Frogmort's HT Pad

[spaceape]

Another one right back at ya.

Düreforsög - Me, Myself & Ear - YouTube

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by spaceape

Another one right back at ya.

Düreforsög - Me, Myself & Ear - YouTube

Wow! I really liked that a lot. They sound like a cross between Primus and Mr. Bungle.

[frogmort]

I got a question for you guys. Which one of these do you think is the better choice for a receiver?

The Onkyo 709 is rated at 110w(0.08%THD) and has MultEQ XT. - $480
The 807/808 is rated at 135w(0.08%THD) and has standard MultEQ. - $500 either one
The only real difference I could find between the 807/808 is HDMI v1.4 on the 808.

I would think that the extra power would be more important than the XT, since it would allow slightly more headroom, but what do you think?

[spaceape]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I got a question for you guys. Which one of these do you think is the better choice for a receiver?

The Onkyo 709 is rated at 110w(0.08%THD) and has MultEQ XT. - $480
The 807/808 is rated at 135w(0.08%THD) and has standard MultEQ. - $500 either one
The only real difference I could find between the 807/808 is HDMI v1.4 on the 808.

I would think that the extra power would be more important than the XT, since it would allow slightly more headroom, but what do you think?

My pick would properly be for the 808 with the most power. Equalizing helps very little. Sound treatment is much better imo.

But remember too read a lot of reviews before deciding.

http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/multeq

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I got a question for you guys. Which one of these do you think is the better choice for a receiver?

The Onkyo 709 is rated at 110w(0.08%THD) and has MultEQ XT. - $480
The 807/808 is rated at 135w(0.08%THD) and has standard MultEQ. - $500 either one
The only real difference I could find between the 807/808 is HDMI v1.4 on the 808.

I would think that the extra power would be more important than the XT, since it would allow slightly more headroom, but what do you think?

Good evening gentlemen Here's my take ...............

If you could take those ratings as gospel (which you really can't when it comes to AVR's . The difference between 110w & 135w (even if you have the most efficient speakers) would amount to less than 1 db of volume. In other words you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Remember for each 3 db increase in volume, you have to double the power . So it would really boil down to which AVR has the most features you desire .

And I fully agree...... Treating a room does much more for getting the best out of your gear

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

Good evening gentlemen Here's my take ...............

If you could take those ratings as gospel (which you really can't when it comes to AVR's . The difference between 110w & 135w (even if you have the most efficient speakers) would amount to less than 1 db of volume. In other words you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Remember for each 3 db increase in volume, you have to double the power . So it would really boil down to which AVR has the most features you desire .

And I fully agree...... Treating a room does much more for getting the best out of your gear

Howdy Russ!

As far as I can tell, the only differences that seem important to me are:

709 - 110w/MultEQ XT

808 - 135w/MultEQ

The regular MultEQ has the same subwoofer filter resolution as the XT, but not on the satellites. I'm just not sure if this is really that important overall.

The 808 is only $20 more, so even if I am only getting ~25w x 7ch more, it's still less than $3 more per channel.

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Howdy Russ!

As far as I can tell, the only differences that seem important to me are:

709 - 110w/MultEQ XT

808 - 135w/MultEQ

The regular MultEQ has the same subwoofer filter resolution as the XT, but not on the satellites. I'm just not sure if this is really that important overall.

The 808 is only $20 more, so even if I am only getting ~25w x 7ch more, it's still less than $3 more per channel.

You've really got to take Wattage out of your equation . That small a difference won't be noticed and surely can't be heard . But if you want the extra watts just for bragging rights

Now on the other hand which one appeals to you more visually ?

But a bigger question is..... Are they both stable into 4 ohm loads ?

[spaceape]

the onkyo 808 is supposed too be the updated version of the 807.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/r...onkyo-tx-nr808

Some measurements done on the 807-> http://www.hometheater.com/content/o...-labs-measures

Also this review (including all others i've read) seem too favour it-> http://www.whathifi.com/review/onkyo-tx-nr808

Hmm but im having a hard time finding real info on these avrs.

[spaceape]

Can it play Crys..Oh i mean can it play "That train sequence from Super 8" without destroying your speakers once again.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

You've really got to take Wattage out of your equation . That small a difference won't be noticed and surely can't be heard . But if you want the extra watts just for bragging rights

Now on the other hand which one appeals to you more visually ?

But a bigger question is..... Are they both stable into 4 ohm loads ?

But you said I should just choose the features I want more.

The main feature that I want is MORE POWER!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Yes, they are both certified for 4 ohm performance.

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by spaceape

Can it play Crys..Oh i mean can it play "That train sequence from Super 8" without destroying your speakers once again.

(good point )

Originally Posted by frogmort

But you said I should just choose the features I want more.

The main feature that I want is MORE POWER!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Yes, they are both certified for 4 ohm performance.

Okay, Okay I'll try this one more time ....... TO NOTICE a difference of only 3 db's from a 110w receiver you would need to step your game up to 220w . Anything less isn't noticeable.

But you should make sure the AVR in question has 7 channel pre-outs so that you can later add a POWER AMP !

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by spaceape

the onkyo 808 is supposed too be the updated version of the 807.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/r...onkyo-tx-nr808

Some measurements done on the 807-> http://www.hometheater.com/content/o...-labs-measures

Also this review (including all others i've read) seem too favour it-> http://www.whathifi.com/review/onkyo-tx-nr808

Hmm but im having a hard time finding real info on these avrs.

Thanks for the help! Those real-world measurements seem horrible! I've checked out a few bench-mark tests here and there, but not many.

Originally Posted by spaceape

Can it play Crys..Oh i mean can it play "That train sequence from Super 8" without destroying your speakers once again.

I really hope so! That's one thing that made me start trying to find a better, cleaner receiver.

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

(good point )



Okay, Okay I'll try this one more time ....... TO NOTICE a difference of only 3 db's from a 110w receiver you would need to step your game up to 220w . Anything less isn't noticeable.

But you should make sure the AVR in question has 7 channel pre-outs so that you can later add a POWER AMP !

I checked, and they both do.

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Thanks for the help! Those real-world measurements seem horrible! I've checked out a few bench-mark tests here and there, but not many.

That's what I tied to tell ya..... You can't believe a manufacturers ratings at all..... They're pretty much useless (except for a few lesser known AVR makers) Harman/Kardon, NAD, Rotel among others. Their numbers are real world..... Their performance usually exceed their ratings.

I checked, and they both do.

That's a good thing. With numbers like I read, you'll need a power amp and soon

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

That's what I tied to tell ya..... You can't believe a manufacturers ratings at all..... They're pretty much useless (except for a few lesser known AVR makers) Harman/Kardon, NAD, Rotel among others. Their numbers are real world..... Their performance usually exceed their ratings.



That's a good thing. With numbers like I read, you'll need a power amp and soon

I used to have an NAD integrated amp about 15 years ago. It was probably the nicest piece of audio equipment I've ever owned.

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I used to have an NAD integrated amp about 15 years ago. It was probably the nicest piece of audio equipment I've ever owned.

Why'd you get rid of it ?

And have you looked at the more honest brands of AVR's out there ? I personally buy from companies whose specs are legit.

[spaceape]

Happy Muunday.

Case of the mondays - YouTube

[hometheatergeek]

Originally Posted by spaceape

Another one right back at ya.

Düreforsög - Me, Myself & Ear - YouTube

I'm sorry Tommy but that song and I use that term loosely sucks.

[spaceape]

Originally Posted by hometheatergeek

I'm sorry Tommy but that song and I use that term loosely sucks.

Hehe yes but i think they perform it this way on on purpose.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

Why'd you get rid of it ?

And have you looked at the more honest brands of AVR's out there ? I personally buy from companies whose specs are legit.

Actually, now that I think about it, I got it before I married my ex-wife, and that was 21 years ago. I'd rather not get into it too much because it breaks my heart and makes me angry, but it needed repair, and the shop I took it to didn't know what they were doing, and ended up making it worse. They basically destroyed it. It was rated at 60w x2, and I once powered a pair of Peavy 4x10 PA speakers with it at a pool party with no problem.

I have been looking at some receivers from NAD, Anthem, Marantz, etc. They seem very nice, but they ain't cheap! The NAD T757 was rated(by NAD) at 60w with all 7 channels driven, and 120w with 1 channel driven. The Sound & Vision bench test actually showed 75w and 141w respectively, better than specified!

I think I'm going to hold off on getting a new receiver right now. I would hate to spend $400~$600 just to get something with about the same quality as what I already have. I really can't afford it right now anyway.

Originally Posted by spaceape

Happy Muunday.

Case of the mondays - YouTube

I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' somethin' like that, man.

How's it going Tommy?

Originally Posted by hometheatergeek

I'm sorry Tommy but that song and I use that term loosely sucks.

I really liked it a lot, but I do like a wide variety of styles of music. I like The Beatles, Lamb of God, Tchaikovsky, Willie Nelson, John Coltrane, lots of diverse stuff. What kind of music are you into Al?

[spaceape]

Have you heard Willie's son?

Lukas Nelson - Hoochie Coochie Man (Live at Farm Aid 25) - YouTube

Still working on getting the best laptop but im getting closer.

7670->570 nvidia price +49.3% ... performance +47,3% metro high.
7670->560 nvidia price +47,4% ... performance +39,4% metro high.
7670->460 nvidia price +43,6% ... performance +29,7% metro high.
7670->635 nvidia price +42,9% ... performance 3dmark11 +23,3%/24,9%.
7670->7690 ati price +33,5% ... performance +31,6% metro high.
7670->6850 ati price +19,6% ... performance +12,4% metro high.
7670->6770 ati price +17,6% ... performance +24,4% metro high.
7670->555 nvidia price +22,1% ... performance +4,5% metro high. starcraft 2 ultra +15,3%, battlefield3 high +22,5%.

the price % amount is are not accurate as the ati 7670 laptop is 480£ not 400£ but the % 'distance' is right. I need too compare and calculate some more games but right now it looks too be the 6770m that gives the most bang for the buck (although performance % change a lot depending on game/card). what ram is has also matters but since most stores don't show which they use (DDR3 or DDR5) it's very hard too know even though you've checked all else. all the compared have Core i5 as i do a lot of surfing, streaming, unpacking and playing of films.

In case you were wondering the "Metro" in my notes is a pretty demanding game named Metro_2033.