home theater/stereo/receiver question

[element]

let's say you only had 2 speakers, but might add a sub and 2 more speakers later on down the line...

would you go for a harman/kardon 2.0 receiver or a JVC or other "lesser" brand (read cheaper) 5.1 receiver? All else being equal, can you use a 5.1 receiver in 2.0 mode until the rest of the speakers come in or do you have to have all 5 speakers and the sub right away. As you can tell I'm a total HT noob.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Yeah, you can run it 2.0 until you can afford the other speakers and a sub. Most receivers have a setting for this.

 

[Heisenberg]

You can use a 5.1 receiver in stereo mode.

 

[bleeb]

Harmon Kardon... 5.1 speakers dawg.

 

[Doggiedog]

For 5.1, you're going to need to add a center channel too. That's probably the most important speaker in your setup. The rear two don't have to be as good.

 

[nsafreak]

Wouldn't be a bad idea although I wasn't aware that H/K still made stereo receivers. Just curious, what is your budget for said receiver?

 

[element]

Originally posted by: nsafreak
Wouldn't be a bad idea although I wasn't aware that H/K still made stereo receivers. Just curious, what is your budget for said receiver?

I'd like to keep the budget for the receiver as close to $200 as possible. ...I know I know can't do much on a low budget but i don't need the latest and greatest.

 

[Anubis]

why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Anubis
why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

Because audiophiles say Harmon/Kardon, Denon and such or nothing at all. Go figure... To each his own. Glad to hear you're happy with your JVC, I have a feeling I would be too. I doubt with my cheesy setup I'll be able to tell subtle differences the way most audiophiles do. I think I'll forgoe the more expensive H/K 2.0 idea and go with a 5.1 setup. Also thanks to those that answered my question on 5.1 receivers working in 2.0 mode just fine. i had a feeling they would just wanted to be sure.

 

[Riverhound777]

I just got a Pioneer 5.1 receiver for $193 shipped from bestbuy. works great with my two floor speakers. It has like 5 settings from 2.0-5.1 so it works fine. Even has settings for room size and distance from speakers. I'll probably add more speakers in the future when i graduate and get a real job.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Onkyo TX-SR601 refurb is (was?) $250 at eCost, and brand new ones are $328 at OneCall.

This is what I ended up getting after deciding to pass on the Denon 3805 -- the Onkyo is 5.1 (and 6.1/7.1) and has a nice set of S-Video and digital inputs for DVD player, consoles, and/or hometheater PC.

I decided to pass on the Denon since I live in an apartment and only have a $1,000 speaker setup in the living room. The Onkyo is top-rated for an under-$800 receiver and should work great for me until I get around to buying a house and setting up a serious AV room.

 

[K1052]

I recently picked up a refurbed Onkyo TX-SR501.

So far I am very happy with it.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Anubis
why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

There's a difference between rating and actual output. Unfortunately, this is very common with receivers. JVC makes good receivers, but they cannot hit their rated output with all channels driven. H/K is one of the only companies that rates their receivers with all channels driven, and actually exceeds the rating.

Denon, Onkyo, B&K, JVC, Kenwood, Marantz, Panasonic, Sherwood, Sony, NAD, Yamaha, and many others only rate their receivers with a single or two channels driven. There are a few models that actually hit their rating with all channels driven, but not across the board.

Again, this is not to say that JVC doesn't make some great products for their price.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Anubis
why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

There's a difference between rating and actual output. Unfortunately, this is very common with receivers. JVC makes good receivers, but they cannot hit their rated output with all channels driven. H/K is one of the only companies that rates their receivers with all channels driven, and actually exceeds the rating.

Denon, Onkyo, B&K, JVC, Kenwood, Marantz, Panasonic, Sherwood, Sony, NAD, Yamaha, and many others only rate their receivers with a single or two channels driven. There are a few models that actually hit their rating with all channels driven, but not across the board.

Again, this is not to say that JVC doesn't make some great products for their price.

Good point. i was wondering about this also: The speakers will be 200 watts per channel but the receiver is rated at 100W/ch and can probably only hit about 70% of that with no distortion, or about 70W/channel. Does this mean I'll need an amp too in order too fully drive the speakers?

 

[Apex]

Probably not.

What is the size of your room (L x W x H)?

What kind of speakers (Make & Model)?

 

[Thegonagle]

I'd go for a Harman/Kardon 5.1 receiver from Harmanaudio on eBay.

In fact, that's what I did.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: element
Good point. i was wondering about this also: The speakers will be 200 watts per channel but the receiver is rated at 100W/ch and can probably only hit about 70% of that with no distortion, or about 70W/channel. Does this mean I'll need an amp too in order too fully drive the speakers?

Not the way it works -- speakers rated for 200 just mean you can attach them to a receiver with that rating without much risk of damage.

Actually it means even less than that, you can safely ignore speaker wattage ratings, they have no relation to how loud the speakers can play or how much power they need to do it. The speaker's efficiency rating is what says how much power is needed but you can pretty much ignore that too for modern speakers.

 

[welst10]

As a previous owner of a H/K receiver, I have to say H/K rocks. I had it for 5 yrs, moved 5 times or so, not a single problem, beautiful design and great sound too. Receiver is the center piece of a HT, so I wouldn't go too cheap on this. Spend at least $300-400 is a good idea.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Anubis
why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

I found that unit and the THD is rated at 0.8%, while the H/K units are less than 0.07%THD, which is numerically more than 10 times difference. How this translates into how it sounds is debateable. Any one can comment on that?

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Anubis
why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

I found that unit and the THD is rated at 0.8%, while the H/K units are less than 0.07%THD, which is numerically more than 10 times difference. How this translates into how it sounds is debateable. Any one can comment on that?

Difficult for human ears to detect that, even in younger women (our hearing degrades as we get older, and women tend to have better hearing than men, especially in the higher ranges).

 

[BigSmooth]

Originally posted by: Apex
Denon, Onkyo, B&K, JVC, Kenwood, Marantz, Panasonic, Sherwood, Sony, NAD, Yamaha, and many others only rate their receivers with a single or two channels driven. There are a few models that actually hit their rating with all channels driven, but not across the board.

Like my Kenwood. Sound & Vision tested it at 92 watts x 6 channels (it's rated at 100). :thumbsup: I've been very happy with it.

 

[element]

hmmm I just discovered the new units with digital amplifiers. anyone heard of this yet?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: element
hmmm I just discovered the new units with digital amplifiers. anyone heard of this yet?

tiny, but low power and the ones I looked at had far fewer AV inputs than normal receivers

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: Anubis
why do you call JVC lesser? my JVC does 130w x7 and sounds better the my dads and brothers HK receivers

and it runs in stero mode, does 7 channel stero also which is kinda neet

it also cost 200$ at CC on clearence

There's a difference between rating and actual output. Unfortunately, this is very common with receivers. JVC makes good receivers, but they cannot hit their rated output with all channels driven. H/K is one of the only companies that rates their receivers with all channels driven, and actually exceeds the rating.

Denon, Onkyo, B&K, JVC, Kenwood, Marantz, Panasonic, Sherwood, Sony, NAD, Yamaha, and many others only rate their receivers with a single or two channels driven. There are a few models that actually hit their rating with all channels driven, but not across the board.

Again, this is not to say that JVC doesn't make some great products for their price.

You need to remove NAD and Yamaha off that list for sure. They rate with all 5 or 6 channels driven. I'm pretty sure most of the rest do, too. Check their respective websites.
In addition, the nicer receivers like NAD are under-rated....meaning they'll put out more than they advertise, if necessary.

How some of the companies get the high wattage rating is by only measuring at 1khz. A more quality company rates wattage from 20-20khz.
That's why you see receivers at BB and CC for 250.00 that claim 100+ watts per channel....and ones in the higher end shops for the same prices have maybe 70 watts, but are really equal.
Yamaha explains this somewhere on their website....basically they say that even though the amplifier sections of their receivers sold at mass merchandisers like BB and CC are identical to their other equipment, they are rated like I explained above...which is why they also have have different model #'s.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: element
hmmm I just discovered the new units with digital amplifiers. anyone heard of this yet?

tiny, but low power and the ones I looked at had far fewer AV inputs than normal receivers

Low power? The ones I looked at were 100W/ch. Panasonic and JVC.