[vivid]

Just curious, how would you suggest to allocate your HT funds in a 5.1 set up?


The are 4 main categories:


front & center (I guess should be lumped together because there are usually the same brand, series etc.)

receiver

sub

rears


My novice guess would be:


f&c: 45%

receiver: 25%

Sub: %20

rears: %10

 

[bpape]

That's really a tough one.


Personally, I think the percentages swing wildly depending on your tastes and your budget. Also, room size and listening habits can change things. If you have a huge room for instance and place importance on quality bass reproduction, you might spend a lot more on a sub.


On the other hand, if you also use the system for music listening and that is a priority for you, you might spend more on LR and receiver.


Let's look at your budget. I'm going to assume a random number of say $5000.


SO,

LCR = $2250

Receiver = $1250

Sub = $1000

Rears = $500


For that budget that seems pretty reasonable - now how about this?


Budget = $2000

LCR = $900

Receiver = $500

Sub = $400

Rears = $200


With that budget the LCR seem over allocated to me.

 

[sethwas]

Well,

First the budget isn't really including sub or electronics. Those have to be decided differently based on use and room size.


The budget split is really between the 7 speakers. However if you are buying a matched set the % changes. It just depends if you're using a 3rd main for a center, or 4 equal surrounds or differet backs and sides etc.

Once you establish what you want to work with then you modify budget. Of course the major budget gives you an idea of where to start meaning $10k max vs $5k max.

The $10k system may be only $8500 or $11k but it's the general idea.

I think that's sufficiently vague, no?


Seth

 

[klipsch]

Quote:

How to spend you HT $

Take a look at my receipts
Quote:

Just curious, how would you suggest to allocate your HT funds in a 5.1 set up?

I'd put the main emphasis on the fronts, center, and sub. Receivers can be outdated as soon as they are purchased whereas speakers have a "shelf life" that last much much longer. This is an extreme example but you do not see people using receivers from 1980, but you do see people using speakers from then. Amps would fall in the same category as the speakers, but you do not mention amps. The rear surrounds do make a difference in the experience, but I wouldn't sacrifice the quality of the fronts and center for the rears.


Depending on the budget total would account for what percentage I spend where after considering my current living situation (room, layout, dimensions).


Hopefully I was effeciently effective with my vagueness which would sufficiently suffice or something like that right Seth?

 

[Greg_R]

You have missed the most crucial element in any home theater.... the room!


Proper setup of the system and scientifically applying acoustic treatments (doesn't have to be ugly foam) is the most significant improvement you can make to your HT.


Here's how I'd break down the audio side of the budget (assuming a system of $5k-$100k):


20% - Room analysis and treatment (or room construction for higher end systems)

20% - Electronics. Amp, pre/pro, or receiver and a front end (DVD player, HTPC, etc.)

60% - Speakers. 5/6/7 speakers plus a subwoofer (amp for sub is in this budget).

low% - cables, equipment stands, etc.


Here's (percentage wise) what I've spent on my system:

22% - receiver (or pre/pro and amp)

6% - dvd player

25% - 5 speakers

35% - subwoofers + amp

3% - DIY cables and DIY equipment stand

11% - DIY treatments and measuring equipment


The next upgrade in my HT will be additional room treatments. Right now I have only treated some of the front and rear walls and fixed a bass resonance problem.

 

[sethwas]

Oh,

right, i should say my split (which is skewed because but my speakers were found very inexpensive)


OK, This doesn't include TV since that alone is 100% of my system


Mains - 16%

Center - 4%

Cables for those - 6%

Side surrounds - 14%

Surround Back - 5%

Cables for those - 6%

Sub (incl amp) - 25%

A/V interconnects - 4%

Riser and cables for sub - 3%

DVD - 5% soon to be 10%

AVR - 10% soon to be 27%


Seth

 

[vivid]

I did not realize that receivers had a such short life span. So would my Yam RX-V2095 be considered old? And should that be a potential upgrade? I was leaning toward replacing my Mission LCR first. I guess I should list my equ also.


Mission 753 mains

Mission 75C

Yam RX-V2095

Mitsubishi DD-8040

Sony GWIII 50

Hughes HR10-250


Soon to come new SVS sub still deciding on which one and rears I just moved and they were in walls.

 

[jcapellman]

My budget was around $2000 (ended up spending ~$1900) for my audio setup:

-67% was on 7 Speakers + sub (would have been higher but I got an extremely good deal on my sub)

-29% was on a reciever and a sacd/dvd-a/dvd player

-4% on speaker, audio and video cables


For my budget I probably over did it with 6 floor standing speakers but man do I love the bass output

 

[Greg_R]

Quote:

I did not realize that receivers had a such short life span.

Only if you want the newest decoding algorithms and video upconversion chips. I'm still using my 4-5yr old Denon 5700 (5.1 receiver) and feel no need to upgrade the receiver.

 

[vivid]

I right now use my GWIII for video switching/conversion. Has there been much improvement on the audio side of receivers or is it mainly on the video side?


I had just made a thread on the receiver section maybe I should get that deleted so as not to have a double thread/topic.

 

[hdshark]

Receivers did not have a short lifespan until a few years back. I almost feel like all the new digital processing and connectivity options appear to be a scam devised by the manufacturers to force consumers into upgrading their equipment more frequently than before.


First, there were stereo receivers. These were the state of the art, both for audio and video for a long time. THen Dolby Surround came out and started the rapid proliferation of surround options: 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, DPII, DPIIx, THX, whatever.


A video input was initially added to receivers to decode surround info from the video signal. The number of video inputs started quickly growing and receivers became video switching devices as well. Now we have S-Video, Component Video, DVI, HDMI, etc.


Similarly, receivers used RCA jacks for connecting to other equipment for a long time. Then optical and coax digital connections to CD players were introduced. Now we have HDMI, FireWire and a few other proprietary technologies.


There has been a few fundamental technological improvements, like the new digital amps, but these appear to provide cost, power consumption and form factor improvements.

 

[etcetera]

"A video input was initially added to receivers to decode surround info from the video signal. The number of video inputs started quickly growing and receivers became video switching devices as well. Now we have S-Video, Component Video, DVI, HDMI, etc."


What format did that?


Eric

 

[hdshark]

Dolby Surround on VHS...