[RDavidson]

Sometimes I want to just get rid of my HT system, and set up a really nice 2.1 or 2.2 setup. The thing is, everything is hooked up via HDMI. I like the simplicity and integration of everything via HDMI, actually. I also really like HDMI pass-thru for those times I really don't need the local news or my wife's shows in surround sound.
Yes, most would be happy with an HT receiver, but just using the front channels. Me, not so much. I'd feel like I spent money on something with too many bells and whistles not being used.
There have to be others out there who feel as I do. I'd like to see some nice, high end, 2 channel receivers with HDMI. Perhaps the option of video processing could be added or would be included in a higher end model......for those who don't have an Oppo 103 or 105. I mean, there are things out there from Peachtree, Wyred 4 Sound, Rotel, NAD etc that come close (integrated amps with built-in DACs). It seems like adding HDMI, simple DSP, and the necessary Dolby and DTS codecs would be the next evolution of these products or almost a niche product that sits between full HT and full featured integrated amps.
What do you guys think?

[notany]

Hi,
  Try the NAD C-510, http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-510-Direct-Digital-Preamp-DAC  very close to the M51 but only $1,300. 

[jarcher]

I think the real solution is to go back to the days when surround sound was processed through an external box.  Then you could just upgrade the box, and not have to get a whole new receiver whenever a new format was developed or improved.  Such a box could also presumably have analog outputs to feed a two channel integrated amp, and not pollute it with all the digital noise from the video and other chip sets of such units.

Of course this has very little probability of such actually being produced as it's in the home theater manufactures interest to move new home theater receiver models every year.  About the closest thing to what I would like to have is the Oppo 105 as that unit also has HDMI inputs and can therefore do the decoding and pass the multi channel and analog out to a conventional 2 channel preamp or integrated amp.

So I guess the short answer is : get an Oppo 105, plug your video sources into it, and use the left,  right and sub for analog outputs to respectively your two channel preamp or integrated amp, and RCA line level sub out to sub woofer. Fortunately the Oppo 105 also happens to also be a very good Blu-ray player and CD player, which helps it to be even better value, killing three birds with one stone, so to speak.

[RDavidson]

Hi,
  Try the NAD C-510, http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-510-Direct-Digital-Preamp-DAC  very close to the M51 but only $1,300.

That's pretty cool. Know of anyone else besides NAD with such preamps?

[RDavidson]

I think the real solution is to go back to the days when surround sound was processed through an external box.  Then you could just upgrade the box, and not have to get a whole new receiver whenever a new format was developed or improved.  Such a box could also presumably have analog outputs to feed a two channel integrated amp, and not pollute it with all the digital noise from the video and other chip sets of such units.

Of course this has very little probability of such actually being produced as it's in the home theater manufactures interest to move new home theater receiver models every year.  About the closest thing to what I would like to have is the Oppo 105 as that unit also has HDMI inputs and can therefore do the decoding and pass the multi channel and analog out to a conventional 2 channel preamp or integrated amp.

So I guess the short answer is : get an Oppo 105, plug your video sources into it, and use the left,  right and sub for analog outputs to respectively your two channel preamp or integrated amp, and RCA line level sub out to sub woofer. Fortunately the Oppo 105 also happens to also be a very good Blu-ray player and CD player, which helps it to be even better value, killing three birds with one stone, so to speak.

I've thought about this, but the Oppo's volume control is a bit of a compromise. Not to mention, there's only 2 HDMI inputs and no analog inputs. The NAD units mentioned earlier seem closest to what I wish for, but at least one analog input would be great. Used in conjunction with an OPPO (for decoding Dolby and DTS as well as video processing), might be the only thing close to what I wish for.
But all this brings me back to the original wish, which is a unit that already does all the decoding (so there are less connections / things to turn on and off, etc). That'd be perfect! Imagine the NAD preamps, but with Dolby and DTS and simple DSP for 2.1.......or imagine a really nice HT receiver, but built for high quality 2.1 audio only.

[AJinFLA]

This reasonably priced Dac/pre http://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/product/hi-res-audio-converter/ is 2ch with HDMI.
Not sure why you would need Dolby/DTS for 2ch....and there is a small fringe, including myself, who consider 2.0 or 2.2 to be higher quality than 2.1. YMMV

cheers,

AJ

[RDavidson]

This reasonably priced Dac/pre http://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/product/hi-res-audio-converter/ is 2ch with HDMI.
Not sure why you would need Dolby/DTS for 2ch....and there is a small fringe, including myself, who consider 2.0 or 2.2 to be higher quality than 2.1. YMMV

cheers,

AJ

2.0 vs 2.2 vs 2.1.......isn't the point. I'm using 2.1 as everyone would understand I'm talking about at least 2.0 or in most cases where people don't have truly full range speakers then 2.1 or 2.2 can be used. Also the point of stating 2.1 ties together with Dolby processing, DTS processing and bass management DSP, which HT receivers have. Dolby and DTS decoders are necessary to decode the audio from many cable and satellite boxes as well as Blu Ray and DVD.

So, you see, I'm looking for a fully integrated solution (via HDMI) that isn't an HT receiver with every option under the sun I'm not interested in.

Again, think HT receiver or HT preamp without all the extras ; Just a stripped down, high performance, 2 channel receiver or preamp that can be integrated into an A/V system via simple HDMI tech. No need for an Oppo to do all the processing.

Looking at the link you attached, it seems as though they are depending on the cable box or Blu Ray player to handle Dolby and DTS processing. That's all well and good if you have an Oppo or other really good source with an HDMI input to do all the processing. I'd like to bypass the need for an Oppo. Know what I mean?

[Russtafarian]

The HDMI to S/PDIF switchbox is a consideration for a 2 channel only system.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=5557&seq=1&format=2

Russ

[RDavidson]

The HDMI to S/PDIF switchbox is a consideration for a 2 channel only system.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=101&cp_id=10110&cs_id=1011002&p_id=5557&seq=1&format=2

Russ

Thanks for the suggestion, but this really is about the furthest thing from what I'm looking for / wishing for. This just adds another box that doesn't do anything but provide HDMI switching. What I want is less boxes ; 1 box as a matter of fact.........like an HT receiver, but 2 channel focused. If you know of anything along those lines, please let me know. So far, the NAD products  mentioned earlier are the closest thing I've seen.

[AJinFLA]

2.0 vs 2.2 vs 2.1.......isn't the point. I'm using 2.1 as everyone would understand I'm talking about at least 2.0 or in most cases where people don't have truly full range speakers then 2.1 or 2.2 can be used. Also the point of stating 2.1 ties together with Dolby processing, DTS processing and bass management DSP, which HT receivers have. Dolby and DTS decoders are necessary to decode the audio from many cable and satellite boxes as well as Blu Ray and DVD.

Actually it is the point, but I'm obviously not making it clear to you. 2.1 is by definition mono bass, unlike 2.0 or 2.2 (in some cases). Except in rare cases (XO <40hz) that conflicts with "sound quality"...for a few, including myself.
If you rely on Dolby/DTS for bass management, that's what you get...mono bass.

Looking at the link you attached, it seems as though they are depending on the cable box or Blu Ray player to handle Dolby and DTS processing.

What (2ch) "processing"? Bass management?
How many HDMI outputs do you have, from what, to feed this desired 2ch pre?

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

FYI, there is no bass management with the NAD either. It's 2.0 out. Only difference seems to be an extra HDMI in (which may be desired), for that extra $600.

cheers,

AJ

[Gzerro]

I don't understand your issue with using a multi-channel AVR other than "wasting" the additional channels and capabilities.

The reality is that a 2 channel AVR would be such a niche product it would cost much more than a standard multi-channel AVR with similar capabilities.

[srb]

I don't understand your issue with using a multi-channel AVR other than "wasting" the additional channels and capabilities.

The reality is that a 2 channel AVR would be such a niche product it would cost much more than a standard multi-channel AVR with similar capabilities.

I think the issue is just wanting a higher quality preamp, higher quality DAC and higher quality amplifier than what exists in typical AVRs, even top of the line models (not sure about the $6K Arcam AVR-750 though), more so than wasted unused channels.

I agree it would certainly cost more, but I'm guessing the OP might still go for it, were something like that available.

Steve

[RDavidson]

I think the issue is just wanting a higher quality preamp, higher quality DAC and higher quality amplifier than what exists in typical AVRs, even top of the line models (not sure about the $6K Arcam AVR-750 though), more so than wasted unused channels.

I agree it would certainly cost more, but I'm guessing the OP might still go for it, were something like that available.

Steve

Yes. That's exactly what I'm getting at. I think it'd be awesome to have a high performance, 2 channel (vs 9 or 11 channels of mediocrity), with all the necessary processing for just 2.1 (or 2.2) including Dolby, DTS, and bass management and full HDMI compatability. Like I said, the NAD units are close, but don't have Dolby or DTS. I doubt they have bass management either, but would have to look closer.

It could be a niche product, but then again, it might not be. Integrated amps with built in DACs are VERY close to what I'm wishing for, and those aren't considered niche products. I think they're considered lifestyle products. It seems to me that a product that bridges the gap between these lifestyle products and full HT systems would make tons of sense for those of us who like the HDMI simplicity and things it does for HT, but don't want a full blown HT rig or don't have the space or whatever, for whom the lifestyle products are made for.

Why would it cost so much? I think Peachtree units are quite good bang for the buck.

[Wayner]

HDMI is not the best source for quality digital audio. It's a convenient cable, but it sacrifices sound quality. That is probably why most 2 channel guys don't mess with it, and more likely if you have 2 channel, your not watching BlueRay thru it.........

[RDavidson]

HDMI is not the best source for quality digital audio. It's a convenient cable, but it sacrifices sound quality. That is probably why most 2 channel guys don't mess with it, and more likely if you have 2 channel, your not watching BlueRay thru it.........

Can you elaborate? Keep in mind I'm not talking about 2 channel audio only, as much as I'm talking about 2 channel HT, which is why I posted this in the HT Circle. For HT, HDMI is the standard for AV integration.  That's what I want is integration without ALL the extras.
I understand what you're saying and most of us 2 channel guys don't mix HT with our serious 2 channel any more than we have to. Luckily there are a multitude of ways to carefully accomplish this.

[Early B.]

There's no market for what you're asking for. Sounds like a DIY project to me. 

[Doublej]

I think your best bet is to get a pre-processor, set it to 2.1 channel output and then connect it to your amplifier and powered subwoofer of choice.

That way you are only paying for 2 channels of high quality amplification so no "wasted" parts here.

On the processor you are paying for a bit more. Independent of volume discounts, I estimate that the saving for 2 channels vs. 7 channels would be 10% - 15%. Smaller case, fewer connectors and fewer surface mount components related to fewer channels but you still need the same processing chips, control circuitry and buttons.

When you throw in volume differences it's like Gzerro says.

[Wayner]

Can you elaborate? Keep in mind I'm not talking about 2 channel audio only, as much as I'm talking about 2 channel HT, which is why I posted this in the HT Circle. For HT, HDMI is the standard for AV integration.  That's what I want is integration without ALL the extras.
I understand what you're saying and most of us 2 channel guys don't mix HT with our serious 2 channel any more than we have to. Luckily there are a multitude of ways to carefully accomplish this.

The HDMI (high definition, multimedia interface) cable was designed for simplicity, one cable, one connection. It was not designed for the audiophile. There are bunches of folks on various audio forums that bitch about the audio quality thru an HDMI cable, and that is why most go the DAC route thru regular line inputs. I do not have any data to prove this notion.

[RDavidson]

I think your best bet is to get a pre-processor, set it to 2.1 channel output and then connect it to your amplifier and powered subwoofer of choice.

That way you are only paying for 2 channels of high quality amplification so no "wasted" parts here.

On the processor you are paying for a bit more. Independent of volume discounts, I estimate that the saving for 2 channels vs. 7 channels would be 10% - 15%. Smaller case, fewer connectors and fewer surface mount components related to fewer channels but you still need the same processing chips, control circuitry and buttons.

When you throw in volume differences it's like Gzerro says.

It seems that this is the closest option existing today, to what really addresses everything I'd personally like, though there'd still be a lot of bells and whistles on board which apply to multi-channel (ie more than 2 channel) ; And it still isn't a one box solution as I'd REALLY like to see.