Donivlapog
Well-Known Member
A HT system for 5 lakhs with an ordinary TV or a high end TV or projector and a 1.5 lakhs budget HT?
To all audiophiles - what would you buy?
- Thread starter Donivlapog
- Start date
Audiophiles will not buy any of those. they will buy a stereo 
.
Neither should movie enthusiasts. The budget should be evenly spread.
But, in case it has to be either, I would go with a projector.
.Neither should movie enthusiasts. The budget should be evenly spread.
But, in case it has to be either, I would go with a projector.
Love4sound
Well-Known Member
My case I have spent equally on both audio and video. Enthusiasts will prefer the best from both audio and video.
Get an Epson EH TW 7100 , a good screen and spend the rest on the sound part of things.
Silencer
Well-Known Member
My suggestion will be to split among projector, receiver and speakers.
An Epson 9400 faux 4k projector - ₹1.80k ( max ).
A Yamaha or Denon 7.x receiver ( Yamaha rxv685 or the new V6A, or a Denon X2400H ( ₹60k - ₹65k ).
Use the remaining budget for speakers and acoustics.
You will have a decent HT system. All the best.
An Epson 9400 faux 4k projector - ₹1.80k ( max ).
A Yamaha or Denon 7.x receiver ( Yamaha rxv685 or the new V6A, or a Denon X2400H ( ₹60k - ₹65k ).
Use the remaining budget for speakers and acoustics.
You will have a decent HT system. All the best.
Donivlapog
Well-Known Member
Actually I was just asking for a general opinion. (As to what a majority will decide). I have a LG CX 65 in my room already. The need is a HT alone. I have a Sony HTRT3 to provide a bit better sound effects. I have an idea to expend up to 2 lakhs on HT - not right now. After 6 months to one year so as to use the HTRT3 for the 19k I already spent.
That is not an Audiophile question
, Thread head needs to be edited
Tuhin Lavania
Active Member
For me, Audio truimps over Video. I can easily watch a movie on a ordinary screen and i feel good audio is more important.
Still ive spent a lot on video than audio on my system. Audio has taken a back seat, for now, for a year.
End of the year, im getting a HTPC with a 5950X and a RTX 3090, this is again a huge expense on the video side. Finally couple of years later i will add a DCR lens and hopefully be done with the Video for sometime
And Oh, Black Velvet too, again on the video side.
Still ive spent a lot on video than audio on my system. Audio has taken a back seat, for now, for a year.
End of the year, im getting a HTPC with a 5950X and a RTX 3090, this is again a huge expense on the video side. Finally couple of years later i will add a DCR lens and hopefully be done with the Video for sometime
And Oh, Black Velvet too, again on the video side.
Murty P N
Member
Try for marantz avr and Polk audio 5.1 speakers setup
liverpool_for_life
Well-Known Member
Given the clear bias implied for audio performance in the title, the choice is easy, IMO: The former, by a country mile.
For HT? Audiophiles will buy Stereo, Movie Enthusiasts can consider this setup...
Better TV /Projector is a first preference.
Epson 9400 = 1.9L or TW 7100 if strict on budget.
Screen = 20k
Marantz 6015 = 99k(grey)
Svs Pb-2000 pro = 1.1L
Fyne Audio LCR 300 x 5 = 80k
Cables 30k.
If another 1L extra budget, invest in Room Acoustics.
This setup can rock any Room up to 300sft.
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
I've moved on from projectors and even for video (movies/TV) I find a 2.X system to be excellent as I've never been a fan of surround. So I'd go with a 2.X system and a TV.
Donivlapog
Well-Known Member
Why so? Surround sound is good for an immersive experience right? Or am I missing some logic here?
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
If you have good speakers the need for surround is minimized. It might be hard to believe but in a treated room with good speakers you can have a little bit of the surround effect from 2 speakers, It's not like an actual surround system though it's different. It is my preference to use a 2.X system as it does what I want, I find surround "gimmicky". I have experimented with surround at home and taken various demos at dealer showrooms and was not impressed. It's sort of like why many 2 channel people don't want surround for music, they prefer the 2 channel experience, it's the same for me except I add a few subs.
Let's not forget about the old saying. " A Chain is as Strong as the Weakest Link". So it's better to spread across the budget.
But if you are planning to upgrade it soon then spend less on the items which you would replace soon and spend more on the items you want to keep for a longer period.
But if you are planning to upgrade it soon then spend less on the items which you would replace soon and spend more on the items you want to keep for a longer period.
What I have done is I have a 7.2 setup in my living in and blended it with two channel front left and right being shared for stereo and have a second set of two channel (proacs) added for near field listening. One space with all this variety I like. I don't care what purists have to say as this serves all my use cases. Two channel audio from av receiver, multi channel audio from av receiver, two channel cinema watching from two channel amp on 2 sets of speakers for midfield/ nearfield listening on my workdesk in living space itself. I even have one set of stereo speakers connected in the bedroom to the same two channel amp in living via zone B. Enough toys and options to play around with and keep away the urge of upgrading just to try a different flavour
A beautiful, well-constructed speaker with class-leading soundstage, imaging and bass that is fast, deep, and precise.
Similar threads
