Anyone with a high-end home theater sans sub?

Actually, in clarifying, I'm refering to something else here in regards to "speaker driver Q"! yes, lower "Q" woofer is a tighter driver setup. Higher 2.0, etc, "Q" is typical in boomy subs, yes. "Q" is an often misinterpreted discription, dpending on wether your talking speaker desing, or acoustics. Non-the less, "tighter Q" speaker desings, are better associated with higher quality speaker designs mostly, and weaker Q designs are with lower qualiy, mos often. STill, most "lower Q" speaker designs, like typical audiophile offerings, won't handle deep dynamic bass, in a passive design mostly, from DD/DTS material! This is even more true of "very low Q" sealed enclosure "high end designs", like from Dunlavy, and other sealed speaker designs. There is therefore always compromises in speaker configurations, sadly.
Still, the best solution is a slightly "less than Ideal" "Q" subwoofer situation, to improve output and dynamic range for demanding DD/DTS tracks, and maximize movie impace on earthquakes, dino-romps, explosions, gun blasts, tornados, mass destruction, etc. Your typical audiphile designs just blow all to hell if you don't do bass managment to a more apt sub system.
This compromise is still better than the typical full range speaker setup audiophile chose

Here, let me help you remove your foot from your mouth.

Sloppy HIGH "Q" bass is just that-- sloppy bass. It makes no difference whether you are watching a film or listening to music. An audio system will tend to sound best when it is more accurately reproducing the input signal. For movies, there is plenty of intense bass built right into the soundtracks themselves.

With the exception of a very select few high quality, Low Q subwoofers, the lack of an LFE and the presence of very capable front main loudspeakers and audiophile electronics is what defines the home theater as "high-end".

Truth be told, most "home theater" systems are less good sounding than a high-end two-channel system used for movies. Sure, the stereo system may lack many of the rear localized special effects, but from a clarity and sound quality standpoint, they are still far better.

And here is one more that will send Furrylamb into a tailspin. Most center channel speakers sound noticeably worse than having that same information routed to your main speakers, assuming your main speakers are capable high-end designs. Center speakers, like powered subwoofers, tend to be poorly designed in comparison. A really good center channel is the exception, not the rule.

You know, we can flip flop terminoligy back and forth, we're talking about the same thing in regards to "tighly controled/damped woofers" vs. more loosly controled woofers. And there are certainly many high performance subs that do very well in the "control" and "accuracy" category, especially when you consider the job they're designed to take on! This is music AND movies here!!
So what Waldner is stating, is that his 2 channel, full range, stereo speaker setup, is the way it's REALLY BEST! Sounds like his personal issue to me. I'm sure 99.999% of all the audio/video reviewers, recording engineers, and industry professionals alike would agree here....NOT!!!
Why do you think they all promote, and have promoted for years, since all this AV stuff came down the pike, that you should IDEALLY, have 2 SEPARATE SYSTMES!?!...one for music 2 channel and one for movies!?! Well there, because IT DOESN'T WORK BETTER FOR MOVIES DOING 2 CHANNEL, that's why!

"With the exception of a very select few high quality, Low Q subwoofers, the lack of an LFE and the presence of very capable front main loudspeakers and audiophile electronics is what defines the home theater as "high-end" (Waldo)

UH, no. the BALANCE of effective, and properly selected gear for your room/system, properly SETUP gear, speaker location/setup, seating, room acoustics(easily HALF THE EQUATION!!!), noise control, airconditioning, light controled, well damped, tweaked, and effectively engineered and executed room is what DEFINES A HOME THEATER AS HIGH END! You stand corrected.
Every high end guru worth his salt will tell you that having 2 audiophie (pleeeease!....) speakers and some gear IS ABOUT AS FAR FROM HAVING HIGH END HOME THATER AS IT GETS! Anyone buys this theory lives in his own world, and thinks the earth is "flat", and that "we've never been to the moon!" Yeah, no!... Waldorf Estoria guy!

"Truth be told, most "home theater" systems are LESS GOOD SOUNDING (doh!)than a high-end two-channel system used for movies. Sure, the stereo system may lack many of the rear localized special effects, but from a clarity and sound quality standpoint, they are still far better"(Walden Books)

yeah, this sounds like someone's "own personal little issue here", ya think?

"Most center channel speakers sound noticeably worse than having that same information routed to your main speakers, assuming your main speakers are capable high-end designs. Center speakers, like powered subwoofers, tend to be poorly designed in comparison. A really good center channel is the exception, not the rule." (Waldo Kitty)...lol

Yes, again, all the mixing engineers, dubbing studio's, movie theaters, recording people, and industry pro's alike(Who've hammered home forever,that the center channel is THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEAKER IN THE SYSTEM, for a reason), have it WRONG! Thank you Walden for clarifying. What were we all tinking!?!!!!...
Yeah, having all your info routed to two PASSIVE INNEFICIENT stereo speakers is the answer to it all, um, k, hummmm....no! Sharing the load amungst more drivers/speakers yeilds improved dynamics, clarity, stearing, efficiency in the system, impact, solidy of sound, detail(assuming quality gear, acoustics, setup, yes), system sensitivity, and thus dyamic prowess, dialog inteligibility, etc, with a good center speaker!!!
Yeah, let's compress everything from demanding complicated thouroughly mixed, dubbed, overlaid, overprocessed and confused soundtracks into 2 channels of BARELY ADDEQUATE, often under-adequate stereophile speakers!...yeah, that's it. They surely can handle what's at the movie theaters around town, cause they're always so efficient and effective that way...2 channel stero that is, from HOME AUDIO SPEAKERS, SURE!!!
Rule of thumb: DON'T LISTEN TO GREENPEACE PHSYCO'S, ALQUEDA,OR WALDEN123! The man knows nothing of setting up a home theater, probably from lazyiness, and lack of motivation...thus his 2 channel (easy route) supremecy stance.
Walden? You never gave us a resume of your credentials on building home theaters! Since you're dodging this one, I assume it's safe to say you have put together exactly 2 stereo systems total in your existence, and that's the extent of your high end AV career, yes? Or do you secretly build high peformance theaters for the rich?

The center channel is the most important speaker in a theater system, which is precisely why it is crucial that it be at least as high-quality, neutral and revealing as whatever your main speakers in the system are. Many people simply buy a center channel from the same manufacturer as their main speakers assuming it is as good (which it usually isn't), or worse, buy an inexpensive inferior center speaker that doesn't sound anywhere near as good as the more expensive and capable main speakers they already own.

But now for an English lesson: A few typos are one thing, but Flrnlamb clearly has a problem utilizing the english language.

Yeah, having all your info routed to two PASSIVE INNEFICIENT stereo speakers is the answer to it all, um, k, hummmm....no! Sharing the load amungst more drivers/speakers yeilds improved dynamics, clarity, stearing, efficiency in the system, impact, solidy of sound, detail(assuming quality gear, acoustics, setup, yes), system sensitivity, and thus dyamic prowess, dialog inteligibility, etc, with a good center speaker!!!

1. "INNEFICIENT" has one N and two Fs
2. "amungst" is spelled amongst
3. "stearing" is spelled steering
4. "solidy" is not a word, try solidity
5. "dyamic" = dynamic
6. "inteligibility" has two Ls right next to each other

Can you imagine correcting the whole post? Frnlamb, rather than repeating your mesmerizing credentials over and over again, why not learn how to spell at a 2nd grade level. I'm sure that alone would buy you some small measure of credibility.