Jump to content

Post the last thing you bought!


JBLoudG20

Recommended Posts

Thanks guys. I am intrigued/confused by your 4.1 or 4.2 system ideas, Dusty. Is it for video and audio? Why no center channel? I am excited to hear the Stradas and want to audition the 3.5s soon just for fun. I may well get a Gallo sub but I want to hear them without it first. I had a 5.1 with Dues (and then a Reference Center for center) and Ref 3s without a sub, and then I tried the Gallo Subwoofer amp with the Ref 3s but didn't think it was worth the effort. Anything will be better than what is left: just the Reference Center. :lol:

Nice setup Mike! Mac Mini is the shiznik for music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am intrigued/confused by your 4.1 or 4.2 system ideas, Dusty. Is it for video and audio? Why no center channel?
It's for everything -- unlike you, I have a very compact space, and also very little need for speaker listening. So largely, it'll be for those few times I don't feel like putting headphones on, video when I want surround, and audio when I want surround (I do want to get around to hearing the Katatonia disk, the King Crimson disks, and the Porcupine Tree disks in full surround). In other words, it's for those few times when I want speakers over headphones, and when I want to listen to surround.

Why no center channel? Because I don't feel the need. I also feel it solves a couple problems. I followed the professional side of surround for a while, and there just never seemed to come to any consensus. Some of them mix the center channel as a fully separate channel, some of them mix a little bit into the front lefts and rights, and some of them mix quite a bit into the front lefts and rights. If you "phantom" the center channel, these all get "equalized" (in the non-frequency sense), which actually is a better solution, IMHO.

There's also the height positioning issue -- you can't get it at the same height as the front lefts and rights without some sort of compromise. Phantoming solves that problem, too.

These would be fine for non-video audio, but since I do intend to also do video...

And invariably many people get different center channels than their fronts, and you can then never quite match the voice. That wouldn't be an issue with you or me, obviously, since sound is sufficiently important that we wouldn't make that compromise, but...you'd be surprised.

And then there's amping -- do you know that the only difference between most players and a pre/pro is level control? You can usually do all the rerouting including phantoming and the whole "large"/"small" (include sub frequencies/don't include sub frequencies) on most players? So then you would only need two stereo amps (and if you didn't have level control, two stereo preamps), which are fairly easy to match.

I know it sounds kludgy when I say it like that, but I really don't see the point in the decoding circuitry being in both the player and the pre/pro or receiver. You end up never using the stuff in the player, most of the time. In which case one should just have gotten a BDP-80.

Which actually is another option -- just a BDP-80 and a receiver for speaker/surround listening, BDP-95 for headphones, and take the BDP-83SE to the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably should have just gotten the BDP-93, and I am actually re-thinking my order. :palm: I don't really need the dedicated 2-channel audio output, although I am thinking of using the Luxman P-1 as a means to watch TV with headphones and for others in the family to listen to music on headphones more easily. In my setup I will be using the Arcam AV8 simply as a preamp into the McCormack HT-5 5-channel amp. I may add a Gallo at some point, as I mentioned. The HDMI output will only be for video into the plasma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.