 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.148.60.177
In Reply to: If money is no object... posted by HiFiMaster on November 18, 2004 at 06:38:51:
The differential between seperate and integrated components depends on your needs, if cost becomes an object, that is.For instance, I've got a NAD power amp to drive my big magneplanar front channels, and I'm going to get a receiver to do surround processing and drive the surround channels. You just don't need that much power for the surrounds, especially if the fronts are taken care of.
Now, if you're REALLY talking cost-no-object...
Runco MBX-1 DLP projector. $120k
Snell & Wilcox Interpolator Gold video scaler/processor. $60k
Meridian 800 DVD player. $20k
California Audio Technology System XXX audio system. $8.7 MILLION
(Includes 35 speakers, 33 amplifiers and custom installation)Call it an even $10,000,000 for a medium-sized custom-installed luxury theater that will rival, if not best, the Skywalker ranch setup :)
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
Follow Ups:
I am of the opion that all speakers in a home theater should be identical, placed identically distant from the sweet spot, set by meter at identical levels, and be driven by identical power amplifiers or amplifier channels.
Ideally yes, but this is a dual purpose music/HT system. My front channel speakers and amps are controlled with a dedicated stereo preamp with surround sound bypass input for movies.Ideally I'd like big amps on all speakers, but my stereo front channel amp cost as much as the receiver I'm goint to pick up. For driving just the surrounds, a receiver is fine, IMHO.
Heck, ideally I'd seal in the open wall to the entry foyer, cover over the windows, throw acoustic tile on the ceilings, acoustic foam under heavy curtains on the walls, put two easy chairs in the middle of the room and array everything shooting at them. But, well, my wife won't let *that* happen :)
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
Assuming I had room for everything. Other than for space considerations (which is perfectly reasonable), I just don't understand the rage for receivers.I don't need a tuner. I don't need DSP. I don't like big boxes.
I don't see needing to change out a quality multi-channel amp, especially given the light demands of surround channels. The potentional for development/upgrading is mainly in the pre/pro component, so that's the unit I'd be thinking about changing or upgrading in future.
So for me, the quality and flexibility of separates would be more appealing in integrating a high end stereo system with HT.
I think the reason for the "rage for receviers" is that it is all in one box, fewer interconnects, less chance for error for the "less knowledgeable".But I agree with you. Seperates are they way to go.
Actually, I'm getting a receiver 'cause it's (relatively) cheap, offers more features-per-buck than a seperate, provides good-enough amplification for surrounds, and does it all in one box, in that order of importance.I was bouncing between getting a nice, used surround processor and a multichannel amp, and a really nice, year or two-old receiver. For the same price, you just can't get a seperate surround processor with all the features as a medium/high-end receiver. For $800, I can get a last-year model Yamaha receiver with:
-Just about every surround decoder available (Except PLIIx)
-Automatic speaker level adjustment with microphone
-Very flexible bass management (important for my maggies)
-Easy on-screen setup
-Component video switchingA similar seperate surround processor at that price wouldn't have half the features (I was looking at used Meridian 561, Rotel and Lexicon gear) Then tack on a good quality 5-channel amplifier that's rock-solid at 4-ohms (the Yamaha has no problem with maggies) and you're looking at another $700-$900. So for about twice as much you're buying some flexibility (not *that* much more, the Yamaha has pre-outs and can be used as a standalone processor), but loosing a bunch of nice features and using up more rackspace.
I'd love a Meridian 561 sitting on a nice NAD or Adcom multichannel amp, but the flexibility you gain is far outweighed by the features you loose and the price you pay.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
I would go with the Meridian 561 as it has nearly the features of the Yamaha receiver - although a few a "manual" such as the speaker level adjustment with an inexpensive SP meter. You will be listening, not to the features, but the design of the system, which the Yamaha will not be able to compare to the 561. I've owned a 561 for about 3 years and think it is truly great. It also has a very comprehensive set-up interface that is accessed via the serial port on the back through a PC. Very easy to use and customize. You would also have more amp options and the 561's can be had fairly inexpensive on the used market. Good luck.
B&K receivers are basically seperates in one box. The preamp sections are the very same as their seperates. Very flexible with audiophile sound.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
