[Catman]

I have been reading / lurking here for a few weeks and still have a plethora of questions. I have just begun my trip down the 'slippery slope' of home theater. I recently purcahsed a 57" Mitsubishi DLP and now it is time to start on the audio portion. I have always been a 2ch audio guy and video has never really been important to me ...so I am at quite a disadvantage at the moment. I will start by saying I AM NOT A TROLL

What SQ can I expect from modern A/V recievers? I know that alot of people on here recommend Denon or Yamaha (among others). As mentioned earlier, my experiences with A/V are limited (and disappointing). I have a fried that upgraded his A/V reciever a couple of years ago ...he bought a Onkyo and retuned it after a week or so because he didn't like the SQ. He replaced it with a Yamaha reciever and liked it much better. I had never really listened to his system until one day I was helping him troubleshoot a problem ...so for a 'known' signal I brought one of my Nakamichi STASIS recievers ....the Yamaha sounded like CRAP compared to the Nakamichi. Is this lack of SQ typical for modern equipment? OTOH the Nak is 20 years old. Is the SQ actually there in the A/V signal? I plan to keep a dedicated 2ch audio system, so I don't want to get too carried away with the audio portion of my HT system.

Am I expecting too much?

Suggestions and recommendations are appreciated.

thanks,

>^..^<

[Dan Driscoll]

What's your budget? If it allows, you might want to consider separates, instead of an A/V receiver. Also, consider going with a brand that made its name in the audio world and then branched out into HT. IME those manufacturers often sound better than comparably priced equipment from companies know primarily for their HT gear. Depending on your budget, some brands to consider would be Rotel, Audio Refinment, McIntosh, Bryston, B&K, McCormack, etc.

As always, IMO, YMMV, etc.

[JohnRice]

I also recommend separates, if your budget allows. You really don't have to go to extremes. 2 components are all that is really needed, rather than just a receiver. You can get a good 5 channel amp and add a pre-amp/processor. I would look into Adcom. They have always provided excellent quality at a good price and have what you need.

There should be no need to maintain a separate music system.

[Catman]

Thanks for the suggestions ...I have looked into the Nakamichi A/V recievers ...unfortunately Nakamichi didn't get into A/V until after they started going down hill. OTOH, I have considered going with a Bryston preamp and using some of my Nakamichi STASIS amps / receivers for power. I have been considering a McIntosh receiver ....as well as a Sunfire ...OTOH I have not been impressed with Class D amps (IIRC that is what Sunfire is using).

>^..^<

[Dan Driscoll]

Don't forget to look at the used market, especially for power amps. Except for class D, amp technology has changed very little in the past 20 years. There are a lot of really good amps available on the used market that are every bit as good as or better than many new amps and at a fraction of the cost. Many high quality processors are also available, but older models will be lacking some of the newer features and formats, such as room EQ, HDMI switching and HD audio decoding.

[MaxL]

i think you're getting good advice here. i'd just like to add to it. for receivers, i think NAD (separates too) and marantz deserve a listen. also, if you find a good receiver with good processing, you may be able to run it as a pre on some or all channels (for example just the front 3 channels). this can give you the time and flexibility to find and add what ever mono or stereo power amps you like while still having functional amplification built in. i know, in the long run a pre/pro will likely give better SQ as you're not paying for 5-7 channel amplification in the same box. but you can always upgrade later.

good luck

[Catman]

Thanks for the advice. I have the amplifier situation covered in case I go the 'seperates' route. I have a closet full of old school Nakamichi STASIS amps / receivers ...I've been 'rat holing' this stuff for year. Heck, I'm even using one with a pair of B&W speakers on my PC.

Now back to pre amp / processors (or receivers). What features do I need ...which ones are 'fluff'.

thanks again,

>^..^<

[JohnRice]

As far as I'm concerned, all "modes" are useless gimmicks. By modes I mean modified surround, or soundfields. In the end, they just get tiresome and considering your priorities, I think you will too. Just plain old DD or DTS for movies is the way to go, whether it is EX or any of the additional channel ones.

Beyond that, you need sufficient switching for all your sources. Auto setup is pretty much a gimmick as well. You are typically better off setting things manually in a "real world" situation using a calibration disc and SPL meter.

Video upconversion can be a nice convenience, but tends to be expensive in quality gear.

[Catman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnRice

There should be no need to maintain a separate music system.

Please explain further. From my research I have 'understood' that a HT needs different acoustics than a 2ch listening room.

OTOH ...I still have MUCH to learn about HT.

>^..^<

[MaxL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnRice

There should be no need to maintain a separate music system.

yeah, i don't know. like the purist thread, i think there's a lot to debate here. on the one hand a good mid to high end HT should reproduce music very well, likely better than many 2 channel setups. but it all depends on so many factors. the biggest being do you want the same things sound-wise from your music and your HT systems? what are your music sources? what is your budget?

in theory one would want the same things for both music and movies - transparant, open, airy, clean, detailed, accurate, dynamic, involving and full-range sound reproduction. then some prefer warm/ bright/ neutral sound, but not necessarily for both music and movies. this is where i think goals for a given system and budget really come into play.

i have two systems that i use most of the time for music. one is my HT as listed below and the other is a sony str-6055 into ar 2ax's (older than i am). they are in very different rooms. the HT is in a smallish room (1600-2000cubic') while the stereo is in a high ceilinged great room (over 10,000cubic'). i enjoy listening to both systems very much for different reaons. in the long run i prefer the vintage sound. it is the more open and involving of the systems. i give the HT the nod for accuracy and detail. i would describe them both as dynamic and neither as transparant (the stereo has some air, more than the HT anyway but neither are strong in this suit). as i have upgraded, invested in stereo and and now HT, i have found both better sound and what is lacking in what i can afford. but the main reason why i like having both is because they are different. i enjoy hearing the same recordings anew, and listening to them on different systems keeps the sound fresh and exciting.

honestly, i've thought about trying to wire up a multi-room system so i can have speakers playing the same music throughout the house, but i think i'd rather have different set-ups in each room so i can enjoy the sound each system has to offer. my priorities for HT were full range and neutral sound, while for music i enjoy a warmer openess. i currently have 3 other listening areas/ systems and honestly enjoy them all, though only one of them i would call a hifi stereo (also vintage sony integrated ta-88 into kef coda's).

so yes, if you have a quality HT running you may not need another system for 2 channel music.

i guess the question could come down to the same one we ask ourselves before any upgrade: is there something missing/ lacking from the sound reproduction i'm hearing? so once you have your HT set up, put in a recording (music) you know and love. if it doesn't give you what you want, upgrade the HT or add the hifi system. or do both.

for most of us this is a hobby. there is no right or wrong, just what we enjoy and what we don't. and the great part is that we learn from both.

[Glen B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catman

Please explain further. From my research I have 'understood' that a HT needs different acoustics than a 2ch listening room.

OTOH ...I still have MUCH to learn about HT.

>^..^<

I believe he means that it is possible to assemble a single system that will work for both movies and music. Not all of us have the luxury of separate rooms for HT and music. For others, the expense of separate systems for HT and 2-channels listening is prohibitive. I maintain separate systems (for several reasons) that share the same room space. Room acoustics is a somewhat different subject.