So tired of research. Please help me! $1k 5.1 HT

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

He should be able to find something decent for <$300 with pre-outs, if he wants to go that far. The thing about seperate amps is, you dont miss what you dont know. I guarantee you once you hear a system without and then with you would never sonsider building anything without them again. They make that much of a sound quality difference.

As far as receivers go, even if you went with a Pioneer Elite series, the power it puts out is no where near what a quality amp will put out. It just isnt. For example, when you get into the Elite series (or comparable) youre looking at somewhere between 25-35 pounds for the entire receiver. A decent seperate amp will weigh in 40-60 pounds. It's just not the same quality of power.

That said, that doesnt mean a decent entry level mid line amp (which is about what the OP is looking for) wont sound great-it will. But there just isnt a comparison when running a seperate. When I built my system it wasnt optional, and I pieced it together over a couple months to get good deals. Maybe the OP has that kind of time, maybe he doesnt. But it can be done if he's patient.

Just a quick look on Froogle...he could, for example, get a Yamaha 6040 for $200-$230. That is a fantastic receiver for the money.

I feel the same way about Audyssey (and now room treatments as well since I've added that to my new room since it was so horrible sounding).

I've been through my share of receivers / Pre-Pros (HK, Onkyo, Pioneer, Boston Acoustics) and while I do think adding the amp to my system (Boston Acoustics A7200) was a good move, it wasn't a night and day difference to me.

Since I've decided this is a hobby of mine that continues to be interesting to me, I would probably not end up with a system without dedicated amplification, but I've certainly spent more than $1000 on my system.

When I consider the kind of difference I've experience going from a decent mid-level receiver to a decent amplifier, I think it pales in comparison to the kind of difference I've gotten from either Audyssey or Room Treatments.

Considering that I can pick up obvious differences in sound improvement with a crappy little microphone and then post the results on youtube where the results are still obvious, I consider Audyssey to be a huge improvement, especially if the speakers / sub are not the greatest or there are room issues that Audyssey can tackle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmmDenKL4U0

The difference I got when adding an amplifier included
- Lower noise floor
- Improved headroom
- Other subtler improvements

On the continuum of bang for the buck improvements, getting a receiver with a good auto equalization system (like one of the non-neutered Audyssey implementations) ranks much higher than going from mid-level receiver amplification to a budget amplifier.

I do not have personal experience with how YPAO compares to Audyssey, but I'm more comfortable recommending Audyssey (Onkyo, Denon, and Marantz use it... possibly more options) due to personal experience, consistently good reviews from the professionals, and knowing a bit about the science that has gone into this technology.

Initially when I was questioning the amplifier purchase, I was particularly concerned since the typical "entry level" 5 channel amplifiers out there are still $400-$500. Considering that's 50% of the proposed budget, it seemed like a bad way to spend the money.

If the OP ends up getting very good deals on used equipment and can find a decent amplifier to fit into the budget, that's all fine and good. If buying new equipment, there aren't a whole lot of options out there, so I think a mid-level receiver and then dumping as much of the rest of the budget into speakers / subs as possible is the way to go.

 

[blackangst1]

I feel the same way about Audyssey (and now room treatments as well since I've added that to my new room since it was so horrible sounding).

I've been through my share of receivers / Pre-Pros (HK, Onkyo, Pioneer, Boston Acoustics) and while I do think adding the amp to my system (Boston Acoustics A7200) was a good move, it wasn't a night and day difference to me.

Since I've decided this is a hobby of mine that continues to be interesting to me, I would probably not end up with a system without dedicated amplification, but I've certainly spent more than $1000 on my system.

When I consider the kind of difference I've experience going from a decent mid-level receiver to a decent amplifier, I think it pales in comparison to the kind of difference I've gotten from either Audyssey or Room Treatments.

Considering that I can pick up obvious differences in sound improvement with a crappy little microphone and then post the results on youtube where the results are still obvious, I consider Audyssey to be a huge improvement, especially if the speakers / sub are not the greatest or there are room issues that Audyssey can tackle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmmDenKL4U0

The difference I got when adding an amplifier included
- Lower noise floor
- Improved headroom
- Other subtler improvements

On the continuum of bang for the buck improvements, getting a receiver with a good auto equalization system (like one of the non-neutered Audyssey implementations) ranks much higher than going from mid-level receiver amplification to a budget amplifier.

I do not have personal experience with how YPAO compares to Audyssey, but I'm more comfortable recommending Audyssey (Onkyo, Denon, and Marantz use it... possibly more options) due to personal experience, consistently good reviews from the professionals, and knowing a bit about the science that has gone into this technology.

Initially when I was questioning the amplifier purchase, I was particularly concerned since the typical "entry level" 5 channel amplifiers out there are still $400-$500. Considering that's 50% of the proposed budget, it seemed like a bad way to spend the money.

If the OP ends up getting very good deals on used equipment and can find a decent amplifier to fit into the budget, that's all fine and good. If buying new equipment, there aren't a whole lot of options out there, so I think a mid-level receiver and then dumping as much of the rest of the budget into speakers / subs as possible is the way to go.

I would agree with most of this...except Im on the other side of the fence-Ive used YPAO and not Audyssey

That said, given the OP's last post with this little gem:

As well, the system itself would mainly be for gaming as I watch maybe one movie a week.

I would advise against a seperate amp. Room size is a little irrelevant, as clean power affects low volume and not just how loud can it go, but based on his usage a seperate amp is probably a little much.

I think the Yammy I recommended earlier (the HTW6040) would be great for what he needs including optical in from his PC (assuming his mobo has spdif out).

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

There's also now the issue of actually getting surround sound from computer games, if that's the gaming source we're talking about.

The easiest way to get that done is with a digital connection that supports Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect.

Without some sort of real time encoding to a bitstream format, it might be a pain to get surround sound working properly.

For sources with pre-encoded DD / DTS tracks, any digital output should be fine. For sources like games that lack this pre-encoded multichannel track, the options seem to be connecting via multichannel analog (which can lead to issues with bass management), or with a device that can encode to DD / DTS in real time.

 

[blackangst1]

There's also now the issue of actually getting surround sound from computer games, if that's the gaming source we're talking about.

The easiest way to get that done is with a digital connection that supports Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect.

Without some sort of real time encoding to a bitstream format, it might be a pain to get surround sound working properly.

For sources with pre-encoded DD / DTS tracks, any digital output should be fine. For sources like games that lack this pre-encoded multichannel track, the options seem to be connecting via multichannel analog (which can lead to issues with bass management), or with a device that can encode to DD / DTS in real time.

A fiber run spdif --> optical in on the receiver should take care of that, no?

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

A fiber run spdif --> optical in on the receiver should take care of that, no?

If the source is not pre-encoded to DD or DTS, then the optical input on a receiver can only accept 2 channel PCM as far as I know.

In order to get surround sound from digital coaxial or digital optical, it has to be in the Dolby Digital or DTS surround format.

My information is a bit out of date since I haven't really been as interested in this lately, but last time I was looking into this, that meant having specific capabilities on the computer end of things. Some motherboards support DD Live or DTS Connect. Some soundcards have that capability. I believe the X-Fi cards now have a software patch of some kind that allows for the capability.

It's the different between passthrough of pre-encoded source material that all digital outs should be capable of doing (like DVDs), and the other case where there is surround information being created in real time dynamically in a game that needs to be packaged in a format that can be sent to a receiver to decode.

 

[blackangst1]

If the source is not pre-encoded to DD or DTS, then the optical input on a receiver can only accept 2 channel PCM as far as I know.

In order to get surround sound from digital coaxial or digital optical, it has to be in the Dolby Digital or DTS surround format.

My information is a bit out of date since I haven't really been as interested in this lately, but last time I was looking into this, that meant having specific capabilities on the computer end of things. Some motherboards support DD Live or DTS Connect. Some soundcards have that capability. I believe the X-Fi cards now have a software patch of some kind that allows for the capability.

It's the different between passthrough of pre-encoded source material that all digital outs should be capable of doing (like DVDs), and the other case where there is surround information being created in real time dynamically in a game that needs to be packaged in a format that can be sent to a receiver to decode.

mm got it. He would need a higher end audio card for processing then.

 

[viivo]

I have an HT Omega Striker which does DD and DTS decoding. But that is rather irrelevant since I only use my 360 and PS3 for gaming.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Nothing to worry about then

 

[blackangst1]

Just did a quick search on the egg looks like they have quite a few cards for <$50 that will do DTS

 

[viivo]

Time for another stupid question!

I've got my fronts (dv64) and surrounds (6si) on order. If I were to order a third dv64 tower, would it work well as a center if lain on its side? Space isn't a problem, and the tower is almost the same price as the center. I'm pretty sure they both use the same drivers, except the tower has two passive radiators.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Not that center channels are always designed to work well horizontally, but if you were to get a third tower, it would work best standing vertically like the other speakers. Unfortunately, this is usually only a good idea if you're doing front projection and have an acoustically transparent screen.

 

[viivo]

Is there something in the cabinet design or crossover of centers that makes them especially suited to that channel? Wouldn't a larger enclosure such as a tower be better than an equally priced center? I understand it's mostly for dialogue, but I've noticed on my current setup during games that almost all the sounds come from the center while the R and L channels barely do anything.

Also, what towers and center are you using in that picture you posted in the home-made entertainment center thread? I have no doubt they're out of my price range, but I like the look and will no doubt upgrade again in the future.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Is there something in the cabinet design or crossover of centers that makes them especially suited to that channel? Wouldn't a larger enclosure such as a tower be better than an equally priced center? I understand it's mostly for dialogue, but I've noticed on my current setup during games that almost all the sounds come from the center while the R and L channels barely do anything.

Also, what towers and center are you using in that picture you posted in the home-made entertainment center thread? I have no doubt they're out of my price range, but I like the look and will no doubt upgrade again in the future.

The best arrangement seems to be a W T/M W design, with the tweeter and mid in a vertical alignment above one another.

Here's an article someone wrote about it
http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/vertical-vs-horizontal-speaker-designs

The center channel is indeed the most important speaker for HT duty. Something like 70&#37; of sound comes out of it in a typical movie.

My setup consists of AV123 RS850 sig mains and an AV123 RSC200 sig center.
http://www.av123.com//index.php?pag...facturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37
http://www.av123.com//index.php?pag...facturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37
I would not recommend buying them at "regular" pricing. There are often deals on them that would allow for a full 5.0 system for the "regular" price of the 850s.
AV123 is also going through some rough times. I think they're out of the worst of it, but they've lost a lot of respect along the way. (Customer service issues)

 

[viivo]

Is the ED A2-300 (http://www.edesignaudio.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_41&products_id=407) as awesome as everybody is saying? I've decided to bump up my sub budget as the one I was looking at (BIC F12) has a foam surround which irritates me. I know it probably doesn't matter as far as performance goes, but I hate paper cones and foam surrounds, especially in combination.

Is there anything better in the price range of $350?