What amp would sound better with the LSi speakers.

dkg999 · June 2008

B&K Reference 200.7. Have some hankies ready, it will make all the lessor amps mentioned cry like little babies looking for their mommy :eek:

zx_toth · June 2008

skykeys: Sorry for my wording, making it sound 'official' or 'professional'. That is not the case, Im just someone fairly new to the hobby and will give my 'unprofessional' opinion on how I think the upgrade to a Rotel 1085 has effected my HT experience. Nothing more, nothing less. I am a health professional by profession not audio/ video reviewer :-)

A few things I wanted to do ...

- compare the sound from my LSi 25s when run by the RMB -1080 and the digital RMB -1085.
- compare the sound from my new LSi C powered by the 1085 and/or the 1080 and to my old RM 7300.
- see if I can biamp the LSi25s and see if I can discern a difference.

You may be able to find some professional reviews online or more detailed reviews of the piece in question from some more seasoned members on this forum but I am not one of those folks. Despite this though I still wanted to share my experience with the forum members once I got a chance to sit down and really listen to my equipment this weekend.

Hope that clarifies and hope that my opinions will still be useful to you.

Best regards,

Zsolt

martynda · June 2008

I just wanted to throw in Emotiva XPA-5 into the mix. I have it driving LSi 15s, hard to go wrong with 350wpc@4ohms at $800.

BLACKHAMMERJAMM · June 2008

Well, Ive tested my set up with 15's all around and 9's in the back, and there is no doubt that 15' font and back is the only way to go. My system is starting to ROCK. Thanks for all the help.

Fatwalnut · June 2008

I'm using a Rotel RMB-1075 with LSi25s, LSiC, and LSiFX's. I originally had them hooked up to a Yamaha RX-V2500, but found out that this receiver wasn't designed to handle a 4ohm load for the center and surrounds. I did not have a large budget to go amp hunting since I just got the LSi's, and the wife was not happy about me spending more money. After some research on the internet, I found that for the money the RMB-1075 was a great value. I went and got one, brought it home, and hooked it up. My first impression was yuck! Very very flat response and just didn't sound good at all. After some initial $%^ching, I turned up the treble and the bass and just made do. Then I notice after some time that the treble seemed alittle to much so I turned it down some. Then it seemed like the soundstage started to improve alittle. My speakers started to sound fuller. You see where i am going with this? It took about 2 months for the amp to really open up with my LSi's. Now I get the wow factor with concert dvds, movies, music, ect. I am very happy with this combo. The Yamaha was the same way when I first got it, but had no ooomph. The 1075 pre'd by any descent receiver will make for a good upgrade, but give the amp time to get its feet wet.

BLACKHAMMERJAMM · June 2008

fatwalnut...

I have my Rotels on order (RB-1080 and RMB-1075 with a ONKYO pro PR-SC855P), but my friend just got his in and noticed the same thing. Do you know how much time the break in took in hours. I can leave my system turned on all day and night to speed the process along. Thanks

orgthtogod · June 2008

Fatwalnut wrote: »

I'm using a Rotel RMB-1075 with LSi25s, LSiC, and LSiFX's. I originally had them hooked up to a Yamaha RX-V2500, but found out that this receiver wasn't designed to handle a 4ohm load for the center and surrounds. I did not have a large budget to go amp hunting since I just got the LSi's, and the wife was not happy about me spending more money. After some research on the internet, I found that for the money the RMB-1075 was a great value. I went and got one, brought it home, and hooked it up. My first impression was yuck! Very very flat response and just didn't sound good at all. After some initial $%^ching, I turned up the treble and the bass and just made do. Then I notice after some time that the treble seemed alittle to much so I turned it down some. Then it seemed like the soundstage started to improve alittle. My speakers started to sound fuller. You see where i am going with this? It took about 2 months for the amp to really open up with my LSi's. Now I get the wow factor with concert dvds, movies, music, ect. I am very happy with this combo. The Yamaha was the same way when I first got it, but had no ooomph. The 1075 pre'd by any descent receiver will make for a good upgrade, but give the amp time to get its feet wet.

I was a little disappointed initially but I am now a VERY happy camper!

The RMB-1075 was a great investment in SQ for me and I have no regrets... Now, I just need to recoup my $$$ spent on sound goodies and save up for a new SonyKDL40V4150 and a Blu-Ray player!

Frank840 · June 2008

between those 2 i would get the Rotel. but i have no experience in amp's. my first amp will be a rotel 1075. and its pretty :rolleyes:

Fatwalnut · June 2008

I'd say give the amp at least 200 hours to break in. That might seem alittle excessive to some, but thats about how much I ran it during those 2 months.

Frank840 · June 2008

200 hours isnt that bad. i cant wait to get mine.

Fatwalnut · June 2008

I've had the amp for about eight months now and never had any problems with it. Hope you enjoy !!

orgthtogod · June 2008

BLACKHAMMERJAMM wrote: »

fatwalnut...

I have my Rotels on order (RB-1080 and RMB-1075 with a ONKYO pro PR-SC855P), but my friend just got his in and noticed the same thing. Do you know how much time the break in took in hours. I can leave my system turned on all day and night to speed the process along. Thanks

Hey Blackhammerjamm,

I'm curious, are you gonna be running a 7.2 configuration then? Or are you doing a 5.2 and bi-amping somewhere? Just curious?

If a 7.2 configuration, then how big is your room? I've got a large size room I'm doing 5.2 with a Yamaha RX-V663 pre-outed to a RMB-1075 running LSI 15's up front as L&R, LSI-FX's surrounds and an LSI-C as my center. Definitive Technology Supercube 1 and a JBL PB10 as my two subs.

So far, this system is just ROCKIN!!! But, I've been toying with the idea of going 7.2. Can you let me know what your doing and how you're liking it?

Thanks

BLACKHAMMERJAMM · June 2008

orgthtogod,

I'm running a 7.2 - LSi15's front LSiC, LSiFX's surround, LSi15's back with PSW1000 front and back. My room is about 36'x30' with 14' ceiling. When I get my Rotel's I will let you know, but so far I'm loving it.

del44 · June 2008

Wow, that's one big **** room. It could double as a basketball court.:p If my room was much smaller than it's 14.5X19.5 size, I probably woulldn't have went with a 7.3 configuration. But I do like the seemless sound.

skykeys · July 2008

F1nut wrote: »

Why? All the sound came from in front just like from the musicians playing on the stage, in front of you.

Well, it's difficult (for me at least) to describe in words, but I'll take a shot at it.

First off, there is no comparison between live music and playing back recorded music. Live music is so much more dynamic. The venues for the typical live concert (excluding stadiums and arenas) are designed to enhance the sound through the acoustics. The sound reverberates to the extent that it comes at your from all directions. The mathematical algorithms used in digital reverb and effects units that simulate live venues are very complex. Most stereos are not in rooms designed for good acoustics. (with the exception of some home theaters if they are done properly), and that's why many A/V units now employ digital effects.

Playing recorded music back via a surround format is its own unique medium. It could perhaps be compared to sitting in the middle of a stage with the musicians facing you, though again with no where near the same level of dynamics and presence.

But having the music surround you, in some respects makes up for, indirectly, the lack of dynamic presence. It's very fat. Your ears detect the sounds from different directions and the instruments/vocals take on an individual meaning; they stand out more. Surround formats like SACD and DVD-A (if done well), have superior recording characteristics compared to basic stereo, like dynamics and higher frequencies. It's probably the same comparison watching a movie in stereo versus surround.

All I know for sure is, I like it, and everyone I know who has a surround system feels the same way. There are some people no doubt who can not tell the difference. I can. I'm also a musician, so having a quality playback system has always been important to me.

Hope that helps.

dcmeigs · July 2008

OK, I just have to put my two cents in here, and I apologize in advance for the threadjack nature of the side-topic.

I'm a 2ch guy but I've been trying to get into HT without much success. I listened to the otherwise quite excellent Crossroads Guitar Festival DVD the other day, and in 5.1 it was so badly engineered as to be laughable, and I find this example to be quite typical. On one of the cuts, you have four guys on stage playing guitar in a straight line, side-by-side, trading licks, one at a time. What do the recording engineers do with this? They put one guitar on each of the 4 channels. The guitar licks circle you, clockwise I think. Maybe they have a counterclockwise mix for Austral listeners, I don't know.

So how do you reconcile this silly soundstage? Am I standing in the middle of a circle surrounded by four guitar slingers? No that can't be it, I can see they are standing in a line. Am I in the audience? No, can't be that. Am I in my living room chair fumbling for the remote to switch off the lunacy? Yup.

But think about it. These guys aren't bozos, there pros at the top of their game. They did the only thing they could to with a silly assignment. They went for the "wow dude, that's really cool" effect.

We, as members of the audience are accustomed to hearing music from a stage, hence the term "sound stage". Unless I'm going for the exit, that stage is in front of me. Front left and front right. 2 channel does that best for me, Ludite that I am.

skykeys · July 2008

Dcmeigs, Ludite you are.

Just kidding. I am not in any way going to suggest that you're wrong. You prefer 2 ch, then so be it. Enjoy. That's fine. This is not a religious argument.

I do want to comment specifically about your Crossroads example. Let me just very respectfully suggest that you are allowing your eyes to box in your ears. First off, if you were really at the concert, and you listened very carefully, you would notice that the sound was not just coming at you from the front. It's multi-directional, and that's the nature of indoor acoustics. Sound reflects off of surfaces, and different harmonics come at you in different directions at different times. The only situation where you'll hear sound only coming from a stage is if you're at an outdoor concert where there are absolutely no reflecting surfaces within miles of the stage.

So really being there has nothing to do with watching the concert on DVD. The best example I can think of is the difference between actually being at the Grand Canyon versus looking at a photo of it, even a really good photo. The photo just does not capture the essence of being there. In the case of the DVD of the concert, the engineers can't possibly duplicate the true essence of the sound stage, so they compensated by taking advantage of the available tools: the surround sound mix. They decided to create a surround sound mix of the guitars to get a nice effect, and apparently I think you're saying that it does not match the 2-D image on the screen. It's up to you to either take it for what it is and enjoy it, or reject it because it doesn't match what you're seeing. That's a subjective call and there is no right or wrong answer. Since I have not seen that DVD, I can't comment. It could also be that they just didn't do a good job with the mix; it happens. Or it could be that your can't get past your eyes. I suggest closing your eyes and letting your ears take over.

If you have the ability to play SACD or DVD-A discs, give one a shot. Go for a band or genre that you really enjoy, find the 'sweet spot' to sit, and just listen. If you don't think it's better or even as good as 2 channels, then so be it. It's okay.

Regards.

zx_toth · July 2008

Interesting discussion ... Im glad you guys are respectfully discussing rather than at each other's throats over differences in opinion :-)

I imagine multichannel music is limited by ones setup quite a bit. Imagine the four guitarists relegated to four seperate speakers, the two guitarists who are being sent to a weak surround speaker would not sound nearly as well as those going to the front speakers which are usually the best speakers in the setup. Despite my decent front speakers my surrounds are too tiny to faithfully reproduce high quality sound. Would be nice to have towers all around for people really into multichannel music.

Zsolt

dcmeigs · July 2008

skykeys wrote: »

This is not a religious argument.

I don't really consider it an argument. I suspect my wife would tell you that music is my religion though. :eek:

I do want to comment specifically about your Crossroads example. Since I have not seen that DVD, I can't comment.

You should give it a listen. In both SS and 2ch.

that's the nature of indoor acoustics.

The only situation where you'll hear sound only coming from a stage is if you're at an outdoor concert where there are absolutely no reflecting surfaces within miles of the stage.

It's an outdoor show.

the engineers can't possibly duplicate the true essence of the sound stage, so they compensated by taking advantage of the available tools: the surround sound mix.

Here is the meat of the deal. Listen to a good recording in 2ch in front of a properly set-up and amped pair of SDAs and you will never make a statement like that again. The sound stage can be absolutely astonishing.

They decided to create a surround sound mix of the guitars to get a nice effect, and apparently I think you're saying that it does not match the 2-D image on the screen. It's up to you to either take it for what it is and enjoy it, or reject it because it doesn't match what you're seeing. That's a subjective call and there is no right or wrong answer. Since I have not seen that DVD, I can't comment. It could also be that they just didn't do a good job with the mix; it happens. Or it could be that your can't get past your eyes. I suggest closing your eyes and letting your ears take over.

I had a flight instructor who told me that if the engine quit at night, forcing an off airport landing, I should turn on the landing lights. If I didn't like what I saw, then I should turn the lights off.

It's a DVD for gods sake. That's like saying it's OK for the audio not to sinc with the video on an old movie. I'd rather hit the "effect off" button.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective. I'm sure that some content is better than others for SS.

skykeys · July 2008

Hey Dcmeigs, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your perspective as well. I know that a high end 2 ch. system can sound great. But I have never heard a stereo system of any kind that can duplicate the sound stage of an actual live concert, nor do I believe one ever can, even a great surround system. Live bands just have too much dynamic force that can not be captured in a stereo. Now, that being said, I certainly have to admit that there are many high-end stereo systems that I have never heard, so it is a bias on my part. But I base my bias on my understanding of the laws of physics, as well as having played on stage with many bands in live situations.

ZZ-toth's statement about rear speakers is also valid. The typical 5.1 bundled component system that is meant for watching movies isn't necessarily a good delivery system for high quality surround sound music.

I love Eric Clapton and I will seek out the Crossworlds DVD. Have you ever seen the "Concert for George" DVD? I love that one.

Warm regards.

F1nut · July 2008

skykeys wrote: »

Well, it's difficult (for me at least) to describe in words, but I'll take a shot at it.

First off, there is no comparison between live music and playing back recorded music. Live music is so much more dynamic. The venues for the typical live concert (excluding stadiums and arenas) are designed to enhance the sound through the acoustics. The sound reverberates to the extent that it comes at your from all directions. The mathematical algorithms used in digital reverb and effects units that simulate live venues are very complex. Most stereos are not in rooms designed for good acoustics. (with the exception of some home theaters if they are done properly), and that's why many A/V units now employ digital effects.

Playing recorded music back via a surround format is its own unique medium. It could perhaps be compared to sitting in the middle of a stage with the musicians facing you, though again with no where near the same level of dynamics and presence.

But having the music surround you, in some respects makes up for, indirectly, the lack of dynamic presence. It's very fat. Your ears detect the sounds from different directions and the instruments/vocals take on an individual meaning; they stand out more. Surround formats like SACD and DVD-A (if done well), have superior recording characteristics compared to basic stereo, like dynamics and higher frequencies. It's probably the same comparison watching a movie in stereo versus surround.

All I know for sure is, I like it, and everyone I know who has a surround system feels the same way. There are some people no doubt who can not tell the difference. I can. I'm also a musician, so having a quality playback system has always been important to me.

Hope that helps.

First off, my comment wasn't directed at you. That said, I'd venture to say that 98+% of recorded music is not from a concert venue, but rather from the recording studio where they really try to keep any reverberations to a bare minimum. Aside from that little ditty, a top notch stereo playing in a typical room will have the sound reverberating off the wall/ceiling/floor surfaces, so you have that anyway.

Talking about live concert recordings, have you ever heard The Who - Live At Leeds (the best live recording ever) on a true high end 2 channel rig? If so, you'd know that there's absolutely no need or desire for surround sound.

It's very fat. Your ears detect the sounds from different directions and the instruments/vocals take on an individual meaning; they stand out more.

Yep, exactly what I hear from my 2 channel set up.

so having a quality playback system has always been important to me.

A Yammie AVR??? I can understand why you think you need surround sound.

janmike · July 2008

Very true Jesse. How many people have I had over start looking for the other speakers. Until you have heard it, well....

Jesse, does that Live at Leeds come in SACD? Could not find it.

F1nut · July 2008

No SACD for that one, but the long out of print Mofi issue is stellar.

skykeys · July 2008

F1nut wrote: »

. . . I'd venture to say that 98+% of recorded music is not from a concert venue, but rather from the recording studio where they really try to keep any reverberations to a bare minimum. Aside from that little ditty, a top notch stereo playing in a typical room will have the sound reverberating off the wall/ceiling/floor surfaces, so you have that anyway. . . . . .
A Yammie AVR??? I can understand why you think you need surround sound.

F1nut, I have to say that I know for a fact that reverberation / digital effects in studio recordings play a big role in the recording process, as well as in live concert PA systems. I have been in the studio, I have played live, and two different members of my old band went on to work at top professional sound companies. Digital effects are very much used. They are used judiciously - they don't overpower the music, but they are used pervasively.

In terms of the reverb in your home, on average, the home acoustic environment is no where near the same as concert hall settings. Your home does have acoustic characteristics of course, but generally speaking, they are far from ideal. Most good concert halls have natural reverberation designed into the architecture; not too dry, and not too wet - as they say. Most people like to sing in the shower because of the natural reverb - it makes your voice sound better.

But if you put a whole band in your shower, it would sound atrocious. So it all depends on the application. You may want to read up on how Les Paul developed the idea of reverb. His idea and subsequent invention revolutionized the music industry. You may find this short article regarding reverb and architecture interesting: http://peterwittenberg.blogspot.com/2007/03/thoughts-after-les-paul-and-quest-for.html

In terms of 2 ch. versus surround, it's not a major issue. I prefer surround, but I'm not dissing 2 ch. listening at all. It's just that, surround to me is like my whole body is inside of a great pair of headphones. Surround does have a logical application in movies, where directional and ancillary sounds that follow the visual action enhance the viewing and listening experience. But for me, it does the same thing just for the listening experience.

Why are two speakers better than (or no different from) three or four or five or seven or 11? Have you ever gone to an iMAX theater? They have speakers located all over the ceiling pointing at the audience. The reason why two speaker setups are so common is because - for a traditional stage, it is logical to have them on either side of the stage facing the audience. Most venues now have speakers across the top of the stage and located throughout the auditorium. I saw "We Will Rock You" in Toronto in the spring. It's a theatrical production based on the music of Queen. They had speakers all over the place. (Great show by the way). I saw Emerson, Lake & Palmer many years ago at the Spectrum in Philadelphia. They had a quad speaker arrangement setup. Why? For one thing, because they could direct the sound and have the effect that the sound was going around in circles - which was well received by the audience. Much more difficult to do with a traditional two tower setup.

So, why not have that same effect at home? Or, why not hear the acoustic guitar primarily in the back right speaker, the background strings primarily in the left rear, Elton John's voice in the center, electric guitar on the right front and and background vocals across L & R ? (Tumbleweed Connection SACD). In most any recording, a given instrument is rarely restricted to one speaker anyway because often, reverb effects are directed to the other speaker. In traditional 2 ch. stereo, that's how you get the sound stage effect. If you listen to some of the original Beatles recordings when they first started messing with stereo, they directed instruments and vocals only to one speaker or the other. It is difficult to listen to - particularly in headphones.

So now, the effects can be directed to more than one speaker (front and back)- which can create a more realistic and interesting auditorium feel. Remember, in a true concert hall, the reverberations come at you from many different directions and times.

One thing I have to take umbrage with you is the Yammie comment.

If you were familiar with pro sound equipment, you'd know that Yamaha makes very well respected amplifiers and digital effects processors. I've used them in bands. You'll find them in many bands today. Yamaha leverages that technology in their home units. I believe (based on my experience) that the differences in amplifiers are overblown. Yes, there may be some, but it's more likely that the sound is being shaped by the preamp processors. But by far, the biggest determining factor of the sound is the speaker.

I have heard The Who's Live at Leeds album on a good stereo, although the last time was about three decades ago unfortunately. It's a fine album.

Pleasant regards.

dcmeigs · July 2008

skykeys wrote: »

Surround does have a logical application in movies, where directional and ancillary sounds that follow the visual action enhance the viewing and listening experience.

I agree with you here. If our hero is about to be run down by the bus, we should hear the bus comming at us in the rear channels.

I believe (based on my experience) that the differences in amplifiers are overblown. Yes, there may be some, but it's more likely that the sound is being shaped by the preamp processors. But by far, the biggest determining factor of the sound is the speaker.

I would like to disabuse you of this notion. I would do this by playing a familiar recording through your receivers preouts into my Rotel or Adcom power amps. Next we would reconnect your speakers to the outputs of your Yammie. You would be amazed at the loss of sound stage, imaging, detail and bass quickness, without the auxillary amplification. Next we would go to back to the Rotel and hookup the tube preamp in place of the Yammie and take it to the next level.

You should take time to go to a good audio shop with your familiar recordings in hand and ask for such a demonstration. It will change the way you think about music reproduction.

Are speakers important? Sure they are. They are the interface between the source and it's associated amplification and your brain. Good ones allow you to clearly interpret the product of your source and amplification.

F1nut · July 2008

Skykeys,

I have no doubt that digital effects are used in the recording process. My point was that the actual areas used by musicans in a recording studio are relatively free from reverberation unlike a live concert venue.

In terms of the reverb in your home, on average, the home acoustic environment is no where near the same as concert hall settings. Your home does have acoustic characteristics of course, but generally speaking, they are far from ideal.

So, following that theory surround sound would suffer more handicaps than 2 channel due to the added reflections, time delays and cancellation issues. Of course, some of that is addressed with DSP, but does it offer a more realistic representation? I think not.

why not hear the acoustic guitar primarily in the back right speaker, the background strings primarily in the left rear, Elton John's voice in the center, electric guitar on the right front and and background vocals across L & R ?

Because that is not how a person in an audience would hear it. It might be how one would hear it if one were on the stage, which seems to be where your perspective as a musician lays.

One thing I have to take umbrage with you is the Yammie comment. If you were familiar with pro sound equipment, you'd know that Yamaha makes very well respected amplifiers and digital effects processors. I've used them in bands. You'll find them in many bands today. Yamaha leverages that technology in their home units. I believe (based on my experience) that the differences in amplifiers are overblown. Yes, there may be some, but it's more likely that the sound is being shaped by the preamp processors. But by far, the biggest determining factor of the sound is the speaker.

I will echo dcmeigs comment, "You should take time to go to a good audio shop with your familiar recordings in hand and ask for such a demonstration. It will change the way you think about music reproduction." I'll add that the source is the most important determining factor as that's where it all starts. Garbage in, garbage out.

skykeys · July 2008

To both F1nut and Dcmeigs, thank you much for your input and this conversation. I do not dispute that high quality amps and components all around make a difference. This may surprise you, but despite what I've said about Yamaha, I am in fact looking into going with separates. I am hoping that a higher quality amp will have the big impact you guys say it will. I have thought about doing this ever since I got my new Polk in-wall speakers as part of my family room remodeling project that was finished this past spring.

The issue for me is, what components will fit into my cabinet - which can only support about 15" of depth. I may be in danger of taking this thead in yet another direction with this comment,

, but I am looking at the Class D type switching amps because they are the only ones that I have found that will fit and give me ample power. Plus I like the idea of the efficiency they deliver.

I'm looking at Nuforce, the Rotel 1085, and D-Sonic at the moment. I'm not sure if the Rotel model is enough power though. The other issue of course is, what preamp to get. I haven't gotten that far yet. It seems to be more difficult to find a good one that fits my space limitations that also supports the new lossless HD audio formats. (FYI: My older Yamaha model (RX-V620) does not have pre-outs.) If you guys have any ideas, I welcome your additional comments.

Thanks again for this engaging conversation.

Happy 4th to you all.

dcmeigs · July 2008

It's all right here my friend. Don't let furniture drive you decisions. Check out this thread.

And for power check out the Rotel 1080 at 200 watts per channel. That all the power you need for all but the most demanding speakers.

These and the Adcom GFA 555 can be had on the used market at reasonable prices, if you don't want to break the bank. Last week Echo Audio in Portland had a GFA 555 for $350.00 asking with a 90 day warranty, a pretty solid deal if you ask me.

There are dozens of other good choices too.

And since we've been dicks and have completely jacked this thread, let me bring this full circle by saying that either of these amps mentioned here would be good choices for the LSi.

BLACKHAMMERJAMM · July 2008

dcmeigs wrote: »

It's all right here my friend. Don't let furniture drive you decisions. Check out this thread.

And for power check out the Rotel 1080 at 200 watts per channel. That all the power you need for all but the most demanding speakers.

These and the Adcom GFA 555 can be had on the used market at reasonable prices, if you don't want to break the bank. Last week Echo Audio in Portland had a GFA 555 for $350.00 asking with a 90 day warranty, a pretty solid deal if you ask me.

There are dozens of other good choices too.

And since we've been dicks and have completely jacked this thread, let me bring this full circle by saying that either of these amps mentioned here would be good choices for the LSi.

No problem, I'm checking out the NAD T975. My Rotel man is slow so I didn't want to be without power. I picked up a NAD T975 with less than an hour of use for $1500, and it sounds very musical. With the LSI 15's it's fluid. Perfect for Pink Floyd stuff. How would the Rotel's sound?

ben62670 · July 2008

Another vote for good two channel. The only recording I really like to hear in SS is darkside of the moon. I did a more than adequate 5.1, and 2 channel is where its at for music. These guys lending their opinions know what they are talking about. Guys(and gals) who have been in the hobby seriously for any length of time (I'd say 95%) prefer 2 channel.
Ben

What amp would sound better with the LSi speakers.

Comments