[Poison Shroom]

Hey guys I have no idea what to get to the the most bang for my buck to buy a receiver, stereo speakers, a sub and small 5.1 speakers.
 
I'd like to get a receiver capable of of 5.1 surround sound. I want optical audio in (preferably 3 but at least 2), RCA audio in, and a stereo mode (never had a 5.1 system so I don't know if this is standard or not.) 
My budget is $800 and I wanted to spend the most of that for the stereo speakers and the sub, getting a receiver and additional speakers for as cheap as possible. Is it even worth buying additional speakers for 5.1 audio they're a bit cheaper then the stereo amp and sub? Room is 10x15, I mainly listen to electronic, rock and rap, generally loud but not blaring as I listen a bit late at night.

 

[Uncle Erik]

If you want bang-for-buck, skip 5.1. That will give you a receiver and a bunch of tiny plastic boxes.

Instead, go two channel. Two good speakers will give you center with good imaging, as well as left and right. You won't miss the rear channels - they're a sales gimmick.

Personally, I'd spend $600 for a pair of Magnepan MMGs and $200 on a used receiver from NAD, Marantz, Adcom, or Rotel. Good stuff; you'll find it at Audiogon. Much better than 5.1 of plastic boxes and mediocre sound.

 

[Merck]

Uncle Erik, would you skip the 5.1 surround even in a system with a more substantial budget that would be used for video media as well? 

 

[scootermafia]

Yeah, I think multichannel is obnoxious.  It just seems manufactured and artificial....2 channel all the way.  Plus your music is ideally played through a good 2 channel setup.

 

[Lenni]

I think the key words here are "bang-for-buck". a two-channel will always be a bang-for-buck than a 5.1 regardless of cost/budget. even if I had a budget of $5k I'd rather spend it to a good pair of floor-standers than to a 5.1 speaker system. if your objective is not bang-for-buck then maybe is a different story, I guess.