JHZR2
Staff member
Hello again,
Ive had a chance to "audition" a number of speakers and receivers, to see what I liked. I went to both circuit city and to a high end shop that barely scraped mid-range stuff...
In the end, I listened to a bunch of tracks through B&W, paradigm and infinity speakers... the winners? Infinity beta 50. These sounded good with a center channel enabled, and even better in pure direct stereo mode.
Just to test, I brought the fiancee there later on, and had her listen to a few tracks, and she definitely noticed and liked the beta 50s too.
These speakers are floorstanding, sport dual 8" woofers, and can be biwired for apparently better performance.
It seems that for music, the "bias" of use for this system, that these will do good alone, and then can be augmented with the Hsu or infinity subwoofer down the line...
So I think Im happy with that pick... They are $499 each at retail (about $379 each online), but thats about at my original budget for "speakers", and I think Ill be happier with them, especially since I listened to a lot of higher end stuff at the fancy store and still liked the beta 50 speakers better. Plus, the fiancee didnt mind the idea of the big beta 0 speakers sitting on the floor, but she didnt seem to keen when I started showing her center channels, rear channels, and all the similar stuff that we could add to the system for 5.1 or better surround. And, frankly, I dont think that the geometry of our room, the cost effectiveness of a 5.1 system, or the need for such a thing in our house is there.. I think she is right, and I dont mind just the beta 50s and maybe a sub, and then have nice sound for music, and augment the sound for movies too.
But now for receivers...
I tried to compare the sound from a number of yamaha, onkyo and panasonic receivers. It was a very tough task, but as of now, Im leaning towards a yamaha product... B ut now, especially given my speaker choice, I have to wonder what kind of receiver I want to get.
Here's the deal... I have a 32" panasonic CRT TV. I like it a lot. It has all the RCA, S-video and component inputs, and has a coax cable input as well. I refuse to buy cable, as I dont want to pay to watch commercials even in non ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc stations, and we have managed to get pretty good broadcast reception.
Down the line broadcast will be in digital only, and apparently we will have to downconvert,but well deal with that as necessary. So, Ill have DVD component video in, maybe a vhs player in through coax or an rca type connection, and then the tv antenna in.
Given that apparently everything is moving to HDMI digital interface, nothing supports it yet, and Im not planning to move to a LCD/plasma display until I really have to (i.e. my TV breaks), I dont see the benefit to having an AV receiver... Other than that it might reduce the number of interfaces to the TV, what benefit does it give me (other than 5.1 or 7.1 sound???)? Isnt it really better to NOT pass video connections through an additional step on the way from a player to a TV?
It seems that even years from now when Im stuck/forced to buy a plasma tv and use hdmi interface to connect up my dvd or blu-ray player and HDTV antenna tuner, that I still ought to be able to connect audio inputs somehow to the receiver, like through RCA connections, right?
As I dont need to connect up 4+ things to the TV, and do not really desire to have the super top best connections to watch broadcast TV and the occasional movie, do I need an AV receiver? Or will a stereo receiver (like the yamaha RX-797) do?
The way I see it, so long as the broadcast digital TV, fancy DVD/blu-RAY, etc can have audio output to he receiver via RCA connections, years down the line, Ill be fine. Will I have 7.1 sound with a top-notch stereo receiver? no, but I will have the music bias I want, and certainly will have good sound for movies and what not with only the front channels and maybe a subwoofer... are movie sounds in stereo and designed to "image" like good musical recordings?
Finally, there has to be a difference between the quality of the amps and whatnot in stereo receivers and av ones... For example, the yamaha rx-V859 AV receiver has THD at 0.06%, whereas the RX-759 has THD at 0.019%. Both cost about the same, both have similar power outputs (though the stereo one doesnt have so many at the same wattage), etc. In fact, maybe yamaha has to omuch to say about the AV receiver to fit it all in, but they highlight all the high quality components and large heatsinks in the stereo receiver, but dont talk about layouts, architectures, thermal management, etc at all with regards to their AV lines. Do stereo receivers tend to get better innards than AV ones? Or is it just that there is more stuff packed into an AV receiver, so there is less space in there and in the advertising material to discuss such stuff? To me it seems that the mention of it, as well as the better THD means that everything about it is better for reproducing sound in general, though granted not through as many channels.
So, any input or ideas about all of this? Any suggestions from here? listening to stuff at a bumch of places has helped me thus far, but now, its the connectivity and management of current and upcoming standards, while realizing what I have and what AV components I want/dont want, that has me confused. I dont want to buy anthing that 10 years down the line when I majorly upgrade my TV, etc... Ill have to also buy an AV receiver because I cant even get audio into my stereo one... I dont care about 5.1 channel or whatnot; Ive lived without it for this long and really dont watch enough to make great use of it. but I do care about good quality for the money, and the ability to maintain a long lifecycle and use of its 'legacy connections.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
JMH
Ive had a chance to "audition" a number of speakers and receivers, to see what I liked. I went to both circuit city and to a high end shop that barely scraped mid-range stuff...
In the end, I listened to a bunch of tracks through B&W, paradigm and infinity speakers... the winners? Infinity beta 50. These sounded good with a center channel enabled, and even better in pure direct stereo mode.
Just to test, I brought the fiancee there later on, and had her listen to a few tracks, and she definitely noticed and liked the beta 50s too.
These speakers are floorstanding, sport dual 8" woofers, and can be biwired for apparently better performance.
It seems that for music, the "bias" of use for this system, that these will do good alone, and then can be augmented with the Hsu or infinity subwoofer down the line...
So I think Im happy with that pick... They are $499 each at retail (about $379 each online), but thats about at my original budget for "speakers", and I think Ill be happier with them, especially since I listened to a lot of higher end stuff at the fancy store and still liked the beta 50 speakers better. Plus, the fiancee didnt mind the idea of the big beta 0 speakers sitting on the floor, but she didnt seem to keen when I started showing her center channels, rear channels, and all the similar stuff that we could add to the system for 5.1 or better surround. And, frankly, I dont think that the geometry of our room, the cost effectiveness of a 5.1 system, or the need for such a thing in our house is there.. I think she is right, and I dont mind just the beta 50s and maybe a sub, and then have nice sound for music, and augment the sound for movies too.
But now for receivers...
I tried to compare the sound from a number of yamaha, onkyo and panasonic receivers. It was a very tough task, but as of now, Im leaning towards a yamaha product... B ut now, especially given my speaker choice, I have to wonder what kind of receiver I want to get.
Here's the deal... I have a 32" panasonic CRT TV. I like it a lot. It has all the RCA, S-video and component inputs, and has a coax cable input as well. I refuse to buy cable, as I dont want to pay to watch commercials even in non ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc stations, and we have managed to get pretty good broadcast reception.
Down the line broadcast will be in digital only, and apparently we will have to downconvert,but well deal with that as necessary. So, Ill have DVD component video in, maybe a vhs player in through coax or an rca type connection, and then the tv antenna in.
Given that apparently everything is moving to HDMI digital interface, nothing supports it yet, and Im not planning to move to a LCD/plasma display until I really have to (i.e. my TV breaks), I dont see the benefit to having an AV receiver... Other than that it might reduce the number of interfaces to the TV, what benefit does it give me (other than 5.1 or 7.1 sound???)? Isnt it really better to NOT pass video connections through an additional step on the way from a player to a TV?
It seems that even years from now when Im stuck/forced to buy a plasma tv and use hdmi interface to connect up my dvd or blu-ray player and HDTV antenna tuner, that I still ought to be able to connect audio inputs somehow to the receiver, like through RCA connections, right?
As I dont need to connect up 4+ things to the TV, and do not really desire to have the super top best connections to watch broadcast TV and the occasional movie, do I need an AV receiver? Or will a stereo receiver (like the yamaha RX-797) do?
The way I see it, so long as the broadcast digital TV, fancy DVD/blu-RAY, etc can have audio output to he receiver via RCA connections, years down the line, Ill be fine. Will I have 7.1 sound with a top-notch stereo receiver? no, but I will have the music bias I want, and certainly will have good sound for movies and what not with only the front channels and maybe a subwoofer... are movie sounds in stereo and designed to "image" like good musical recordings?
Finally, there has to be a difference between the quality of the amps and whatnot in stereo receivers and av ones... For example, the yamaha rx-V859 AV receiver has THD at 0.06%, whereas the RX-759 has THD at 0.019%. Both cost about the same, both have similar power outputs (though the stereo one doesnt have so many at the same wattage), etc. In fact, maybe yamaha has to omuch to say about the AV receiver to fit it all in, but they highlight all the high quality components and large heatsinks in the stereo receiver, but dont talk about layouts, architectures, thermal management, etc at all with regards to their AV lines. Do stereo receivers tend to get better innards than AV ones? Or is it just that there is more stuff packed into an AV receiver, so there is less space in there and in the advertising material to discuss such stuff? To me it seems that the mention of it, as well as the better THD means that everything about it is better for reproducing sound in general, though granted not through as many channels.
So, any input or ideas about all of this? Any suggestions from here? listening to stuff at a bumch of places has helped me thus far, but now, its the connectivity and management of current and upcoming standards, while realizing what I have and what AV components I want/dont want, that has me confused. I dont want to buy anthing that 10 years down the line when I majorly upgrade my TV, etc... Ill have to also buy an AV receiver because I cant even get audio into my stereo one... I dont care about 5.1 channel or whatnot; Ive lived without it for this long and really dont watch enough to make great use of it. but I do care about good quality for the money, and the ability to maintain a long lifecycle and use of its 'legacy connections.
Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
JMH
