HT vs stereo receiver -- Differences?

[wtrimble]

I posted something similar to this in my first post but..

Is there any difference in a Home Theater receiver with HDMI hooks up and 5.1 connections, than a Stereo receiver with just a 2.1 setup for audio only?

I'm looking to get a system (receiver, speakers, sub) for 90% music listening - CDs, Sirius XM, android tablet- and 10% movies.

I was thinking of just getting a Stereo receiver but would like to upgrade to a 5.1 for surround sound movies at some point in my living room.

Are the receivers made for audio only different than the ones that have video connections as well?

If I get a 5.1 receiver, would it be an issue to just use it for 2.1 until I get surround sound connections?

 

[Bryceo]

I posted something similar to this in my first post but..

Is there any difference in a Home Theater receiver with HDMI hooks up and 5.1 connections, than a Stereo receiver with just a 2.1 setup for audio only?

I'm looking to get a system (receiver, speakers, sub) for 90% music listening - CDs, Sirius XM, android tablet- and 10% movies.

I was thinking of just getting a Stereo receiver but would like to upgrade to a 5.1 for surround sound movies at some point in my living room.

Are the receivers made for audio only different than the ones that have video connections as well?

If I get a 5.1 receiver, would it be an issue to just use it for 2.1 until I get surround sound connections?

No a ht receiver has mulltiepull input selector it witch you have DVD 5.1 or in my case 7.1 and for iPod and cd 2.1

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I posted something similar to this in my first post but..

Is there any difference in a Home Theater receiver with HDMI hooks up and 5.1 connections, than a Stereo receiver with just a 2.1 setup for audio only?

I'm looking to get a system (receiver, speakers, sub) for 90% music listening - CDs, Sirius XM, android tablet- and 10% movies.

I was thinking of just getting a Stereo receiver but would like to upgrade to a 5.1 for surround sound movies at some point in my living room.

Are the receivers made for audio only different than the ones that have video connections as well?

If I get a 5.1 receiver, would it be an issue to just use it for 2.1 until I get surround sound connections?

In your case it would make more sense to get a standard AV receiver. It will have no issues playing just 2.1.

A stereo receiver will not play multi-channels.

 

[Bryceo]

I have trouble givein informations cause I can't spell verey well

 

[j_garcia]

In your case it would make more sense to get a standard AV receiver. It will have no issues playing just 2.1.

A stereo receiver will not play multi-channels.

Agreed, if the plan is to add the other speakers, then you should just get a multichannel receiver now, otherwise you will be replacing the stereo receiver. The vast majority of stereo receivers all have a preamp out for the sub, but it is not crossed over, so going with a m/c receiver also gets you bass management.

 

[JerryLove]

Is there any difference in a Home Theater receiver with HDMI hooks up and 5.1 connections, than a Stereo receiver with just a 2.1 setup for audio only?

A HT receiver (henceforth referred to as an AVR) is generally less expensive (greater economy of scale, greater price pressure on vendors).

An AVR will support more speakers (most 2-channel receivers don't support .1)

An AVR is more likely to have room correction.

An AVR is likely to decode more encoding formats.

An AVR is more likely to take HDMI connectors (which are needed for certain digital formats)

An AVR is capable of doing video.

Honestly: I've never been able to come up with a good case for a 2-channel receiver; even in my 2-channel setups.

 

[wtrimble]

Thanks for the help guys. I will go with a AVR (not HT) receiver as recommended.

I am looking at getting the Denon AVR-1613 receiver. I have a Denon microsystem and I enjoy it. Though there are some bad reviews concerning the lack of power and glitchy streaming software. True concern? I'm also concerned that the DVD/CD player I use will not have an HDMI output on it, doesn't look like this receiver will take any other video/audio connection, is this true? Any recommendations on other receivers in this price range with the same capabilities?

Also,

Agreed, if the plan is to add the other speakers, then you should just get a multichannel receiver now, otherwise you will be replacing the stereo receiver. The vast majority of stereo receivers all have a preamp out for the sub, but it is not crossed over, so going with a m/c receiver also gets you bass management.

what does "M/C receiver" mean?

 

[j_garcia]

MultiChannel, which is the same as AVR and "HT" receiver as well, as Jerry notes. Different terms, all referring to the same thing.

An AVR will support more speakers (most 2-channel receivers don't support .1)

Most stereo receivers on the market now have a preamp out for the sub, but almost none of them have bass management, meaning manual calibration with a SPL meter. The only one I can think of that has a selectable X-over is the Outlaw RR2150. This is another big reason to go AVR over stereo receiver.

An AVR is more likely to have room correction.

Less of a necessity with 2ch.

An AVR is likely to decode more encoding formats.

Irrelevant. For 2ch, you feed 2ch analog or digital and pretty much every device will have that and the ability to downmix to stereo.

An AVR is capable of doing video.

Stereo receivers typically handle audio as well, but I have not seen any that support HDMI or high-def video. Again, if you want video to go through the receiver for switching, you need an AVR. Integrated amps don't have video or any sort of processing (meaning analog only, no bass management, no sub pre-out), while stereo receivers typically have digital audio inputs and the ability to decode. With analog video going away, I am sure we will soon see stereo receivers with HDMI. Likely on the next generation that comes out.

Honestly: I've never been able to come up with a good case for a 2-channel receiver; even in my 2-channel setups.

I am completely the opposite. For stereo music only, I don't see a point in using a receiver with more channels or electronics than you need. A comparable integrated amp tends to have a better pre- and amp section than an equivalently priced AVR in my experience, and I've always used an integrated for my music systems (no sub).

 

[avnetguy]

I am completely the opposite. For stereo music only, I don't see a point in using a receiver with more channels or electronics than you need. A comparable integrated amp tends to have a better pre- and amp section than an equivalently priced AVR in my experience, and I've always used an integrated for my music systems (no sub).

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually hear any difference (if there is any at all) between the two and generally the "more channels/electronics" isn't going to cause any problems. For a 2.0 or 2.1 system I'd be looking at an AVR, even if you don't plan on using the extra features they're there if you want/need them.

Steve

 

[wtrimble]

I will go with an AVR.

Recommendations, please, on AVR in the $200-400 that has:

5.1 connection
HDMI inputs - No 3D needed!
Component input for DVD/CD
subout
Network/wireless connection for SiriusXM
Good amount of power
Android tablet/ Ipod USB connection (optional)

 

[j_garcia]

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually hear any difference (if there is any at all) between the two and generally the "more channels/electronics" isn't going to cause any problems. For a 2.0 or 2.1 system I'd be looking at an AVR, even if you don't plan on using the extra features they're there if you want/need them.

Steve

Yeah, there won't be a night and day difference. In my case, my integrated is a Class A amp, so there is a difference. It manages to easily fill my very large room with just 25W...and keep it warm at the same time LOL. Inefficient from an amplification standpoint, but it sounds great

 

[ParadigmDawg]

Thanks for the help guys. I will go with a AVR (not HT) receiver as recommended.

I am looking at getting the Denon AVR-1613 receiver. I have a Denon microsystem and I enjoy it. Though there are some bad reviews concerning the lack of power and glitchy streaming software. True concern? I'm also concerned that the DVD/CD player I use will not have an HDMI output on it, doesn't look like this receiver will take any other video/audio connection, is this true? Any recommendations on other receivers in this price range with the same capabilities?

Also,



what does "M/C receiver" mean?

I see nothing wrong with the Denon you are looking at. This Onkyo is about the best deal out there right now at ~600 off MRSP.

Amazon.com: Onkyo TX-NR809 THX Certified 7.2-Channel Network A/V Receiver (Black): Electronics

 

[JerryLove]

I am completely the opposite. For stereo music only, I don't see a point in using a receiver with more channels or electronics than you need. A comparable integrated amp tends to have a better pre- and amp section than an equivalently priced AVR in my experience, and I've always used an integrated for my music systems (no sub).

Preferences vary, and that's fine. For me: I've never been able to hear a difference; and the lower cost (and generally .1 adjustable output) have been the deciding factors.

 

[bikemig]

Preferences vary, and that's fine. For me: I've never been able to hear a difference; and the lower cost (and generally .1 adjustable output) have been the deciding factors.

I have a pair of 4 ohm bookshelf speakers which is why I opted for a stereo receiver for my 2 channel rig. Quite a few stereo receivers and integrated amps can handle 4 ohm loads; I don't think the same is true for AV receivers. Plus a 2 channel stereo rig just looks cool, IMHO, But I opted for an AV receiver for my HT system even though I only have one pair of speakers because it decodes pretty much everything and makes the job of hooking up different components fairly straightforward.