All in one system

[9designs2]

Squiffy, I think the others have made a fair point, but I do understand your "frustration"...... for me it seems a bit pointless worry about brand A or brand B, at this price point, they are much the same, and so choose by price, colour, size etc... and don't waste your time asking a bunch or nerds on a Forum

Also a bit naive I think when people want all the latest technologies included as well.... Just because a devise has a feature, say upscaling, doesn't make it automatically better. It's how well a product is designed and made that counts, not the feature count......
In some cases ignorance is bliss, if you've never heard a top set-up, you can't miss it !!!!!...... my advise is DON'T....unless the wallet will stretch....

My advise is buy a leading brand name, that fits your budget and needs, plug it in, enjoy it, and don't worry about it............. But if you get curious as to what else can be done.... come back and ask

 

[squiffy]

In some cases ignorance is bliss, if you've never heard a top set-up, you can't miss it !!!!!...... my advise is DON'T....unless the wallet will stretch....

I say always listen to a much nicer system, you'll demo the system that you initially budgeted for and think "god this sounds crap I'm not going to buy it" and get the nicer one A mate chucked his Sony HTIB in the bin after setting up my old "low end" PC sound system on his living room. He couldn't be bothered to sell the Sony. You can guess what he did next

 

[9designs2]

I say always listen to a much nicer system, you'll demo the system that you initially budgeted for and think "god this sounds crap I'm not going to buy it" and get the nicer one A mate chucked his Sony HTIB in the bin after setting up my old "low end" PC sound system on his living room. He couldn't be bothered to sell the Sony. You can guess what he did next

Yes but you have to respect peoples financial position, bluntly I'm lucky enough to have found a way to put a system together that many would struggle to comprehend.... but no point if others just can't push the family budget beyond a point, why depress them with something they can't have..... life is already full of what we can't have !!!

 

[sid]

It's nothing of the sort, and completly different. If someone needs a word processor then speccing SLI is useless as they will never use the features and never notice the difference.

However if they have a £100,000 audio system they will always notice the sound quality difference. It's not like the high end speakers sound identical to the HTIB.

What annoys me is people ask "what is a good HTIB for £100" the answer is none. I think it's best listen to what they expect they're getting and listen to something a little bit better.

C'mon that is simply not true, there will be little difference between 10k and a 100k system to an untrained ear. Its like saying most people can tell the difference between a car that can do 0-60mph in 3.9 and 4.0 secs. Without a stopwatch it will be pretty much the same.

I agree with the second part, however, most people will be happy with what they get as they will have heard nothing better.

sid

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I say always listen to a much nicer system, you'll demo the system that you initially budgeted for and think "god this sounds crap I'm not going to buy it" and get the nicer one A mate chucked his Sony HTIB in the bin after setting up my old "low end" PC sound system on his living room. He couldn't be bothered to sell the Sony. You can guess what he did next

Have to say Squiffy, that they're not wrong. Remember our previous debate, when you suggested to me that it blowing "another £10k" was clearly the right thing to do.
As said by many here, the simple fact is that most people DO have financial limitation. Infact talking of that, I can't help but think that there's a degree of hypocrisy in here. Whilst you have a very good system when compared to your average punter, I've heard Audiolab amps, and frankly thought that when compared to some seriously good kit, that they were a little second rate. The implications being that I should really be sitting here telling you to blow £10k on improving your mid-range system.
Thoughts?

 

[Corasik]

Come on, the guy suggested around 1500, for a complete av system, now obviously thats over the OP's budget, and not really very helpfull, but to start saying there is very little difference between a 10k and 100k system is just silly as . Once your at 10k you are very much into diminishing returns, and its quite right, the differences are much smaller at that level. But nobody suggested he buys a 10k system anyway.

But a 1k system, and a 10k system thats rather different, its much easier to hear that... and a £200 V a 1K system, thats a whole world of difference, you would have to be tone deaf not to hear the difference.

Cheap systems can be very tiring to listen to. And you certainly dont need a trained ear.

Personally with a lower budget, I'd rather take a 2 channel setup over a very cheap 5.1 kit. Or even an AV amp, but just buy the front 2 channels. Most AV amps can be told that speakers are missing. Less equipment = better quality. You can always add additional speakers later just make sure they are the same brand and 'family'

Thats what I did. Started out with Stereo, and slowely upgraded to 5.1 surround over the course of a few years. My front left/right speakers are still the original speakers from my stereo setup

I agree with the people who say if you dont have the budget dont listen, because the differences are huge, especially between the supercheap kits, and low end AV component setups.

 

[Corasik]

Have to say Squiffy, that they're not wrong. Remember our previous debate, when you suggested to me that it blowing "another £10k" was clearly the right thing to do.
As said by many here, the simple fact is that most people DO have financial limitation. Infact talking of that, I can't help but think that there's a degree of hypocrisy in here. Whilst you have a very good system when compared to your average punter, I've heard Audiolab amps, and frankly thought that when compared to some seriously good kit, that they were a little second rate. The implications being that I should really be sitting here telling you to blow £10k on improving your mid-range system.
Thoughts?

Budget plays a big part doesnt it . I did quite a lot of auditioning 10 years ago when I bought my audiolabs, and thought they were very good for the money. But if your going to compare an £800 monoblock with something more exquisite, then clearly the cheaper amp will sound a bit second rate . Then again, audiolab, went for a certain 'sound', and even when they became Tag they retained that particualar sound. So personal perference kicks in. Im still using a rack of 10 year old 'original' 8000Ms, and still enjoy their way of doing things. But audiolab always were positioned as an 'entry' to high end audiophile.

Not convinced that the transition to IAG is any good though, too many corners cut to get the prices down to £400.

 

[squiffy]

Have to say Squiffy, that they're not wrong. Remember our previous debate, when you suggested to me that it blowing "another £10k" was clearly the right thing to do.
As said by many here, the simple fact is that most people DO have financial limitation. Infact talking of that, I can't help but think that there's a degree of hypocrisy in here. Whilst you have a very good system when compared to your average punter, I've heard Audiolab amps, and frankly thought that when compared to some seriously good kit, that they were a little second rate. The implications being that I should really be sitting here telling you to blow £10k on improving your mid-range system.
Thoughts?

To my ears, a much higher end system isn't worthwhile.

But there is a HUGE difference between a £200 HTIB and a nice budget seperate system. Once you go past a certain level then like the person above said it's diminishing returns. You don't need to go silly, a £200 pair of standmount speakers and £200 stereo amplifier will be great for most people, and unlikely to spot the difference between a £500 amp as most music is of low quality. Like listening to Oasis on a £100,000 system. But that £400 2ch system will sound far better than a £200 HTIB.

We're not talking thousands of pounds, slightly more but at least you have replace/connectivity & upgrade potential anytime you fancy.

 

[sid]

To my ears, a much higher end system isn't worthwhile.

But there is a HUGE difference between a £200 HTIB and a nice budget seperate system. Once you go past a certain level then like the person above said it's diminishing returns. You don't need to go silly, a £200 pair of standmount speakers and £200 stereo amplifier will be great for most people, and unlikely to spot the difference between a £500 amp as most music is of low quality. Like listening to Oasis on a £100,000 system. But that £400 2ch system will sound far better than a £200 HTIB.

We're not talking thousands of pounds, slightly more but at least you have replace/connectivity & upgrade potential anytime you fancy.

Agreed but the OP wanted a multi-speaker system not a stereo.
I remember you saying a while ago that even a cheap AV system will beat a stereo when it comes to surround (obviously not for music) because 2 channels is not enough for AV.

HTIB are targetted at people like the OP I suppose so no harm in suggesting one.

sid

 

[squiffy]

I remember you saying a while ago that even a cheap AV system will beat a stereo when it comes to surround (obviously not for music) because 2 channels is not enough for AV.

What is your definition what is better?

A cheap AV system will be multi-channel, but a 2 channel system of identical cost will sound better as speaker quality is higher, granted it's not multi-channel. But it won't have the 360 sound of a HT system.

A HTIB isn't better than a 2 channel system, just because it has more speakers and multi-channel, it'll still sound bad. Everything will be low quality, amp, processing, 5 speakers and the subwoofer.

But if you get a AV system with similar quality components of the stereo system (ie for the initial 2ch system add the rest as you go along) in 2 channel it'll be the same system of course, and in AV it'll be multi-channel, plus sounding better than in 2ch mode, and of course better than the cheap HTIB.

It's all about compromise, and whether you can hear the differences between what you can easily afford, and something you might have to save up for a little while but worthwhile because you can notice the difference.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

What is your definition what is better?

A cheap AV system will be multi-channel, but a 2 channel system of identical cost will sound better as speaker quality is higher, granted it's not multi-channel. But it won't have the 360 sound of a HT system.

A HTIB isn't better than a 2 channel system, just because it has more speakers and multi-channel, it'll still sound bad. Everything will be low quality, amp, processing, 5 speakers and the subwoofer.

But if you get a AV system with similar quality components of the stereo system (ie for the initial 2ch system add the rest as you go along) in 2 channel it'll be the same system of course, and in AV it'll be multi-channel, plus sounding better than in 2ch mode, and of course better than the cheap HTIB.

It's all about compromise, and whether you can hear the differences between what you can easily afford, and something you might have to save up for a little while but worthwhile because you can notice the difference.

I can't help but think that you've just repeated back the argument I put forward last week which you happily argued with.
Either way, I do agree that for a given price, a 2 channel system will be of better quality (though without rear effects).

As for a recommendation, sorry, not my area of expertise, so I'll stay out of that.

 

[fish99]

Without getting into the above debate on expense, I would say after switching from cheap 5.1 (Acoustic Solution 5.1 home cinema system) to a better quality entry level hi-fi stereo system (MA B2s, Marantz amp), I really don't miss surround sound at all. I've also gone from cheap 5.1 to better quality stereo with my PC too and again, even for games, I don't find myself missing surround sound. On the contrary I find myself enjoying and noticing the improved sound quality.

 

[Jofujofu]

I would recommend the Yamaha AV59 Pack. Its 200 quid, and also a Samsung DVDHD860 which can be had for about 60 quid. Whilst this is a bit over your budget, I have the same setup and I'm very pleased with it.

If you're interested, head over to AVForums where you can find several large threads on both items with a lot of info to help make your mind up.

Hope that helps a bit mate

Paul

 

[squiffy]

I can't help but think that you've just repeated back the argument I put forward last week which you happily argued with.
Either way, I do agree that for a given price, a 2 channel system will be of better quality (though without rear effects).

No I haven't. You said a stereo system at £1000 offer better sound quality than a £1000 HT system. I agree with that. However it still won't be multi-channel. Which is what you want for a HT.

If you get that £1000 2 channel system then add components to finish off the system to multi-channel, then it'll still sound the same in 2 channel, but also great in HT too because you're listening to it as it was designed to (films)

Why can't Hi-Fi people understand this?

Without getting into the above debate on expense, I would say after switching from cheap 5.1 (Acoustic Solution 5.1 home cinema system) to a better quality entry level hi-fi stereo system (MA B2s, Marantz amp), I really don't miss surround sound at all. I've also gone from cheap 5.1 to better quality stereo with my PC too and again, even for games, I don't find myself missing surround sound. On the contrary I find myself enjoying and noticing the improved sound quality.

And here someone agrees with me, at least with my 1st point. You changed from a cheap 5.1 to a nice stereo system. So you have better sound quality. However you say you don't miss 5.1, that's because it now sounds better than it previously, so you think 5.1 is waste of time. So in your mind you don't need 5.1. Perhaps once you've had the 2ch system for a while you should borrow good quality components to go back to 5.1, albeit now with a higher end system overall. I'm positive you won't go back to MA B2s & Marantz amp in 2 channel when watching films.

 

[Things change I've changed]

just my 2 pence, I know LOADS of people that listen to music on cheap 5.1 all in one systems (you know the ones, with the little satalites and mini sub) and they absolutely love the sound, some people are just happy enough with that, I remember being amazed at my 2.1 cambridge speakers, I enjoyed listening to music on them for over a year.

I would recommend the Yamaha AV59 Pack. Its 200 quid, and also a Samsung DVDHD860 which can be had for about 60 quid. Whilst this is a bit over your budget, I have the same setup and I'm very pleased with it.

If you're interested, head over to AVForums where you can find several large threads on both items with a lot of info to help make your mind up.

Hope that helps a bit mate

Paul

with the kind of budget that the OP'er is working with then I agree, try and stretch for this, at least this way you have an upgrade path, if you catch the hi-fi or cinema bug then you can gradually update the system at a later date.

 

[fish99]

However you say you don't miss 5.1, that's because it now sounds better than it previously, so you think 5.1 is waste of time. So in your mind you don't need 5.1. Perhaps once you've had the 2ch system for a while you should borrow good quality components to go back to 5.1, albeit now with a higher end system overall. I'm positive you won't go back to MA B2s & Marantz amp in 2 channel when watching films.

I dunno, I used to play all my PC games in 5.1 for years. Now I've got stereo and I'm never sat there thinking I wish I had positional sound, even in games that should benefit from it like first person shooters. I played GRAW and FEAR all the way through in stereo recently, games where you would expect to miss the tactical edge from surround sound, and I didn't miss it, which I was surprised about.

Maybe that's because the surround sound my old 5.1 set (logitech x530) was so poor that it added little positional information with it's weak satellites, not to mention Creatives surround sound being pretty ropey.

I would also say with my AS 5.1 home cinema system, I never thought the rear channels were really utilized enough to add anything significant to the movie experience, although I'm sure it varies from film to film.

TBH I don't have the money for that sort of setup anyway, or the appetite to upgrade.