[Mr_Superstar]

I appreciate the help.  I'm really impressed by the nature and helpfullness of responses in this forum.  It reminds me a lot of the forum on carsound about 7-8 years ago when it was active. 


Changing topics, Jim sent me an email giving me the rough locations of a few owners nearby, and asked if I'd like him to set up an audition for me.  The closest one is 2 hours away and has a set of songtowers. 

I'm beginning to think I'll just take advantage of the 30 day return policy.  I can't think of a better audition than one in my home with my own equipment.  I plan to get standard finish cabinents, so I don't think refund or resell for Jim will be difficult if the Salks aren't what I'm looking for.

Here's what I think I'll get. Open for suggestions on amps and preamps(with HDMI input) that will keep the cost of of speakers, amp, and preamp, around $6000.

Speakers - Salk HT2 - TL
Amp - Emotiva XPA - 2
Pre amp - Possibly an onkyo 886 on the outlaw audio website ($1500 is more than i'd like to spend). Another option would be an onkyo 876 from shop onkyo (roughly $1000, but would allow me to power center and surrounds while i save for another amp). 3rd option would be an integra 40.1 (roughly $1200)

I am extremely happy with my Marantz 7002. If I were to purchase it now, though, I'd save some $$ and go for the 5003.

[Nuance]

Since this will be a 2-channel system first, developing into a HT down the road, why not get a 2-channel preamp with Home Theater Bypass, then a receiver later when you get the center and rears?  This way you'll get the best of both worlds.  The HT bypass allows your outboard amp to be used for both the preamp and the amp, thus your speakers can stay plugged into only the amp, even though they are being used for HT and music.  Using this method you wouldn't have to use your receiver's main speaker terminals.  In my setup, I use an Emotiva amp to power the main speakers, but the receiver to power the center channel and rears.  It works quite nicely.  And most HT bypasses work even when the preamp is off, which is quite convenient. 

I agree with K Shep - if you can build a subwoofer you can build room treatments.  They will help immensely!

Speaking of subs, the reason I mentioned one is because yes, speakers as nice as the HT2 TL's do provide amazing bass, but the problem lies with the room.  Generally the best spot to place the speakers in order to achieve a wide sound stage and pinpoint imaging is not the best spot for in-room bass response.  Unless you have a full range EQ which many people scoff at), crossing over to a subwoofer allows you to use the subwoofer to find the best in-room bass response (it can be separately placed where it sounds best).  This is another one of those "best of both worlds" scenarios I mentioned above.  However, I do understand that some guys will want to stay strictly "2-channel," and that's cool.  Do what you need to do, but weigh in all the options first. 

Amps:

Parasound 2250
Parasound A21
AVA Insight 440
McCormack (used)
Odyssey Audio
Wyred4Sound

Preamps:

Parasound 2100
Parasound P7
AVA Insight
Wyred4Sound

Enjoy the hunt; sometimes it's the part that is the most fun. 

[coke]

Since this will be a 2-channel system first, developing into a HT down the road, why not get a 2-channel preamp with Home Theater Bypass, then a receiver later when you get the center and rears?  This way you'll get the best of both worlds.  The HT bypass allows your outboard amp to be used for both the preamp and the amp, thus your speakers can stay plugged into only the amp, even though they are being used for HT and music.  Using this method you wouldn't have to use your receiver's main speaker terminals.  In my setup, I use an Emotiva amp to power the main speakers, but the receiver to power the center channel and rears.  It works quite nicely.  And most HT bypasses work even when the preamp is off, which is quite convenient. 

I agree with K Shep - if you can build a subwoofer you can build room treatments.  They will help immensely!

Speaking of subs, the reason I mentioned one is because yes, speakers as nice as the HT2 TL's do provide amazing bass, but the problem lies with the room.  Generally the best spot to place the speakers in order to achieve a wide sound stage and pinpoint imaging is not the best spot for in-room bass response.  Unless you have a full range EQ which many people scoff at), crossing over to a subwoofer allows you to use the subwoofer to find the best in-room bass response (it can be separately placed where it sounds best).  This is another one of those "best of both worlds" scenarios I mentioned above.  However, I do understand that some guys will want to stay strictly "2-channel," and that's cool.  Do what you need to do, but weigh in all the options first. 

Amps:

Parasound 2250
Parasound A21
AVA Insight 440
McCormack (used)
Odyssey Audio
Wyred4Sound

Preamps:

Parasound 2100
Parasound P7
AVA Insight
Wyred4Sound

Enjoy the hunt; sometimes it's the part that is the most fun.

What is the advantage of that over using the preamp outputs of a high end receiver out to an amp to power the mains?

[K Shep]

I am not an HT guy.  I have a Denon receiver, Bluray player, 5.1 and a 50" plasma.  So I watch TV.  But 2 channel gets me going.  I have read a bit about the Parasound P7 and just love what it does for an application similar to yours, read this.  http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/P7Cut-Sheet.pdf

Kirk

[Nuance]

What is the advantage of that over using the preamp outputs of a high end receiver out to an amp to power the mains?

In short, sound quality; better sound quality. 

It's subjective so you'd have to try it yourself (by listening), but separates sound better than receivers.  There is no decoding or processing circuitry. With separates you have individual/separate power supplies, thus less heat.  You also don't have to worry about isolating the low-level audio signals of the tuner and preamp from the large magnetic fields of the power amp, because they are separate enclosures (got that tidbit from an A/V mag).  Finally, more circuitry in a receiver equals more noise (possible interference).  All of these contribute to better sound quality when using separates, IMO.  Basically a receiver is everything shoved into one enclosure, but you don't need all that stuff for just 2-channel (or 2.1, like I have.  Although, even I get flack for buying a preamp that a subwoofer output, as it adds processing circuitry which is a "no no" with the 2-channel purists). 

I never believed preamps/amp combos sounded better than high end receivers until I actually compared.  The different was not subtle.  The sound stage grew a lot wider, gaining depth along with width.  And imaging - wow...big difference!  Imaging went from reserved and unimpressive to pinpoint and precise.  Sometimes I think my rears speakers are on, but they aren't. 

Anyway, YMMV, but definitely listen to both and compare.  I was a skeptic, but I sure am glad I tried it out.  I do own a receiver too, but having a preamp with HT bypass allows me to connect them all together and switch between the receiver for movies or the preamp just for music.  It also allows the amplifier I have to be used with both without having to swap cables or plugs.   

You, of course, don't have to take this approach.  I was just throwing it out there because it gives you the opportunity to get everything you want (Just 2-channel, then just movies).  I won't be broken up if you go a different route.   

[coke]

What is the advantage of that over using the preamp outputs of a high end receiver out to an amp to power the mains?

In short, sound quality; better sound quality. 

It's subjective so you'd have to try it yourself (by listening), but separates sound better than receivers.  There is no decoding or processing circuitry. With separates you have individual/separate power supplies, thus less heat.  Separate enclosures also isolate the low-level audio signals of the tuner and preamp from the large magnetic fields of the power amp (got that tidbit from an A/V mag).  All of these contribute to better sound quality, IMO.  Basically a receiver is everything shoved into one enclosure, but you don't need all that stuff for true 2-channel (or 2.1, like I have.  Even I get flack for buying a preamp that a subwoofer output, as it adds processing circuitry).  I never believed preamps/amp combos sounded better than high end receivers until I actually compared.  The different was not subtle.  The sound stage grew a lot wider, gaining depth along with width.  And imaging - wow...big difference!  Imaging went from reserved and unimpressive to pinpoint and precise.  Sometimes I think my rears speakers are on, but they aren't. 

Anyway, YMMV, but definitely listen to both and compare.  I was a skeptic, but I sure am glad I tried it out.

That might be the route I go.  Seems like it would basically be a stand alone 2 channel set up, with the ability for 5.1 when needed.  Never really thought about a system set up like that. 

[Nuance]

What is the advantage of that over using the preamp outputs of a high end receiver out to an amp to power the mains?

In short, sound quality; better sound quality. 

It's subjective so you'd have to try it yourself (by listening), but separates sound better than receivers.  There is no decoding or processing circuitry. With separates you have individual/separate power supplies, thus less heat.  Separate enclosures also isolate the low-level audio signals of the tuner and preamp from the large magnetic fields of the power amp (got that tidbit from an A/V mag).  All of these contribute to better sound quality, IMO.  Basically a receiver is everything shoved into one enclosure, but you don't need all that stuff for true 2-channel (or 2.1, like I have.  Even I get flack for buying a preamp that a subwoofer output, as it adds processing circuitry).  I never believed preamps/amp combos sounded better than high end receivers until I actually compared.  The different was not subtle.  The sound stage grew a lot wider, gaining depth along with width.  And imaging - wow...big difference!  Imaging went from reserved and unimpressive to pinpoint and precise.  Sometimes I think my rears speakers are on, but they aren't. 

Anyway, YMMV, but definitely listen to both and compare.  I was a skeptic, but I sure am glad I tried it out.

That might be the route I go.  Seems like it would basically be a stand alone 2 channel set up, with the ability for 5.1 when needed.  Never really thought about a system set up like that. 

Correct.  Just be sure the HT Bypass is included, because then you just run cables from the preamp to the receiver's preouts, and you're good to go.    But until then you can just enjoy music.

P.S.  The Parasound P7 and 2100 have subwoofer outputs...for guys like me who need to place the subwoofer somewhere else other than the speakers due to poor in-room bass response where the speakers sit.  Like I said before, best of both worlds. 

[coke]

Well, I think I'm going to increase my budget again.  These are some of the amps I'm looking at.  Anyone have any experience with these or comments? I think I'll push my budget to $1500-$2000.

Parasound Halo A21
2 - Emotiva XPA - 1 (possibly overkill, maybe an xpa-2 instead)
AVA Insight 440

[Big Red Machine]

Well, I think I'm going to increase my budget again.  These are some of the amps I'm looking at.  Anyone have any experience with these or comments? I think I'll push my budget to $1500-$2000.

Parasound Halo A21
2 - Emotiva XPA - 1 (possibly overkill, maybe an xpa-2 instead)
AVA Insight 440

For sound, get the AVA.  I own and have owned several Emotiva's and they do put out but are not what I would call musical.

[BobM]

If you want to push your budget some more there are a set of Opera Callas mini's on Audiogon. I think the seller's price is high, so you may be able to get him down some. These are some of the best monitors I've ever heard.

[coke]

If you want to push your budget some more there are a set of Opera Callas mini's on Audiogon. I think the seller's price is high, so you may be able to get him down some. These are some of the best monitors I've ever heard.

I'm not sure if those would fit my needs. I'm wanting a 2 channel setup with no sub, and it doesn't appear that those would be sufficient. 

[Nuance]

Big Red Machine,

Have you been able to compare the A21 to the AV A stuff?  Just curious...

[coke]

What is the advantage of that over using the preamp outputs of a high end receiver out to an amp to power the mains?

In short, sound quality; better sound quality. 

It's subjective so you'd have to try it yourself (by listening), but separates sound better than receivers.  There is no decoding or processing circuitry. With separates you have individual/separate power supplies, thus less heat.  Separate enclosures also isolate the low-level audio signals of the tuner and preamp from the large magnetic fields of the power amp (got that tidbit from an A/V mag).  All of these contribute to better sound quality, IMO.  Basically a receiver is everything shoved into one enclosure, but you don't need all that stuff for true 2-channel (or 2.1, like I have.  Even I get flack for buying a preamp that a subwoofer output, as it adds processing circuitry).  I never believed preamps/amp combos sounded better than high end receivers until I actually compared.  The different was not subtle.  The sound stage grew a lot wider, gaining depth along with width.  And imaging - wow...big difference!  Imaging went from reserved and unimpressive to pinpoint and precise.  Sometimes I think my rears speakers are on, but they aren't. 

Anyway, YMMV, but definitely listen to both and compare.  I was a skeptic, but I sure am glad I tried it out.

That might be the route I go.  Seems like it would basically be a stand alone 2 channel set up, with the ability for 5.1 when needed.  Never really thought about a system set up like that. 

Correct.  Just be sure the HT Bypass is included, because then you just run cables from the preamp to the receiver's preouts, and you're good to go.    But until then you can just enjoy music.

P.S.  The Parasound P7 and 2100 have subwoofer outputs...for guys like me who need to place the subwoofer somewhere else other than the speakers due to poor in-room bass response where the speakers sit.  Like I said before, best of both worlds.

I've been considering my options, and I think i want to get a preamp and DAC, but those will be my last pieces to add.

This is also a home theater, so I don't want to lose my 5.1 if possible.

Speaker + receiver + amp first.   Use receivers preamp out for amp.  Use my old speakers for center and surround.

Add Sub

Replace center and surrounds with Salk.

Last stage - Add preamp with HT bypass, and a DAC

Thanks for the help, and any comments on this are appreciated.

[srb]

I've been considering my options, and I think i want to get a preamp and DAC, but those will be my last pieces to add.

This is also a home theater, so I don't want to lose my 5.1 if possible.

Speaker + receiver + amp first.   Use receivers preamp out for amp.  Use my old speakers for center and surround.

Add Sub

Replace center and surrounds with Salk.

Last stage - Add preamp with HT bypass, and a DAC

Thanks for the help, and any comments on this are appreciated.

Only to say that sounds like a good logical plan to me.
 
Steve

[OgOgilby]

I've been considering my options, and I think i want to get a preamp and DAC, but those will be my last pieces to add.

This is also a home theater, so I don't want to lose my 5.1 if possible.

Speaker + receiver + amp first.   Use receivers preamp out for amp.  Use my old speakers for center and surround.

Add Sub

Replace center and surrounds with Salk.

Last stage - Add preamp with HT bypass, and a DAC

Thanks for the help, and any comments on this are appreciated.

Seems like a good way to go and is similar to the order I have been putting our system together, thanks to some great advice from oneinthepipe, Nuance, TJHUB, and others.

We had/have a Denon 4308ci for HT and were using AV123 Rockets for 5.1. We went with Salk HT2 TL's for the mains, but also an HT2 sealed center channel to keep the sound consistent across the front for 5.1 audio. We are using our older Rocket 750's for the 2 surround channels (and a Rocket sub also). The Salks were a huge improvement in audio quality and have led to the other "upgrades". FYI, I didn't plan on this until we received the Salks - the Rockets seemed to be maxed in sound quality with our old equipment and it didn't seem worth upgrading our components at the time.

Then we added some acoustic room treatments. Nice improvement again that tightened everything up. Wouldn't mind adding more acoustic treatments, but I think the low WAF would put an end to that idea.

Next we added the Parasound A-21 amp for 2 channel (using the Denon as a preamp for now). Big improvement for 2 channel! It also helps the mains for 5.1 audio, which I hadn't considered. Might have to get a replacement amp for the center and surrounds at some point

I just ordered an Audio by Van Alstine Transcendence Eight Vacuum Tube DAC and a Denon 3800BDCI for Blu-Ray, DVD, and as a CD transport for the AVA DAC. The Denon 3800BDCI will replace an Oppo DV-983H (used for DVD's), a Sony NS999ES (used for CD's) and a PS3 (for Blu-Ray), and clear up some needed space in our AV stand.

When we recover, next up will probably be a preamp with a HT bypass. I'm considering the Parasound 2100 or the P7 since we have the Parasound A-21, followed by Salk surrounds and sub replacements.

At this stage we are very happy with our setup and each step has been a lot of fun to hear the improvements  

Good luck and have fun!

[coke]

lol, you almost sound as bad as I am.  My dad's nickname for me is "upgrade".  I'm always replacing something between my computer, car stereo, and home stereo.

your post also reminded me that i'm probably going to sell my PS3 and replace it with an Oppo.  The ps3 is just too noisy when listening to music at low volume.

[rahimlee54]

lol, you almost sound as bad as I am.  My dad's nickname for me is "upgrade".  I'm always replacing something between my computer, car stereo, and home stereo.

your post also reminded me that i'm probably going to sell my PS3 and replace it with an Oppo.  The ps3 is just too noisy when listening to music at low volume.

Get a squeezebox, it is worth it.   

[coke]

What's the benifit of that over an ipod? I'm not familiar with those.

  I have a 160 GB ipod  and use lossless + an ipod dock to RCA cable. 

[rahimlee54]

What's the benifit of that over an ipod? I'm not familiar with those.

  I have a 160 GB ipod  and use lossless + an ipod dock to RCA cable.

With a squeezebox or an Ipod touch you have access to your whole music catalog.  You rip all your music to a server and then it plays whereever the squeezebox is locted.  I cant remember but I think Jim Salk runs a similar setup with an Ipod touch, Iping, and a vortex box.  The music is ripped in whatever format you prefer and streamed across your wireless network.  No more get up sit down for me when I am ready to change mid song, it is great.

[K Shep]

What's the benifit of that over an ipod? I'm not familiar with those.
I have a 160 GB ipod  and use lossless + an ipod dock to RCA cable.

I don't own a squeeze box, however others here do, so I will allow them to explain how that device works.

I do own a Mac Mini and I rip CDs in AIFF (uncompressed format) to an external hard drive (connected via Firewire interconnect).  I use iTunes on my Mac and play the music files through my Ayre DAC connnected via USB cable.  It is alot to take in if you have not studied the proccess, but hold on because there's more. I use an iPhone as my remote, iPhone users have the free applications available to download to the phone one of which is called "remote" and it talks via Wifi to the Mac and allows the user to manipulate iTunes.  So in essence my iPhone is my remote control to all of my music.  In your current game plan you would have to interface a Mac with the AVA DAC you are considering.

That is the benefit I have realized using Apple products. 

I am using the Ayre DAC and for the iPod + an iPod dock you are using the iPods DAC.

Kirk