HOME THEATER MEN: We bought a receiver and some speakers....

[Falloutboy]

I would of gotten a 5.1 receaver even if you didn't plan on using it because down the road if you ever cheange you mind all you have to do is buy a new receaver

 

[Viperoni]

I bet it sounds good 🙂

 

[olds]

If your not interested in HT, why use it in the title?

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
When you move to a house and get the $4K home theater setup, this system will still be great for music listening in a home office / computer room.

Exactly!

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
If your not interested in HT, why use it in the title?

It has to be 5.1 or better to be considered a home theater? Interesting. Didnt know that.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Are you sure it wasn't Good Guys that sold you the Denon receiver? BB doesn't sell Denon gear - to my knowledge. Also, I suspect it would be a cold day in hell if Denon authorized BB to seel their gear. Just my .02

I'm absolutely, 100% positive it was BB. Call them. Best Buy, area code 93010, in Thousand Oaks.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
I would of gotten a 5.1 receaver even if you didn't plan on using it because down the road if you ever cheange you mind all you have to do is buy a new receaver

...the receiver that supported it was $150 more. nah....

 

[thomsbrain]

my feeling is one should put the most money into the stereo mains, the next most into the sub, and then the receiver last. there's no point in having a clean amp if your speakers are crap, and even a crappy receiver sounds better with nice speakers. there's also no point in having clean root frequencies (sub) if your mains are not reproducing the overtones of those frequencies cleanly (not to mention the other ~19,920 Hz they are responsible for).

 

[damonpip]

Good choice. That receiver should sound much better than a cheap surround receiver.

 

[Renob]

I see lots of people saying you overpaid for what you got?? I have not looked into HT hardware in a while but the last receiver I go was a Yamaha 6.1 and it was $1700 on sale. The reveiver he got was a very entry level HT receiver Yes??

 

[UncleWai]

Pioneer Elite A-35R


best bang for the buck integrated amp.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
my feeling is one should put the most money into the stereo mains, the next most into the sub, and then the receiver last. there's no point in having a clean amp if your speakers are crap, and even a crappy receiver sounds better with nice speakers. there's also no point in having clean root frequencies (sub) if your mains are not reproducing the overtones of those frequencies cleanly (not to mention the other ~19,920 Hz they are responsible for).

Haha, too bad most people can't tell the difference between good and bad. It took me awhile to train my ears to notice the "good" and the "bad" of components and even now I'm not nearly as picky about it as some.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: damonpip
Good choice. That receiver should sound much better than a cheap surround receiver.

:thumbsup:

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Renob
I see lots of people saying you overpaid for what you got?? I have not looked into HT hardware in a while but the last receiver I go was a Yamaha 6.1 and it was $1700 on sale. The reveiver he got was a very entry level HT receiver Yes??

Thats what I thought too. I got some solid recommendations from friends for it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: coinz

Originally posted by: KLin
you spent 350 bucks on a stereo receiver?

ok seriously that's a lot for a stereo receiver

I spent $700 on my HT receiver.

Edit-Congrats on your purchase! I use mine quite a bit for HT so that was really important to me. It is just a bonus that it sounds wonderful playing 2 channel stereo as well. If I had it to do over I would take a good long look at Denon. They had some funky looking clown colored remote though so I bought a Harman Kardon receiver instead.