Advice for $1,000 HT for narrow room

Welcome to Home Theater Shack, great to have you with us.

I love my Sony 46". Its LCD so gaming burn-in will never be a concern like you might have with a plasma.

$600 shipped, can we convince you to apply the remaining $400 towards your audio budget of $1000?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B004HYG9TG/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Cant really help with in-wall speakers, no experience with them. Hopefully someone will have good recommendations on those.



Its easy to recommend accessories for less, great service and good prices on a refurb avr. I love the sound of Marantz, and their slimline seems like a good value, but take a look at all the a4l offerings...

http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...iver/Home-Audio/Home-Theater-Receivers/1.html

Thanks for the advice. Couple follow-ups. On the TV, I should probably clarify that there will not be that much gaming done on it, so I am not as concerned about burn-in. Is it fair to say that given the narrowness of the room that LCD is a good option because I will not have extreme viewing angles? And given the narrowness of the room and how relatively close the seating will be, is there a TV size beyond which I should not go?

As for the audio side, I am not wedded to in-wall and in-ceiling. I am fascinated by the concept and it's neat look, but I have no idea whether that comes at the cost of quality. Could I build in to the walls spaces to hold speakers, or will that negatively affect the sound quality?

I did not know anything about the AVR, so now that I have looked a little I am really excited about the options, like the ability to run a network cable directly into the receiver, connect iPods through it, connect the computer to it, etc. I had looked at a couple Onkyos, but The Marantz NR1602 looks like it has some features that comparable Onkyos lack. If I went with the Marantz, how would you spend the other $600 on speakers?

Funny you should mention viewing angles, pro reviewers (IIRC it was cnet) had found the specific model I own, and recommended, to have unusually poor viewing angles even for an LCD. Personally, I think poor viewing angles are an over-rated short-coming of LCD flat panels. Laptop screens, ok yeah, their displays tilt and an LCD can be bothersome in some applications, I look forward to the day when OLED is commonplace for most all hand-held displays. But when it comes to TVs I think the key word is "extreme" viewing angles and that is probably not something you will experience in a living room environment as much as you might in other environments or applications.

All that having been said, I more recommended LCD based on price-per-inch and for uses that tend to be displayed static and long-term like, "xbox 360 and PS3 gaming, and I will connect the computer to TV" that you mentioned in your first post. The general rule-of-thumb for seating distance is 2" for every 1" of screen area, so the recommend seating distance for a 46" TV is 92".

If burn-in is not a concern then you might want to ask around in the displays area and see what is recommended in the way of plasma. My plasma shopping late this last year was abruptly cut short by my initial plasma purchase having fluctuating brightness out-of-the-box, and then coming to find it was an extremely common problem with most all of last years models. What made me mad was rather than issuing a recall manufactures opted to inconvenience customers instead. For all I know this prominent problem has already been solved with this years models but it turned me off so bad to plasma that I immediately started looking at non-plasma makers (specifically Sony).

Its nice to hear you are not wed to in-wall. Again I dont know much about them but, yes, I have heard in-walls will usually sacrifice performance over a traditional speaker.

People seem very pleased with the Martin Logan set, I like it because it even includes a sub woofer. Take a look at the reviews on amazon. Since this set will bring you in under budget you might want to spend more on a more powerful AVR. The set should be fairly easy to power but a more powerful AVR is always advisable if your budget permits.

Folks like the Pioneers also. Adding a subwoofer might push you over budget tho.

In a room with those dimensions I would make sure I would be using Bipole or dipole speakers for my surround sides. They will have the effect of filling the room and making the room sound BIGGER as in a bigger sound stage as if the 8.6 walls were pushed out to 15ft. If it is allowed then my suggestion at this price range (low budget but still good sound) I have found an online only retailer that also sell through ebay. The name of this retailer is STREEM. If you win some bids on ebay you will be surprised what you can land and the sound will amaze you.+ win some bids and you can get Streem fs808 for $315 pr + sr 490 bipole for $160 pr + cv 525 center for $110. Find a sub at your price, you may already have one. This is MY opinion on one of the best sounding speakers for the lowest pricing I have seen and heard. No one is saying these are worth $10,000. But if you win those bids you will be shocked at what you got for the price you paid.
by the way for those that might respond that these might be white van speakers, THEY ARE NOT!!! I do NOT work for these guys. My original speakers were all Fluance and these Streem's just blow the Fluance away. It's simply not the same class of speakers at all.

Gobucks,

I know you listed the likely portion of the room that will be used for HT - but does that 12' figure mean that's your seating location? Distance from the screen and resolution dictate the optimal screen size. By indicating 360/PS3 and blu-ray you have told us 1080p is your resolution.

For example, with a 50" screen the SMPTE longet recommended viewing distance is 6.8' (for a theater like experience). This is also close to the ideal based on 20/20 visual acuity for a screen that size and resolution. I use a 720p screen in my living room because at our seating distance (12'), my eyes cannot tell a difference between a 720p and 1080p 50" screen.

Do you have good light control? One of the typical advantages of LCD over plasma is a brighter image at good image quality (i.e. no "dynamic" mode with crazy colors). With 3 windows, unless you have "blackout" curtains or those windows face north with regular curtains, I'd be concerned about image brightness for daytime viewing.

If you have good light control, my personal preference is plasma image quality, but my last thorough research was 2 years ago.

I also know some have complained about input lag with some TVs causing a problem for gaming. I suggest evaluating this (i.e. try to find reviews that look at this) for any set you are considering.

Speakers: I have also heard that in wall speakers typically sound poorer per $ than "regular" speakers. This makes sense based on the physics - speaker drivers are very sensitive to enclosure size/construction and in wall speakers necessarily compromise this.

Wow, so much to consider. Here's what I am thinking now.

TV - As was just pointed out, I am concerned about viewing distance. I just made a rough measurement on how far away from the TV I will be, and I am guessing between 9 and 10'. So even though I would love to go to a 47 or 50" 1080p, I don't know if I will be able to notice a difference. I can control the light somewhat as the windows do face north and I will do some kind of curtains.

Audio - I am convinced that I should spend as much as possible on the AVR, and I am now leaning toward the Onkyo TX-NR709, which does not leave me much for the speakers. Based on my own personal preferences (unlearned as they are), my priorities will be in this order: center, fronts, sub, surrounds. So I am wondering if I should just get a package like the Martin Logan MLT-1 or MLT-2 (right now about $150 difference between them) or something like what was recommended above where I get a center and fronts (maybe The HSU Research) and add other components later. If I am spending $430 on the AVR, what's the best use of the remaining $500 or so - just get the Martin Logan set or piece out fewer but nicer components like the center and fronts? Keep in mind that I am not an audiophile and I am not really going to be allowed to crank the volume anyway.

Thanks again for all of the input.

Gobucks said:

Wow, so much to consider. Here's what I am thinking now.

TV - As was just pointed out, I am concerned about viewing distance. I just made a rough measurement on how far away from the TV I will be, and I am guessing between 9 and 10'. So even though I would love to go to a 47 or 50" 1080p, I don't know if I will be able to notice a difference. I can control the light somewhat as the windows do face north and I will do some kind of curtains.

Audio - I am convinced that I should spend as much as possible on the AVR, and I am now leaning toward the Onkyo TX-NR709, which does not leave me much for the speakers. Based on my own personal preferences (unlearned as they are), my priorities will be in this order: center, fronts, sub, surrounds. So I am wondering if I should just get a package like the Martin Logan MLT-1 or MLT-2 (right now about $150 difference between them) or something like what was recommended above where I get a center and fronts (maybe The HSU Research) and add other components later. If I am spending $430 on the AVR, what's the best use of the remaining $500 or so - just get the Martin Logan set or piece out fewer but nicer components like the center and fronts? Keep in mind that I am not an audiophile and I am not really going to be allowed to crank the volume anyway.

Thanks again for all of the input.

Click to expand...

Hey Buck, the Onkyo 709 is a very good choice, it is a feature laiden network receiver with a very good amp section and Multi EQ XT and has preouts if you ever plan on expanding your setup. I would definitely concentrate on your front stage (LCR) for now, you could always add surrounds and a sub when funds are available. I strongly suggest the Ascend Acoustics CBM-170's for LCR, having three identical speakers upfront is an ideal situation. You can get the three 170's for about $550 with shipping. You can contact Dave or Dina at Ascends, they may be willing to negotiate with you, QC and customer service is second to none. The 170's entend down to 53Hz + - 3dB, very easy to drive at 91dB sensitivity, they sound much bigger than they should and would fill your space. You can get the HTM-200's for surrounds when your budget allows or a decent sub next. These are only suggestions, but I can attest to the 170's ability to present a wide and deep soundstage, I use them in another setup. I hope this helps, start slow and build when your funds allow. Take care.
Jeff

TypeA said:

The lower end will be a significant loss. Ascend 170s published bottom end is 58Hz, the 340 is 48Hz. Whereas the Martin Logans reach down to 32 Hz and for cheaper. Dont see "room filling" being a challenge, and I think youd be happy with either choice in that regard, but I would still seek the best frequency response I could muster for my budget.

Click to expand...

Ty, a significant loss, the Martin Logan sub has a frequency response specified at 37-200 Hz, they advertize this system as having this frequency response, seems to me they are selling a subwoofer, and the sat's 110-20000 Hz weighing in at 3.4 lbs.... I believe the OP would out grow this setup rather quickly. If I was just starting out I could easily live with 48 and 58 Hz extension without a sub for a little more $ and build on that when funds become available. I'm not bashing ML, please don't take it that way, it's just very apparent the target market that ML is striving to reach. I don't think the OP is looking so much for cheaper extension but rather a more affordable quality alternative. With the 170's as mains and the 340 center, down the road he could swap the 170's for surrounds and get two more 340's as mains and have a complete tonally and timbre matched setup driven easily with the Onkyo 709. This is just my opinion and suggestion, nothing is written in stone. I don't know if there is any credence to this but I read that ML does not make the MLT line, thay are out sourced and ML puts their name on them and production of the line is over. No offense intended with this post my friend, just lively interaction.
Jeff