J

Jasio

Enthusiast
Pardon my lack of knowledge, as I am just getting involved in home theater/audio -- but something has been bugging me for awhile and I hope the folks here at Audioholics can enlighten me.

It has come to my attention that the majority of home theaters use a large, fairly powerful home theater receiver which acts both as a receiver, amplifier, and upscaler in a single package. Off the top of my head the Onkyo 805 comes to mind as a good balance between budget/performance for a 7.1 receiver for home theater use. One of my friends uses this very Onkyo to power a 7.1 setup of Atlantic Technology speakers and active sub:

- 1 x AT 224 sub.
- 1 x AT System 4440 THX (5.1).
- 2 x AT 4400 Speakers to complete a 7.1 system.

On the other hand another friend of mine has a 5.1 setup from Martin Logan:

- 2 x ML Summit X (FR/FL)
- 2 x ML Spire (RR/RL)
- 1 x ML Stage (Center)

He runs the Summit X's on dedicated monobloc amplifiers at the front of the room, and the remaining Spire's and Stage are run on a 3-channel amp.

I realize that the Martin Logan setup is far more expensive than the Onkyo setup, but at what point or what extent should one consider ditching a receiver and moving to a pre/amp processor and dedicated amplifier setup? Budget is a curious issue here as you can buy dedicated amps from $300 and up. Have people actually run single channel amps for EACH of their speakers? In this regard, how would individual amps compare to a single large 5 or 7 channel amplifier in terms of performance? I realize that one could always consider a scenario where money is not an issue and go crazy; but I am rather curious as to where the line between actual practicality/performance is drawn. I know that receivers do have a finite limit to their per channel output (~110watts) and dedicated amplifiers can far exceed this, but does that mean I should only look at dedicated amps if my speakers warrant them (eletrostats are power hungry...)?
 
O

oppman99

Senior Audioholic
The line between practicality/performance will vary from person to person. I don't have the salary to support buying amps from big name companies like Anthem, Bryston ect.(I wish I did), which is why I went with Emotiva amps. The decision to move to a separate amp/amps depends on a number of factors for most people. Things to consider are speaker sensitivity, room size and volume you listen at. I'm sure there are a few people around the boards who run an separate amp for each speaker. I can't justify the cost and don't have the space to do that.

As to whether or not you should get an amp, you'll have to gather some input and decide for yourself. I personally like to listen at fairly loud volumes and like to have the extra power available if I need it. The ideal situation for you would be to find someone who is willing to bring an amp to your place to try with your speakers. Then you could decide for yourself if adding an amp is worthwhile. I fall into the more power is better camp. Many others feel it is a waste unless you have a large room, low sensitivity speakers and like to crank the volume.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
.... but I am rather curious as to where the line between actual practicality/performance is drawn. I know that receivers do have a finite limit to their per channel output (~110watts) and dedicated amplifiers can far exceed this, but does that mean I should only look at dedicated amps if my speakers warrant them (eletrostats are power hungry...)?
Speaker's impedance and the other factors mentioned by oppmann has a bearing on the amp needed, whether it is a receiver, a monoblock or stand alone multi channel amp.
also, don't forget, DVD sounds don't go to max volume on all the channels at the same time and I have never heard rears ever approaching that condition.
So, depending on how many of those electrostats you have, maybe all you need is an amp for them alone, not all the speakers?
 
J

Jasio

Enthusiast
The line between practicality/performance will vary from person to person. I don't have the salary to support buying amps from big name companies like Anthem, Bryston ect.(I wish I did), which is why I went with Emotiva amps.
A very valid point -- my central concern here was: A single Krell amp can cost in upwards of $7-8k easy but a 2-channel Emotiva and 5-channel together run $799 + $799... a very fair offer (relative). Krell, Anthem, McCormack, are all out of my price range as well.

Things to consider are speaker sensitivity, room size and volume you listen at. I'm sure there are a few people around the boards who run an separate amp for each speaker. I can't justify the cost and don't have the space to do that.
I'm new to the whole custom home theater arena, I have a spare room in my basement that is: 16 x 12 x 8 feet and I hope to convert it into a theater w/ projector. The only "audiophile" speakers I own at the moment is a pair of Dali Ikon 6's which I am very happy with. With that in mind I am considering stick with Dali (4 ohm) and simply grabbing the next step up: Mentor 8's. I used Martin Logan simply as an example of a system I've actually encountered and seen in action, and had the ability to compare to the Onkyo/AT setup.

I personally like to listen at fairly loud volumes and like to have the extra power available if I need it. The ideal situation for you would be to find someone who is willing to bring an amp to your place to try with your speakers. Then you could decide for yourself if adding an amp is worthwhile. I fall into the more power is better camp. Many others feel it is a waste unless you have a large room, low sensitivity speakers and like to crank the volume.
I am currently planning out how I want to utilize the room. Part of that is allocating space to hardware. As this will be a dedicated home theater room I would assume that more power is always a good thing to have. The majority of my confusion arises from seeing these home theaters that rely on a single large unit to handle speakers, upscaling, processing, tuning -- and then seeing an "audiophile" with a small 2.0 setup but still running a dedicated amplifier.

I don't have any brand loyalty, but I always found Martin Logan's to sound fantastic. I have auditioned mid-range B&W, and most of the Totem Acoustic speakers (love this oh so much for music), PSB, Monitor, Dali (Ikon/Mentor/Helicon), Klipsch, and Focal. As sound is a subjective thing I did find the Martin's, Totem, and Dali more to my liking than the rest.

I'm not sure how much input power (from the mains) a high-end home theater requires, but I currently have 1 x 15amp and 1 x 30amp dedicated circuits for that room.

mtrycrafts said:
DVD sounds don't go to max volume on all the channels at the same time and I have never heard rears ever approaching that condition.
This little tid-bit of information is actually extremely useful - thanks!
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
also, don't forget, DVD sounds don't go to max volume on all the channels at the same time and I have never heard rears ever approaching that condition.
You will on this SACD I have others where the rears had better be as capable as the fronts.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Generally, Martin Logan and other ESL speakers are rather low in efficiency, and generally have an impedance in the 4-5 Ohm nominal range. So usually, they will benefit from more powerful amplifiers than typically found in a receiver. However, there is no need to buy high priced 'audiophile' amps. Professional audio amplifiers of today often are of identical technical quality, but lack the exotic cosmetics, but in exchange you get very high performance for relatively low price. For home use, I generally recommend Yamaha pro amps, such as the P2500S, P3500S, P5000S and P7000S(choose the one you want based on required power). I recommend these specifically because, besides top notch build quality and performance, they do not have fan noise to deal with (most pro amps have audible fans) and the rack mount ears are removable for use in regular width consumer audio racks. There is only one consideration you must make when using most pro amps including the Yamaha: the amp expects much higher line level input voltage than most consumer pre-amp RCA outs will provide. This is easy to fix: use a voltage converter designed for this very issue such as the Samson S-Convert. You run standard stereo RCA cables to the S-Convert from your RCA pre-amp source outputs. You then run standard balanced XLR male to female cables from the S-Convert to the pro amp's XLR inputs. Even the lowest level P2500S, produces far more power than most receiver's can. It is rated at 275 x 2 into 8 Ohms, or 390 x 2 into 4 Ohms, using the standard consumer power rating of 1kHz. So, it is best to compare it to most reciever power ratings based on these numbers. Actual, continuous power, is 250 x 2 into 8 ohms, and 310 x 2 into 4 Oms, 20Hz-20,000Hz(full audio band), both channels driven simultaneously. But at the same time, a receiver rated at 100 watts (at 1khz), may only produce 70 watts 20Hz-20,000Hz. Additional, the pro amp is rated for 4 ohm use constantly(and can easily take less), where most receivers are not intended to drive loads under 6-8 Ohms, and often those that do allow 4 Ohms, have an alternate mode they require you to use, that lessens output power, to prevent overheating at the lower impedance.

Note: I have used a wide variety of home audiophile and professional audio amplifiers. In my no hold barred sound quality main system in a dedicated listening room, I currently use the professional Yamaha amplifier series I recommended above.

-Chris
 
MidnightSensi

MidnightSensi

Audioholic Samurai
I tried receivers for a while, but smoked 'em all. :eek:
 
O

oppman99

Senior Audioholic
I'm new to the whole custom home theater arena, I have a spare room in my basement that is: 16 x 12 x 8 feet and I hope to convert it into a theater w/ projector. The only "audiophile" speakers I own at the moment is a pair of Dali Ikon 6's which I am very happy with. With that in mind I am considering stick with Dali (4 ohm) and simply grabbing the next step up: Mentor 8's. I used Martin Logan simply as an example of a system I've actually encountered and seen in action, and had the ability to compare to the Onkyo/AT setup.

I am currently planning out how I want to utilize the room. Part of that is allocating space to hardware. As this will be a dedicated home theater room I would assume that more power is always a good thing to have. The majority of my confusion arises from seeing these home theaters that rely on a single large unit to handle speakers, upscaling, processing, tuning -- and then seeing an "audiophile" with a small 2.0 setup but still running a dedicated amplifier.

I don't have any brand loyalty, but I always found Martin Logan's to sound fantastic. I have auditioned mid-range B&W, and most of the Totem Acoustic speakers (love this oh so much for music), PSB, Monitor, Dali (Ikon/Mentor/Helicon), Klipsch, and Focal. As sound is a subjective thing I did find the Martin's, Totem, and Dali more to my liking than the rest.

I'm not sure how much input power (from the mains) a high-end home theater requires, but I currently have 1 x 15amp and 1 x 30amp dedicated circuits for that room.
You at least have an idea of which direction you might head with your speakers. You have discovered at least a few brands you like and identified a few that seem to fall short.

If you stick with 4 ohm speakers, a separate amp/s might be a wise choice, especially if you plan on a 7.1 system. That will be a tough load for many of the entry/mid level recievers on the market. In the same situation, I'd probably go with a separate amp for at least the three front speakers.

I'm no electrician, but I think the two circuits for the intended room will be fine. I have my HT running on a single 20 amp line and never had any problems. I'm not running a projector though.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
Thanks:D So, they recorded it from the conductors position with musicians 360 around him?:D
It sounds more like an audience position. This work was written to be performed in an open air amphitheater in Lapland. This disc was recorded in Sibelius Hall Latte Finland.

The first movement opens with rhythmic Laplander drumming on huge bass drums. They are all round the Hall. At some points the drums go in fast sequence clockwise round the room and then counterclockwise. Then the brass choirs come in front sides and rear.

The Latte symphony orchestra is in front and the chamber orchestra of Lapland in the rear as well as the vocal soloists and saxophone group.

It really is a quite remarkable symphony.

At least here the effect is stunning. You really do feel you are in a big space acoustically not this relatively small studio. I'm surprised how good the side imaging is between front and back speakers. Imaging seems seamless all round the room.

When my children visit with friends they always insist on giving a demonstration of this as it is just incredible.

When my good friend Phil Marin, who owns the B & W 800 Ds, first heard that disc here, he proclaimed this system a freak of nature!

The music director of the Minnesota Orchestra, Osmo Vanska is a good friend of the composer. He has programed at least a couple of Aho symphonies to an enthusiastic audience reception.

Aho was in the Twin Cities recently for a work written for Minneapolis, Minea. This had its first performance under Osmo Vanska.

I have another SACD that gives the surrounds a work out as well, it is a recording of the antiphonal divisions of the Kleis organs of Cologne Cathedral.

These are actually multiple organs played from one location.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Ninja
Could you name names on those SACDs? I'd like to hunt them down.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Thanks:D So, they recorded it from the conductors position with musicians 360 around him?:D
Thanks to him I may buy that one just for fun but I probably will only listen to it once. I have been to quite a few live classical concerts and I do not recall even once hearing much from behind me. That SACD can't possibly sound right to any live concert goer.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
Thanks to him I may buy that one just for fun but I probably will only listen to it once. I have been to quite a few live classical concerts and I do not recall even once hearing much from behind me. That SACD can't possibly sound right to any live concert goer.
The work was conceived for an open air theater. I can see how it would work in a concert hall.

There is nothing rare or unusual about antiphonal music. Benjamin Britten's great score the War Requiem calls for a boys chorus at the back of the hall for instance.

The Italian Baroque masters placed musicians and choral groups all over the place. A very large number of Italian churches and cathedrals have antiphonal organs. There are a lot of Italian works for antiphonal organs.

The Basilica in St Paul has two large organs, one behind the alter at the front and one in the choir loft at the back.

I could recite more examples.

If your rig is any good you will play that disc a lot more than once by the way!

I think lack of competent rear speakers in most rigs puts recording and mix engineers off making all the use they could of surround sound.

In my view the rears should be as competent as the fronts, or pretty close.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
There is nothing rare or unusual about antiphonal music. Benjamin Britten's great score the War Requiem calls for a boys chorus at the back of the hall for instance.
I didn't say it was rare but I admitted that I had not experienced one such classical music live concert.:D

I could recite more examples.

If your rig is any good you will play that disc a lot more than once by the way!
Please do, my rears are not that big but I do have subs to help them.

In my view the rears should be as competent as the fronts, or pretty close.[/
Ideally, yes, but given a limited budget I would still focus on the front channels first. Currently none of my multi-channel SACDs and DVDAs do much with the rear channels. Besides, I really do enjoy my 2 channel CDs a lot and really don't have much interest in multi-channel CDs any more.
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
The work was conceived for an open air theater. I can see how it would work in a concert hall.

There is nothing rare or unusual about antiphonal music. Benjamin Britten's great score the War Requiem calls for a boys chorus at the back of the hall for instance.

The Italian Baroque masters placed musicians and choral groups all over the place. A very large number of Italian churches and cathedrals have antiphonal organs. There are a lot of Italian works for antiphonal organs.

The Basilica in St Paul has two large organs, one behind the alter at the front and one in the choir loft at the back.

I could recite more examples.

If your rig is any good you will play that disc a lot more than once by the way!

I think lack of competent rear speakers in most rigs puts recording and mix engineers off making all the use they could of surround sound.

In my view the rears should be as competent as the fronts, or pretty close.
I was at the premiere (US or World, not sure) of a Hindemith opera in NYC (believe it was at Avery Fisher), and they had a whole other choir bust out of nowhere in the upper right balcony.

I've also performed The Unanswered Question by Ives in orchestra, and the trumpeter played from behind the entire audience.

These are the two that come to mind for now. :D
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
I didn't say it was rare but I admitted that I had not experienced one such classical music live concert.:D



Please do, my rears are not that big but I do have subs to help them.



Ideally, yes, but given a limited budget I would still focus on the front channels first. Currently none of my multi-channel SACDs and DVDAs do much with the rear channels. Besides, I really do enjoy my 2 channel CDs a lot and really don't have much interest in multi-channel CDs any more.
I agree, but there is a significant repertory of antiphonal music, even in opera.

If you can swing it is great to explore it.

The concert promoters don't like it because they loose balcony seats.

Osmo Vanska gets the orchestra out of Symphony Hall every chance he can, especially to the Basilica in St Paul.

The Oratorio "To Be Certain of the Dawn" was commissioned by the diocese of St Paul from Minneapolis composer Stephen Paulus. Osmo has performed it in the basilica to great effect.

Unfortunately BIS made the recording in Orchestra Hall in standard two channel.
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
I was at the premiere (US or World, not sure) of a Hindemith opera in NYC (believe it was at Avery Fisher), and they had a whole other choir bust out of nowhere in the upper right balcony.

I've also performed The Unanswered Question by Ives in orchestra, and the trumpeter played from behind the entire audience.

These are the two that come to mind for now. :D
Oh yeah, one thing that I haven't seen, but would love to, is what I think might be the first surround sound works ever. . . by Gesualdo, IIRC, during the Renaissance. Cathedrals are shaped like a cross, and so the distances differed at each end. He wrote works for 4 choirs, each choir at each end, and wrote with the delays in mind when writing. :D

I've also read the Glenn Gould Reader (collection of all his published writings), and he talked about wanting to record a 4 voice fugue on 4 mono tracks, then play them on 4 speakers, one on each side, and sit in the middle to listen to them. He never had yet done that according to what he wrote in the book.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I agree, but there is a significant repertory of antiphonal music, even in opera.

If you can swing it is great to explore it.

I will certainly try the ones you mentioned if they are available on Amazon.ca.

Thanks again.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top