opinions for powering a home theater system? Can some of them be considered "just as good" for average HT situations than power amp setups? It is absolutely NECESSARY to have multichannel power amps and pre-pros powering our home theaters or can receivers do it just as well in MOST situations? Your thoughts?

[Jim Clark]

There is no concensus, final or otherwise. People buy within their means a system that meets their needs. As a person's means and needs change, so does the system. I promise that what's good enough for you falls short for me. What's good enough for me falls way short for someone else. Until you can get your brain wrapped around that one single fact you are doomed to ask the same questions over and over again without ever coming up with an answer.

jc

[Lexmark3200]

Outside of Jim's opinion, how does everyone else feel about the receivers vs. separates debate? Are receivers "good enough" for many of you powering HTs? Are separate multichannel amps powering EACH channel of a 5.1 system really necessary?

[GMichael]

Outside of Jim's opinion, how does everyone else feel about the receivers vs. separates debate? Are receivers "good enough" for many of you powering HTs? Are separate multichannel amps powering EACH channel of a 5.1 system really necessary?

Hi Lex,

I think your Onkyo is fine for HT. I don't think seperates are necessary. But, I sure would like them. You would most likely enjoy them too. Are they in your budget?

Think of it this way, is it necessary to drive a Lexus or a BMW etc? I would say no, but I'd take one if given to me. Others may think of them as a step down. It's up to us/you.

Do you like your system?
Do you have any complaints?
How much do these complaints mean to you?
Do you have the money to upgrade?

You don't "need" to upgrade. But we all feel the bug.

[swgiust]

If you use a receiver and have your speakers set up right, you should have a most
excellent home theater sound. All your speakers should be set to small and the
sub woofer cross over between 80-120hz. With this set up, you don't need 100's of
watts of power to produce extreme levels of volume. I would spend more money on
a good subwoofer before I would worry about replacing a receiver that is working fine.

[shokhead]

So that will work with any speaker?

[swgiust]

99% of all the systems you see people have on this site should be set up this
way. Even if you have physically large speakers, doesn't mean they should be
set to large.

[shokhead]

99% of all the systems you see people have on this site should be set up this
way. Even if you have physically large speakers, doesn't mean they should be
set to large.

Really? My x over is at 60.

[L.J.]

99% of all the systems you see people have on this site should be set up this
way. Even if you have physically large speakers, doesn't mean they should be
set to large.

Why? Just curious.

[swgiust]

The first thing you have to realize is that setting a cross over at a certain number does
not eliminate all the sound below that number. For instance, if you set your cross over
at 80hz, this is a roll off point, your speakers may still produce some sound all the way
down to 35 or 40hz.

Second, even if you have tower speakers that are rated down to 35hz, it doesn't mean
they produce good sound all the way down to 35hz.

The same can be said for your sub, just because you set it at 80hz doesnt mean that
it will not produce any sound above that.

So the goal is to have the two sides meet in the middle. this allows your speakers to
produce the sound that they produce best and your sub to do the bottom end work.
It also allows for a receiver of lesser power to not have to worry about producing huge
amounts of bass (which takes up the most energy).

I know of systems, HTIB mostly, that may have cross over settings higher than 120hz,
and some people who have really good tower speakers and the power to drive them,
that have their settings lower than 80. But the vast majority will end up in that 80 to
120hz range.

[GMichael]

The first thing you have to realize is that setting a cross over at a certain number does
not eliminate all the sound below that number. For instance, if you set your cross over
at 80hz, this is a roll off point, your speakers may still produce some sound all the way
down to 35 or 40hz.

Second, even if you have tower speakers that are rated down to 35hz, it doesn't mean
they produce good sound all the way down to 35hz.

The same can be said for your sub, just because you set it at 80hz doesnt mean that
it will not produce any sound above that.

So the goal is to have the two sides meet in the middle. this allows your speakers to
produce the sound that they produce best and your sub to do the bottom end work.
It also allows for a receiver of lesser power to not have to worry about producing huge
amounts of bass (which takes up the most energy).

I know of systems, HTIB mostly, that may have cross over settings higher than 120hz,
and some people who have really good tower speakers and the power to drive them,
that have their settings lower than 80. But the vast majority will end up in that 80 to
120hz range.

I set mine at 60. It seems to make the base sound a little "sharper" or "tighter". Do you think that's OK for my system?

[shokhead]

Why? Just curious.

Because it works better then 80.

[L.J.]

The first thing you have to realize is that setting a cross over at a certain number does
not eliminate all the sound below that number. For instance, if you set your cross over
at 80hz, this is a roll off point, your speakers may still produce some sound all the way
down to 35 or 40hz.

Second, even if you have tower speakers that are rated down to 35hz, it doesn't mean
they produce good sound all the way down to 35hz.

The same can be said for your sub, just because you set it at 80hz doesnt mean that
it will not produce any sound above that.

So the goal is to have the two sides meet in the middle. this allows your speakers to
produce the sound that they produce best and your sub to do the bottom end work.
It also allows for a receiver of lesser power to not have to worry about producing huge
amounts of bass (which takes up the most energy).

I know of systems, HTIB mostly, that may have cross over settings higher than 120hz,
and some people who have really good tower speakers and the power to drive them,
that have their settings lower than 80. But the vast majority will end up in that 80 to
120hz range.

It all makes sense. So what is the best method of reaching this goal? My auto setup on my Denon set all my speakers to large. Is this where an spl meter and test tone disc comes into play? How does one know if 80hz is the magic crossover point?

My current system is:
Energy C-9 towers, C-C1 center, C-R1 surrounds and S12.3 sub. Denon 2805 avr 100wpc.

[shokhead]

A setup disc. Avia is what i used. I do the Auto setup for the EQ but go back and do the speaker setup myself,the long way.

[L.J.]

A setup disc. Avia is what i used. I do the Auto setup for the EQ but go back and do the speaker setup myself,the long way.

I just got DVE in the mail a week ago but I havent gone through it yet. I'm assuming this can be used??

[swgiust]

I set mine at 60. It seems to make the base sound a little "sharper" or "tighter". Do you think that's OK for my system?

With the size of the driver in the Primus speakers, Your setting should be at least
80 if not even higher.

You may feel that the bass is tighter at 60 hz, but it is probably an issue with
how your subwoofer sounds in your room. You may have a peak at 70 or 80hz
which would make your subwoofer sound boomy.

So even though setting your crossover at 60 helps the problem, it's not really
the ideal solution. Working with your sub to get it dialed in will produce a much
better overall sound. Does your sub have the RABOS system?

[GMichael]

RABOS system?
I doubt it. I'll look into it. Thanks.

[Lexmark3200]

"I think your Onkyo is fine for HT. I don't think seperates are necessary."

Hello, G, and as always, thanks for your input! I guess this is what I wanted to know above....but......

"But, I sure would like them. You would most likely enjoy them too. Are they in your budget?"

Right now, no. But I would love to be able to keep my Onkyo as a preamp and add a multichannel, 200 watt per channel power amp to drive the system however my TX-SR600 doesnt have pre-outs.

"Think of it this way, is it necessary to drive a Lexus or a BMW etc? I would say no, but I'd take one if given to me."

Of course. But with audio equipment, Im just wondering if receivers are "okay" to drive an entire HT system as opposed to separates.

"Do you like your system?"

On the whole, yes; it could use some more power sometimes but I LOVE the build quality and FEEL of the controls of this Onkyo; the all-aluminum faceplate is gorgeous in my opinion.

"Do you have any complaints?"

The advertised "80 watts x 6" power output of this unit......sometimes I need to bring the volume of certain DVD soundtracks WAY up beyond "normal" listening levels in order to get really "immersed" in the track, but this could be the way the individual DVD was mastered, as well, I believe.

"How much do these complaints mean to you?"

The power issue means alot----since I can constantly hear our four dogs barking over a film Im watching in surround or when snack bags are rustling in the room by guests or whatever; but that brings us back to the "ambient noise" issue, where is it NORMAL to be able to hear such noises around you in a home theater during quiet and somewhat louder sequences of a DVD soundtrack?

"Do you have the money to upgrade?"

As the new Associate Editor for a magazine, I have supplemented my income now and hopefully will be able to upgrade soon; but the question becomes----do I want to give up that downright convenience that a receiver offers just for separates and more power? I mean, with a receiver, you pretty much plug your speaker wires in, run the digital cable from the DVD player to receiver, calibrate the speakers and go.

"You don't "need" to upgrade. But we all feel the bug."

And thats ANOTHER thing-----if our equipment is a couple of years old already (as my TX-SR600 has been replaced by no less than two models already by Onkyo) does that mean we HAVE to get rid of it if it's doing everything else we want it to do? I mean, this unit decodes ALL the soundtracks I need it to ---- DTS ES, Dolby EX, and includes Pro Logic II steering, so even though its not a BRAND SPANKING NEW unit, does that mean I cannot hold onto it do you think?

Thanks G for this great discussion!

[Lexmark3200]

"If you use a receiver and have your speakers set up right, you should have a most
excellent home theater sound."

Thank you for your thoughts; they have put me at ease a bit!

"All your speakers should be set to small and the
sub woofer cross over between 80-120hz."

Indeed this is EXACTLY how my system is set up. Thank you for the assurance.

"With this set up, you don't need 100's of
watts of power to produce extreme levels of volume. I would spend more money on
a good subwoofer before I would worry about replacing a receiver that is working fine."

Perhaps I shall do that. Thank you again for your great input.

[GMichael]

"I think your Onkyo is fine for HT. I don't think seperates are necessary."

Hello, G, and as always, thanks for your input! I guess this is what I wanted to know above....but......

Anytime

"But, I sure would like them. You would most likely enjoy them too. Are they in your budget?"

Right now, no. But I would love to be able to keep my Onkyo as a preamp and add a multichannel, 200 watt per channel power amp to drive the system however my TX-SR600 doesnt have pre-outs.

Yeah, I remember. Bummer.

"Think of it this way, is it necessary to drive a Lexus or a BMW etc? I would say no, but I'd take one if given to me."

Of course. But with audio equipment, Im just wondering if receivers are "okay" to drive an entire HT system as opposed to separates.

I think so.

"Do you like your system?"

On the whole, yes; it could use some more power sometimes but I LOVE the build quality and FEEL of the controls of this Onkyo; the all-aluminum faceplate is gorgeous in my opinion.

Cool

"Do you have any complaints?"

The advertised "80 watts x 6" power output of this unit......sometimes I need to bring the volume of certain DVD soundtracks WAY up beyond "normal" listening levels in order to get really "immersed" in the track, but this could be the way the individual DVD was mastered, as well, I believe.

I don't see that as bad.

"How much do these complaints mean to you?"

The power issue means alot----since I can constantly hear our four dogs barking over a film Im watching in surround or when snack bags are rustling in the room by guests or whatever; but that brings us back to the "ambient noise" issue, where is it NORMAL to be able to hear such noises around you in a home theater during quiet and somewhat louder sequences of a DVD soundtrack?

Four dogs barking can be very loud. More than you'll hear at most theaters.

"Do you have the money to upgrade?"

As the new Associate Editor for a magazine, I have supplemented my income now and hopefully will be able to upgrade soon; but the question becomes----do I want to give up that downright convenience that a receiver offers just for separates and more power? I mean, with a receiver, you pretty much plug your speaker wires in, run the digital cable from the DVD player to receiver, calibrate the speakers and go.

As NAb pointed out, separates are not as complicated as they sound (no pun). But if you want to stay with a receiver they make some good ones that would be all you need. Let the company pay for it. It's a business expense! Think they'll fall for it?

"You don't "need" to upgrade. But we all feel the bug."

And thats ANOTHER thing-----if our equipment is a couple of years old already (as my TX-SR600 has been replaced by no less than two models already by Onkyo) does that mean we HAVE to get rid of it if it's doing everything else we want it to do? I mean, this unit decodes ALL the soundtracks I need it to ---- DTS ES, Dolby EX, and includes Pro Logic II steering, so even though its not a BRAND SPANKING NEW unit, does that mean I cannot hold onto it do you think?

I think it's fine. But if a new format comes out, your readers may want to hear how they sound. That may have nothing to do with the receiver at this point. But NAb made a good point about that as well. If you have separates then you only need to change your processor. The amps could stay as they are.

Thanks G for this great discussion!

Anytime, hope we both learn from the many knowledgeable people on this forum.

[Lexmark3200]

Anytime

Thank you good friend.

Yeah, I remember. Bummer.

Is there any way around this?

I think so.

Thank you.

I don't see that as bad.

Don't see what as bad----that I need to bring the volume level up?

Four dogs barking can be very loud. More than you'll hear at most theaters.

So, you're saying it would be relatively normal for these to be a distraction?

As NAb pointed out, separates are not as complicated as they sound (no pun). But if you want to stay with a receiver they make some good ones that would be all you need. Let the company pay for it. It's a business expense! Think they'll fall for it?

Thanks for your input on this; I'll try and run the receiver suggestion past my bosses!

I think it's fine. But if a new format comes out, your readers may want to hear how they sound. That may have nothing to do with the receiver at this point. But NAb made a good point about that as well. If you have separates then you only need to change your processor. The amps could stay as they are.

Right; so are you saying that we should only be concerned with the decoding abilities of the receiver and not its AGE per se? It seems like changing a processor every time a new format comes along would be a pain as well, even though the amps would be there. How many more formats are we going to have to worry about on the horizon beyond DTS, DTS ES, Dolby, Dolby EX, etc? Jesus......

[GMichael]

Is there any way around this?

Yeah, I think I saw someone talk about a way a few weeks ago. But they did say that it wasn't a GOOD fix.

I don't see that as bad.

Don't see what as bad----that I need to bring the volume level up?

Right, as long as it's not distorted, no problem.

Four dogs barking can be very loud. More than you'll hear at most theaters.

So, you're saying it would be relatively normal for these to be a distraction?

I would be very distracted, and would most likely hit pause and glare at the dogs.


I think it's fine. But if a new format comes out, your readers may want to hear how they sound. That may have nothing to do with the receiver at this point. But NAb made a good point about that as well. If you have separates then you only need to change your processor. The amps could stay as they are.

Right; so are you saying that we should only be concerned with the decoding abilities of the receiver and not its AGE per se? It seems like changing a processor every time a new format comes along would be a pain as well, even though the amps would be there. How many more formats are we going to have to worry about on the horizon beyond DTS, DTS ES, Dolby, Dolby EX, etc? Jesus

Only time will tell.

Have a good night.

[Lexmark3200]

Yeah, I think I saw someone talk about a way a few weeks ago. But they did say that it wasn't a GOOD fix.

In what way-----that a line converter or something could be used to convert a signal from the receiver to the amp?

Right, as long as it's not distorted, no problem.

Okay.

I would be very distracted, and would most likely hit pause and glare at the dogs.

LOL. But do you think it can be considered NORMAL to be able to hear the dogs barking over a relatively moderately powered system?


Thanks.

[GMichael]

Yeah, I think I saw someone talk about a way a few weeks ago. But they did say that it wasn't a GOOD fix.

In what way-----that a line converter or something could be used to convert a signal from the receiver to the amp?

Yeah, that's the one.


I would be very distracted, and would most likely hit pause and glare at the dogs.

LOL. But do you think it can be considered NORMAL to be able to hear the dogs barking over a relatively moderately powered system?

Normal? I don't have a dog, so no, it wouldn't be normal for me. But yes, if a dog barked in my home it would be heard over most any system not turned up to ear bleeding levels.

[Lexmark3200]

Normal? I don't have a dog, so no, it wouldn't be normal for me. But yes, if a dog barked in my home it would be heard over most any system not turned up to ear bleeding levels.[/QUOTE]

Well thats what I was saying ---- if you dont HAVE a dog, how could it possibly apply to YOUR situation? LOL. But we have FOUR dogs, not just one, and while I try and keep them out of the home theater as much as possible (this room connects to the kitchen with no separating walls of any kind with any sound deadening materials), they manage to work their way in and bark their heads off somtimes and I can hear that over the DVD soundtrack----this would be considered "normal" then unless the system was turned up to ear bleeding levels?

[GMichael]

[B][I]Normal? I don't have a dog, so no, it wouldn't be normal for me. But yes, if a dog barked in my home it would be heard over most any system not turned up to ear bleeding levels.

Well thats what I was saying ---- if you dont HAVE a dog, how could it possibly apply to YOUR situation? LOL. But we have FOUR dogs, not just one, and while I try and keep them out of the home theater as much as possible (this room connects to the kitchen with no separating walls of any kind with any sound deadening materials), they manage to work their way in and bark their heads off somtimes and I can hear that over the DVD soundtrack----this would be considered "normal" then unless the system was turned up to ear bleeding levels?

Sounds like a problem that I can't help with. Doggie school can be expensive. Have you tried tranquilizer darts? LOL.
OOPPS, Sorry, couldn't help myself. I've been a baaaaad member today.

[Lexmark3200]

Sounds like a problem that I can't help with. Doggie school can be expensive. Have you tried tranquilizer darts? LOL.
OOPPS, Sorry, couldn't help myself. I've been a baaaaad member today.

Aside from the darts, do you think, though, that it would be normal to hear these dogs barking over the DVD soundtrack when the levels are NOT at ear bleeding territory?

[GMichael]

Aside from the darts, do you think, though, that it would be normal to hear these dogs barking over the DVD soundtrack when the levels are NOT at ear bleeding territory?

Yeah, you'd have to turn it up pretty darn loud to not hear a dog barking (times 4) in the next room. Sorry that you have to deal with that.

[Lexmark3200]

Yeah, you'd have to turn it up pretty darn loud to not hear a dog barking (times 4) in the next room. Sorry that you have to deal with that.

I'm talking about dogs barking IN the home theater room ITSELF......

[GMichael]

I'm talking about dogs barking IN the home theater room ITSELF......

Even worse. Maybe those tranqs are worth a second thought.

[Jim Clark]

Even worse. Maybe those tranqs are worth a second thought.

But what if they were just LITTLE dogs? Would that be normal?

just wondering out LOUD here...

jc

[GMichael]

But what if they were just LITTLE dogs? Would that be normal?

just wondering out LOUD here...

jc

Even worse than worse! Those little ankle biters can yelp so high and loud that your ears will run away and hind under a pillow in the back room.

[Lexmark3200]

Even worse than worse! Those little ankle biters can yelp so high and loud that your ears will run away and hind under a pillow in the back room.

Yeah, these Maltese bastards can get really loud with their yelping.......