I don't understand why more people haven't gone the same technical direction
that I have in order to get the best of both worlds. Essentially, I have
two separate systems that share my power amp and main speakers. The stereo
system is comprised of 2 speakers driven by a power amp, pre amp, CD player
& turntable. The home theater is comprised of the same 2 speakers driven by
the same power amp, along with a center channel, surrounds and a sub-woofer,
all plugged into a good quality HT receiver with pre-amp outs for the main
speakers. I have a Niles source selector switch (2 position) that allows
the power amp (and hence the main speakers) to either receive a signal from
the pre-amp for music, or from the HT receiver for movies. When in the
pre-amp position, I have a pure stereo system. When in the HT position, the
power amp gets its signal from the pre-outs from the receiver (as does the
sub-woofer) and the center and surrounds are driven directly from the
receiver.

If I ever felt the need to upgrade the HT system, it would be simple enough
to replace the receiver with a better pre/pro (such as the Rotel) and add a
3 channel amp to handle the center and surrounds.

"Uptown Audio" wrote in message
news:v4KVa.16699$o%2.10979@sccrnsc02...
You make a few suggestions that would lead me to believe that what you
already have is stereo only and are really asking if you should
upgrade the stereo or convert the stereo system to a multi-channel
home theater system. First, let us know if that is accurate.
If it is, you would want to consider what your intended use is and how
much you are willing to put into it. You can have a very nice stereo
home theater system (I do) and multi-channel is not really required to
enjoy that. It also doubles as a no-compromise music system and so is
not "music only" or "movie only". Many people have two systems and
gear them towards those ends. That is not necessary if you get the
right gear to begin with. So there we have two types of philosophy,
one a stereo for both and, two a system for each purpose. There is yet
a third and that is a multi-channel system for both. Many people are
going in that direction now and their accounts are quite different.
Many live happily thereafter and many wish and save their money for a
stereo again to better enjoy music. My philosophy is to get the right
stereo gear so that you can live with it for both uses. If you have
enough dough, that system could be expanded to become multi-channel,
but that will usually triple the cost of the system(you are going from
2 to 6 channels). What I use for my main entertainment system is a
nice (Bryston) stereo system and a pair of full-range speakers
(Tannoy). This system does it all for me at a price that is about what
a decent multi-channel outfit would cost. If I saw fit, I could expand
it by adding a three channel amplifier or replacing the stereo amp
with the 5 chennel version, add a center and surround speakers, a sub
and replace the preamp with the 5.1 channel version. Why? Now in your
case, there is room to get a better system going as you don't have a
full-range set of speakers and having a sub already and a pair of
sattelites, it makes the job much closer at hand by simply getting a
center and a pair of larger mains to match. That should satisfy your
music and your movie needs. The processor is very important there as
it determines the overall quality level of the system as it contains
the digital and analog circuits that everything must pass through. It
will therefore leave its fingerprint on everything and thus the final
sound. They are expensive and combined with the cost of the additional
speakers and amplification channels, pretty well made my decision an
easy one. NAD makes some nice theater amps and you could replace your
preamp with one of their better receivers and get the whole enchillada
in one fell swoop. That just leaves the speaker selection from the
brand that you already own if you can still find a very similar
product by them. I would then ditch the old preamp as it will be a
small loss. A simpler and more cost effective plan may be to replace
the sub sat system with a very nice full-range speaker pair and use
your existing electronics or as an option, upgrade there as well if
you have the itch and the cash. Both alternatives would produce nice
movie sound (surround is entertaining), but one may be more suited to
music than the other. It is a tough decision and one that really boils
down to what you use it for most and what you get the most enjoyment
out of having it optimized for. If you go the really nice stereo
route, you may find as I have that it would take a terribly expensive
theater system to compare even for movies. Now, if what you meant was
that your mind is made and you are just wanting to know if the
amplifier is more important than the preamplifier, read this again...
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Charles Epstein" wrote in message
news:TnwVa.7000$cF.2272@rwcrnsc53...
Hello. I'm just beginning my research on home theater. The goal is
to
preserve as much of my existing system (specifically the M&K
sat/subwoofer
setup, the NAD preamp, etc.) in upgrading to a home theatre system.
I am
looking to do this in phases. I'd like to first purchase an amp
(e.g., the
Bryston 3B) that would use the existing NAD integrated as a preamp.
Question: if I want to make the jump to home audio, does it make
sense to go
with a multichannel amp? Or is multichannel home theatre more a
function of
a preamp/sound processor? The recommendation of specific brands and
components is welcome...I'd like to keep this within a reasonable
budget,
though I'm flexible since whatever I do will likely remain in place
for
years to come (at least that's the plan).

Thanks in advance.

Charles.