Combining home cinema & hi-fi
Mike
Can anyone provide a little advice re a proposed hi-fi/home cinema setup. I
have decent-ish separates system at the mo and take phono output from dvd
player to amp, not quite 5.1 more like 2.0 but better than a poke in the eye
with a sharp stick.
I want to go full home cinema and ideally integrate with current set up.
Am I right in thinking that first step is to replace my amp with an a/v
receiver ?
Also can I use the current speakers on hi-fi as front speakers for home cimema
in addition to standard cd use etc ? Essentially I don't want to end up with a
room full of speakers if I can help it so can they double up as normal hi-fi
usage and home cinema ?
Cheers
Mike
Guy Dawson
>
> Can anyone provide a little advice re a proposed hi-fi/home cinema setup. I
> have decent-ish separates system at the mo and take phono output from dvd
> player to amp, not quite 5.1 more like 2.0 but better than a poke in the
> eye
> with a sharp stick.
>
> I want to go full home cinema and ideally integrate with current set up.
>
> Am I right in thinking that first step is to replace my amp with an a/v
> receiver ?
It's one step but you could keep both. A/V amps are not as good in stereo
as stereo amps.
If you get an A/V amps with phono pre-outs you can connect the phono outs
for the main speakers to a spare channel on the stereo amp and use the
stereo amp to drive the main speakers. This means your stereo set-up is
basically unchanged.
The DVD player and the other 5.1 (centre, rears and sub) are all connected
to your A/V amp.
An alternative is to get a speaker switch so that the main speakers
can be connected to the stereo amp or the A/V amp - but not at the same
time. A cow-orker does this.
> Also can I use the current speakers on hi-fi as front speakers for home
> cimema in addition to standard cd use etc ?
Yes.
> Essentially I don't want to end up with a room full of speakers if I
> can help it so can they double up as normal hi-fi usage and home cinema ?
Indeed.
Guy
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson @ SMTP - 3...@cuillin.org.uk // ICBM - 6.15.16W 57.12.23N 986M
4.4>5.4 4.4>5.4 4.4>5.4 The Reality Check's in the Post! 4.4>5.4 4.4>5.4
Dr Hfuhruhurr
This is precisely what I do.
I've got a Yamaha DSP-630AX doing the surround stuff, and I've got the
front pre-outs going into my Naim Pre-Power amp.
Definitely the best of both worlds.
I tried it with just the Yam, but just *had* to put the Naims back in the
chain. There really is no comparison. Plus I had no where else to plug my
Turntable into.
--
Doc.
Gareth Jones
<gn...@cuillin.org.uk> writes
>> Also can I use the current speakers on hi-fi as front speakers for home
>> cimema in addition to standard cd use etc ?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Essentially I don't want to end up with a room full of speakers if I
>> can help it so can they double up as normal hi-fi usage and home cinema ?
>
>Indeed.
Note that if you REALLY don't want a load of speakers, some AV amps
(like Marantz) have a virtual dolby type mode that tries to emulate
surround by just using the front pair of speakers.
Haven't tried it on mine yet, maybe later on tonight. Bound to be pretty
lame, but as you said - better than a poke in the eye with a sharp
stick!
--
__________________________________________
<Gareth Jones> usenet@_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk
"Reality sucks - go watch a Star Trek"
To email, remove the '_ns_' from
usenet@_ns_swansea.demon.co.uk
__________________________________________
max christoffersen
>> Am I right in thinking that first step is to replace my amp with an a/v
>> receiver ?
>
> It's one step but you could keep both. A/V amps are not as good in stereo
> as stereo amps.
Urban myth and *total* twaddle.
Try any modern AV amplifier at the high end of integrated performance
(Yamaha Z-1/Rotel/Denon/Onkyo 939) and it will trounce the likes of the
Pioneer A400 that was a dedicated stereo amplifier adored by the
Brit-Pop-Audio-Press a few years back.
Was is true is to suggest that high price dedicated stereo amplifiers sound
better than mid range HT receivers.
And still the Yamaha A-1 was famously compared positively to Krell seperates
in Home Theatre magazine review.
Amplifiers in HT receivers are simply getting better all the time.
What was once a given (see your statement above) now requires specific
qualification.
Max Christoffersen
Guy Dawson
like :
>>>Am I right in thinking that first step is to replace my amp with an a/v
>>>receiver ?
>>
>>It's one step but you could keep both. A/V amps are not as good in stereo
>>as stereo amps.
>
>
>
> Urban myth and *total* twaddle.
and an industry standard to boot as well I'm sure.
> Try any modern AV amplifier at the high end of integrated performance
> (Yamaha Z-1/Rotel/Denon/Onkyo 939) and it will trounce the likes of the
> Pioneer A400 that was a dedicated stereo amplifier adored by the
> Brit-Pop-Audio-Press a few years back.
Few years? I remember the A400 from the mid to late 80s.
> Was is true is to suggest that high price dedicated stereo amplifiers sound
> better than mid range HT receivers.
And that 'decent-ish separates' will sound better in stereo than
'decent-ish separates' A/V kit.
> And still the Yamaha A-1 was famously compared positively to Krell seperates
> in Home Theatre magazine review.
>
> Amplifiers in HT receivers are simply getting better all the time.
Indeed. As do stereo amps.
> What was once a given (see your statement above) now requires specific
> qualification.
decent-ish was all the OP said.
Guy, who is going to move on to something more worth while than the HC
version of angels on pin heads.
max christoffersen
>> Urban myth and *total* twaddle.
>
> and an industry standard to boot as well I'm sure.
No just an opinion.
You really must learn the difference Guy.
>> Try any modern AV amplifier at the high end of integrated performance
>> (Yamaha Z-1/Rotel/Denon/Onkyo 939) and it will trounce the likes of the
>> Pioneer A400 that was a dedicated stereo amplifier adored by the
>> Brit-Pop-Audio-Press a few years back.
>
> Few years? I remember the A400 from the mid to late 80s.
Which still sells today and is still held in the same regard.
Put it up against some of the new finme sounding HT amp/receivers from
Marantz and then come and tell me if your generalisation still holds.
Incidentally - it doesn't.
>> Was is true is to suggest that high price dedicated stereo amplifiers sound
>> better than mid range HT receivers.
>
> And that 'decent-ish separates' will sound better in stereo than
> 'decent-ish separates' A/V kit.
Well there's some audio science for ya..
>> And still the Yamaha A-1 was famously compared positively to Krell seperates
>> in Home Theatre magazine review.
>>
>> Amplifiers in HT receivers are simply getting better all the time.
>
> Indeed. As do stereo amps.
I'm not sure they are.
The only significant difference is price and weight. Digital amps are now
more reliable than the earlier switch mode power supplies but the sonics
remain much the same.
The real lift in performance has been in integrated amplifier design and
performance.
>> What was once a given (see your statement above) now requires specific
>> qualification.
>
> decent-ish was all the OP said.
>
> Guy, who is going to move on to something more worth while than the HC
> version of angels on pin heads.
It's not Angels on pin-heads.
Times have changed. What was once true is no longer so.
Your generic statement now requires qualification.
You've given that qualification.
You should have in the first place instead of offering a dated and
misleading statement of fact.
Next!
Max Christoffersen
Guy Dawson
> You've given that qualification.
By saying 'decent-ish'?
Guy