5.1 digital connection methods

[teledynepost]

Okay I am trying to set up a 5.1 home theatre system and I've got everything chosen but the Receiver.

I would like to have audio going from the DVD to receiver in digital form; I know HDMI is, but are there other ways? I ask because the selection of HDMI receivers seems slim, and hdmi seems to only be on bigger, more powerful and expensive receivers. The best deal on an HDMI receiver that I could find was $630 for a Yamaha htr-5990 (with a discount through work). Must be DTS (are pretty much all receivers DTS? I'm not even clear of the difference.) I think there are some cheaper JVC receivers with HDMI but they sound cheap-o.

Speakers are Athena AS-F2.2 mains and Athena C-1.2 center, DefTech SM350 rear, Velodyne CHT-15 sub. Source is Denon DVD-1920.

[N. Abstentia]

Yes you just hook up a digital cable to get digital from your DVD to your receiver. Optical or coax, does not matter. But if you already have HDMI on your DVD player and TV I would certainly use it for the video portion but you don't have too. If you don't want to use HDMI you'll need to use component for the video.

It will be hard to find a new receiver these days without DTS, it's pretty much standard. Dolby Pro Logic IIx is also nice to have if you plan to watch standard TV through the receiver also.

[teledynepost]

So the whole surround signal can be carried on 1 optical cable? That's what I was unclear of, whether coax or optical was 5.1 or was only for stereo.

If that's the case I think I will be getting a Marantz SR4600 fer $330. The main difference between it and the Yamaha is that the Yamaha was 140W/ch, while the Marantz is 80W/ch. I rent right now so my place is small and I don't feel I need that much wattage. The Marantz specifications also put the s/n ratio at 105dB, while the Yamaha is 100dB.

[N. Abstentia]

Yep, the optical cable is all you need.

And don't pay attention to those Yamaha wattage ratings, they are pretty much useless and inflated. You'll find in the real world that the Marantz has just as much..if not MORE power than the Yamaha. Either one will be plenty enough for you, as once you get up to around 30 watts you won't be able to sit in the room with it.

[kexodusc]

You're right, in a small place with your speakers, you don't need 140 watt/channel. Don't overlook other features though. Both Marantz and Yamaha make good receivers.

S/N is a pretty hard number to compare across brands. The measurements can be taken at different noise levels as a reference. I've seen reported measurements of 85 dB and 102 dB in one case. You'd think the 102 dB was bettter, but it was actually taken at a much higher reference dB. After equalizing the reference dB the test was taken at, the numbers were much more interesting. Turns out the 85 dB amp was a few dB more quiet than the one with the 102 dB rating (not by much). But it was more indicative of the expected output levels the amp woudl be used at.

Long story short, difference between 105 and 100 dB is pretty small for this spec. I doubt it will contribute to any perceived sound quality. And it doesn't really tell you anything unless you knew the testing conditions from which these measurement were taken.

[kexodusc]

And don't pay attention to those Yamaha wattage ratings, they are pretty much useless and inflated. You'll find in the real world that the Marantz has just as much..if not MORE power than the Yamaha.

That's incorrect.
Actually, Marantz pulls the same stunts...the SR5200 for example, rated at over 100 watts/channel failed to deliver 30 watts per channel with only 5 of its 6 channels being driven. But it does well over 100 with 2-channels going.
So what gives? Not that the Marantz couldn't send short term bursts of all the power its rated for, just that these stupid rating tests are outdated and don't reflect the real world demands placed on these receivers. The Marantz probably had some safety circuitry incorporated into its design like most Yamahas do...current or voltage limitation.

Any Yamaha and Marantz unit should have no trouble producing their stereo watt ratings. As more channels are added, they'll actually meet those ratings as well, just not for consecutive sustained 5 minute periods demanded in the rating tests. Probably a few seconds or more with very fast recharge rates. I don't know of any sources that drive 5 channels or more for 5 minutes at max.

Reading the PSU sizes will pretty much be a more fair representation of true power capability. Or stick with the 2-channel ratings.

[N. Abstentia]

That's incorrect.
Actually, Marantz pulls the same stunts...the SR5200 for example, rated at over 100 watts/channel failed to deliver 30 watts per channel with only 5 of its 6 channels being driven.

Reading the PSU sizes will pretty much be a more fair representation of true power capability. Or stick with the 2-channel ratings.

Yeah I didn't mean to say that the Marantz specs were not inflated at all, they are just less inflated than Yahama. No way in he** is a $350 Yamaha going to even get in the ballpark of 140 watts per channel.

A 30 watt x 5 dedicated amp from Adcom or Rotel will probably destroy them both :)

[kexodusc]

Yeah I didn't mean to say that the Marantz specs were not inflated at all, they are just less inflated than Yahama. No way in he** is a $350 Yamaha going to even get in the ballpark of 140 watts per channel.

A 30 watt x 5 dedicated amp from Adcom or Rotel will probably destroy them both :)
I think he said the $650 Yamaha with the $1000 MSRP was rated for 140. That sounds about right.

I think a 30 X 5 amp would probably have a hard time matching either unless it was generously underrated. Most Adcoms I know have been. Not sure about Rotel. My 60 watt Adcom's seem about on par with my 80 watt Rotel amp. Sound quality would probably be better though.

[N. Abstentia]

I think he said the $650 Yamaha with the $1000 MSRP was rated for 140. That sounds about right.

I think a 30 X 5 amp would probably have a hard time matching either unless it was generously underrated. Most Adcoms I know have been. Not sure about Rotel. My 60 watt Adcom's seem about on par with my 80 watt Rotel amp. Sound quality would probably be better though.

Ahh, didn't see that $650. Just saw the $330 for the Marantz and assumed they would be priced similar.

[teledynepost]

$650 was the cheapest I could get that had HDMI (besides some JVC models). I was shooting for less than $500 and the Marantz seems to fit the bill.

[kexodusc]

Sounds like a good deal to me...$650 ain't bad at all. Of course, there's nothing wrong with saving $300 to put towards something else in your system either...enjoy