steelie

I had SF2s and the full synergy package for a couple of years and I loved it. (Actually, I'm still in the process of upgrading the sub from that fomer line-up) Anyway, I used my current Denon AVR 2802 to power the Synergy system and it was awesome. The 2802 has 90 W X 6 channels and did a superb job getting the most out of my Synergies. In my opinon, the more sensitive Reference series wants separates or a better, not necessarily more powerful, receiver. For Synergy, though, the 2802 was a perfect fit. I'm sure you can find one used for way less than $700 or you can get the newer 2803, which has 7 channels. (By the way, are SF3s really just repackaged RF3s or is that just a quality comparison I hear people make?)

I agree with DrPyro I've had the Denon 2200, a universal player, since it was issued. It was my first personal experience with DVD-A and SACD. Ease of use definately goes to SACD. Pop it in and let it go. There's a button on the player that lets you decide whether you want the priority given to the multi-channel layer or the 2-channel layer.That's it. DVD-A requires you to navigate some screens that may or may not be well produced. I can't say whether DVD-A or SACD sounds better but I can definately say that both formats provide some of the cleanest music you will hear compared to regular CDs. Even if you enjoy listening to just the two-channel version, which I prefer, both formats provide huge improvements. I'm not a huge classical buff but my girlfriend and I have three copies of Bach's Goldberg Variations by Murray Perahia, two CDs we both owned before we met and an SACD that we recently bought. In both the CDs, the hiss behind the piano is obvious. and distracting. The SACD is clean as a bell. That said, simple DSD gives you great sound as well. Bela Fleck's Tales From The Acoustic Planet is awesome in its CD format. I haven't heard the multi-channel version, although I've heard great things about it, but I'm just as happy to listen to the two-channel version if it's clean and doesn't have distracting noise in the background. **** Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that the HDCD version of Bela Fleck's Acoustic Planet sounds great. I haven't heard the multi-channel version ****

Just curious ... what modifications do you have to do to set up towers with rear ports for surrounds? Or do you just space them out from the walls?

When I upgraded my old system, I went with RB 35s for surrounds exactly because of SACD and DVD-Audio. Movies are great and all but music was what I was after. Turns out, I really liked the multi-channel sound for a while but now I prefer to listen to my RF7s instead. I kinda knew that to start with, which is why I put everything I could into buying the best mains in the first place.

Also ... forgot to ask in my last post ... If I do end up hanging the RB 35s, I'd like to cut them into the wall so that the grills are flush with the drywall. Since I don't have a rear port to worry about, I'm thinking this should be fine but does anyone have any experience with that sort of setup? Would it impact the sound in any way? Thanks in advance.

Hi markmaple, We've got similiar gear and I am using the RB35s for surround sound but I'm not so sure that's the best way to go. I wish I could tell you whether the RB 75s would be a better choice or not. I was planning on getting the RS 7 but now I'm having second thoughts about that deal too. Dolby Digital's Web site says to put monopoles to the rear of the listening position but not behind you. It also says the speakers should be facing each other, about 2 to 3 feet above you. You should not point them downward, according to the site. That's pretty much what I've done but I don't think the RB35s are keeping up with the 7s, at least in my house. My side walls are 19 feet apart so for now, I've got the RB 35s on stands, closer to the listening area. If I hung my speaks, the bottom would have to be about 8 feet off the ground, a little higher than Dolby Digital reccomends. for my listening environment. That's what I'd like to try to do next. I just need to get enough speaker wire to try that configuration out and then I can tell you how it's working. I'm worried that by putting them 19 feet apart, though, the sound would get overpowered even more by the RF7s. I'm gonna have to try something new though, because as of now, the RB 35s aren't doing as good a job as I would like. What's wrong with your RS 35s?

I'm curious about markmaple's question too, especially since my surrounds are RB 35s and I was planning on getting RS7s. I've got my RB35s set up on stands, a little above ear level when we're sitting on the couch and they're facing each other just a little bit behind us. I wouldn't mind putting them on the walls but they'd have to be 8 feet off the ground. Is that too much? I don't feel they're giving me the surround quality I want the way they're set up now. (RB 35s have a keyhole in the back so they should be okay to mount without worrying. I don't remember the MSRP)

I only recently upgraded to RF7s after a lot of listening and lots of demos. When I compared the RF7, RF5 and RF35 side by side, the RF7s made my decision easy. I didn't have to struggle with which speaker to get, but if I hadn't gone that route I don't know what I would have done. The RF5 and RF 35 certainly sounded different to me although I'm not sure either one shined over the other. At times I would favor the RF5. Then I would change my mind and felt the RF 35 had an edge or at least were just as good and provided more value. I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision but either way, you know you're getting a good speaker. If you get the RF 5, though, follow through and get the RC 7. Yeah, it's big and bulky but it gives voices an authority and richness that's missing from smaller centers.

I can't remember the scene name but the beginning of Blade does an impressive job on subwoofers.

I'm sure this is obvious but what two front effect channels are you powering with the multichannel amp? You've got me real curious about the McIntosh option but it'll take a long drive for me to find someone who can show me one. Thanks for your input

I didn't think those screws were meant to be screwed in flush but I could be wrong. If you've got them down to about an inch that's more than I've ever been able to do.

I see. So you still use one nob for the master volume after you've calibrated. I misunderstood but that's interesting. How do the Mac and Denon compare to your ears? Rotel's 1095 is one of the amps I was considering. It's a five-channel amp if I remember right, so that still leaves room for another two channels down the road, right?

so how do you calibrate with two volume controls?

Thanks for all the quick replies. Reading the posts I got to wondering the same thing ccsakura did but I'm curious how the A21 and A52 match up. Maybe I'll have to test drive the combo to see for myself. I like the idea of putting together a system 2 channels at a time, but I'm sure I won't be able to pull off getting three new Carver amps Maybe three B&K's? They're on my list too but I need to find out more about them. I've read rave reviews about B&K, now I just have to listen to some. Thanks again for your thoughts

Hi all, This is my first post on this site and I'm looking for a little advice. I'm considering moving toward separates to run my system and I'm looking at Rotel and Parasound amps. Input on other amps to consider would be good too but I can't see buying something more expensive than Parasound's A51. I'll be connecting the amp to my Denon until I get the funds for a separate processor. Anyway, I'm wondering if I'd be better off buying a 2 channel amp, like the A21, to drive my mains and then a get a smaller 5-channel amp, like the A52, for the rest of my system. Are there any advantages or disadvantages to this sort of approach and does it matter if I power the system with two amps rated at different watt levels? Volume isn't the issue for me but I'd like to get the cleanest, deepest sound I can afford, especially for music. Thanks in advance for your help 'drew