@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.

So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?

Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?

the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up

Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.

I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.

If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).

But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.

Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.

Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.

I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.

we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece

So did B&W back then.

your right

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

Well.... it's a detriment to 2 channel music. I would recommend getting a center channel that is a grade or two better than the other speakers, because that's where the dialog comes out when you're watching TV/movies. Placement is still key, so it depends on the seating arrangement as Scott said. But if you can mount all the speakers in the "right" places, a good center channel will improve things greatly.

agree with this

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/us/Pages/Home.aspx#

http://www.overtureav.com/shop/mcintosh?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=McIntosh_CT-SC&_vsrefdom=oav_ppc

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.

So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?

Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?

the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up

Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.

I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.

If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).

But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.

Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.

Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.

I consider McIntosh a gateway product. Good stuff, but on the low end of hi fi mostly. Well known like stuff at Best Buy almost. Not quite, but in that range.

we may not be talking about the same company then. back in the 70's and 80's this stuff cost thousands for a single piece

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

https://totemacoustic.com/en/

cool i will check them out

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

I wonder whether or not I'm simply kidding myself or if there truly are positions in IT that aren't primarily focused on supporting users' efforts for using Microsoft Outlook.

lol sorry can't help you there because my users all have a hard time with it too

Honestly it's not always the users. Outlook, especially how it handles images, can just be screwy.

what are some example problems so i can check?

What I think is going on is there are users for whom I apparently haven't installed this registry key; thus, even though they see pictures, recipients do not see them. Some images aren't in the signature though, they're just in the body, which I don't think really matters since and image in an E-mail is just an image in an E-mail.

No users have yet been able to articulate clearly whether the following is true: "You see images in the E-mail you compose, but the recipient doesn't see the images."

You seem to have a lot of issues I never run into with outlook.

How often are you embedding images into HTML E-mails? Also, do you have a minimum of 3 images in your E-mail signature?

yeah sorry don't have those issues either. are your users locked down enough?

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@storageninja said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jaredbusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@storageninja said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

yum, lassi

What drink is that? It looks like an Indian tea/milk thing I've had before

He is in India.

Bangalore this week, and I've had quite a few Lassi's.

i am jealous, i would like to travel over there some day

I'm scheduled, for whatever that is worth, to be in Qatar a week from tomorrow.

that would certainly be interesting too

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore but he would need 3 of those amps to have surround sound, assuming a powered sub.

Not to mention what the power drain might be from all of that. Granted it could be very close to what I have today for power use.. I'm not entirely sure.

But 4 powersupplies vs one, I expect some inefficiencies to make 4 require more more even if all other things are equal - but I do leave the possibility that these are so much more efficient vs my Pioneer to make it negligible.

no no, i missed surround sound requirements, my fault. no reason to have that many amps. just go up until you find the amp that covers your needs. i thought you already had speakers too

I have five monoblocks in case I use them for surround sound

that certainly works and would sound great

It does a good job. Used to have a full B&W system too, back before they went consumer.

b&w was good stuff too

Nothing compared to my Totems, though.

who makes your totems, i'm not familiar with them?

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

Someday I want a Rotel system, that stuff is unbelievable. It changes people who don't care about music to people who can't live without it

I have a Rotel system in storage

so jealous

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.

So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?

Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?

the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up

Not exactly a fair comparison with Mcintosh there.

I got 10 years out of my last receiver, and I replaced it not because it failed, but because I wanted/needed 4K passthrough. Heck come to think of it, I have a 20+ year old Pioneer receiver in the garage running that setup just fine.

If, if I was an audiophile splitting this stuff out (even at the higher cost) would likely be valuable because I could retain the value of the less frequently swapped parts (amps, etc), while only swapping the parts that frequently get updated (processor).

But as mentioned, my receiver cost $600. That's it, one and done. The above listed processor alone is $600, then we tossed in $1600 for amps - trashing the listed $1500 budget.

Considering my needs, it's not providing real value to me personally. Those more into audio than I, Please enjoy the benefits of splitting those things out.

Understand that, its hardly ever fair when comparing against a Mcintosh. Anyway when i get time I will post again now that I know your requirements better.

Someday I want a Rotel system, that stuff is unbelievable. It changes people who don't care about music to people who can't live without it

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore but he would need 3 of those amps to have surround sound, assuming a powered sub.

Not to mention what the power drain might be from all of that. Granted it could be very close to what I have today for power use.. I'm not entirely sure.

But 4 powersupplies vs one, I expect some inefficiencies to make 4 require more more even if all other things are equal - but I do leave the possibility that these are so much more efficient vs my Pioneer to make it negligible.

no no, i missed surround sound requirements, my fault. no reason to have that many amps. just go up until you find the amp that covers your needs. i thought you already had speakers too

I have five monoblocks in case I use them for surround sound

that certainly works and would sound great

It does a good job. Used to have a full B&W system too, back before they went consumer.

b&w was good stuff too

I don't have expensive equipment but for speakers i use phasetech and boston accoustics. Phasetech twoers were $2500. Boston surrounds are just their taller bookshelves and don't remember price. Sub is an 18" phasetech, don't remember price. I can literally hear it pound down the street and pictures do come off the walls. I use marantz for pre-amp around $800 i think and qsc for my power amp around $600 if i remember. I use Furman power filter which was $300-400 range i think.

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore but he would need 3 of those amps to have surround sound, assuming a powered sub.

Not to mention what the power drain might be from all of that. Granted it could be very close to what I have today for power use.. I'm not entirely sure.

But 4 powersupplies vs one, I expect some inefficiencies to make 4 require more more even if all other things are equal - but I do leave the possibility that these are so much more efficient vs my Pioneer to make it negligible.

no no, i missed surround sound requirements, my fault. no reason to have that many amps. just go up until you find the amp that covers your needs. i thought you already had speakers too

I have five monoblocks in case I use them for surround sound

that certainly works and would sound great

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.

So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?

Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?

Amps nearly last forever.

What if any kind of power filtering does anyone use?

i use Furman for power filtering. can't remember the model right now. had it about 10 years now

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@dashrender They have a 5 channel amp that's 499. That would knock out the amp side, but I think your needs would be easily met by a simple, all-in-one AV receiver.

So is there any real benefit to using a $600 processor and a $500 amp at this level compared to my $600 receiver?

Also, what is the life expectancy from either the processor or the amp?

the benefit will be better sound and longer lasting equipment. when you bunch everything up together in a receiver you will get 5-10 years from them on average because of all the heat. with separate components you will get double and longer. I have a friend who has Mcintosh and those must be approaching 30-40 years by now and still work great. receivers just don't last that long because of the heat build up

@dashrender said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@rojoloco said in What do you like for a non expensive audio setup for surround sound TV/movies?:

@jmoore but he would need 3 of those amps to have surround sound, assuming a powered sub.

Not to mention what the power drain might be from all of that. Granted it could be very close to what I have today for power use.. I'm not entirely sure.

But 4 powersupplies vs one, I expect some inefficiencies to make 4 require more more even if all other things are equal - but I do leave the possibility that these are so much more efficient vs my Pioneer to make it negligible.

no no, i missed surround sound requirements, my fault. no reason to have that many amps. just go up until you find the amp that covers your needs. i thought you already had speakers too

@storageninja said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jaredbusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@storageninja said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

yum, lassi

What drink is that? It looks like an Indian tea/milk thing I've had before

He is in India.

Bangalore this week, and I've had quite a few Lassi's.

i am jealous, i would like to travel over there some day

@jaredbusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@storageninja said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

yum, lassi

What drink is that? It looks like an Indian tea/milk thing I've had before

He is in India.

oh that explains it then. i have a friend who will make those for me

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@jmoore said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

I wonder whether or not I'm simply kidding myself or if there truly are positions in IT that aren't primarily focused on supporting users' efforts for using Microsoft Outlook.

lol sorry can't help you there because my users all have a hard time with it too

Honestly it's not always the users. Outlook, especially how it handles images, can just be screwy.

what are some example problems so i can check?