Well I've decided to stick with what I have for now, because I am not convinced I would be able to notice a significant difference, I would likely need all new speakers as well as the amp as my existing speakers are entry level and only in 6.1, not 7.1 config and lastly just because my existing set up works really well and to me is really immersive regardless of the fact it isn't playing HD audio. We all know the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Plus I'm no audiophile, don't get me wrong I can appreciate stereo over mono just like I can appreciate the quality and immersion hike of DD/DTS over old pro-logic i.e. DPL/DPL II but I tend not to be able to detect smaller, more incremental improvements. For example, where as many say DTS is far superior to DD, I can detect, very little, if any, difference between the two, they both sound excellent and I have never once detected any kind of compression artefact in either, suggesting the bit rates are perfectly adequate - for me at least.
Of course as a regular bargain hunter on eBay and online shops I dare say I will end up upgrading the amp and speakers in the next couple of years i.e. when I see a good enough bargain to push me to upgrade but I don't think the time is quite there yet.
Glad you can hear the difference. You should protect those "golden ears". They're a valuable assett - I envy you.
but, for the rest of us ...
from Wikipedia:
In the consumer (home theater) market, AC-3 and DTS are close in terms of audio performance. When the DTS audio track is encoded at its highest legal bitrate (1509.75 kbit/s), technical experts rank DTS as perceptually transparent for most audio program material (i.e., indistinguishable to the uncoded source in a double blind test). Dolby claims its competing AC-3 codec achieves similar transparency at its highest coded bitrate (640 kbit/s). However, in program material available to home consumers (DVD, broadcast, and subscription digital TV), neither AC-3 nor DTS run at their highest allowed bitrate. DVD and broadcast (ATSC) HDTV cap AC-3 bitrate at 448 kbit/s. But even at that rate, consumer audio gear already enjoys better audio performance than theatrical (35 mm movie) installations, which are limited to even lower bitrates.
AC-3 and DTS are sometimes judged by their encoded bitrates. DTS proponents claim that the extra bits give higher fidelity and more dynamic range, providing a richer and more lifelike sound. But no conclusion can be drawn from their respective bitrates, as each codec relies on different coding tools and syntax to compress audio.
Mind you, I've never done the blind test myself. My hearing's not good enough to judge. I've just been reading round the subject.
This is a comparison between Dolby Digital and DTS, not between the std formats and HD audio.
Just to make it clearer for you - I said I can tell the difference between the standard formats (Dolby Digital and DTS) and HD audio formats (True HD and DTS HD MA).
Suggest you do your reading a little more carefully in future before you throw in comments like "Golden Ears".
Well I've decided to stick with what I have for now, because I am not convinced I would be able to notice a significant difference, I would likely need all new speakers as well as the amp as my existing speakers are entry level and only in 6.1, not 7.1 config and lastly just because my existing set up works really well and to me is really immersive regardless of the fact it isn't playing HD audio. We all know the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Plus I'm no audiophile, don't get me wrong I can appreciate stereo over mono just like I can appreciate the quality and immersion hike of DD/DTS over old pro-logic i.e. DPL/DPL II but I tend not to be able to detect smaller, more incremental improvements. For example, where as many say DTS is far superior to DD, I can detect, very little, if any, difference between the two, they both sound excellent and I have never once detected any kind of compression artefact in either, suggesting the bit rates are perfectly adequate - for me at least.
Of course as a regular bargain hunter on eBay and online shops I dare say I will end up upgrading the amp and speakers in the next couple of years i.e. when I see a good enough bargain to push me to upgrade but I don't think the time is quite there yet.
Don't be put off by what scottie55 has been saying/quoting.
It has no relevance to what is being discussed here. For some inexplicable reason they are comparing DD and DTS, this has absolutely nothing to do with HD audio.
As I said earlier, you don't need to be an audiophile to appreciate HD audio, if you appreciate good quality audio the difference will be obvious. You do need good quality speakers, £50 speaker packages just won't cut it.
It annoys the hell out me when someone is being sown a seed of doubt because another person has written a load of bollox.
I think the OP has understood what I'm trying to say, but because I think it's of more general use, I'm going to give it another go.
First off, even with my less than perfect hearing and mediocre system, I can hear the difference between the audio from a common or garden DVD and that from a BD.
When you compress a datastream you can use either a lossy compression algorithm or a lossless one such Dolby TRUEHD or DTS MA. Lossless algorithms should allow a bit perfect reproduction of the data when it's uncompressed. Very important when dealing with "proper" data such ebooks or databases.
Subjective data such as photographs (e.g. jpegs) or audio (e.g. mp3s or BD soundtracks) can sustain a degree of data loss due to compression and yet still be acceptable. There is a range of data loss from zero (lossless) to total. There will be a point on that spectrum where any loss can no longer be perceived by the viewer or listener. In the case of audio streams, that point will vary from person to person and from system to system - those lucky enough to have hearing at the top end of the scale are sometimes said to have "golden ears".
When the losses due to using a lossy compression method become imperceptable to the listener the algorithm is said be perceptually transparent.
As you would expect there is / can be debate about the point at which perceptual transparency is achieved. The point I was trying to make is that Dolby claim that their AC3 algorithm is perceptually transparent at 640Kb/s and DTS claim it at 1.5Mb/s. These bitrates are higher than those output by a DVD player. A BD player, however, can and does output at those rates even over an optical or coax connection, i..e. a non-HD capable connection.
For most people and most audio systems in a domestic environment, any difference in sound quality between a lossless HD audio stream and that of a high bitrate audio stream from a BD as described above, should be imperceptable.
I think the OP has understood what I'm trying to say, but because I think it's of more general use, I'm going to give it another go.
First off, even with my less than perfect hearing and mediocre system, I can hear the difference between the audio from a common or garden DVD and that from a BD.
When you compress a datastream you can use either a lossy compression algorithm or a lossless one such Dolby TRUEHD or DTS MA. Lossless algorithms should allow a bit perfect reproduction of the data when it's uncompressed. Very important when dealing with "proper" data such ebooks or databases.
Subjective data such as photographs (e.g. jpegs) or audio (e.g. mp3s or BD soundtracks) can sustain a degree of data loss due to compression and yet still be acceptable. There is a range of data loss from zero (lossless) to total. There will be a point on that spectrum where any loss can no longer be perceived by the viewer or listener. In the case of audio streams, that point will vary from person to person and from system to system - those lucky enough to have hearing at the top end of the scale are sometimes said to have "golden ears".
When the losses due to using a lossy compression method become imperceptable to the listener the algorithm is said be perceptually transparent.
As you would expect there is / can be debate about the point at which perceptual transparency is achieved. The point I was trying to make is that Dolby claim that their AC3 algorithm is perceptually transparent at 640Kb/s and DTS claim it at 1.5Mb/s. These bitrates are higher than those output by a DVD player. A BD player, however, can and does output at those rates even over an optical or coax connection, i..e. a non-HD capable connection.
For most people and most audio systems in a domestic environment, any difference in sound quality between a lossless HD audio stream and that of a high bitrate audio stream from a BD as described above, should be imperceptable.
I hope I've made myself clear this time round.
What you were saying was clear the first time. Now I'm confused, didn't you originally say you envied me because you couldn't tell a difference between DVD and Bluray but I could? Are you are now saying you can hear a difference between DVD and Bluray?
Unless I have misunderstood, I though the reason you quoted Wiki was to backup what you were saying, which was basically - higher bitrates than 640kbit/s (Dolby) and 1.5Mbit/s (DTS) was pointless because the difference would be inaudible?
So was this topic just up for discussion?
Anyway, here's my point of view.........
It's all subjective as transparency has never been proven.
Basically DTS were late on the scene and wanted to show their codec was far better than Dolby's. Isn't it a coincidence that DTS claim transparency happens at 1536k when that also happens to be the legal limit of SPDIF?
I also find it funny that now lossless formats are on the market DTS now claim their codecs are the highest quality to date, due to it's bit-for-bit transfers, bit depth and higher sampling rates - go figure.
I have on occasions but a Bluray on and felt there was something wrong, only to find out the disc default was Dolby Digital, not PCM, and Dolby Digital on Bluray is at 640kbit/s, not 448kbits as it is on DVD. So in my case and perspective transparency has been dis-proven.
There are many factors involved - hearing, equipment quality, the room etc etc. If someone consider 1536k is the best they can hear, fair enough, but there are some of us out there that have the equipment to notice the increased quality.
Anyone have any idea what the Infinity Oreus 7.1 speakers are like compared to my existing speaker set up (Yamaha NSP110)?
Furthermore, would an Onkyo TX-SR607 be likely to be a good partner to this speaker system, would it work well with these speakers and give good results?
Links to reviews or more info would be great.
Heard good things about the amp but try as I might I cannot find anything significant about the speaker set, well apart from reports of a few people having issues with the sub. Could really do with a decent review of them to see how they perform.
Anyone have any idea what the Infinity Oreus 7.1 speakers are like compared to my existing speaker set up (Yamaha NSP110)?
Furthermore, would an Onkyo TX-SR607 be likely to be a good partner to this speaker system, would it work well with these speakers and give good results?
Links to reviews or more info would be great.
Heard good things about the amp but try as I might I cannot find anything significant about the speaker set, well apart from reports of a few people having issues with the sub. Could really do with a decent review of them to see how they perform.
Not heard them personally, but have seen a site selling them for £499, original price £799. I've also seen them selling for £199, reduced from £399.
I don't know how true the £799 price is, but even if they were £399 they should have a certain amount of quality too them.
The sub looks to do a half decent job, 30Hz @+/-3db.
A good response from the satellites too, 95Hz, better than some where you have to have the sub xover set to 120Hz, you should get away with 100Hz.
I'd say they are a good upgrade from the Yamaha's.
The Onkyo will drive these speakers no problem, as for sound quality, well that's down to the speakers themselves.
Only thing I can find about the Infinity Oreus 7.1 speakers, that is consistent anyway, is that they are obsolete. Did find a few reviews of the 5.1 version which appears to use the same speakers and they seem to attract quite favourable comments.
But looks like you'll have trouble finding a set if they really are obsolete.
What I have with my Onkyo 507 is the Q Acoustics 2000 speaker set.
You can get the satellite speakers (the 2010s) separately so can easily make it up to a 7.1 system should you want to. And they sound pretty fine too. Though I did find they sound better turning off the various EQ gizmos on the amp.
Only downside I found was the weight of the things. For such small speakers they weigh a ton. Especially the sub. Or at least that's how it felt humping all the boxes up to my first floor flat
Got them in a package deal with the amp and a load of useful extras like the wires to hook it all up from these guys.
Well I've decided to stick with what I have for now, because I am not convinced I would be able to notice a significant difference, I would likely need all new speakers as well as the amp as my existing speakers are entry level and only in 6.1, not 7.1 config and lastly just because my existing set up works really well and to me is really immersive regardless of the fact it isn't playing HD audio. We all know the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Plus I'm no audiophile, don't get me wrong I can appreciate stereo over mono just like I can appreciate the quality and immersion hike of DD/DTS over old pro-logic i.e. DPL/DPL II but I tend not to be able to detect smaller, more incremental improvements. For example, where as many say DTS is far superior to DD, I can detect, very little, if any, difference between the two, they both sound excellent and I have never once detected any kind of compression artefact in either, suggesting the bit rates are perfectly adequate - for me at least.
Of course as a regular bargain hunter on eBay and online shops I dare say I will end up upgrading the amp and speakers in the next couple of years i.e. when I see a good enough bargain to push me to upgrade but I don't think the time is quite there yet.
Quality of speakers and amps are the limit until you spend many thousands on equipment, so yes, dd and dts is pretty much no different from each other on most setups. Never mind the hd audio formats.
Not heard them personally, but have seen a site selling them for £499, original price £799. I've also seen them selling for £199, reduced from £399.
I don't know how true the £799 price is, but even if they were £399 they should have a certain amount of quality too them.
The sub looks to do a half decent job, 30Hz @+/-3db.
I asked about the Infinity Oreus 7.1 speakers as I was bidding on a used set on eBay. Initially lost the auction but got a second chance offer which I took. I got the speakers for £180 delivered. This is nearly £100 more than I paid for my Yamaha NSP110s (new from RS about 2 yrs ago) and perhaps a lot for used speakers but they are said to be perfect condition and it is the only full 7.1 set I have seen. Most of the new ones are 5.1 which seem a bit odd when 7.1 is needed to get the most from the new audio formats. Furthermore, I did want a complete set rather than making it up in parts as I know very little about speakers and subs so could easily have got it completely wrong.
Now I need to get a new amp for the speakers. Of course, in theory I could simply plug them into the Cambridge audio (Azur 540R) but it is limited to 6.1 and so I would lose a speaker and it cannot decode the new HD audio formats so I guess I would have to go all out for an amp upgrade if I want to get the best from my new (well to me at least) speakers?
I am somewhat torn between the Onkyo TX-SR607 and the Onkyo TX-SR605(B). I gather the 605 is less advanced but would I lose anything significant by choosing it over the more expensive 607?
Also what would be a good price to aim for on the 605/607? At the moment I am using eBay as the shops don’t seem to have any particularly brilliant deals on at the moment – though if anyone can prove me wrong on that, please do as I prefer to have the comfort of a warranty where possible.
I see the people I got my system from are doing the new Onkyo 508 for £329 which is a pretty decent deal. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the 607 but it will be brand new with a 2yr warranty.
I see the people I got my system from are doing the new Onkyo 508 for £329 which is a pretty decent deal. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the 607 but it will be brand new with a 2yr warranty.
yeah of course, all suggestions appreciated. I was looking at a ~£200 budget for the amp (though can be a bit flexible) as I thought this would give a well balanced system with me spending a similar amount on the speakers, giving an overall system spend of ~£400.
This sound ok or am I being too cheap to get a decent sounding system/decent upgrade over the existing system?
For 200 ish i suspect the only 607 you'd get will be second hand. So you you pays yer money and takes yer chances as they say At least of the 607's I found with a quick search on eBay the only one under 350ish was second hand.
The 508 I linked to will do pretty much everything the 607 does but at least it is new and comes with a warranty. If it were my piggy bank I'd go for the new option. But it's up to you.
At the moment I am looking at a Onkyo TX SR607 said to be brand new but without original box/packaging, seller said they got it as part of a house sale. No idea what if any warranty it would come with.
Second option is a used (said to be immaculate) Onkyo TX-SR605(B) which does have the remaining balance of its richer sounds warranty (12/2012) left. Good that it has warranty, (assuming it can be transferred) but this seems to indicate that the amp is already two and a half years old which could make it quite worn if it has been used all day every day / at very high volumes.
Personally am leaning towards the 607 as it has a clearly higher spec and assuming the seller honest, is brand new and hence has no wear and tear. Is the 607 the best bet out of these two options or should I go for the used (but warrantied) receiver?
Finally as the speakers are already on their way to me they will arrive before I have even bought a new amp. Therefore, I am hoping to connect them to my existing Cambridge Audio 540R to test they work properly. Should this be ok or could the Infinity Oreus 7.1s overload the amp?
The 607 would be the one to go for. Though I would be wary about the lack of the box. if it really is brand new (even though it has been superseded by the 608) then why has it no box?
I have my doubts the Richersounds warranty can be transferred. They don't make it very clear on their website but the 5yr warranty is a paid for option so presumably it requires the name and address of the purchaser? No indication on their website about being able to transfer it that I can find.
Up to you really. personally I would go with the new option unless I knew the seller and had a chance to play with the unit and give it a once over before parting with the hard earned.
As for the speakers. They cannot overload the amp. The amp can overload the speakers though. If you use an amp with a higher power rating than the speakers you can easily blow the speakers if you turn the wick up too much.
What may be an issue is the impedance of the speakers. This has a direct bearing on how much current is drawn from the amp at any given volume setting. The lower the impedance the higher the current. If the current drain is too high the amp can run out of go even though it is nowhere near running out of voltage capability. If you are lucky the amp just shuts down gracefully. If you are unlucky it cooks it's output stages. That is something you should check. Onkyo don't like driving 4 ohm speakers. They make a specific point on this on the website.
Comments
Plus I'm no audiophile, don't get me wrong I can appreciate stereo over mono just like I can appreciate the quality and immersion hike of DD/DTS over old pro-logic i.e. DPL/DPL II but I tend not to be able to detect smaller, more incremental improvements. For example, where as many say DTS is far superior to DD, I can detect, very little, if any, difference between the two, they both sound excellent and I have never once detected any kind of compression artefact in either, suggesting the bit rates are perfectly adequate - for me at least.
Of course as a regular bargain hunter on eBay and online shops I dare say I will end up upgrading the amp and speakers in the next couple of years i.e. when I see a good enough bargain to push me to upgrade but I don't think the time is quite there yet.
This is a comparison between Dolby Digital and DTS, not between the std formats and HD audio.
Just to make it clearer for you - I said I can tell the difference between the standard formats (Dolby Digital and DTS) and HD audio formats (True HD and DTS HD MA).
Suggest you do your reading a little more carefully in future before you throw in comments like "Golden Ears".
That was a compliment.
It has no relevance to what is being discussed here. For some inexplicable reason they are comparing DD and DTS, this has absolutely nothing to do with HD audio.
As I said earlier, you don't need to be an audiophile to appreciate HD audio, if you appreciate good quality audio the difference will be obvious. You do need good quality speakers, £50 speaker packages just won't cut it.
It annoys the hell out me when someone is being sown a seed of doubt because another person has written a load of bollox.
Go have a demo, it won't cost you anything.
The way it was written implied I had some kind of special hearing, while everyone else's hearing was normal.
Irrelevant anyway, seeing as you have misconstrued what was being discussed.
First off, even with my less than perfect hearing and mediocre system, I can hear the difference between the audio from a common or garden DVD and that from a BD.
When you compress a datastream you can use either a lossy compression algorithm or a lossless one such Dolby TRUEHD or DTS MA. Lossless algorithms should allow a bit perfect reproduction of the data when it's uncompressed. Very important when dealing with "proper" data such ebooks or databases.
Subjective data such as photographs (e.g. jpegs) or audio (e.g. mp3s or BD soundtracks) can sustain a degree of data loss due to compression and yet still be acceptable. There is a range of data loss from zero (lossless) to total. There will be a point on that spectrum where any loss can no longer be perceived by the viewer or listener. In the case of audio streams, that point will vary from person to person and from system to system - those lucky enough to have hearing at the top end of the scale are sometimes said to have "golden ears".
When the losses due to using a lossy compression method become imperceptable to the listener the algorithm is said be perceptually transparent.
As you would expect there is / can be debate about the point at which perceptual transparency is achieved. The point I was trying to make is that Dolby claim that their AC3 algorithm is perceptually transparent at 640Kb/s and DTS claim it at 1.5Mb/s. These bitrates are higher than those output by a DVD player. A BD player, however, can and does output at those rates even over an optical or coax connection, i..e. a non-HD capable connection.
For most people and most audio systems in a domestic environment, any difference in sound quality between a lossless HD audio stream and that of a high bitrate audio stream from a BD as described above, should be imperceptable.
I hope I've made myself clear this time round.
Unless I have misunderstood, I though the reason you quoted Wiki was to backup what you were saying, which was basically - higher bitrates than 640kbit/s (Dolby) and 1.5Mbit/s (DTS) was pointless because the difference would be inaudible?
So was this topic just up for discussion?
Anyway, here's my point of view.........
It's all subjective as transparency has never been proven.
Basically DTS were late on the scene and wanted to show their codec was far better than Dolby's. Isn't it a coincidence that DTS claim transparency happens at 1536k when that also happens to be the legal limit of SPDIF?
I also find it funny that now lossless formats are on the market DTS now claim their codecs are the highest quality to date, due to it's bit-for-bit transfers, bit depth and higher sampling rates - go figure.
I have on occasions but a Bluray on and felt there was something wrong, only to find out the disc default was Dolby Digital, not PCM, and Dolby Digital on Bluray is at 640kbit/s, not 448kbits as it is on DVD. So in my case and perspective transparency has been dis-proven.
There are many factors involved - hearing, equipment quality, the room etc etc. If someone consider 1536k is the best they can hear, fair enough, but there are some of us out there that have the equipment to notice the increased quality.
Furthermore, would an Onkyo TX-SR607 be likely to be a good partner to this speaker system, would it work well with these speakers and give good results?
Links to reviews or more info would be great.
Heard good things about the amp but try as I might I cannot find anything significant about the speaker set, well apart from reports of a few people having issues with the sub. Could really do with a decent review of them to see how they perform.
I don't know how true the £799 price is, but even if they were £399 they should have a certain amount of quality too them.
The sub looks to do a half decent job, 30Hz @+/-3db.
A good response from the satellites too, 95Hz, better than some where you have to have the sub xover set to 120Hz, you should get away with 100Hz.
I'd say they are a good upgrade from the Yamaha's.
The Onkyo will drive these speakers no problem, as for sound quality, well that's down to the speakers themselves.
But looks like you'll have trouble finding a set if they really are obsolete.
What I have with my Onkyo 507 is the Q Acoustics 2000 speaker set.
http://www.qacoustics.co.uk/2000/2000-cinema.htm
You can get the satellite speakers (the 2010s) separately so can easily make it up to a 7.1 system should you want to. And they sound pretty fine too. Though I did find they sound better turning off the various EQ gizmos on the amp.
Only downside I found was the weight of the things. For such small speakers they weigh a ton. Especially the sub. Or at least that's how it felt humping all the boxes up to my first floor flat
Got them in a package deal with the amp and a load of useful extras like the wires to hook it all up from these guys.
http://www.creative-audio.co.uk/
They have a "shop" on Amazon and I would have no problems dealing with them again.
Quality of speakers and amps are the limit until you spend many thousands on equipment, so yes, dd and dts is pretty much no different from each other on most setups. Never mind the hd audio formats.
I asked about the Infinity Oreus 7.1 speakers as I was bidding on a used set on eBay. Initially lost the auction but got a second chance offer which I took. I got the speakers for £180 delivered. This is nearly £100 more than I paid for my Yamaha NSP110s (new from RS about 2 yrs ago) and perhaps a lot for used speakers but they are said to be perfect condition and it is the only full 7.1 set I have seen. Most of the new ones are 5.1 which seem a bit odd when 7.1 is needed to get the most from the new audio formats. Furthermore, I did want a complete set rather than making it up in parts as I know very little about speakers and subs so could easily have got it completely wrong.
Now I need to get a new amp for the speakers. Of course, in theory I could simply plug them into the Cambridge audio (Azur 540R) but it is limited to 6.1 and so I would lose a speaker and it cannot decode the new HD audio formats so I guess I would have to go all out for an amp upgrade if I want to get the best from my new (well to me at least) speakers?
I am somewhat torn between the Onkyo TX-SR607 and the Onkyo TX-SR605(B). I gather the 605 is less advanced but would I lose anything significant by choosing it over the more expensive 607?
Also what would be a good price to aim for on the 605/607? At the moment I am using eBay as the shops don’t seem to have any particularly brilliant deals on at the moment – though if anyone can prove me wrong on that, please do as I prefer to have the comfort of a warranty where possible.
I see the people I got my system from are doing the new Onkyo 508 for £329 which is a pretty decent deal. It may not have all the bells and whistles of the 607 but it will be brand new with a 2yr warranty.
Worth considering perhaps?
http://www.creative-audio.co.uk/HDLIST.php?&HOTDEAL2=ONK_508
yeah of course, all suggestions appreciated. I was looking at a ~£200 budget for the amp (though can be a bit flexible) as I thought this would give a well balanced system with me spending a similar amount on the speakers, giving an overall system spend of ~£400.
This sound ok or am I being too cheap to get a decent sounding system/decent upgrade over the existing system?
The 508 I linked to will do pretty much everything the 607 does but at least it is new and comes with a warranty. If it were my piggy bank I'd go for the new option. But it's up to you.
Second option is a used (said to be immaculate) Onkyo TX-SR605(B) which does have the remaining balance of its richer sounds warranty (12/2012) left. Good that it has warranty, (assuming it can be transferred) but this seems to indicate that the amp is already two and a half years old which could make it quite worn if it has been used all day every day / at very high volumes.
Personally am leaning towards the 607 as it has a clearly higher spec and assuming the seller honest, is brand new and hence has no wear and tear. Is the 607 the best bet out of these two options or should I go for the used (but warrantied) receiver?
Finally as the speakers are already on their way to me they will arrive before I have even bought a new amp. Therefore, I am hoping to connect them to my existing Cambridge Audio 540R to test they work properly. Should this be ok or could the Infinity Oreus 7.1s overload the amp?
I have my doubts the Richersounds warranty can be transferred. They don't make it very clear on their website but the 5yr warranty is a paid for option so presumably it requires the name and address of the purchaser? No indication on their website about being able to transfer it that I can find.
Up to you really. personally I would go with the new option unless I knew the seller and had a chance to play with the unit and give it a once over before parting with the hard earned.
As for the speakers. They cannot overload the amp. The amp can overload the speakers though. If you use an amp with a higher power rating than the speakers you can easily blow the speakers if you turn the wick up too much.
What may be an issue is the impedance of the speakers. This has a direct bearing on how much current is drawn from the amp at any given volume setting. The lower the impedance the higher the current. If the current drain is too high the amp can run out of go even though it is nowhere near running out of voltage capability. If you are lucky the amp just shuts down gracefully. If you are unlucky it cooks it's output stages. That is something you should check. Onkyo don't like driving 4 ohm speakers. They make a specific point on this on the website.