[pstrisik]

I use a high quality switch from DECWare to switch between preamps.  Output from the switch goes to the amp(s), so both my two channel pre and my pre/pro feed the same amp(s) and speakers. 

[HiFiJeff]

I use a high quality switch from DECWare to switch between preamps.  Output from the switch goes to the amp(s), so both my two channel pre and my pre/pro feed the same amp(s) and speakers.

But if your amps have 2 set of inputs, as my Decware SE84UFO does, doesn't it just make sense to hook up both the 2 channel pre-amp and the home theater pre-amp directly into the amps themselves? One less connection in the chain.

[pstrisik]

But if your amps have 2 set of inputs, as my Decware SE84UFO does, doesn't it just make sense to hook up both the 2 channel pre-amp and the home theater pre-amp directly into the amps themselves? One less connection in the chain.

My amp does not have two sets of inputs.  Some DECWares do this with a selector switch to choose inputs, essentially the same solution but with some advantage of shorter interconnection.  Still a switch in the chain.

[HiFiJeff]

My amp does not have two sets of inputs.  Some DECWares do this with a selector switch to choose inputs, essentially the same solution but with some advantage of shorter interconnection.  Still a switch in the chain.

But that's the point I am making. In my situation, it wouldn't be needed since my amps have two inputs. 

[pstrisik]

But that's the point I am making. In my situation, it wouldn't be needed since my amps have two inputs.

Correct.  You've got the switch built in!

[HiFiJeff]

Correct.  You've got the switch built in!

Awesome. So my plans should work. Hey it's a slow process. First got to get my new HO speakers first. 

[pstrisik]

Awesome. So my plans should work. Hey it's a slow process. First got to get my new HO speakers first. 

It's an evolution.  Rare to get everything just how you want it on the first pass. 

DECWare seems like some of their amps are integrated, but I don't think they have that extra line stage, just inputs and attenuator.  Some might use a couple of different sources (eg, CD, Phono) directly into the inputs, some may use a pre-amp into the inputs for extra control, gain, and/or sound influence.  I think you might be doing both if I understand your layout:  the Oppo is a source, not truly a preamp with gain (correct me if that's wrong), and your AVR or Pre/Pro is a true preamp.  Same in my setup.  One input gets my two channel tube preamp, the other gets signal from my Onkyo pre/pro. 

One interesting tweak you can consider or play with....  I used to have the signal to the subs come directly from the pre/pro even when in two channel mode.  That gave me the Audyssey room correction processing for bass as well as a separate volume control for the subs.  Only mono however.  I've since taken the signal from the switch output and do bass management with the controls on the subs' plate amps.  Now, when in two channel mode, they get a full range signal from the tube pre.  I feel they integrate better this way and I get stereo subs to boot.  The Rythmik plate amps also have the advantage of more controls than is typical for subs.

........Peter

[roscoe65]

It's an evolution.  Rare to get everything just how you want it on the first pass. 

DECWare seems like some of their amps are integrated, but I don't think they have that extra line stage, just inputs and attenuator.  Some might use a couple of different sources (eg, CD, Phono) directly into the inputs, some may use a pre-amp into the inputs for extra control, gain, and/or sound influence.  I think you might be doing both if I understand your layout:  the Oppo is a source, not truly a preamp with gain (correct me if that's wrong), and your AVR or Pre/Pro is a true preamp.  Same in my setup.  One input gets my two channel tube preamp, the other gets signal from my Onkyo pre/pro. 

One interesting tweak you can consider or play with....  I used to have the signal to the subs come directly from the pre/pro even when in two channel mode.  That gave me the Audyssey room correction processing for bass as well as a separate volume control for the subs.  Only mono however.  I've since taken the signal from the switch output and do bass management with the controls on the subs' plate amps.  Now, when in two channel mode, they get a full range signal from the tube pre.  I feel they integrate better this way and I get stereo subs to boot.  The Rythmik plate amps also have the advantage of more controls than is typical for subs.

........Peter

IIRC, the Audyssey software will perform room correction for bass even without the dedicated LFE channel.  If you set your subwoofer size to "none" the LFE will direct to the front channels.  At least in my case, Audyssey goes around the room and corrects each speaker individually.

On a related note, how would you characterize the sound of the Inspire with the HT processor vs. the LP27a?

[pstrisik]

IIRC, the Audyssey software will perform room correction for bass even without the dedicated LFE channel.  If you set your subwoofer size to "none" the LFE will direct to the front channels.  At least in my case, Audyssey goes around the room and corrects each speaker individually.

On a related note, how would you characterize the sound of the Inspire with the HT processor vs. the LP27a?

You are correct, but only when I am using it for video (through the pre/pro).  When listening to music, the subs don't get anything from the pre/pro.  You probably knew that.  When I talked about the advantage of Audyssey and separate volume control, I was meaning with the two channel mode.  That's what I gave up with the new setup.

I'll get back to you on your other question.  Got to get to my last appointment.  I have the LP-2 BTW.

........Peter

Edit: Ok, home now! Whew!

The Onkyo was good for me until I starting moving toward where I am now.  It's very listenable, but dull compared to the Inspire LP-2.  The Inspire makes the music seem more alive.  More imaging / 3D feeling.  The Onkyo is pleasant with smoother highs at the cost of sounding a bit flat.  All relatively speaking, of course.

[roscoe65]

You are correct, but only when I am using it for video (through the pre/pro).  When listening to music, the subs don't get anything from the pre/pro.  You probably knew that.  When I talked about the advantage of Audyssey and separate volume control, I was meaning with the two channel mode.  That's what I gave up with the new setup.

I'll get back to you on your other question.  Got to get to my last appointment.  I have the LP-2 BTW.

........Peter

Edit: Ok, home now! Whew!

The Onkyo was good for me until I starting moving toward where I am now.  It's very listenable, but dull compared to the Inspire LP-2.  The Inspire makes the music seem more alive.  More imaging / 3D feeling.  The Onkyo is pleasant with smoother highs at the cost of sounding a bit flat.  All relatively speaking, of course.

I knew you had the LP-2.  Momentary brain fart on my part.

Your opinion of the Onkyo probably aligns with my opinion of my Marantz - erring on the side of smoothness.  The Marantz is musical but notably darker than a Yamaha I had until recently.  I am running it with GR Research XLS/XCS speakers.  They are great on the top end but maybe a bit too forgiving.  With the Marantz there is a little too much tone-on-tone.

The idea of using my Omegas in the HT rig is gaining traction with me.  I was concerned that their revealing nature may be a bit too much (especially the whizzer of the alnico) but they may balance against the slightly dull nature of the Marantz for HT purposes.  A simple cable switch would enable the use of a tube amp for the mains for music purposes.  I am fortunate to have a separate - albeit smaller - room for a dedicated audio rig, but it would be nice to have something musically satisfying in the room I spend the most time with my SO.

[pstrisik]

I knew you had the LP-2.  Momentary brain fart on my part.

Your opinion of the Onkyo probably aligns with my opinion of my Marantz - erring on the side of smoothness.  The Marantz is musical but notably darker than a Yamaha I had until recently.  I am running it with GR Research XLS/XCS speakers.  They are great on the top end but maybe a bit too forgiving.  With the Marantz there is a little too much tone-on-tone.

The idea of using my Omegas in the HT rig is gaining traction with me.  I was concerned that their revealing nature may be a bit too much (especially the whizzer of the alnico) but they may balance against the slightly dull nature of the Marantz for HT purposes.  A simple cable switch would enable the use of a tube amp for the mains for music purposes.  I am fortunate to have a separate - albeit smaller - room for a dedicated audio rig, but it would be nice to have something musically satisfying in the room I spend the most time with my SO.

I've found that there is correlation between quality sound in two channel and in HT mode.  I wouldn't hesitate to use your favorite speakers for HT.  I guess one caveat is in bass response.  With some two channel speakers, bass is fine for music, but many would say subs would be needed for HT. 

[roscoe65]

I'm assuming the need for active bass reinforcement.

What surround speakers (if any) are you using?

[pstrisik]

I'm assuming the need for active bass reinforcement.

What surround speakers (if any) are you using?

I have a pair of Paradigm Studio - can't recall the model number - it was one of the better ones in that line.  No center.  Technically 4.2 system, I guess.  I'm not worrying about timber matching or much else for the surrounds.  They add to immersion feeling - good enough for me.  And I've found that with high quality main speakers, a center really isn't needed. 

[roscoe65]

This is one place we differ in opinion; I've found that with a lot of soundtracks the center channel has a lot of specific dialogue information.  When I use a 2.1 or 4.1 setup, the processor sends the center channel information to the main speakers, producing a Phantom Center.  Two problems arise with this:

1.  This Phantom Center works best for an ideal listening position centered between the speakers.  In an environment such as my own where viewers are not ideally centered it can lose focus.

2.  With the dialogue channel mixed into the mains the balance can be almost unlistenable.  The volume necessary to hear volume becomes deafening when effects come in.

I would argue that if I had a rig that was solely used for HT and had to make sacrifices, I would rather have a high quality center channel alone rather than two mains and no center channel.

I'd like to thank you for your help and guidance.  You've help me focus some of my thinking.  I'm left now with assessing what I have and choosing the elements which will best fit into the HT/Audio system in the living room.  I was originally thinking of an all-Omega 5.1 setup, but the physical size makes that impractical in my 15' (w) x 22' (l) x 13' (h) room.  I've pretty much narrowed down to keeping my Audioengine P4's in the surround and height channel positions.  They are small(ish) and can be wall-mounted among the wall art with minimal visual impact on the room.  The center channel will be a unique implementation of the RS5 1.5 way, horizontally positioned.  Subs are being completed but are 8" Peerless paper drivers in sealed enclosures and will probably be connected at speaker level to the L/R mains.  My last remaining decision is whether to use Super Alnico Monitors or RS5-based speakers for the L/R mains.  The SA's would theoretically be the "better" speaker, but would not fit as well physically and would not be a 100% match to the center.  The 1.5 way RS5 would be an identical tonal match to the other center speaker and would offer an additional 3 dB or so efficiency.  The last point may be important since I will likely use my 4wpc 421a amp as the two-channel amp for this system.  97.5 dB vs. 93 (or 95, depending on what spec Louis gives you) dB is easier to drive.  And since my amp has OPT's with 4, 8, and 16 ohm taps I can tailor it to a lower impedance.  The SA's can serve as alternate speakers in the dedicated room, or if space becomes a real issue find their way into a new, loving home.

[HiFiJeff]

I've found that there is correlation between quality sound in two channel and in HT mode.  I wouldn't hesitate to use your favorite speakers for HT.  I guess one caveat is in bass response.  With some two channel speakers, bass is fine for music, but many would say subs would be needed for HT.

I agree. If a speaker is going to do good with music, it's going to do good in a home theater application as well. I am finally finding that out with a good quality source. The Oppo UDP-203 is a serious piece of gear and I love it. It has really brought my Decware and Omega's to a new level. But yeah, subs for both music and movies for me is a MUST. I have the luxury of having the built in 8inch subs with my Omega 3XRS's and I play with it sometimes, turning on and off the subs and doing comparisons. In EVERY case, I prefer the subs on. It just brings so much more and gives music and movies that extra punch and fullness that it lacks without the subs engaged.

[HiFiJeff]

I have a pair of Paradigm Studio - can't recall the model number - it was one of the better ones in that line.  No center.  Technically 4.2 system, I guess.  I'm not worrying about timber matching or much else for the surrounds.  They add to immersion feeling - good enough for me.  And I've found that with high quality main speakers, a center really isn't needed.

I am starting to feel the same way. I think I am just going to go with something inexpensive for surrounds. Still good quality but to have something as good as the the Omega 3I Monitor as a surround might be overkill. We will see, the surrounds are still a ways off.

[HiFiJeff]

This is one place we differ in opinion; I've found that with a lot of soundtracks the center channel has a lot of specific dialogue information.  When I use a 2.1 or 4.1 setup, the processor sends the center channel information to the main speakers, producing a Phantom Center.  Two problems arise with this:

1.  This Phantom Center works best for an ideal listening position centered between the speakers.  In an environment such as my own where viewers are not ideally centered it can lose focus.

2.  With the dialogue channel mixed into the mains the balance can be almost unlistenable.  The volume necessary to hear volume becomes deafening when effects come in.

I would argue that if I had a rig that was solely used for HT and had to make sacrifices, I would rather have a high quality center channel alone rather than two mains and no center channel.

And I would agree with you 110%! Even in an ideal listening position, I still think that a center is a MUST in a home theater application. There is a reason why sound engineers for film companies master movies with discreet channels. And the center is where a majority of the dialogue in a movie takes place. Even with great speakers like the Omega's and the Decware amp that produces an image like nothing I have ever heard before I still feel like I am missing something without a center. The effects for sure are a lot louder than dialogue and I want there to be a happy balance with the front stage. Without the center I just feel like I am missing out on the true quality a DTS-HD MA track brings to movies.

This is what I found on Wikipedia.

" DTS-HD Master Audio is a lossless compression codec containing a lossy DTS Digital core, thus allowing for bit-to-bit representation of the original movie's master soundtrack. DTS-HD Master Audio supports variable bit rates up to 24.5 Mbit/s. The format supports a maximum of 192 kHz sampling frequency and 24-bit depth samples from 2 to 5.1 channels, and 96 kHz/24bit resolution up to 7.1 channels.[3] DTS-HD is capable of virtually any number of discrete channels but is limited by storage media.[4]"

I want to hear the original movie's master soundtrack the way the sound mixer intended it to be heard and take FULL advantage of what this technology offers and not mess with down mixing and phantom center channels and so on. Now of course, my assumptions are exactly that, assumptions. I am assuming that a center is going to make a big difference because I actually don't  have one yet but when I do have it, I will be doing some major comparisons and will be sharing all of my findings with you guys.

[HiFiJeff]

I'd like to thank you for your help and guidance.  You've help me focus some of my thinking.  I'm left now with assessing what I have and choosing the elements which will best fit into the HT/Audio system in the living room.  I was originally thinking of an all-Omega 5.1 setup, but the physical size makes that impractical in my 15' (w) x 22' (l) x 13' (h) room.  I've pretty much narrowed down to keeping my Audioengine P4's in the surround and height channel positions.  They are small(ish) and can be wall-mounted among the wall art with minimal visual impact on the room.  The center channel will be a unique implementation of the RS5 1.5 way, horizontally positioned.  Subs are being completed but are 8" Peerless paper drivers in sealed enclosures and will probably be connected at speaker level to the L/R mains.  My last remaining decision is whether to use Super Alnico Monitors or RS5-based speakers for the L/R mains.  The SA's would theoretically be the "better" speaker, but would not fit as well physically and would not be a 100% match to the center.  The 1.5 way RS5 would be an identical tonal match to the other center speaker and would offer an additional 3 dB or so efficiency.  The last point may be important since I will likely use my 4wpc 421a amp as the two-channel amp for this system.  97.5 dB vs. 93 (or 95, depending on what spec Louis gives you) dB is easier to drive.  And since my amp has OPT's with 4, 8, and 16 ohm taps I can tailor it to a lower impedance.  The SA's can serve as alternate speakers in the dedicated room, or if space becomes a real issue find their way into a new, loving home.

Why would the SAM's be a better speaker? I don't think better is the word, just different. And there are a few things that would have me leaning towards going with the 1.5 HO RS5's. 1. If you are already going with the 1.5 HO RS5 for the center, you might as well match the mains with it. 2. If you are using subs, the SAM's might not be needed as much. Because I have heard people are using SAM's instead of RS5's for better bass response. I could be wrong though, I mean I know the SAM's are an amazing speaker too. 3. The 3DB in efficiency will mean a lot for a 4wpc amp. That's one of the reasons I am going 1.5 HO RS5's for my front sound stage, my Decware amp loves a 4ohm load and the extra efficiency will be a tremendous boost for that 2WPC amp. 4. Just the sound and lightning quick response from that RS5 driver is amazing! It truly is. When I picked up my Oppo 203 at a local B&M store here in Colorado Springs, I demo'd the home theater room that had some speakers that I won't name, pretty high quality stuff, and nicer higher end AVR powering it and so on, I listened to movies music and so on, I was not impressed. I mean it sounded okay but just not in the same league after being blessed with the quality I get out of the Omega, Decware combo. I have listened to that same stuff I heard at the B&M store and am so thoroughly happy with what I hear from my system. I can't even imagine how good it will sound when I have the complete set up! Anyway, good luck with your decision and keep us posted.