Wondering which components

[krayz605]

Hi, 

So I am mostly into 2 channel listening, I have been listening to a set of KEF q1's (two way bookshelves) with a NAD cd player and the x-100 mini. I like the setup, but I bought the speakers from someone who had them set up for HT. So I have a set of q11's (floorstanding 4 way) and a center channel just sitting around.  

What I would like to do is run the 4 ways for two channel, but also for HT.

So my first thought was running the USP-1 to a pair of x-100's for the two channel. Not sure if it would work well, but I thought I could bi-amp the 4 way's using the full range and high pass. But that doesn't give me the 5.1.

Otherwise, if I run the UMC-200 with the UPA-500 I would have all of the channels covered, but I would have to buy a separate phono preamp and I am not sure the 2 channel quality would be the same.

I guess I am just not sure if there is a good compromise. 

Anyone have any experience with a similar setup?

Thanks,

Jason

[KeithL]

First off, the full-range and high-pass outputs on the USP-1 are NOT for bi-amping; they are for running mains and a sub (sometimes referred to as 2.1). To bi-amp the speakers passively, you would use two amplifier channels for each (but no crossover); to bi-amp them actively (which nobody does much any more), you would need a different range of frequencies entirely.

Your best bet, considering what you already have, and considering you want both two channel and surround, would be to get the UMC-200 (which you need in order to do surround), and then EITHER get a UPA-500 (and use the mini-x somewhere else) or get something like an XPA-3 (three channels) to use with the mini-x. For "real home theater", you would also probably want to eventually get a powered sub. (Most "music speakers" don't go low enough to do impressive effects, although you could add the sub later, or do without.) We're coming out with a separate phono preamp soon (the XPS-1), which will be really nice and not too pricey, and plenty of other people make them now.

Jul 1, 2013 8:48:56 GMT -5 krayz605 said:

Hi, 

So I am mostly into 2 channel listening, I have been listening to a set of KEF q1's (two way bookshelves) with a NAD cd player and the x-100 mini. I like the setup, but I bought the speakers from someone who had them set up for HT. So I have a set of q11's (floorstanding 4 way) and a center channel just sitting around.  

What I would like to do is run the 4 ways for two channel, but also for HT.

So my first thought was running the USP-1 to a pair of x-100's for the two channel. Not sure if it would work well, but I thought I could bi-amp the 4 way's using the full range and high pass. But that doesn't give me the 5.1.

Otherwise, if I run the UMC-200 with the UPA-500 I would have all of the channels covered, but I would have to buy a separate phono preamp and I am not sure the 2 channel quality would be the same.

I guess I am just not sure if there is a good compromise. 

Anyone have any experience with a similar setup?

Thanks,

Jason

[geebo]

Keith, I currently have an XPA-2 driving a pair of Emotiva 8.3s and an XPA-5 driving my center and surrounds. That leaves me two unused channels in the XPA-5. Would there be any benefit to passively bi-amp the 8.3s with the XPA-2 and the unused XPA-5 channels?

Jul 1, 2013 9:52:29 GMT -5 KeithL said:

First off, the full-range and high-pass outputs on the USP-1 are NOT for bi-amping; they are for running mains and a sub (sometimes referred to as 2.1). To bi-amp the speakers passively, you would use two amplifier channels for each (but no crossover); to bi-amp them actively (which nobody does much any more), you would need a different range of frequencies entirely.

Your best bet, considering what you already have, and considering you want both two channel and surround, would be to get the UMC-200 (which you need in order to do surround), and then EITHER get a UPA-500 (and use the mini-x somewhere else) or get something like an XPA-3 (three channels) to use with the mini-x. For "real home theater", you would also probably want to eventually get a powered sub. (Most "music speakers" don't go low enough to do impressive effects, although you could add the sub later, or do without.) We're coming out with a separate phono preamp soon (the XPS-1), which will be really nice and not too pricey, and plenty of other people make them now.

Jul 1, 2013 8:48:56 GMT -5 krayz605 said:

Hi, 

So I am mostly into 2 channel listening, I have been listening to a set of KEF q1's (two way bookshelves) with a NAD cd player and the x-100 mini. I like the setup, but I bought the speakers from someone who had them set up for HT. So I have a set of q11's (floorstanding 4 way) and a center channel just sitting around.  

What I would like to do is run the 4 ways for two channel, but also for HT.

So my first thought was running the USP-1 to a pair of x-100's for the two channel. Not sure if it would work well, but I thought I could bi-amp the 4 way's using the full range and high pass. But that doesn't give me the 5.1.

Otherwise, if I run the UMC-200 with the UPA-500 I would have all of the channels covered, but I would have to buy a separate phono preamp and I am not sure the 2 channel quality would be the same.

I guess I am just not sure if there is a good compromise. 

Anyone have any experience with a similar setup?

Thanks,

Jason

[KeithL]

Actually, it's normally a good idea to use the same amplifier for both halves when bi-amping (although it wouldn't make much difference in your case since the amps are quite similar), so it would be better to use two channels of the XPA-5 for each front, the last channel for the center, and then the XPA-2 for the rears. The short answer is that it would make quite a bit of difference if you tend to play things loud, and would probably make at least some difference even if you don't. (The difference will be a slight improvement in midrange clarity, and the midrange clarity remaining better even when loud bass is playing - bi-amping keeps the bass from interfering with the midrange.)

Jul 1, 2013 10:02:34 GMT -5 geebo said:

Keith, I currently have an XPA-2 driving a pair of Emotiva 8.3s and an XPA-5 driving my center and surrounds. That leaves me two unused channels in the XPA-5. Would there be any benefit to passively bi-amp the 8.3s with the XPA-2 and the unused XPA-5 channels?

Jul 1, 2013 9:52:29 GMT -5 KeithL said:

First off, the full-range and high-pass outputs on the USP-1 are NOT for bi-amping; they are for running mains and a sub (sometimes referred to as 2.1). To bi-amp the speakers passively, you would use two amplifier channels for each (but no crossover); to bi-amp them actively (which nobody does much any more), you would need a different range of frequencies entirely.

Your best bet, considering what you already have, and considering you want both two channel and surround, would be to get the UMC-200 (which you need in order to do surround), and then EITHER get a UPA-500 (and use the mini-x somewhere else) or get something like an XPA-3 (three channels) to use with the mini-x. For "real home theater", you would also probably want to eventually get a powered sub. (Most "music speakers" don't go low enough to do impressive effects, although you could add the sub later, or do without.) We're coming out with a separate phono preamp soon (the XPS-1), which will be really nice and not too pricey, and plenty of other people make them now.

[geebo]

Jul 1, 2013 11:07:34 GMT -5 KeithL said:

Actually, it's normally a good idea to use the same amplifier for both halves when bi-amping (although it wouldn't make much difference in your case since the amps are quite similar), so it would be better to use two channels of the XPA-5 for each front, the last channel for the center, and then the XPA-2 for the rears. The short answer is that it would make quite a bit of difference if you tend to play things loud, and would probably make at least some difference even if you don't. (The difference will be a slight improvement in midrange clarity, and the midrange clarity remaining better even when loud bass is playing - bi-amping keeps the bass from interfering with the midrange.)

Jul 1, 2013 10:02:34 GMT -5 geebo said:

Keith, I currently have an XPA-2 driving a pair of Emotiva 8.3s and an XPA-5 driving my center and surrounds. That leaves me two unused channels in the XPA-5. Would there be any benefit to passively bi-amp the 8.3s with the XPA-2 and the unused XPA-5 channels?

Thanks, I may give it a try. The cost would be minimal. But I really like the bottom end performance of the XPA-2 over the XPA-5 so do you think it would be okay to feed the bottom end with the 2 and the XPA-5 for the upper end?
I guess some balanced splitters would be all I would need other than some ICs and speaker wire.

[Dark Ranger]

Jul 1, 2013 11:19:43 GMT -5 geebo said:

But I really like the bottom end performance of the XPA-2 over the XPA-5 so do you think it would be okay to feed the bottom end with the 2 and the XPA-5 for the upper end?
I guess some balanced splitters would be all I would need other than some ICs and speaker wire.

I agree with Keith that "best practice" would entail using the same type of amplifier for both halves. However, if I were in your shoes with the XPA-2 & XPA-5, I'd do it just like you're considering, geebo. I'd use the XPA-2 for the woofers and the XPA-5 for the mids/highs. It's a waste (IMO) to use the XPA-2 for the rears.

[geebo]

Jul 1, 2013 11:47:02 GMT -5 Dark Ranger said:

Jul 1, 2013 11:19:43 GMT -5 geebo said:

But I really like the bottom end performance of the XPA-2 over the XPA-5 so do you think it would be okay to feed the bottom end with the 2 and the XPA-5 for the upper end?
I guess some balanced splitters would be all I would need other than some ICs and speaker wire.

I agree with Keith that "best practice" would entail using the same type of amplifier for both halves. However, if I were in your shoes with the XPA-2 & XPA-5, I'd do it just like you're considering, geebo. I'd use the XPA-2 for the woofers and the XPA-5 for the mids/highs. It's a waste (IMO) to use the XPA-2 for the rears.

Exactly my thoughts, too.

[roadrunner]

I agree with you and Dark Ranger in bi-wiring the ERT-8.3 speakers. I would be driving the dual 8" woofers with the XPA-2 and the mid-range/tweeter with the XPA-5. Your XPA-2 driving your rears would be a terrible waste. I could see using a UPA-2 for your rear speakers, if you had an UPA-2, but never the XPA-2. That would be like putting a 427 cubic inch Police Interceptor engine into a Ford Pinto for driving back and forth to work.

[Gary Cook]

Personally I'd use the UPA-500 for the 5 channels and the Mini X for Zone 2 (from the UMC-200). I currently have a USP-1, UMC-200 and XPA-5 combo and I'm looking at a pair of XPA-1L's. Then the spare 2 channels of the XPA-5 will replace an AVR that I currently use as Zone 2 amplification. No way I'd swap out the USP-1, it flat out sounds too good.

Cheers
Gary

[geebo]

Jul 2, 2013 22:41:40 GMT -5 roadrunner said:

I agree with you and Dark Ranger in bi-wiring the ERT-8.3 speakers. I would be driving the dual 8" woofers with the XPA-2 and the mid-range/tweeter with the XPA-5. Your XPA-2 driving your rears would be a terrible waste. I could see using a UPA-2 for your rear speakers, if you had an UPA-2, but never the XPA-2. That would be like putting a 427 cubic inch Police Interceptor engine into a Ford Pinto for driving back and forth to work.

That's my plan. I can try it for price of a couple XLR Y-adapters which are on the way. I already have the necessary speaker wire so all it'll take is a little bit of time. Besides, it'll be fun, too.