[kelly]

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and was wondering how other people fellt.

I know some of you like the convenience of receivers but in my opinion most of those conveniences can be easily set up within a good macro-remote. With that taken care of, the only real advantage of a receiver to me, is cost.

Here's what I'd like to see:

One box per source component:
In an ideal world, this would cover all DVD and CD formats, but as it is I think you need at least two to get by if you really want quality.

A remote controlled switchbox/component selector with volume control:
I'm irritated that these aren't more available and more affordable on the market. And if you have multiple component video sources, you're SOL. Some guys in the DIY forums are taking this problem on and I plan to investigate their solutions.

Multichannel Audio Processor:
If they'll ever let go, you should be able to get SACD and DVD-A in this piece and do all your D-A conversion here. But even if they don't, you could always accept 5.1 analog in as well as a digital in (optical or coax) to take from the switcher mentioned above. This box needs to be able to process DTS, Dolby Digital and Dolby Pro Logic at a minimum. When Pro Logic was first introduced, boxes that did only processing were fairly common. Now they're somewhat rare. You almost have to buy the combined pre/pro (switcher, preamp, processor) these days. I'm not sure why this is and I wonder if you can get good enough PC components to make a home made solution work.

Video processor:
There are several very expensive solutions to this but the more affordable answer seems to be a PC. Here you can accept input from digital sources and do the deinterlacing and scaling to the appropriate resolution. Better systems also do digital masking (for "true black" bars) and motion adaptive interpolation/line doubling. Regardless, I think this is a necessary component for a good AV system.

Output devices:
Speakers, powered sub, monitor of choice (projector, plasma, whatever).

My philosophy is that seperating these pieces make upgrading more effecient. The problem I'm having now, though, is that the technology is outpacing my income and even these little $400 receivers from Best Buy are tempting.

So what do you guys think?

 

[guzzler]

don't really understand what you're asking, but is it not restating what audio folks have known for years: seperates are always better than integrateds ??

g

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by guzzler don't really understand what you're asking, but is it not restating what audio folks have known for years: seperates are always better than integrateds ??

Separates make the process of upgrading easier. But my experience tells me not always you get the better sound out of separates. These days, there are many hi-end integrateds available that can compete with ill-put together seprates. I'd say, in general, separates have more room to screw up ( of you can futz infinitely ).

Having said that, ultimately, inteligently put together SOTA separates have better chance sounding better than integrateds.

 

[kelly]

I have found it unwise to make generalizations about audio equipment. Generalizations are generally true and they're great for the 80/20 rule, but when you're ass deep into a hobby like we are into audio equipment, that last 20% is worth exploring.

Besides, if seperates are always better then why are there so few processors seperated from the preamp/switcher? A lot of people must think those two components can be combined without a loss in quality.

Another advantage to doing a PC for an audio processor would be the ability to have Dolby Headphone with all audio sources... something else to consider. Of course, I'd need a PC that could accept 5.1 channels of analog (6 RCA) and optical and output 5.1 channels of analog. I haven't seen many soundcards with 12 RCA jacks on them but I'm sure they exist if I look hard enough. Then there's the question of quality.

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Besides, if seperates are always better then why are there so few processors seperated from the preamp/switcher? A lot of people must think those two components can be combined without a loss in quality.

My guess is that mostly driven by cost. Separate chassis costs more. I am not entirely sold on putting noisy video circuitry next to preamp secion is good for signal integrity. Also, putting more *stuff* in one chassis compromises channel separation and size of power supply.
I just think for HT market, features and ergonomics take more priority than the ultimate sonic performance.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly So what do you guys think?

To tell the truth I really like receivers especially for home theater. I think you get a lot for your money, and they are serious space savers also. And, the fact that they are so mass produced, and everybody is selling them (EBAY) you can walk into the door of an audio store, and almost name your price if you are smart. Last weekend a buddy of mine walked out of Ultimate Electronics with a Yamaha RX-V1000 for $425.00; now that is a deal.

 

[guzzler]

perhaps not now with receivers and the like, but when it was just stereo amps seperates as a pretty general rule (i know we've been warned about generalisation) tended to sound better...

it could be like what happened to computers though as things got more complicated, more became integrated so as to prevent compatibility issues perhaps...

g

 

[Howie]

Kelly. In what price range are you actually looking at? That will make everything easier to answer.

Quote:

One box per source component

There are more and more "universal" players coming out. In fact almost EVERYONE is coming out with them. There's the Linn Unidisk. Lexicon came out with a player. And many more scheduled. The problem is that a player that can deliver top notch 2ch redbook, 2ch SACD, do multichannel SACD, and deliver DVD performance is very hard and very pricey to make. Audiophiles wouldn't care too much about the DVD performance (since it would probably be good enough) but to make a player that audiophiles would be happy with in regards to 2ch redbook and SACD is already a difficult task not to mention multichannel and DVDA ability. Video performance wise, it might be hard to beat the players that are priced 3-5X less (no reason why videophiles won't spring for those). So it depends on whether you need the absolute best in everything.

It's like buying the best car in the world (there's always something of the car that can be "upgraded")

A lot of remote controls bundled with receivers are quite good and useable. Touchscreens generally cost a lot more that's all.

Separating pieces does make upgrade more efficient. If your universal player goes down you're screwed for everything. Receivers vs separates is really based on value. Keep in mind that you also need to invest in cables when you go the separate route.

Budget is everything. If you have enough money to go separates then do so.

 

[kelly]

Well, here's what I'm thinking right now. I presently have a receiver that does Dolby Digital and a standalone DVD player so I have something to get me by while I'm doing all this.

Sources:
1. I have a modded SACD player that cost me a good bit of money. It doesn't do DVD or DVD-A but this is purely for music listening. (analog rca audio pair only)
2. Old VHS deck. (composite->s-video, analog audio pair)
3. Laserdisc player. (s-video, ac-3/rf, optical)
4. Video game systems (GC does component/analog audio, PS2 does component/optical audio, older game systems do s-video and analog audio pair)
5. DSS/Tivo (s-video, optical)

Control:
I recently purchased a Philips Pronto Neo remote that has learning and macro capability.

Switching:
I'm looking at a couple of switchers that do component and also are remote controllable. Unfortunately to get all the component inputs I need AND all the s-video, it looks like I would need two switchboxes. I can use my current receiver to do s-video switching until I replace that piece.

Video Processing:
I'm thinking of building an HTPC around the Radeon 9700 video card and Holo3D capture/HDTV card. This card has component in and does hardware deinterlacing via the FLI2300 (latest Fajourda) processor. I would also have dScaler and trimming programs installed as well as an IR receiver. This would allow me to scale all my video sources to display 800x600 progressive/60hz on the projector.

Audio Processing:
This is the tricky part. I want to believe this can be done in high quality on the PC but I haven't seen much in the way of good audio cards that do 5.1 channel in (this would be ideal because I could use my CD player to do 5.1 surround SACDs that I can't currently do via any kind of digital interface). DTS/Dolby Digital is less tricky with audio cards but I still need to do research into the quality of different models. Most PC guys aren't uberpicky about audio and the M-Audio Revolution is popular in those circles -- I think we'd consider it mediocre.

DVD playback:
DVD playback is best handled inside the HTPC. Since the HTPC is doing the interlacing and scaling anyway and software DVD playback is somewhat upgradable, I think this is a better solution than a standalone player.

Amplification:
I'll need to find a good way to do at least 5 channels. I don't know if this will be a 5-channel amp or some combination of something else. I *really* like Classe for the money but they're still somewhat expensive.

I'm also planning using a headphone amp. I think you guys have heard me talk enough about those already.

Video:
As mentioned before, I'm using a DLP projector that does 800x600 progressive. This will work for any resolution I feed it or the HTPC (including 1080i) but I'd obviously look to upgrade this piece once 720p and 1080i become a little more commonplace. I suspect prices will fall quite a bit in the meantime. I'm planning to order the Stewart Firehawk material soon and build a frame from square aluminum tubing and velux material. I'm looking at 4:3 80x60". This would be about 80x45" in 16:9 mode and I'm thinking of using a movable piece of velux for masking if I'm not happy enough with the blacks and edges that the HTPC produces.

Misc:
I think I'm going to stick with Finest Glass Toslink optical cables and I may pick up some of the BlueJeans cables for the long runs of component, etc. I need. Apparently Lane has a new line of recliners coming out now called Hollywood that have drink holders so I may get one or two of those eventually.

So that's the plan for now... unless one of you guys convinces me to do something else. I don't really work with a budget. I look for the price/performance peaks and see how much money I have to come up with for each piece. Like I said, since I do have a receiver right now, I don't have to move too quickly on any of this. For you receiver freaks, keep in mind that with a learning remote that does macros, I can program the remote to operate all of this stuff with the simplicity of a receiver. (Ie, 1 button press can trigger 5 things in different components.)

Open to suggestions.

 

[grinch]

on audio:
do you really think pc is the way to go for this? it has been my experience that pc's always end up noisey, and even the addition of a simple external dac makes a gigantic difference. i haven't found a sound card that really has great quality, although i am not working with 5.1 so i could be wrong.

i saw the link to zektor in another thread and i was looking around their website and saw this: http://www.zektor.com/mas3/index.htm

5.1 audio switcher, sounds like that *might* be useful for you in the way of sacd/dvd-a/dts/etc. have you looked much into the idea of using a big processor for everything but redbook/sacd? the way i think of it, is possibly like this:

connected to the main svideo/component/optical switcher:
htpc (for movie audio, dts/dolby and the like)
laserdisc (same idea)
ps2, gamecube, whatever (game audio, not sure if they all use dolby or whatever, but i'm sure a processor can decode whatever they output)
vhs (i'm guessing you can just do a direct pass-through, possibly to the surround switch.. but that comes later)

from the output of the above switchbox, run the video to the projector and the audio (digitally) into a processor. i am not sure of models or companies, but i am pretty sure that big solid-state processors are made, sort of like an extrenal dac only they decode dolby and dts as well.

now comes the 5.1 switchbox:
sacd surround playback
stereo redbook playback (from your cd player's lovely tubed output stage, or you could probably use its digital stage as a transport to the above processor.. assuming you might want to use the player's outputs to a superior musical playback system: headphones)
the output of the above processor (5.1)


then you can run these into a 5.1 integrated amp, or 5.1 preamps (do they make these?) and then the 5-channel power amp. or you could diy a little box with 5 inputs and outputs, and a 5-channel dact in the middle, then run to the power amp.

dunno, just throwing ideas around in my head.. hope i'm not too far off-base.

 

[kelly]

grinch

I don't really think I need that piece. When you say "main s-video/component/optical" switcher, do you mean the two seperate boxes I have listed?

For audio processing, I only need 1 set of 5.1 ins to a processor and 1 optical input (from the switcher). Stereo audio (from the CDP) will bypass the processor. I shouldn't need any kind of switchbox for that. I only need one set of 5.1 output plus 1 set of stereo analog out for this.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I don't really think I need that piece. When you say "main s-video/component/optical" switcher, do you mean the two seperate boxes I have listed?

actually, i was referring to the zektor you named in the other thread, sorry for the ambiguity. that looks like a really fine piece of equipment and perfect for your situation.

Quote:

For audio processing, I only need 1 set of 5.1 ins to a processor and 1 optical input (from the switcher). Stereo audio (from the CDP) will bypass the processor. I shouldn't need any kind of switchbox for that. I only need one set of 5.1 output plus 1 set of stereo analog out for this.

ah, okay, i understand now. i guess i was thinking of an alternative, for if you couldn't find a processor with analog inputs, which seems like one should be available, though i'm not sure there is. also, how will you use your vcr's sound, i don't believe any vcr's have any kind of digital out?

i hope you can find a processor that has 5.1 inputs, but if you can't i think that 5.1 switchbox might also be useful in utilizing 5.1 outputs of both processor and sacd surround. also, i think a processor with a spare set of stereo outputs would be useful for a headphone amp setup as well. also, if you plan on using software dvd player with dolby headphone, that can easily be enabled and will transport out of the digital out of a soundcard for stereo processing. although, i imagine this might be a tough thing to turn on/off via remote control on an htpc.

[edit]: p.s. you know you want a 6-channel dact

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch ,[edit]: p.s. you know you want a 6-channel dact

6 channel *remote controlled* DACT.

• bent audio

 

[kelly]

Yeah yeah, DACTs are wonderful but unless I'm building a switchbox myself, it's irrelevent.

Here is an audio card I found that does 5.1 input:
http://www.midiman.net/products/m-audio/1010lt.php

The Zektor box I listed in the other thread does not do s-video at all. This is why I mentioned the second switchbox, there. The s-video switchbox also does analog audio so that shouldn't be a problem for the VCR.

I'm tempted to port what few video tapes I have left to CD-ROM and be done with that format, though.

 

[grinch]

actually, i meant the dact could be used as a passive preamp to the 6-channel poweramp. building one into a switchbox wouldn't really do much good, since you'd probably be using that digitally anyway.

as far as processors go, i was thinking something more along the lines of this.. albeit a bit more scaled down for your situation: http://www.audiooutlet.com/product.a...r%20Processors

sound card may work fine, but in my experience they are very noisy in comparison to separate processors. i'd keep this in mind, especially if you plan on running sacd through it as well.