Inexpensive HDMI home audio setup


 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been looking for a inexpensive HDMI home audio setup latley. I live in a apt. so I really don't need anything too loud, I just want decent quality and true 5.1 with HDMI inputs and outputs. Any suggestions under 300 bucks? 200 might be pushing it with HDMI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still of the opinion that HDMI is a worthless gimmick which the masses readily buy into.

That being said, look into a simple HTiB solution or a Logitech or older Klipsch 5.1 system. Some units go for cheap online if your pushing the price/quality barrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still of the opinion that HDMI is a worthless gimmick which the masses readily buy into.

That being said, look into a simple HTiB solution or a Logitech or older Klipsch 5.1 system. Some units go for cheap online if your pushing the price/quality barrier.

Any suggestions or a link or 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What annoys me is why most lower end recievers feature HDMI but still needs audio to travel through digital co-ax or digital optical

cables. I mean what the hell is the point of having the HDMI feature if it does not use it fully?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What annoys me is why most lower end recievers feature HDMI but still needs audio to travel through digital co-ax or digital optical

cables. I mean what the hell is the point of having the HDMI feature if it does not use it fully?

yea.. i had that problem while shopping around for a receiver... the only one I can suggest is the one I picked up.. the oynko sr-606, I think its just above your price range but you may be able to find it cheaper as they just released a newer model replacing the 606, it has 4 hdmi inputs and does the decoding of 5.1 via hdmi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still of the opinion that HDMI is a worthless gimmick which the masses readily buy into.

That being said, look into a simple HTiB solution or a Logitech or older Klipsch 5.1 system. Some units go for cheap online if your pushing the price/quality barrier.

How so?

Having an HDMI enabled receiver lets me route my PS3/360 through it, use bravia sync, but most importantly it allows me to pass PCM over HDMI and therefore get HD audio through my PS3.

All of that for ?240.

HD audio is not possible over optical, or well at least PCM isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so?

Having an HDMI enabled receiver lets me route my PS3/360 through it, use bravia sync, but most importantly it allows me to pass PCM over HDMI and therefore get HD audio through my PS3.

All of that for ?240.

HD audio is not possible over optical, or well at least PCM isn't.

he may mean gimmick as HD audio is available over analog but very few low/mid-range bluray players support the analog output... otherwise I am not sure... I think having 1 cable going from my receiver to my TV is the best thing possible as it gives a much cleaner look..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he may mean gimmick as HD audio is available over analog but very few low/mid-range bluray players support the analog output... otherwise I am not sure... I think having 1 cable going from my receiver to my TV is the best thing possible as it gives a much cleaner look..

Ah right fair enough, it's probably some enthusiast technical jargon about how HDMI never needed to be created but was just done so for it's "protection/DRM". I'm sure I seen people on here arguing about optical actually having the bandwidth for HD audio or video or or something, but I can't remember why it can't actually carry it/do it.

Quite honestly I as a consumer don't care if the cable costs me ?2~3, I'll happily buy one for my TV to receiver and then another few for any devices needing to go to the receiver. Everything works great, I only need 1 remote for my TV/receiver and I couldn't be happier. If you're buying a receiver or theatre package you really gotta get an HDMI enabled one for input AND output. Just save up a little extra cash if need be, better investment(Y))

It's whenever something has to be proprietary just for the sake of being proprietary and therefore costing me lots of ??? you'll hear me moan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Which is what HDMI is; commence moaning.

HDMI is used via licensing; of course its part of a business model (big surprise). As has been the plan since Denon first started rolling out mainstream support of HDMI, all devices shall not be created equal, despite having the fancy logo on the box.

Cheaper HDMI products will use older HDMI profiles and or stripped audio ability; yes Pixil, you'll have to use fiber optic or analog for your sound. But don't worry, for another couple hundred you'll get full unrestricted access to everything audio

So in short, you are getting ripped off, but it does provide one cable solution, all for a couple hundred dollars. Down side being, for those that care, receiver manufacturers skimp on the amplifier as licensing fees for the bells and whistles takes precedence in the manufacturing process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... HD audio is available over analog but very few low/mid-range bluray players support the analog output... otherwise I am not sure...

Which is a crime. HD-DVD (not meaning to bring up the format wars) struck well and hard when it shipped with its first base model MPCM analog outputs (thank you Toshiba), the same you find on SACD and DVD-A players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD audio is not possible over optical, or well at least PCM isn't.

Why not? Of course it is, but that wasn't what the studios wanted. They wanted the DRM possibility that comes with the HDMI spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah right fair enough, it's probably some enthusiast technical jargon about how HDMI never needed to be created but was just done so for it's "protection/DRM". I'm sure I seen people on here arguing about optical actually having the bandwidth for HD audio or video or or something, but I can't remember why it can't actually carry it/do it.

Sorry, I missed this post before. Optical has much more bandwidth than HDMI, but for some reason (most likely DRM), the industry chose HDMI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I missed this post before. Optical has much more bandwidth than HDMI, but for some reason (most likely DRM), the industry chose HDMI.

Well whatever they chose it only cost me about ?12 for 3 cables.

Whatever cause you guys "fight" for may be valid but as a consumer it's made no difference for me, I guess that's all I should care about:laugh::

My setup ain't super top end or anything, but I'm happy with what I have and what it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so?

Having an HDMI enabled receiver lets me route my PS3/360 through it, use bravia sync, but most importantly it allows me to pass PCM over HDMI and therefore get HD audio through my PS3.

All of that for ?240.

HD audio is not possible over optical, or well at least PCM isn't.

Well, one thing is for certain: "HD Audio" isn't going to make a bit of difference when sent through tiny full-range speakers with 2" drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one thing is for certain: "HD Audio" isn't going to make a bit of difference when sent through tiny full-range speakers with 2" drivers.

I pay for what I can afford, whatever the outcome the system still supports HD audio over PCM, even if the difference ain't much/arguably nothing.

http://www.sony.co.uk/product/hcs-cinema-s...d-kit/ht-ss1300

I'm not trying to boast an amazing system, so you guys can chill :p I know how heated you all get with your audio discussions! Haha. The recommendation of the system due to the budget I had came from AVForums, I done a lot of reading over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems weird to me that it seems like every thread I read about HDMI has you poking in a squawking somethign about "HD Audio", when for $200-$300 the OP is just looking at using HDMI for conveniences sake of using one cable. ;)

Even if a the average human can even perceive audio formats with higher sample rate or bitdepth than 16/44.1 Redbook CDs (and it's not even proven that we can in a typical listening environment), it's certainly not going to make a difference when outted by the speakers you find in a cheap set of computer speakers or HTiB.

Edited by shakey_snake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems weird to me that every thread about HDMI has you poking in a squawking somethign about "HD Audio", when for $200-$300 the OP is just looking at using HDMI for conveniences sake of using one cable. ;)

And that annoys you why? :/

My comment was aimed at goji.

The rest of my post had some "benefits" of HDMI the topic creator could read and see.

If you're arguing usefulness for the topic creator where is your recommendations of $200-300 systems then? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't annoy me; it just seems like not useful/poor advice. ;)

For $200-300 I'd recommend spending as much on a pair of bookshelf speakers and finding the lowest cost compatible stereo receiver the OP can bargain hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For $200-300 I'd recommend spending as much on a pair of bookshelf speakers and finding the lowest cost compatible stereo receiver the OP can bargain hunt.

Fair enough, but how is spending $200-300 on speakers only going to help with this?

I just want decent quality and true 5.1 with HDMI inputs and outputs

Decent quality and 5.1 are what he's after.

I know you guys love your top end equipment, and spending $200-300 speakers alone is what you'd do, it's not the route he's after.

I can't name systems off the top of my head, but you're probably going to find a ton of advice on dedicated forums so I'd recommend visiting here - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=109 & http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=90

I've posted a link to the setup I own, but I don't know it's American counterpart.

It doesn't annoy me; it just seems like not useful/poor advice. ;)

Stop moaning then :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decent quality and 5.1 are what he's after.

I know you guys love your top end equipment, and spending $200-300 speakers alone is what you'd do, it's not the route he's after.

Maybe that's what he thinks he wants, but I'm pretty sure he'd be more satisfied with better quality than having the extra speakers.

Consider this: the average "5.1 home theater in a box setup" crosses over at around 200Hz. That means it's sending all frequencies 200-20,000Hz to the satellite speakers, and sending all frequencies under 200Hz to the subwoofer.

The problem is that we humans can percieve the directionality of frequencies all the way down to about 75Hz. This is typically where you would want the system to cross over.

The reason that the HTiB has to crossover at such a high range is because the tiny, full-range 2" drivers in the satellites can reproduce frequencies lower than that. So essentially the options are the system either crossovers these mid-bass frequencies to the sub and lose the directionality, or you just lose them. The result is very muddy bass.

The solution is to have bigger speakers with bigger drivers, in the 6 1/2" - 10" range. This means to that the speaker will probably include a tweeter (making it a two-way speaker) or maybe even a midrange driver (making it a 3-way speaker). These speakers typically cost more (and thus my recommendation), but you get much, much better fidelity.

So, the reality of his request is that it's a trade off: does he really want "decent quality" or does he really want 5.1?

I'm suggesting the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.