Should I consider tube amp for my K-horns?

[J M O N]

On 1/4/2017 at 9:33 PM, Schu said:

you've spent a lot of money on some beautiful stuff... why are you trying to mix 2 channel and Home Theater?

you can still use the same monitors.

This is how I did it.  My main goal was one room, one system, no disconnections / re-connections needed to switch back and forth and any resulting compromises would be to the HT portion and not the 2-channel system.  I accomplished my goal and the HT systems also sounded as if there were no compromises there either.  Edit: diagram updated to correct typo.

 

[Chris A]

8 hours ago, Schu said:

...why are you trying to mix 2 channel and Home Theater?

I'm a bit mystified by this type of thinking.  Where do you get any differentiation? 

 

6 hours ago, JMON said:

If you are going for home theater only, I would agree that you probably don't want to go that low in power.  However, I have in the past run 3.5 Watt SET amps...on my front speakers (Khorns) with an AVR powering the other channels and the results were fantastic -- better than any movie theater I've been to...but a 3.5 Watt amp can still perform better than most would think when running very efficient speakers such as the Khorn.

I don't believe that I was talking about "loud"...rather I was talking about "power margin".  The concept of having power margin is not new and is the way that amplifiers have been sized for purpose in any sound reproduction system.  It is also the way that PWK did it.

 

6 hours ago, JMON said:

This is how I did it...

Putting two different preamps into a sound reproduction system is an idea borne of the above "two channel-only thinking", apparently. That's a dated concept, at best.  My setup plays stereo and multichannel tracks seamlessly.  I'm not sure what the objective is to try to separate the two.  It seems odd.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

[derrickdj1]

I also use a system for 2 ch and  multi-channel and have no complaints.  The avr handles both duties and then on top of that, I have a separate tube amp to use sometimes for 2 ch bypassing the avr auto EQ and processing.  I've done this for quite a few years and can't say one is better at 2 ch than the other.  Multi-channel is off the hook for HT and music.

[Chris A]

That's an odd way of looking at things, if you don't mind me saying.  It denigrates multichannel reproduction, which comprise the best recordings that I currently own--by far.  I wish you could hear those recordings in my "multichannel" system.  They're amazing. 

 

Perhaps the connotation of "home theater" has a different meaning than "multichannel"...?  For me, they're one and the same.  You should hear movies on my "multichannel home theater" setup. They're amazing, too...much better than any commercial movie theater that I've heard.

 

Chris

[Schu]

Not that I need to justify myself to anyone chris, but the requirements and demands of each are different... its really that simple.

Using the same upstream components for each is a compromise for either. 

[Chris A]

46 minutes ago, Schu said:

Using the same upstream components for each is a compromise for either.

What would those compromises be...if I might ask?

[J M O N]

16 hours ago, Chris A said:

I don't believe that I was talking about "loud"...rather I was talking about "power margin".  The concept of having power margin is not new and is the way that amplifiers have been sized for purpose in any sound reproduction system.  It is also the way that PWK did it.

Yeah, I think I understood what you were getting at.  I was merely explaining that with very high efficiency speakers, 3.5 watts can still work, and in what I experienced it can still work well.  I'm not currently using this level of power and likely won't when all is said and done, but It's possible that I don't listen as loud as others and hence don't need as much headroom.  I also sent the lowest frequencies to the LFE channel which of course is where the higher power levels are needed.  PWK himself would state that "what this country needs is a really good five-watt amplifier."

 

16 hours ago, Chris A said:

Putting two different preamps into a sound reproduction system is an idea borne of the above "two channel-only thinking", apparently. That's a dated concept, at best.  My setup plays stereo and multichannel tracks seamlessly.  I'm not sure what the objective is to try to separate the two.  It seems odd.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

I completely agree that ideally you don't want to have two preamps in the chain.  However, in the system I configured in this manner the performance was still exceptional to me (huge grins on my face).  My two-channel preamp does have a HT bypass however, so that probably does help.  My objective was that I wanted to build a two-channel system with no compromises for music-only listening.  If the HT/multi-channel suffered as a result, I was willing to live with that but didn't feel there was much if any compromise.  I only use multi-channel for watching movies.  So I selected the preferred preamp and power amp for music, and in my case that meant I wanted tubes in the chain as that is the sound that is most musical to me.  I'm not sure there is a multi-channel tube pre-amp out there but if there is, it's probably a lot more expensive than what I have.  Cost is also an objective to me. 

 

I didn't find how you have configured your system.  Did I miss it in this thread?   Do you have that posted somewhere else?  I'd be interested in seeing how you configured your system.

[Chris A]

9 hours ago, JMON said:

I only use multi-channel for watching movies.

This says a lot to me. 

 

I find that there is no comparison of the best stereo recordings and the best multichannel.  It's just no contest: multichannel has no peers. But all of these best recordings are of acoustic (non-amplified) instrumentation and/or voices.  "High fidelity" is much more clearly defined in those instances.  It's also difficult to achieve.

 

I also find that there is a great deal of variation in the experience of sound quality for motion pictures.  Once everything is dialed in carefully by hand on a very capable setup, the realism of the listening experience dramatically leaps upward.  And coincidentally for the best multichannel acoustic music, too.

 

Chris

[J M O N]

I really don't own any multi-channel music.  I think I may have one or two SACDs but that's about it.  It was good to hear the higher resolution with SACD but sadly that format never took off.  That's interesting that you're finding better recordings from multi-channel.