Originally Posted by TMcG
You're over DSP-ing in your design. You only need one QSC Core product for an entire system, so the 110f is redundant when you have a 510c. Second, you do not need the same DSP technology in each amplifier because it will go unused. Yes, you have some I/O capability with their DSP amps, but you are overspending on the amplifier to get that functionality. Spend money on the DSP....but don't spend money on DSP in the amps. This will also give you greater flexibility in amp selection down the road.
Ok, I dig it, that's just me not being familiar enough with their product line.
For the scale of your planned system, I would start by sourcing a 16 channel preamp/processor. Rumor has it Marantz will be releasing the 8805 next year which will suit your needs. If they release a 7705, I'd go with that instead at half the cost for the same processing channel count if Marantz follows their current product differentiations.
From here it all boils down to channel count, regardless of how many output channels you have. Assuming a 16 channel processor, that's obviously 16 channels of input and you're planning 35 channels of output which brings your total channel count to 52. The 510 handles 32 channels of I/O and then you'd pick up another three QSC I/O-8 Flex which is a brand new product with 8 I/O, giving you four extra slots for more speakers (Lord help you!!).
Awesome feedback, thanks!
I was trying to get multiple channels per amp, and have them be able to be controlled by the DSP for gain programming. I dig the idea of another 5 channels of input, but on the funding line items, replacing the pre/pro is near the bottom. I'd rather put the money in the QSCs and new amps to start, and hit the output specs first.
II agree that the 110f is redundant, but I didn't realize that the I/O-8 existed. All I was trying to do was extend the 32 channels available on the 510.
Originally Posted by TMcG
I'm a big fan of MOAR...but I think you are over-speakered and over-subbed. Blasphemy, you say....I know. I think a well-calibrated 16 channels (9.1.6) with 4-6 subs will do more for you than jacking up the channel count and using DSP to add delay to a bunch of duplicated signals.
You go away for a while, leave us behind, and when you come back it's like you're a different person. I don't even know who you are any more!!
I don't "need" more channels, I'm just hoping to try to get the most potential. Do you really think that it's possible to do the same with 9 as it would be with 15? I like the ideas of wides for greater stage broadening, and the idea of a dedicated pair of surrounds for each of the two viewing rows. My goal isn't really to try to have the highest speaker count on the forum, it's to try to (as much as possible) have two rows that almost act like Twin MPLs. I dig the idea of the .1 and just using the MSO for the subs, but why 6 Atmos vs. 8? I figure a pair of Atmos per row, one facing forward one back, would give the best response?
The alternative is that everything I'm hoping for is possible with the 9.1.6, and I just don't have the knowledge and/or experience to envision it?
Originally Posted by kingwiggi
Originally Posted by DougUSMC
That's taking matrixing to an entirely new level. What size room/auditorium are you planning for.
We're house hunting right now, so the room hasn't been picked yet. My goal is 25x30, with ~ 14-16' screen, two seating rows, maybe a back bar, and lots of space. There's a certain HT here on the forum that I'd love to emulate, but I don't want to mention it as I haven't asked its owner for permission yet.