Stereo or Home Theater?

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

Hello there, in my opinion you need two separate system for music and HT. bipolar spreakers work best for HT(the sound stage is more diffuse) look at NHT VT 2.4 they have built in subs, all you will need is a center and a pair of surrounds. I have two seperate systems,
Ht in my leaving room and a 2 channel in a separate room in my house.

This is a great bunch of responses. Everyone seems to respect the fact that these two types of systems are for two different purposes.

As Jdlepera says, my HT setup is not mid fi, but certainly not equally competent on all channels. If I had the space and budget it would be nice to have a really big screen experience along with larger speakers, especially for the dialogue and side channels.

That being said, it's better to enjoy HT with good components, set up within your two channel than loose the opportunity to experience the fun of movies altogether