Do I "need" a high-end receiver? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Do I "need" a high-end receiver?



zoltar
09-23-2006, 05:37 PM
I would like to assemble a 5.1 system. I went to the local audio specialty store and they were talking about non-HDMI receivers. You run HDMI video into the display, and then optical out fo the display and into the receiver, etc. They were featuring a Denon receiver for about $450. My question is what brand(s) should I get and what is the least I can spend to get decent 5.1 sound? I want to be ready for HD DVD, and want a good sounding package I will be happy with for a while.

Mr Peabody
09-23-2006, 06:24 PM
It depends on what you want really. You can get a A/V receiver for $199.00. As you go up in price you will gain features, power and hopefully sound quality. But also as you go up, you might also run across things you may never use like dual zone capability. I'd recommend going to some place like www.crutchfield.com and comparing several brands and features and make a list of what you want on yours. Also, read their information articles on HDTV, surround formats and whatever you can find. Once you know what you want, find the receivers that will provide that and choose the one you like best.

I personally wouldn't worry about HDMI in my receiver, I believe it's a way down the road before it performs as promised, if it ever does. But I personally do as you had been advised, I run all my video directly to my TV. Then I don't have to worry if my receiver is really capable of maintaining the video quality, or, capatibility problems. Also, I lean a bit toward the purest side, believing in the most direct route for the signal is best for video or audio. On the other hand, others want to be able to switch both audio and video sources with the push of one button.

It sounds to me like the sales guy was trying to steer you alright. I mean Denon has receivers in the thousands and he didn't try to sell you one of those, nor did he hook you up with the cheapest one either, I believe Denon has an offering in that $199.00 point. You also were wise by finding out more information before you jumped. The receiver will still be there if you decide it's the one. Something else too, when you look at the receivers locally, don't be afraid to take the remote yourself and go into the menus to see how hard it will be to use, one may be easier to navigate which could be a deal maker or breaker.

Just so you will know, HD is here. Most of us enjoy some pretty good programming from satelite, cable or over the air, so jump in when you are ready, don't wait for the DVD HD wars to settle.

Denon is a good receiver and some of their models are now boasting they are high current. I also like Onkyo. Some of the lesser expensive brands offer some unique features, for instance, the last time I really looked at receivers JVC was the only one I found with something to do with computer interface, I think maybe a USB port. I haven't used or heard how they work, but many of the receivers are offering some sort of auto set up feature that some one new to the hobby might find quite handy.

markw
09-23-2006, 06:27 PM
It all depends on what features you "demand" that will ultimately determine what you need to spend on a receiver. In many cases, certain features are only available on more expensive units.

You don't "need" HDMI. You can get excellent sound with the standard coaxial and optical feeds as well.

As for picture quality, you can always run the video directly to the TV.

$450 is most certainly not a high end receiver. It's not junk but there are a heckuva lot more expensive ones out there. Considering what's out there I'd say he didn't try to screw you. That range offers a good balance of performance and features for most people, and Denon makes a pretty good receiver, IMNSHO.

My stepson is happy as a clam at high tide with a $129 Sherwood. My own HT receiver, A Denon 2802, cost $400 on sale and I'm moret han satsified, but I knew what I wanted and needed when I ws shopping around..

But, if you demand certain features, understand, many are not incorporated in their entry level receivers. You're gonna have to buck up to the unit in a manufacturer's lineup that offers them. You don't get no bread with one meat ball.

zoltar
09-23-2006, 07:05 PM
Thanks for the advice! Perhaps then, I can get away with less. My main concern is sound quality, second would be having the right kind of inputs and enough of them. Regarding sound quality, I would not want to sacrifice surround decoders, in other words, if a lower end receiver did not do as good of a job decoding the 5.1, then I surely would step up. But overall, I would like to focus more $$ on speakers, especially the fronts and the center speaker, and if I don't have to go too high end on the receiver, more $$ would be there for the plasma display and maybe I could go 50" instead for the 42" I was planning on.

As far as extra features, a nice remote and the auto set-up seems like a good idea. And no, I don't think I would need the dual set-up for sound in another room.

markw
09-23-2006, 07:35 PM
Most decoders do a pretty decent job and all include the mandatory Dolby digital, DTS and DPL II. These pretty do whatever you will need. Where the money adds up is when one demands lots and lots of funky DSP processing modes. Personally, since I listen to two channel music in the native two channel mode, they don't interest me. I've tried 'em and ain't impressed.

As for putting your money in your three front speakers and the best sub you can afford, I'd say you've got your priorities pretty straight.

zoltar
09-23-2006, 08:00 PM
Okay, how about these:
Receiver: Pioneer A/V Receiver (VSX-816-K) $250
Sub: Either JBL ($349) or Boston 12"($449)
The front speakers at this store that sounded the most like a live concert to me were made by "Monitor." Never heard of them, but for $399 per pair I thought they did well. I would spend more, if necessary, but I would have to A/B them.
Center, rear: Don't know yet.

markw
09-23-2006, 08:12 PM
Okay, how about these:
Receiver: Pioneer A/V Receiver (VSX-816-K) $250
Sub: Either JBL ($349) or Boston 12"($449)
The front speakers at this store that sounded the most like a live concert to me were made by "Monitor." Never heard of them, but for $399 per pair I thought they did well. I would spend more, if necessary, but I would have to A/B them.
Center, rear: Don't know yet.First off, as for subs, I suggestyo ustick with people who mainly make subs. SVS, Hsu, Velodyne atrea few that come to mind, particularly since you seem willing to drop 450 on a Bahston. Trust me on this one or, better yet, see what others say. The better the sub, the better your overall satisfaction will be.

As for receivers, any of the major brands are good and ones choice has more to do with personal preferences and brand loyalty than actual technical differences.

As for your choices, you might want to lok at these. Considering these are guaranteed by the manufacturer, you can get a great deal on some fine stuff. Remember, just because they have seven channels, you don't have to use all seven. I've got six but am running happily with five.

http://www.accessories4less.com/cgi-bin/category/AVReceiver

I've dealt with these guys and have not been burned yet.

IMNSHO, If you can, I'd go to at least what you would have alollocated on your Pioneer but, as you can see, you can rally, really cheap out is you choose. I'd rather err on theside of caution and get more for my money. I've dealt with these guys and have not been burned yet.

(pssst... c'mere, kid.... I like Marantz but don't tell anyone else.)

Just what you needed, eh? More choices! You really didn't think we would let you off that easy, did you? ;)

Oh, one last hint. When shopping speakers I suggest you being music to judge them by. Speakers that sound good on music wiil sound at least as good on movies. It son't wortk the other way. Lots of people who buy speakers for movies wind up not being totally happy when they finally play music on 'em.

drseid
09-24-2006, 02:08 AM
I would like to assemble a 5.1 system. I went to the local audio specialty store and they were talking about non-HDMI receivers. You run HDMI video into the display, and then optical out fo the display and into the receiver, etc. They were featuring a Denon receiver for about $450. My question is what brand(s) should I get and what is the least I can spend to get decent 5.1 sound? I want to be ready for HD DVD, and want a good sounding package I will be happy with for a while.

If it is an HD DVD that you are ultimately after... I recommend whatever receiver you get has at least 5.1 audio ins. This will allow you to take advantage of the new Dolby TrueHD lossless format (using the HD-A1 or AX-1's internal decoder chip). This is a common feature nowadays, so you don't need to spend much on a receiver that has the capability.

---Dave

thekid
09-24-2006, 04:53 AM
Zoltar

I think you are taking the right approach in doing some research before you buy. From personal use I can recommend the Pioneer as I have the earlier version the 815. It has a lot of features for the money including an Auto set-up feature which is a feature I recommend for someone starting out whether you decide on the Pioneer or not. As for the speakers and subs read the reviews here and similar sites but taste in speakers varies so audition as many as you can. The local salesman seemed helpful when talking to you about the Denon so maybe he will let you demo some of the speakers at home. Can't hurt to ask. Your post seem to indicate focus on the sub and fronts at this point which is fine if your budget dictates you have to this piece by piece at different times but I would at least demo/decide what center and rears you like. It is important that the sound characteristics of the fronts match the center/rears. This is often easiest if you stay with the same manufactuer so if you find some fronts you like see if you like their center/rears or you might find yourself in a bind later on when you are ready to get the additional speakers. Good hunting!!

zoltar
09-24-2006, 07:25 AM
I used to have an old 80's vintage Pioneer stereo receiver. I also had an old Marantz amp that was built very well. Now it's like, time to go all new!

Anyway, the salesman suggested what you said: "Go with the same rears as the fronts, and keep the same brand for the center speaker. So, this is $400 per pair x 2 + $350. The brand was "Monitor." Never heard of them, but found them on the web. Aparently made in the UK. We listend to a variey of music, then he put on a music video that was very cool. This is actually less than I thought I would have to spend on speakers. But I thought I would go with a lower end pair for the rears, since less sound comes out of them, but I would not want to colorize the sound and not be too thrilled in the end.

And the guy said that the sub is an entirely seperate thing. I'm not looking to shake the house but I do want tight bass. A kick drum needs to sound realistic not "muddy" or "boomy." I have always like the output of a 12" sub, so I was looking in that direction. It's also going to need to carry some sub-audio for DVD FX (earthquakes, etc!).

Mr Peabody
09-24-2006, 10:49 AM
The only differences between receivers is not just features, there are some differences in preamp and amp sections which make a difference in sound quality. Please take some music in and compare the Pioneer to the Denon or an Onkyo. This is just my opinion but the Pioneers I've heard in the past years have had no balls. An amp needs current to deliver any impact, it's not just for driving low impedance. This is easliey verified with some listening, use the same speakers and listen to the Pioneer and then an Onkyo. Even an Onkyo with lower power rating. Notice the fuller presentation and the punch in the low end that was missing with the Pioneer. Not just knocking Pioneer, the same could be said for JVC, Yamaha...... I have not heard the Denon that are said to be high current but worth checking out. Denon and Marantz both make better than average receivers. Even if their model isn't high current they still seem to be able to deliver a higher level of fidelity over the budget brands.

zoltar
09-24-2006, 11:23 AM
I noticed that Denon, Onkyo, and Sony have 2 year warrantees, but Pioneer only has a 1 year warr. What about Sony?? This store carried Sony TV's, but not receivers. Maybe there is a reason for that?

What about all the different propropritory DSP modes vs the various Dolby decoders?

Also, I didn't ask the guy about running a computer through the system. I assume I would have to find a plasma disply with DVI input, and then run the computer's audio via an optical sound card. I can do all that, but didn't know the best way to do it.

markw
09-24-2006, 01:11 PM
Anyway, the salesman suggested what you said: "Go with the same rears as the fronts, and keep the same brand for the center speaker. So, this is $400 per pair x 2 + $350. The brand was "Monitor." Never heard of them, but found them on the web. Aparently made in the UK. We listend to a variey of music, then he put on a music video that was very cool. This is actually less than I thought I would have to spend on speakers.But I thought I would go with a lower end pair for the rears, since less sound comes out of them, but I would not want to colorize the sound and not be too thrilled in the end. I agree with this salesman. given my druthers, I would have all speakers from the same manufacturer and line. Only if money was really, really tight would I even think of having the rears of a different pedigree. While you can "get by" with different speakers HT, if and when you get into multi-channel music, you'll most definitelywant have all speakers matched.


And the guy said that the sub is an entirely seperate thing.Again, he's right. Virtually any decent sub can be married to virtually any speaker system. And, as I suggested before, companies that specialize in subs tend to make a better product than a full range speaker manufacturer.


I'm not looking to shake the house but I do want tight bass. A kick drum needs to sound realistic not "muddy" or "boomy." I have always like the output of a 12" sub, so I was looking in that direction. It's also going to need to carry some sub-audio for DVD FX (earthquakes, etc!).Go for the best you can find and afford. Remember, you can always turn a powerful sub down, but you can only turn up a weak one just so much. And, placement in the room can have a tremendous effect on how well a sub performs.

Some other random thoughts... when you first startedd this thread, it seemed that you wanted the cheapeast way to get into HT and my responses were geared towards that. Now, if I read correcrly, you wantt to get what you need and not spend more than you have to or be ripped off. While similar, it's not the same thing. ...and that's not a bad thing, up to a point.

That's why my response on the non-matching rears seems to have changed. If you really had to cheap out, that's one thing. But, if you really want a decent system then I would't go that route, and I gave my reasons here.

As for receivers, remember, it's always better to have features and not use them rather than find later that you need them and don't have them. ..all for the saving of a few dollars.

If the bucks are available (and it seems they are, if you can justify spending them), then it's always better to get a little more than you need, which may mean a model one or two steps up the line.

I totally agree with Drseid in getting a receiver with the 5.1 analog inputs even if you can't see the need now. This allows flexibility should you want to get into SACD and DVD-Audio. Without them, you won't be able to. This is your best route for "future proofing"

Also, if possible, get a receiver with preamp outs should you feel the need for more power in the future. With them, all you need do is add an external amp as opposd to replacing the whole receiver.

Likewise, go listen to the effects of some of the various DSP modes. They come as part of the package when you buy a receiver. They ain't a delete option. IMNSHO, I ain't too impressed but some people love 'em but they don't cost anything. But, I will caution you as to making them a determining factor on what reveiver to buy.

Did you check out Hsu and SVS yet?

audio_dude
09-24-2006, 02:42 PM
ok, here's my two cents on the subject:

don't buy pioneer receiver, the quality is very sub-par, physically and sound quality.

next, as for speakers, i think your talking about Monitor Audio, they make great speakers, i've had a few people recommend them to me!

have you checked out Yamaha receivers? i'm sitting right next to one and its a great piece of work!

i've also seen some nice stuff from denon, check both out...

zoltar
09-24-2006, 03:04 PM
Now, if I read correcrly, you wantt to get what you need and not spend more than you have to or be ripped off.
Correct. I just told my wife: "I wanna spend $2K on a home theatre audio system." hahah

Yes, I am looking to get the sound I want. I have been "suffering" with some outdated stuff for a while. I had a Pioneer HT receiver about 4 years ago, had to get rid of it, but now have some bucks "to do it right."

So, from reading a lot of posts in here, seems like a majority of opinions are running somewhat against Pioneer. I am leaning more toward Denon, since it is what I demo-ed in the store, and I think they have had a consitent reputation going back a number of years.

So I guess the next question is, how much do I / will I need to keep this stuff for a several years? I mean I would like this to be future proof into the next era, i.e., HD-DVD players and media.
For example: Low end Denon AVR-1506 vs the next level up: AVR-1507. Do these have the analog 5.1?? I am not really interested in XM radio. The Ipod thingy maybe, but I don't have an Ipod, but I want some way to run digital audio off a a hard drive (which the Ipod is a flash drive), so as to have a library of music at my fingertips. I have lotsa stuff on MP-3's at the moment, so the receiver needs to handle those well.

SVS=wow!

BTW, thanks for all the help so far!

Mr Peabody
09-24-2006, 04:30 PM
Again, this is my opinion but I'd put Sony in there with Pioneer except for maybe the "ES" Sony line which is some what better. Pioneer also makes better gear called Elite. I haven't had much opportunity to play with any Elite. But for the moneythe ES and Elite will cost you could probably do better.

I'm also in the camp that firmly believes your best presentation of HT will come from matching speakers, especially center and mains.

Good luck with buying something that won't be outdated in some manner in the future. I'd put that in the impossibility column.

markw
09-24-2006, 04:42 PM
Seriously, nothing is totally future proof. The best you can do is make dang sure you've got those analog inputs for as many channels as your unit can handle. This will somewhat assure that whatever the foreseeable future might bring, unless it requires more channels than you can handle. Of course. this works on the assumption that anything they might release will be boiled down to the lowest common denominator, namely analog. So far, they have been pretty good about that.

And, as far as ipods and the other stuff goes, if they have a headphone jack, you will be able to feed it into an unused input on your receiver.

But, as for being able to internally take a digital signal from a computer, that's beyond me. I doubt anyone will be able to "guarantee" they won't come up with a newer, faster and more glitzy interface., But, as long as it can be converted to analog, you have it made in the shade.

But, as far as that "Suffering" with obsolete equipment goes, I've been "suffering for 35 years with a Marantz 2270 and a variety of speakers, most currently a pair of JBL L-26's of the same era and if that's suffering, It hurts so good! Bring it on!

Along with a turntable and a cassette deck I'm also running a modern CD changer and, when it ain't in my pockert or the car, my 1 gig Sandisk Sansa through it! ...not bad "future proofing" from a thirty five year old stereo, eh?

kexodusc
09-25-2006, 04:21 AM
Pioneer is making a believer out of me. 2 years ago I'd have lumped them in there with the "Sears" brands like Sony and JVC. But not anymore. Reason is their top of the line model (VSX-1016txvk) is probably the best value on the market. At $400 or less street price, it lies in the same chassis with the same componentry as the much costlier ($700+) Elite model. It's got great build quality and a massive amount of real power. It does what $700-$900 Yamaha and Denon units do but for less. For that price, through in an extended warranty and you can laugh.

I was fortunate enough to demo it against a RX-V1500 for 2 days not too long ago when I was in NY. If it wasn't for the incredible price I got, and minor, minor preference I had for the sound of the Yamaha (not better, just different and more to my tastes) I would own that unit right now.

The 816/916 models are well built and aggressively priced as well. Below that and I think I'd avoid Pioneer.

Zoltar - I think Markw and gang are steering you in the right direction. Take some time and see what's out there. Don't spend anymore than 25% of your budget on the receiver though. $500 is plenty for your needs. I think $300-$350 is reasonable too. Lots of good models in that price range today that would have run $900 a few years ago.

For subwoofers, SVS and HSU are the reigning champs of the bang-for-buck category. Unless of course you order a subwoofer kit and assemble it yourself (easy). Parts Express has a new $270, 15" kit that we'll all be hearing a lot more of soon. Won't look as fancy.

Fun times ahead for you, I like shopping for gear almost as much as I like listening to it.

zoltar
09-25-2006, 05:51 PM
Well, the Pioneer receiver at Circuit City for $249 has tons of features. I used to have Pioneer a while back, and a friend bought a cheapo HT receiver at Sam's Club, of all places, about 6 years ago and it's still going strong.

As far as subs are concerned, I think something in the 200w range would do it for me. The 100w Boston 10 I demo-ed had enough bass, but not the quality I was looking for. I don't think it would handle the fx in movies super well, and it lacked the low end clarity and tight response that really makes a sub IMHO.

kexodusc
09-26-2006, 06:31 AM
As far as subs are concerned, I think something in the 200w range would do it for me. The 100w Boston 10 I demo-ed had enough bass, but not the quality I was looking for. I don't think it would handle the fx in movies super well, and it lacked the low end clarity and tight response that really makes a sub IMHO.

When I see high wattage subs today, they're usually quoting peak power from those lightweight odd-ball class J amps or whatever. A good 200 - 300 watt amp is fine. Cheap, high watt amps are often used to cover up the fact the woofers have poor sensitivity. More power doesn't necessarily mean one sub plays louder or sounds better than another.
You do need sufficient power and enough output for your room however. As marw said, you can turn the sub down, but if it's overworked you're not going to want to listen to it.

Defshep
09-27-2006, 11:17 AM
Another nod for Pioneer. I also own the VSX815 model, and the features are rich, especially considering the price. There have been many, many great reviews posted about Pioneer receivers, especially the model I own. I would agree with the idea of staying with the 815/6 or above. The mid-level Pioneers also have a considerably better reputation than the comparably priced Sonys. I also concur that speakers make ALOT of difference. I went from Sonys to Klipsch (all matched) and there's no contest. Good luck!

superpanavision70mm
09-28-2006, 10:01 PM
I'll also give PIONEER a nice plug as well. I have been a fan of them for years and I am quite happy with my Pioneer Elite!

Woochifer
09-29-2006, 11:18 AM
Kinda late here, but I think you'll get plenty of mileage by following markw and kex's advice. Their points are spot on. With receivers around the $500 price point, the value and quality has improved quite a bit over the past five years, and manufacturers have continued to migrate features down from their midlevel and flagship models while improving the processing and amplification circuitry. But, some of the more recent product announcements indicate that price points have started moving up once again, so be aware that this year's $500 models from some manufacturers might not be any better than a previous model at that same MSRP (and you can usually find older models marked down).

If you're looking for a basic 5.1 receiver with DD and DTS, you're fine with many different options. As markw correctly pointed, the basic 5.1 decoding function is not much different from receiver to receiver. It's primarily the post-processing, amplification, build quality, connectivity, and video conversion features that differentiate the different receivers.

$450 for a Denon puts you in the middle of their entry level lineup. HDMI switching is gradually trickling down into the entry level models, and it's a nice feature to have if you plan on connecting multiple HDMI-enabled devices to a HDTV, because you only have to run one long cable from the equipment rack to the TV. Using HDMI 1.1 with both your DVD player and receiver also allows you to enjoy SACD and DVD-A without having to use three pairs of analog cables.

Future proofing is one of those nebulous concepts. So long as you get something with multichannel analog audio inputs, you should be okay on the audio side. All of the Blu-ray and HD-DVD players on the market right now have multichannel analog audio connections and internal audio decoders to process the older DD and DTS formats, as well as the new Dolby TrueHD, DD Plus, and DTS-HD audio formats. Keep in mind though that plenty of new receivers coming out in the next year will include the new HDMI 1.3 spec. That is what HD-DVD and Blu-ray use, and it will likely become very widespread on new home theater components by this time next year. While the current Blu-ray and HD-DVD players do the audio decoding on board and output it through the analog outputs, having the receiver decode the audio formats gives you a lot more flexibility. There are many advantages, but right now the HDMI 1.3 receivers are not out yet.

If you don't have a multichannel receiver right now, and are looking to build a system, don't worry about what might come out next year. If you already have a multichannel setup and are looking to upgrade, then I would say wait until the HDMI 1.3 components start coming out. Since it sounds like you don't currently have a 5.1 setup, I would recommend that you buy the receiver and start piecing together your speaker system. Pretty much any multichannel receiver nowadays will have all the digital audio decoding you'll need for DVDs and HDTV. I would make sure that the receiver has a multichannel analog audio input so that you can still enjoy the higher resolution audio with Blu-ray and HD-DVD even without HDMI 1.3, since you're concerned about future proofing. HDMI connectivity will come in handy if you plan to connect multiple HD video devices, not to mention save you money if you need a long cable to connect your TV with the other components.

The most crucial part of the selection process will be the speakers. There, you can opt to either dedicate all of your budget to finding two speakers and adding the rest later on, or buying the whole 5.1 package at the same time. But, the differences between speakers will be a lot more obvious than with receivers, since the feature sets on comparably priced receivers are fairly similar.

zoltar
09-30-2006, 12:00 PM
Thanks for all the super advice? No, I don't have a 5.1 anything right now. I have been posting on receivers since this is the first item I intend to buy. Once I have that, I plan to try 2 speakers at a time, in my HT room. Once I am set on the two, I can go from there and build the 5.1. Part of the issue is that the local specialty store is somewhat limited on speakers. They have a lot, but they are low-endish. Their mainstay line is Boston, and then they have Monitor Audio as their upgrade. I did think the Monitors sounded quite good on 5.1, but then I asked the guy to switch to "plain" stereo and my whole listening experience took a nose dive! Kinda interesting. It seemed like the near field projection of the speakers was like 2 feet or something, and w/o the 5.1, the sound was lost. Perhaps I am just not used to the difference between 2.1 and 5.1 but in any case, the 5.1 was very good on the Monitor speakers.