Stereo v. 5.1

[bikemig]

So this is a topic that I expect everyone has an opinion on but perhaps no one has an answer to. I'm trying to figure out whether to go with a 2 channel receiver or a 5.1 (or 7.1 or whatever) AV receiver to provide sound for video and movies (as well as general music listening). Is there any difference between the two choices that I should be concerned with? I am currently running Audioengine A-5s for music and movies but want to replace them. I'm happy with the A-5s but they don't mesh as well as I would like with my TV (no volume control, difficult to add sources). I like the simplicity of a stereo. Dollar for dollar, I would think that your money in a 2 channel receiver is going to the sound which is what I care the most about. My one hesitation with a 2 channel rig is that while my current TV has RCA outputs, it is a pretty safe bet that my next one will not. Plus AV receivers have a dac which can be pretty useful for connecting all sorts of sources and they generally have some sort of bass management. Should I care about the video processing in an AV receiver? My TV has plenty of HDMI inputs. I'm new to this site and pretty new to setting up a sound (and video) system so any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[jostenmeat]

If for HT, no doubt 5.1 > 2.0. But if the quality variation is large, then it stats balancing out, then starts favoring the 2.0. It comes down to budget.

The electronics are the very last thing you should concern yourself with.

Video processing being at the very bottom of the barrel in terms of electronics.

Spend on speakers and display first and foremost; supporting electronics are all after. Speakers/display is the hardest part; it's where the electrical signal is finally converted to something your human senses can discern.

 

[markw]

Two random thoughts.

1) Speakers, moreso than anything else, have the most effect on the quality of sound you get. That's where you should concentrate your search, and funds.

2) You can always use a multi-channel AVR for two-channel stereo use and get very good results but the opposite is not the case.

 

[bikemig]

I appreciate the advice on the speakers and that is where I want to spend my money. I'm relatively indifferent to the video processing since the TV does a good job of that. I've never had an AV receiver but I imagine another advantage is that switching between different sources has to be easier via the AV receiver than via the TV for the HDMI input and a stereo receiver for the audio. Thanks for the helpful replies.

 

[markw]

If video switching is high on your priority list then the AVR would be a no-brainer. My take was that you were more concerned with sound.

As for video switching, it's no sin to use your TV to select your video source and run the corrosponding hi glitz audio to the AVR and use that for audio selection. Also, the fewer steps the video passes through, the better off you are. And, pass-through is not as perfect as many want to believe, although I do believe it has improved.

This is how I run my setup and it also offers the advantage not not being forced to run the audio through the AVR 100% of the time and use the TV's internal sound with good ole red/white analog audio at other times.

I find that most TV watching, a fancy 5.1 audio system offers no real advantage, like with the news, most other TV shows, and the kiddie videos the grandkids want to watch, over and over.

 

[bikemig]

Musicality is what I care about the most; I was just thinking that the AV receiver might make it easier switching from different sources than a 2 channel rig since I think that would require that you switch both the video and the audio. I saw your profile and that you have the Magnepans 1.6. I'm interested in the MMG but I know I'd need an AV receiver that is stable at 4 ohms. I have analog outs on my TV now but I figure I'll be forced to go with a digital out when I replace it and that the AV would make that easier.

 

[markw]

Musicality is what I care about the most; I was just thinking that the AV receiver might make it easier switching from different sources than a 2 channel rig since I think that would require that you switch both the video and the audio. I saw your profile and that you have the Magnepans 1.6. I'm interested in the MMG but I know I'd need an AV receiver that is stable at 4 ohms. I have analog outs on my TV now but I figure I'll be forced to go with a digital out when I replace it and that the AV would make that easier.

Maggies like clean power. The more the merrier. Even with that, MMG's won't exactly overwhelm you with bass and they do have a maximum loudness level they can achieve before starting to sound raspy. But, they got me hooked on the planar sound.

As for receivers, I would suggest that whatever you decide upon has preamp outs. I started with MMG's and my NAD 214 amp was barely able to satisfy them, even with a powered subwoofer.

I took them up on their trade-in offer and wound up with the 1.6's, and a Rotel RB-991 power amp to drive them. With these, a sub isn't mandatory for music, but it will help for HT since HT intentionally throws in near-subsonic sounds for effects.

OH, be prepared to experiement with room placement with either. They like a few feet between them and any walls or corners.

 

[bikemig]

I'm definitely getting a receiver with a preamp; I'm thinking about the NAD T-747. It is a bit underpowered but I know NAD seriously understates what its receivers can do and it has pre-amps if I do need to add an amplifier down the road. But I'm not sure how well it will play with the Maggies. But that's why I was thinking of getting something like the HK 3490 since it should put out plenty of power for the Maggies (or any other hard to drive speaker).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I would also recommend getting a 7.1 AVR for several reasons.

For one thing, the 7 channel amp will be nice when you are only using 2.0 Direct. When a receiver can do 7-ch simultaneously, going to 2.0 will significantly increase the power output.

You have the convinience of HDMI and all that switching.

In 2.0 Direct or Pure Direct, you won't be able to tell the difference between the 7.1 AVR vs. a 2.0 Receiver or pre-amp.

And you never know how you may feel in the future; 2.0 may be great for you now, but you may change your mind and want to try 5.1 in the future. You never know. Never say never, right?

 

[3db]

So this is a topic that I expect everyone has an opinion on but perhaps no one has an answer to. I'm trying to figure out whether to go with a 2 channel receiver or a 5.1 (or 7.1 or whatever) AV receiver to provide sound for video and movies (as well as general music listening). Is there any difference between the two choices that I should be concerned with? I am currently running Audioengine A-5s for music and movies but want to replace them. I'm happy with the A-5s but they don't mesh as well as I would like with my TV (no volume control, difficult to add sources). I like the simplicity of a stereo. Dollar for dollar, I would think that your money in a 2 channel receiver is going to the sound which is what I care the most about. My one hesitation with a 2 channel rig is that while my current TV has RCA outputs, it is a pretty safe bet that my next one will not. Plus AV receivers have a dac which can be pretty useful for connecting all sorts of sources and they generally have some sort of bass management. Should I care about the video processing in an AV receiver? My TV has plenty of HDMI inputs. I'm new to this site and pretty new to setting up a sound (and video) system so any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

No 2 channel system regardless of cost will surpass even a modest budget 5.1or 7.1 system in terms of sound emmersion with movies. What I would do is to ask some friends to see if they have HT systems in their home and tell them you are torn between 2 channel and surround sound. They may invite you in and give you a demo of their system. Then you can decide for yourself if that's the experience you are after. Take note of their system components so you can get an idea of the brands out there. BTW, what is your budget?

 

[bikemig]

That's good advice to listen to a friend's set up. I'd like to keep the cost at around $1700 for the receiver and a pair of speakers. I would like most of the budget to go for the speakers. I have a sub I'm happy with (Klipsch KSW 10).

 

[3db]

That's good advice to listen to a friend's set up. I'd like to keep the cost at around $1700 for the receiver and a pair of speakers. I would like most of the budget to go for the speakers. I have a sub I'm happy with (Klipsch KSW 10).

If you do end up wanting to go the surround channel route, my advice for you woukd be put in $1000 to $1200 for the main speakers, and the remaining on the receiver. Then save up for the surrounds and finally the center channel. It may take a little longer to do it tis way but at least when you're done, you'll have system that you can live with for many years wuithout feeling the need to upgrade.

I'm not a proponet of the current 3D technology and its implementation. Its still far too gimicky than quality. If you can avoid 3D, you should be able to pick up an older Yamaha RXV1900/3900, Denons, or Onkyo's. Others with more knowledege on theother models are able to help you here.

 

[markw]

Three more random thoughts.

!) When listening to a "system", use music for your source, not a movie. Almost any system can sound amazing with a movie but not all sound good for music. Basically, is a system sounds good on two-channel music, it'll sound very good with a multi-channel movie. The opposite is not always true.

2) Listen to music in two channel with any additional processing off. No DSP, no hall effects, no nothing. Without that, you're not listening to te true sound of the speakers/amp.

3) If you do envision a multi-channel system in your future, get your center channel at the same time as your R/L mains. The center should be "matched" to the sound of your mains for a uniform front soundstage and the only way to assure that is to get it from the same manufacturer/line as your mains. ...and since these change frequently, it may not be available later. The surounds aren't quite as critical for movies.

 

[3db]

!) When listening to a "system", use music for your source, not a movie. Almost any system can sound amazing with a movie but not all sound good for music. Basically, is a system sounds good on two-channel music, it'll sound very good with a multi-channel movie. The opposite is not always true..

Mark, the idea behind him listening to a friends system is to get the full effect of a surrround system as he's not sure whether or not he wants to go down that route. . He should therefore listen to his friends systems with movies, not music. Once he's made up his mind on the direction, 2 channel or HT, he should follow the steps you outlined.

!)
2) Listen to music in two channel with any additional processing off. No DSP, no hall effects, no nothing. Without that, you're not listening to te true sound of the speakers/amp.

3) If you do envision a multi-channel system in your future, get your center channel at the same time as your R/L mains. The center should be "matched" to the sound of your mains for a uniform front soundstage and the only way to assure that is to get it from the same manufacturer/line as your mains. ...and since these change frequently, it may not be available later. The surounds aren't quite as critical for movies.

 

[bikemig]

center channel question

!) When listening to a "system", use music for your source, not a movie. Almost any system can sound amazing with a movie but not all sound good for music. Basically, is a system sounds good on two-channel music, it'll sound very good with a multi-channel movie. The opposite is not always true.

2) Listen to music in two channel with any additional processing off. No DSP, no hall effects, no nothing. Without that, you're not listening to te true sound of the speakers/amp.

3) If you do envision a multi-channel system in your future, get your center channel at the same time as your R/L mains. The center should be "matched" to the sound of your mains for a uniform front soundstage and the only way to assure that is to get it from the same manufacturer/line as your mains. ...and since these change frequently, it may not be available later. The surounds aren't quite as critical for movies.

One question I have is why should I get a center channel. I have been listening to movies (I have a macmini that I use to stream netflix and play DVDs) using a stereo and a sub (audioengine A-5 and a Klipsch KSW-10). I find the dialogue very clear. Is a center that important for dialogue? I have thought about going with a 3.1 set-up but I am not convinced that a center channel is that important.

 

[3db]

One question I have is why should I get a center channel. I have been listening to movies (I have a macmini that I use to stream netflix and play DVDs) using a stereo and a sub (audioengine A-5 and a Klipsch KSW-10). I find the dialogue very clear. Is a center that important for dialogue? I have thought about going with a 3.1 set-up but I am not convinced that a center channel is that important.

Center channels only become important when your listening position is far from center. It just anchors the sound to teh screen. If however, you will be sitting close to dead centyer all the time, a centre channel is definately not required. People put far too much importance on the center channel.

As an example, during a home move, it was recommeded that I make the HT room look less cluttered. As a result I had to move teh top half off my cabinet into to storage which included the centre channel. My front speakers imaged so well that I did not miss the center channel at all until I moved about 30 to 40 degrees off center. Then I noticed it.

However, when getting the center channel, they need to come from the same speaker manufacturer and model line to achieve the best match of your left/right main speakers.

 

[markw]

It does ad a LOT to the overall experience.

One question I have is why should I get a center channel. I have been listening to movies (I have a macmini that I use to stream netflix and play DVDs) using a stereo and a sub (audioengine A-5 and a Klipsch KSW-10). I find the dialogue very clear. Is a center that important for dialogue? I have thought about going with a 3.1 set-up but I am not convinced that a center channel is that important.

...and I sgrongly recomment it. It anchors the dialog soundly in the center of the sound stage. While a phantom CC works well for one position, moving towards either side away from that sweet spot diminishes the localization severely. Once you get used to the real thing, there's no going back to a makeshift substitute. ...kinda like sex.

Understand, this is for movies only. I'm of the firm belief that two-channel music sounds best in plain vanilla two-channel. But, there's no reason a well selected MC system cannot satisfy both needs.

 

[bikemig]

I'm curious if I go with a stereo receiver, what are the options for getting audio out from the TV? Do I need an audio converter box of some type (Gefen sells one) or can some TVs output 2 channel digital audio so that the dac in the receiver (HK 3490 or Onkyo TX 8050) can handle it? I don't know much about the digital streams used by TVs and the like.

 

[anamorphic96]

I'm curious if I go with a stereo receiver, what are the options for getting audio out from the TV? Do I need an audio converter box of some type (Gefen sells one) or can some TVs output 2 channel digital audio so that the dac in the receiver (HK 3490 or Onkyo TX 8050) can handle it? I don't know much about the digital streams used by TVs and the like.

You dont have to get the audio from the tv. It can come directly from the cable/sat box. In fact it typically sounds better than going through the tv, especially with analog connections.

I use an optical cable directly off my cable box into my receiver.

Hope this helps.

 

[bikemig]

Thanks I've ignored the box in my set up but I need to take a look at it and see what kind of outputs it has, lol.