2.1 Channel Receivers

[markw]

do you know what those numbers mean? I think not.

a 5.1 receiver means there are six (5 soundtrack,1 LFE channel) different, distinct DIGITAL channels on the source mateial to be decoded and amplified. The only way this is done is via DIGITAL SOURCE such as DD, DTS, SACD or DVD-Audio. ...and a stereo receiver only works in the (two channel) analog domain.

So, what you are asking for is a receiver that plays back recording with two "soundtrack" channels and a low frequency channel. I can't think of too many "stereo" recordings like that, can you?

The best you're going to do is either an analog stereo receiver with a sub out or a full blown HT receiver capable of decoding those digital sources. Even then, whatever it sends to the subwoofer from a stereo source wasn't a separate ".1" channel initially, just like you would get from a stereo with a sub out.

IMHO, I'd suggest a stereo receiver and a standalone subwoofer but YMMV.

but, who knows? If you do find a TRUE 2.1 receiver let me know.

[noddin0ff]

do you know what those numbers mean? I think not.

markw- that's mighty rude. I think it's clear he knows what those numbers mean.

So, what you are asking for is a receiver that plays back recording with two "soundtrack" channels and a low frequency channel. I can't think of too many "stereo" recordings like that, can you?

Obviously people used subs long before '.1' existed as evidenced by L/R inputs on subs, duh. And, guess what...they listened to STEREO recordings. A 2.1 receiver is not a bad idea. Technology/media just leap-frogged to 5.1 etc first.

Your thinking on 5.1 is overly rigid, in that 5.1 output doesn't require 5.1 discreet channels of input. The A/V processor can take a 2-channel analog source and make 5.1 channels from it. It does 2.1 as well. So why don't you make nice.

[markw]

Hey, I went into great detail telling him how to accomplish what he needs to do and he simply ignored my, and everyone elses, input on the subject.

From his use of those numbers it's pretty obvious he has no idea what they mean and from your input in this thread I doubt you do, either.

The fact that so many manufacturer's (particularly 'puter speakers) use the term "2.1" to mean a two channel system with a common bass box doesn't mean that there are really 2.1 systems out there in the same sense that there are 5.1 systems out there. There are major functioinal differences.

Mainly, systems advertised as "2.1" are electricaly and functionally exactly the same as a two channel receiver with a subwoofer.

Now, if he chooses to use a HT receiver for these purposes (and I think it's a waste here) then he STILL won't have the advantage of three separate channels. IOW, there ain't no way to get a 2.1 channel signal from a stereo source. He'll simply have his original two channels with something being fed to the subwoofer, but that subwoofer feed ain't by no stretch of the imagination the magical third ".1" channel.

IMNSHO, he would be better served with a hunky vintage stereo receiver and, if he still chooses to, he can add a sub later.

Now, if you want to prepetuate your "2.1" fairy tales as opposed to accept the truth on this matter then that's your business. I prefer to deal in facts. Consider yoursevs disabused on this matter.

[stj]

Hey, I went into great detail telling him how to accomplish what he needs to do and he simply ignored my, and everyone elses, input on the subject.

From his use of those numbers it's pretty obvious he has no idea what they mean and from your input in this thread I doubt you do, either.

The fact that so many manufacturer's (particularly 'puter speakers) use the term "2.1" to mean a two channel system with a common bass box doesn't mean that there are really 2.1 systems out there in the same sense that there are 5.1 systems out there. There are major functioinal differences.

Mainly, systems advertised as "2.1" are electricaly and functionally exactly the same as a two channel receiver with a subwoofer.

Now, if he chooses to use a HT receiver for these purposes (and I think it's a waste here) then he STILL won't have the advantage of three separate channels. IOW, there ain't no way to get a 2.1 channel signal from a stereo source. He'll simply have his original two channels with something being fed to the subwoofer, but that subwoofer feed ain't by no stretch of the imagination the magical third ".1" channel.

IMNSHO, he would be better served with a hunky vintage stereo receiver and, if he still chooses to, he can add a sub later.

Now, if you want to prepetuate your "2.1" fairy tales as opposed to accept the truth on this matter then that's your business. I prefer to deal in facts. Consider yoursevs disabused on this matter.

I said thanks. What more do you want?

You are rude.

stj

[John Ashman]

NAD's new unit is 2.1. Well, sorta. Generally, on these types of units, the mains will run full range and the sub out is simply a summed out. Better than nothing. The only stereo piece I've seen so far with real crossovers is the BIG NAD unit at $2800.

[markw]

I said thanks. What more do you want?

You are rude.

stj

...and you are dense.

[nightflier]

I don't want to get in the middle of the debate, here, but many stores that sell stereo receivers with a seperate sub-out RCA jack advertise these as 2.1 receivers. So following that logic, HK's 3380/3480 are 2.1 receivers. Unfortunately, the sub-outs on these units are not filtered and are full spectrum signals, although most subs today will still do the filtering for you. None of the lower priced stereo receivers that I am aware of from Marantz, Onkyo, or NAD will do the filtering, although almost all their 5/6/7.1 receivers will.

If you absolutely don't want a multichannel receiver (which understandably complicates processing), then you still have options:

- The mid-priced multichannel receivers from these manufacturers often have a pure 2-chanel processing option which should reduce interference. The 2001-2004 Onkyos of which I've owned several models, however, do not have a pure mode that also outputs to the sub, and so would not help you out. It's either stereo with sub, or pure 2-channel (Large Front L/R) mode.

- The second option is to let the sub do the filtering, as several people above pointed out.

- Moving up the price-point, you can use a preamp that has filtered output. One preamp I'm familiar with is the B&K PT3-II which has 3 pairs of RCA preamp outputs: a full-range for the main amp, a filtered high-frequency output (above 80Hz.) typically for powered remote speakers or amps, and a filtered low-frequency (below 80Hz.) output typically for a sub or sub amplifier. There are several other preamps out there that have multiple outputs.

- Another solution, which also isn't inexpensive is to use the Outlaw Audio bass manager (aka the ICBM), between your pre and your amp. It will filter low frequencies from the preamp outputs and redirect them to a pair of mono sub outputs (for one or two subs / sub amps). It has a crossover adjustment dial on the front and worked very well for us when we were playing around with a pair of Martin Logan speakers with two additional subs, although you can of course use it with less expensive equipment. The ICBM is only $250 and really does wonders considering the cost.

There are other specialized solutions out there as well, but they do get expensive. So to answer your question, yes, there are 2.1 receivers out there, but none that I am aware of that do the filtering. There are however, seperates that will give you a similar effect.

Hope this helps.

[stj]

Thanks John and Nigtflier and to the others who have posted here. Appears there are a lot of options for two speakers and a sub.

I've heard people comment they prefer 2 bookshelfs and a sub and had wondered about the best way to do this. Also,I have two Energy C5's that I think look nice, which differs from my wifes opinion. Two smaller speakers and a sub will be taking thier place. Then I'll have to find a place to set up the C5's, which I enjoy listening to.

stj

I don't want to get in the middle of the debate, here, but many stores that sell stereo receivers with a seperate sub-out RCA jack advertise these as 2.1 receivers. So following that logic, HK's 3380/3480 are 2.1 receivers. Unfortunately, the sub-outs on these units are not filtered and are full spectrum signals, although most subs today will still do the filtering for you. None of the lower priced stereo receivers that I am aware of from Marantz, Onkyo, or NAD will do the filtering, although almost all their 5/6/7.1 receivers will.

If you absolutely don't want a multichannel receiver (which understandably complicates processing), then you still have options:

- The mid-priced multichannel receivers from these manufacturers often have a pure 2-chanel processing option which should reduce interference. The 2001-2004 Onkyos of which I've owned several models, however, do not have a pure mode that also outputs to the sub, and so would not help you out. It's either stereo with sub, or pure 2-channel (Large Front L/R) mode.

- The second option is to let the sub do the filtering, as several people above pointed out.

- Moving up the price-point, you can use a preamp that has filtered output. One preamp I'm familiar with is the B&K PT3-II which has 3 pairs of RCA preamp outputs: a full-range for the main amp, a filtered high-frequency output (above 80Hz.) typically for powered remote speakers or amps, and a filtered low-frequency (below 80Hz.) output typically for a sub or sub amplifier. There are several other preamps out there that have multiple outputs.

- Another solution, which also isn't inexpensive is to use the Outlaw Audio bass manager (aka the ICBM), between your pre and your amp. It will filter low frequencies from the preamp outputs and redirect them to a pair of mono sub outputs (for one or two subs / sub amps). It has a crossover adjustment dial on the front and worked very well for us when we were playing around with a pair of Martin Logan speakers with two additional subs, although you can of course use it with less expensive equipment. The ICBM is only $250 and really does wonders considering the cost.

There are other specialized solutions out there as well, but they do get expensive. So to answer your question, yes, there are 2.1 receivers out there, but none that I am aware of that do the filtering. There are however, seperates that will give you a similar effect.

Hope this helps.