"JMH" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello,
Im new in the world of top-notch audio, so Id like to ask you a
question by email about system design.
I dont have a very high budget, Im looking at spending about $1000 on
infinity beta 50 speakers (Ive tried these with different pieces of
equipment and like the sound),
I'm not familiar with the speakers so I can't comment
but if you heard them and like them they must be good
.
and also buying a Hsu subwoofer, and
I have Hsu myself, the VTF-2. I think they do a fine
job.
then a CD player and receiver. For watching movies, Ill just do
2-channel sound with a sub, at least for now, as I dont want to spend
money on all of the 5.1 or 7.1 speakers and whatnot.
I cobbled together a surround sound system and while I don't care
for it for music much (which is perhaps due to my mix and unmatched
speakers) I think it sounds great on movies.
But where Im really tied up is in the receiver and Cd player choices.
I have quite a few CDs, and a lot of MP3 music. I like a wide variety
of rock, soul, jazz and classical type music. I dont know if for a
newbie, Im better off buying a stereo receiver or an AV receiver.
The hint here is that you don't mind MP3s. Have you had a chance
to listen to them through a good system or decent headphones?
If you find them just fine... then I'd suggest you'll be very happy
with the Yamaha AV receiver as the sound difference
between it and a comparably priced stereo amp isn't
as much as an MP3 vs original IMO.
Sad part here is you almost have to buy 7 channels
and you'll probably never use more than 5.
I see one on line shop still is selling Pioneer VSX D514K
for $160. Get that for Home Theater and get a used
stereo amp at the pawn shop.
The stereo receiver at the same price (Im thinking Yamaha RX-797) as an
AV receiver (yamaha RX-V659) should have better component quality,
design quality, and sound quality, right? But that said, am I really
just splitting hairs, especially since I dont have speakers that cost
thousands of dollars each, nor do I have a super high quality component
for doing anything else?
One example of a tie-up that causes me to be unsure is picking a CD
player and receiver. Do I want to buy a CD player that has a top-notch
DAC, and feed it into a stereo receiver, or would I be better off just
getting a cd player that has digital out, and using a good AV receiver
(the RX-V659 for example, has 24 bit burr-brown DACs on all channels).
Same comment as the amp. I think you need to get into some fairly
budget busting numbers on a CD player to make a noticeable difference.
Get a universal player with digital out. Fill your DVD, CD, MP3
and SACD needs all in one.
MP3 is another good example... If Im playing MP3 files from my ipod or
computer, am I better off processing them on the computer, then feeding
RCA into a stereo receiver, or am I better off sending in some data
stream into an AV receiver, and using their compressed music enhancer
to 'optimize' the sound?
While I can be sure that at a same price point, a stereo receiver will
have better innards than an AV equivalent, is 0.06% THD really any
different than 0.019%?
I know folks who love amps with far worse numbers than these...
so I wouldn't get hung up on 'em.
I am an engineer, so understand design
tradeoffs, but Im not an electrical engineer... will the amps and DACs
that have to do multiple tasks in an AV receiver have a shorter life
because they do more, as compared to the supposedly better designed and
laid out components in a same price stereo receiver?
No... it will fail sooner because its got more components and might
run a bit warmer.
If the AV
receiver has a 'pure direct' option, wouldnt either using that with a
decent DAC from a good CD player, or else sending coax digital in and
using the internal AVR
's burr-brown DAC create as good a sound as any stereo receiver that Id
buy for roughly the same price?
I think you're trying to split hairs here.
Any insight on such situations would be most appreciated. I want bang
for the buck, but given that I will use my sstem 85% for music and only
15% for everything else... I want to make sure that I make the right
choice.
Bang for the buck means buy used to me.
The AVR gives me long term upgradability if I want to do the
home theatre thing... but is only a good deal if it can do hi-fi for
newbies half decently...
Half decently is very subjective..... but IMO.. the amp is last place
to spend money upgrading. You'll probably be very happy with
an AVR.... and since you really don't want to spend a lot...try to find a
5.1 version. My Pioneer was only $150 and it doesn't sound any different
than their expensive ones... just fewer bells and whistles.
ScottW