New and First HT Setup

[subwoofery 0]

Hi all,

I know the minimum for car audio but regarding HT setups, I'm a real newbie

First of all, I want to understand some concepts:

- what is the use of a pre-amp?

- what is the use of a AV receiver? Only for 5.1?

- is an AV receiver an integrated amplifier for 5.1? (stupid question I know lol)

- what "cartridges" do?

- are surround soud processors necessary?

I'm pretty much set on some components for a 5.1 setup:

*Blu-ray Player: PlayStation 3

*Projector: Panasonic AE2000U

*Front Floor-standing Speakers: Gallo Reference 3 (pair)

*Front integrated amp: PrimaLuna Prologue 2

*Center Speaker: Gallo Reference Center

*Side Speaker: Gallo Reference Du

Edited March 26, 2008 by subwoofery

[JimJ 11]

what is the use of a pre-amp?

Impedance matching, volume control, and input switching.

what is the use of a AV receiver? Only for 5.1?

For people who either want everything in one box, or want to save money versus a separates system.

Personally, I wouldn't get the Prologue 2...it's a stereo integrated amp, not really what you're looking for if you're going with a multichannel setup. It would be a lot easier going with a multichannel power amplifier and a 5.1 preamp/processor, from Outlaw Audio or Rotel or others.

Tubes and multichannel won't be cheap, any way you go...

[///M5 2,833]

Ha, I read 9000sqft and indeed that would be a HUGE room.

It does sort of come down to your expectations, goals, and of course budget.

[dem beats 1,223]

Ha, I read 9000sqft and indeed that would be a HUGE room.

I did too. That would be insane.

[subwoofery 0]

Thanks for the response guyz.

Well just to clarify, it is cuft, not sqft.

Just went to a website to convert meters to sq and my room is around 540sqft.

After reading a few things, I think that you're right, might not go with the PrimaLuna but just with an A/V receiver.

Is the amp in the A/V receiver defeatable? Just in case I want to add another amp in the future.

Rotel and Outlaw Audio seems to be quite expensive for what it is. Wouldn't Sony, Pioneer and Denon be a better choice?

I know optical is only for audio, but would it matter to have a different brand than Sony, since I'm using a Playstation 3 for Blu-ray.

Also, does blu-ray work with 5.1 or should I be better off installing a 7.1 setup?

[JimJ 11]

I'm not a big fan of those common-brand A/V receivers, they seem really tailored to the Best-Buy crowd who's looking for a small, compact solution.

Yes, going with a seperate pre/processor and amplifier might be more expensive, but you're getting much better quality in components. And I like having things separated as much as possible, it really allows the manufacturer to go balls-out for each specific part instead of having to cram five amplifier channels and a processor all in one 30 pound plastic box.

[///M5 2,833]

Considering what you get Outlaw is cheap and Sony is expensive. It is relative as a bit of money for a piece of crap versus a reasonable sum of money for a great piece.

[dem beats 1,223]

I love HT threads

I myself sir am not a fan of outlaw products, not totaly impressed. They are not bad, just not huge value to me.

I am a huge fan actually of integra, when it comes to value prices A/V receivers. I think you get allot of bang for your buck, and most importantly they are verry verry user friendly. Mine is one of the lower end 7.1 rigs, and I am really satisfied for my current needs.

Only note I would have to knock on them is I think that they could use more power, but such is the way with all home audio IMHO.

Just my .02 for something not everyone has that I feel is a great value when you take into account interface and usability.

Jim Makes a solid point however, and the best part is when you buy pre/pro and amp set ups, you can replace the pre/pro portion as the tech changes for a much lorew cost than a new A/V receiver everytime around. Not that people do that unless they have boat loads of cash, but if you wanted to upgrade video or audo processing, it's much more cost effective, and power will always be power.

[JimJ 11]

Only note I would have to knock on them is I think that they could use more power, but such is the way with all home audio IMHO.

Not in my opinion

Power is actually pretty irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things...because at home, you can always scale up the speakers to fit lower-powered amplifiers

I wasn't even thinking about upgradeability, but you make a good point. Personally, I think that the current standards of high-definition are as good as I'm ever going to want (and will probably be years before I get to that standard anyway), but some always need to have the latest and greatest.

[subwoofery 0]

Been reading about Integra and am interested in the DTC-9.8 sound processor.

Need to pair it with something... like a 5 or a 7 channel.

Am repeating myself but a few of my previous questions have not been answered.

-does blu-ray work with 5.1 or should I be better off installing a 7.1 setup?

-what "cartridges" do?

-if I wanted to protect my system from power surge. What would you recommend?

-My room is close to 9000cuft (or 540sqft), is the AV123 MFW-15 enough? or is the Epik Castle more suited for that big of a room?

Thanks again for taking the time.

Kelvin

[JimJ 11]

-what "cartridges" do?

I don't know what you're asking. What kind of cartridges? Phono cartridges?

-if I wanted to protect my system from power surge. What would you recommend?

Just try to find something that doesn't have MOV's (metal-oxide varistors), they like to wear out over time and after surges...Brick Wall makes some very good filters that won't wear out, I have a Monster unit that works pretty well too...

-My room is close to 9000cuft (or 540sqft), is the AV123 MFW-15 enough? or is the Epik Castle more suited for that big of a room?

Can't go too small I would probably DIY the sub myself as it's pretty easy to do...

I would assume Blu-Ray is encoded for 5.1...

[subwoofery 0]

Thanks a lot for the clarification and answers.

Yes, I meant phono cartridges.

hmm... so 5.1 is enough. Sweet. I don't need to buy 2 more drivers.

Still need to deceide on the amp though. Budget will be between 600-1000 for 100w min for each channel.

[JimJ 11]

Yes, I meant phono cartridges.

They're what you use to play records...goes on the end of the tonearm...you don't need them for home theater, that's why I was confused

Still need to deceide on the amp though. Budget will be between 600-1000 for 100w min for each channel.

Rotel, Parasound, Acurus, Adcom, and others all make amps that will fit that budget and power level. I would lurk on Audiogon.com and see what you find

[///M5 2,833]

I also wouldn't hesitate to go with unbalanced channels, ie 3x100w for the front and 60wx2 for the rears. The surround channels aren't that important and don't really need nearly as much power. As much of your budget as possible should be focused on the front three.

[dem beats 1,223]

I also wouldn't hesitate to go with unbalanced channels, ie 3x100w for the front and 60wx2 for the rears. The surround channels aren't that important and don't really need nearly as much power. As much of your budget as possible should be focused on the front three.

I agree only to the degree that you will really want to make sure you level it to the room. I actualy run my rears "hot". I do not have matching speakers ATM though I have towers center and bookshelfs in the rear. The little guys don't produce like the towers do, not that they should but.. anyway. If you have either an auto correction or can manualy adjust you should be fine.

[dem beats 1,223]

Only note I would have to knock on them is I think that they could use more power, but such is the way with all home audio IMHO.

Not in my opinion

Power is actually pretty irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things...because at home, you can always scale up the speakers to fit lower-powered amplifiers

I wasn't even thinking about upgradeability, but you make a good point. Personally, I think that the current standards of high-definition are as good as I'm ever going to want (and will probably be years before I get to that standard anyway), but some always need to have the latest and greatest.

you got me. Not ALL home audio.

Some 2 channel needs barely any power.

I would say that for HT though more power is usualy hyelpful. Most speakers are not really efficient and in my experience, which is limited, having more power ready to go usualy helps. You have dealt with some amazing speaks Jim that are amazingly efficient, but I would say most people won't deal with those.

I may make no sence but it seams when I have more power to speakers,maybe even more than they recomend... I am given better response from the speakers, even when played at lower levels. I have no science to base this on but my internal amp on the integra receiver left out some depth that a more powerfull amp I demoed could bring forth.

I was generalizing though!

[subwoofery 0]

Hey guyz,

Been reading about Emotiva and it seems to be better than Outlaw Audio for the price. (based on most reviews).

Do you guyz know much about them? Any experience with them?

Thankx

[dem beats 1,223]

I have never heard anyone say anything bad about emotiva really.

[MikeS 0]

you got me. Not ALL home audio.

Some 2 channel needs barely any power.

I would say that for HT though more power is usualy hyelpful. Most speakers are not really efficient and in my experience, which is limited, having more power ready to go usualy helps. You have dealt with some amazing speaks Jim that are amazingly efficient, but I would say most people won't deal with those.

I may make no sence but it seams when I have more power to speakers,maybe even more than they recomend... I am given better response from the speakers, even when played at lower levels. I have no science to base this on but my internal amp on the integra receiver left out some depth that a more powerfull amp I demoed could bring forth.

I was generalizing though!

I picked up a vintage Pioneer SX-780 solid state receiver for a friend. After I cleaned it up real good, and set DC offset, I used it with my Klipsch LaScala's for about two weeks.

It's a 100 wpc receiver, and has power meters for each side. One day I tried to push the meters past 1 watt......I couldn't do it, it was way too loud. With normal listening levels, the meters ran at 20-40 milliwatts.

LaScala's are 104db efficiency at 1 watt/1 meter. Sumthin' like that.....

A 100 wpc amp is like having headroom from hell. It's nice, but OTOH, at the lower normal listening levels those poor transistors seemed like they were barely conducting and didn't sound as good as having the receiver tipped up a bit on the volume.

Tubes have better sound (IMO) at those lower milliwatt listening levels, and meshes up better with higher efficiency speakers. A cheap SS reciever or any budget amp will sound cold, hard and grainy through Klipsch Heritage crap or other brands of high efficiency speakers.

I don't understand why people wouldn't deal with higher efficiency speakers. It doesn't have to be expensive.

Edited May 19, 2008 by MikeS

[Big E 4]

I would assume Blu-Ray is encoded for 5.1...

7.1

[subwoofery 0]

I would assume Blu-Ray is encoded for 5.1...

7.1

Sweet, I wanted to know that for a really long time... humm... seems like I need 7 channels then lol

[dem beats 1,223]

I would assume Blu-Ray is encoded for 5.1...

7.1

Sweet, I wanted to know that for a really long time... humm... seems like I need 7 channels then lol

You do not unless the room is HUGE, and I mean MASSIVE. In my apt with 12' celeings and a 16x14 or so room and it leakes into the hallway, the 5.1 set up is nearly worthless. You loose all realism with the rear speakers being so close.

When I had a 22x 12 it was worth it.

Edited May 21, 2008 by dem beats

[///M5 2,833]

I would assume Blu-Ray is encoded for 5.1...

7.1

Sweet, I wanted to know that for a really long time... humm... seems like I need 7 channels then lol

You do not unless the room is HUGE, and I mean MASSIVE. In my apt with 12' celeings and a 16x14 or so room and it leakes into the hallway, the 5.1 set up is nearly worthless. You loose all realism with the rear speakers being so close.

When I had a 22x 12 it was worth it.

Yep, no way no how does it make sense in almost any house to have 7.1. It is a complete joke IMO.

[dem beats 1,223]

I would like to have a 5.5 system though... big sexy maggies or full range horns and an IB sub on ever speaker...

teh sexy.

I can PROMISE you that a 3-2 chan with a good sub, done well, will be better spent than any 5.1 in that room.

Edited May 23, 2008 by dem beats

[dem beats 1,223]

I would assume Blu-Ray is encoded for 5.1...

7.1

Sweet, I wanted to know that for a really long time... humm... seems like I need 7 channels then lol

You do not unless the room is HUGE, and I mean MASSIVE. In my apt with 12' celeings and a 16x14 or so room and it leakes into the hallway, the 5.1 set up is nearly worthless. You loose all realism with the rear speakers being so close.

When I had a 22x 12 it was worth it.

Yep, no way no how does it make sense in almost any house to have 7.1. It is a complete joke IMO.

have you seen the Yamaha 11.x system? lol... great way to sell a ton more speakers.