AVS Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Heya all- I'm a longtime lurker who finally decided to post!


I live in a solid cement block (with a wall of glass) that is a highrise. Because of this, I can not even play the subwoofer on my ProMedia 2.1 on my computer without a noise complaint from someone around me.


With that said, I need a receiver to power two speakers and two speakers only. I have decided on the Definitive Technology StudioMonitor 450s, as I have never heard a pair of speakers that sounds this good under $1500. The main thing I'm getting this for is MUSIC, specifically acoustic, downtempo, chill etc. So now that I've ordered speakers, I need a receiver (and ultimately a CD/blu ray player).


I watch slickdeals religiously and have seen tons of deals on the Pioneer VSX-1120-K (and VSX-1020-K). Also, the Onkyo, Yamaha, and Denon competitors. However, when I read threads, I see that most of you all are running crazy surround setups with 31 gaming systems and two zones. I don't think most of the features that are mentioned apply to me. I just want the BEST sound quality I can find to really here every crisp note and every guitar strum clearly.


So as far as the Pio 1120-k, Onkyo NR708, and Denon 2311s go, is that overkill or just right? I plan to hook up a Blu Ray player to play CDs on. Also, I have a network plug right behind my TV so I plan to hook it up for internet radio and also get Sirius on it. And, (STUPID QUESTION ALERT!!!) am I supposed to use component,optical, or HDMI for audio from whatever Blu-Ray player I buy?


Again, I'm lost (never had a good sound system ever), and am willing to spend $2000 dollars on speakers, receiver, and player just to get some damn good sound. If you all can point me in the right direction of what to get, I'd more than appreciate it.


Thanks, and I look forward to learning more here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
If you plan on a Blu-ray player, I would get an AVR. Even though you will only use two channels, you will be able to use all of the other features of an AVR.


With only two channels to drive, you won't need a ton of per channel receiver power.


I would get something in the $600 range, perhaps.


While I personally think all receivers have great sound, some people prefer some brands for sound. HK and Marantz are often mentioned.


I like Yamaha personally. Something like the Yamaha RX-A700 might work out well for you.


If you are of the mind that an AVR is a waste of money for only two channels ( a position I would not agree with,) Harmon Kardon makes some nice stereo receivers with S/PDIF inputs. But when I looked at those, they did not seem to decode digital audio streams from DVD players - they seemed to be restricted to PCM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
More a necessity than any real benefit. It is only because most stereo receivers do not decode the optical audio input (or HDMI input) that one must use an A/V receiver to amplify stereo sound from most HD televisions. To my knowledge only Sony and Samsung TVs offer analog stereo output.


My receiver is downstream of the TV, and so all it does is amplify audio. This keeps everything nice and simple. I do not understand why everyone wants to complicate things by putting the receiver upstream of the TV when the TV is much better at handling the video sources.


DelJ




Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/19590561


If you plan on a Blu-ray player, I would get an AVR. Even though you will only use two channels, you will be able to use all of the other features of an AVR.


...If you are of the mind that an AVR is a waste of money for only two channels ( a position I would not agree with,) Harmon Kardon makes some nice stereo receivers with S/PDIF inputs. But when I looked at those, they did not seem to decode digital audio streams from DVD players - they seemed to be restricted to PCM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by DelJ /forum/post/19590807


More a necessity than any real benefit. It is only because most stereo receivers do not decode the optical audio input (or HDMI input) that one must use an A/V receiver to amplify stereo sound from most HD televisions. To my knowledge only Sony and Samsung TVs offer analog stereo output.


My receiver is downstream of the TV, and so all it does is ampifjy audio. This keeps everything nice and simple. I do not understand why everyone wants to complicate things by putting the receiver upstream of the TV when the TV is much better at handling the video sources.


DelJ

I think things are simpler using your receiver as both an audio and video switcher. With HDMI, it's especially simpler to do it that way.


As for TVs handling video better than receivers, that's a non issue if you are using a receiver as a switcher. I see no change in video when I turn off receiver video processing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
How can an upstream receiver be simpler? My TV has four HDMI inputs and my receiver has four HDMI inputs. Either case, I have to select an input. If there are fewer cables going to the TV then there will be more cables going to the receiver. No real advantage since they are right next to each other.


For TV watching from all sources, I have just one optical cable going from the TV to the downstream receiver. That's it, no HDMI cables to the receiver at all. It just doesn't get any simpler than that, whereas putting the receiver upstream always seems to cause little HDMI handshake and pass-through glitches.


The real problem is as follows:


Many of us have spouses who just want to turn on the TV and watch a show using the TV speakers. They are not interested in learning how to use the receiver, and as they say "when the wife is unhappy then everybody is unhappy". Putting the receiver downstream is the only way to guarantee that the TV will turn on and run by itself every time, no matter what state I left the receiver in last time I used it.


Many people use the receiver to upconvert various video sources to HDMI. This is definitely not a "non issue", and generally causes people buy a more expensive receiver to do what their TV already can do.


DelJ





Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/19590890


I think things are simpler using your receiver as both an audio and video switcher. With HDMI, it's especially simpler to do it that way.


As for TVs handling video better than receivers, that's a non issue if you are using a receiver as a switcher. I see no change in video when I turn off receiver video processing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
How can it be simpler?? How could anything be simpler that using a receiver to switch AV??


For the most part, all I have to do is turn my TV on. Everything else is done through the receiver. Much simpler to operate than when inputs went to the TV.


As for spouses, HDMI bypass would handle most people's needs. With the receiver turned off (in standbye,) my Tivo becomes the source, and the TV could be used as normal (but channel changing would have to be done on the Tivo, of course.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/19590561


If you plan on a Blu-ray player, I would get an AVR. Even though you will only use two channels, you will be able to use all of the other features of an AVR.

Exactly what I did with Paradigm Studio 10s and a Denon AVR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Unfortunately, switching with the AVR forces others to use the AVR when they just want to operate the TV, and my AVR does not always power up in the correct mode. The TV is more reliable in this regard.


Switching inputs on my TV or AVR are both one-button/knob operations on either the units themselves or their respective remote controls, and so they are exactly the same effort. One is not simpler than the other. Of course, the TV has the superior on screen display (duh!).


DelJ



Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/19590989


How can it be simpler?? How could anything be simpler that using a receiver to switch AV??


For the most part, all I have to do is turn my TV on. Everything else is done through the receiver. Much simpler to operate than when inputs went to the TV.


As for spouses, HDMI bypass would handle most people's needs. With the receiver turned off (in standbye,) my Tivo becomes the source, and the TV could be used as normal (but channel changing would have to be done on the Tivo, of course.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
IMO, much simpler to switch through receiver. We will agree to disagree
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
After more research, I think I'm looking at either the 1501 or the 1601 by Marantz. I want to hook up my iPod or PC to it as well, but with a 1501 there is only the 3.5mm audio in. Won't that suck as far as quality is concerned? If I got a 1601 and did a connection through bluetooth, would that give me the FLAC quality audio from my computer? Hell, would the USB from the ipod have good quality as well?
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top