• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

RCA out sound cards?

I am confused. If your using a good reciever then use digital audio to the receiver. Then you likely don't need a sound card at all.
However if you wanted to use your receiver as a power amp (and not use the DAC to convert from digital to analog) you need a sound card with a sub out. Otherwise its highly unlikely your reciever is going to do analog bass management.

As for the M-Audio cards - they seem to have inferior outdated hardware. I think the Xonar/HT Omega combination of modern DACs and C-Media chips is a far better performer then those old Envy24 cards. Also I have never heard that you lose anything with a stereo mini-jack to RCA conversion.. I'd rather have the good DACs the mediocre DACs and no conversion..but YMMV. You would have to go through and find reviews and check the spec sheets of the various chips used. But those M-Audio designs seem very long in the tooth..They seem to be a company that's basically resting on its laurels of its professional reputation.

BTW the essence STX card has RCA out - and some of the high end Omega cards might have it as well.. The mini jacks were all about saving space on the card..its not a quality issue really. If it was I think we would hear alot more about it with numerous cards touting their RCA out..

Pete
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
No. It's all just electrical signals.

Besides, teh best idea, if doing stereo to a receiver, is just to use digital.
Click to expand...
I was about to say this. If the signal degredation of a simple adapter worries you, I should think the digital-to-analog conversion would be far more terrifying.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
I was about to say this. If the signal degredation of a simple adapter worries you, I should think the digital-to-analog conversion would be far more terrifying.
Click to expand...

Problem is, the stereo receiver I want doesn't have Digital In.

http://www.amazon.com/Harman-Kardon...4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1256285745&sr=1-4

I've got the older version of this receiver hooked to a pair of Infinity Primus 360s for my simple 2.0 home-theater setup, and it's worked great, so I'd like to stick with H/K. Plus their receivers are hella sexy. >.> <.<
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Well I'd say get a better receiver than that one. However regardless, using 3.5mm to RCA has no problems. Just get a cable that goes form one to the other. If it is a really long run or you have lots of noise, get a converter to convert to RCA right by the computer.
 
GuyClinch said:
That receiver seems both overpriced and ugly.. You can still get a refurbished receiver from Tiger Direct though they sold out of the nice 1709 already. Still this one packs alot more features - but for a bit more you can probably find something better then this..

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5214107&CatId=4586

Pete
Click to expand...

I would really rather get a Stereo Receiver since I'm not going to be doing surround sound. Seems to total waste to get a 5.1 Receiver and only run Stereo.
 
I'd go with that HK honestly, they're one of the few vendors that still produces stereo receivers that'll at least live up fairly close to their specs (vs most modern 5.1 receivers that won't even hit 50% rated output)

as far as the soundcard goes, the M-Audio 2496 is just fine, I love how we've gotten to a "its old it obviously sucks has to be brand new or it'll suck" attitude around here....

honestly theres not a thing wrong with it, SQ is still good to go, no it doesn't have all the fancy UI and junk of modern cards, but it would work just fine

so would most other decent boards with 3.5mm outputs (like most of Auzen's inexpensive C-Media boards), or similar, and then use an adapter, the adapter won't degrade sound quality if it isn't broken, so that isn't an issue

as far as "you have to use digital", not really, it shouldn't have a noticeable impact on sound quality if the D/A is good enough, modern soundcards (yes including the A2496) will be comparable to a decent modern receiver or external unit ([insert internet audiophile whine and cry here]), basically grab whatever you want within your budget, nothing is really a bad choice

my experiences with the A2496 have been nothing but positive over the years, the drivers are straight forward and very stable, albeit a bit lacking in features, the newer Creative and Asus cards have some fancy features that I like, but nothing that I couldn't live without
 
TotalLamer said:
I would really rather get a Stereo Receiver since I'm not going to be doing surround sound. Seems to total waste to get a 5.1 Receiver and only run Stereo.
Click to expand...
It's more of a waste to get a receiver that doesn't do digital. Besides, if I could find a decent 7.1 receiver for the price of your ugly 2.1 receiver, you can find a much better 2.1 receiver for that price.

Dakmart is one place I suggest you look. I just suggest you call first - they often list items they don't actually have in stock.
 
^^^ Denon will do pretty close to spec....watt wise. This slamming of receivers based on rated watts is a lie springs from Sony receivers which really do half the rated power. its not universally true.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/3100/denon-avr-989-av-receiver-ergonomics-page2.html

You really gain little by getting a stereo receiver nowadays especially at 200 dollars.
BTW if you study those stats you can see why a 7.1 channel receiver isn't a waste. You get MORE power in two channels then rated.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Besides, if I could find a decent 7.1 receiver for the price of your ugly 2.1 receiver, you can find a much better 2.1 receiver for that price.
.
Click to expand...

lol, you really hate that H/K's looks don't you? :p


GuyClinch said:
^^^ Denon will do pretty close to spec....watt wise. This slamming of receivers based on rated watts is a lie springs from Sony receivers which really do half the rated power. its not universally true.
Click to expand...

dude it isn't just Sony, and not all Sony products will only do half rated, it slamming stems from the fact that most receivers under ~$400 have a tformer that can't deliver the output the receiver is spec'd to do DC, which means even if the Class AB amps were somehow 100% efficient, it wouldn't be able to do full spec all channels

Sony, Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo, Teac, JVC, Panasonic, etc are all guilty of this, because they'll either provide W/Ch PER CHANNEL #'s, or 1khz 1% (or sometimes 10%) THD

the link you provided looks at the AVR-989, which is like a $1200 (list price) monster, that weighs 30+ lbs, and I have no doubt it'll deliver fairly close to, if not exceed, its per channel specs

this doesn't mean ALL Denon products will share that trait
Yamaha, Sony, and Onkyo all have high end models that will easily meet or exceed their all channels driven #'s, and their pricing starts at ~$1000 as well, this doesn't mean their $100-$200 HTIB-esque stuff is equally competent

so if we look at the AVR-589 that you linked (which is nowhere near the same device as the 989), its UL power consumption # puts its consumption at something in the neighborhood of 500W, and it claims something in the realm of 400W+ output, which would mean its gotta have some pretty damn efficient amplifier circuits (like Class D) in order to pull those numbers, given that it weighs 20 lbs, and costs around $200, I'm gonna venture a guess that it'll probably approach its 75W/ch figures, although it likely can't sustain that output 100% of the time (either due to heat or the tformer overloading and switching off)

ultimately this doesn't matter, because you'll never see >50% Vrms output in a normal setting (because thats still LOUD with most speakers), and the manufacturers do know this, hence they can lie a little on their numbers and nobody really cares because its not really impacting the thing's performance (really you'd need to double (and more ideally quadruple) power output in order to make a noticable "bump" in loudness, so 10-30W off from a ~70W spec really doesn't mean much)

now, where H/K plays into this, is that they're notoriously accurate on their amplifier #'s, which is why you'll see their 5.1 and 7.1 receivers in the $200-$500 range listed as 30 or 50W/ch, not 100+, if we look at the 3390 the OP linked, its weight is within 1lb of the Denon, power output per channel is within 5W, and power consumption is close to the same, in other words, I'm more prone to trust their #'s at face value, because we're talking about a higher quality amp stage (yes you want things this dramatically overbuilt, and in terms of really high end equipment, this isn't even approaching overbuilt)

what this means for the OP:
basically nothing, the HK 3390 is a great amp, maybe the looks aren't for everyone :p, but it will work out just fine for a stereo system, and there is zero issue using analog into it from a computer or any other source, if digital is really that big, get the 3490, its got S/PDIF inputs, or get a 5.1 or 7.1 receiver as GuyClinch has suggested, as it gives you FAR more processing features, and the output, while not neccisarily "to spec", is still more than enough for your needs (even in a theatre room, but especially for a desktop listening setup), you might look at Yamaha as well (I'm somewhat partial to Yamaha)

it isn't really wasteful to have a 5.1 or 7.1 model, if its saving you a few bucks or giving you more features, and the unit itself will not be damaged by only driving stereo, if those were concerns

if you really just want a stereo receiver, check classified ads, you won't lose any features compared to the 3390, will probably save a few hundred bucks, and assuming you don't buy something thats total crap (i.e: Fisher (I don't care)), power output specs will probably be fairly comparable
 
Another thing to note about a 5.1 unit doing stereo is you often get higher power per channel. Usually the limit to a receiver's over all power is the transformer. It takes a big ass transformer to do lots of sustained power for all channels. That is expensive, and heavy. As such it is often something that gets cheaped out on a bit, especially since you don't generally need max power to all channels.

Well, what this means is that while a receiver may indeed not be able to hit its max power on all 5 channels at once, it usually can on just two. There is more power available to those two channels when that is all that is being driven.

Not saying don't go with a two channel receiver, just saying there isn't a need to. These days 5.1 and 7.1 are all the rage, so you get a lot more options in that arena.

Also I'm a fan of digital hookups because it helps avoid ground loops. That is a problem where you get hum in your system because of various different ground planes. In a computer system, the damn things can be a real problem. I fought with it on my system, despite having all devices powered from a single grounded, filtered outlet.

Don't feel like you need to go with a 5.1 setup, but don't feel like you shouldn't just because you are doing only 2 channels.
 
Another point to consider is the bass performance you would (or would not) get with just stereo. Typically, if the source material is 5.1 and you ask for a stereo downmix, you get significantly less bass.

If you use a 5.1 receiver and only plumb the stereo front input and stereo front speakers, don't forget to set the receiver for the lack of sub woofer rendering. This could be labeled as "large" front speakers in the setup.
 
this doesn't mean ALL Denon products will share that trait
Yamaha, Sony, and Onkyo all have high end models that will easily meet or exceed their all channels driven #'s, and their pricing starts at ~$1000 as well, this doesn't mean their $100-$200 HTIB-esque stuff is equally competent
Click to expand...

Still you don't know that the HK really achieves its 80watts per channel (2) and the Denon's and others don't. Like I said this idea sprang from a tested Sony that did 50% of its rated watts. Alot of companies will do better then that.

Sound and Vision reviews a cheaper Denon which achieves its stated watts as well. So its not just the 1200 dollar monster that achieves this. BTW thats MSRP which you should pretty much never pay..but I digress.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2171/test-bench-denon-avr-2307ci-av-receiver.html

There is a fairly low end Denon that reaches 86% of stated watts (in 5 channel). You can bet it hits 100% in 2 channel and its over 100% in one channel.

Your saying don't get a 5.1 they don't achieve rated numbers when they do - and telling him the stereo one probably does when we don't know this..

Pete
 
GuyClinch said:
Still you don't know that the HK really achieves its 80watts per channel (2) and the Denon's and others don't. Like I said this idea sprang from a tested Sony that did 50% of its rated watts. Alot of companies will do better then that.

Sound and Vision reviews a cheaper Denon which achieves its stated watts as well. So its not just the 1200 dollar monster that achieves this. BTW thats MSRP which you should pretty much never pay..but I digress.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2171/test-bench-denon-avr-2307ci-av-receiver.html

There is a fairly low end Denon that reaches 86% of stated watts (in 5 channel). You can bet it hits 100% in 2 channel and its over 100% in one channel.

Your saying don't get a 5.1 they don't achieve rated numbers when they do - and telling him the stereo one probably does when we don't know this..

Pete
Click to expand...

please stop acting like you can put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth, I'm not even aware of this Sony you keep crying about, but assuredly, it is not what I'm referencing

and my point was not that all 5.1 receivers cannot deliver their rated wpc, it was that if the tformer is too small, as in, it can't handle the throughput you're expecting on the output, there is no way the receiver is living up to rated specs, h/k is known for meeting specs (just like Classe, McIntosh, Outlaw, Carver, and so on), so I have no reason to doubt the thing's ability to deliver, if you wanna play devil's advocate just for the sake of whipping it out and seeing who's is bigger, be my guest, but honestly the sole point was just understand what you're getting into (and if you read my entire post, you'dve seen that I didn't out and out disagree with you, and on a number of points, we actually agree)
 
please stop acting like you can put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth, I'm not even aware of this Sony you keep crying about, but assuredly, it is not what I'm referencing
Click to expand...

LMAO. Who is crying? I am just trying to save the OP from your suspect advice.

and my point was not that all 5.1 receivers cannot deliver their rated wpc, it was that if the tformer is too small, as in, it can't handle the throughput you're expecting on the output, there is no way the receiver is living up to rated specs, h/k is known for meeting specs (just like Classe, McIntosh, Outlaw, Carver, and so on), so I have no reason to doubt the thing's ability to deliver, if you wanna play devil's advocate just for the sake of whipping it out and seeing who's is bigger, be my guest, but honestly the sole point was just understand what you're getting into (and if you read my entire post, you'dve seen that I didn't out and out disagree with you, and on a number of points, we actually agree)
Click to expand...

Your point is crap. As Sycraft pointed out many recievers will exceed rated specs in two channels. I posted actual evidence to the contrary. Your just speculating - based on what I don't know.
 
GuyClinch said:
LMAO. Who is crying? I am just trying to save the OP from your suspect advice.



Your point is crap. As Sycraft pointed out many recievers will exceed rated specs in two channels. I posted actual evidence to the contrary. Your just speculating - based on what I don't know.
Click to expand...

where did I give bad advice, or even disagree with you for that matter?
furthermore, are we to believe that if you don't know, nobody else does either?

really, wonderful fuzzy attitude you've got :)
 
where did I give bad advice, or even disagree with you for that matter?
Click to expand...

Hmm you recommended the HK because it meets its stated watts - unlike other receivers. its a receiver without a digital input, that looks ugly and only supports 2 channels. That's pretty suspect advice in my book. You don't know if it does indeed meet its stated watts - nor do you seem to have any real insight into whether the Denon do not. Your just slamming other brands based on "reputation"

furthermore, are we to believe that if you don't know, nobody else does either?
Click to expand...

Huh? I do know. I posted actual test data. Your the one pulling numbers out of your *ss. Claiming that most receivers don't hit their numbers. The Denons clearly do especially in two channels!
 
Digital is irrelevant. It offers some advantages, but as far as sound quality goes it's meaningless; other factors dominate. If you only want 2 channels, why would you buy a 5 channel amplifier? Seems like a waste of electronics, especially if you're paying the same - that's 3 channels you've paid for but aren't using - if you paid the same, you sacrificed quality somewhere else. Your advice is suspect...

His point is simple. Look at the specifications and make sure they're reasonable before buying. I've seen many multichannel amps that have say 500W rated output but only 400W rated input. How does that work? It doesn't. That's his point.
 
Digital is irrelevant. It offers some advantages, but as far as sound quality goes it's meaningless; other factors dominate.
Click to expand...

Its not "irrelevant" if it doesn't cost you any extra money. It means if you change your motherboard or dump your sound card or switch to a mac you can get better sound quality for your money. Unless you think on board audio analog out is good enough. Also some purists will tell you doing your DAC conversion outside our PC leads to better sound quality.

If you only want 2 channels, why would you buy a 5 channel amplifier? Seems like a waste of electronics, especially if you're paying the same - that's 3 channels you've paid for but aren't using - if you paid the same, you sacrificed quality somewhere else. Your advice is suspect...
Click to expand...

No. That might be true in a world where two channel audio is popular. But in this world of home theater there is alot more competition in the five channel amplifier department. So your better off getting a 5 channel as you can get more for less. <g>

Your just assuming your sacrficing "quality" as I pointed out the tests show that 5 channel receivers put out more then the stated watts at two channels. As has been demonstrated in the 10,000 dollar amplfier challenge - power is what you should pay for.

It's the same with sound cards. Why restrict yourself too a two channel sound card if the five channel has better DACs, software etc. Your assuming some perfect level of competition that doesn't exist..

Pete
 
GuyClinch said:
Its not "irrelevant" if it doesn't cost you any extra money. It means if you change your motherboard or dump your sound card or switch to a mac you can get better sound quality for your money. Unless you think on board audio analog out is good enough. Also some purists will tell you doing your DAC conversion outside our PC leads to better sound quality.
Click to expand...
If you're using onboard audio, sure, but you have zero control over the D/A conversion inside the receiver, and until you get into the higher-end gear, you'll probably end up with better overall sound quality with a good quality $100 sound card and analog output than a $300 receiver using digital. Subjective, of course.

No. That might be true in a world where two channel audio is popular. But in this world of home theater there is alot more competition in the five channel amplifier department. So your better off getting a 5 channel as you can get more for less. <g>
Click to expand...
That might mean that the 5.1 channel gear is not as atrociously bad as it should be at the price they're selling it for (which is quite a feat IMO), but economic realities do come into play. The materials cost alone for a decent amplifier is pretty high, and I have no doubt that compromises are made to be able to sell a 5.1 receiver for the prices they do. There's really quite a lot to them, decent power supply, 5 decent amplifiers, all the digital control electronics and display etc, the DAC section with 5 channels of D/A and analog filtering. Many of them actually do A/D on their analog inputs as well to apply DSP, simplify switching and etc, so there's more cost (and S/Q degredation).

I find it pretty hard to believe that for the same money you get 5 amps, plus all the digital stuff, that are better than a simple 2-channel all-analog amp. Maybe so, but I'd be much more inclined to trust the analog setup in this case, and if that's the intended use, it's probably better value.

And rated power is utterly meaningless as far as sound quality goes.

Bottom line is of course to go try this stuff out and make your own decisions if you can before you spend your hard-earned cash.
 
Sorry to chime in so late. I have an audiophile 2496 however I don't use it much anymore.

Simply, it's a great sounding soundcard that cannot be beat in it's price point. When it comes to features, etc it just doesn't have any.
 
That might mean that the 5.1 channel gear is not as atrociously bad as it should be at the price they're selling it for (which is quite a feat IMO), but economic realities do come into play. The materials cost alone for a decent amplifier is pretty high, and I have no doubt that compromises are made to be able to sell a 5.1 receiver for the prices they do. There's really quite a lot to them, decent power supply, 5 decent amplifiers, all the digital control electronics and display etc, the DAC section with 5 channels of D/A and analog filtering. Many of them actually do A/D on their analog inputs as well to apply DSP, simplify switching and etc, so there's more cost (and S/Q degredation).
Click to expand...

That sounds great in theory. But your just understimating how much these companies will rip off consumers based on some audiophile name. They have compared amplifer sections in double blind tests and once you control for clipping its hard to tell the difference.

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx

I went to far calling it "bad" advice. And I apologize. But personally I would take an equally rated Denon/Marantz/Yahama over the HK in a hearbeat. These receivers hit their numbers in two channel tests, they are often far better looking and they offer a ton more growth feature wise.

I don't feel the OP should limit himself to looking at two channel amps simply because he wants a two channel system. If a better deal is out there (and I think they are) he should take it. Its speakers that are going to make the big difference unless your amplifer is really underpowered and you drive it hard.

Pete
 
guy, you just want to argue everything, I also love how suddenly I'm giving bad advice because the HK is apparently ugly....:rolleyes:

whatever.
 
Last edited:
wow. I personally would never hook a sound system up in a room without surround unless there is no diplay in that room at all. even if that was the case i would use the zone 2 capability of my receiver in another room.

About the digital/analog thing: I prefer to have a digital connection between my PC and receivers - whenever i try to use analog I can hear interference. Yes, I NORMALLY use onboard sound - but that onboard sound is always flawless when connected digitally - i prefer to control ALL the eq/sound settings with my receiver anyways - and then there is NO reason to spend any money on a sound card (i don't game).

If you only want stereo, why don't you just get a power amp instead of a stereo receiver?
 
Wow... this thread turned into quite the flamefest. :eek:

Also.. who was saying the H/K receiver is ugly? :confused: H/K makes BY FAR the sexiest receivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top