Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Do you have to have an AV receiver to have Home Theatre?

I do understand this concept. I've dealt with integrated amps in the past. I was under the impression that he was going to connect the DVD player directly to the amplifier (not integrated).

Oops, did it again. I was referring to the situation/discussion, not you. I think we were pretty much on the same wavelength there. It's Ajax that's off!

NADC320BEE is an integrated amp. I have found it for around 350.00 dollars. It has gotten great reviews. I mostly only listen to two channel stereo, but would like to have the capability of 5.1 SACD or DVD is why I would rather have the integrated amp and not the AV Reciever. Now after reading your posts I am still a bit confused. Is the integrated amp OK to do this as opposed to a regular amp??
Can someone explain that please??

Todd left me a little confused. The following are from his initial post.

"Is it possible to just have an integrated amp and a DVD player to have a 5.1 home theatre experience."

"I guess the question is, can I get this with just an amp and DVD player. Sorry and thanks......."

Not sure which he meant.

I still don't understand the objection to a quality receiver. It's not a power thing. I seriously doubt that the integrated amp is going to have better sound quality than a good 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 receceiver.

The NAD is 2 channel exclusiveliy, so you'd need 3 more amplifier channels and preamp channels. And you'd have a hell of a time balancing the channels and the sub. And boy, is it going to cost you.

A regular amp does not have a preamplifier component, so there is limited control over volume, no component switching, etc.

Todd, an INTEGRATED amp is a preamplifier (the component that does the signal processing) and an amplifier (the component that only makes the signal louder) in one box. An AMPLIFIER does not have a preamplifier section. A receiver has a preamplifier, amplifier, AND a tuner (radio).

So basically the only difference between a receiver, and an INTEGRATED amplifier is that a receiver can pick up radio stations. So, you can use a DVD by itself with either a receiver or an INTEGRATED amplifier, but NOT just an amplifier.

Ken is right. The NAD you mentioned is only two channel. You need to look for a 5.1 channel or 7.1 channel INTEGRATED amp if you want those configurations. But, as Ken said, a receiver will do pretty much the same thing.

Again, I was looking at the Denon 1804 or the NAD 752. I guess the real question is what you already answered for me. You think that there won't be greater quality sound from a 2 channel amp or pre-amp as opposed to either of the two AV receivers I am down to.....correct?? I am primarly looking for good two channel stereo sound with eventual home theatre capabilites. Again I listen to about 90-10 stereo to movies. Maybe I just wasn't clear. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the answers.

I do believe Kcarlile is right here the Nad is only 2 channel.It is much more cost effective to go with a decent mutichannel reciever.

Well, if you want home theater capability you have to get a receiver or integrated amplifier that is 5.1 or 7.1 capable. The alternative would be to get a 5.1 or 7.1 PREamlifier, and just a 2 channel amplifier for the your current stereo listening. Then, when you felt you wanted to get into home theater. You would have to buy a couple more 2 channel amplifiers, or a 5.1 or 7.1 capable amplifier. I'd just get a good 5.1 or 7.1 receiver like the Denon or NAD. Neither, however is 7.1. the Denon is 6.1, and the NAD is 5.1.

I see what your saying. I was confused by the original post.