After auditioning my stable of speakers, I've come to the conclusion that my BA T930 Towers are the best fit (to me) for home theater and 2 channel duty. The question, can I wire my BA's to both my 2 channel rig and my home theater without creating issues? Understanding that both systems couldn't be on at the same time? Simply, banana connectors for home theater and bare wire for the 2 channel in the 5 ways of the BA's? And, if it is possible, what's the risk if both systems were to be on at the same time?
I'm just not sold on the HK 247 for 2 channel, even with an external amp. My room isn't big enough for 2 pair of floor standers.
The connection with the least possibility the two amplifiers could face each other at the speaker's inputs is always the most desirable. The most positive connection of this sort would be separate cables for each amplifier that get plugged and unplugged each time you listen to the other amp. If both amplifiers are on and just one is playing each of the two amplifiers will probably sustain some damage. If both amplifiers should be playing, both amplifiers will very likely be damaged. So either way it's not a good outcome.
I prefer switches that have either a self cancelling function or a triple throw switch with a null point at its center position. You can probably buy the former from a shop such as Parts Express. You'll probably have to build the latter. Keep in mind the needs of anyone else who might operate this system without you being present and keep things simple. If you're certain neither amp will face the other even when one is powered down, then you should be OK.
Thanks for the input Jan, I figured it would be "touchy" to do, and not worth the risk. I guess it's all about compromises, and I've found mine. The BA Towers are now connected to my amp/pre combination and the NAD CDP for dedicated 2 channel. It sounds wonderful, to me. I have another external amp connected to my HK 247 to run the fronts, which, I'm back to the Paradigm Micros. It really peps them up, and makes the front speakers disappear. So this will be the setup. (For a while)
I did some research yesterday on BA, HK, and NAD. I found that the 'sound' description of the BA's was described as 'bright', the NAD was 'accurate', and the HK was 'laid back/warm'. This led me to believe that it should be a decent combination, as far as, synergy goes. But the combination of the HK/NAD/BA just made the highs unbearable. At moderate levels, I had to turn down Norah Jones during her vocals. (It actually made me wince) Anyway, I guess if nothing else, I've proven that combination doesn't work for me. With my current combo, I can play at the same volume levels (or higher/lower) and the highs are detailed, crisp, but mellow. For Theater duty, the HK does a fine job. Watched "Live Free or Die Hard" this past weekend, and it was impressive.
I know I'm still in the 'mid-fi' world, but it's been a decent upgrade for me to this point. Thanks for all the help.
"Warm", "bright" and "accurate" are personal terms that seldom mean the same thing to any group of listeners. I wouldn't put much stock in those words as I would personally suggest each component you listed has other good and bad points to consider. Personally, I find broad sweeping descriptions of "warm" or "bright" to be quite misleading simply because they do not address the nature or character of the music (or component) only a sound that has many variables yet achieves none of its goals. Additionally, I find these descriptions are all too often applied by someone wishing to draw distinctions based upon the comparison of "this" component to "that" component using only component sound as their reference. As you should know by now, my preference is to compare against the real thing - live sound - and not one component vs. another. This leads you to compare components sound against the sound of your car stereo or simply the sound of the "other" component.
In terms of building "synergy" I am opposed to this simple approach which pairs "bright" with "warm". First of all, taken on their face value, I don't think of those two terms as being in direct opposition to one another. Music should have a natural "warmth" while also displaying a "brightness" that appeals to all of your emotions. More importantly, taking a component that you understand to be "bright" implies more than simple frequency response characteristics. The same with "warm" or "accurate" (which is really such a shabby term when applied to audio components). There is, or should be, a general assumption that components which fall on the "bright" side of "accurate" have other personality traits which they share with other "bright" components. If that is the direction you wish to take your music or find to be more "accurate" than the "warmth" of another component, you would be missing out on those very qualities which led you to choose the "bright" component in the first place. Placing a "bright" component with a "warm" component in this context is mixing oil and water or, at the very least, synthetic oil with a petroleum based product. Each does its job in a different manner and they do not combine to make a cohesive entity.
Such combinations are often made in the hopes of ameliorating the bad qualities (and decisions) of one component by downplaying those aspects of the sound you find objectionable not by playing up the qualities you (now) find attractive. This is, IMO, a simply misguided logic that has only component sound in mind at best and a CYA ending at worst. It is the classic BandAid approach to system building.
In this system you cover up what you don't want to hear from one component while hopefully leaving the desirable qualities exposed and hoping the bad qualities of each component just vanish into thin air. At best this gives what I consider to be an unattractive, bland, scarred over, covered up sound that has few good qualities of either component and shows mostly the bad qualities of each component that still will still exist if only in a more confused fashion than before.
My preference is to once again work from the real sound of instruments and voices and find components which fit your concept of "real". That is the only descriptive term I consider when judging the quality of a component. Does the music it reproduces sound real? If so, in what way? If not, why not? To that end you might prefer a sound that is somewhat "bright" while I might tend toward a "warmth" that reminds me of real instruments played in a different setting. Neither is wrong but merely a personal preference based upon our own experience of the real thing. You would therefore take a group of components that tend toward a particular sound which I might describe simply as "brighter" (understanding that I wouldn't actually use that simple term) than I would prefer but your choices would be consistent with your personal preferences. You would identify each component part of what you find interesting in a "bright" sound and seek out other components with similar qualities. The system that would result from your choices would take those more refined qualities of "bright" and build upon the strengths of each component's good qualities.
In the end each component would work with and compliment the other components as a team and fight against none of them. If this were a group of people working together, they would all have the same "vision statement" and be working toward a common goal. One component would play up its strengths at bringing forth an inner light from the music. Another would play to the idea of pacing and drive that often comes from a "bright" component. And so on and so on. In this approach a synergistic system becomes greater as a whole product than any of its component parts alone.
Take that idea and compare it to a work force where each component part is headed in a different direction and shares no common goal other than to cover the tracks of the fool along side them as the over riding objective. The "team" has not been assembled for the good qualities of each member but simply with the hope each member will mitigate against any disaster performed by the other players. Take that concept and apply it to a band or orchestra and you have what I consider to be the result of the BandAid approach to system building. The music never shines and it never attracts, it merely plays because it doesn't know how to do anything else. In the end it collects its paycheck and goes home for the weekend.