Stereo or Home Theater?

I think one of the main problems is that people think that one system will satisfy both camps. I have found the best way to go is to have two separate systems in two locations. Unless you are an avid videophile, you will, most likely use your audio only system more (background or serious listening). Of course having the room or money for two systems can be a problem, but putting together two good systems with quality used or new gear can be done. In my opinion, I think it is worth it.

I agree with the two previous posts. After beginning by building a home theater system four years ago, my dissatisfaction with it's music reproduction caused me to build a 2 channel system as well. The only thing they share is the same subwoofer, and I enjoy both systems for their specific uses. However, It'll be interesting to see if the standard for music only systems becomes based on a multichannel setup a few years down the road.

I agree. The two formats serve two different purposes. The primary driver behind HT is to support the video experience. HT has come a long way and there are a lot of fine components. Is it mid-fi? Generally. But let's define hi-fi.

If hi-fi is getting the most you can out of your music system so you can closely replicate the live experience, then you generally need to spend a lot of time, energy and money to get there in a stereo format. Doing the same in HT may be impossible (if you are an analog and/or triode advocate) or very difficult since HT does not generally cater to the high end so it is difficult to find the same level of digital/analog conversion quality. Plus you need more high end speakers, cables ....

Folks may disagree, but it costs a ton more money (today) to get the audiophile experience in HT than it does in stereo. Tomorrow will be different and these may well get more integrated. That's not to say you can't marry these things together today. Great stereo speakers, amps, preamp, etc. and supplemental center, surround speakers, a/v preamp, extra amps can be combined cost-effectively (provided the supplemental equipment is at a more mid-fi level). My impression is that, to marry the two together in one room, you really need the two pre-amps and separate DACs and separate DVD/CD players to get this done right so you can still get the hi-fi experience for music without killing yourself financially.

My two cents. I'm sure folks will disagree. Again, tomorrow will be different. Today, there are two different purposes and neither system is really designed to do both.

From my perspective multi-channel material sounds best reproduced in a multi-channel system and Stereo sounds best in a stereo system. But a stereo system can be designed as a subset of a multi-channel system, 'cause conceptually a stereo system is a sub-set of a multi-channel system. I, for example, have a HT amp which allows for 2 channel bypass. It's Bryston. So the CD (and my record deck if I ever get it back) use the bypass stereo mode, the DVD uses the standard multi-channel mode, and the VCR and TV use a simulated multi-channel mode. I've put much more money in the main speakers, and compromized elsewhere.

My System started out as an All Tube 2 channel.Now I have added 2 Tube amps and 2 Tube pre's a center channel speaker and rear speakers for a 5.0 setup.No Sub.I'm setup for Music DVD's,SACD and of course 2 chan.[For 2 chan.Nothing goes through any HT processer.Two chan.is totally independant.]Good way to get some use of your older Tube pre amps.I'm sure I don't have the ultimate HT due to Tube amps responding slower than SS amps to fast action scenes,explosions etc.and no sub[I'm not an action movie fan],but The music and dialog sound wonderfull as well as concert DVD's.I am thinking also of trying SS for 3 channels with Tube Preamps.Its a lot of fun experminting and trying new things.This is a great Hobby!Home Theater all MID-FI?I don't think Albert Porter Thinks his HT setup is!JD