Hi,
Just joined this community after lurking for a bit.

The living room media set up is driven from a HTPC (Asus P5K VM motherboard, Windows 7 64-bit, W7 Media Centre) with SPDIF out to an off the shelf Pioneer 5.1 surround sound amp (which was part of a retail package, so it's nothing flash). The PC will remain the centre of the setup for some time to come, because the family are basically hooked on the remote control navigation of the music collection especially the 7 and 8 year old kids (and to be honest, me too!). I'm slowly re-ripping it from CD and vinyl to 320k MP3 (works for us and is more compatible than FLAC with a windows Media Centre setup).

Anyway, as part of my (under the radar) campaign to upgrade over time, I'm wondering about that Pioneer amp, and possible replacements. We listen to a lot more stereo (music and TV) than 5.1 (couple DVDs a week, most of them not exactly immersive surround sound experiences anyway), so I'm wondering if there's anything affordable that fits the bill.

At the moment my only option for digital out from the computer is SPDIF (onboard sound is Realtek ALC 883, 8-channel High-Definition Audio CODEC) which is running at 48k (the Pioneer can't go any higher). I can't imagine that I need any higher than that anyway.

The thing is, all the AV receiver's are just huge, with way more inputs than we need, or are ever likely to need. Anybody know of anything more cut-down in this space? The nice thing about the Pioneer is that it's primarily geared around digital in from a DVD player (which I'm using) and a couple of other stereo channels (CD, AUX), and so it's standard width (470mm or so) and a sensible height (you know, 60mm, not 200+!).

As a side-question, there seems in the audiophile world to be some idea that using a 5.1 setup to listen to stereo is some sort of crime against music - is it? Is there any objective reason for thinking that using the front L/R for stereo is a bad idea?

Cheers

davidos

Sounds like you already have all you need for the foreseeable future. Why do you want to upgrade your receiver? The best reason to upgrade given the times I'd think would be HDMI compatibility, but you'd need an HDMI device for your PC as well (and that's assuming you already have an HDMI/DVI monitor or TV). If you wanna do that (and I don't think it would suit you, SPDIF seems perfectly OK for your use), then the new ATI 5000 series graphics cards would be best. The problem is that the cheapest now is about $120 or so, so you'd better wait a few months until the lower end ones come out which would be perfectly acceptable and still light years ahead of the G33 GPU you have.


What do they say? That just the fact of having a 5.1 system but using the two fronts only for stereo music is worse than just having two speakers? Cause that's just crazy.

I would think they mean using 5.1 with something like Dolby pro-logic or other signal cloning techniques to put audio out to all 6 channels. Using just left, right and sub (2.1) for listening to music would be identical even if the rear and center speakers were physically disconnected. Just putting a video screen between the left and right speakers will cause some audiophiles anguish. I am sure others would object to using a receiver for music too (in favor of bi-amping each ear with its own pair of 1,000 watt amps using 99.9% Pure Virgin Gold for wires, etc). Who knows what fantasies run rampant through a true audiophile's mind? Probably varies with their medication level anyway. Maybe someone could do a study..

As for the size issue, that was one of my criteria for the receiver I chose for my HTPC, the Yamaha RX-V463 which at 435mm x 150mm x 355mm was the smallest I found with the inputs I wanted. However the HDMI is only 1.2a and recently I find myself wishing it had HDMI v1.3. I never use the HDMI so it isn't a big concern, but I might use it if it had 1.3 and I got Digital Cable or FiOS. Mostly I use mine for music with the occassional DVD and sometimes ATSC cable. SPDIF and HDMI by-pass the on-board sound of the PC so only the decoder in the receiver matters. The Yamaha uses Burr-Brown 192kHz/24-bit DACs which are fairly well regarded (from my reading) in home theatre. There seems to be little difference in an amps sound quality these days from brand to brand though HDMI quality does vary, so buy the one with the other features you need, and as your Pioneer is meeting your needs then I would stick with it and maybe spend that upgrade money on speakers, a bigger monitor, or something that would be a more noticeable upgrade.

If the system you have sounds good and gives you pleasure, enjoy it!

Just seems like it's probably the part that might make the biggest difference. But...


... from what you say here, seems like the sound chips are most likely the 'weakest link'. Doesn't using SPDIF get around that - all 'enhancements' are turned off, so it should just be whatever is in the digital signal, I thought, but I see from other comments elsewhere that it's hard to be sure.

You're right though... the budget on getting this setup in the first place had to include TV tuner cards, hard drive, OS (twice, given the timing - Vista, then W7), and so on, so high end graphics/sound cards with HDMI wasn't on the agenda. But all that stuff will be commodity pretty soon, I would guess, and I can worry about it then.


Well... it's all about having separate paths and amps and uh... yes, it sounds crazy. There are units which claim to be 5.1 or 7.1 but with a focus on music. This sort of thing. Harder even than that to stomach is the idea of having a stereo amp and adding a 3 channel amp to it, so you have to get this and this. (How convenient.)

So... anyway, that's one vote for "Don't be crazy", which is useful.

Maybe I should worry about speakers first (currently experimenting with some old Mission 930i's that I've had for about 100 years - still good though!).

There are several reasons for this. None of which are really built upon firm foundations.

1. Multichannel doesn't sell as well as stereo in some countries. Places where space is at a premium, such as Japan and the UK
2. Stereo sales people struggle to overcome the objection that two speakers in the room are two too many
3. There's more profit to be made from two big boxes from a boutique loudspeaker maker than a multichannel or HTiB system
4. Boutique amp makers lack the funds to sign up to Dolby, DTS or THX licenses. It's easier to spin a line about audio quality than admit the company is too small to play with the big boys
5. Boutique amp makers lack the skills to implement multichannel. It's easier to spin a line about audio quality than admit otherwise
6. Audiophiles like their systems locked to the birth of stereo. They rejected quadraphonic in the 1970s, the same people (and it is the same people, just 35 years older and more curmudgeonly) reject multichannel today

Until recently, Hi-Fi News in the UK tried to recommend multichannel products alongside traditional stereo. It backfired so much the magazine has now reverted to its National Geographic look-a-like yellow banded design, harking back to the 1970s. Multichannel is now an afterthought.

Yeah, the most significant difference most probably won't be made by the receiver, but by your speakers. If it is a home theater in a box, then your speakers are probably small satellites. I would upgrade those first. The part about what audiophiles say about 5.1 vs a "dedicated" stereo setup is baloney, for my money.



I wasn't saying anything about the quality of the sound chips actually. If you're outputting digital anyway, there's no DAC or analog audio involved in the PC, so an SPDIF output will be just as good as an HDMI output for 44.1-96 kHz stereo audio (depending on the capabilities of the devices, sometimes they can't do all sampling rates they should, like your SPDIF device can't do 96). Right now the ATI devices are the most compatible of all HDMI devices I've tried (I don't know about Intel, but you can't have that unless you switch motherboards anyway). All ATI 5000 series HDMI devices will be the same across the line, so my point was that since they're graphic cards primarily, you might not need even the cheapest that's available now (the 5750 which is still very powerful for an HTPC).

If you can, more power wouldn't hurt directly but for instance if you want a fanless solution either you'd have to buy an aftermarket cooler or wait and see if they come up with one. It's also a double slot and many HTPC users use smaller cases, and your mobo is mATX which already has limited expansion slots. The 5600 or even 5500 series that will eventually come out should be perfect HTPC cards, and will come very cheap and will run very cool. I have a 4670 and have power to spare for HTPC use even when using GPU-intensive filters like madVR (video renderer) or ffdshow video processing.

I think the implication was a bit crazier than that. It wasn't multichannel music vs. stereo music what the OP was told about. It seems it was that listening to a dedicated stereo setup with only 2 speakers and separate amps would be better than listening to stereo music via a receiver and a 5.1 setup, using only the front stereo speakers.

Ths size thing is an issue - some of those AV receiver things are just huge - often, it seems, simply because they have a gazillion connections on the back panel and the thing needs to be 200mm (8in) high to accommodate them.

That's hilarious!!

I'll look into speakers - it was indeed HTIB - we'd arrived in a new country with different electricity and no AV/stereo kit so needed to get set up quickly at a time when convenience was more important than anything else (small kids!). Now that I have time to think about things more, I want to evolve things towards something better. Speakers are probably the place to start.
Re the baloney... it seems you're not alone - and I can't see why there would be a difference other than that for the same money, presumably a dedicated stereo amp is better than 2 channels of a 5.1 box. But in the real world where you only want one box, well... we need 5.1 often enough to have it.


I'm pretty sure the chips can do 96kHz. When the time comes to upgrade the motherboard, even HDMI might be old hat.

Off topic: Quoting posts is hard on here.


You're right about the expansion slots - there are two tuners and a double height graphics card in there already, so no more room for now, but I suppose if I upgraded the graphics card then I could go there.

One thing, sometimes HTIB speakers and amps are matched, maybe you should look first at your receiver and speakers' specs, especially impedance and power. It's pretty likely that your receiver will be able to drive other speakers though. What is the model of the receiver and speakers, by the way?

Yes, but the back-story behind that implication is based on a lack of ability in those making and selling stereo equipment. The FUD stories they spread about the other loudspeakers in the room acting as passive radiators when playing stereo are just there to mask the fact that they lack the wherewithal to deliver multichannel.

I don't know who's holding back here... I suspect it's the audiophile believers. The magazines were all pro multichannel for a while - it gives them the chance to discuss more products and new technologies (and a multichannel speaker review takes up more space than a stereo speaker review). Many of the audiophile companies also make (or made) multichannel products. But that seems to be on the wane and even Japanese companies that abandoned two-channel have readopted it again for some markets.

Pioneer VSX C301. It's obviously a local variant of some sort (Australia-NZ) because it has multiple RCA inputs rather than 4 x SCART which are described in various online reviews.

I've actually dug out an old pair of Mission 930i speakers now (from my single days...), which have the same impedance (6 ohm). I'm not in a position to do any kind of blind test, but I'm pretty sure just looking at them that they'll do a better job than the HTiB front L/R pair (which are puny by comparison). The key will obviously be to set the sound levels up right for 5.1 so these things don't drown everything else out. Probably need to remove or de-emphasize the sub-woofer too.

Seems to me getting back to the AV Receiver size and inputs thing that there'd be a market (maybe a small one admittedly) for amps with much reduced input compared to those giant AV receiver monoliths.

I suppose there is the argument that for the same money a stereo amp will probably be better than two channels of a 5.1 or 7.1 box, just because it needs less stuff, so that stuff might be better. So maybe there's a 50% premium or something to get equivalent stereo from an AV receiver. But then, when did the cost ever enter into the equation with audiophiles?

You would think that, but I think volume also affects the prices/costs here. I tried to get a simple stereo receiver and couldn't find one (new) that was significantly cheaper than a 5.1 receiver which has HDMI, and even the TrueHD and DTS-HD capable receivers are inexpensive nowadays. I like Class D amps though, and for $500 you can get a perfectly good stereo Rotel amp, but that's just an amp, and it's still more expensive than mid-end multichannel receivers.

Anyway, I think you're fine the way you are now. The next significant upgrade I think would be lossless digital multichannel which implies HDMI, and for that you'll need to update more than the receiver. I'd do it only if you plan on watching a lot of bluray content or when you get a new HDTV anyway.

BTW the Pioneer claims in the manual to have fairly hefty 75W per channel output all in a case only 70mm high - so it will do for now, definitely, even with better speakers.

This has been really useful - thanks for the input. I can see that bluray might push us in that direction in time, but not right now. It's great to have found this forum - sane advice in a crazy world!