Best Receiver for a 5.1 setup

[jlettie]

Hi
I want to setup a 5.1 entertainment system. I like Polk speakers. They are not the best, but they sound good to me. They are made of wood and not vinyl.
The Polk speakers will be Polk RTI-A7 fronts, CSIA-4 center,2 Polk in wall speakers and a Mirage 100W sub. I want to hook up a VCR,DVD player and an Oppo BDP 93 Blu-ray player. I am considering two receivers, the Marantz SR7005 and the Pioneer Elite SC55. I believe you cannot hookup a VCR to the Pioneer and the Marantz does have an input. I know the Pioneer has more power. I called Polk and they claim the Marantz has more than enough power for the setup. I know the Polk's are very power hungry. I believe the built-in DACs are about the same. I would care to hear replies if anybody has a similar setup with either receiver.

 

[fuzz092888]

First of all, the A7s are only slightly less power hungry than the A9s and I don't think the A9s should have anything less than a 200-300 wpc amp driving them. You can hook up a VCR to anything unless your VCR doesn't have RCA outputs (yellow, red, white) and has something else. If you use S-video then you're limited a little since most companies seem to be doing away with those.

My best advice would be to split the difference, get a lower priced receiver and buy an emotiva XPA-5 along with it.

MARANTZ SR6006 Home theater network receiver 3D HDMI AirPlay | Accessories4less

MARANTZ SR5005 100w X 7ch 3-D Home Theater Surround Receiver | Accessories4less

XPA-5 | 200W x 5 | Emotiva Audio | High-end audio components for audiophiles and videophiles, spanning 2-channel music systems, as well as 5.1 and 7.1 home theaters. Products include multichannel amplifiers, stereo amplifiers, and monoblock amplifier

 

[agarwalro]

My best advice would be to split the difference, get a lower priced receiver and buy an emotiva XPA-5 along with it.

This is good advise. I would go further and say that the receiver can handle all the surrounds if you offload the front three. IMO, get the XPA-3 instead of the 5 channel version. That way your receiver amps are not all waste .

 

[fuzz092888]

But won't he gain more power and greater headroom with the five channel amp because he's only using three channels?

 

[96cobra10101]

But won't he gain more power and greater headroom with the five channel amp because he's only using three channels?

I don't think that would add power, but he could Bi-amp, if the speakers are capable, which I am guessing they are, which opens up a whole new discussion.

 

[fuzz092888]

Actually it could, many amps, when less than all channels are being driven, usually boosts how many watts are being sent to the other channels, although my headroom comment could be off.

Lets not get into bi-amping. Passive bi-amping is useless, and provides no audible difference. PENG, who is an electrical engineer gave me a bunch of things to read about it, other than many of the things I've read myself. I don't still don't feel I can confidently explain why it is useless without sounding a bit like an idiot, but I understand enough about physics and electricity to comprehend enough of what I've read to know it just doesn't provide any measurable or audible differences.

Well, that and I've tried it myself just to be sure, and am even more convinced any difference anyone hears when they passively bi-amp or bi-wire is just them hearing what they want to hear.

 

[96cobra10101]

LOL. I regret even saying the word because of the can of worms it will open.

I do agree with you though, XPA3 vs the XPA5, the XPA5 is a better value.

 

[fuzz092888]

Yea, I hear ya. I got shall we say lambasted for using those naughty words awhile back. Never again