Two or Three?

Posted by: Llamas

Two or Three? - 02/17/03 11:17 AM

I am currently running a 5.1 setup, using a Parasound HCA-855A (85Wx5) with Diva (4.1/C3/2.1) speakers and an SVS PC+ 16-46 sub. I am thinking of adding rear surrounds, requiring at least two more channels of amplification.

So, here's the question. If I reassign two of the 85W channels to the rears, will buying two more channels for the mains (I'm thinking 200W), or should I match amp output for all three front speakers, requiring a third channel?

The M200 looks pretty good for either of these applications, though I am considering other options in the 2 and 3 channel world.

Thanks,

--Mike
Posted by: soundhound

Re: Two or Three? - 02/17/03 11:40 AM

I think that I'd probably go with three matched amps for the front if your budget will allow it. However, if you aren't clipping your current 85watt amp currently, there's not a compelling reason to replace it for the center channel. How's that for a vague answer? It really depends on your budget: three matched amps for the front would be an ideal situation, but if you aren't clipping your center now, you could get away with keeping your current amp and possibly upgrading the center at a later date.

------------------
The Soundhound Theater
Posted by: morphsci

Re: Two or Three? - 02/17/03 12:48 PM

I am using two M200's for my front channels and Marantz MA500's for center and surround. I am much more critical of the audio for music listening compared to HT. I plan on eventually adding a third M200 for center duty. However, I will be doing that at a very leisurely pace. YMMV.
Posted by: charlie

Re: Two or Three? - 02/17/03 01:03 PM

How do you like the Divas?