A/V versus audio?

[Unregistered]

I am a music lover who is contemplating upgrading TV & perhaps purchasing a HTIB system. My question is a little embarassing but how does one integrate "traditional" audio systems with home theatre setups? Most home theatre setups seemed to be primarily designed for delivering convincing movie surround sound & not ideal for listening to music. How have others dealt with this? Are there (affordable) setups which deliver quality sound for both purposes or do people simply run two systems? If the latter can they be run through one receiver?

Thanks in advance to those with more experience who can offer advice to this bewildered newbie!
scott.

 

[markw]

It can be done, but...

It can be done. but you have to set your proprities up front and be aware that for the same dollars, you can buy two great speakers OR five middling' speakers.

Likewise, you can get one heckuva two channel amp for the price of a 5 or 6 channel HT receiver, although the specs on the HT receiver will appear to blow the two channel unit away.

Don't believe the HT specs. They are not the same as stereo specs. HT specs follow different rules than two channel units and are, let's say, more "liberal". ...not too different from theway they rate automotive sound equipment.

A stereo amp rated at 50 wpc will probably produce more clean sound more dynamically than a multi channel HT receiver rated at 100 wpc. There may be a few exceptions, but they are far and few between, and they still cost a LOT more than the similarly speced competition.

In any case, when you shop, shop for speakers that play music. Not speakers that just do HT. They are a dime a dozen, literally. A speaker system that does a good job on music will do a good job on HT as well. It doesn't always work the other way around.

HT depends to a great extent on the boom and sizzle effect. Not too many people have experience with helicopters flying around their head, Tyrannosaurus Rex's stomping around their living room, Light sabers and surround gun battles. Loud seems to be the order of the day and people just love those surround sounds.

Almost any subwoofer can be used with almost any tiny speaker and produce an exciting audio experience. Notice I didn't say musical or realistic?

That's why so many people are satisfied with HTIB, at least until they start to seriously listen to music.

Oh, and don't count on any of those DSP modes to really enhance your two channel musical experience, at least for music recorded in two channel.

Some may be "decent", but don't expect an epiphany. It might be interesting but it won't be ehat they promise.

Now, multi channel Hi Rez is a different story. That was designed for multi-channel systems/

When shopping, listen to music on the speakers first. Then, when you have selected your speakers (two or five, six or whatever), look for an amp/receiver capable of driving them.

Now, I went the seperate two channel route simply because I already had a decent two channel system and it wasn’t really feasible to upgrade it to HT. For HT, I took the exact same approach I just described. Music is my first love and movies are a pleasant diversion. The HT system spends more time playing music than it does movies. Although I wasn't about to spend as much on my HT as I did on my stereo, it was mandatory that my HT system provide satisfying musical reproduction and be fairly cheap (hey, I’m a bottom feeder, OK?)

In case you are interested, this is what I came up with.

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

I won’t say it’s as good as my 2 channel system, but it does sound pretty durn musical. …and it does multi channel which is something the other doesn’t. Granted, there are a lot more expensive and, I’m sure, better sounding but, for the price, I doubt you would be too disappointed, but everyone has differing tastes.

So, set your priorities, set your budget and listen around for the speakers. The rest will fall into place.

Enjoy...

 

[cornelius]

Home Theatre is theatre for the home.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I'll have to somewhat disagree- I think with a lot of two channel gear you're buying name & snob appeal with very little to no sonic improvement. Note I said a lot, not all. I'd wager most music lovers will find stereo playback thru a modern, high quality A/V receiver to be very musically satisfying, and many won't be able to discern much difference between that an separates. IMOHO, the value of separates is flexibility (eg being able to get the features you want in a preamp or prepro and then buying only as much amp as you need) more than sound, in many cases.

As for the assertion that they dissemble on the specs, I'd invite anyone to read the Audioholics own reviews for their actual measurements. About the only area where receivers tend to overstate their claims is rated power with all channels driven; believe me, that's not a common circumstance in the real world. I suspect the Admin may chime in with their opinions upon the whole "receivers vs separates" issue, as I'm aware some of them have strong opinions on the matter.

If you're contemplating HTIB, I guess I'll start by asking if you are looking more for cost savings or simplicity. Most HTIBs arent' going to be extremely satifying in the long run, although there are a few that aren't too bad, so long as you ditch the speakers that are supplied. Several of Sony's "Dream Systems" sound surprisingly good when driving quality speakers. In fact, at AC there was a discussion about one guys musings on ditching $5k worth of tubes & switching to the Sony. His goal was to simplify his life/system, and while he ultimately decided that last iota of detail was worth the hassle of his tube gear, it's an eye opener that the Sony was even in the ballpark. This guy is no newb, either, but a seasoned bottlehead.

First, decide what your system will be expected to do. Are you an 80% music/20% HT guy? 50/50? Do you foresee multichannel music being important to you? How you answer this question will determine how you'll allot your budget.

The next thing to decide is the price range: what can you spend for the whole system? Are there any peices you currently own that you plan to keep? This is an essential starting point- once you have the price point chosen you can begin to research gear in that range.

I suggest that speakers should be perhaps half of your total system outlay, dependant of course on how many you buy. A MC system may need a bit more of the budget allotted for speakers. All elements are important, but the speakers are the only component that actually make sound, and are the second biggest factor in the sound you'll get [the 1st is the room itself]. While it's true that you could get two good speakers or five middling ones for the same money, that's a bit like choosing between one really superb shoe & one bare foot vs two middling shoes! Or two really good tires & two bald retreads vs four average ones. If you mainly want good stereo with an occasional movie, you might be able to get a pair of great speakers and a few mediocre ones, but expect a mediocre theatre experience. And don't even consider MC music without decent speakers.

IMOHO, at the least you should consider buying the best speakers you can afford for the front left/right & center. And these speakers must be closely voice matched. In my experience, the rears needn't be as close a match or as good as the fronts to get a good sonic experience (although more's the better if they are). But please, I urge you, don't scrimp on the front three.

For good HT sound, you'll need a good subwoofer. Well actually, I think a good sub is at least as important for music as for HT. Whether the pluck of a standup bass, swelling piano fortissimos, or just the "breathing" of a room, the lowest bass adds life and presence to music that you don't notice until it's absent. Even if you listen only to lite acoustic music, I feel a sub is important. Another advantage of a sub is that it will allow you to buy smaller speakers, possibly bookshelf models, that are much cheaper for the same level of sound and sometimes will image better. By using a sub and a receiver with global bass management, you can take advantage of the non-directional nature of bass to relieve you main speakers of the task by diverting it to a subwoofer. By freeing you're mains of the need to produce the lower bass, you can use a smaller speaker and increase their dynamic capabilities. One last side benefit of this is that the sub can be placed in an area where it can load the room most effectively while the speakers can go where they throw the best soundfield.

With a good sub, you may wish to consider three identical pairs of standmount speakers. This will give you either 5 matching plus a spare or allow you to set up a 6.1 system; in the latter case you can take advantage of some of the newest movie sound formats.

There are many good HT receivers out there that can do a pretty good job with stereo music. Features may or may not be important to you, but typically an HT receiver by a solid company can offer much more up to date features and DSP for the money than a preamp due to economy of scale. And many now offer "stereo direct" modes where all circuitry not needed for 2-Ch music is disabled, theoretically shortening the signal path & improving the sound. Many also include upsampling and a host of other DSPs that you may find useful.

That brings me to one last benefit of a modern HT receiver- Digital Signal Processing (DSP). I'm very very fond of Dolby Pro Logic II, for instance. I use it for all my television watching, and I find it often improves music playback, too. (I know, not audiophool approved, but I say if it sounds good, it is good- especially for pop music that has no "correct" or absolute sound). I surely wouldn't discount the effectiveness of surround derived from stereo sources without trying it for yourself.

But DSP can also do much more, such as allowing for synching sound to the picture on you TV, compensating for disparate speaker distances or even digitally correcting shortcomings of the room itself. The computer power of a modern receiver is remarkable- it can do things a PC would've been hard pressed to do five years ago. I think the Audioholics have found that these room corrections are sometimes very useful. And some receivers will do all this for you, automatically.

It can be a confusing situation, but I envy you getting your start in todays AV market. There's a plethora of great stuff out there, and a lot of the good stuff won't break the bank. IMOHO, there's never been a better time to be a music or film lover than right now!

 

[markw]

Rob does bring up one point I glided over that, in hindsight, I should have stressed more.

A good sub is mandatory for HT. It does add that solid foundation that makes HT such a thrilling experience. Modern HT units do offer bass management circuits that will allow a sub to mate well with a variety of speakers.

When all is said and done, I don't think we differed too greatly on the speaker situation. For a mainly HT system, the three fromt speakers are critical. don't skimp on them. You can save a few bucks on the surrounds since they mainly provide "ambiance" and are rarely called upon for a lead role.

But, if multi-channel music is in the stars, they should pretty much match the front speakers. The surrounds aren't just for sound effects anymore. MC music is mixed so that it can eminate equally from all speakers.

As far as the DSP modes, these are a personal choice. ..not unlike A1 Steak sauce. Some people prefer the taste of it plain or perhaps with a little salt and pepper. Others prefer to slather their steaks in it. Try it booth ways and decide for yourself.

I have no experience with DPL2x, but I do find DPL2 a great improvment over DPL. I could only use DPL on movies. DPL2 actually enhances a few CD's, but my tastes run more towards the plain unenhaced 2 channel sound. Again, to each their own. But, on occasion I find Denon's 5 channel stereo fun.

And, depending on the speakers you choose, you just may need more power than is available in a mid priced receiver. My two channel system had been growing and had reached it's current stage in 1999. It was built around Magnapan 1.6's and these need a lot of power to sound their best.

There's not necesarially a snob appeal to all two channel systems. They come in at all price ranges. There are some value priced two channel units out there. Unfortunately, the stereo receiver market has pretty much dried up, but there are some fairly priced integrated amps that provide a lot of bang for the buck. NAD comes to mind. Quite a bit of good, clean power, no frills styling and a pretty good sound for a not unreasonable price.

Yes, you CAN go out and buy amps with a chrome plated chassis, 1/4" machined aluminum front panels and 2" turned knobs that weigh 1/2 lb each but I don't think you NEED these to get good sound. .

For me, to go forth and get a matching center and surrounds, not to mention the required amplification would have been prohibitively expensive. ...and to then tie it into a receiver would have simply added more cost and complexity

I chose to simply start fresh with the current crop of receivers and speakers and, as stated in my previous post, the sound is quite satisfying for music.

But ultimately, there's a serious difference between the two systems. ...as there should be. It all depends on which direction you choose and how much you decide to spend. It isn't all black and white.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I'll concede that if Maggies are in your future, you probably won't want to the receiver route, unless you add outboard amps.

The best solution for MC music is 5 identical speakers. But I still maintain that the front 3 are the place to start. You can add rears as budget allows.

 

[Rob Babcock]

BTW, that's one nice thing about an HT receiver if you make sure to get one far enough up the ladder to get preamp outputs. If someday you find that the receiver doesn't crank out enough juice (eg for Quads or Maggies- not that many Quad users would own a receiver... ), simply add outboard amps.

 

[markw]

And now we're into that audiosnob area of separates again.

I think a lot of what I/we missed, or at least forgot to mention, was his concern about "integrating" HT into his music system. I interperted that as his already having a crackerjack "stereo" system and, as I found in my case, It might be easier, simpler and and more cost effective to simply go the standalone HT route then to try to kludge a MC system into it while maintaining consistency with what already exists.

Now, if I were starting from scratch today and multi channel sound was a concern, and believe me it is, I would start with a good multi channel system. ...but I would still make my selection of components based on how well it did music and yes, I have suggested that people start with a decent mid-range MC unit with pre-outs if power is an issue.

 

[Unregistered]

You're right- but you have to understand that often a receiver is the heart of a system of separates. Very few prepros can rival an HT receiver dollar for dollar. Again, it's the economy of scale. Some high end rec's are extremely good, and at the midprice level there isn't really any usable preamp/processor (say, under $750- in that range, you might get something used, and not likely very current). If it has to have DD/DTS decoding, DACs, etc then there isn't a prepro under $1000 that I could live with.

I once speculated that my ideal preamp would basically be a certain HT receiver w/o the amps- but a company spokesman informed me that selling a prepro version would likely cost more due to the limited number they'd sell. So look at a good HT receiver as a prepro with amps tossed in for free.

BTW, I use a receiver in my main HT rig, but I've never used the built in amps- I couldn't even verify that they work. It's only ever been used as a prepro.

I guess we both read the initial inquire differently- I thought he was looking to start over. If one wants to fold an existing stereo system into an AV rig, that's a different challenge.

 

[markw]

So look at a good HT receiver as a prepro with amps tossed in for free.

That's the best way of looking at these. If the supplied amps are adequate for the job at hand, fine. If not, well, that's why I would really not recommend one buy a receiver w/o them unless it's acknowledged up front that serious expansion is out of the question.

What amazes me is the lack of tuner/preamps/processor available for HT. It seems such a logical idea. AFIKT, NAD and Adcom seem to be the only ones that recognize this niche. There may be others. but they are probably so far outpriced that they didn't even make it on my radar screen.

FWIW, my stereo only system is based on a tuner/preamp. I was able to upgrade my power amp stages as needed. Went thru three power amps before I ran out of channels.

If one wants to fold an existing stereo system into an AV rig, that's a different challenge.

Actually, that's quite an understatement, particularly if said stereo is more than a few years old. Timbre matching can be a challenge in itself, not to mention all the wires, contradicting controls, etc... I think it's better starting out fresh.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Sherwood makes one that that you can buy for around $1200-1500. Features-wise it's basically identical to a $1000 receiver w/o the amps. Rotel's '1066 is also in this general ballpark.

Yes, very hard to incorporate your current stereo rig into a new MC/stereo rig. Starting out fresh would be easier, but where's the challenge in that!