HT Preamp

randog · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Apr 2003, 09:46 pm »

But I thought the whole purpose of this would be to get *rid* of the receiver.

Those with humoungus hogoaudiophiliac needs would just stay with a mastiff-sized receiver and all it's little puppy components, right?

Having all that hardware is no better than what we live with today and although I'm sure a few would buy this just to add another toy to their toybox, I'm not sure it should be a main intent for the market (I could be wrong... and it wouldn't surprise me!).

My selfish desire is for high-quality simplification, not added complexity.

Randog

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #21 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 01:39 am »

Bubba hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't really want to get totally rid of the reciever; I'd run it into the pass thru input. That way I could have X'Box & other games in DD, along with, potentially, a satellite dish etc. But I could still get that stuff out of the loop when I want to listen to my DV-45A (or eventually Denon) thru the more pristine preamp inputs. I'd have my cake and eat it too: full featured video switching and decoding for external sources combined with very refined high end sound.

I don't really think a pass thru input should be that complex, less so I would think than if it had to go thru a volume. Even if I couldn't get one as a pass thru, I certainly don't think two 5.1 or 7.1 inputs is extravagent. Certainly a good many people will choose to go with separate machines for DVD-A & SACD instead of the universal route.

I guess I agree that one wouldn't want to sacrifice any 2 channel inputs, but the chassis would get a little larger. No harm in that!

I'm drooling just thinking about this!

randog · « **Reply #22 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 03:29 am »

kids...

heheh

bubba966 · « **Reply #23 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 07:14 am »

What would be wrong with say, 2 different models?

One for straight audio use (having one 7.1 channel input). And another for a audio/HT setup with 2 7.1 channels inputs (one being a pass-through) and in a slightly larger chassis for a bit more money.

That way you can have one model for the audio only guys who would never have more than one MC source and don't care for the added expense of another MC input.

And another model for the MC audio/HT entusiast that needs a receiver for 5.1/7.1 movies, games, sat, etc., yet wants a high quality MC pre for DVD-A & SACD.

I see no problem with such an idea.

Just because one particular person would never use something on a piece of gear doesn't make it a worthless option.

A good example would be this. My receiver has a phono stage as well as a tape loop. I'm never going to use either of those. Might not ever use the 7.1 channel inputs either. For my use they're worthless options.

But it's also got an AC-3 RF Demodulator in it. I bet that's a rarely used option for almost everyone. Hell, I bet most everyone doesn't even know what the hell an AC-3 RF Demodulator is for, let alone has a use for it. But I certainly have a use for it. In fact it's one of the reasons I bought this particular model receiver.

So just because an audio only guy sees no reason for more than one MC input on a pre, doesn't mean that there aren't a bunch of other guys that'd need 2 or more MC inputs on a high quality pre.

I for one wouldn't have a use for such a pre, as I don't listen to music on my system. I think it'd be a good idea for a 2 MC input pre. And I can think of at least 2 people off hand on this board that'd probably love something like that. And there's probably many more that'd care for such a thing.

Hopefully someone will make such a thing.

But it almost seems that companies that produce quality audio gear wouldn't build a multi-input MC pre as they see no use for more than one MC input.

Like I said, hopefully someone realizes that a market for such a beast exists. And makes a quality piece that doesn't cost a small fortune to purchase...

randog · « **Reply #24 on:** 19 Apr 2003, 09:07 am »

Quote from: bubba966

And another model for the MC audio/HT entusiast that needs a receiver for 5.1/7.1 movies, games, sat, etc., yet wants a high quality MC pre for DVD-A & SACD.

I see no problem with such an idea.

Just because one particular person would never use something on a piece of gear doesn't make it a worthless option.

Sensitive kids!

Agreed. But don't forget, you have to have a market. The whole reason multi-channel preamps are rare and almost non-existent is because the market hasn't demanded it yet. You guys would be an extreme example... perhaps a fraction of the fraction who want a multi-channel pre in the first place. For example, if we could convince Curt that 5% of the market would opt for a musical MC preamp over a surround receiver, that may be appealing. However, if 5% of the 5% would use a certain option for that pre, he would need to think much harder on including that and increasing the unit cost and complexity. I am in the same bracket as a phono user and that's why you don't find phono on most preamps anymore... you can move it offline tho and that's what I was referring to as trying to build in maximum flexibility. Since you can't really move a bypass offline, maybe it's a viable option... dunno... the real number of potential users would have to be reflected in that. I would *hate* to see a tape loop included, but there ya go... another 5%!

Randog

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #25 on:** 20 Apr 2003, 01:25 am »

Just remember, Randog, there was a crackin' business in buggy whips going for awhile, too. Not much of a market for them thar newfangled car things.

Most products have some features that the buyer ultimately didn't need. Certainly if they don't add unduly to the price they do allow an expansion path.

Many horse and buggy guys may never grow into the MC thing, but it's nice to have the options just in case you figure out what century it is!

Seriously, though, audio isn't really a one-size-fits-all hobby. I doubt you could get 10 audiophiles together and get agreement as to what the perfect stereo preamp would have, no it's no surprise there's lots of notions as to what an MC one would need. Best bet I guess it to just test the waters by getting the input from the target market. Here's the market demanding it; who's gonna step up to the plate and deliver it?

randog · « **Reply #26 on:** 20 Apr 2003, 05:08 pm »

If this damn rocking chair wasn't so comfortable I'd get up and whack you with my cane!

I started to concede in my previous post that a 5.1 bypass may have a number of benefits for futures but I didn't want to cloud my argument.

Still, 18 ports for 6 channel in, out and bypass is quite a host when you add in a full compliment of 2-channel inputs as well.

Interesting thread fer sure, but I think we may have chased Curt away.

Randog

randog · « **Reply #27 on:** 20 Apr 2003, 06:50 pm »

Bubba, you would need to hook it up like Rob described: receiver to pre to amps. Going from pre to receiver doesn't make sense to me... think about the hookups after that. You'd always have to go through your receiver for 2-channel or mc music listening (not good).

Rob, I'm starting to see your point... if someone wanted this for mc music, yet wanted the sophisticated processing of another HT preamp or receiver, then a bypass is a nice option... or at the very least, 2 sets of inputs.

Now I'm even in accordance with bubba: maybe have 2 units: a minimal 6-channel designed to use one MC source component with built-in 5.1 HT processing and 5.1 mc music capabilities *AND* a 2nd unit with 8 channels which would have 7.1 bypass so a receiver with up up to 7.1 surround processing could be used. That way, you basically have two products that fill the gamut between 2 completely different markets! The 6-channel is designed for the purest who's main desire is 2-channel music with MC music and HT capabilities and the 8-channel is for the HT enthusiast who wants to use an HT processor but who also wants high-end 2-channel or MC music or anything between the two. Perfect!

I'm on board with that. Now like Rob said, who's gonna build it?

Randog

randog · « **Reply #28 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 04:13 am »

Quote from: randog

Now I'm even in accordance with bubba: maybe have 2 units: a minimal 6-channel designed to use one MC source component with built-in 5.1 HT processing and 5.1 mc music capabilities *AND* a 2nd unit with 8 channels which would have 7.1 bypass so a receiver with up up to 7.1 surround processing could be used.

This reads confusing. Should say "...maybe have 2 units: a minimal 6-channel designed to use one MC source component where that source component has built-in 5.1 HT processing and 5.1 mc music capabilities..."

bubba966 · « **Reply #29 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 05:11 am »

randog,

I don't recall saying anything about running a pre into a receiver, then into the amps. I was always at least thinking receiver-pre-amps. Though I'm not always so great at writing stuff, so maybe I didn't phrase something properly.

Anyway, it seems that we're now all understanding that a 6 or 8 channel pre w/2 MC inputs (or one input & one by-pass) would be a pretty decent idea. We just need to talk someone into building them...

randog · « **Reply #30 on:** 21 Apr 2003, 03:00 pm »

Oh, you're right. I read it wrong. Sorry.

MaxCast · « **Reply #31 on:** 10 Oct 2003, 12:41 pm »

Curt, any updates on this??