Don't worry about me trying to fill your head with techno babble.

As much as I launch in video related gobbledegook, I'm NOT an audiophile. Frankly, I don't understand most of the technology. I grew up listening to 50's mono music and watching old movies so I was never big into sound systems.

But I realized that my crappy old home-theater-in-a-box receiver wouldn't cut it with new technologies and an eventual switch to some form of HD disc. My old system didn't even have DTS which is now standard. Mind you, it was still a very nice 5.1 system and the sound was great...but it had a very limited range of decoding options.

So I bought this:

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Pioneer_VSX_816_S/4505-6466_16-31884399-5.html?tag=toc

I'm not going to extol the virtues of one receiver over another because I'm no expert. I had a specific price range to work in and I read the reviews. For what I was willing to spend, this Pioneer seemed like a very good idea. I like Pioneer equipment and this unit seemed to rate better than others in it's class. Oh, I also bought a new powered subwoofer to go with it (my old sub was pathetic).

Naturally, when I ran wires for my sound sysyem about three years ago, I ran an extra set of wires to the back of the room in anticipation of the 6.1 sound system. Just my luck...this new receiver is 7.1 so I'm a wire short (you don't NEED the extra speaker but it would be a nice touch)!

I have no idea what most of these sound formats are (DTS NEO:6, WMA9 Pro, DTS 96 kHZ (24 bit)...and more) but I guess it's good to have them.

Brent,
You bought a brand-new receiver with no HDMI in/out? So whacha gonna do when you get an HD (or upconversion) DVD player in addition to your HD cable box? Which one gets dibs on your TV's HDMI input?

--Hawg (who's no expert either, but I usta make a livin' sellin' these things.)

I never cared for a receiver's capability to switch video sources. Most people in my house won't turn on the receiver to watch TV.

Don't most HD TV's have multiple HDMI inputs for just such a quandary? In any case my cable box insists on CVI for complete HD connectivity. The HDMI on the TV is unused.

Yeah, the HDMI thing had occurred to me but, for my purposes, it shouldn't be an issue.

The only thing I really use my receiver for is decode the audio from DVDs. I have an upconverting player attached to my DVI/HDMI port on the TV set and I run a separate digital audio cable from the DVD player to the receiver.

So I took a couple more things into consideration: 1)the HDMI standard is evolving and I know some guys are still waiting for the final HDMI 1.3 specs to be finalized this summer. I don't want to keep waiting for the audio/video gods to get this business finalized one and for all. 2)I expect to buy a new TV set in a couple of years by which time, the sets will have multiple HDMI ports (many already do) so it may be unnecceasary to have them on the receiver.

Unfortunately, HDMI is being handled the same way as DVI. People waited for DVI on their TV sets. Shortly thereafter, DVI was supplanted by DVI/HDCP which left the original DVI virtually useless. With HDMI about to gets it's third revision, I'm not of a mind to spend extra money right now on something that may be of little use in a couple of years.

EDIT: I see Steve244 posted while I was replying and I agree with him. Like I said, my receiver is basically my DVD decoder and I don't use it if I'm just watching TV.

I was thinking about this just the other day, as I have the Pioneer VSX D938TX. It's at least 8 years old, but sort of does everything I need. I say sort of because the only problem I seem to have is that "talk" from a DVD is soft and music / explosions etc is loud. To the point where I'm pre-empting the movie and having to turn it up and down all the time! (kids sleeping that sort of thing...). If anyone has any idea what may be the problem (something I've overlooked in the setup), then it would be much appreciated. I’ve got the distance of each speaker from my TV set into the system along with each output level, so I’m at a loss. Brent, let me know if you have the same problem.

Bottom line from overy pro I ever talked to is: the best video: straight from the source to the TV/projector, the best audio: straight from the source to the receiver/amp. I've tried routing video through the reciever for a laugh, and the picture was noticably poorer, tried routing the audio through the TV, and it was un listenable. My receiver is a Yamaha HTR 5250, got it on sale for $400, came with a free set of Yamaha monitors. That thing will plow down the walls, it's 5.1, but in our small living room the sound field created and audio steering are more than sufficient. Built like a brick, weighs in at about 35 pounds, cast aluminum heat sink separating the preamp and power amp components. If at some time I do upgrade to more chanels or power (550 watts is fine right now) I will only buy Yamaha. Best sounding receivers I have ever heard.

<snip> the best audio: straight from the source to the receiver/amp.Yes, I've tried both optical (dont' seem to get as good a bass from optical) and coaxial. No luck, but I'll play around with it again (the leads that is)

I'm not too sure how that problem about voices etc. vs. sound effects is heard by different people. I'm not too sensitive to it but I know that some people are. I know that most modern receivers have a mode that will THEORETICALLY help the problem. My new receiver has a lisitng mode called "MIDNIGHT" (how original) that is supposed to keep the dialogue at a reasonable level while muting aggressive sound effects. I haven't really tried it though.

I just want to add that I had no complaints with the 5.1 system and I have no doubt that 5.1 is perfectly adequate. I don't know about you guys but I only have two ears anyway :). A boatload of more speakers probably won't make much difference and, besides, I don't even think there is any such thing as 7.1 soundtrack on a DVD! I did, however, install another speaker so I have a 6.1 system (big deal).

My personal decsion to buy a new receiver was based on the inability of old receiver to decode many sound formats.

Unfortunately, HDMI is being handled the same way as DVI. People waited for DVI on their TV sets. Shortly thereafter, DVI was supplanted by DVI/HDCP which left the original DVI virtually useless. With HDMI about to gets it's third revision, I'm not of a mind to spend extra money right now on something that may be of little use in a couple of years.


Brent, some clarification please. I've noticed several times you refer to a DVI connection as "losing" to HDMI. Yet my Comcast HDTV box and RCA HDTV television both have DVI connections, but no HDMI. I'm not disagreeing with you because I suspect you've forgotten more about TV's than I know, but it seems odd that Comcast and RCA are both investing in a connection that is soon to be obselete. Am I missing something?

What happenned was this: DVI evolved in such a way that we were left with versions that were could be compatible or incompatible with HDMI.

DVI actually stands for Digital VISUAL Interface although some folks insist on using the word "Video" in the middle (which actually sounds better...but it's wrong).

DVI was just supposed to be a simple way of connecting monitors to video output sources. At some point, the original DVI spec was upgraded to include the HDCP protocol. HDCP stands for "High bandwidth Digital Content Protection". A DVI interface with this spec is called DVI/HDCP

HDMI and DVI/HDCP are compatible. They have different plug shapes and pin assignments but a simple adapter makes them work basically the same. I have a DVI/HDCP on my three year old TV. It is HDMI comptible. I stick a plug adapter on it and an HDMI cable works just fine.

But the early DVI interfaces did not include the HDCP protocol. So, if you have an OLD or EARLY DVI interface, it is incompatible. The adapter will allow the units to plug in but they won't function.

So DVI and HDMI ARE COMPATIBLE in most units manufactured in the last few years.

The people who are out of luck are those who got DVI units in the early days and thought they were getting new technology. What they discovered that was, by the time DVI was becoming common, the specs had been changed!

I have to say that this is a very annoying trend. You get things that appear compatible but turn out to be incompatible. I bought a printer last year that had built in memory card slots. But it won't read the pictures on cards from my new camera because the files are too big! I appreciate having new technology but these damn electronic guys have to stop upgrading specs every 6 months in such a way that barely used equipment becomes obsolete. I don't mind changing audio or video formats every 15 or so years. I'm tired of hardware going out of style every few months.

Thanks, I understand what you meant now, I thought before maybe HDMI was more "standard" in Canada and/or other parts of the world.

"DVI actually stands for Digital VISUAL Interface although some folks insist on using the word "Video" in the middle (which actually sounds better...but it's wrong)."

And DVD actually stands for "Digital VERSATILE Disc" although most folks seem ta think it means, "Digital VIDEO Disc" (which also sounds better...but it, too, is wrong.)

Not to derail the thread, but I wanted to comment on changes in audio technology.

Brent, you talked about starting off listening to mono recordings...when my parents were in college, one had a mono record player and one had a stereo, so I have matched mono and stereo discs of a number of 60s albums. The sound quality difference is impressive. I have a Sony 5.1 receiver at home, and late last year I picked up the 20th anniversary remaster of Dire Strait's "Brothers in Arms." One side of the disc is a CD recording of the remastered original stereo versions. The other side is a DVD of the album remastered into 5.1 digital surround. The difference is truly astounding. The remastered stereo recordings sound great...but compared to the 5.1 surround tracks, the stereo sound might as well be coming from a Victrola.

And DVD actually stands for "Digital VERSATILE Disc" although most folks seem ta think it means, "Digital VIDEO Disc" (which also sounds better...but it, too, is wrong.)As is this. "DVD" officially stands for nothing. Quoting from the May 23, 2006 revision of the official Internet DVD FAQ for the rec.video.dvd Usenet newsgroups:
[1.1.1] What do the letters DVD stand for?

All of the following have been proposed as the words behind the letters DVD.

Delayed, very delayed (referring to the many late releases of DVD formats)
Diversified, very diversified (referring to the proliferation of recordable formats and other spinoffs)
Digital venereal disease (referring to piracy and copying of DVDs)
Dead, very dead (from naysayers who predicted DVD would never take off)
Digital video disc (the original meaning proposed by some of DVD's creators)
Digital versatile disc (a meaning later proposed by some of DVD's creators)
Nothing
And the official answer is? "Nothing." The original acronym came from "digital video disc." Some members of the DVD Forum (see 6.1) tried to express that DVD goes far beyond video by retrofitting the painfully contorted phrase "digital versatile disc," but this has never been officially accepted by the DVD Forum as a whole. The DVD Forum decreed in 1999 that DVD, as an international standard, is simply three letters.

Qapla'

SSB

The difference in TV sound vs. digital 5.1 is astounding.

When I got my receiver a few years back I was blown away. Truly revolutionary. Unlike the difference between standard and HD TV. Maybe I was expecting too much.

Maybe it was because all the DVD's have 5.1 sound.

After getting it, I wondered why audio CD's hadn't improved any, and found they had: there's quite a few in DTS 5.1. For plane (or plain) geeks, Alan Parsons, On Air (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000007R16/002-6161959-9036066?v=glance&n=5174) in DTS 5.1 will send shivers up your spine. Has nothing to do with percussion by Lockheed and Harrier.

...The difference is truly astounding. The remastered stereo recordings sound great...but compared to the 5.1 surround tracks, the stereo sound might as well be coming from a Victrola.Ha! I agree. I have some friends that claim to be "music purists" (:freak: ) who say that the ONLY way to listen to any recording is in stereo. I don't know what their reasoning is. They say things like at a concert you would only hear it in stereo, but everything from a U2 concert to a philharmonic orchestra adjust the sound and / or acoustics to give the feeling that you're being surrounded by sounds and not as though you're hitting it like a brick wall.

I have the Pioneer VSXD710S and have wrestled with the voice versus effect problem as well. Crank up the center speaker and also make sure the polarity is proper in your speaker wire hookup. It's 500 watts but not loud enough - I think I have wires crossed or something. I use Polk speakers with a powered sub - Polk sez to use the powered sub to drive the speakers. Confusing...About as confusing as my post is~