let's talk about AV

[Tardcore]

I'm toying with the idea of spiffing up my home theater setup and could use some feedback from the AV experts out there.

 

My current set up is pretty rag-tag.  Some may recognize it as the cookie-cutter newegg/slickdeals setup.

 

Room - on the small side.  Around 15x10.  Listening/Viewing area is pretty much couch length perpendicular to the 10' wall.

Receiver - Onkyo TX-SR608 (link)

Fronts - (rotating cast) (Polk Monitor 70s, Def Tech 350s, Wharfedale 10.1s)

Center - Polk CS2

Sub - Polk PSW10

Rear/Surrounds - Polk R15s (I have 4x total, only using 2 in rear position)

 

I had gone to using a straight 2.0 setup for a while using either the Def Tech 350s or the Wharfedale 10.1s, but eventually decided that I really like having a center/sub in the mix so I went back to 5.1.

 

SUBWOOFER

 

Far and away the weakest link in this setup is the subwoofer. 

 

It's terrible.

It sucks.

If you see one out on the curb, kick the woofer in and save some poor soul the trouble of lugging it home.

 

I picked it up as a throwaway placeholder until I got around to getting something good and just never really got around to it.  

 

Thinking about replacing it with the HSU STF-2 (link) based mostly on the fact that it gets a lot of mentions in budget subwoofer round ups/threads.  Welcome any other condenders in the sub-$400 range.

 

RECEIVER

 

The other component facing execution is my receiver.  It is actually still functional with none of the HDMI problems that its era of Onkyo receivers are known for.  The only real problem is that the remote volume button stopped working consistently.  I could just get a factory replacment remote for ~$25 and it would continue to be serviceable but I just sort of feel like it's time has come. 

 

As far as a replacement, I am a bit torn.  I feel like I should either spend under ~$350 for a new/used older model OR spend $600+ and get the latest HDMI 2.0 etc.  The low-cost option should at least have Front L/R pre-outs (Anybody else think that they should throw in a center out too?).  The higher-cost  option should have full 7.1+ pre-outs.

 

I mostly want the min 2 channel out to leave me the option of integrating my AV setup with my Marantz PM-8004 which has an amp-only mode.

 

lower-cost option (under $350) - Marantz NR1403 ???

higher-cost option (over $600) -  Marantz 5 series, Denon?, Onkyo?

 

OTHER STUFF

 

I think that the other components are pretty ok for now.  Only other thing I am considering is that I may ditch the center for something to match with one of my other non-polk front speaker options (Wharfedale 10.1, Def Tech 350s, Monitor Audio RX1s) but i welcome any opinions.

 

Of course, I may just scrap the whole notion and go back to 2.0

[slinch]

Awesome thread, I'm in the middle of watching Horns right now so I'll come back to post properly later.

 

Just a few points:

- go for a higher end used receiver that supports the audio codecs you'll be using. No need to spend a lot of extra cash on new tech you don't really need/can implement cheaper.

- definitely upgrade the center to be on par or even better than the fronts

- subwoofers are a pain in the ass. You need to spend insane amounts to get anything remotely good. The alternative is - build one yourself.

[circuit bored records]

Nice thread. I've invested a good amount into having a nice 5.1 set up because the audio experience from movies and TV shows is just as important to me as music.. But it really depends on what your priority is. I'm pretty split down the middle at 50% music and 50% movies/tv on my set up.

A coupe quick points:

-Stay away from the Marantz NR line, not good AV receivers at all.

-Unless you have a 4k TV you shouldn't need HDMI 2.0, but pre outs is a nice option if you plan on running The PM8004 for the front channels. The SR5007 (discontinued, can probably find a used one for cheap) has 5 channel pre outs if you wanted to run your PM8004 for the fronts and maybe upgrade to a better amp to drive the other channels. But at 100w RMS you shouldn't really even need to do that.

-The Polk CS2 is not a terrible center channel but obviously there are better options out there. It just depends how big of a priority movies/tv/5.1 sources are to you. Keep in mind with the average movie, 70% of all audio is coming from the center channel so having a nice one can have a big impact on your "theater" experience.

-it sounds like upgrading the sub should probably be the first priority your current one is as bad as you make it sound. There are a ton of nice options for the ~$400 range, I would personally look into auditioning any of the definitive technology ProSubs or even a supercube if you can swing for it, it's definitely worth it IMO.

Lots of other suggestions out there, as you probably already know the best thing to do is get there and listen to stuff and see what you like.

[Tardcore]

Awesome thread, I'm in the middle of watching Horns right now so I'll come back to post properly later.

 

Just a few points:

- go for a higher end used receiver that supports the audio codecs you'll be using. No need to spend a lot of extra cash on new tech you don't really need/can implement cheaper.

- definitely upgrade the center to be on par or even better than the fronts

- subwoofers are a pain in the ass. You need to spend insane amounts to get anything remotely good. The alternative is - build one yourself.

 

Since you brought up codecs...I am reminded that I should have mentioned source.  99% of my watching is sourced by my PS3 either via apps (Hulu+, Netflix, Amazon Prime), DVD rips, or Bluray.

 

I have been eyeing a new universal player like the Oppo BDP 103.  Am I crazy?  I don't think I could justify it unless I integrated it into my stereo setup as well.

 

Building speakers seems a little dauting.  Are subwoofer enclosures less complicated than speaker enclosures?  There is a high-end speaker component place local to me (Madisound).  They carry all the components but can get crazy expensive pretty quickly.

[Tardcore]

Nice thread. I've invested a good amount into having a nice 5.1 set up because the audio experience from movies and TV shows is just as important to me as music.. But it really depends on what your priority is. I'm pretty split down the middle at 50% music and 50% movies/tv on my set up.

A coupe quick points:

-Stay away from the Marantz NR line, not good AV receivers at all.

-Unless you have a 4k TV you shouldn't need HDMI 2.0, but pre outs is a nice option if you plan on running The PM8004 for the front channels. The SR5007 (discontinued, can probably find a used one for cheap) has 5 channel pre outs if that's what you are looking for...

-The Polk CS2 is not a terrible center channel but obviously there are better options out there. It just depends how big of a priority movies/tv/5.1 sources are to you. Keep in mind with the average movie, 70% of all audio is coming from the center channel so having a nice one can have a nice impact on your "theater" experience.

-it sounds like upgrading the sub should probably be the first priority your current one is as bad as you make it sound. There are a ton of nice options for the ~$400 range, I would personally look into auditioning any of the definitive technology ProSubs or even a supercube if you can swing for it, it's definitely worth it IMO.

Lots of other suggestions out there, as you probably already know the best thing to do is get there and listen to stuff and see what you like.

 

 

I did not mention my TV but it is getting a bit long in the tooth.  It's a higher-end Panasonic Plasma.  I haven't felt the need to upgrade as 1080p sets never really impressed me.  At the moment, I am pretty content to rock the Panasonic until it dies.  But in another year or three, I will have to seriously consider going 4k.  At that point, I would feel pretty dumb if I spent a lot on a receiver that didn't support it.  That's the main driver behind specifying 2 different price points.

[circuit bored records]

I did not mention my TV but it is getting a bit long in the tooth. It's a higher-end Panasonic Plasma. I haven't felt the need to upgrade as 1080p sets never really impressed me. At the moment, I am pretty content to rock the Panasonic until it dies. But in another year or three, I will have to seriously consider going 4k. At that point, I would feel pretty dumb if I spent a lot on a receiver that didn't support it. That's the main driver behind specifying 2 different price points.

That makes sense, the good thing is you just need something that supports 4K pass through, which any receiver made within the last couple of years will support, pretty much regardless of price point. Another thing to keep in mind to is most 4K sources at this point are either:

a) built into the TV (Netflix, Amazon), in which case you would use a digital audio cable or ARC to send audio to the receiver. The 4K video sources at this point never touch the receiver. But I understand your concern about future-proofing yourself.

b- copyright protected like in Sony's 4k Media player which uses a second HDMI output to send audio to a receiver ,in which case, again, the video source doesn't touch the receiver.

For your concern with codecs, any receiver within the last few years can handle pretty much every audio codec out there. With your specific sources you are going to be limited to pretty much Dolby Digital, TrueHD and DTS-HD audio which are all pretty universal at this point. Your current Onkyo still supports all of those over HDMI...

And with the Oppo player you are investing in things like dual HDMI outputs, 4K upscaling, 2D>3D conversion, are any of those important to you? Personally, I'd take the $500 you'd spend on that player, buy something more mid-range and put the rest of the money toward upgrading speakers and the receiver.

[Tardcore]

That makes sense, the good thing is you just need something that supports 4K pass through, which any receiver made within the last couple of years will support, pretty much regardless of price point. Another thing to keep in mind to is most 4K sources at this point are either:

a) built into the TV (Netflix, Amazon), in which case you would use a digital audio cable or ARC to send audio to the receiver. The 4K video sources at this point never touch the receiver. But I understand your concern about future-proofing yourself.

b- copyright protected like in Sony's 4k Media player which uses a second HDMI output to send audio to a receiver ,in which case, again, the video source doesn't touch the receiver.

For your concern with codecs, any receiver within the last few years can handle pretty much every audio codec out there. With your specific sources you are going to be limited to pretty much Dolby Digital, TrueHD and DTS-HD audio which are all pretty universal at this point. Your current Onkyo still supports all of those over HDMI...

And with the Oppo player you are investing in things like dual HDMI outputs, 4K upscaling, 2D>3D conversion, are any of those important to you? Personally, I'd take the $500 you'd spend on that player, buy something more mid-range and put the rest of the money toward upgrading speakers and the receiver.

 

Probably ranging a little far afield but I only throw the player consideration out there because currently I do not have a CD player at all and if you figure that a decent CD player is at least 3-400 bucks,  I may as well spend a little more and get high end video performace as well.

 

And then as far as the HDMI 2.0 standards etc.  I completely 100% admit to being pretty ignorant here, but my understanding is that the HDMI 2.0 standard was mostly about being able to handle the additional bandwidth required to properly handle future standards like 4k/60hz--even if it is simply pass through.

 

It's a pretty moot discussion since I won't care until I replace my TV a year or two down the road (may not even matter then) and I am leaning toward going the cheaper route anyway.

[allenh]

Like yanquiuxo the audio dimension of my AV is as important as the video and I have had varying degrees of success here and found getting good performance in both is expensive, sadly my AV system doesn't get anywhere near the focus my 2 channel system gets.

 

My AV tale spans a few years. Originally many years ago I had a Yamaha add on that added the other 3 channels to my 2 channel hifi which sounded ok but not great so I upgraded to an Arcam Xeta addon, this sounded much much better than the Yamaha and was fine for a couple of years but was pretty limited codec wise and a house move allowed me have separate systems (hifi and AV), so next a proper AV amp with HDMI switching etc was needed. I auditioned many in the upto $1600 range and settled on a Rotel RSX-1058 that was the best sounding of what I auditioned but I later found that the HDMI on this model just basically didn't switch properly. As much as I liked how it sounded it had to go (not wife and child friendly), so next have been a succession of Onkyo's picked up on a whim for little money. First was an SR-506, the HDMI worked, and it had the advantage of being able to bi amp my front speakers (a big pair or Mordaunt Short MS816 floor standers) but it sounded flat and it left very quickly, next was a SR-705, HDMI works, still does the bi amping, sounds better but no where near as good as the Rotel, it has the advantage of a built in phono stage but it's woeful. Next was an SR-907 but this was faulty so back to the SR-705. I would like to know though how much a good SR-907 sounds in comparison to my SR-705.

 

I've got used to the functionality of the Onkyo range now but am not fixed to the brand, it just happens to be what's come along and I know there must be something out there that fits what I need.

 

Nestled in the Onkyo's have been a couple of middling modern Denon's and a middling modern Yamaha none of which I liked the sound of at all but no Pioneers, Cambridge's or Arcam's so far and nothing bespoke.

 

I'll be watching this thread with interest as I'm still looking for something to replace the Rotel that sounds good, I can find loads of them that do the V in AV well but not the A and very few that do the A bit as well as they do the V, in fact very few that do the A well at all.

[slinch]

Okay so I'm in the same boat as pretty much everyone here, I love HT just as much as I love music. The only thing is, getting a HT setup that would be as satisfying as my 2 channel setup would cost amounts I cannot afford, so I had to make a lot of compromises. Plus, the drawbacks of inferior equipment don't stand out to me as much with movies as they do with music, so it was the obvious choice.

 

The speakers I have for the HT set are pretty solid (Dali Suite 2.8), I was lucky to pick up a used matching center speaker locally for dirt cheap. I still don't have any of the rear speakers, as I'll have to do them in-wall (or ceiling actually) due to the room specifics, so it's a whole project and I never got around to it yet.

 

As for the receiver, I was deciding between going with a newer lower range one (Marantz SR6004) or an older, but slightly better one (Mrantz SR7002). I chose the latter. I didn't want to spend a lot, I paid just under $400 shipped, which is exactly why I never even considered buying new, as it would cost exactly $1k more. But still, it's just barely good enough, for something I'd be really comfortable with I'd have to steal yanquiuxo's set (you're rocking the Marantz AV/MM separates if I remember correctly, right?).

 

The sub is where I start hating HT. The room is roughly 14x16 feet, but my Dali s1.5 is struggling. I'd have to drop more than I spent on the entire setup just for a sub or two to get the effect I want. Since that's not gonna happen, I've decided to go the diy route. Though it seems that's not gonna happen either, as I've been "plannig" on doing the project every summer for the last 5 years, but that's about as far as it ever moved... But yeah, building any speaker is no easy task. It's just that for the result I want, a sub is kind of the easiest. As I'd never use it for music, it doesn't have to be that accurate or linear. It just has to growl. A lot.

 

Off topic, yanquiuxo, I opened your blu-ray.com link and though for a second it just redirected back to mine when I read the BR count (http://www.blu-ray.com/community/hybrid.php?u=207279)

[circuit bored records]

Probably ranging a little far afield but I only throw the player consideration out there because currently I do not have a CD player at all and if you figure that a decent CD player is at least 3-400 bucks, I may as well spend a little more and get high end video performace as well.

And then as far as the HDMI 2.0 standards etc. I completely 100% admit to being pretty ignorant here, but my understanding is that the HDMI 2.0 standard was mostly about being able to handle the additional bandwidth required to properly handle future standards like 4k/60hz--even if it is simply pass through.

It's a pretty moot discussion since I won't care until I replace my TV a year or two down the road (may not even matter then) and I am leaning toward going the cheaper route anyway.

For HDMI 2.0, you are thinking of 4k @60fps (different than 60hz). Which, in my opinion 60fps will always be irrelevant as movies have always been shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps and if the film industry ever were to try to change there would be a giant backlash from young and old filmmakers alike. Like I said, pretty much anything within the last couple of years is going to support the same standards for video and audio codecs; My best advice to you is don't get caught up in features like HDMI 2.0 and WiFi and all that jazz, focus on specs like wpc and pre-outs, THD, power supply, built-in-dac, etc.

The Oppo is a nice universal player and if having a nice CD and BR player is important to you than I would say go for it. I've personally done A/B comparisons of $1000+ blu ray players with entry level ones with normal 2-channel CDs and DTS blu rays on $20k+ set ups, and couldnt hear a difference, but I know there are many audiophiles out there who would completely disagree with my ears. To me, though, digital audio all kind of sounds the same on same set ups regardless of the player.

@slinch -- I ditched the separates for an SR7009 a couple months ago (I know, blasphemous!) but the stack was simply too big and more importantly I really wanted something all-in-one that I could use for bi-amping the new B&W speakers I bought (the MM7055 is only a 5 channel amp so I couldn't bi-amp without adding an additional amplifier), and having atmos capability for the future is a plus as well (I won't even start the atmos argument on here, I realize it is pretty useless at this time). Those separates were sexy though and I may even get the MM8055 down the road for bi-amping and just use the 7009 as a processor. At this time I'm pretty content with my set up though.

Also thanks, but your steelbook collection is absolutely badass and I think I'm going to quit buying them because my selection will never top yours

[slinch]

Nooooooo!

 

But yeah, I understand the need for bi-amping. How does the 7009 compare sound-wise? I see that at least on the paper it seems more impressive than the separates, which kind of surprised me.

 

When it comes to 4k, I'm still not sure where I wanna go. I'll just put the streaming services out of the conversation, because we don't get any here (no netflix, hulu, amazon or stuff like that), plus I cannot imagine the streamed content being anywhere close to the actual no-compression picture and sound.

 

I currently run a 1080p projector on a roughly 110" screen, watched from a 10 feet distance. While I'm perfectly satisfied with the resolution, I could see the benefit of a 4k projector, but not because of the size of the pixels but because of the empty space between them. The lines are not apparent, but it would make for a smoother picture if they were smaller, so even for a 1080p image the benefit is there.

 

TVs don't suffer for this though, and while I'm absolutely impressed by the image when standing one foot away from a 85" 4k screen, I cannot really see a huge benefit for watching movies. First of all, every film made before 2000 wouldn't gain much, if at all. The newer ones will, but it all comes down to the size of the screen and the viewing distance. Basically, I don't think I'll bother soon enough to warrant a purchase of any 4k capable equipment for a premium. If the price difference for the additional support is minimal though, no harm in being future proof. But yeah, HDMI 1.4 is more than enough, when (if) anything above 24 fps becomes standard, I'll stop buying movies.

 

Regarding steelbooks, thanks, but I find my collection tiny because I'm constantly on hidefninja. I'm barely over 130 or so, but there I've seen pics of numerous collections with 1000+ pieces. It's mind-blowing.

[ajxd]

I do miss having a HT setup sometimes. Mainly because it can be so much more gear than a 2 channel setup.

 

Maybe one day.

[allenh]

I do miss having a HT setup sometimes. Mainly because it can be so much more gear than a 2 channel setup.

 

Maybe one day.

 

Yes there is that, there is seemingly no end to the amount of shiny boxes a system can accommodate.

 

I have toyed with the idea of making an enormous eight channel valve power amplifier to use in my AV system, there are some nice little EL34 stereo kits on ebay now but I know I'll probably never get round to it and the PSU would have to be quite something, plus the size of the thing would be hard to accommodate. On the plus side though I wouldn't need to put the heating on in that room.

 

If I do ever do it I'd run it bi amped for the front then a pair for the rear and the last two channels for the centre and sub, that said I'd need to change my front speakers as the Mordaunt's aren’t efficient enough for valves, I tried them in my two channel system and they just didn't work, that said you can tri-amp them so I could make a 10 channel one I suppose. 

[slinch]

Man, valves for a sub? Now that's a bold idea.

[allenh]

Finding an efficient enough driver would be the hard bit but I guess I could use one designed for a valve bass guitar amp

[Tardcore]

UPDATE:

 

Spending 10 or so hours researching different options reminded me why I haven't tackled this problem earlier.  Putting together a system with fronts, center, receiver, sub, surrounds, is easy.  Finding components that all make sense/match at a reasonable price is a huge pain. 

 

There is always something that winds up being overpriced and blows the whole plan.

 

Right now I am leaning towards using my existing Def Tech 350s as fronts as they are easier to drive than the other options I already own and then adding a matching center.  Given that centers always seem to be overpriced, my best bet might be to simply get another set of 350s and use one as a center.  Not really concerned about matching the sub, but there is a guy selling a Def Tech Supercube 4000 locally for $400.  Probably worth checking out.

 

I am looking at a Marantz SR5008 as a replacement receiver.  Unfortunately I missed out when Amazon was blowing them out at $500 a few months ago.  If I go back to the xx7 series, then I would want to step up to the sr6007.

[ajxd]

You know- my bff and I discussed doing an all Def Tech 350 5.0 setup for a mini home theatre. Its not a terrible idea, and can be had cheap! I've seen several people on eBay selling 1 350...

[slinch]

If I go back to the xx7 series, then I would want to step up to the sr6007.

 

That's definitely what I'd do. Of course I didn't check the specs to see the difference between xxx7 and xxx8, but I cannot imagine it being bigger than the step from series 5xxx to series 6xxx.

 

For the center, if you do go for another pair of DT 350s, it might be a blessing in disguise. I'm one of the many (or few, no idea really) people who fell in love with two speakers as the center channel. Read up on it online, it produces a really good result, especially if your fronts are far apart, setting the "center pair" apart 10-15" will give you a really wide soundstage. And you cannot get a better integration character-wise than this. The 6007 has 7 power amp sections, so that still leaves you with 3 channels for side/rear, which is more than enough in my opinion.

[Tardcore]

That's definitely what I'd do. Of course I didn't check the specs to see the difference between xxx7 and xxx8, but I cannot imagine it being bigger than the step from series 5xxx to series 6xxx.

 

For the center, if you do go for another pair of DT 350s, it might be a blessing in disguise. I'm one of the many (or few, no idea really) people who fell in love with two speakers as the center channel. Read up on it online, it produces a really good result, especially if your fronts are far apart, setting the "center pair" apart 10-15" will give you a really wide soundstage. And you cannot get a better integration character-wise than this. The 6007 has 7 power amp sections, so that still leaves you with 3 channels for side/rear, which is more than enough in my opinion.

 

 

Based on the little bit of reading I did, the 5008 shares amp design with 6008/7008 whereas the 5007 did not.   That leads me to think that the 6007 is probably a better deal in the xxx7 series but the 5008 is fine in the xxx8 series.

[Tardcore]

You know- my bff and I discussed doing an all Def Tech 350 5.0 setup for a mini home theatre. Its not a terrible idea, and can be had cheap! I've seen several people on eBay selling 1 350...

 

 

I looked and didn't find any single speakers.  I probably just need to be patient.  if they were available at sub $150 a pair again, I wouldn't have a problem buying 2 sets to replace my center and rears.

[ajxd]

Just watch- hell even unopened sets pop up for less than $200. I saw a single speaker sold recently for $65.

[circuit bored records]

Nooooooo!

But yeah, I understand the need for bi-amping. How does the 7009 compare sound-wise? I see that at least on the paper it seems more impressive than the separates, which kind of surprised me.

Let me put it this way-- if there was any discernable degradation or even a difference in sound quality from the separates, the 7009 would have gone right back to Marantz.

There are couple of other cool features that I enjoy as well, like being able to pass an HDMI video source through to the TV while playing different audio source (so I can listen to records while playing PS3 for example). The separates couldn't do that. The Dolby surround processor is (suprisingly) extremely impressive on it and is one of the best I've heard to date. It can take any stereo source and simulate 5.1 dolby digital, and they way it accurately separates the channels is mind-blowing to me. The AV7701 could not do this at all or even come close to it.

On the discussion of two center channels, I've always wanted to do something like that but have never had the space to justify it. Maybe one day when I have my McMansion. A guy can dream I suppose...

[Tardcore]

update

 

Predictably, my budget has gone completely off the rails.  Still shopping for the right receiver and center but I couldn't pass up this new Monitor Audio Silver RWX-12 subwoofer (Walnut) new on clearance for $550 from Audio Advisor.

 

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MRSRXW12

 

It matches my existing Walnut RX1s and was only $100-150 more than some of the other options I was looking at.  Hopefuly it winds up being a good decision.

[ajxd]

Huge mistake

[Tardcore]

I wouldn't feel right going into tax refund season without a credit card balance.