2. home-theater
  3. 1354580245

Starting small home theater, need advice

First of all, let me apologize for my lack of knowledge. I have been reading on this site, and realize how much I don't know! So, from a newbie, my apologies.

Now for the question. I've been contemplating installing a VERY mild home theater in my small(ish) family room. (prob 15 x 20). The TV is about 10 ft from the couch, and the speakers would go alongside the TV. I'm looking at a 3.1 channel setup for now, run by a multichannel receiver, with the capability of expanding to 5.1 later. I'd like to spend around $1,000 on the setup as a whole. The primary use for the system would be TV sound (80%), movie (5%) and music (15%). In my opinion, the money is best spent on quality used equipment, rather than on a "system in a box".

My biggest question is: What brands of receiver/speakers/subwoofers should I be looking for, that combine good quality with affordability? I've been looking at the Denon/B&W range, but this may be out of my price range. I assume Denon/Harmon Kardon/Paradigm/Definitive Audio are all good. But honestly, I have little/no experience with these brands. Am I relegated to the big box stores with this price range?

I realize this is like asking a Ferrari mechanic on advice to do an oil change, but I come to you knowing the collective knowledge you all possess. Thanks in advance for all your advice.

Brian
bminchen
bminchen OP
6 posts
 
Thank you so much all for your comments on my situation. It is greatly appreciated. Since I promised that I would stop asking questions, this is just a curiosity :)

You have all suggested I get "monitors". What's the difference between monitors and full range speakers? Is it simply the frequencies that they can reproduce? Do monitors require the use of a subwoofer? Or does a monitor provide a more true to life reproduction of what was intended? This would be as opposed to full range speakers that could "color" the sound in the way the manufacturer intended, maybe to give it a characteristic sound?

Again, no obligation, but I hadn't heard that term (unless it's on stage at a performance), so I was curious.

Genuinely, thanks for all your suggestions. I'm always welcome to hear any more you may have if they come to mind.

Brian
soix
9,456 posts
 
Don't worry about asking questions here. We're all perfectly willing to spew our audio/video vomit for the most part. Monitors is kind of a shorthand way of writing that the speakers are relatively small and require stands, versus floorstanding speakers that don't and generally will produce more bass (but still not necessarily full range, and most aren't which is why subs can frequently help). You never "need" a subwoofer, but if you're doing a lot of TV and movies it greatly enhances the experience and makes it significantly more immersive and involving. When you mentioned 3.1 I assumed you were adding a sub (the sub being the 0.1 part and the 3 being the front L/R/C). Also, at your price point it's tough to find floorstanding speakers that don't commit a lot of sins that screw up the sound, and you'll still want a sub to get the full movie effect anyway. Hence the assumption you were looking for monitors, which is probably the smarter and more cost-effective way to go for many reasons.

Hope this helps, and sorry if I'm just making it more confusing.
bminchen OP
6 posts
 
No Soix, that's not confusing at all! Thanks very much. I get a little hesitant because I am so new to this site, and although I have some general knowledge, I'm not nearly where you guys are. I know it can be annoying to have someone hop on a site like this and ask very basic questions, but I do really appreciate all the help I've gotten so far.

Thanks again,
Brian
pgawan2b
122 posts
 
I think I would recommend a different approach with regards to the receiver. HDMI functionality adds cost to the receiver and is something I would sacrifice in exchange for better quality speakers. Especially if I was in your shoes starting out.

Run the HDMI from the source (one from the DirecTV and one from the Blu-Ray) directly to the TV. The purpose of this will be video (and audio too if you don't want to turn the receiver on). Then run a digital cable from the source to the receiver. The purpose of this will be to send the audio signal to the receiver. By setting up your system this way, I think you will experience a better sound quality and a better image quality on your TV.

I suggest an older model receiver without HDMI but with a decent amp (say a NAD or Rotel) over a current entry level receiver with HDMI. A HT receiver is a fairly versatile piece of equipment. When you do upgrade, the HT receiver makes an economical second system that sounds better than most.

I have my twelve year old NAD HT receiver in my office. I use it to listen to the radio, iTunes and play my CDs. It's hard to match that functionality for the price.
realremo
460 posts
 
Running a blu ray movie's audio over digital cable instead
of HDMI, you will lose the high definition audio quality
that blu ray can deliver. high-def audio presents an easily
heard improvement that even non-audiophiles can easily
discern. Almost all of the receivers on this site are for
sale because the owners need/want HDMI, think carefully
before limiting your system in this way.
I agree that HDMI vs digital cable has little effect on TV
or over-the-air sound, but if you're a blu ray guy, you need
HDMI, or you're missing part of the experience.
More to discover