Hey Kevin... when you do integrateds, will they be for 2 channel only? Will you be able to do HT as well? Also, would there be any sonic benefit to using 4 UCD 180 modules in a 2 channel integrated for pseudo-biamping or would it be better to just use two UCD 400 modules? I realize two 400s would cost less and give a little more power... just curious whether the improvement would be worthwhile.
There is the absolute and impending possibility of HT set-ups. The beauty of John's TAP solution is how it scales to multiple channels with relative ease. We don't have any plans to do a processor... you would need to rely upon the DVD player (just bought one of the new Toshiba HD-DVD players with the processing) to handle the format processing but that is something that is easy to plan for.
One thing you have to understand about John's approach is that it isn't typical. He doesn't do things half way. The input and resistor boards are Arlon, maximized for minimal trace length and John has done some extensive work on which relays are transparent in the signal path. Overall he has put a tremendous amount of work into building these components to exacting standards, both engineering wise, and doing blind A/B subjective test to various components used in the system. As such they are not as cheap as using less expensive approaches that are typically employed in home theater applications for switching and volume control. The price is somewhat offset though by our distribution method which is direct to the consumer rather than a traditional dealer network model.
Anyway... the integrated I'm working on now would be only for two-channel applications. For multichannel projects you run into real estate problems quickly when trying to put everything in one box. You also compromise sonics by the layout issues to you invariably run into by spacing everything on top of each other. It just makes much more sense to my mind to spread out the functionality among multiple chassis to keep channel-channel crosstalk down, & control general noise problems. We are never going to be competing with the mass-market products and the only advantage to one box is cost.
In terms of questions about bi-amping it is a tough question to answer. The short answer is that it depends. There are so many variables involved that it would depend upon the loudspeakers and how your using them along with whether your active or passive bi-amping. I'm a big proponent of bi or tri-amping but the most important aspect of speaker design is how well the entire system was designed. I've seen many people try to use generic cookie-cutter actives to replace a well designed passive network and their results suck. The active design has to match the transfer function of the passive network for there to be any benefit to using multiple amps in a bi-amp or tri-amp application. That is, assuming the passive design was a good one to start with.
The DEQX systems are making this easier but I don't think actives will ever completely replace passive networks in the mass market. In time, DSPs may replace them in the high-end market but I'm guessing it won't totally replace them even there.
