2 channel movie lstening;is it worth the sacrafice

I used to have a stereo setup integrated with a HT setup, ie just add centre and surrounds and a AVR to drive the centre and surrounds. Later moved on to separate stereo and HT setups. Stereo system being a lot more musical and involving, than the HT.

Until I tried out SACD/DVDA and added a Yamaha AVR. Then the multichannel setup began to have something worth listening for, even in stereo! Of course diff rooms meant that the room treatments were required to get the rooms to sound good in the first place. Then I added some treatment to the HT setup and now it sounds like a serious contender against my stereo setup, just a different perspective.

What I'm trying to say is that a multichannel setup can be used for both HT and stereo, provided that :

a) the room is properly treated
b) things which are added for HT, eg TV, centre spk, sub, etc... are not too intrusive acoustically. I'm using a pull down screen with a carpet in the centre, so that helps.

If you want to watch a movie properly, then a serious multichannel setup IS required. There is no alternative. There are lots of information encoded into DVDs now, if you count the ES/EX, up to 7.1. Forcing that into 2ch stereo setup just doesn't do justice to the movie.

A lot of the problems associated with bad sound from DVDs are really created by owners who have not taken as much care with their multichannel setups, as they have with their stereo setups, so any comparison would obviously favor the stereo setup. Eg having the same brand and range of spks across all channels, as well as the amps, and not forgetting room treatments, and cabling, etc...

So IMHO, watching movies in stereo is just scratching the surface. The only exception I can think of is if you are using top flight spks which can throw holographic images and they must be full range to 20hz, else you're just kidding yourself. Watching the movie in the cinema would be more satisfying.

I agree that you need full range high quality speakers to be able to get by with two channel for movies -- but -- I also stand by the argument that you're more likely to be able to acquire that type of two channel system if
you don't have to spread your money over five or seven channels. I disagree with the argument that there is too much going on in movies for two channels. If your two channel system can resolve a Mahler Symphony, it can certainly resolve a movie sound track. But, if your taste runs to Star Wars
and Matrix type movies -- then two channel will not give you the same sensation. I just don't find myself watching movies like that. I watched them when I first got my surround system -- and there are about 10 movies that
will really give your system a work-out -- then I didn't go back to them. In
fact, I didn't even watch the entire movies. You end up watching the Pod
Race from Star Wars, the shoot-out scene in Matrix, the first five minutes of
Twister, and a few others. Most movie sound tracks don't even use the rear
surrounds or Sub-Woofer. In fact, when I think about it, there is some irony
in the fact that some people believe that there isn't enough music on SACD
to justify switching -- even though there are some 1,800 titles, while there
are only about 10 movies that really justify a surround movie system. And -- at that -- only a few scenes in those movies. Just my opinion.

While I don't agree at all with most of the posts to your question in a general sense, I do agree with them in your case. I would..if I were you and with the components you now own, upgrade to the highest level of two-channel (with flexability and the future in mind) that I could afford. I would branch-out from there IF or WHEN needed.

On that note: Your room is very important, the playing field is not level and what you can afford is not always what you need. I mention this because throwing money at something does not always get the results that a well thought out system does.

Dave

My opinion is to get the best stereo experience you can and later add on HT components integrate with your stereo system.

Wish I had followed my own advice but hindsight being 20/20 and all ....

Started with a cheap Denon receiver and Klipsch speakers. Music listening was simply painful.

First upgraded the main speakers to JMlab Cobalt 816s and got the matching center speaker.

A few months ago I got a Plinius 8100 integrated.

Now, music listening is amazing. HT is better because the Plinius does a better job driving the speakers than the cheap amp section in the Denon.

The only thing I'm still tweaking is the subwoofer. Trying to optimize its performance for both stereo and HT is a challenge but I'm making good progress.

If I had a time machine I would have had hundreds more to spend on a better integrated or main speakers but them's the breaks.

rsbeck-
Amen Brother! I had a surround system and came to the same conclusion. I now use an integrated amp with two speakers. Most movies that i watch have mainly dialog from the characters. Action movies bore me. Buy an integrated amp and forget all the speakers/wiring etc.