[dukeReinhardt]

is it absolutely impossible to use an amp for 2.1? i've read of some convoluted ways of doing it, so not entirely sure...
 
my motherboard doesn't have digital out, so currently my only quality audio option is hdmi from my graphics card. the other option is a titanium hd for £80 (good deal imo) with an amp. i'd necessarily need to get a sound card because evidently amps don't use hdmi, it's either analog or optical with them (though i'd like to avoid sound cards unless it's my best option - it would slightly block airflow to my graphics card).
 
basically it seems the easiest (or maybe only?) way to do things is to go for an hdmi avr. i need only the 2.1 audio - no video or surround. just because of that sub i need to buy a more expensive avr with a less impressive amp? do people even use hdmi just for 2.1 audio? anyway obviously this seems to be a weak compromise since avrs are expensive for other features, and i'll be using so few of their capabilities and getting worse amping for the same price.
 
if only there were a 2.1 channel amp out there that could take hdmi signals o.o!!
 
btw when you hook up a graphics card via hdmi for audio, does it send video signals as well? as in does it go into multimonitor mode/start using more power, or does it just send audio signals?

 

[trog]

If the active sub has high level (speaker wire) input, any stereo amp would do
http://www.avforums.com/forums/hi-fi-systems-separates/1382383-can-you-connect-active-sub-any-stereo-amp.html
Peeps do this with tiny cute T-Amps all the time

 

[dukeReinhardt]

oh i read that and for some reason it sounded much more complicated than you make it sound . thanks.
 
also if i got say a £50 amp off ebay, how might that compare to a £130~£150 avr with hdmi? thing is amps keep getting sold cheaply while hdmi avrs seem to cost loaaads. but as i said i don't necessarily want a sound card (on the other hand i don't necessarily know how much hdmi affects the graphics card)

 

[PurpleAngel]

Quote:

Is it absolutely impossible to use an amp for 2.1? I've read of some convoluted ways of doing it, so not entirely sure...
my motherboard doesn't have digital out, so currently my only quality audio option is HDMI from my graphics card. the other option is a Titanium HD for £80 (good deal imo) with an amp. I'd necessarily need to get a sound card because evidently amps don't use HDMI, it's either analog or optical with them (though I'd like to avoid sound cards unless it's my best option - it would slightly block airflow to my graphics card).
basically it seems the easiest (or maybe only?) way to do things is to go for an HDMI avr. i need only the 2.1 audio - no video or surround. just because of that sub i need to buy a more expensive avr with a less impressive amp? do people even use hdmi just for 2.1 audio? anyway obviously this seems to be a weak compromise since avrs are expensive for other features, and I'll be using so few of their capabilities and getting worse amping for the same price.
If only there were a 2.1 channel amp out there that could take HDMI signals o.o!!
btw when you hook up a graphics card via HDMI for audio, does it send video signals as well? as in does it go into multi-monitor mode/start using more power, or does it just send audio signals?

Your question(s) are a little hard to follow.
I'm guessing you want to hook up a 2.1 speaker system to your PC computer?
Computer 2.1 speaker setup are easy to connect to a computer.
Home Audio 2.1 speaker setup is way easier if you use a receiver.
As a sound card is optional, I'm assuming this setup is just for music?
Do you own a 2.1 speaker system or your going to buy a 2.1 system?
To connect a computer to a receiver you can use Analog, USB & HDMI.
Budget for everything?

 

[dukeReinhardt]

haha sorry, i tend to ramble a bit. budget is flexible, and yes i want to hook up 2.1 speakers to my pc.
 
my preferred solution is to buy used passive bookshelves, though i don't need help looking for models. all i'm doing here in this thread is weighing up my options for hooking the system up to my pc, which are: 1. avr attached to my graphics card, or 2. a stereo amp hooked up to a sound card (i don't own a sound card).
 
at this stage i'm asking if i connect an avr via hdmi, would this put strain on the graphics card in any way? i.e would it send a video signal via hdmi even though i'd only use the audio component of the signal?

the other thing i want to know is how a £50 used amp might compare to a ~£150 used hdmi avr.

 

[dukeReinhardt]

.. double post

 

[PurpleAngel]

Quote:

haha sorry, i tend to ramble a bit. budget is flexible, and yes i want to hook up 2.1 speakers to my pc.
 
my preferred solution is to buy used passive bookshelves, though i don't need help looking for models. all i'm doing here in this thread is weighing up my options for hooking the system up to my pc, which are: 1. avr attached to my graphics card, or 2. a stereo amp hooked up to a sound card (i don't own a sound card).
 
at this stage i'm asking if i connect an avr via hdmi, would this put strain on the graphics card in any way? i.e would it send a video signal via hdmi even though i'd only use the audio component of the signal?

the other thing i want to know is how a £50 used amp might compare to a ~£150 used hdmi avr.

If you where willing to just use a 2.0 setup, it would make thinks easier for connecting to the PC.
The cash that would have gone for the sub-woofer would be spend for a better 2.0.
HDMI audio would not (or at least should not) put a strain on the video.
Could you not just go HDMI from computer to A/V receiver, then HDMI from A/V receiver to TV/monitor?
Older and vintage receivers can get you some good sounding audio, might need to add a decent DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) between the computer and the receiver ($55-$85).

 

[dukeReinhardt]

well the sub is definite but it comes later, so it's not really in my budget. besides, as i said i'm flexible, and just currently browsing ebay for good deals.
 
i don't want to use hdmi for my monitor because it's 1080p 120hz, whereas hdmi is typically limited to 24hz at the same resolution. hdmi should technically do 60hz at that resolution with the latest 1.4a revision, but most hardware isn't so updated. 60hz is still less than desirable anyway in my case. but if hdmi puts no strain on my gpu then it shouldn't matter; i'd run video off dvi and audio off hdmi with no performance issues.
 
i think adding a dac would defeat the purpose of me going with avr since removing a separate dac/sound card from the equation is one of my primary objectives in going with an hdmi connected avr. i just want to know how much more you have to pay for an hdmi avr than a stereo amp to get a similar level of sq. if the difference is £100 or thereabouts, i'd happily take the avr option.
 
thanks

 

[PurpleAngel]

Quote:

well the sub is definite but it comes later, so it's not really in my budget. besides, as i said I'm flexible, and just currently browsing eBay for good deals.
 
I don't want to use HDMI for my monitor because it's 1080p 120hz, whereas HDMI is typically limited to 24hz at the same resolution. HDMI should technically do 60hz at that resolution with the latest 1.4a revision, but most hardware isn't so updated. 60hz is still less than desirable anyway in my case. but if HDMI puts no strain on my GPU then it shouldn't matter; I'd run video off DVI and audio off hdmi with no performance issues.
 
i think adding a HDMI would defeat the purpose of me going with AVR since removing a separate DAC/sound card from the equation is one of my primary objectives in going with an HDMI connected AVR. i just want to know how much more you have to pay for an HDMI AVR than a stereo amp to get a similar level of sq. if the difference is £100 or thereabouts, i'd happily take the AVR option.

I'm not an expert on HDMI, but I think you might be using 24Hz when it should be saying 24 fps (frames per second).
As everyone in the world uses HDMI as the main (and best) connection to LCD/LED TVs, which the TV can be 60hz, 120hz, 240hz & 480hz, which are all multiples of 24.
HMDI simple transfers digital data (zero & ones), where as I believe Hz (Hertz) is a refresh rate.
 
If you went with a modern A/V receiver and use HDMI connection, then of course you would not need an sound card or external add-on DAC.
 
The idea for an external DAC was because computers usually come with a low cost built in DAC and if you went with an older low cost receiver that was only analog, adding a modern decently quality DAC would improve the audio quality.
Even moderatly priced modern A/V receivers usually come with barely decent (low cost) DACs
 
The best place to get good info on receivers (new and used) is AVSforum and AVforum.

 

[dukeReinhardt]

thanks for the response.
 
hdmi is a transfer protocol with a physical limit of 60fps at 1080p or 24fps in the vast majority of devices. hdmi may be the best for tvs, but as i am a pc user dvi-d trumps this, and displayport is even better than that. since my monitor is 120hz non-interlaced, it happily displays 120fps via dvi-d, something i couldn't have over hdmi due to aforementioned bandwidth limitations. 120hz or 240hz tvs actually take a 24fps or 60fps signal from the hdmi source and add blended frames in-between to give the impression of 120fps or 240fps.
 
i'll probably go and ask avforums what they think of avr vs amp value then, thanks for the tip!