Reading all the posts about running stereo with a separate 2 channel receiver has tweaked my interest. If I have 2 separate receivers, 1-2 channel for stereo and 1-multichannel for HT, what's the best way to hook them up to the same set of speakers? Is that where the biwiring comes in? Is there a switchbox that I can buy? Or is there a better easier answer that I'm missing? Or would it be better to just buy another better receiver. I have a Yamaha 7640?? I think. Can't remember the model # since I'm at work.

Thanks.

Charles, I'm not sure what posts that you're referring to and I can't recall any discussion about using both a stereo and a multi-channel receiver in the same speaker setup. Of course using a stereo receiver in a stereo-only setup is fine, although an HT receiver wouldn't be out of the question. If you mean that they would be connected to the same speaker terminal, then yes, some type of switching device would be necessary to keep the two receivers electrically separated. There appears to be no good reason to do anything like this; a stereo receiver doesn't have any special advantage when only two speakers are playing.

John, I don't think so, I think a dedicated 2 channel amp/preamp is much better for stereo than a sorround processor.

Charles, this is a question that I would have asked too. As I have a Rotel 2 channel system with my M60s, I think of buying a surround system in the future, but I will keep my stereo system too. I wonder if I could use a switch, so that I could use my M60s for both my stereo and as fronts for the HT. Any experience with this kind of setup?

Skerdi, the setup wouldn't really be "dedicated" in a meaningful sense and no "surround processor" is necessarily involved. It's simply using just 2 of the available 5-7 amp channels and no special processing need be used.

I've run into the same problem, except my two channel amp is of the tube variety. There is a definite difference in sound (at least to my ear), hence the need for switching. I took the cheap way out and just plug and unplug when switching between HT and stereo listening. Not very convenient, but at least my speakers are easy to get to (their on stands). I haven't looked very hard for switch boxes because from the little research I did, I couldn't justify spending the money on a good one. Right now, I'm the switch box. And relevantly inexpensive, at that.

Having said all that, if I come across a good quality switcher for cheap, I'll be all over it. Or I'll just buy another pair of speakers . Not the logical choice, but one can't have too many speakers, right?

As long as your surround receiver has pre-amp outputs, it is not that difficult at all.

1) Hook your DVD player up to your surround receiver.
2) Connect ALL speakers EXCEPT the mains to the surround receiver.
3) Connect the "main" pre-amp outs from the surround receiver to one of the inputs on the stereo receiver.
4) Connect the main speakers to the stereo receiver.
5) Connect a standard CD player to the stereo receiver.

Now, the mains will always be driven by the stereo receiver. Just choose the source you want - surround receiver for movies, or CD player for music.

This is especially attractive because you have taken some of the load off the surr rec when watching movies.

That sounds great. I'll check my receiver but I'm sure that it has pre-amp outputs. So both receivers are on with HT or any surround mode.

Brings up another question. This forum is starting to get expensive!! :-) I have a CD/DVD player but notice that many people have separates. Is there really a distinct advantage to having a CD player and a DVD player rather than one player for both?

I really see no good reason to do what you are trying to do.If you have two 100 watt receivers what are you going to gain by doing this.I would say to just use the surround receiver for the sytem and be done with it.You could use the other receiver for a second system in another room.

Rick,
I think ya'll are right. I'll just upgrade my receiver. Sounds like a good reason. Oh, I really don't have a reason, just an itch!!

In reply to:

---

I really don't have a reason, just an itch!!

---

Now that I completely understand