Separate subs for music and HT/surround

Hello kgveteran,

Being a surgeon for over 40 years, I have developed a deep appreciation for accuracy, detail and precision. I’ve always strived to utilize the optimum instrument for every procedure, acutely realizing that utilizing the optimum instrument has the possible consequences of literally life or death.
In my 50 years of building and configuring my personal home audio/video systems, however, I’ve discovered that failing to utilize the optimum instruments in configuring and positioning my system transducers has possible consequences that are significantly less dire.
The truth is that there are at least two methods of optimally locating subs that individuals can utilize, the free crawl method I mentioned and the more expensive and technical method you mentioned.
Just as the Joker suggested to the Thief, there’s no reason for us to get excited, right?  Individuals are rightly free to utilize either method or try both and adopt the configuration they perceive as best. Based on my experience, I can predict with confidence that the resulting sub room positions of the subs, no matter how many subs positioned, will not be significantly different and, more likely, will be remarkably similar.
Can we agree on this?

Timmie

 Okay listen first off its not gonna sound like it but I totally get it. People with HT setups love their HT setups in spite of the horrid sound. Or maybe even because of the horrid sound. I get that. Do not understand why anyone would want to waste their money on horrid sound but they do and so I totally get that.

Thought I would clear things up and expand on this, being the guy who wrote it and all.

Its not satirical, and only a little over the top, which I love, for trigger value if nothing else. 

First off, not talking about the 0.01% of cinemaphiles who really do want to watch movies with the best sound they can get. If that is what I meant to say then that is what I would have said. Instead I said, "People with HT setups love their HT setups" the emphasis being on "HT setups" and NOT getting the best sound.

This to me is the whole problem in a nutshell. The whole HT industry has pushed their multi-channel approach from THX on down to where people are totally brainwashed to the point they seem to think watching movies with less than 7 channels isn't even watching movies. So much so that when it comes to HT they aren't even capable of giving serious consideration to the patently obvious fact that two speakers are perfectly capable of better performance than 4 or 5 or 7 or even 7.1.

Think about it. Multi-channel is so horrid, to stick with the original term, it was abandoned for serious music not years ago but decades ago. Why? Many reasons, but by far the most important is that when it comes to being believable quality matters far more than quantity. More in this case is not better.

Anyone seriously into this, especially if shopping for HT, should do what I did. Go and listen. Compare. What you will find, without exception and without a doubt, nothing multi-channel sounds anywhere near as good as stereo, at least not without spending many times as much money. Which is bad enough. But worse, above a certain threshold, which is reached a whole lot sooner than you might think, no amount of money will get you surround anywhere near as good as stereo. 

Just to beat this dead horse to pulp, take any $5000 A/V component you can find, new or used, don't care. Best one you can find. Hook it up and compare side by side with any $5k integrated amp. Any. Worst one you can find, brand new, whatever. Does not matter. Won't even be close. Compared side by side with stereo the HT component will sound.... not even close. Horrid.

And yet a lot of HT people love their demonstrably horrid sounding HT systems. Listen to what they say- because stereo is missing surround. They love the extra channels. That create the horrid sound. Therefore, logically, they literally do love their HT setups because of the horrid sound.

Its not satirical at all. Its actually a pretty straightforward conclusion.

Hello millercarbon,

     Okay, thanks for elaborating and clearing things up.  I didn't realize you were referring to music being played back via a 2-ch system compared to a multi-ch system. I was perceiving your comments more in the context of how I utilize my own combination system, using 2-ch exclusively for music playback and using multi-ch exclusively for HT playback.
      I completely agree with you that, when comparing music played back on 2-ch vs multi-ch systems, by far the most important factor when it comes to being believable is quality and it matters far more than the number of channels. More channels in this case is not necessarily better.
      I know many have built and enjoy high quality multi-ch music playback systems. While I readily admit that I currently have no experience or desire in doing so, I still suspect I'd be highly impressed by the sound quality of many multi-ch music systems others have built.
      Reconsidering your comments in this context, however, I believe you're actually commenting more on the importance of quality in general rather than the superiority of 2-ch or multi-ch as a quality playback method more specifically.  
     I definitely agree with you on the importance of quality but also know it's possible to combine both in one system with shared components and speakers; a high quality 2-ch system for music playback and a high quality multi-ch system (up to a 9.1 with Atmos) for HT playback. I think we're both in agreement on this.

Tim

    Oh Tim......you didnt......a surgeon......ur gross......i find this pathetic......i have to bow out of this exchange.

Hello kgveteran,

     ?...Wtf... ?  You've chosen to be a cowardly baby chicken?

Tim