[randog]

As I get closer to getting my HT together, I've got a pretty basic question:

If my setup is 5.1 only, would it make better sense to get an older processor with maybe just Dolby Digital and DTS but without all the newer formats that I won't use and with the best sound I can afford?

I currently have an Outlaw 1050 that I was going to use for processing and surround amplification. Would I be better served by an older Lexicon processor or something along that vein?

Processors that can only do DD and DTS or getting pretty cheap these days (comparatively speaking).

What would I give up wrt IC technology, etc (component in/out, mc analog inputs, etc)?

Finally, I see a lot of emphasis on balanced outputs now. What exactly are the benefits there?

Thanks,
Randog

[Rob Babcock]

Make dead certain you have Dolby PLII- it's absolutely worth it, no doubt.  It just creams the original ProLogic and really breaths some life into stereo DVDs and those encoded in PL.

As for the soundfields and all that, they're just junk, IMO.

Balanced outputs will only help if all the other links in the chain are balanced.  The stock answer is if the runs aren't long and you don't have noise probs, it's not that big a deal.  But I'm sure someone will jump my shit about it.

[dogberry]

Don't forget one incredibly important thing: implementation.

Whether your SSP has one mode or all of them, it's how the designers implemented it that makes all the difference.  I like the way my SSP does it.  You will like whatever you like.  The bottom line is buy based on how it sounds, not what modes it has.  

Yes, DPL2 is great for older encoded movies and TV.  However, if I heard an SSP that sounded right and didn't have it, that's what I would buy.

[gotmikey]

Your room acoustics will play more of a role than picking between processor to processor.

[randog]

Is that true? It makes sense for 2-channel, but I thought processors are important for proper separation of channels (decoding formats) and sound quality both. If so, I would think selecting a good processor is important for good HT.  

dogberry: I agree... but if I go used it's harder to do. That's where the reviews and feedback helps.  

Rob: Pro Logic (I & II) is a surround format based on stereo, right? In other words, a source doesn't need anything but stereo to take advantage of it, right? Then again, if I don't want my 2-channel surrounded then I really don't need it.    When do you find yourself using it? Do you use it (or can you use it) for sources that are already multi-channel?

Thanks,
Randog

[Rob Babcock]

PLII can work well with stereo, very well in fact.  But it works wonders with stuff that's encoded for ProLogic.  The PL encoding process adds out of phase information that the processor steers to the rear.  In the original algorithm the surrounds each recieved the same split mono signal that's bandwidth limited from about 100 hz to 14,000 hz.  With PLII the surrounds are in stereo and the freq response if full range.

I use it an awful lot- it works extemely well for cable- and off-the-air TV (most TV nowadays has been encoded for PL), including sports.  It's actually really good for football!  Just wraps the screaming crowd around you and envelopes you in the action (gee, I should write copy for the guys who sell this stuff! ).

Only relatively recently have movies been mixed in Stereo and Surround.  I believe Star Wars was the first mainstream commercial film to be encoded in Dolby Pro Logic.  And since then a helluva lot of movies have been done in PL.  Dolby Digital is very recent- comparitively few movies have been recorded that way.  Sometimes the DVD is remixed to DD, but often it's not.  Sniper, for instance, is a fairly modern flick but has only regular PL.  The movie sounds like crap thru PL, but PLII really raises it from the dead.

Can't recall the name right now, but one pretty well known audio writer prefers music DVDs stereo track, played back thru PLII, over the DD (basically quite not as good spacially but better SQ).

Naturally it's implementation, and of course I don't advocate you get a crappy processor with PLII!     But most fairly modern/recent units will have this feature.

Of course the room is a factor, blah, blah, blah- it always is.  But any way you slice it, in a decent system, PLII rocks.  There might be manufactures with proprietary DSPs that work well too, but PLII is consistent and standardized.  You can be fairly sure of the performance you'll get.

[bubba966]

What Rob said about DPL II is pretty correct. If anything is listed as being mixed for Dolby Surround, then you'll want to run it in DPL II. Which cover just about everything not in 5.1 but CD's (I don't think they've been mixed for Dolby Surround, but I don't listen to CD's, so I don't know for sure.)

I'd look for something that had DD EX, DTS ES, DPL II processing. Sure, you might not ever use the EX/ES decoding, but it's there if you need it.

Component video switching is usefull. I've currently got 3 different devices running on component.

I'd certainly look for MC analog ins. Maybe you've got an SACD or DVD-A capable player now, maybe you don't. But just about ever new DVDP can run either or both of those. So being able to take advantage of such a function would be a good idea to plan for.

Something else that might be more than a bit handy is auto-calibration & room correction. Denon is supposed to be implementiong that real soon. Pioneer has been doing it for a couple of years now.

You might want to look at something like a Pioneer Elite VSX-45TX. It's got everything mentioned above (EX/ES, DPL II, MCACC, CV Switching, MC analog input) and more like USB input & RS-232. Sure, it's a 1 1/2-2 year old model, but that's why it seems to go for about $600 on eBay for a used one. Something like the 45TX would take care of your processing needs for quite a while, as well as just about anything else you might end up using for the next few years.

Ask Marbles what he thinks of his Elite receiver. He's much better at describing how it sounds than I am.

[randog]

This is an excellent education fellas, and exactly what I need! Keep it coming and thanks a bunch.  

[nature boy]

Just curious if anyone has impressions of the new Yamaha 1400 or 2400 receivers.  This seems to be a popular HT receiver on the AVS forum.

NB

[randog]

OK, suppose I go to separates... or at least get free-standing amplification for a receiver for all 5 channels... let's talk about what to use as a processor...

Now that these inexpensive receivers wouldn't be used for their internal amps, what would I look for in a pre/pro? Basically, do you consider the Denons, Pioneers, Outlaws, etc, equal in their processing and sonics as some of the higher end stuff? Would I then be looking more for feature-set than anything else? (like DPLII)

-OR-

Would I gain much benefit from a higher-dollar pre/pro by the likes of B&K, Lexicon, Bryston, Anthem, Sunfire, Mcintosh, Classe, Krell, Meridian, Parasound, etc, etc, blah, blah?

And if so, what?

Marbles, you have a Pioneer and a B&K... how would you compare them head-to-head?

Randog

[byteme]

What everyone has said thus far about PLII is right on.  To me, it's a must have, either PLII or Logic 7 which you would find on HK and Lexicon gear.

The decision between a lower priced receiver and high end pre/pro or reciever is another animal.  Obviously the surrounding electronics are going to be better in higher end gear, however, the processing chips may not be that much different.  I really also like the versitiliy of having a receiver act as a pre/pro because if, for some reason you need the extra amplification you've got it.  I need my Denon 3802 to power the rear surrounds and my 5 channel amp does the zone 2 speakers.  I've also got a Stratos for the main left and right.  To me, this decision would be made by budget unless I was really blown away by some high end unit it would be really hard for me to justify potentially 10 time more cost.  I mean, I could get an HK AVR130 which does all the 5.1 stuff, logic 7, PLII, and VMAx for $325.  It might not have the input versitility you're looking for but for less than $400 you could get the AVR230 which adds component video switching as well.

As for the balanced input/output question this is directly from Lexicon:

"By using balanced audio connections between the digital controller and the power amplifier, the potential for audio interference is minimized. For systems utilizing amplified speakers, balanced connections will eliminate noise introduced on cables between the digital controller and speakers."

[Marbles]

The Ref 50 is a pre/pro only, the Pioneer Elite is a receiver

The Elite is 5.1 channel and the Ref 50 is 7.1

I mainly used the Elite as a pre/pro with external amps...I very much liked it in this mode..currently I have it in my master bedroom in a 3 speaker setup as a receiver.

The only reason I bought the Ref 50 was to go to a 7.1 setup.

For HT they are both similar sounding (as pre/pro's) to me, but I did not A/B them.

If I only needed 5.1 and didn't need PL2, then the VSX27 would be a great $500 solution (used).


Seems like there is a bit of a buzz about that Panny 45.   I have not heard it, but that might be a good solution too.

[Rob Babcock]

The price gulf between a pretty nice receiver and a Lexicon prepro is very wide!   IF you can afford it, I'm sure you'd be delighted with the Lexicon or Sunfire, but using a rec as prepro with separate amps lets you cut out the weak section of the receiver (ie the amps).

There's a lot of good rec's out there you could use as pre/pre (I've used a Denon 3802 with very good results, but I never used the rec's own amps...).

[randog]

Hey Rob, I really can't afford the names I dropped unless I go used (like pre-PLII used), but I want to understand the differences without throwing a receiver's internal amplification into the mix. In other words, I want to know if that is the main weak link in the cheaper setups and not their sonic capabilities.

For instance, if there is a big spread in the sonics between the 2 categories, an old Lexicon DC-1 can be had for around $700- $800 now with DD and DTS, but no PLII. They do, however, have their own version of Logic 7 which got great reviews. But all those reviews were before the advent of PLII (maybe even PLI).

It's been hard to get feedback from someone who has experience with the whole range. That's why I asked Marbles who is the only one I know with one in each category. From what you say, Marbles, it sounds like the HT sonics and processing may be comparable between your B&K and Panasonic, eh?

Keep in mind I have a 2-channel amp for the mains already and plan to get a 2-channel preamp with bypass for the mains as well. Therefore, the options I was throwing around for best 5.1 sound include:

1. A newer model mass-production receiver (Panasonic. Denon, etc) for all pre/pro duties and surround amplification-only.

2. An older (used) higher-end receiver (B&K AVR305 or similar) for all pre/pro duties and surround amplification-only.

3. An older (used) higher-end pre/pro and invest in more amps for surrounds.

4. A newer model mass-production receiver used as a pre/pro only and invest in more amps for surrounds.

Since I am only going 5.1, it gives me more options to employ older technology... hence all the options. Knowing that, what would you vote for (1-4) assuming I could keep them all within my budget?

Thanks,
Randog

[Marbles]

Marbles, it sounds like the HT sonics and processing may be comparable between your B&K and Panasonic, eh?
...

Yea, I think that's correct, except it was a Pioneer Elite.  At least I could be equally happy with each in a 5.1 setting.

If it were me, I would look at a used receiver for power to the center and surrounds.

Actually according to the DAM, that modded Panny would be just the thing.

I have not heard the Panny 45 myself.

[byteme]

Randog,

Based on your last post I'd say the route to go would be a good mass market receiver.  The decoding technology is in the chips and the chipsets are not going to be all that different from low end to high end.  In some cases they may be but for the most part you're going to get almost the same thing.  It's the surrounding components and the 2 channel quality and the better amplification that you're paying for.  If you're using a receiver to do power to the surrounds only (like I do with my Denon 3802) there will be plenty of headroom in the reciever because you are basically running it 2 channel only.  So, you can look at and use the 2 channel specs on the reciever.

If it were me I'd be going HK for a receiver with whatever bells and whistles you need, just make sure it has 7.1 pre outs and you'll be set.  Take the rest of the dough and use some on that preamp - altough, don't limit youself to ONLY preamps with HT passthrough, you can just as easily set up almost any preamp to "pass thru" and thus get whatever preamp sounds best to you.

[MaxCast]

One other thing to keep in mind is what a particular receiver or pre/pro will do to the 5.1 ins.  The cleaner the better for your SACD or DVD-A.

[randog]

Marbles, it sounds like the HT sonics and processing may be comparable between your B&K and Panasonic, eh?
...

Yea, I think that's correct, except it was a Pioneer Elite.  At least I could be equally happy with each in a 5.1 setting.

Oops!    I meant Pioneer. I was thinking panny when I wrote panasonic but was really thinking Panny was a nickname for Pioneer when I wrote it... so what is a panny anyway?  

[randog]

Actually according to the DAM, that modded Panny would be just the thing.

I have not heard the Panny 45 myself.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the DAM? And what modded Panny are you referring to? Did you switch gears to refer to an aftermarket unit modification?

By Panny 45 are you referring to the Pioneer VSX-45TX?

Thanks,
Randog

[bubba966]

The DAM is the Denver Audio Mafia.

And Panny is short for Panasonic, has nothing to do with Pioneer.