I need av receiver advice!

tina902

hi brad,

I'll glance the sight..I never knew they made amps...Now, he was the guy who made the advent speakers..right? I once had a pair of advent heritage speakers...way

---

too warm as the highs were rolled up say if I put on joe satriani whose guitar is rather bright sounding. But, kept the advents for awhile since they were "the perfect" speaker for a lot of my cds of 70's bands that were recorded cheaply or badly...I like michael schenker from ufo...his guitar sounds amazing through the advent heritage speakers...

tina

tina902

I wish I could afford mcintosh as its a refreshing change from the average black av unit.But, OMG why soooooooooooooooo pricey!? Unless it would also change the litter box & do the dishes...forget it.............I've seen amps by pyle with meters but they're also really tacky looking...how hard would it be to make one like the old onkyos with the wood cases...maybe skip the wood case but keep the sexy meters...even if just a 2 channel amp....Do they think all the people who use to buy amps with meters just fell off the face of the earth?? Many now already done the av thing ( long ago) & want seperate 2 channel setups....Or, like accuphase is it?? They sell pretty 2 channel integrated amps but for thousands which is silly to me...I'm not that picky on sound as long as its not too bright...shewood or other could do it for a few hundred bucks easily if they wanted. Boy, I'm babbling tonight!

tina

tina902

I'll have to make notes from your reply as some av things just aren't sinking in too easily...especially parts about some amps having hdmi but it doesn't pass through & you need to hook things up seperately bla..bla...as in pain in the butt! Maybe I could just 'blink' someone from the site into my music room where they would hook all these messy wires up correctly..once I get my av amp & lcd. If, I get an lcd..? I'm now reading where many people who spent a grand plus are soooooooooo angry since their sets needed repairs 2-3 yrs. later...& the repair is like 700.00 on average. I'm thinking..how much tv do I really watch & couldn't my old tube tv do the job just as well....I know they reproduce the black & contrast better than the average lcd....maybe, people are just infatuated with the thin & stylish sets...wow, 650 .00 to ??? just to watch tv! And, I don't even like the average tv show!I don't trust sanyo, vizio, emerson..or even sharp & toshiba as toshiba vcrs & dvd players were always mid or bottom list on needed repairs so why would lcd be any different. I don't even think I trust samsung..good picture or not as they're stereos were generally junk..as were their vcrs & most of their cd players........If, the sony trinitron wasn't so heavy, I'd buy one of those as my dad use to have one that took 3 people to just lift from the floor to the stand! Well, I'm still debating things...If, my dad were still around, I know he'd shun LCD & stick with a long life tube tv...

tina

comfortablycurt

Both Vizio and Samsung LCD sets have very high customer satisfaction ratings just FYI. They definitely aren't junk. Vizio is actually the best selling brand of HDTV in America right now. I'm just using an old Magnavox tube TV right now myself...but can't wait to upgrade. One thing I've found with my TV is that it's a pain in the **** to hook up and make it work right when I have everything connected through my receiver because it doesn't have the same connections that a newer TV would have.

Picture quality is nowhere near as important to me as audio quality is, but none the less, you aren't really taking advantage of the equipment that's out there with an older TV.

Is having an HDTV necessary? Not at all...but it does simplify connections with HDMI and whatnot, and the pictures can't even be compared. An LCD is better than a CRT tv from every single aspect. Like you said...CRT's do technically have a better contrast ratio, but the LCD does a much better job of reproducing the image in the first place, so the contrast is still going to be more defined on the LCD.

Igo

As a whole, Vizio and Samsung are worlds apart with Samsung at the top and Vizio being bargin basement though Vizio has made great strides in the last year or so. Samsung is one of the best names in TV right now.

manman

comfortablycurt wrote: »

An LCD is better than a CRT tv from every single aspect. Like you said...CRT's do technically have a better contrast ratio, but the LCD does a much better job of reproducing the image in the first place, so the contrast is still going to be more defined on the LCD.

What?? LCDs are absolutely not better than CRTs in every aspect... CRTs do have better contrast ratio- I don't see how you agree with that and then say that the contrast will be better defined on an LCD then... having better contrast by definition means that the contrast is better defined...

I would go as far as to say that in most aspects of PQ, CRTs are better than LCDs. LCDs have definitely gotten better over the years, but CRTs still have the edge if you're talking about SD Content. I'm not sure how many HD CRT sets there are out there, but I think the edge that LCDs have over CRT is that almost all of them are HD sets, and you can get a much larger screen size without getting a huge, bulky, heavy machine that wont' fit anywhere.

If you're comparing HD content you've seen on an LCD to standard def content on a crt then I'm not sure how fair of a comparison that is since the HD content represents way more information. But yes, the fact that more LCDs are HD sets is a good advantage.

If I was going to compare an CRT to a flat pannel PQ wise- I'd say plasma compares much better than an LCD.

comfortablycurt

Ok...I guess what I meant is that being as the resolution is way way higher...you're actually going to be able to see the contrast more clearly. It might not be as sharp of a contrast ratio as it is on a CRT...but it's going to look better regardless IMO.

And I'd have to disagree...for standard definition content I think LCD's still do a better job.

manman

well, resolution and contrast are totally different things- so even if resolution is higher it doesn't make a worse contrast ratio show up better... Bottom line on that one is that crts have deeper blacks, better contrast- and that shows clearly regardless of resolution. On the issue of the overall pq looking better due to high def- that's a different story. With most sets I'd agree- but when it comes to SD material I guess we just gotta agree to disagree. I haven't seen one yet that looks as good at the same screen size with SD material- as I feel in addition to the contrast/blacks CRTs also have more accurate color and less motion blur. For computer monitors it's the same for me. A good lcd saves space- but for graphics work, I have to go with my CRT. The image just feels like it has more depth and more 'true' color.

LuSh

comfortablycurt:

They say having a little bit of information is more dangerous then having any. This applies here. To date there is no better way of reproducing a picture in a home environment then a picture tube. Without question. Most post production houses still use them, color reproduction and contrast simply aren't matched by even the best Plasma (which is the closest technology to CRT performance wise). The CRT is still the gold standard in which other forms are measured. CRT's died a death for two reasons: space and the cost of disposal. That is it.

LCD was formulated by computer and calculator manufactures who have done remarkable things in order to push the technology forward. Make no mistake though...LCD is by far the worst technology with regards to film and video reproduction. This is not debatable but simply fact.

RutgersFTW

I like my plasma TV and my Sony receiver. People say Harman is warm and nice, but it was very finicky to get set up and the sound was not very detailed. They say Onkyo has the power, but I had lots of HDMI issues. They say Yamaha is refined but it sounded harsh. I like Sony ES and STR... YMMV.

thsmith

LuSh wrote: »

comfortablycurt:

They say having a little bit of information is more dangerous then having any. This applies here. To date there is no better way of reproducing a picture in a home environment then a picture tube. Without question. Most post production houses still use them, color reproduction and contrast simply aren't matched by even the best Plasma (which is the closest technology to CRT performance wise). The CRT is still the gold standard in which other forms are measured. CRT's died a death for two reasons: space and the cost of disposal. That is it.

LCD was formulated by computer and calculator manufactures who have done remarkable things in order to push the technology forward. Make no mistake though...LCD is by far the worst technology with regards to film and video reproduction. This is not debatable but simply fact.

Thats why I purposely sought out my CRT-RP HDTV 2 years ago, had to go used but very happy.

TomBergamini

You can get an Onkyo TX-SR706 for $500 these days. what a steal. I immediately returned the nicest sony unit made to trade "down" to the 706. Best 50 in return shipping I ever spent. CNET gives it a high rating. Great high def video output, nice sound, good stable power and check out that feature that balances equalization at lower volume so it still sounds like the movie even if the vol. is turned way down. Remember, satisfizers are much happier than maximizers.

manman

TomBergamini wrote: »

You can get an Onkyo TX-SR706 for $500 these days. what a steal. I immediately returned the nicest sony unit made to trade "down" to the 706. Best 50 in return shipping I ever spent. CNET gives it a high rating. Great high def video output, nice sound, good stable power and check out that feature that balances equalization at lower volume so it still sounds like the movie even if the vol. is turned way down. Remember, satisfizers are much happier than maximizers.

I have the TX-SR806, and so far I love it, but in my personal experience, even with that equalization feature- listening at lower volumes it's not so great. The sound from my mains and center (rti a5 and csi a6) seems a little muddled to me. I definitely feel like the system needs an external amp with this set-up to open up the speakers more and give a little more clarity and definition at lower volumes. Just my two cents, but I do feel like while the Onkyo is great, it's not a compolete "satisfizer", as you put it. Unfortunately I don't have the cash for that now, but hopefully soon.

On the bright side, I picked up the 806 during the hight of the MS live cashback craze- so I got something like 35% off + $100 in rewards credit on my card- picked up the whole thing for a cash total of about $310. Couldnt' pass that up!

comfortablycurt

Well...I have never in my life seen a CRT tv that I thought looked better than an LCD. Nor have I ever heard anyone else say that they thought they looked better...so I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Igo

HHmmmmmmm

ben62670

I had an HK and I really miss it:(

SEH

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Well...I have never in my life seen a CRT tv that I thought looked better than an LCD. Nor have I ever heard anyone else say that they thought they looked better...

Have you actually seen a decent HD CRT? Do you know anybody who has? Because I have to tell you, your opinion and experience are far, far outside the mainstream on this one.

comfortablycurt

SEH wrote: »

Have you actually seen a decent HD CRT? Do you know anybody who has? Because I have to tell you, your opinion and experience are far, far outside the mainstream on this one.

Yes...I have. My brother has a 32" Sony HD CRT. I think it's one of the Trinitrons or whatever they are. I've seen both standard, and high def content on it quite a few times...I'm there on almost a daily basis so I watch it quite a bit. It looks good...don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't compare to a good LCD or Plasma in my opinion. My parents have a 42" Sony Plasma that I also watch on a pretty regular basis. I have also watched tons of both standard and high def content on it...and it puts the CRT to shame no matter what kind of content it is.

I don't know...maybe my eyes just don't work right or something.

manman

I don't know, I would guess because of the size difference the 42" plasma just feels more impressive to you, but I could be wrong. I could see that with HD content, but with standard def content on a 42" LCD vs a 32" CRT it really should be no contest... as far as most objective stats for PQ, CRTs have it- but for personal taste- eye of the beholder I guess.

comfortablycurt

manman wrote: »

I don't know, I would guess because of the size difference the 42" plasma just feels more impressive to you, but I could be wrong. I could see that with HD content, but with standard def content on a 42" LCD vs a 32" CRT it really should be no contest... as far as most objective stats for PQ, CRTs have it- but for personal taste- eye of the beholder I guess.

Yep...makes no difference to me which one is better on paper. I'm gonna go for the one that looks better in my eye. The size isn't really a factor either...I've seen plenty of standard and high def content on smaller LCD screens and came to the same conclusions...way better than CRT. Like you said though...eye of the beholder. For those of you who like CRT more...more power to ya. I'll stick with LCD or Plasma...(ironically though I have a CRT tv...lol) Soon to be upgraded to a Plasma though.

manman

well- for the record I was strictly talking about pq of CRT vs LCD, not saying I wouldn't rather have an LCD or plasma. But for me, the reasons I would go for a flat pannel are screen real estate and manageability (like being able to mount it and stuff).

comfortablycurt

manman wrote: »

well- for the record I was strictly talking about pq of CRT vs LCD, not saying I wouldn't rather have an LCD or plasma. But for me, the reasons I would go for a flat pannel are screen real estate and manageability (like being able to mount it and stuff).

That is definitely an added bonus...One person can actually lift up and move a reasonably sized flat panel by themself. Back in the CRT days when you were moving your TV you had to get a case of beer and call up like 3 of your buddies...:p

Like I said though...CRT's might be better on paper in some aspects...but they just don't look as good to me. They always seem kinda "fuzzy" and less vivid than LCD's/Plasma's...even high def CRT's.

Are there even any companies still producing CRT's? I don't recall seeing any new ones recently.

Fongolio

The last CRT I owned (still have it but don't use it) was a Sony Wega 32" that had component in's and a 16:9 mode setting that worked such that when you were watching a widescreen movie or 16:9 source the screen could be be shrunk and all the lines of resolution of the full screen used in the letterboxed screen. It made for an amazing picture out of a CRT television. Crisp clear sharp and vivid colour. I really upgraded to plasma 42" for larger screen real estate and the ability to watch true hi-def. That Sony was an amazing CRT.

bigred7078

manman wrote: »

I would go as far as to say that in most aspects of PQ, CRTs are better than LCDs. LCDs have definitely gotten better over the years, but CRTs still have the edge if you're talking about SD Content. .

Well duh...CRT's were MADE FOR SD....LCD's werenot...Thats not really a way to compare

manman

bigred7078 wrote: »

Well duh...CRT's were MADE FOR SD....LCD's werenot...Thats not really a way to compare

That's why if you read my post that's not how I compared them, it was just a caveat for saying "most aspects". For hd, they are still superior in many ways, but I i don't know if LCD has an edge in some areas. I haven't seen a lot of them. Also- HD CRTs were made for HD, so.... your comment isn't really that accurate. the technology of LCD displays was not made for the purposes of HD or SD content, it was just a new display technology that made displays more compact and manageable.

bigred7078

manman wrote: »

That's why if you read my post that's not how I compared them, it was just a caveat for saying "most aspects". For hd, they are still superior in many ways, but I i don't know if LCD has an edge in some areas. I haven't seen a lot of them. Also- HD CRTs were made for HD, so.... your comment isn't really that accurate. the technology of LCD displays was not made for the purposes of HD or SD content, it was just a new display technology that made displays more compact and manageable.

got ya. And sure the technology of LCD was developed for display devices but were talking TV's specifically...

I agree LCD's and plasmas look much better. There weren't that many excellent HD CRT's. In fact the only one that people ever really give credit to and really reference the whole "CRT looks better" thing is from a 32" Sony XBR. Most other HD CRT's were not really noted as fantastic, reference sets.

LuSh

Bigred:

It's no contest...I would encourage you to do some more in depth research...CRT's are simply better and always have been...there were a number of reference 34" CRT's available earlier in the decade that offered better contrast, color, motion...it's a completely different set of variables...