2.0 reciever vs a 5.1 reciever - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 01:22 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
EagleDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This maybe a old question. I am thinking about upgraging my living room LR bookshelf speakers to towers. and move those bookshelf speakers to my bedroom. In my bedroom I have a Sat receiver, dvd player, and may add a CD player. I really don't won't a full blown 5.1 system in the bedroom. I will be satified with a 2.0 HT system . Should I go with a 2.0 receiver? Is there a problem with using an inexpensive 5.1 receiver? What's the pros and cons of both?
EagleDon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 01:34 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
EagleDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This was probably not the right forum to post this question
EagleDon is offline  
post #3 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 01:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,580
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 723
The stereo receivers won't have HDMI connections if you need that. Some models don't even have optical connections. But you will get more amplifier for your money over an equivalent priced AVR.

If you are happy with just having analog (RCA) connections, the HK 3390 is a good price. For a little more, you can get the Onkyo TX-8050. It does have optical and some other extra features.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is online now  
post #4 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,064
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:


Should I go with a 2.0 receiver? Is there a problem with using an inexpensive 5.1 receiver?

There's no problem with an AVR. The advantage of using an AVR in a 2.0 system would be the extra features you might get. Digital connections are one, although some 2-channel gear is coming equipped with at least optical (not HDMI that I've seen). Room correction, in your better AVRs, but that may have limited value in a 2.0 system.

Quote:


In my bedroom I have a Sat receiver, dvd player, and may add a CD player.

Just use the DVD player for CDs.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #5 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
walbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Given what you're hooking up, a stereo receiver is probably the most cost effective option - there's a number of models under $200 that would be perfectly suited here. A 5.1 AV receiver will have more features, but also cost more - some of those features may be useful to you, but it's really a matter of how much you want to spend. If you're going to break the $300 barrier I would get a 5.1 AVR, otherwise, grab a stereo unit with a remote and be happy.
walbert is offline  
post #6 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 02:20 PM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
For CD playback, use the dvd player.
gregzoll is offline  
post #7 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 02:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
zieglj01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,577
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 416
A refurbish Denon 1612, will take care of business.
http://www.accessories4less.com/make...eceiver/1.html

__________________________________________
Who and Where - is the Way, the Truth and the Life?

Speakers > MB Quart VS05, Boston VS260, Snell K7
Subwoofer > Mordaunt Short Aviano 7
Receiver > Tascam PAR-200, Pioneer VSX-30
zieglj01 is offline  
post #8 of 18 Old 04-07-2012, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
67jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by zieglj01 View Post

A refurbish Denon 1612, will take care of business.
http://www.accessories4less.com/make...eceiver/1.html

so would a refurb 1611...a tad cheaper too.
http://www.accessories4less.com/make...eceiver/1.html

id get either over a sub $200 sony or sherwood 2 channel receiver. way better feature set, future expandability possibilities, plenty of digi connections and room correction (if desired).

I don't need snobs to tell me how to think, thank you!
LOL!
Why you wouldn't want to join this forum
67jason is online now  
post #9 of 18 Old 04-08-2012, 06:02 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
EagleDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You guys right about the CD player. Thanks
EagleDon is offline  
post #10 of 18 Old 04-08-2012, 03:12 PM
Member
 
JohnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Aurora, ON, Canada
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Of the few stereo receives I've priced at online stores I've noticed that on their product page they list "No" for DTS, Dolby 5.1, TrueAudio, etc. However, 5.1/7.1 stereo receivers list "Yes" for all those modes and offer phantom modes for 2.0 home theatre setups and more digital inputs. Do phantom modes, which can potentially offer enhanced dialogue and enhanced surround effects make 5.1/7.1 receivers a better option for 2.0 setups (setting aside the fact that you're initially paying more for extra amplification to channels that will never be used)? Also, will receivers conserve energy on channels not used in a 2.0 setup, or are you automatically going to use more power running a 2.0 setup with a 5.1/7.1 receiver vs a stereo receiver?

(I'm not very knowledgeable about audio equipment, so I'm excited to learn. Is there a section where I can ask a bunch of dumb questions without being attacked for not using the search button?)
JohnyBGood is offline  
post #11 of 18 Old 04-08-2012, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
walbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Stereo receivers don't have decoders for multi-channel formats (although I think a few of them have Dolby Virtual Surround), but that doesn't matter because generally speaking your player equipment will have those multi-channel decoders. For example, a DVD player has a stereo output, so there's your decoder. The receiver is then just providing "everything else" (volume control, amplification, etc).

Power consumption is tricky - with modern AVRs most of your power demand is from the DSPs until you push them to insane output levels (many modern AVRs will "idle" at 100W or more), while most stereo receivers are "dumb" by comparison, and all you're providing for is the amplifier's needs and whatever basic microcontroller runs the device (things like the remote control receiver). Older AVRs can actually be fairly good power consumption wise (close enough to a stereo receiver to not really worry about it, relative to the extra features); I'm not sure where the very cheapest but very modern AVRs fit in (I would say as they increase in DSP features and similar, they will increase power demand). Anyways, at most we're talking around 100W (even for normal-ish output levels, at least in stereo), which is not extreme (and it's not like you intend to run the thing 24x7, right?).

A lot of the power consumption stuff is based on measurements of my own equipment and other forum posts.
walbert is offline  
post #12 of 18 Old 04-09-2012, 11:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 346
A DVD or BD player tends to take quite a bit longer (several seconds) to detect and start playing a CD than does a dedicated CD player. Also, very few DVD or BD players can decode CD Text to display the artist and track title information for CDs which have that info.

Selden
Selden Ball is offline  
post #13 of 18 Old 04-09-2012, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
tlalotoani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyBGood View Post

Of the few stereo receives I've priced at online stores I've noticed that on their product page they list "No" for DTS, Dolby 5.1, TrueAudio, etc. However, 5.1/7.1 stereo receivers list "Yes" for all those modes and offer phantom modes for 2.0 home theatre setups and more digital inputs. Do phantom modes, which can potentially offer enhanced dialogue and enhanced surround effects make 5.1/7.1 receivers a better option for 2.0 setups (setting aside the fact that you're initially paying more for extra amplification to channels that will never be used)? Also, will receivers conserve energy on channels not used in a 2.0 setup, or are you automatically going to use more power running a 2.0 setup with a 5.1/7.1 receiver vs a stereo receiver?

(I'm not very knowledgeable about audio equipment, so I'm excited to learn. Is there a section where I can ask a bunch of dumb questions without being attacked for not using the search button?)

I had measured the power consumption of a Denon AVR-391 in 5.1 and 2.1 modes, there is no norticeable difference between both configurations, in idle the AVR´s consumption is around the 40W, and dependig on the volume and the type of music you play it increases, I must say that this AVR has a 200 (and something) watts peak consumption, but to get to that consumption must be with the AVR almost burning, because with the music LOUD the power consumption reaches 65-70 Watts, I believe that a 2.0 channel mus have a lower power consumption.
tlalotoani is offline  
post #14 of 18 Old 04-09-2012, 05:41 PM
 
gregzoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

A DVD or BD player tends to take quite a bit longer (several seconds) to detect and start playing a CD than does a dedicated CD player. Also, very few DVD or BD players can decode CD Text to display the artist and track title information for CDs which have that info.

Actually not. Our Sony BDP-S370 starts right up when you put in the CD, with no delay. It takes no longer to start playing a CD or SACD, than playing on a conventional CD player.
gregzoll is offline  
post #15 of 18 Old 04-10-2012, 02:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

Actually not. Our Sony BDP-S370 starts right up when you put in the CD, with no delay. It takes no longer to start playing a CD or SACD, than playing on a conventional CD player.

That's good to know. My understanding is that most brands of BD players take a while to determine the disc type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlalotoani View Post

I believe that a 2.0 channel mus have a lower power consumption.

It depends on the design of the analog amplifier circuitry. Class A amplifiers draw the same amount of power at all times, whether or not they're actually amplifying a signal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...lifier_classes

Selden
Selden Ball is offline  
post #16 of 18 Old 04-10-2012, 03:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mphfrom77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: northern KY
Posts: 3,674
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 198
It sounds like to me you may be the perfect candidate for a craigslist avr. I bet you could get a nice one for $100 or less to satisfy your needs. I guess that doesn't answer your question though.

Btw, I use my bluray player for CDs and can't stand it. I need to figure out what I want to do about them.
mphfrom77 is offline  
post #17 of 18 Old 04-10-2012, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
walbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

That's good to know. My understanding is that most brands of BD players take a while to determine the disc type.

From what I've seen and heard, it varies (wildly sometimes) from player to player. Some of the oldest and most expensive Blu-ray players are just drudgingly slow (for anything), but many modern units are as quick as a DVD player. For reference, old CD players aren't usually the quickest to load a disc either.
walbert is offline  
post #18 of 18 Old 04-10-2012, 04:47 PM
Newbie
 
SuperToMMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If 2 or 2.1 channel is the end of the road for your rigs in a particular set up. You could benefit from an integrated amp with external dac connected to your player. Since most of the players if not all can be set to send pcm out on their digital ports. Amp with pre or sub out will prove convenient if you are planning to add a subwoofer to your system.
SuperToMMo is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off