Is 3 CH with a HT pre/pro better than 2 Channel

Yyz:

I think your 3-channel idea will work fine, given the size of your room. You may miss some of the special effects surround stuff, but there are times I think that aspect of HT is quite over-rated.

The sole suggestion I can offer is to get a better pre-pro than the Outlaw, given the quality of the rest of your system. A home theater pre/pro that handles both music and voice accurately adds a lot of enjoyment to the overall experience, so I'd give some additional consideration to getting a pre/pro that is more commensurate with the rest of your system. There are a lot of threads in the A-gon archive about good pre/pros that are reasonably priced (particularly used, such as those made by Rotel, B&K, and Adcom. For a bit more money, you could also get a Bryston SP-1 (now superceded by the SP-1.7), which is an excellent unit that should be available for less than $2k.

Yyz:

I think your 3-channel idea will work fine, given the size of your room. You may miss some of the special effects surround stuff, but there are times I think that aspect of HT is quite over-rated.

The sole suggestion I can offer is to get a better pre-pro than the Outlaw, given the quality of the rest of your system. A home theater pre/pro that handles both music and voice accurately adds a lot of enjoyment to the overall experience, so I'd give some additional consideration to getting a pre/pro that is more commensurate with the rest of your system. There are a lot of threads in the A-gon archive about good pre/pros that are reasonably priced (particularly used), such as those made by Rotel, B&K, and Adcom. For a bit more money, you could get a Bryston SP-1 (now superceded by the SP-1.7), which is an excellent unit that should be available for less than $2k.

If you feel your room is big enough for Revel Salons,
I'm confused as to why you think it is too small for
a 5.1 system. Personally, I think your room is big
enough for a 5.1 system. All your speakers don't have
to be as big as your Salons. It's all a matter of taste,
but I think you might enjoy having a Center speaker to
locate the voices and link them to the actors on screen.
Adding a Sub-woofer is fun for movies and -- hell -- why
not add the rear surrounds? Add the three channel amp
and a surround pre-pro and do 5.1. Keep your two channel amp for the front L & R. Go crazy in that 14 X 16 room!

Yyz:

Quite frankly, put off buying any HT equipment until you move. In the interim, if your DVD player offers virtual 3D surround options (like my SONY 506) experiment with those settings for "center channel like" sound. I have a similar sized room (except for the height); have a 2 channel system, and in nearfield situations, the simulated effect really works out fine. In fact, I prefer it to when I was using a center channel speaker. Regards, Rich

The primary reason to use a center speaker is to keep the dialog centered on the screen for people that are sitting considerably off axis. If you only have a single sofa in front of your TV and you're sitting 10ft behind the plane of the speakers, the center channel really isn't going to add that much. In fact, it may even detract a bit since timbre matching between the Salons and Voice is not perfect (although it's one of the best available).

If you're sitting closer or have a wider seating arrangement, the center channel may be worth it.

I can see why you think your room may be too small for surrounds, particularly if you have your system set up along the long wall. If practical, you might consider moving the system to the short wall which may provide more room for the surrounds. The downside, of course, is that your main speakers will be closer to the sidewalls, and additional acoustic treatment may be required to reduce first-reflections from these walls. I'm with Sdcampbell in believing that surround effects are a bit over-rated. Still worth having if you've got the space and budget, but not as important as excellent front sound (which you've certainly got with the Salons).