PDA

View Full Version : Using HK 335 as a 6.1 System



jcookson
06-02-2005, 10:49 AM
Does anyone know if it's possible to use the HK 335 7.1 receiver in a 6.1 configuration. I looked through the manual but it doesn't say anything about it. I'd rather not spend the extra money on a seventh speaker (plus that many speakers in my room is a little overkill).

Just thought that someone else probably ran into the same problem. . .

Eddie
06-02-2005, 11:07 PM
of course you can. You can use a 7.1 receiver in 6.1, 5.1, 4.1, 3.1, 2.1 or even 1.1 (center and sub) if you want.

Only get the # of speakers that you have money, room, and need for. Most low-FX movies I find are perfectly OK with 3.1 actually, it's just the action/sci-fi ones that sound better with surrounds.

So if you're short on dough to begin with, start with 2.1 or 3.1 and then add the surrounds later instead of buying everything at once and ending up with mediocre stuff.

jcookson
06-03-2005, 05:05 AM
But how do you hook up the rear center surround channel when you only have rear surround left and rear surround right?

I don't want to mismatch the circuitry but only connecting one of the surround rears.

jojo
06-03-2005, 06:14 AM
i have the 335 and dont have it configured yet for 6.1 or 7.1 but the review i read said only 7.1 i will play with it later after work to see

Eddie
06-03-2005, 06:52 PM
> But how do you hook up the rear center surround channel when you only have rear surround left and rear surround right?

I don't understand your question. Why would you want to hook up a channel for a speaker that you don't have?

Just hook up SL/SR to their respective channels, the receiver will auto-detect them or if not you'll just have to go into the receiver menu to check "yes" for SL and SR.

The vast majority (95%?) of movie and even music DVDs are mixed for 5.1 anyways. When you play 5.1 source on a 6.1 or 7.1 system what happens is your receiver is *simulating* the 6th and/or 7th channels on its own.

Personally I find that as unsatisfying as 2-channel stereo sources being played back in >2-channel modes.

azanon
06-03-2005, 08:59 PM
> But how do you hook up the rear center surround channel when you only have rear surround left and rear surround right?

I don't understand your question.

I can tell. Let me see if i can clarifly what he's asking about, since i'm curious myself (though I only use 5.1).

A 7.1 setup has 8 speakers total, each of which get a specific and unique sound to play (unlike old school "dolby surround" where the 2 back surround speakers outputted the exact same sound). So... if this HK receiver on the back only has "rear surround left" and "rear surround right", and he's forced to input his "back" speaker of his pseudo 6.1 setup in one of these two jacks, then its going to actually play only the left or the right rear channel sound (depending on which he plugged it into) which should differ slightly from the other channel. In a 6.1 mode, however, the rear speaker channels normally separated in a 7.1 setup would be combined.

So... does the receiver have a way you can "tell it" that you only have one rear speaker plugged in so that it can direct both the rear left and rear right sound to just that one channel? (aka 6.1 mode).

* Sorry, i dont know what terms they used to distinguish the side surrounds from the rear surrounds. I just use 5.1 so I only know rear right and rear left.

Eddie
06-03-2005, 09:20 PM
azanon,

ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea that the 335 would not be able to simply recognize that there are only 6 speakers hooked up to it (or at least be told that through the menu) and adjust its sound processing accordingly.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would make such an inflexible AVR...

azanon
06-03-2005, 09:26 PM
I would have to believe it something like i just mentioned in my edit; something in the receiver settings that could allow you to let it know you only have one rear speaker plugged in so that it can play 6.1 mode.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt all "7.1" simulated anyway? I thought the latest iteration of Dolby Digital EX and DTS "Neo 6" both just added the one extra channel, not 2. If that were the case, i wouldn't want 7.1 anyway.

jcookson
06-04-2005, 07:35 AM
azanon,

that was exactly my question. I find it hard to believe that HK wouldn't include this setting to mix both rear surrounds to a "center" rear surround, but I haven't been able to get a conclusive answer.

In my current setup I have 5.1 surround, but I was curious if a 6.1 or 7.1 system would significantly add to the soundstage.

What are your opinions on the HK receivers? I've noticed they're priced considerably higher than the Marantz receivers for similar models. Has anyone compared the two?

Zyzzyva100
06-04-2005, 09:32 AM
azanon,
What are your opinions on the HK receivers? I've noticed they're priced considerably higher than the Marantz receivers for similar models. Has anyone compared the two?

They are only priced considerably higher if you are comparing watts to watts. It is well known that the H/K recievers are honestly rated (or maybe under rated) while most other manufacturers overrate their wattages. Also from what I've heard, the Marrantz recievers run quite hot. Personally I looked at both, but have decided on an H/K 435.

jcookson
06-04-2005, 09:48 AM
I can't disagree with the Marantz running hot. I have a SR6400 and need to leave the top open to the air it gets so hot.

But purely considering sound, which performs better?

The Marantz SR4500, which is rated at 80 watts/channel, retails for $430. The HK AVR 335, which is rated at 55 watts/channel, retails for $799. Even if you consider the Marantz power rating to be "overrated" the HK is still considerably more expensive. And I do realize Ascend will give you a discount if you buy a speaker package to knock the price down a little.

But it seems to me that the Marantz SR4500 would be the reasonable choice based on price. Is the HK sound that much better (or at all better)? I'm very impressed with my current Marantz and know them to have an excellent reputation.

bikeman
06-04-2005, 12:07 PM
But it seems to me that the Marantz SR4500 would be the reasonable choice based on price. Is the HK sound that much better (or at all better)? I'm very impressed with my current Marantz and know them to have an excellent reputation.

If you can't try both, I'm sure you would be very happy with either. I'd go with the receiver that had the features I'm interested in at a good price. That sounds like the Marantz in your case. Enjoy.

David

Zyzzyva100
06-04-2005, 06:21 PM
Well you would be a sucker to pay $799 for the 335. The 435 can be had for $600 shipped from J&R, and it has the much better version of the autoEQ/roomEQ. Of course, if you check out accessories4less, they sell refurbed Marrantz recievers.

Edit: The 335 can be had for $469 shipped from J&R. It may have an MSRP of 799, but deffinitely doesn't sell for that. The Marantz on the other hand seems to actually sell for $399. Prices are closer than you may have thought.

Really it comes down to personal preference. I haven't heard both brands next to each other in comparison, but I trust Dave f's reccomendation to go with the H/K.

Eddie
06-04-2005, 10:53 PM
The Marantz receivers are close to the HK but in my estimation not quite as good in terms of build quality and electrical parts.

A good indicator of quality among analog receivers and amps is weight, compare that and you'll find that the HK receivers that are conservatively rated at say 55 wpc equal or exceed other receivers that claim to have 100wpc.

bikeman
06-05-2005, 05:41 AM
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=543412

I recommend the AVS forum when shopping for a receiver. There is just so much information (and misinformation), rumors and unsubstantiated opinions that it just makes the whole experience more enjoyable. ;)

David

Eddie
06-05-2005, 10:19 AM
thanks David, that certainly was an entertaining thread.

After reading it I still get the impression that weight is a good indicator of quality though by no means the only criterion.

MrTomasulo
06-05-2005, 10:48 AM
Well you would be a sucker to pay $799 for the 335. The 435 can be had for $600 shipped from J&R, and it has the much better version of the autoEQ/roomEQ.

Do you or does anyone know if the 435's EQ significantly better than the 430's?

azanon
06-05-2005, 02:18 PM
Know of any threads/research that shows different receivers even matter much? I know i've asked this before, but i drive my 5.1 ascends with a 200 dollar sony and it just sounds incredible. (sounds much better since i wall mounted my rears, Clutchbrake) I do wonder sometimes if i could even tell the difference in sound quality with a $2000 Denon. Sure, if i were to push the sony past 100db, it might start to falter, but i just dont listen to music that loud. And i'll be the first to say my Sony does indeed get real hot. But so what? If it burns out, i could afford 9 more of them before I'd touch a 2K dollar denon.

Up till now, my experience has been "the sound" is almost exclusively in the speakers; provided your receiver has enough power to drive whatever you have.

If I could come across something conclusive that would show me a high end receiver would be worth the cost, i'd buy one.

I'd just get either the entry level Denon (485) or HK (135); I think those support 6.1. I'm sure the wattage on both would be just fine. Make sure you dont need more digital connections though (think the 485 only has one optical one coaxial)

curtis
06-05-2005, 03:02 PM
I thought I heard a big difference when I went from a Marantz 4300 to a HK 525.

azanon
06-06-2005, 05:20 AM
I thought I heard a big difference when I went from a Marantz 4300 to a HK 525.

A Marantz 4300 is an expensive (high quality?) receiver though so that seems a little odd to me. I'd be suspicious that maybe you just didn't have the tone settings optimized on the Marantz, or maybe even a bad speaker connection into the receiver.

I broke out my Sony receiver manual to try to look for anything about its specs that were inferior and I did notice something; (going off top of my head) At 8 ohms its only rated at 40hz-20,000hz at 0.09% THD. But if i'm understanding this correctly, even that shouldn't matter since i'm using a VTF-2, using the small setting, and crossed over at 80hz. Its rated at 90 watts per channel.

If i were completely honest about it, the most attractive thing to me about a receiver like a Harmon Kardon would be just to impress company with the name.

Zyzzyva100
06-06-2005, 06:02 AM
A Marantz 4300 is an expensive (high quality?) receiver though so that seems a little odd to me. I'd be suspicious that maybe you just didn't have the tone settings optimized on the Marantz, or maybe even a bad speaker connection into the receiver.

I broke out my Sony receiver manual to try to look for anything about its specs that were inferior and I did notice something; (going off top of my head) At 8 ohms its only rated at 40hz-20,000hz at 0.09% THD. But if i'm understanding this correctly, even that shouldn't matter since i'm using a VTF-2, using the small setting, and crossed over at 80hz. Its rated at 90 watts per channel.

If i were completely honest about it, the most attractive thing to me about a receiver like a Harmon Kardon would be just to impress company with the name.

You say this and yet you have a sony? (or has the sony > * phase finally stopped in middle america) I am certainly not going to buy the H/K to name drop. I think its certainly in the relatively same class as marrantz or denon, but there are deffinitely better recievers out there, and thats before the seperates start.

As for the rating on your sony, I doubt it can truly drive all its channels at the rated wattage, but the only way to know would be to test it. Most wpc ratings are exagerated.

And given curtis' status here, and experience, I doubt he had anything hooked up wrong, and would have known if he had a bad speaker.

azanon
06-06-2005, 07:25 AM
You say this and yet you have a sony? (or has the sony > * phase finally stopped in middle america) I am certainly not going to buy the H/K to name drop. I think its certainly in the relatively same class as marrantz or denon, but there are deffinitely better recievers out there, and thats before the seperates start.

I'm not sure i understand your initial question. I did say/imply that Sony is presumed to be inferior to H/K. Do you disagree? True or not, I would think Harmon Kardon garnishes more respect in their audio equipment than Sony. Granted, there are some really "high end" Sony receivers that do approach 1K dollars.

Has it finally stopped? When did it ever start? I can never recall Sony being respected as much as the likes of H/K, Denon, or Marantz in electronics.


As for the rating on your sony, I doubt it can truly drive all its channels at the rated wattage, but the only way to know would be to test it. Most wpc ratings are exagerated.

Perhaps, but I have 35 watts of breathing room before I even hit the supposed performance of a H/K 335 (H/K rated at 55 watts per channel, my Sony is 90 watts/channel). The sensitivy of the 170/340s is so high, that they just dont need a lot of power. Using Ascend's own numbers, the minimum recommended power is a meer 25 watts. This all being said, what i've heard about "cheap" receivers is that they generally DO put out close to if not the actual power they're rated at, they just do so very "hotly" and tend to be prone to just burning out. But until that happens, you're GTG.


And given curtis' status here, and experience, I doubt he had anything hooked up wrong, and would have known if he had a bad speaker.

True as that probably is, A Marantz 9300 remains a high quality receiver, and I remain skeptical that it is in any noticeable way inferior to a HK 525. Marantz is a highly respected name in audio equipment, and the 9300 is no cheap receiver. This being said, it forces me to explore alternative explanations.

Zyzzyva100
06-06-2005, 07:36 AM
The comment about sony vs. h/k was more of a joke. To the average consumer, alot of sony stuff is almost like **** in that most people will blindly buy sony if people say its better.

As for power, they only want to tell would be with a sound meter. I have no idea on sony's reputation for ratings. For some manufacturers that claim 100 wpc, they are luckly to drive 100 watts with only one channel driven. From what I can tell though, H/K's ratings are very accurate, and would seem underrated when comparted with other manufacturers.

But going back to the original debate, I think between marrantz and H/k its probably a tossup anyway. Really more of a personal preference than anything.

azanon
06-06-2005, 07:47 AM
Ahh ok.

Well, my personal opinion of Sony is that they generally make quality products when one considers the price you're paying. My former Sony receiver actually did have one of the channels burn out (after using it over 2 years), but still.... i paid less than 200 dollars for it. Besides, there's always some new technology coming out (like Dolby Digital, then its subsequent improvements on that), so i dont want to sink a fortune into a receiver today only to have to upgrade a couple years later. Said another way, i'd take a Sony that supports Dolby Digital over "pick your expensive old receiver" that only supported Pro-logic or worse. The jump from pro-logic to DD was so massive, that i'd think even a generic Sony that can do it would sound better in movies than a 2K dollar Pro-logic (or older) Denon.

I'm sure its quite possible my Sony cant really do 90 watts per channel, but my point is I'm confident it can at least produce well past the minimum power required for Ascends. Also, given that it doesnt have to drive much of any sound below 80hz (since i'm crossed over at 80hz (i know there's dropoff past that)), I think "she" can do the job adequately.

I think next time around, i'm going to get a H/K 135 or something like that. Folks not paying attention to detail will see that H/K name and i'll get my "cheap" respect for having a HQ receiver.

bikeman
06-06-2005, 07:58 AM
This being said, it forces me to explore alternative explanations.

When Curtis stated, "I thought I heard a big difference when I went from a Marantz 4300 to a HK 525," he did in fact hear a big difference. It's the source of the difference that isn't known to us. The most important processor in the whole equation isn't in the audio rack. It's between our ears. The study of how we process our senses is relatively new and much more complicated than the study of sound itself. We generally ascribe the changes that we hear to the equipment because that's what we have some understanding of.
I'd like to see some of these studies geared more to the audio hobby but that's not where the funding is so we'll just have to have these endless discussions for the foreseeable future. I hope we don't figure it all out in my lifetime. How boring would that be?

David

jojo
06-06-2005, 08:04 AM
i was playing with the 335 this weekend. you can have 6.1 exclusivly or you can have 6.1 with 7 speakers. you can also have 6/8 channel audio using dvd-a and sacd, just have to have another pair of rca jacks. as far a power is concearn, this thing has more than engouh for my room 12x14x8. volume is -80 to+8 for movies i have around - 20 for dts i have about - 35 music i have it at - 30. i use to have an entry level denon ,1803 and there is a big difference in the two. i guess because the 335 is higher up the h/k line. the 1803 got a bit bright once i kranked the volume the h/k sound is constant. even when i put the volume up to -8 on a movie scene. i love this reciever and im glad davidf recommend it. i only wish i had engouh money at the time to get the 435. on yeah david gave this reciever for about $425 i think. but in canada the 335 is selling for $1300

azanon
06-06-2005, 08:17 AM
David,

Even though i understand perception of sound quality ultimately is "in our heads", I would still think there are ways we can quantitatively compare some of the differences because we do know the parts that go in them. Case in point are receiver specs, such as my Sonys "40-20K hz at 8 ohms 0.09% THD". So, for example, are you suggestion that there are people out there that actually prefer more distortion? I would think no one does. If receiver brand "a" uses parts that produce less "noise" than receiver brand "b", then can we presume that "a" is superior, at least in that respect?

But I agree, much of it is in our head. That points exactly to what and why i said im going to buy H/K next; cause i know that the average audiophile is going to assume and perhaps even think he perceives my sound is good just because he sees H/K written on the front of my receiver. The placebo effect; if you will. (an effect thats well documented)

Oh sure, i acknowlege there are even really high end names out there (multi thousand dollar receivers), but i dont hobnob with anyone that has probably even heard of these brands, much less have they heard them with their ears.
Denon/H/K is more than enough to impress my friends and family ;-)

azanon
06-06-2005, 08:21 AM
i use to have an entry level denon ,1803 and there is a big difference in the two. i guess because the 335 is higher up the h/k line. the 1803 got a bit bright once i kranked the volume the h/k sound is constant. even when i put the volume up to -8 on a movie scene.

Seems like i read H/K are known for more of a "less bright" sound anyway. Maybe the 1803 wasn't doing anything techniqually wrong by sounding bright to you as you turned it up, its just that you prefer less bright, which is what you get with a H/K.

curtis
06-06-2005, 08:30 AM
I will add too, that the difference in going from the Marantz 4300 to the HK 525 seemed a lot bigger than when I went to a seperate amp added to the HK, and when I went to a pre/pro. I wish I still had the 4300 so I could compare....I understand a lot more now. I wish I could tell you absolutely that it was because of power, but I don't know, and the 4300 had less adjustability as well.

It was close to two years ago when I got the HK 525. It is at my Parents' now, doing duty in a room twice the size of mine with 340's and 170's......and still sounds great.

Because of my experience with HK, if I ever need another receiver, they will be at the top of my short list. They are not without their problems, but buying from a reputable source should alleviate that concern. NAD would be up there as well.....but ofcourse, it all depends on budget, and I would try to listen to everything I could get my hands on.

jojo
06-06-2005, 12:02 PM
Seems like i read H/K are known for more of a "less bright" sound anyway. Maybe the 1803 wasn't doing anything techniqually wrong by sounding bright to you as you turned it up, its just that you prefer less bright, which is what you get with a H/K.

your right Im very sensetive to high freqs. last time i could hear up to 19khz so the klipsch was killing me. then i got ascends and to me they are perfect because they arent bright to my hears unless i take it up to rediculios volumes. i think its more of the combo that makes it so good. dont get me wrong the ascneds shine on denon, but i prefer the h/k asend combo. beside h/k tamed the brightness of the klipsch some what.

jojo
06-06-2005, 12:04 PM
check this out. this might help some. even though h/k is not on this list.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/pdf/Equipment/1211equiprep_receivers_lab.pdf

azanon
06-06-2005, 12:36 PM
your right Im very sensetive to high freqs. last time i could hear up to 19khz so the klipsch was killing me.

You're lucky, cause the last time i tested was 15 years ago at the Air Force Academy in a roomfull of cadets. They asked us to drop our hand when we couldnt hear it any more. That was one of several times I broke the honor code because truth be told, i stopped being able to hear the tone at about 17khz. I kept my hand up until about 19hz though ;-) (when everyone else started dropping theirs).

Going on memory, even 17khz was a pretty dang high sounding frequency!

azanon
06-07-2005, 10:18 AM
Back on topic, i'm seeing something different than what Jojo said regarding the H/K 335's ability to use a 6.1 setup. This from page 16 in the owner's manual:

"It is appropriate to configure the AVR 335 for either
5.1- or 7.1-channel operation, but not for 6.1-channels.
When 6.1-channel program material or a 6.1-
channel processing mode is in use, material for the
surround back channel will be outputted simultaneously
through both the Surround Back Left and Right
Speaker Outputs‚. Connecting only one loudspeaker
to these speaker terminals will not only
deprive you of the benefits of 7.1-channel surround
modes, such as Logic 7, but will also interfere with the
functioning of the EzSet+ speaker setup and calibration
process as described on page 20. It may also put
undesirable strain on the surround back amplifier circuits
and power supplies.
Subwoofers produce nondirectional sound, so they"

The H/K 235 has the same limitation. But the H/K 135 manual gives the opposite warning if you will, and says it works with 6.1 but warns not to try hooking 2 speakers up to the one terminal.

Maybe what Jojo saw was that the receiver is capable of breaking up recorded 6.1 and outputting it appropriately to 7.1 speakers, but it doesnt look like you can actually hook up a 6.1 speaker setup.

Azanon

(edit) here's discussion regarding the surround back connections (page 8 of the manual). Mention of 7.1 operation or a second room, but no guidelines for 6.1 (or just one speaker).

"‚Surround Back/Multiroom Speaker Outputs:
These speaker terminals are normally used to power
the surround back left/surround back right speakers
in a 7.1-channel system. However, they may also be
used to power the speakers in a second zone, which
will receive the output selected for a multiroom system.
To change the output fed to these terminals from
the default of the Surround Back speakers to the
Multiroom Output, you must change a setting in the
MULTIROOM MENU of the OSD system. See
page 35 for more information on configuring this
speaker output. In normal surround system use, the
brown and black terminals are the surround back left
channel positive (+) and negative (–) connections and
the tan and black terminals are the surround back
right positive (+) and negative (–) terminals. For multiroom
use, connect the brown and black SBL terminals
to the red and black connections on the left remote
zone speaker and connect the tan and black SBR terminals
to the red and black terminals on the right
remote zone speaker.
⁄Surround Speaker Outputs: Connect these outputs"


The only H/K i would even consider would be the entry level H/K 135 because of this.

> David F. is going to have to watch this closely for those folks that order a 6.1 combo pack + any H/K receiver, cause it just isnt going to work.

jcookson
06-07-2005, 10:34 AM
That's what it seemed like to me. That is a major disadvantage for the H/K 335 (or series).

jojo
06-07-2005, 08:44 PM
well i was only listening to 5.1 material using the 6th speaker. but i rather have 2 bck channels any way. when i had the 1803 denon i had a pair of klipsch .5 doing duty. but my room is small to have 7.1 now, but i have my eyes set on getting a pair of 340m and have one pair of 170 be back channel

azanon
06-08-2005, 07:31 PM
Dont get me wrong; i'd go 7.1 if i good. I have no wall on one side of my HT, so for rear's i'm forced to mount the surrounds on the back wall corners towed in, and the best i could do for DD EX would be to add a back center.