First step to separates? What's next?

**phoneisbusy** · 09-09-2003 01:45 AM

Hi everyone,

I took the plunge and picked up a RB-956AX 6 ch amp from the flea market. I bought with the idea of either picking up another 956ax in the future or a 2 channel amp for n.1 where n = { 5, 6, 7 }.

I also like the fact that I can bridge some channels and am thinking of using it for a 2 channel rig until I assemble the rest of the pieces. It also seems a 2 channel preamp can be had more affordably then a surround sound preamp.

So, after the preamp, any tips for a separates newbie? Don't mix amp manufacturers? Spending ratio for amps vs sources vs preamp? etc?

I think I picked up a solid piece of the puzzle but appreciate feedback.

I have some Celestion Mk5, but would consider the RT12s in for the 2 ch. rig.

Thanks

Dave

**Tour2ma** · 09-09-2003 03:03 AM

Nice, flexible Rotel there pib... Good price?

In general I think the same again would be a wise choice and 6 x 100 wpc would not be a bad start. Even other Rotels may not match in gain and other characteristics.

Stereo pre's are genrerally less than AVP's that can handle today's popular DD and DTS soundtrack encoding, but sometimes even cheaper are old, Dolby Pro logic AVP's. And these can do stereo just fine thank you.

When you're playing with 2 ch set-ups don't overlook bi-amping with the 40 wpc stereo pair to the highs and bridged 100 wpc to the low-end. If nothing else at least all 6 ch's would be in use...

Here'a neat little read on your new baby, although the writer does digress... a lot...
http://www.soundstage.com/entry08.htm

**phoneisbusy** · 09-09-2003 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Tour2ma
Nice, flexible Rotel there pib... Good price?

In general I think the same again would be a wise choice and 6 x 100 wpc would not be a bad start. Even other Rotels may not match in gain and other characteristics.

Stereo pre's are genrerally less than AVP's that can handle today's popular DD and DTS soundtrack encoding, but sometimes even cheaper are old, Dolby Pro logic AVP's. And these can do stereo just fine thank you.

When you're playing with 2 ch set-ups don't overlook bi-amping with the 40 wpc stereo pair to the highs and bridged 100 wpc to the low-end. If nothing else at least all 6 ch's would be in use...

Here'a neat little read on your new baby, although the writer does digress... a lot...
http://www.soundstage.com/entry08.htm

Thanks for the comments. A friend has offered to loan me a
lexicon cp-1+. I'll probably take him up on the offer until I can
locate a good preamp.

So mixing amps is not advisable but mixing preamps and other
sources should not be a problem? Rotel gear up in Canada is
not easy to come by used. :(

Interesting configuration for bi-amping. Would not have thought
of that setup!

As for the price. I bought the amp from criverajr. The price was a bit under the market rate and criverajr's price included shipping. I feel safer buying used gear from this forum for the time being.

regards

Dave

**VR3** · 09-09-2003 04:25 PM

I WOULD NOT*********** recomend(sp) the RTi12 for a stand alone 2 channel speaker unless you are packing a good 400-500 watts into EACH speaker......just my 2 cents

**Tour2ma** · 09-09-2003 04:53 PM

Originally posted by phoneisbusy
So mixing amps is not advisable but mixing preamps and other
sources should not be a problem?
Interesting configuration for bi-amping. Would not have thought
of that setup!
I bought the amp from criverajr. I feel safer buying used gear from this forum for the time being.

One of the attractions of separates is the freedom to mix and match amps, pre's and tuners.

The bi-amping scheme just popped into my head. So much of the power requirement is in bass reproduction that equal power is not needed to both sets of drivers. The 40/100 split is a tad more than you might like, but with the 40 going to the tweets only, it's worth a shot.

It is nice to have this Forum to deal in...

Sid,
While the power you're promoting for the 12's is not out of line with what they could handle, it's hardly a minimum to get them rocking nicely. 40 wpc would be pretty anemic. Even a 40/40 bi-amp would be lacking, but 40/100 bi-amp (with probably 1/2 dB of headroom) should be adequate.

**TroyD** · 09-09-2003 05:25 PM

Agree with what Tour has said...good thinking.

Another avenue you COULD theoretically pursue, I would think is grab an older Pro Logic preamp (they can be found pretty reasonable) and use it with a DVD player with on onboard DD/DTS Decoder. Would that not be an option if you were looking to get your HT on? Of course that would pretty much limit you to 5.1 though.

Just a thought....

BDT

**phoneisbusy** · 09-09-2003 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
I WOULD NOT*********** recomend(sp) the RTi12 for a stand alone 2 channel speaker unless you are packing a good 400-500 watts into EACH speaker......just my 2 cents

Actually, I have RT12's. They're rated 20-200W or so.
The Celestion Mk5s will probably be the first test speakers
since they're in storage presently.

I read the review and feel pretty good about the purchase. He does digress a lot does he? :) He mentioned that he found the bass a bit lacking. If I were to include a power subwoofer, would that be considered outside of the definition of a 2 ch. rig?

I confess that the wattage issue confuses me at times. When people discuss tube amps, the wattages are no where near the numbers as a solid state amp. Can anyone clarify?

Thanks

Dave

Damn, Sid, it didn't take you long to get Russ's "meat" quotes online did it? :D

**Tour2ma** · 09-09-2003 07:33 PM

Among "purists" a sub would breach the 2 ch classification, but who cares. Adding a very good sub would not be a bad next step.

Amps are rated for continuous output and affordable tube designs can't crank out 100's of watts. But tube designs can store and deliver many many times their average current output for short periods of time. Thus there dynamic output is considerably higher than their seemingly small ratings.

"Sand" or SS amps by contrast can be afforadably designed to deliver hundreds of watts. Originally they did this continuously; whatever was not called for in a given moment musically was dispersed as heat. Later designs, beginning with Carver, used design where the power was not continuous, but only called upon as needed.

**VR3** · 09-09-2003 07:36 PM

RT*********I************12

A model to yet be released! So i expect a apology!

**Tour2ma** · 09-09-2003 08:23 PM

OK, Sid... pick one:

I'm sorry you misread what speakers pib has...

or alternatively

I'm sorry you threw a comment about the power requirements of the RTi12's in a thread that was not discusing them...

**VR3** · 09-09-2003 08:25 PM

Ok!

I chose both! lol! Hehehe, never meant to hijack a thread - i thought he meant the new models......

**phoneisbusy** · 09-10-2003 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Tour2ma
Among "purists" a sub would breach the 2 ch classification, but who cares. Adding a very good sub would not be a bad next step.

Amps are rated for continuous output and affordable tube designs can't crank out 100's of watts. But tube designs can store and deliver many many times their average current output for short periods of time. Thus there dynamic output is considerably higher than their seemingly small ratings.

"Sand" or SS amps by contrast can be afforadably designed to deliver hundreds of watts. Originally they did this continuously; whatever was not called for in a given moment musically was dispersed as heat. Later designs, beginning with Carver, used design where the power was not continuous, but only called upon as needed.

Ah... That clears a lot of things up.

Thanks!

Dave

Thread: First step to separates? What's next?

Thread Tools

First step to separates? What's next?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions