Surround Sound System help

Why the Pioneer SC-1222K or Yamaha RX-A820? 4k future proofing is pretty much a joke. Go ahead and do the search. In my opinion, way too much of your budget is allocated to Receiver. It sort of like buying a great engine to put in a rusted out heap. I would urge you to rethink that decision.

$600 is a tight budget. Probably best you can do on that budget is Pioneer Andrew Jones series. Few other options and even more if you go to the micro satelites.

Going with a 5.1...trying to keep your budget I would go:

Denon 1713 -- http://www.accessories4less.com/index.php?page=item&id=DENAVR1713&gclid=CK_d9bvh3rUCFQSg4Aod0mQAaw (Best room correction for the price) - $320.00

Pioneer SP-FS52-LR Andrew Jones Designed Floor standing Loudspeaker (each) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008NCD2S4/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Pioneer SP-BS22-LR Andrew Jones Designed Bookshelf Loudspeakers http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008NCD2LG/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Pioneer SP-C22 Andrew Jones Designed Center Channel Speaker http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008NCD2EI/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Total: ~$300 (Note: Just pasted Amazon for speed...newegg etc may be better price (watch out for Newegg return policy those...it sucks)

Klipsch RW12D 12-inch Reference Subwoofer http://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-RW12D-12-inch-Reference-Subwoofer/dp/B000UVWIO0 (This WILL go on sale for $299...about every Month or every other Month)

Total: ~$950 dollars. For that...you have a darn nice system. Other ways to go but I don't think anyone would disagree for this price range this is one of your best options.

Now..as far as your JBL. Those are perfectly fine to keep as rear speakers. So you can take out the bookshelf if you want. Your center...you want to switch out to match your L/R.

Agree with newbie...spend 2-3x the cost if the reciever on speakers! A great reciever WON'T sound good with cheap speakers!

+2

Buying a 4K receiver with an approximately $1000 budget makes no sense to me. The 4K TVs are 8K, 10K, 20K at the moment, and it will be years before they are affordable. And then there is no source media for them that is in 4K. We need a whole new media storage method first, an upgrade over blu-ray, and then that will be expensive for years.

Get good speakers and a good sub so you can enjoy now what you listen and watch.

Denon 1913 isn't as "good" as the 1713... The room correction which is a major reason for going with the 1713 is better than the 1913...just one of those things.

I tend to stay away from Yamaha and Pioneer as I don't like their room correction as well... I actually dont know anyone that perfers Yamaha's room correction but some people like Pioneer's better.

Depending on what Polk speakers (only you can tell if you like them) I think the speakers I listed are "better" but go hear them...see what you like.

My suggestion is only buy if you heard them or you can return them...

Better Audyssey or not, based on my experiences with the AVR1713, the AVR2113CI and the Pioneer FS52s I believe the AVR1913 would blow the AVR1713 away with the FS52s.

It helps to look at actual measurements. The 1913 and the previous year's 1612 have almost identical measured output into 2 channels and 5 channels.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures
http://www.hometheater.com/content/denon-avr-1612-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures

So unless the 1713 is worse than the 1612 in output--in other words, Denon reduced the power output of the amp in the 1613/1713 series from the previous year--your conclusions that there is a significant difference in amp/power between the 1713 and 1913 seems highly unlikely.

Since we know

(a) that listener bias can be a big factor in the subjective experience of thinking one amp is better than another, and
(b) that one needs large differences in power output to produce a significant difference in perceived output

it is more likely your experience will not be replicable by someone else for the reasons you are thinking. Could there be some other factors involved? Maybe. But because differences in receivers that are that close in class are likely subtle at best, without ABX testing, your experience is not trustworthy.

I went from Onkyo + Audyssey to the Pioneer SC-1222-K + MCACC. In my opinion both the Audyssey and MCACC are both good. The two minor things I don't really like is no subwoofer EQ and no 12v triggers,but it sounds awesome with both movies and music. Furthermore, the SC-1222-K is usually on sale for $530, which is an awesome deal. It has pre-outs for external amp as well. The iControlAV2012 app for iphone and ipad is really good too.

If you want to go Denon, I wouldn't go with the 1913. I would go with the 1713 which has Audyssey Muliq XT. If you combined it with the Phase 2 Pioneer speakers and a good sub you should have an excellent system. I went from a 7.1 to a 5.1 system, and it sounds much better. I've got front Polk Audio Monitor 70's, center Polk Audio 25c, surround Jamo S426 towers, and klipsch RW-12D sub for a total of:

Monitor 70's x 2 = $321
Monitor 25c x 1 = $150
Jamo S426 x 2 = $87 (on sale at Fry's Electronics )
RW-12D x 1 = $321
S-1222-k x 1 = $530

Total = $1409.00

I went with the Polk Audios instead of the Pioneers because to me the Polk sounded better. It helped that they were on sale too. If they weren't on sale, I would of gone with the Pio's. The most important part of your surround sound is to at least match the front 3 speakers. The sub and surround can be different brand / model.

I'm currently looking to add another sub The wife won't be happy about that lol.

Could be, but whereas you're extrapolating performance from third party measurements on synthetic loads, I'm speaking from firsthand experience between two models with identical Audyssey versions that were calibrated exactly the same way in the same room without moving anything but the receiver. The difference in sound was apparent from the first Audyssey calibration tone. Granted, I did not test with the 1913, so I'm extrapolating a bit as well, but the only relevant difference between the 1713 and 2113CI I'm aware of is the power supply, and since 1913 has a stronger one than the 1713, I think it would do better with the FS52s.
Edited by Resonate - 3/3/13 at 12:28pm

Synthetics are much more reliable when it comes to discussing maximum power output than subjective experience. Moreover, a perceived difference in SQ, if there actually is one, could be a cause of factors other than the amplification.

As far as listener reliability, What We Hear explains a lot (it's purpose was to discuss DACs, but it applies to receivers, too).

Now I'm not doubting you think you heard what you heard. About a year ago, I did an in-home comparison of a Yamaha AVR and an HK receiver. In my comparisons, I think the the HK had better SQ with a warmer sound. But science tells me I cannot trust that opinion. I'm listening to my HK 3390 right now, and I am happy with the sound because of what I *think*, but I cannot KNOW that the HK is better than the Yamaha would have been. I would never insist that the HK is better because of my experience.

If you are new to the science behind this, the idea of listener bias and the difference in receiver quality has been discussed to death already in the Audio theory, Setup and Chat and the 2 Channel Audio forums (search and you can probably find it), but I'm sure that they would be happy to discuss it with you again.

Fwiw I am not talking about max output, only SQ.

True

Yet I trust your opinion more than science, and therefore I would probably go with the HK, given that choice. I understand listener reliability issues, but I still read and value subjective reviews. Scientific though they may be, at this point I don't look at third party measurements until the final hair-splitting stage of research. The reason I came here is to see what people with more experience than myself go with for audio setups. In this thread I don't mean to insist - but rather recommend - based on my experience with a specific setup that I tried.
Edited by Resonate - 3/3/13 at 1:19pm

Might not better trust me that much, because there's also what I would call the aesthetic bias.

I already had an older HK AVR that needed replacing (all of the DSP had burned out but the 2 channel amp function still worked). So I was already used to and liked that sound.

That's one of the factors that's rarely brought in during audio subjective experience discussions, how much our audio "palette" is influenced by other equipment. It's like if one has been drinking a light ale for weeks, and liking it, and then try a new stout, the reaction could be more negative than if stouts and other heavier beers were already part of one's regular beer consumption experience. Or the reason behind food pairings in fine cuisine. I've also seen recommendations from people comparing IEMs that one has to get used to a different sound signature before being able to make a good evaluation of a new earphone. There's so many ways that SQ judgments as an aesthetic experience can be heavily influenced by previous experience.

So I guess we have to read LOTS of subjective reviews to be able to make meaning from them

I do agree with all that and...
I'd also venture that one of the nice things about this forum is that over the course of many hours' reading you can start to get sense of frequent commenters' preferences and biases, and interpret their subjectivity accordingly, especially after listening to some of the speakers they talk about.
Edited by Resonate - 3/3/13 at 3:26pm