Looking for an expert opinion on this non-conventional setup

[slicksilver]

http://avtruths.com/bangforbuck.html

I've just happened to see that article and was wondering if it is really an ideal setup. Any kind of opinions would be great. My uncle was asking me suggestions on how to go about it and this is one thing which came into my mind.

Thanks

 

[vi edit]

I'm certainly not an expert, but I think that for most people it will yield very minimal gains while adding a ton of extra fail points, excessive heat, costs, space requirements and complexity over what a single quality AVR can provide.

If you really want to go dedicated amping, then buy a dedicated amp. Not a $100 sherwood receiver x 3.

 

[krotchy]

While he does have a point that seperates can make things sound alot better, in that price range, splitting all the pieces into seperates really isn't going to be that much of an improvement. Also I personally wouldn't go with those speakers, as you can find much better set for the long run by finding a good set that fits you. Also, the major gripe I have with his setup is that he is going for a 6.1 surround, and 6.1 is pretty much a dead format. Most current receivers are 7.1 even on the low end these days, and 7.1 allows for much better matrixing of 5.1 which almost all surrounded sources are these days anyways, and most things are still in stereo.

Still he has a valid point, if you find a decent receiver with 7.1 Pre-Outs, you can hook up the speakers directly to it initially, and then as you feel you want to spend more money, you might be able to improve sound by moving to seperate amps at a later time. But initially just buying a good receiver with really good speakers will yield more results. Then perhaps adding separate amps might be an option in the future, assuming you bought speakers that can actually benefit from the change.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

I agree with what had been said already. It's certainly a creative setup, but that's not how I would spend $1000.

 

[Lemodular]

That setup doesn't make too much sense since you are technically only adding 5 addition watts per channel. I don't know if the Pioneer's amp section is discreet or not but the AVR is allready 100w per channel (X7). You must also assume that the amplification from the Sherwood is better than the Pioneer (historically not) but not that you would notice with those speakers anyway.

I agree with everyone here in saying that it's not worth the cash.

 

[Odeen]

The "5 extra watts" per channel is a non-argument. Since there isn't an agreed-upon way to measure speaker amplifier power, Pioneer's 100 watts are not the same as Sherwood's 100 watts, which are not the same as Harman Kardon's 100 watts which are not the same as Rotel's 100 watts.

All that said, it's probably better to pick up a single multichannel power amp than a bunch of stereo receivers. Emotiva's LPA-1 (125 true watts per channel for five channels - that is 20-20,000 KHZ, all channels driven, < 0.04% THD, + 2 channels at 50 watts per channel) runs $500 + shipping brand new, and will give you true 7.1 capability in one (admittely big ) box.

Oh, and terminate your speaker cables with banana plugs. It makes your life SO much easier when connecting the speaker cables in cramped quarters, such as the back of an installed amp, or on a wall-mounted speaker tucked in a corner.

 

[spidey07]

That looks REALLY dumb.

1) Not all pre-amps are created equal. This is arguably one of the most important parts of surround sound, the decoding, features and performance
2) Amps are cheap, you could get two high quality 200 watts x3 or 4 that would blow the sherwoods out of the water
3) That idea looks really dumb

Now sure, the amps in receivers are notoriously bad and adding a separate amp can do wonders. So even if you get a receiver with a decent pre-amp/processor you just have to add an amp or two.