Jump to content
IGNORED

Home theater newbie


Recommended Posts

 

I would guess about 8 years ago I had a decent home theater setup (denon receiver with 5.1 polk speakers) and I was quite content with.  Subsequently, a few years back ago I got into stereo again, and I literally tried well over 1000 different pieces of hardware (I buy and sell stuff to make extra income).  I even spent what I consider a lot of money on new stuff (about 10K at max).  I finally settled on what I consider the best bang for the buck (for my ears) and ended up with a Nelson Pass Threshold Amp ($700), B&W 705 ($600), Teac NT503 ($1000), Non-ported Velodyne HGS-12 ($350).  Anyway sounds good enough for my ears and for my pocketbook, and I am ready to concentrate on Home theatre again.  I will likely stick to hardware I currently have (Marantz Receiver and B&W speakers). 

My question is what is the best way to hook up (xbox, bluray, mediapc w/hdmi (Kodi)).  Is it better to run them all to the receiver, and then take hdmi out from receiver to tv   OR is it better to run them all to the TV and take optical out of tv to receiver? 

The reason I ask is because a few years back ago, I switched out my old denon (no hdmi) to a new receiver that had hdmi, and the sound quality didn’t sound as good as my old denon, so I switched back.  I really wanted the HDMI capability, but the receiver (I tried both a $600 onkyo and $600 sony), and neither did the trick for me.   I haven’t had home theatre for awhile for other reasons, but got my family room back and going to give it a go again, and I am hoping the marantz, B&W, and HDMI will satisfy…and just thought I would ask what others think about the pros and cons of routing everything to receiver vs tv. 

Link to comment

I would take the most direct route for the audio, through the receiver. This being an audio forum, I don't like the idea of patching the audio through the TV, and then through the optical out. It's pretty obvious that the audio circuitry on modern HDTV's is an afterthought. The HDMI digital video in the receiver is pass-through, and should not be visibly degraded.

That said, the best way would be to try it both ways, and evaluate it yourself.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

I would take the most direct route for the audio, through the receiver. This being an audio forum, I don't like the idea of patching the audio through the TV, and then through the optical out. It's pretty obvious that the audio circuitry on modern HDTV's is an afterthought. The HDMI digital video in the receiver is pass-through, and should not be visibly degraded.

That said, the best way would be to try it both ways, and evaluate it yourself.

 

Wouldn't the digital optical out of the TV be the digital signal without processing also? My thinking is that the audio will still be processed from digital form to analog out by reciever either way?  I know it is easier to "CONTROL" by not having to touch the reciever remote and just using the TV remote if i route everything to the TV, but the other part of me agrees that it "should" sound better going through reciever first.   hmmmm....if one would be sound just as good as the other, i would opt for  routing everything to tv for convenience, and don't think i will try both ways to compare. (no way to a/b compare and laziness). 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

In summary, Should I route everything to the reciever and output to the TV or route everything to the TV and output to the receiever, and why or why not?  pros and cons??  Please offer your input.

I would connect everything to the receiver. That avoids any limitations the TV route might impose on the audio. Moreover, you're likely to get more accurate audio/video sync that way since the receiver is better equipped to apply the proper delays.

Link to comment

Gads - no question.  Route everything to the receiver, which puts the highest quality signal at the receiver of course. 

 

From there, you have to decide: 

1. Is the music more important than audio with video? 

2. Is the video quality more important than the music? 

3. Are they both equally important. 

 

One or two makes it fairly easy to decide the optimum equipment, which will almost certainly, be much more minimal than you think. :)

 

#3 makes for a nearly impossible task, unless you have a very big budget. 

 

You can achieve good on the vide with relatively low cost components. Onkyo and Sony both make really nice AVRs that upscale, deal with Atmos, even handle 4K UHD. Plenty of inputs, Audio Return Channel for the TV, DSD processing, etc. All very good. 

 

If music and video are of equal importance for this system, then it gets expensive. 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Or buy a 2 ch preamp with HT bypass?

Ryzen 7 2700 PC Server, NUC7CJYH w. 4G Apacer RAM as Renderer/LPS 1.2 - IsoRegen/LPS-1/.2 - Singxer SU-1/LPS1.2 - Holo Spring Level 3 DAC - LTA MicroZOTL MZ2 - Modwright KWA 150 Signature Amp - Tidal Audio Piano's.  

.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Paul R said:

Gads - no question.  Route everything to the receiver, which puts the highest quality signal at the receiver of course. 

 

From there, you have to decide: 

1. Is the music more important than audio with video? 

2. Is the video quality more important than the music? 

3. Are they both equally important. 

 

One or two makes it fairly easy to decide the optimum equipment, which will almost certainly, be much more minimal than you think. :)

 

#3 makes for a nearly impossible task, unless you have a very big budget. 

 

You can achieve good on the vide with relatively low cost components. Onkyo and Sony both make really nice AVRs that upscale, deal with Atmos, even handle 4K UHD. Plenty of inputs, Audio Return Channel for the TV, DSD processing, etc. All very good. 

 

If music and video are of equal importance for this system, then it gets expensive. 

this will be for movies..i have separate system for audio...i already have a marantz avr for the task(i forget model...i think it is 2nd from the top 3 years old)

Link to comment

Replace the Marantz. If you have not heard Atmos, you have a real treat in store. And one that isn't all that expensive. 

 

Marantz sounds pretty good for music, but if this is for Movies - think Sony or Onkyo.  This UHD 4K, HDMI 2.2, and Atmos. 

 

-Paul 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Paul R said:

Replace the Marantz. If you have not heard Atmos, you have a real treat in store. And one that isn't all that expensive. 

 

Marantz sounds pretty good for music, but if this is for Movies - think Sony or Onkyo.  This UHD 4K, HDMI 2.2, and Atmos. 

 

-Paul 

 

Paul,

 

With all due respect, I agree that Atmos can be impressive, but not that "it isn't all that expensive". It will require, a new receiver, as you noted, numerous new additional speakers, additional amplification channels, and, in some cases, it won't work with certain rooms (high or vaulted ceilings, ceilings that are not finished in flat, basic paint, etc.) I have a fairly impressive home theater, and to add Atmos to my system would cost many thousands.  I would agree on the Onkyo recommendation, vs Marantz for pure home theater though, but the Sony receiver lines amplification is not up to par with their preamp/processor sections.  

 

JC

Link to comment

If you want Atmos I would go with an AV preamp/processor.  There are some a year or so old if you want to go second hand to save a few bucks that will do Atmos.  Then you have the option to go with powered speakers for the extra channels which takes amps out of the picture.  Or you can mix and match between powered speaker and amps that power passive speakers.  For instance keep the Threshold on the B&W's up front and go with active powered speakers elsewhere.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Paul R said:

Replace the Marantz. If you have not heard Atmos, you have a real treat in store. And one that isn't all that expensive. 

 

Marantz sounds pretty good for music, but if this is for Movies - think Sony or Onkyo.  This UHD 4K, HDMI 2.2, and Atmos.

Current Marantz models have all those features too. Now unless beerandmusic already has 11 extra speakers and a 4K TV, his existing Marantz will do just fine until he decides to spend a small fortune on those extra parts. I would recommend adding a centre speaker and a surround pair, though. They need not be very expensive to make a real difference. More speakers improves things a bit provided the movie soundtrack has those channels, which isn't always the case, but even then it's IMO a lesser improvement than going from stereo to 5.1. There's also something to be said for trying what you have first, then addressing whatever aspects you find lacking.

Link to comment
On 04/04/2017 at 9:44 PM, beerandmusic said:

 

The reason I ask is because a few years back ago, I switched out my old denon (no hdmi) to a new receiver that had hdmi, and the sound quality didn’t sound as good as my old denon, so I switched back.  I really wanted the HDMI capability, but the receiver (I tried both a $600 onkyo and $600 sony), and neither did the trick for me.   I haven’t had home theatre for awhile for other reasons, but got my family room back and going to give it a go again, and I am hoping the marantz, B&W, and HDMI will satisfy…and just thought I would ask what others think about the pros and cons of routing everything to receiver vs tv. 

 

A few alternatives that work for me that you may like to explore.

 

1. If you like the old Denon AMP, and you have a TV with multiple HDMI inputs, one way of getting the best of both worlds is to take the HDMI from the source straight to the TV (for video) and optical or coaxial direct to the old Denon (for sound). Purchase a Harmony remote and program it to control everything.

 

2. I'm about to undergo a renovation of my Sydney home and have decided on second hand gear - Emotiva UMC 200 processor (US$300) with a 6 channel Parasound 1206 Power Amp (US$750) and 2 x active subwoofers. I also have a separate system for music (Devialet 200) and only needed something good enough for background music for the family living room and figure there is not enough HD movie content to warrant anything more sophisticated, although this is still a very good system by any standard.

 

3. At my holiday house, which I half share with my brother in law, there are lots of kids and non tech users (wives), so I needed a very simple user friendly solution. I run HDMI from the sources (Apple TV, Blueray and Satellite) into the TV and then optical out of the TV to a basic Marantz PM 6005 integrated stereo amp playing into Wharfdale bookshelf speakers. The system can be controlled by the TV remote and the kids simply hook up their iPhones to the WiFi and stream their own music to the Apple TV and play it back via the Marantz/Wharfdales. Inexpensive and works well for both music and movies and sounds very good.

LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers

OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors

TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650

BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Ajax said:

1. If you like the old Denon AMP, and you have a TV with multiple HDMI inputs, one way of getting the best of both worlds is to take the HDMI from the source straight to the TV (for video) and optical or coaxial direct to the old Denon (for sound).

This method makes it difficult to get accurate A/V sync due to the two paths having different latencies. When routing everything through an AVR, it takes into account the video latency of the TV and delays the audio by the same amount. If the TV doesn't report the correct latency, most AVRs also have a manual setting for this.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, TubeLover said:

Paul,

 

With all due respect, I agree that Atmos can be impressive, but not that "it isn't all that expensive". It will require, a new receiver, as you noted, numerous new additional speakers, additional amplification channels, and, in some cases, it won't work with certain rooms (high or vaulted ceilings, ceilings that are not finished in flat, basic paint, etc.) I have a fairly impressive home theater, and to add Atmos to my system would cost many thousands.  I would agree on the Onkyo recommendation, vs Marantz for pure home theater though, but the Sony receiver lines amplification is not up to par with their preamp/processor sections.  

 

JC

 

it all depends on what you call expensive I suppose - you can do a nice Atmos capable movie system for under $3K easily. Or even less than that to be honest.  The Sony gear sounds great for movies though. :)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

it all depends on what you call expensive I suppose - you can do a nice Atmos capable movie system for under $3K easily. Or even less than that to be honest.  The Sony gear sounds great for movies though. :)

How would you manage that? Atmos requires a minimum of 7, preferably 11, speakers plus a subwoofer. That alone blows your $3k budget if you want anything nice.

Link to comment

i already have 5.1 speakers (b&w 7nt, b&w bookshelves, velodyne sub).  THe marantz i have is SR7008 9.2...i googled and see people asking if it will get a atmos firmware update, but don't think it will...my family room is relatively small so not sure atmos would do much for me....5.1 sounded great and filled the room before with my old denon.  I may look into atmos in future, but right now, i was mainly just wondering if there is anyone that "knows for sure" that i would lose anything by running everything to tv first and taking optical out of tv like i did before.  Several here speculated that they "think" i would lose something by going to tv first, but none sounded convincingly in the know?  The TV is an older 55" samsung (about 5 years old), but i do know that it said that i get multi-channel...and i certainly heard it in old setup with denon.  I keep thinking the audio since is digital that the samsung doesn't do anything to the signal and just passes it without processing, so not sure i would lose anything by going to tv first.

Link to comment

Depends upon your definition of nice. Adding a pair of good Atmos speakers is about $500. You can do it for quite a bit less, and still have sound that works just great for video. Amos requires 8 speakers doesn't it?  5.1.2 being the minimum? 

 

In any case, you can go pretty cheap and have very satisfying sound for video. There are dozens of choices, from companies like Definitive Technology (Look at the BP9020 with atoms speakers, around $2600), NHT - media 3way tower with built in Atmos speakers,or even the ELAC speaker systems. 

 

You could even consider one of the Sony or Samsung Atmos enabled sounder systems. 

 

It doesn't make sense to hold video to audiophile standards. All the audio is going to sound better than it technically should. The why of that is arguable, but that audio always seems to sound better with video is pretty well established. Spend the money to get matched voices in the speakers, and good clean amplification. Position them carefully, and pay attention mostly to how the center or vocal tracks sound. Go UHD 4K and lossless high res audio. Be happy!

 

(Well, it works for me! :) )

 

 

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

i already have 5.1 speakers (b&w 7nt, b&w bookshelves, velodyne sub).  THe marantz i have is SR7008 9.2...i googled and see people asking if it will get a atmos firmware update, but don't think it will...my family room is relatively small so not sure atmos would do much for me....5.1 sounded great and filled the room before with my old denon.  I may look into atmos in future, but right now, i was mainly just wondering if there is anyone that "knows for sure" that i would lose anything by running everything to tv first and taking optical out of tv like i did before.  Several here speculated that they "think" i would lose something by going to tv first, but none sounded convincingly in the know?  The TV is an older 55" samsung (about 5 years old), but i do know that it said that i get multi-channel...and i certainly heard it in old setup with denon.  I keep thinking the audio since is digital that the samsung doesn't do anything to the signal and just passes it without processing, so not sure i would lose anything by going to tv first.

As I said, the digital output from the TV (usually Toslink) can only carry surround sound in Dolby or DTS format, and not even the highest quality of those. Many Bluray discs have lossless DTS HD audio which is not compatible with this routing. You'll still get the fallback regular DTS or Dolby surround, which you may or may not perceive to be inferior to the lossless version. If you're only watching Netflix or (perish the thought) DVDs, this isn't a problem since they don't use the high-rate audio formats. Whatever the source, you may also encounter A/V sync issues.

 

Routing everything via the TV has several technical shortfalls compared to connecting everything to the AVR, that's a fact. Only you can determine whether you notice any difference.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Depends upon your definition of nice. Adding a pair of good Atmos speakers is about $500. You can do it for quite a bit less, and still have sound that works just great for video. Amos requires 8 speakers doesn't it?  5.1.2 being the minimum? 

 

In any case, you can go pretty cheap and have very satisfying sound for video. There are dozens of choices, from companies like Definitive Technology (Look at the BP9020 with atoms speakers, around $2600), NHT - media 3way tower with built in Atmos speakers,or even the ELAC speaker systems. 

 

You could even consider one of the Sony or Samsung Atmos enabled sounder systems. 

 

It doesn't make sense to hold video to audiophile standards. All the audio is going to sound better than it technically should. The why of that is arguable, but that audio always seems to sound better with video is pretty well established. Spend the money to get matched voices in the speakers, and good clean amplification. Position them carefully, and pay attention mostly to how the center or vocal tracks sound. Go UHD 4K and lossless high res audio. Be happy!

 

(Well, it works for me! :) )

Oh, your $3k figure was just for speakers. That makes sense. When you said "system" I assumed this included the receiver as well, if not the TV.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mansr said:

Oh, your $3k figure was just for speakers. That makes sense. When you said "system" I assumed this included the receiver as well, if not the TV.

 

Tunnel vision - that was quite stupid of me. Sorry!  

 

Still, an Onkyo and a set of the less expensive speakers referenced above, you could probably squeak through at the $3K mark.  

 

-Paul

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

i already have 5.1 speakers (b&w 7nt, b&w bookshelves, velodyne sub).  THe marantz i have is SR7008 9.2...i googled and see people asking if it will get a atmos firmware update, but don't think it will...my family room is relatively small so not sure atmos would do much for me....5.1 sounded great and filled the room before with my old denon.  I may look into atmos in future, but right now, i was mainly just wondering if there is anyone that "knows for sure" that i would lose anything by running everything to tv first and taking optical out of tv like i did before.  Several here speculated that they "think" i would lose something by going to tv first, but none sounded convincingly in the know?  The TV is an older 55" samsung (about 5 years old), but i do know that it said that i get multi-channel...and i certainly heard it in old setup with denon.  I keep thinking the audio since is digital that the samsung doesn't do anything to the signal and just passes it without processing, so not sure i would lose anything by going to tv first.

 

Thought I answered that... yes, you loose a LOT going to the TV first, even if you use the ARC functionality, much less if you feed the audio back through optical. 

 

TV's don't do all the processing an AVR can do, nor do they usually accept most of the newer file formats that provide lossless or HD audio. 

 

Feed the HDMI to the receiver, then drive the TV from the receiver. 

 

-Paul

 

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...