Setup question

@mesch Gotcha-i thought you were saying to avoid the AVR for phono..ultimately, the AVR is becoming a pain in my ass anyway.  My TV and xbox only have optical outs and the optical in on the AVR doesnt recognize the signal.  Ive played with all the settings and reset the receiver.. It only accepts the signal from the cable box.. So that coupled with the fact that its the weakest link in the setup has me thinking i should be looking into a new AV receicer in the 7.1 or atmos line. 

eli,

If you're thinking about ditching your current HT receiver, you might want to just use the NAD and get the receiver out of your system altogether. I think the NAD by itself will sound better for vinyl and it might be adequate for your HT duties, although it will be 2-channel only.

7.1 or Atmos is going to cost you a lot more money just in speakers, not to mention the cost of a quality HT receiver to power them. You might want to figure out the budget for a 7.1 or Atmos system, speakers, amplification and source electronics, and then listen to a comparably priced 2-channel rig. The 2-channel rig, at the same overall price, should sound significantly better than the 7.1 or Atmos system of the same price.

That said, you might find that you just prefer HT/surround/multi-channel. In that case, just buy what you like best.

For me, it's not even close. I prefer quality 2-channel over mid-priced HT/surround....every time.

Enjoy,

TIC

@reubent Thank you for the advice. I think I'm going to try that and see how it goes for a little while..It's not a big room anyway. A 7.1 or Atmos system would take up more room than the furniture so 2 channel might be the best way.

I do agree with reubent regarding cost/quality of multichannel systems over 2 channel ones. Also in the fact that the NAD likely has the better preamplifier stage. My advice was made based on your wishing to add analog to an existing system using gear you presently own. 

Regarding audio for video, my thinking is that unless one has a dedicated room for theater, the added expense of extra channels doesn't represent a worthwhile return. I believe this to be particularly true considering 7.1 over 5.1. In what environment is your video/audio used?  I use a 2.1 system for video/audio in my living room (video takes precedence here).  If I could purchase a quality 3.1 integrated amplifier I would consider this, for the center channel often proves beneficial for video with some discs. Don't know of said device, so would likely have to use 3 channels of a 5.1 processor which I am unwilling to do.

I would suggest you integrate your analog source into your system as is, then try using your system as a 2.1 and 3.1 channel one for video and see/hear that experience over the 5.1 experience you now have. Then get back to us regarding your thinking.

Is the fact that you have to use the digital out from the cable box vs. your TV that big of a deal?  Are you sure you are outputting PCM digital from your TV via the optical connection? 
  

@mesch The reason using optical from the cable box is a big deal is that I run Plex more than I ever watch cable..and the cable box doesn't have apps, or specifically the Plex app. I'll play around with different configurations. Dialogue in movies gets muddled for my at times and I often have to turn up the volume on the TV to hear it. I bought my Dad a soundbar that he retired in about 3 days so that's available for use as well. It's an LG with a wireless sub, nothing special.

As far as the PCM output is concerned, I'm fairly new to optical but I thought I had tried all output settings from both Xbox and TV. But now that I know PCM is the specific setting to use, I'll try again.

It's a pretty small room. Something like 14 x 14. The house is a small bungalow so HUGE sound isn't required, but it would be nice to have more clarity as well as sort of "feel" the action in those types of movies.