Hi
very new to HT. Have read some stuff, but easily get confused and lost in the specification and features.
Plan on getting a h/t receiver tomorrow.
options:
denon 3805 for around $740 u.s.
Denon 3806 for around $980 u.s.
yamaha 2600 for around $980 u.s.
pioneer elite 72 for around $920 u.s
Which model should i go with???
i was told that the higher end receiver are easy to set up (like the yamaha ypao). i am very new to HT and easy setup of speakers and configuration is important to me.
Plus, is it worth getting HTMI???
I am thinking of purchasing axiom epic 60-500 component.
with the exception of the subwoofer, thinking of going with a rocket ULW-10 from AV123 instead.
Thanks
Blackorp
I run a Denon 2805 and have been happy with it.
As far as the YPAO goes, I think all the ones you mention have something very similar.
For the most part I use the auto setup on mine just for calculating speaker distance and levels. In my opinion the EQ part of ANY of the auto setups arent very good.
You might also look into the H/K 635.
It has a new auto setup that is (as far as the EQ part goes) supposed to be better.
Good Luck
I bought the Denon 3805 refurbed and am happy with it. Just be patient setting things up. Plenty of Denon users on this forum willing to help.
If it were me I would go with the lower priced receiver and put the extra money into an EP 500. You could get everything from the
Fatory Outlet and save even more money.
I got an expensive flat screen tv that can use HDMI. If i go with the 3806 over the 3805, will i get better tv regular and HD quality TV??? is it worth the extra money??
i don't mind if it is worth it, but i am totally new to this stuff.
thanks guys
What is your room size? Unless you have a lot of components that have HDMI out, you may not need the HDMI receivers. I also have the 2805 and my room is almost 30' x 30' x 9'...
room size is 15 by 15 by 15 ft with a lot of open space that connect to other room.
right now, i have a tv that supports hdmi, so it is a matter of determining whether i am going to take that hdmi route, or remain with analog cable wire.
I mean if, hdmi will improve my analogy and HDTV viewing, than i guess it is worth the extra 2-3 hundred. But if it makes little difference, than i'll get the denon 3805.
Are you using component connections now? What is you tv model?
I think that you would be well advised to spend a little more time researching all of the alternatives.
I have posted many times that I fail to understand why anyone (projectors excepted) would want to do HDMI switching in audio gear. Just doesn't make good sense. If you go to some of the other boards you will see a whole host of comments about the problems that folks have had with their HDMI connections through receivers.
Just curious, how did you arrive at those 4 receivers??
it is the sharp aquos lc-45gd5u (lcd flat screen).
In reply to:
If it were me I would go with the lower priced receiver and put the extra money into an EP 500.
This is worth some thought. Had I to do it again I would buy the 2805.
i got down to these 4 becuase they were suggested to my local audio stores. Suggested that i go with the most updated receivers which have hdmi (to improve my hdtv viewing experience and because it seems that's what the trend is heading).
Again, I am all new when it comes to home theater, i thought i get some unbiased opinions from you guys.
I have a Panasonic DVD player with HDMI, but I hook that directly to my projector, not through my receiver. My receiver does convert all inputs (composite/s-video) upto component, so my VCR/Satellite/HD receiver are all going to my receiver and then I just have one component out to my TV to save cables and clutter. I would take your time, there are lots of good AVR's from Denon, HK, Pioneer, Yammy that cost less and have the same bells whistles. For me it was the surround decoding, not all the extras they are putting into receivers these days that I'll never use.
I just don't understand how HDMI switching on your receiver would improve your HDTV viewing experience.
Did they tell you how????
A receiver will not alter your source in any positive sort of way. It may not alter it in a negative way. At best, it will do nothing with your source other than pass it through to the display (TV). So if you don't have anything outputting HDMI (ie a DVD player, HD cable, satellite, etc.) then getting an HDMI receiver will gain you nothing. Other than headaches when they change the standard and connector next year or whenever they do it.
i just bought a High definition cable box. I guess that's why they recommended i switch to hdmi. Is the general view that i just stick to regular cable wiring.
p.s. isn't 1000 kind of too much for a subwoofer (Ep 500 model)????. I was thinking of spending around 5-6 hundred.
OK, but do you have any other devices that are hdmi?
What is your total budget for speakers, including the sub.
right now i am not using anything that involve hdmi.
however, my tv and hdtv cable box can use hdmi.
originally, i was planning to spending $1000u.s. on receiver. and around $2000 on speakers. I plan on ordering from axiom factory outlet to save some more money.
Blackorp, lets be sure we are clear on something. First, it is my opinion that connecting HDMI or DVI outputs in your source (DVD player and/or cable or Sat box) to HDMI or DVI inputs on your HDTV results in slightly superior picture quality than connecting them via component, and considerably superior picture quality than connecting them via S-Video, or composite. BUT, you don't have to go through your receiver in order to achieve HDMI connections.
I have 3 sources with DVI outputs. I connect them directly to the one DVI input on my HDTV by going through a stand alone DVI switch with 4 inputs and 1 output. If you get a receiver with HDMI switching, then it will serve the same function as my stand alone DVI switch. Although, most receivers I've seen have only 2 HDMI inputs which would suffice if you only have a DVD player and cable/Sat box.
Either way, it will cost you money. If you do it the way I do, you save money because you can get a less expensive receiver without HDMI switching. BUT, you have to buy a switch. So it sort of balances out.
An alternative is to skip the switching, either in the receiver, or with a stand alone switch, and use the HDMI input on your HDTV for your cable/sat box to take advantage of high definition, and use a component connection for your DVD player. Currently, DVD players are not high definition. When the hi def players do hit the market and their prices finally come down to a reasonable level, you can add a switch if you are so inclined.
The point is you do NOT have to feed your video through the receiver in order to utilize the HDMI/DVI inputs and outputs of your equipment.
hey jack
a newbie question:
if i go with your last option, will my 5.1 system still work while i watch hdtv or analog tv?? if it can, then i'll probably go with that route.
Absolutely. Your cable/sat box will have a digital audio output AND an analog stereo output. You just run a digital audio connection from your cable/sat box to your receiver, and you'll get Dolby Digital 5.1, if the channel is sending it. If the channel is only feeding a stereo signal, you can turn into 5.1 with Dolby Pro Logic II, or even 7.1 if your receiver has Dolby Pro Logic IIx. Almost all new receiver's have both now.
You can then run a standard stereo audio hookup from the cable/sat box to your TV so you can listen to the TV without turning on your sound system, if you chose.
thanks for all the help.
i am probably going to get the denon 3805 rather than the more expensive ones.
If you are going with the Denon 3805, good choice BTW, you should still be close to your budget if you get an EP 500 from factory outlet. Ask Jack what he thinks of the different brands, he is one of few I know of that has had a Rocket, Hsu and an Axiom sub.
Blackie, welcome. If you get a receiver without HDMI switching(without repeating all the details, I agree with the points made by Jack and others that it isn't essential)you should consider saving even more on the receiver by going with the Denon 2106 rather than the 3805. This is available for a little over
$500 and includes the essential microphone for auto setup, which is about $50 extra with the 3805. This would leave more room in your budget if you want to go with the excellent EP500.
Blacky, you might also want to look into going B-stock on your Denon 3805. $680 US at Dakmart.
oh my god. I got two nicknames already. How cool is that. lol
1. Hey Johnk, is the 2106 enough to power the epic 60-500 component???
2. What if i decide to add two more speakers in another room room (for music only). what sort of speakers do i need?? two front speakers???
3. Can i utilize both sets of speakers in the two different room at the same time???
4. Now a day, when listening to simply music, do you use only two speakers or all 5.1 speakers?? I am totally new to ht theater and what it can do.
thanks
your question is the 500 worth 1000$. a simple word. YES...
the reason, getting a 500 will make your HT as close to if not better than a movie theater…
I have a epic 60, 600 basicly…
And a nad processor, with a marantz amp.. any I would say my HT set up makes most movie theaters sound like crap.. at this point I would almost rather watch a movie in my room, than go to the movie theater..
So.. spend the extra money, you will be happy you did, the 500 will have a presence that I would bet no other sub has, sense the 500/600 are getting such astounding reviews from everyone that reviews them..
Another thing, are you planning on buying a new TV, or reciever next year?
If not, then what would you care what things are “going to” you should be more worried about what you currently have. I have component cables, to my projector, and you get a good set of component cables, and the picture is wonderful, I can't see how much better the picture would be with HDMI cables.. possibly but at that point you’re A/D converter is the weak link.. analog->digital converter.. it seems like you REALLY want HDMI so I would say go ahead..
Sounds like they have all recommended the Denon's here and they know more than me, but I will tell you that I just bought a Yamaha Rx-V2500 (old model) for $590 shipped to the door. Great receiver, no problems and brand new. I got it on Ebay from a company with an actual real shop in NY. They are an aouthorized Yamaha dealer which seems to be a big problem with a lot of the Yamaha being sold because Yamaha will not honor the 2 year warranty unless you have a receipt from an authorized dealer. Be carefull if you go this route because there is a large "grey" market on Yamaha. I will vouch for "Canal Hi-Fi" though. Save yourself $400 and get that big sub!
Yamaha RX-V2500 Ebay
Scott, I think that since he was clearly leaning toward Denon, the replies focussed on that; at least that was my reason. Certainly the Yamaha 2500 is a fine buy.
Trying to convert me to the dark side are we. must resist the lower price on the yammie...lol
thanks for the post libbert.
i'll definately take a look at the yamaha 2500 on ebay to see what kind of a deal i can get. It is likely to be 150 dollars cheaper. Very tempting.
1. Should have plenty of power in most situations; very little difference from the 3805.
2. Sure; two front speakers.
3. Yes; run them in parallel(if impedance permits)using A+B on the main speaker channels, or assign the 6th and 7th back surround channel amps(if not being used for back surround speakers)to power the mains in another room.
4. You should make use of all your speakers, even with 2-channel source material. 2 channel material contains(in varying degrees)ambience which was recorded coming from the sides and back, not front. Processing such as DPLII and Logic 7 does a good job of extracting this ambience from the front and sending it to the surrounds where it belongs.
In reply to:
4. Now a day, when listening to simply music, do you use only two speakers or all 5.1 speakers?? I am totally new to ht theater and what it can do.
There are two, very dedicated, camps when it comes to this issue. There are many who prefer to listen to music in two channel only, considering it the "purest" way to listen, hearing the music the way it was intended to be heard by those who recorded it. This particular camp is further divided into those with larger speakers with good bass response who prefer to listen to two channels without a subwoofer, and those with either bookshelves or floorstanders who feel the sub really adds something worthwhile.
The second camp is those who find listening to everything in multichannel to be a more enjoyable experience. Like JohnK, I'm firmly ensconced in this group (OH GAD! Again, I find myself agreeing with a graduate from "that school up North," and a lawyer to boot. Have I no shame?
).
My advice to you is, experiment with all options to see which you prefer. There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to this issue. Just do what floats your boat.
Am I nuts (only a rhetorical question, so watch it!), or are there some posts missing from this thread? Rick, I swear that last night I saw a post by you, in this thread, saying you hoped you had not "put me on the spot" by suggesting blackorp ask me about the subs I've owned. Blackorp followed that post with one, indeed, asking me about my subs, and I posted a reply. I don't see those posts now. Am I merely having a "senior moment," or have I finally gone over the edge? (no wise cracks from the peanut gallery, now!
)
No Jack that reply was made in
this thread .
Whew! Only a senior moment, thank heaven. Thanks Rick.
You gotta stop making the same post in different threads. It's very confusing to old people.
Yep, I do believe this would indeed be considered a very 'senior moment' Jack.
Not to make fun of you Jack but I did get a pretty good chuckle out of that
.
Rick, make fun all you want (I hope you know that I honestly don't mind. I can see the humor in it, too. It's nothing I have any control over, so I don't worry about it much). However, you should be aware that you're making fun of your own future. Your time will come, and sooner than you think.
I was only replying to Blackorp in that thread, we’re going have to keep him within the same thread for now on. I don't want any of the older folks getting all confused early in the morning get a pretty good chuckle out of that
In reply to:
However, you should be aware that you're making fun of your own future. Your time will come, and sooner than you think.
A truer word has never been spoken. I look back now and wonder where all the time has gone.
And the spooky thing is, Rick, that time keeps speeding up.
[philosophical rant] I can remember, when I was very young (5 or 6) that time was so expansive that I thought the nine months I was in school was the same length of time as the 3 months I was on vacation. The beginning and end of each period were too far apart for me to see both ends at the same time, and thus have an accurate sense of their duration. Back then, a half hour was an eternity.
Now, there doesn't seem to be enough time in the day a to do everything I want. I can sit down at this dumb computer and two hours will disappear in the blink of an eye. A half hour? Gone in a nanosecond.
I suspect that our perception of time is related to the amount of time we've been alive. To a 5 year old, a year is one fifth of his life. A fifth of my life is 12 years. Using that 12:1 ratio, at my current age, a half hour is equivalent to 2 and a half minutes when I was 5. Likewise, when I was 5, a half hour was equivalent to 6 hours today. No wonder that last half hour of school seemed like an eternity. It WAS! [/philosophical rant]
Apologies to Blackorp for the hijack.
Another receiver that is worth taking a look at is the
Pioneer VSX 1015, it is reported to be one heck of a receiver for the money.
The
Outlaw 1070 is another good option.
Oh, the horror, the horror of keeping me confined only to this post. Never to be let out to expand my imagination and seek out new life forms... What have I done to this man to warrant this... Is anyone still out there...Hello...
We are just messing with ya