Good used surround processors??

BTW, since posting as a guest under my bismarck email address, my registration has been activated, hence the user name Kitchener rather than bismarck1@home.com.

Bismarch1:

I don't know right off of the top of my head the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS. Both decoding methods use the 5.1 recording system. Dolby Digital is what you should be concerned about. It seems as though manufacturers also add DTS as an afterthought. DTS is a format that had some promise when it was launched about three or four years ago, but for some reason or another, it never caught on, and therefore, it was hardly mentioned. I hope I am right about this. But then again, you never know, because some of my DVDs at home can be decoded by either format, Dolby Digital and DTS. That may sound like a good subject for another thread altogether.

Now as for your Sony DVD Player, more than likely, it will have a digital output (in the form of both, a coaxial and a fiber optic toslink). Most DVD Players will have both of these jacks. My Pioneer Elite DV-37 certainly has them. The only ones that I have seen to have omit one form of the digital outputs so far seem to be the entry-level Toshibas (a friend of mine has an SD-1600..... he was someone who wanted a decent DVD Player that has a great picture, but doesn't cost a lot of money, so I told him about the Toshiba SD-1600/SD-1700), so you can add a DAC later on if you like.

And yes, in Dolby Digital, equal power goes to ALL channels (front, center, rear, and sides (if you have any), leaving only the subwoofer to fend for itself, hence the name, 5.1 channel sound. However, the surround sound processor should blend the subwoofer with the rest of the channels of your home theater system).

--Charles--

Kitchener - you can definitely utilize amps that you already have. As the dealer told you, the pre/pro will allow you to calibrate the sound level by channel (you'll need an SPL meter), so power differences can be compensated for.

Dolby Digital and DTS are both multi-channel digital encoding techniques. DD is encapsulated in AC-3, which allows for many different encoding techniques. The two are used interchangably which, for most conversations, doesn't matter much, but isn't technically accurate. DTS is an alternative encoding which, therefore, requires a different decoder. It's higher-bandwidth and, therefore, assumed to be superior and may well be. There is no doubt that DD is universally accepted by DVD manufacturers. DTS soundtracks are often included now, but not on every DVD by a long shot. Most pre/pros include DTS decoding now, though it used to be a premium feature and if you buy a used one you may not get it. The most straight-forward approach would be just to be sure that the pre/pro you buy does DD 5.1 (again, there are new versions of DD that you can pursue, but at some expense), that the DVD player you get outputs a digital signal (so that the pre/pro is the box doing the decoding), and get a 5.1 channel setup going and sit back and enjoy. A few years from now, you may want to pursue one of the myriad of new multi-channel HT encoding schemes, but after some of the dust has settled. -Kirk

If you thnk the debates get heated around here, visit a few HT discussion boards and look for the DD vs DTS threads. With that much "passion" on both sides, there's probably very little inherent differences and they pale in comparison to the engineering of the soundtrack.

Kitchener, I have to disagree with Charles. You will balance the soundpressure level form each of the 5 speakers at the listening position. You do not need equal power to all channels to do this.

What you *do* want to match is the front soundstage speakers. It is best to have these closely matched, if not identical, to maintain consistent timbre and tonal qualities as sounds pan across the stage. It is best if the rears are also closely matched, but not nearly as critical. To this end you might consider getting a pair of VT-2's for your mains. You can probably find a used pair for less than $1200. The B&K's might be a touch on the warm side of neutral and should be a good match with these.

Finally, you ask about the video connections. Virtually everyone sees a very discernable difference moving from composite to S-video. Most see a discernable but less striking difference moving from S-video to component. You will need component video and digital-ready TV to take advantage of progressive scan DVD, which is also a very noticeable improvement over interlaced.

DD vs DTS. It's funny--I built my system over a period of a year or two five years ago (which is what I'm breaking up into two separate systems now), and after I was done, I pretty much stopped haunting the audio sites, primarily the USENET newsgroups. Coming back now to research rebuilding my HT system, it's like I never left with regards to the sniping, LOL. I posted a similar question on rec.audio.opinion, and they're so caught up in the same crap (who's a fraud, do cables matter, etc., etc.--the flames haven't changed in five years) that I never did hear back.

In any case, I knew I'd have to have some sort of complementing L/C/R speaker system, figuring I might keep the Energys, or I might keep the NHT center, but not both.

You mentioned the VT-2. I've been assuming NHT hasn't been the same company since Ken Kantor left, thinking I might be better off working with my Energy speakers (assuming they measure up when I get them hooked up). I could bore you all to tears with how great my NHT 3.3s are (which are going to my dedicated 2-channel music system), or how many speakers I auditioned before I settled on the 3.3s. What is the word on current generation NHT speakers (and the VT-2s) these days?

I must say I've been hoping to wall mount my left and right speakers--the wall behind the HT system has the basement on the other side, lending itself very well (read easy) to running wires behind the wall and back out again at the wall-mounted speakers. Obviously with the NHT line, the VT-2s aren't wall-mountable! With a quality sub I'm not worried, of course, about the bass aspects. With a growing baby, I like the idea of less stuff for him to draw with crayons!

On the other hand, I'm cognitive of the ambient aspects of having speakers out in the rooms a bit more, though bookshelf-size speakers on stands seem pretty untenable (and unsafe) with the baby. One of the best HT systems I ever heard (in a store) was using Magnapan speakers, but I don't have the room or the space for that.

I'm just going to have to break down and hook up the amps and speakers to see what I have in those Energy 22.1s. I've been holding off because I need a bridge from Salamander for my TV (the Salamander Synergy cabinet it used to sit on is in the living room now so I can lock my vacumn tube monoblocks in it--that's a whole other research thread I'm pursuing trying to determine how I'm going to keep them cool and how long I can get away with for interconnects.) In any case, the result of that research will determine what I get from Salamander, an extension for my Twin 20 cabinets or a new rack altogether, and at that time I was planning to buy the bridge for my Salamander Archetype racks I'm now using with the HT system--then taking on the task of putting everything back together.

Anyone want to chime in with their thoughts on the max length one would want to go with interconnects? With my high-end 2-channel living room set-up, I can either build up the Salamander Synergy cabinet from its roughly 20" height to something higher to accomodate the rest of my components (cd, dac, pre-amp, crossover because I'm bi-amping), or I could buy a new rack to be placed to the right of my listening position (the cabinets with the amps are between the speakers, of course), but this would require 25' to 30' interconnects from the preamp to the amps (which because the living room is above the basement I could easily run under the floor and back up again at the amps...) The latter is my preference as it seems the more elegant solution, not the least of which because I won't be left with something that would look like an entertainment center in my music-only living room, as well as having something large in the sound field between my speakers. Ah, me. Sorry for the side tangent--it's so easy to over-load the synapses when it comes to audio, no?