Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] random question on audio/visual receivers...

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Mark Rages wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:35:28AM -0600, Jonathan King wrote:
> > 
> > Feel free not to read this unless you're an AV kind of geek who doesn't
> > insist on a system that costs more than I earn in a month.
> 
> Ooh, this one's calling to me.

I knew it would speak to somebody out there...
 
> > We now have:
> > 
> >    one 5-disc DVD player (Panasonic) that has optical audio 
> >    and both component video and S-video outputs but is not a 
> >    progressive scan unit.
> 
> Progressive scan is only meaningful with component video.  It's a
> pretty subtle difference anyway, unless you've got a giant TV.

27 inch Panasonic, which is why I took a pass on progressive scan
in the first place.
 
> >    one newish VCR of no special distinction
> 
> >    one 1995-era Panasonic TV that has 2 sets of normal audio/visual
> >    jacks and one (then revolutionary) S-video input
> 
> If I may ask, how many inches?

27 inches.  This is the Panasonic 27SF12T.
 
> >    one 1992-era (and dying) JVC mini-system that is now minus the
> >    CD-player, has no video inputs, but does have a decent pair of
> >    8-ohm speakers
> 
> No JVC speaker is decent! In fact, there are very few speakers
> from Japan that sound very good.  I think it has to with concern
> with specs over subjective sound.

OK, so I should point out that this is the kind of advice that is unlikely 
to help me.  I am aware that there are better speakers around, but with 
few exceptions you get what you pay for, and I'm not willing to pay for
much better yet.  The receiver is "job one" as it were.
  
> >    one ancient turn-table that is our only means of playing older
> >    vinyl that never did come out on CD.
> 
> Cool. You should dub your favorite stuff to CD, out of priciple. 

I'd forgotten a previous thread here where it was suggested that we get
some kind of line-in pre-ampy thing and then dub these in on the computer
as opposed to worrying about juggling another component on the stereo.
 
> > The TV will stick around until HDTV really arrives; we can
> > conceive of eventually getting a 5-speaker surround set-up,
> > but are likely just to re-use our current speakers and maybe
> > spring for a cheaper sub-woofer. 
> 
> Does 5-speaker surround really improve the movie experience?

I wouldn't really know.  I enjoy stereo, and have discovered that music 
(and presumably movies) can sound much better if your bass doesn't roll 
off at 100 Hz, but at the moment I don't know where I'd put 5 speakers,
but I leave it as a theoretical possibility down the line.

[snip]

> I'm sharing this personal opinion in hopes you'll not buy 5 sepakers
> just cause there's a whole bunch of 'em at the Best Buy.

No chance of that since the nearest Best Buy is (I'm guessing) 120 miles 
away. :-)
  
> > So far, my guess is that the obvious thing to do here is to get a good
> > receiver that can connect anything we have or are likely to get to
> > everything else we have or are likely to get in the next 5 years
> > at least.  I was a bit surprised to find out that this would
> > probably cost between $250 and $300, but receivers these days
> > are apparently way more sophisticated than when I was a youth.
> 
> It's far from obvious to me; why do you need video switching inthe
> receiver?

Well, I would have assumed this would simplify some things a lot; maybe it
doesn't?  We do have a camcorder that does get used sometimes, and can
imagine getting something tivo-like, or maybe bail on cable one day for
better satellite service, or...

> You said your TV has two composite and one S-vid input. Connect the DVD
> player to the S-video input and the VCR to the composite input.

OK, now that doesn't seem to work.  When you have the S-video jack on the 
set, the composite input doesn't get used.  (This *is* a 1996 TV...).

I had also assumed it was a better idea to run the coax cable
into the receiver than to run it through the TV (or the VCR) and pipe
back the audio on red/white jacks.
 
> Now that you no longer need video switching in the receiver, 

Perhaps; see above.

> I suggest you get an audio-only one.  For the same price as the new
> plastic marvel receivers, you can get a used integrated amplifier of
> very high quality, perhaps from an american or british maker. 

Maybe, but then I would have no idea what to get in that universe, and my
searches on the web or via deja suggest that this is the way to creeping
featurism of a different kind.  (E.g., you'd then notice that your 
speakers were sup bar and immediately end up shelling out money for more 
expensive ones...but this is for a family room.)


> You will find such an amplifier to have a high-quality phono preamp,
> because it was regarded as the centerpiece of an audio design in those
> days, not a checkbox on a featurelist.

That is a reasonable point; is there a specific model you would suggest 
that could be gotten in Columbia, the Fargo of Missouri? :-)
 
> If you get a new enough integrated amplifier, you can even get
> remote control!

Not sure what that means; call me a Phillistine, but I really do want
a remote in any case.
  
> > Anyway, the 3 most likely candidates at the moment are:
> > 
> > Onkyo TX-SR500     ($300)
> > Panasonic SA-HE100 ($300)
> > Pioneer VSX D711   ($250 on sale)

[snippage]

> Don't judge audio without hearing it.  Past a certain level, specs are
> essentially worthless for audio.

Oh, I agree with the idea of hearing it first for sure.  But there's a 
limit to how much time I can mess around in stores given the family
and all, so I wanted to focus on likely suspects in a known price range 
first.

>  That said, Onkyo make some great sounding stuff.  About the speaker
> impedance thing, short answer: your speakers are fine with any of the
> receivers. 6 ohms is a minimum.

Ah;  I should have realized that.
 
> ( Long story: Home audio amplifiers are *voltage* amplifiers.

Thanks for the summary; that shoul also help somebody else some day, too.

> > Now, since all of these provide S-video out, I'm going to get a pretty
> > good picture since I have an S-video set (this I've already witnessed).
> > Composite video is alleged to provide an even better picture, but I
> > can't use that right now; HDTV sets, however, will apparently make
> > this a standard.  So does anybody out there have any tips here?  Is
> > component (RGB) video so much better than S-video that I'll kick myself
> > for not having it down the line?  Is there anything else I'm missing here
> > or anything else I should be considering?
> 
> Once again, the amplifier's switching circuits can only degrade your
> video.  

Can you really degrade VHS or Mediacom non-digital cable and notice? :-)

> Get the used high-quality amplifier.

I understand the advice, but that's replacing a well-posed problem with
an ill-posed problem since I have not a clue about what to care about
in low-end high-end audio.

> When the sexy technology comes along, you can ebay it for whatever you
> paid for it.  Then cry as you buy your panafonix receiver with more
> controls than the space shuttle and a expected lifetime of 18 months.

Actually, this was the reason for trying to get a "decent" one in the 
first place (e.g., Pioneer, Onkyo) rather than something with an 18-month 
half-life.  I swear I will never buy another JVC anything again after 
having to turf a VCR and a DVD player of theirs within 2 years.
 
> Or consider putting the money to better speakers.  The only advice
> I can give is to listen to them first, carefully and for a long
> time.  Speakers that sound great at first can give you a headache
> after an hour.  Oh, and don't buy Bose.

I don't have money enough to buy Bose (it's clear you pay for marketing 
there).  I can see the point of better speakers, but that sounds like a 
step two where I'm still stuck at step one.

Thanks for the tips.

jking

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/