Thinking of going to 7.1 from 5.1...worth it?

I'd love to add a couple more speakers for 7.1, but I just don't have the room. I wish I did, but I don't have a dedicated HT room, and my living room looks crowded as it is.

And does your receiver have pre-amp outs? Might be worth looking at adding a separate amplifier to handle the workload for the fronts anyway.

If you are talking about my reciever yes it does have pre-amp outs.

jflail2 said:

And does your receiver have pre-amp outs? Might be worth looking at adding a separate amplifier to handle the workload for the fronts anyway.

Click to expand...

Only if you're pushing the volume. Don't even consider it if you listen at just low to "moderate" volumes.

Definitely go 5.1 on a modest budget, unless your room really works well for 7.x. Don't go with 5.2 because it will be harder to EQ the subs correctly. Though if you go for a sub-par receiver like one of those Sonys, you won't have sub EQ at all. Go for a Denon with MultEQ XT or better, really. Zero advantages to a Sony over a Denon.

I have owned both the Sony that i am using right now that is rated as the best receiver that you can buy under $500 and also a Denon which died on me causing me to upgrade. So this assertion of yours about Sony being inferior is garbage that you cannot backup with actual facts. If his budget is more than $500 then i agree that he should most probably go for the Denon but if he is going to be spending less than $500 then the Sony STR-DN840 is best receiver that he can get in that price range and i am actually talking from experience of owning both devices.

Your sample size of 1 each is 100% useless, sorry. It means absolutely nothing and is by no means the basis for any sort of useful advice. Also, which Denon exactly did you own and how have you determined that the Sony is better aside from the Denon failing (I'm not claiming Denon is by any means perfect)?

Where did you see it rated number one? Sony's website? A Best Buy salesman? Oh, Cnet, shows a Google search. Because we all know Cnet employees really have the in-depth knowledge to make such a claim, nor the journalistic integrity to necessarily trust their rating hasn't been bought. Looking at their review, they mention a bunch of crap like wi-fi (if you seriously use separate wifi links for your receiver, TV, video game consoles, etc., you have no idea what you're doing - this feature isn't worth a lot unless it's the only "smart" device you use)

A Sony receiver is not the best buy, period. Their speaker calibration system is crap. Nothing you can buy for a decent price comes anywhere near Audyssey MultEQ XT (it can be beaten, but it'll cost a bunch more). In general Sony is not recommended by reputable sources (you know - not Cnet and other similar "casual tech" sites). I'm not saying Sony receivers are garbage (that was a jump), but they are definitely not worth buying at literally any price range.

Here are two receivers under $500 that are better buys than the DN1040

http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...Ultra-HD-Networking-Receiver-w/AirPlay/1.html

http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...2-Network-AVENTAGE-AV-Receiver-Airplay/1.html - add the BT adapter if needed for about $500... I guess slightly over... If you even need it

I will address part of your rant as i can not really be bothered to waste my time going back and forth with you. Yes my sample size is one of each. At least i have actual experience owning each one of the devices that i am talking about do you? Second the 1040 is $600 not $500 so i am not sure where you are getting your information. You totally just blew a big hole in your claims with the whole auto calibration not working. From experience the auto calibration on both devices are actually not that good or accurate unless you are talking about the higher end models > $800. So if that is what you use then you obviously don't really seem to know what you are talking about because if you want the best calibration from receivers in this price range then you have to do manually. I am not your research assistant so i cannot be bothered to start searching up links for you (there is this great invention called Google use it). Sound wise there isn't really much of a difference between receivers in this price range from the receivers that i have had personal experience with (brands). I stand by my personal EXPERIENCE with both brands if he is spending less than $500 go with the Sony if he is spending more than that then definitely get a Denon. BTW i have used the auto calibration on both and they both set thing up inaccurately so in that price range there is no real winner in that category. If there is any confusion about that last part feel free to check what other people on the avs forum have to say about it.

dandragonrage said:

Only if you're pushing the volume. Don't even consider it if you listen at just low to "moderate" volumes.

Definitely go 5.1 on a modest budget, unless your room really works well for 7.x. Don't go with 5.2 because it will be harder to EQ the subs correctly. Though if you go for a sub-par receiver like one of those Sonys, you won't have sub EQ at all. Go for a Denon with MultEQ XT or better, really. Zero advantages to a Sony over a Denon.

Click to expand...

5.2 would be great if the room is moderately sized or larger. Get the same subs and they should be reasonably well matched out of the box. You can double stack them to add output, or you can separate them in the room to smooth out room modes. Dual subs is definitely one of the better upgrades you can make.

Ryom said:

5.2 would be great if the room is moderately sized or larger. Get the same subs and they should be reasonably well matched out of the box. You can double stack them to add output, or you can separate them in the room to smooth out room modes. Dual subs is definitely one of the better upgrades you can make.

Click to expand...

For some rooms sure, but doesn't matter for rooms most people would have, and it becomes MUCH harder to tune them properly for both level and phase. Not against the idea, but it's a non-trivial amount of extra work to set it up properly.

Spliffstarr said:

BTW i have used the auto calibration on both and they both set thing up inaccurately so in that price range there is no real winner in that category. If there is any confusion about that last part feel free to check what other people on the avs forum have to say about it.

Click to expand...

What you have used makes little difference when it comes to giving general advice. Lots of people own these products; your opinion is not special because you own a Sony and have owned a Denon. Lots of people have owned both Sonys and Denons.

Regular MultEQ is better, let alone XT. DCAC (at least on the lower-end receivers - the higher-end ES stuff might be different) doesn't even equalize subwoofers and has far fewer bands and only one position compared to two for some mid-level MultEQ XT receivers.

All I can say is you can go check out AVSForum if you want to regret buying your Sony, but I suggest the alternative of enjoying it while not suggesting anyone else buy it.

The Sonys do include some neat features that almost nobody will use, but the sound quality improvements from MultEQ can be of benefit to nearly everyone. The Sony can be considered in rare cases where some of its more obscure features are used, I guess. But that will, again, be almost never. Denon is good on features as well (as is Onkyo, but Onkyo is far too unreliable). "Casual tech" sites tend to crown the most feature-laden products winners even when the features are useless to almost everyone and there are real downsides to the product and advantages for its competition.

Disregarding quality - I always liked how well Sony receivers integrated with everything. Back in the days when HDMI first hit, it was quite the hassle swapping inputs and having functions that overlapped between devices. Plus, my Onkyo (and even a Denon that I returned after a week) had handshake issues with my PS3 and 360. That was quite a while ago, but it kept me on the Sony train. I always handled all of my configs manually, but I do recall the auto-config being horrid.

Whenever I end up upgrading to another receiver (HDMI 2.0 hitting being a likely timeframe) I'll probably look at some other brands this time.

dandragonrage said:

Only if you're pushing the volume. Don't even consider it if you listen at just low to "moderate" volumes.

Click to expand...

That is inaccurate. Better/cleaner power helps provide greater clarity at low/moderate volumes as well.

jflail2 said:

That is inaccurate. Better/cleaner power helps provide greater clarity at low/moderate volumes as well.

Click to expand...

No, it's not inaccurate at all. External amplifiers only increase sound quality if you were overdriving your receiver to begin with. If you don't do such things, you won't notice even the slightest improvement in audio quality, and actually running RCAs to an external amp will be more likely to pick up more noise than the external amp "saves" you from. I've run external amps and I build speakers with custom active crossovers and such where external amps are both necessary and useful (active crossover setups are more efficient aside from their other benefits). I would not recommend running them to most people.

There is literally zero reason whatsoever for the vast majority of people to consider an external amplifier. Not a small reason. Absolutely zero.

You really think that A) a component with a THD around 0.05% is the source of any audible distortion? B) Adding an external amplifier will really bring that down?

Amplifiers provide the least amount of distortion in your system and several orders of magnitude lower than your speakers. Any money you'd consider spending on an amplifier would be better spent on literally any other part of your system (speakers or room treatments or whatever). Unless, again, you're really pushing the volume. Besides, it takes a HUGE increase in power to be worth it. Your external amp could have twice the power of your receiver and you're still only going to gain approximately 3dB of headroom, which is really not much. It's occasionally worth it, but rarely (in a home setup). Many people consider 3dB to be about the smallest change in volume such that if you left the room, someone adjusted the volume by 3dB, and you came back, you would most likely notice the difference. I can of course hear much smaller changes if I sit there and adjust the volume myself, but I wouldn't be able to tell a 0.5dB difference if I'd left the room and someone else changed it.

I mean sure, some receivers such as the NAD T761 I use in my bedroom have crap SNR and have a hiss... but otherwise distortion is well-controlled. An external amp wouldn't fix that particular issue anyway.

dandragonrage said:

No, it's not inaccurate at all. External amplifiers only increase sound quality if you were overdriving your receiver to begin with. If you don't do such things, you won't notice even the slightest improvement in audio quality, and actually running RCAs to an external amp will be more likely to pick up more noise than the external amp "saves" you from. I've run external amps and I build speakers with custom active crossovers and such where external amps are both necessary and useful (active crossover setups are more efficient aside from their other benefits). I would not recommend running them to most people.

There is literally zero reason whatsoever for the vast majority of people to consider an external amplifier. Not a small reason. Absolutely zero.

You really think that A) a component with a THD around 0.05% is the source of any audible distortion? B) Adding an external amplifier will really bring that down?

Amplifiers provide the least amount of distortion in your system and several orders of magnitude lower than your speakers. Any money you'd consider spending on an amplifier would be better spent on literally any other part of your system (speakers or room treatments or whatever). Unless, again, you're really pushing the volume. Besides, it takes a HUGE increase in power to be worth it. Your external amp could have twice the power of your receiver and you're still only going to gain approximately 3dB of headroom, which is really not much. It's occasionally worth it, but rarely (in a home setup). Many people consider 3dB to be about the smallest change in volume such that if you left the room, someone adjusted the volume by 3dB, and you came back, you would most likely notice the difference. I can of course hear much smaller changes if I sit there and adjust the volume myself, but I wouldn't be able to tell a 0.5dB difference if I'd left the room and someone else changed it.

I mean sure, some receivers such as the NAD T761 I use in my bedroom have crap SNR and have a hiss... but otherwise distortion is well-controlled. An external amp wouldn't fix that particular issue anyway.

Click to expand...

Sooooooo, you're basically saying that receiver manufacturers rate their receivers with all channels driven? Please do name a manufacturer that does this. A friend who is a well-versed audiophile explained it to me as basically, when a receiver is pushing all 7 channels, your power can drop from say 125wpc to as low as 30-40wpc. So adding a 125wpc amp provides more wattage, and has a power supply that is capable of handling all speakers grabbing that power at the same time.

Other well-educated audio folks I speak to regularly have pointed toward noise issues as being primarily driven by a ground issue in your house, since line level signals are usually not affected by the 60hz, 120v cycle in a house, with line conditioners and AC to DC transformer circuits filtering just about all of that out already.

And yes, headroom is measured in decibels.........but I don't think that's the crux of the issue here. 1 DC circuit supporting 5 or 7 channels can struggle mightily, and if 1 set of channels draws more than the others, the others pay the price. This can result in the "other channels" being underdriven, and the channel that draws more than the others can result in clipping or the speakers actually blowing eventually.


I'm not as well versed as most of my audiophile friends, but their many years of knowledge make me feel all warm and fuzzy about their input on this topic.

jflail2 said:

Sooooooo, you're basically saying that receiver manufacturers rate their receivers with all channels driven? Please do name a manufacturer that does this. A friend who is a well-versed audiophile explained it to me as basically, when a receiver is pushing all 7 channels, your power can drop from say 125wpc to as low as 30-40wpc. So adding a 125wpc amp provides more wattage, and has a power supply that is capable of handling all speakers grabbing that power at the same time.

Click to expand...

If that's your argument, we don't even disagree. Here's where your misunderstanding is: volume scales approximately logarithmically. If you're using a receiver at a volume level only 10dB below clipping (keep in mind clipping and "maximum volume setting" are usually not the same thing in any given circumstance), you are using 1/10 of its rated power. I get what you're saying - doubling the power in an amplifier could provide more like 6dB (you might say 9dB but I am unwilling to go that far) additional headroom rather than 3. In which case you have a valid point, but it doesn't affect the overall point I was trying to make.

Most people listen at a nominal volume of under 10 watts RMS. Hell, 1 watt is probably closer for most people. I bet a lot of people in this thread pump more than 1WRMS, but I doubt many even here are really pushing 30+W.

To get your receiver to use half its rated power, you only need to be approximately 3dB under clipping. For a quarter the power, 6dB. I would still call that cranking it (unless perhaps your speakers are VERY inefficient). Notice I said before that 3dB is just barely of any significance? It applies here.

Also, rear channels are rarely driven loudly. Few soundtracks are going to push anywhere near the amount of power through them as the fronts. A worst-case-scenario all-channels-driven power rating is (usually) no more realistic than using the 2-channels-driven power rating for surround (which is why I say I am unwilling to say the double-the-advertised-power amplifier will give you +9dB, at least with real-world usage). So while their usage will lower the power available to the other speakers, they are unlikely to take that much of it. Center can, but again, for it to be an issue I'd say you were cranking the volume. In that case, as I said from the start, an amplifier might make sense.

I'm not saying never buy an amplifier. I've bought and used them. I do car audio as well and I myself probably like amplifiers a bit too much. I'm saying don't recommend that people buy an amplifier unless they've either described a scenario in which one would specifically benefit them, or unless you describe to them why they may or may not want to buy one, given their scenario.

Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree then (except for 4 ohm speakers......I think we can agree an amp is a must there.) Good, thoughtful exchange though.