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.

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.

Charles Epstein wrote:
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?

Both. You must have a processor to decode the signals coming from a
typical DVD. You also require each speaker to have its own surround
channel.

Personally, I'd keep the NAD unit for a bedroom or second system or
for music only and get a nice integrated 5.1/6.1 amplifier. NAD makes
several, but the real deal for the money, IMO, is Rotel. Bit better built,
no major fluff you don't need, and a lot less money than a 5/6 channel
Bryston or simmilar. Seperates are nice, but not really required for
home theatre. Most 100wpc amps will be more than fine for your
needs. My father's $800 Denon 3802 can drive his 6 ohm Tannoy Saturns
to shockingly loud levels when they are in 2-channel mode. It's not
half the amplifier the bigger Rotel is.

IIRC, the price of their second from the top A/V receiver is roughly
what Bryston's starts at.

Of course, if you DO want to spend more money, Bryston does make an
excellent multichannel amplifier. Very capable and built like a tank.
Requires a preamp, but here's the skinny - preamps are all about processing
and such for home theatre, so a plain vanilla Sony or Denon at $299 receiver
will be more than adequate. Bypass their amplifier section and send the
pre-outs to the Bryston. No need to spend $1500 or more on Bryston or
some other company's unit when the standards keep changing every few years.

Wait until HDTV is fully implimented - that means new DVD types and
encoding and whatnot. 5-10 years at most.

Keep the amp. Swap the processor every few years to keep current.

Some budget amplifiers allow this, some do not, but it's easy to check
for by looking at the back panel. There will either be pre-outs or a
series of jumper blocks connecting the two component areas.

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).

Well, we do need a budget.

If it's under $2000, then get the Rotel and enjoy. Around $4000, get
the Bryston 9B SST and a processor/budget receiver.
(NOTE - they do sell the 9B SST with 2 channels as well - you can
plug in the other channel modules as you require)

Also, a nice DVD player - $200-$300 these days. Some of the better ones
also play SACD and DVD-Audio and other formats. Mine even does MP3s
and karaoke - go figure. Just wait until my son figures out what
the karaoke mic input is for - lol.

Lastly - the speakers - I take it you have a 2.1 setup? Then you'll
need some surround speakers. Probably get more M&K surrounds to
match the front speakers. They need not be full-range, though - nice
bookshelfs will do.

"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.)

Which models?

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.

If your aim is home theater, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
me.

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).

The preamp section of your NAD will be worthless in a HT set-up. You
could use the amp section to power the two rear speakers, and get a
three-channel amp for the front. You'd also need a pre/processor, of
course, and three more speakers.

It might be more cost-effective, however, to sell the NAD and just buy
a HT receiver. The Denon 3803 seems to be well thought of, and lists
for $1200. That would leave you some $$ to put toward the extra
speakers.

As for the speakers, I'd check to M&K Web site to see whether yours
are still made, and if matching centers and surrounds are available.
You might also use your existing sats as rears, and buy three new ones
for across the front. There's a school of thought that says all five
speakers should be identical, but if that's not possible, matching
mains and the center is most important.

One other thing: Going from 2-channel to 5-channel piecemeal generally
doesn't make much sense. You'd be spending money and getting little or
no value for it until you'd gotten the rest of the gear. So I'd
suggest you either go for it and buy a HT system you can afford now,
or save your pennies until you can afford what you want.

bob

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.

Bruce Abrams wrote:
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.


You don't even need the Niles source selector if your stereo preamp has
a spare set of high-level inputs. Just feed the L/R pre-outs from the HT
receiver into that spare set of inputs. Of course, you have to always
set the stereo preamp's volume control at the same setting, hopefully
somewhere around unity gain, that was used in calibrating the levels of
all the channels, when you are in the HT mode.

A few of our customers have followed our advise to do something
similar, which is to add a three channel amplifer and processor to the
system, when can be switched on and off when needed or not. That does
just what you suggest, but most movie people simply won't pay for a
stereo system if they have a five channel receiver and most music
people won't pay for a five channel receiver if they have a stereo.
The more well heeled tend to buy both, why not if they have the space?
I just it impractical and wasteful unless you are going to have them
in separate rooms, which also means a dedicated pair of speakers for
the stereo system. What I find even more curious is people upgrading
the power sections of cheap receivers. I suppose everyone's situation
can be somewhat unique given theier surroundings, funds and usage.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:NYQVa.20460$YN5.19343@sccrnsc01...
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.

A few of our customers have followed our advise to do something
similar, which is to add a three channel amplifer and processor to the
system, when can be switched on and off when needed or not. That does
just what you suggest, but most movie people simply won't pay for a
stereo system if they have a five channel receiver and most music
people won't pay for a five channel receiver if they have a stereo.
The more well heeled tend to buy both, why not if they have the space?
I just it impractical and wasteful unless you are going to have them
in separate rooms, which also means a dedicated pair of speakers for
the stereo system. What I find even more curious is people upgrading
the power sections of cheap receivers. I suppose everyone's situation
can be somewhat unique given theier surroundings, funds and usage.
- Bill


This is basicaly what I did. In my opinion, stereo music is the real challange
to reproduce. Trying to duplicate the live performance in ones home, has it
ever been truly done? At any budget? But for home theater, movies, the audio
is exagerrated which I don't state in a negative way, but movies are not about
realism, it's about the total experience. I mean we don't complain about cars
that explode in a fiery Napalm ball upon the slightest impact.
I started with a two channel system that I liked. tried to do the best
that I could within my budget. B&K, Vandersteen and then added additional
channels for home theater. I chose the B&K pre amp based on 2 channel sound
quality but also only looked at multi channel home theater controllers. I
added M&K center and rear speakers based on theyr dynamic sound, overall sound
quality, size, mountability etc.

Do I like the M&K speakers for music? Their ok but no where near as smooth and
natural as the Vandersteens but for home theater they rock Open, dynamic, and
with a big sub the whole house rocks when the movie calls for it.

Jon




http://www.jonlayephotography.com

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason that you chose M&K center and
surrounds when Vandersteen makes such speakers designed to match the tonal
balance of their main speakers? I usually find that home theater systems
are much more cohesive and convincing when all speakers are from the same
mfg.

"Mr 645" wrote in message
...
A few of our customers have followed our advise to do something
similar, which is to add a three channel amplifer and processor to the
system, when can be switched on and off when needed or not. That does
just what you suggest, but most movie people simply won't pay for a
stereo system if they have a five channel receiver and most music
people won't pay for a five channel receiver if they have a stereo.
The more well heeled tend to buy both, why not if they have the space?
I just it impractical and wasteful unless you are going to have them
in separate rooms, which also means a dedicated pair of speakers for
the stereo system. What I find even more curious is people upgrading
the power sections of cheap receivers. I suppose everyone's situation
can be somewhat unique given theier surroundings, funds and usage.
- Bill


This is basicaly what I did. In my opinion, stereo music is the real
challange
to reproduce. Trying to duplicate the live performance in ones home, has
it
ever been truly done? At any budget? But for home theater, movies, the
audio
is exagerrated which I don't state in a negative way, but movies are not
about
realism, it's about the total experience. I mean we don't complain about
cars
that explode in a fiery Napalm ball upon the slightest impact.
I started with a two channel system that I liked. tried to do the
best
that I could within my budget. B&K, Vandersteen and then added additional
channels for home theater. I chose the B&K pre amp based on 2 channel
sound
quality but also only looked at multi channel home theater controllers. I
added M&K center and rear speakers based on theyr dynamic sound, overall
sound
quality, size, mountability etc.

Do I like the M&K speakers for music? Their ok but no where near as
smooth and
natural as the Vandersteens but for home theater they rock Open, dynamic,
and
with a big sub the whole house rocks when the movie calls for it.

Jon




http://www.jonlayephotography.com

I must admit that I never did listen to the Vandersteen surrounds but for some
reason I felt that a more open, more dynamic speaker would be better for
movies. I have listened to the Vandersteen Subs and they do work great with
most music, but the M&K has far more power, much stronger rumble then the
Vandersteen. Size was also an important consideration, as was the fact that
the dealer offered a nice discount for the floor models. I am using the M&K
THX750 speakers for rear surrounds. These are actually sold as front speakers
and did try them in front. They lacked the full, rich sound and broad sound
stage of the Vandersteen speakers.

Jon

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason that you chose M&K center and
surrounds when Vandersteen makes such speakers designed to match the tonal
balance of their main speakers? I usually find that home theater systems
are much more cohesive and convincing when all speakers are from the same
mfg.

"Mr 645" wrote in message
...
A few of our customers have followed our advise to do something
similar, which is to add a three channel amplifer and processor to the
system, when can be switched on and off when needed or not. That does
just what you suggest, but most movie people simply won't pay for a
stereo system if they have a five channel receiver and most music
people won't pay for a five channel receiver if they have a stereo.
The more well heeled tend to buy both, why not if they have the space?
I just it impractical and wasteful unless you are going to have them
in separate rooms, which also means a dedicated pair of speakers for
the stereo system. What I find even more curious is people upgrading
the power sections of cheap receivers. I suppose everyone's situation
can be somewhat unique given theier surroundings, funds and usage.
- Bill


This is basicaly what I did. In my opinion, stereo music is the real
challange
to reproduce. Trying to duplicate the live performance in ones home, has
it
ever been truly done? At any budget? But for home theater, movies, the
audio
is exagerrated which I don't state in a negative way, but movies are not
about
realism, it's about the total experience. I mean we don't complain about
cars
that explode in a fiery Napalm ball upon the slightest impact.
I started with a two channel system that I liked. tried to do the
best
that I could within my budget. B&K, Vandersteen and then added additional
channels for home theater. I chose the B&K pre amp based on 2 channel
sound
quality but also only looked at multi channel home theater controllers. I
added M&K center and rear speakers based on theyr dynamic sound, overall
sound
quality, size, mountability etc.

Do I like the M&K speakers for music? Their ok but no where near as
smooth and
natural as the Vandersteens but for home theater they rock Open, dynamic,
and
with a big sub the whole house rocks when the movie calls for it.

http://www.jonlayephotography.com