Now since they don't care about a lot of the more advanced things I like, I was thinking about giving them my old system and getting THIS receiver. While the overall wattage is lower, it is a much better quality product. Would this give me as good or better sound than my current sony? The speakers that I would be using are a JBL 5.1 set.
I think the one you linked is discontinued, though, as the 140 is the bottom-of-the-line listed on their web site. Probably can't go wrong at the price, though.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
For the price, it's not bad, but maybe something to consider instead would be to spend the cash towards a new center channel, or a new pair of fronts, or a new sub.
You probably won't get a huge jump in terms of amplification quality at this price point, so you'd be getting a small increase in clarity, and maybe a few nice features.
Up to you to decide if this is the best place to spend the money.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
Bloodsage's fortune cookie read:
Harmon Kardon is a great brand. I plan to upgrade to the 7300 maybe this summer.I think the one you linked is discontinued, though, as the 140 is the bottom-of-the-line listed on their web site. Probably can't go wrong at the price, though.
Harmon Kardon is definitely a great brand, but thier low range (And occasionally mid-range systems) are generally not worth the investment. The one Az listed there would be a particularly bad one.
You're going to be limited on input/output which can make a home theater setup a chore, especially for component systems. (No component Input/Out) The watts are far too low as compared to a simiarly priced unit. You WILL notice a poorer performance from that system over ones in its price range. The quality will be good of course, but if you are going to do it, either hold off until you can afford more of the mid-range if you wanna go Harmon Kardon, or get the most for your dollar and get a SONY STRDE898 or STRDE997, or STRDE998(This is what I currently use, the 998)
If you are willing to spend just a BIT more, go for an Onkyo. Superior Quality, and sound with all the functionality and ease in the TX-SR603X model.
If you have a Frys near you, ask them to set you up in the Sound Room. They have an access board in the back where they can quick swap head units for you to check out.
Right now I'm running a Yamaha RX-V2300 (I think), and I'm fairly happy except that it's only got two component inputs and doesn't output any of its on-screen stuff at component resolutions. That's why I'm going to upgrade to the HK-7300 or something similar when I can: to get full 720p processing and up-converting.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Naimah startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I would personally recomend Outlaw Audio in whatever price bracket you can afford. They don't have that great of wattage being preamps for the most part but if you care about sound quality you really should be using external amps of some sort.
Sure. . .but if you "care about sound quality," you should also spend around $4K per speaker, hundreds of dollars just on the wiring, and $10K or so on components. Reference systems are expensive as all fuck, but I'm pretty sure that's not what we were talking about.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Naimah fucked around with this message on 01-01-2006 at 09:23 AM.
quote:
Quoth Naimah:
Recievers can rarely drive speakers with any considerable ammount of power. Recievers have at most 100W per channel which is not really enough to be safe on your front channel. You at least need a stereo amp to drive your floor speakers. Next you're going to say that powered subs are wastes of money.
Powered subs are a great idea, but it's obvious you don't have a clue about receivers or how stereos work. "OMG WATTS!" is hardly an intelligent approach to putting together a home theater. Not only that, as I've said previously, most decent receivers have all the power you could want in a home theater setup, and more than enough for a stereo setup. Counting watts will only be a factor if you've got a huge room--like a real theater--or if you're fond of damaging your hearing and annoying the neighbors.
Good sound is a product of good speakers more than powerful amps.
Just to prove you're clueless on the topic of receivers: mine has 135 watts per channel, and uses individual amps rather than one big shared one. Any decent receiver will put out plenty of power for any home use short of reference.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Distortion rates are a very critical part of an amp. It is pretty much a given that a seperate amp will have a better distortion, many times orders of magnitude better then an integrated amp.
I'm not saying you need 500W or whatever per channel. I am saying that amps are a critical part of improving the performance of your sound system and should be in the top 5 things to be considered.
I already told you that my mid-range receiver has 135 watts per channel, including separate amps, and most other reputable receivers are similar.It'd be a better investment to spend more money on a good receiver than to add an external amp to a sucky receiver. If the sound processing is so bad it needs external help, odds are the video processing sucks balls, too.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, Naimah doth proclaim:
The 65W per channel that a reciever normally has is insufficient for floor speakers. I don't care if you don't want to listen to your sound loud, it just isn't enough unless you have very efficient floors and you don't want any ammount of volume.
Although Sage already pointed out the fact that most uppper-low and midrange systems will already have more power than that (My Sony has 115/Channel x4 100/Channel x1, with two 115 channels being split between the SR/SL and SCR/SCL). You are also aware this entire statment is pretty much false anyway because 65w is more than enough (20w over optimal for most low range Sattelites) to power just about any sattelite system on the market right now, which is what most home theatre setups are leaning towards in the first place. By far good enough for your average home user, it can even satisfy some audiophiles depending on components.
And if you think you HAVE to have huge tower speakers to get upper quality sound, you really need to fish around some more.
There are quite a few Polk/Audio, Colt, and others who's sattelite systems can rival quite a few of the middle range Tower setups... And thats not even counting Bose (on which thier system only needs 35w per sattelite, and still output superior sound). Most of which come in full sets instead of idividuals, and included a powered SubWoofer which also boosts the sattelites.
And really only Tower Setups have the drivers that require that much power to improve quality.
It's always nice, and will improve any system, but still bigger Numbers are far from nessesary.
By having more power then you are ever going to use you are able to keep from square waving your amp. If you have just enough power to get by then you run the risk of going past the operational wave of the amplifier that you are using. When you do this you no longer get a sinusodial wave, it cuts off at it's saturation power. This is a bad thing and can damage those very nice floors that you have.
Big amps are just as much to protect your investments as they are to allow you to play your audio louder.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
I agree that it is best to get the highest quality reciever possible as it limits all the other components in the system. However, making the blanket statement that powered amps are useless in all but referance system is false. They are critical in insuring that you have enough overhead and reducing noise from the amplification process.
No, they are useless except in reference systems.
You're better off buying a $600 receiver than adding an external amp to a $300 receiver, and you're better off buying a $1000 receiver than you are adding an external amp to a $600 receiver. Not only that, in a low end system, it's not like your speakers are of such quality that minute improvements in sound quality will be obvious, or pushing huge volumes of air distortion-free is an option.
Better receivers simply don't need an external amp. . .until you start talking serious money and reference systems, where separate components are de rigeur.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Excerpt:
quote:
Stormy,I'm moving out of my parent's basement next week and I'd like to buy a home theater system-what should I get?
This question always reminds me of when I used to work in this clothing store in college, before the electronics bug completely took over me. I sold men's clothing, which means men's suits, to help pay for school. (Pre-emptive FAQ answer #14: Though Stormy is strangely attracted to Brad Pitt, he is completely heterosexual.) Most of the time guys would come in and agonize about this glen-plaid or that chalk-stripe suit to buy. But every once in a while, a really fat guy's grandmother would die and he'd walk into the store wearing some green sweatpants and a dirty T-shirt needing a suit in a hurry for the funeral. Being a small town store, we felt an obligation to stock at least some bigger sizes, but they were pretty limited. "Yes we do stock size 62 suits! Here *it* isÂ…" That's kind of the way I feel when I need to shop for new gear. I was looking around at CES for something next generation that would control all of my stuff, and I felt like I had this enormous fat ass that I couldn't really do anything with. They don't even let a fatass like my system ride in coach anymore, I have to buy first class now, whether I want a hot towel or not. I'm basically limited to 3 or 4 processors that will suit my needs and switch all the kinds of inputs I have. So I sorta envy you guys with small simple systems that are just starting out. I have an assload of Subway sandwiches to eat before I can even think about shopping where you guys do.
In my opinion, and you goddamn better well know by now it ain't humble, is that you start with the audio. The audio should be the basis of any good home theater in general terms. Great audio can make or break the Home Theater experience. Audiophiles know that you don't even need a monitor at all to have a captivating session with music that you love. Except for surround processing technology, audio gear really isn't moving as fast as video technology. You'll hear me blab on about this great new DVD-Audio stuff, but the truth is, it's been around for three years. Plasma, DLP, LCD, D-ILA, LCOS are all bounding over each other faster than I can keep up with them. If you have to choose between a TV and an audio system, I'd get the audio hooked up right now for sure. Even if you have a small amount to spend, you can begin by upgrading your speakers. If you are just starting out, buy some speakers that you can use eventually for surround speakers, and use them for your fronts for now. Then you can get some upgraded mains, and hopefully you can get a surround receiver at that point to take advantage of all four of your speakers. Buy a receiver that will suit your needs now and for the foreseeable future. A center channel speaker and subwoofer would be wise additions after that.
One smart thing to do is to investigate the possibility of getting into separate amplifiers early on. A separate amp uses its own power supply, often the constraining factor in an amplification system, be it integrated receiver or separate amp. The power supply in a separate amp is often toroidal-- a higher grade than the normal type found in entry level receivers. Happily, quite a few receivers today are starting to include this type of power supply. I found a great little article about this subject here.
Also, for the budding technophiles that I hope I'm grooming-separate amplifiers hold their value. A great amp will always be a great amp. Once you decide on how many speakers you need and how much power you want to give to the speakers, your amplification bases are covered. If you want to upgrade later on, you take it in the shorts a LOT less when it comes time to sell a separate amp.
I guess I don't even need to tell you to get a DVD player at some point. You can practically pick one up on the way home after dropping off some plasma at the clinic with prices being the way they are now. Most of you have an Xbox or PS2 already, though I can't recommend using the PS2 as a DVD player since the video quality is terrible. Sorry if I just wrecked your day. The Xbox doesn't do progressive scan for DVD movies (a major oversight on their part), unless you mod it. So, I really recommend that you pick up a separate DVD player for movies.
One thing that I really can't recommend for a main system is a Home Theater in a Box. The systems that they include are just too inflexible, and they generally pale in comparison to separate components. I've considered using one in my bedroom, where I'm never going to really consider upgrading, but that's about it. Look at the back of those things-no extra inputs at all, really. With one of those, you are just one bucket of KFC Original Recipe away from a fatass system that you can't do anything with.
A separate amp on a low-end system is a waste of money unless you're planning to upgrade the rest of the system over time to a component-based reference system. A decent mid-range receiver needs zero help from a separate amp.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Read much? I've already said separate components are the best you can get--that's what they call a reference system, duh. And, if you'll read the article you posted, he's clearly advocating sound processing over every other component, which is silly in a home theater, but he gets around it by implying that you can then upgrade your other components to catch up. Having a wonderful amp does you no good--as I've said--if your speakers aren't top-notch, nor does having great sound processing do you much good if your video processing sucks.A separate amp on a low-end system is a waste of money unless you're planning to upgrade the rest of the system over time to a component-based reference system. A decent mid-range receiver needs zero help from a separate amp.
So now you're claiming expertise over an industry professional? Amplifiers are important to audio quality, period. The amps included in a reciever will get you by. However, an improvement is to be had by purchasing a seperate amplifier. That's a fact. If you are satisfied with the quality that you get from the integrated amplifiers then fine, but do not make statements that are false and are contradicted by people more qualified to make those typse of assements.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
So now you're claiming expertise over an industry professional? Amplifiers are important to audio quality, period. The amps included in a reciever will get you by. However, an improvement is to be had by purchasing a seperate amplifier. That's a fact. If you are satisfied with the quality that you get from the integrated amplifiers then fine, but do not make statements that are false and are contradicted by people more qualified to make those typse of assements.
You're still having trouble with that reading thing. Point to anywhere I said that amps aren't important. Go ahead.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, or anything at all about decent receivers.
You should also point out where I said adding an external amp to a low-end receiver wouldn't change anything. You'll note that I said it's a waste of money, because--if your speakers happen to be up to the challenge--your sound will be good but the video will suck. I said the money is better off put into a better receiver, which will have both better sound and better video processing.
It's just stupid to add a $200 separate amp to a $400 receiver. Concentrating on sound processing to the exclusion of everything else is silly.
I've been doing electronic warfare for close to 17 years now; I guarantee I understand signal processing in all its forms at least as well as some random salesman answering questions on Penny Arcade. It does little good to have one great component in a crappy overall system. . .unless you're building up to the kind of system where I already said separate components shine.
There's nothing wrong with separate components; it's just a waste of money in a low-end home theater system. If you only care about listening to music, then separates are fine from the get-go. If you'd read the article, you'd note that he's recommending a system of separates, and to start with the amp and speakers; that's certainly one way to go, but it costs more to put together a mid-range system of separates than it does to buy an integrated receiver in the first place. It's the high end where separates come into their own.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
My friend has This receiver, and is replacing it with a Bose Lifestyle system. He said I can have it for 125. What do you all think?
quote:
Quoth Azizza:
Ok ignoring the fighting that seems to have broken out I ask you all about another system.My friend has This receiver, and is replacing it with a Bose Lifestyle system. He said I can have it for 125. What do you all think?
Not sure I'd pay $100 for that, but it's better than nothing if that's the only alternative.
What kind of system do you have? What video inputs/outputs do you plan to run? What speakers do you have?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
If I got that receiver I would use my parents speakers which are a 5.1 JBL system rated at around 600 Watts. I would them give them my old Sony system.
How much movie-watching vs music listening do you do? Is it your goal to put together a serious home theater system in the future?
Given your speakers, the receiver you're looking at is probably adequate. If you plan to upgrade later, there are other considerations.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
From the book of Azizza, chapter 3, verse 16:
Well it retails for 299. Anyway. Currently I have a Sony 5.1 System that outputs around 700 Watt. It was all part of a Home Theater in a Box system and isn't bad but isn't great either.If I got that receiver I would use my parents speakers which are a 5.1 JBL system rated at around 600 Watts. I would them give them my old Sony system.
It's not your wattage that's most important here (Or at least not entirely) it's your setup that is more relevant in this case.
It's a matter of what you are going to be running through it that is most important here. 
What is going in and coming out of it.
And I'm with Sage, I wouldn't pay $100 for a used system like that. Specially since you could get it brand new for twice that. Although that sounds bad, even regular use can wear down the components in recievers enough to make it a bad investment, and worth it just to get the brand new one.
That one in general isn't a great buy anyway, you'd be better off with your current Sony if it wasn't blown.
My parent Have a JBL system with the center channel on the Receiver blown out so they can't do Dolby digital anymore. Their speakers, Sub, and DVD player is fine. They just need to fix or replace the receiver.
The speakers are THESE except it is only a 5.1 system, same wattage, just one speaker short. Since my parents care less about the overall sound quality than I do I thought I may give them my Sony system and use their speakers with whatever replacement receiver I get. I don't want to spend a lot of money so I thought my friends receiver was a good deal. All the reviews I haver read on it were positive, that is what I wondered why you all don't recommend it.
I was under the impression that the Onkyo would have cleaner and better sound even at lower wattage than a Sony receiver. Not to mention this has more Digital audio hookups and an extra HD hookup. What am I missing here? Azizza fucked around with this message on 01-03-2006 at 12:03 PM.
quote:
Naimah's account was hax0red to write:
Using Bloodsages logic, it dosn't matter what you use with those. Just get something that drives all your speakers. Those will just muddy up whatever is put out anyways.
So that time that I agreed with him I wasn't making any sense? The time that I quoted a source from inside the industry I wasn't making any sense? Just because he flys an airplane dosn't make him more reputable on this particular topic. Your speakers suck ass. Get a cheap ass 5.1 reciever and call it a day.
quote:
Blindy. wrote this stupid crap:
I don't know much about the internals of recievers- but i totally didn't know they did video processing- i thought that shit just got routed from the input to the output with no mid-step.
Most will have some form of Video Processing, it's a part of how they keep the signal clean as it is routed through the reciever. It's for the most part just a crossover from one component to another, but if the internals are of subpar quality, your output will be of subpar quality.
Basically what you put through it may be too much for the unit to handle, so what you will get out of it will be worse than if you just did it directly. ie: Running Video from your DVD player through the Reciver and letting your reciver handle all connections to your TV. So only one connection to the TV is needed, the recievers. There is also the video outputs of the reciver itself on some models that handles your On-Screen menus and the like which the reciver handles itself. The reciever is playing proxy.
And Az, its not a great buy because, for one, like I said, even if he took excelent care of it, the internals of recivers degrade quickly even from just regular use. So it's not worth $100 when you can just get one new for $300. It may sound like a big price jump, but when it comes to systems its worth it. (Not to mention you get a warranty, which is nice, concidering just turning on a reciever if it doesn't have safeguards which most lower end models dont, can foobar it without warning. Kinda like your Parents Center channel getting blown.)
Other reasons it is bad, for a Home Theatre is, it has no Component Up-Conversion for those items you have that dont use Component Inputs. It HAS The component HD ready compliant inputs but they are WAY below optimal, you'll get crappier pictures using components through it than you would without it, which can make setting up a home unit a chore, complicated, ugly, and/or just not worth it. It's also lacking front inputs, which while unnessesary, are really usefull, and most units these days will have them in that price-range.
Basically it is missing a lot of features you can get in a compariably priced system, and those features it does have are pretty crappy. Onkyo is another one of those companies that doesn't really pay off until you can shell out more. You are better off with your Sony. (Minus the extra 6 Channel (Surround Rear)) Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 01-03-2006 at 03:18 PM.
quote:
Quoth Blindy.:
I don't know much about the internals of recievers- but i totally didn't know they did video processing- i thought that shit just got routed from the input to the output with no mid-step.
The input signal will have to be up- or down-converted to match the output, and it makes a huge difference which format is native for the receiver. It hardly does any good to input a clean component signal if the receiver is going to down-convert it to S-video for processing before it routes it to the output and up-converts it again. Always ask how the receiver processes video signals.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage + Bloodsage = 2Bloodsage:
The input signal will have to be up- or down-converted to match the output, and it makes a huge difference which format is native for the receiver. It hardly does any good to input a clean component signal if the receiver is going to down-convert it to S-video for processing before it routes it to the output and up-converts it again. Always ask how the receiver processes video signals.
So just because a reciever has component ins and component outs, doesn't mean the signal gets handled as a component signal thoughout the whole process?
quote:
Quoth Azizza:
Well what is wrong with that receiver? I am not saying you two are wrong I am looking for an education. Oh and it also is under an extended warranty till '09
Also I want to make sure everyone understands what is going on.
I personally own a Sony Home theater in a box with that is a 5.1 System putting out around 700 Watts. There is nothing wrong with it except that it is a Sony.My parent Have a JBL system with the center channel on the Receiver blown out so they can't do Dolby digital anymore. Their speakers, Sub, and DVD player is fine. They just need to fix or replace the receiver.
The speakers are THESE except it is only a 5.1 system, same wattage, just one speaker short. Since my parents care less about the overall sound quality than I do I thought I may give them my Sony system and use their speakers with whatever replacement receiver I get. I don't want to spend a lot of money so I thought my friends receiver was a good deal. All the reviews I haver read on it were positive, that is what I wondered why you all don't recommend it.I was under the impression that the Onkyo would have cleaner and better sound even at lower wattage than a Sony receiver. Not to mention this has more Digital audio hookups and an extra HD hookup. What am I missing here?
Sony has actually made big gains in their receivers recently, at least at the high end. So there's nothing automatically wrong with a Sony receiver, or superior about an Onkyo. Onkyo used to be known for their stereo equipment, but they don't have a name in home theater circles AFAIK, at least in the mid- and high-end.
My biggest objection to the systems you list is the number and variety of inputs, and the lack of up-conversion. But that depends on how many of what kind of input you plan to run, and what your output will be. If you're viewing on a normal TV, or don't put a huge priority on home theater, then either receiver will get the job done. And contrary to what some folks might advocate, hooking a massive amp to those speakers will do nothing more than ensure their eventual destruction through over driving them.
Now, if your eventual plan is to put together a kick-ass mid-range home theater system, I'd stick with the current receiver (or buy the cheap one), and start saving for real speakers. Not Bose; real speakers. Buy a selection of home theater magazines, and look at what they recommend. I run Klipsch .5s (no longer in production) with matching shielded center channel and sub, but will eventually upgrade and probably relegate them to my computer. Don't just look at the wattage, or even the stat sheet, but find a dealer and listen to a bunch of different systems at different prices. Not a Best Buy, or Circuit City, but a real home theater specialist. Here's a link to a decent speaker/receiver setup--the receiver is the one I run, and the speakers are one step better than the current incarnation of what I have. And don't skimp on cable, though you don't have to go over-the-top, either.
After you've got kick-ass speakers, which will last just about forever, consider either your display or receiver. It just depends on your priority, though the receiver will pay dividends in music listening also. I use an LCD projector as display, and it kicks ass, though DLP is better (and more expensive). Don't get caught up in numbers--look and listen, and determine which decimal places actually translate into better sound/video, and which are only obvious with an o-scope.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
