Re: Do you have to have an AV receiver to have Home Theatre?
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 791
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 791 |
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).
M80's VP150 QS8's Earthquake SuperNova MKV-15 Integra DTR-7.4 Outlaw 755 Outlaw M200's Outlaw ICBM
|
|
|
Re: Do you have to have an AV receiver to have Hom
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
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!
Last edited by kcarlile; 07/17/04 06:16 PM.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Still confused........
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 86
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 86 |
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??
|
|
|
Re: Do you have to have an AV receiver to have Home Theatre?
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331 |
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.
Jack
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Re: Still confused........
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
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.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: Still confused........
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331 |
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.
Jack
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
No objection to a quality receiver.......
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 86
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 86 |
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.
Last edited by Todd; 07/17/04 06:33 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Still confused........
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833 |
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.
Rick
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
Re: No objection to a quality receiver.......
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,331 |
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.
Jack
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." - G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Re: Do you have to have an AV receiver to have Home Theatre?
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 791
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 791 |
I see what your saying. I was confused by the original post.
M80's VP150 QS8's Earthquake SuperNova MKV-15 Integra DTR-7.4 Outlaw 755 Outlaw M200's Outlaw ICBM
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,949
Posts442,508
Members15,619
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
1 members (SirQuack),
1,077
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|