The computer and electronics super geek thread

[azrael]

Just a note when doing a speed test, it's always best to do it under optimal conditions, i.e., wired directly to the modem or wired directly from computer->router->modem or computer->modem. This will give you a better idea of what kinds of speeds you are capable of getting.

[myk]

Right. Well, I'm going to start with the cable modem first, then I'll see if I need to get a new router also. I tried reading up on routers but, like my foray into choosing a flat screen, it's starting to give me a headache...

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Right. Well, I'm going to start with the cable modem first, then I'll see if I need to get a new router also. I tried reading up on routers but, like my foray into choosing a flat screen, it's starting to give me a headache...

haha, just go with the sb6141 and headache solved. trust us, it's the best one out there for doscis 3.0 and your needs. you can get it cheap on amazon an ebay at certain times if you just wait and check around.

i got mine for 49 bucks shipped. otherwise it's just a bit more

[myk]

haha, just go with the sb6141 and headache solved. trust us, it's the best one out there for doscis 3.0 and your needs. you can get it cheap on amazon an ebay at certain times if you just wait and check around.

i got mine for 49 bucks shipped. otherwise it's just a bit more

Yeah I was going to Best Buy tomorrow but it's $100; Amazon's the same with shipping. I found it on ebay for about $75. I don't like the idea of buying it used but I'll give it a shot...

[mikeszekely]

Yeah I was going to Best Buy tomorrow but it's $100; Amazon's the same with shipping. I found it on ebay for about $75. I don't like the idea of buying it used but I'll give it a shot...

What kind of shipping are you planning on going for? I see it for around $80 on Amazon and Newegg, and that's enough that if even if you don't have Prime you should qualify for free Super Saver shipping or whatever.

Shopping for routers, though, yeah, it's a headache. Especially when you don't want to spend too much. I didn't want to spend a lot, and I wound up spending $150 on just the router.

[myk]

Just standard shipping, but then tax kicks in and it's approaching Best Buy's prices; at least with Best Buy I don't have to wait and I HATE waiting for new toys. I'll probably go with the "open box" ones I see on ebay for $75...

[mikeszekely]

Just standard shipping, but then tax kicks in and it's approaching Best Buy's prices; at least with Best Buy I don't have to wait and I HATE waiting for new toys. I'll probably go with the "open box" ones I see on ebay for $75...

AFAIK, Best Buy matches Amazon's prices now. Not sure how much tax is in San Diego, but I can't imagine you'd be paying more than $10-$15 more for a sealed retail box.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

Just standard shipping, but then tax kicks in and it's approaching Best Buy's prices; at least with Best Buy I don't have to wait and I HATE waiting for new toys. I'll probably go with the "open box" ones I see on ebay for $75...

if you got one already you can dismiss this advice but ebay has also the sb6141 for about 69 free shipping or best offer.

i would try and best offer one for 60 or if you're daring... 55 and see what happens:) ( i got one for 50...)

this is where myself and a few got a couple of these and ebay will protect you if something goes wrong and they ship fast:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorola-SB6141-SurfBoard-Cable-Modem-SB-6141-Docsis-3-0-TESTED-/171195070889?pt=PCC_Modems&hash=item27dc0579a9

this place mentions Cox and same price:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorola-SB6141-Cable-Modem-DOCSIS-3-0-Faster-than-the-SB6121-TWC-COMCAST-COX-/331050425257?pt=PCC_Modems&hash=item4d14249ba9

same guy is selling the sb6180 just came up on ebay for 35 bucks free shipping refurb... not a bad price if you want to take a chance:

http://slickdeals.net/f/6588590-motorola-sb6180-surfboard-docsis-3-0-cable-modem-35-shipped-refurb?src=pdw

Edited December 27, 2013 by davidwhangchoi

[myk]

if you got one already you can dismiss this advice but ebay has also the sb6141 for about 69 free shipping or best offer.

i would try and best offer one for 60 or if you're daring... 55 and see what happens:) ( i got one for 50...)

this is where myself and a few got a couple of these and ebay will protect you if something goes wrong and they ship fast:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorola-SB6141-SurfBoard-Cable-Modem-SB-6141-Docsis-3-0-TESTED-/171195070889?pt=PCC_Modems&hash=item27dc0579a9

this place mentions Cox and same price:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorola-SB6141-Cable-Modem-DOCSIS-3-0-Faster-than-the-SB6121-TWC-COMCAST-COX-/331050425257?pt=PCC_Modems&hash=item4d14249ba9

same guy is selling the sb6180 just came up on ebay for 35 bucks free shipping refurb... not a bad price if you want to take a chance:

http://slickdeals.net/f/6588590-motorola-sb6180-surfboard-docsis-3-0-cable-modem-35-shipped-refurb?src=pdw

I picked up an SB6141 for about $72 shipped; I'm hoping this will solve my issues. So...do I just unplug the original modem and plug in the new one? Or do I have to call Cox to get it on their system or whatever?

[barurutor]

You usually have to register the new cable modem's MAC address with Cox first before you plug it in.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

I picked up an SB6141 for about $72 shipped; I'm hoping this will solve my issues. So...do I just unplug the original modem and plug in the new one? Or do I have to call Cox to get it on their system or whatever?

yeah, like barurutor posted, you will have to provision your modem by calling or activating it through Cox website and giving them the mac address. (it will be easy to find the MAC address once you open the box)

i know you may get a headache but definitely find the cox page that directs you the correct instructions or you may end up wasting hours on the phone in the wrong dept.

you won't regret getting this router. 72 shipped is a good price. much better than a 100

actually, i dug around this should be the place for Cox self activation of your own modem (you should double check if it's correct):

https://activation.cox.net/selfactivation/newmodem.cox

Edited December 27, 2013 by davidwhangchoi

[myk]

You usually have to register the new cable modem's MAC address with Cox first before you plug it in.

yeah, like barurutor posted, you will have to provision your modem by calling or activating it through Cox website and giving them the mac address. (it will be easy to find the MAC address once you open the box)

i know you may get a headache but definitely find the cox page that directs you the correct instructions or you may end up wasting hours on the phone in the wrong dept.

you won't regret getting this router. 72 shipped is a good price. much better than a 100

actually, i dug around this should be the place for Cox self activation of your own modem (you should double check if it's correct):

https://activation.cox.net/selfactivation/newmodem.cox

Gentlemen I can't thank you enough. I'll let you guys know how things turn out...

[mikeszekely]

You usually have to register the new cable modem's MAC address with Cox first before you plug it in.

If Cox works like Comcast, I just connecting the new modem to a PC directly, and the activation page would come up in the browser. A few clicks later, and I was all set up.

[myk]

If Cox works like Comcast, I just connecting the new modem to a PC directly, and the activation page would come up in the browser. A few clicks later, and I was all set up.

....And that's how it happened for me as well. Here's my new Ookla speed-test result:

VS

Now, the first test was with my laptop hooked up directly to the cable modem; optimal conditions. Once I got my Flinstones-era router up and running this is what I got:

Not as nice as the first results but practical use on my end was far better than what I had just 24 hours ago. Is this the point where I start looking at a new router, or should I just buy a bunch of ethernet cables and plug everything in my house directly? If so, would I be buying cat5e or cat6 cables? Again the current model is a Netgear WGR 614V9.

Ultimately guys, I can't thank you enough for all of your support. God bless the internet, Macrossworld and.......................Holly Michaels....

Edited December 28, 2013 by myk

[azrael]

Probably should have mentioned that you should run it a few times and get the average of your tests. Sometimes you can get faster, sometimes it will be slower.

[myk]

Probably should have mentioned that you should run it a few times and get the average of your tests. Sometimes you can get faster, sometimes it will be slower.

Yes, thanks for mentioning that; I ran it four time with and without a direct cable connection and got pretty much the same results. One thing I should mention is that I took those tests early in the morning; I should probably see how well I do when everyone on the block is online checking out the latest angry-video-game-nerd on youtube...

[mikeszekely]

Probably should have mentioned that you should run it a few times and get the average of your tests. Sometimes you can get faster, sometimes it will be slower.

Yeah, this, pretty much. So you're probably fine without doing anything more.

That said...

Is this the point where I start looking at a new router, or should I just buy a bunch of ethernet cables and plug everything in my house directly?

Maybe both. A better router, can handle traffic more intelligently. And running wires reduces the possibility of interference or conflicting IPs on the network. When I redid my network, I actually ran an Ethernet line down from the router into a gigabit switch, then hardwired the printer and the quartet of computers in my "man-cave".

Should you choose to wire your network, Cat 6 is better than Cat 5e, which is better than regular Cat 5. However, real speeds are limited to the capabilities of the devices you're wiring, and in real-world conditions you're unlikely to notice the difference between Cat 5e and Cat 6.

For what it's worth, though, you're also unlikely to notice the difference between wired and wireless, especially if you're network is small.

[myk]

Yeah, this, pretty much. So you're probably fine without doing anything more.

That said...

Maybe both. A better router, can handle traffic more intelligently. And running wires reduces the possibility of interference or conflicting IPs on the network. When I redid my network, I actually ran an Ethernet line down from the router into a gigabit switch, then hardwired the printer and the quartet of computers in my "man-cave".

Should you choose to wire your network, Cat 6 is better than Cat 5e, which is better than regular Cat 5. However, real speeds are limited to the capabilities of the devices you're wiring, and in real-world conditions you're unlikely to notice the difference between Cat 5e and Cat 6.

For what it's worth, though, you're also unlikely to notice the difference between wired and wireless, especially if you're network is small.

Hmm...it was my understanding that a wired connection would always be faster than a wireless one; I assumed that 's the reason why my laptop scored so much higher when it was cabled into the modem directly as opposed to running off of the wireless..

Edited December 29, 2013 by myk

[mikeszekely]

Hmm...it was my understanding that a wired connection would always be faster than a wireless one; I assumed that 's the reason why my laptop scored so much higher when it was cabled into the modem directly as opposed to running off of the wireless..

Not really.

In the days of 802.11b, maybe. B was only rated for 11mbps. And while technically good ol' 10/100 Ethernet is faster than 802.11G, G was still rated for 54mbps. However, at that point, your weakest link is no longer the Wi-Fi speeds, it's the cable speed (which, on your best posted speed test, was less than 33mbps).

Of course, the more devices you have, the more that 54mbps is divvied up... but that's where newer standards like N and AC come in. My router can do 1000mbps over Ethernet, 450mbps on a 2.4GHz band, and 1300mbps over a 5GHz band. All much, much faster than the internet coming in.

[myk]

Not really.

In the days of 802.11b, maybe. B was only rated for 11mbps. And while technically good ol' 10/100 Ethernet is faster than 802.11G, G was still rated for 54mbps. However, at that point, your weakest link is no longer the Wi-Fi speeds, it's the cable speed (which, on your best posted speed test, was less than 33mbps).

Of course, the more devices you have, the more that 54mbps is divvied up... but that's where newer standards like N and AC come in. My router can do 1000mbps over Ethernet, 450mbps on a 2.4GHz band, and 1300mbps over a 5GHz band. All much, much faster than the internet coming in.

I see. So, the advertised speeds of the devices we're buying is just marketing hype then, considering that we'll always be inhibited by our service providers. In any case, not knowing the type of cabling I had, I looked for some cat5e cabling for my PS3 but they only had cat6. I guess at this point I've done all I can to optimize my internal network, short of buying a new router capable of dual bands. Seeing that I live alone and I don't have a lot of devices online simultaneously, maybe three at the most, should I invest in a dual band router? Furthermore, is there a chance of a compatability issue with my devices intended for connection (PS3/4, laptop, etc)?

Edit: While I was diddling online someone from Cox IM'd me and eventually asked if I wanted to try their "Premiere" service at my current price for 3 months, so I figured why not and agreed. They're claiming that I can get up to 50 Mbps download speed which I was too eager to try out. Unfortunately, I got mixed results with numbers from 23 Mbps all the way up to 53 Mbps. I may or may not keep this "upgrade."

Edited December 29, 2013 by myk

[azrael]

It's not hype if you're transferring data across your internal LAN. If your Ethernet is capable of 1Gbps, and you have a gigabit switch in that router, then you'll be able to transfer at those speeds on your internal network.

[mikeszekely]

I see. So, the advertised speeds of the devices we're buying is just marketing hype then, considering that we'll always be inhibited by our service providers. In any case, not knowing the type of cabling I had, I looked for some cat5e cabling for my PS3 but they only had cat6. I guess at this point I've done all I can to optimize my internal network, short of buying a new router capable of dual bands. Seeing that I live alone and I don't have a lot of devices online simultaneously, maybe three at the most, should I invest in a dual band router? Furthermore, is there a chance of a compatability issue with my devices intended for connection (PS3/4, laptop, etc)?

Edit: While I was diddling online someone from Cox IM'd me and eventually asked if I wanted to try their "Premiere" service at my current price for 3 months, so I figured why not and agreed. They're claiming that I can get up to 50 Mbps download speed which I was too eager to try out. Unfortunately, I got mixed results with numbers from 23 Mbps all the way up to 53 Mbps. I may or may not keep this "upgrade."

It won't hurt to invest in a dual-band router, but it's like investing in the future. You likely won't see any payoff now, but in the future, who knows? I've been waiting forever for Verizon to make FIOS available in my area. Not sure how fast Verizon's FIOS is, but I know some fiber companies are aiming for 500-1000mbps.

802.11 technology is wonderfully backwards compatible. However, a downside is that the network is only as fast as the slowest device. If you connect with an older wireless G laptop, you're going to cap out at 54mbps, even if you have another N device capable of 150mbps, for as long as the G device is on the network. Which brings me to another benefit of dual-band. In effect, it's almost like having two networks. In theory, I could connect my older devices to the 2.4GHz network, and newer devices to the 5GHz network. That way, the the older devices aren't slowing down the newer ones. Of course, I get an average of around 13mbps with Comcast, so in practice I still connect most of my devices to the 2.4Ghz network and pretty much dedicate the 5GHz network to game streaming through my Nvidia Shield.

As for your "Premier service," when a cable company says "up to" they really mean "up to." Not sure if Cox is the same way, but Comcast has "burst" speeds. What it basically means is that when I start a download, I'll have really good speeds, but they'll quickly taper off. Comcast can say that those fasts bursts are speeds I might get "up to," but they're not even remotely indicative of my average.

[myk]

It won't hurt to invest in a dual-band router, but it's like investing in the future. You likely won't see any payoff now, but in the future, who knows? I've been waiting forever for Verizon to make FIOS available in my area. Not sure how fast Verizon's FIOS is, but I know some fiber companies are aiming for 500-1000mbps.

802.11 technology is wonderfully backwards compatible. However, a downside is that the network is only as fast as the slowest device. If you connect with an older wireless G laptop, you're going to cap out at 54mbps, even if you have another N device capable of 150mbps, for as long as the G device is on the network. Which brings me to another benefit of dual-band. In effect, it's almost like having two networks. In theory, I could connect my older devices to the 2.4GHz network, and newer devices to the 5GHz network. That way, the the older devices aren't slowing down the newer ones. Of course, I get an average of around 13mbps with Comcast, so in practice I still connect most of my devices to the 2.4Ghz network and pretty much dedicate the 5GHz network to game streaming through my Nvidia Shield.

As for your "Premier service," when a cable company says "up to" they really mean "up to." Not sure if Cox is the same way, but Comcast has "burst" speeds. What it basically means is that when I start a download, I'll have really good speeds, but they'll quickly taper off. Comcast can say that those fasts bursts are speeds I might get "up to," but they're not even remotely indicative of my average.

Copy that on the "up to" nonsense; I noticed that on the Ookla tests that I just took. The indicator would redline into the 50's and then settle into the lower 40's/mid 30's. No surprise there. Do you think it's worth the extra $11 a month?

*By what you're saying a dual-band couldn't hurt me; I have ancient devices like my Dell 6400 running side by side with my PS4. If I understand this correctly, a dual-band router would allow me to isolate the 'Dell and keep it from dumbing down my wireless...

[mikeszekely]

Copy that on the "up to" nonsense; I noticed that on the Ookla tests that I just took. The indicator would redline into the 50's and then settle into the lower 40's/mid 30's. No surprise there. Do you think it's worth the extra $11 a month?

I'd have to have more tests with and without to get more accurate averages, as well as an idea of how much and what for you're using your internet. But my gut says no.

*By what you're saying a dual-band couldn't hurt me; I have ancient devices like my Dell 6400 running side by side with my PS4. If I understand this correctly, a dual-band router would allow me to isolate the 'Dell and keep it from dumbing down my wireless...

Maybe. I don't have a PS4 (yet), but if the PS4 supports 5Ghz, then yes. You can run it on the 5Ghz band and the Dell on the 2.4Ghz band.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

It's not hype if you're transferring data across your internal LAN. If your Ethernet is capable of 1Gbps, and you have a gigabit switch in that router, then you'll be able to transfer at those speeds on your internal network.

+1

[Cdr Fokker]

However, a downside is that the network is only as fast as the slowest device. If you connect with an older wireless G laptop, you're going to cap out at 54mbps, even if you have another N device capable of 150mbps, for as long as the G device is on the network.

That is incorrect, or at least an overstatement.

Putting a G device on a N network will not restrict all communication on the network to G speeds. It will, however, reduce total throughput versus a "pure" environment, and thus N devices will be slowed. A quick search says that testing of a mixed-mode network with both G and N devices results in the N devices having anywhere from 10-30% reduced speed compared to a pure N network. (So, the N devices are still well above G speeds.)

Brining in B devices lowers throughput even further; some routers offer an "NG-mixed" mode that prevents B devices from joining the network and adding further slowdown (caused by both their own comms as well as other BC actions necessitated for B, rather than just for G.)

[azrael]

Copy that on the "up to" nonsense; I noticed that on the Ookla tests that I just took. The indicator would redline into the 50's and then settle into the lower 40's/mid 30's. No surprise there. Do you think it's worth the extra $11 a month?

That's up to you. As Mike said, it's speeds "up to" that speed that they advertise. You may get those speeds at some time during the day but there's no guarantee. What you should look at is your yearly costs vs usage. If on average, you are not getting the speeds they advertise consistently, then it's probably not worth the extra $132/year.

[myk]

Ok guys, here I am with yet another E-question. I'd like to get an A/V receiver with HDMI in's and an out. My running choices have been narrowed down, but one feature has me wondering if it's worth it or not: Video-up-conversion. What's the deal with that? I realize that up-conversion can't turn low-res signals into something that can rival naturally hi-def signals, but will I see a noteworthy improvement over older media like dvd's, older video game consoles, etc? If I don't have an up-converting receiver will my older media be that much less appealing on my modern receiver and soon-to-be modern t.v.? What features should I be adamant on having with a new receiver? I don't need to worry about connectivity with devices other than my video game consoles (old and new generation) and possibly my laptop...

Edited January 6, 2014 by myk

[mikeszekely]

Ok guys, here I am with yet another E-question. I'd like to get an A/V receiver with HDMI in's and an out. My running choices have been narrowed down, but one feature has me wondering if it's worth it or not: Video-up-conversion. What's the deal with that? I realize that up-conversion can't turn low-res signals into something that can rival naturally hi-def signals, but will I see a noteworthy improvement over older media like dvd's, older video game consoles, etc? If I don't have an up-converting receiver will my older media be that much less appealing on my modern receiver and soon-to-be modern t.v.? What features should I be adamant on having with a new receiver? I don't need to worry about connectivity with devices other than my video game consoles (old and new generation) and possibly my laptop...

Well, I'll caution you that I'm a lot less knowledgeable about this than I am about computer stuff. That being said, upconversion, in my opinion, is generally ok, and can vary between devices doing the upconversion. However, depending on what you plan on hooking up to it, I don't think it's necessary for the receiver to do it. A lot of devices, such as the PlayStation 3, will upconvert the video before it's even sent to the receiver (and the PS3 does a pretty good job of upconverting, too).

(Guys, please feel free to contradict me if you know better than I do!)

I doubt that this is still as big a deal now, but a few years ago when I bought a receiver, I found out later that it only supported pass-through on HDMI audio. In other words, I could get 5.1 sound out of toslink or coax, but if the source was HDMI it'd just send it through to the TV's tinny stereo speakers. I'd be more worried about making sure the receiver can decode HDMI audio than whether or not it upcoverts video.

Also, the more HDMI ports the better. I got one with four, and it's full. I actually have my Wii U and my Xbox 360 sharing a port via a small manual switch so that I have a free input for whenever I finally find a PS4.

[azrael]

...What's the deal with that? I realize that up-conversion can't turn low-res signals into something that can rival naturally hi-def signals, but will I see a noteworthy improvement over older media like dvd's, older video game consoles, etc? If I don't have an up-converting receiver will my older media be that much less appealing on my modern receiver and soon-to-be modern t.v.?

You probably will only marginal (or no) improvement with lower-res media. But at the same time, you'll probably notice the up-converted media. As in, if it looks bad at whatever resolution it is, then it's gonna look a lot worst when up-scaled.

[azrael]

FYI: CES2014 is on this week in Las Vegas, Jan. 7-10. Keynote speeches, product intros, concept product demos, etc. Prepare for flood of gadget news.

[myk]

Well, I'll caution you that I'm a lot less knowledgeable about this than I am about computer stuff. That being said, upconversion, in my opinion, is generally ok, and can vary between devices doing the upconversion. However, depending on what you plan on hooking up to it, I don't think it's necessary for the receiver to do it. A lot of devices, such as the PlayStation 3, will upconvert the video before it's even sent to the receiver (and the PS3 does a pretty good job of upconverting, too).

(Guys, please feel free to contradict me if you know better than I do!)

I doubt that this is still as big a deal now, but a few years ago when I bought a receiver, I found out later that it only supported pass-through on HDMI audio. In other words, I could get 5.1 sound out of toslink or coax, but if the source was HDMI it'd just send it through to the TV's tinny stereo speakers. I'd be more worried about making sure the receiver can decode HDMI audio than whether or not it upcoverts video.

Also, the more HDMI ports the better. I got one with four, and it's full. I actually have my Wii U and my Xbox 360 sharing a port via a small manual switch so that I have a free input for whenever I finally find a PS4.

The receivers I'm looking at have at least 6 HDMI ports. I would, in theory, hook up my PS3, PS4, and laptop. I would then hook up my old video game consoles, like my Dream cast, Xbox, PS1, N64, etc, via composite? What you said about HDMI audio brings up a critical point; I would be highly upset if my new receiver insisted on sending HDMI audio to the t.v. What is the point of HDMI if it sends both video and audio to the t.v. and not to a surrond system? Why would anyone want their hi-def audio signal sent to a t.v.?

You probably will only marginal (or no) improvement with lower-res media. But at the same time, you'll probably notice the up-converted media. As in, if it looks bad at whatever resolution it is, then it's gonna look a lot worst when up-scaled.

So, if I tried to run my Dreamcast's version of Capcom Vs. SNK then there's the chance it would look even worse than it does now on my 'HD t.v.? I'm not expecting a considerable upgrade to the material, but I'd certainly be bothered if it ended up looking worse...

Edited January 7, 2014 by myk

[azrael]

So, if I tried to run my Dreamcast's version of Capcom Vs. SNK then there's the chance it would look even worse than it does now on my 'HD t.v.? I'm not expecting a considerable upgrade to the material, but I'd certainly be bothered if it ended up looking worse...

Depends on how bad does it look currently. I'm thinking more along the lines of out-of-focus, grainy wedding video-type of pictures. Capcom v. SNK will probably look the same as it does on your current setup.

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

for picking receivers, i think all the questions you are asking may be minor issues in determining one.

in reality up conversion is essential for both non HD and HD signals. but it becomes less of an issue as 99.9% of hdtv's upconvert signals automatically.

if your tv is 1080p, it auto converts 480i,480p,720p to 1080 resolution automatically.

to make matters worse if you have a cable box or dish tv, the cable box will convert a signal from one resolution to another and then the hdtv will reconvert the signal. (messy) (to get the most pure hd signal is to get an over the air antenna for over the air bradcasts and bluray discs.)

in terms of receivers, if you choose to have the receiver upconvert signal for you it will bypass the hdtv doing the up-conversion and have the receiver do the work.

depending on the receiver you get. the up-conversion may be worse or better. it may be better letting the tv handle it automatically.

so if you're playing dreamcast on your hdtv it has already been unconverted to your tv's native hd resolution by your tv. (there's an up-conversion chip in your tv)

pretty much, unless you spend over 1k on a dedicated upconverting player or receiver, i would just let the tv handle the up-conversion automatically and don't worry about the feature on the receiver.

4k content is going to be the same thing,

if you get a 4k hdtv, it will automatically upconvert 1080p signal to 4k. so those receivers boosting 4k up-conversion is really not that big of a deal.

onto receivers:

back in the day the most high end receivers boasted about having being able to decode the lastest audio codecs (dolby digital, dts 5.1 etc.) everyone based their choices on which receiver had the most and latest codecs.

since almost all modern receivers from entry level to pro can do all/every codecs avail, that is no longer an issue.

second, back in the 70s receivers were priced based on the amps it could pull off. and they were heavy pumping 200 watts or more per channel.

most to all modern receivers just go from 80 watts-to about 100 watts max per channel. even a 2000 dollar high end receiver will

at most carry a 150 watts per channel which is not much more than an 80 watt per channel receiver. there is minor to negligible improvement between an 80 watt to 120- watts in sound quality and power.

so pretty much almost all modern receivers in theory are the same in power and decoding all audio formats.

so if most modern receivers have all the latest codecs and are pretty much the same in power across the board, what separates high end expensive receivers from entry level ones.

we are paying for two things:

one is gimmics and features such as apple airplay and internet radio. (sreaming music wirelessly from your phone to your reciever)

and finally pretty much the most important thing which people are paying for is: audio calibration/room correction technology.

i will tell you almost all receivers are about the same in watts per channel and decoding audio. but it will be a world of a difference if you have a receiver with audyessy multi eq xt32. than not have that.

hands down you will have a monster of a receiver and a world of a difference in sound with room correction technology.

Last the choice of receiver is pretty much like choosing a car. it's about taste more than which is better. every brand has a different signature sound.

i'll try and go through the major receiver brands off the top of my head:

Onkyo - the must features for the lowest price (best bang for your buck in terms of features) sound bright and in your face sound. and amp runs very hot and hdmi fails all the time.

Yamaha- very bright and detailed sound.

Denon- warm sound, i think they're the best personally. very warm. not as bright as yamaha receivers.

Marantz- identical to the Denon in terms of sound character since they are of under the same roof of parent company. but they are geared towards high end audience so generally way more expensive than a Denon.

when shopping for a receiver, while you're looking for the number hdmi inputs and features, i strongly advise looking into what audio calibration/room correction technology the receiver comes with.

[myk]

Thanks for clearing the up-conversion matter; I guess it isn't as important as I had originally thought. One thing does bother me about newer receivers though: they're all geared towards HDMI hookups. Very few of them have component inputs, more than one digital-audio input, and 99% of them have no composite hookups, which would leave my older video game consoles and other obsolete equipment out in the cold. Will my only recourse be to look at older receivers? For example the JVC RX-412B of 2006, features two HDMI ins and one out (new 'tech at the time), six composite with s-video, and two component ports. This sort of a setup would be great for my intended use of older equipment.