reluctant about home theater

:), Audiophile first and formeost means what? That you like music more than movies?

What is a non-compromised purist audio system in your mind?

You assume that everyone agrees that these purist systems some how manifest themselves as a monolithic device and yet somepeople think you can use a paper cone 10" for a midrange with a 30 watt amplifier while another sees fit to use a 2" diamond midrange and 500 watts to drive the bass in that system. Some use tube amps at 200watt and some at 2watts, some no tubes at all. So why is adding a few speakers suddenly such a terrible idea, there seems to be a great deal of flexibility in what constitutes an audiophile system, more tubes? why not more speakers?.

Movies are surround sound so if your system cannot do surround it is going to be a pretty lame movie system, no?

So what is your expectations and budget, what system did you own before that you feel is beyond the capacity of a Home theater system to surpass? Do the two really have to be mutually exclusive, or can you imagine a Home theater playing music as well as the monolithic "purist" audiophile system you seem to think exists. Maybe the more relevant question, do you wish a HT could be as good on music as a purist audiophile system?

I have to tell you, I don't think a theater and a "purist" music system are all that different, in my house turning on the video is the only way I define the difference. many here of course would disagree with me on what a "surround music system" is capable of but I have yet to chat with anyone here that can even setup their center channel correctly....so there is a disconnect on what is possible in my mind. So define yourself and we can discuss what is possible. BTW I'm not interested in your "bad" HT experience with sound, one of the easisst things to get in this world is a bad HT demo time and again.

Imo you can't beat 2.0 or 2.1 for music and movies. I did the 6.1 thing and my wife and I use 2.1 for all movies and most music and Direct TV. Once again I learned the hard way.

Well said D. edwards. The "I'm an audiophile" crowd has apparently never heard a well set up 5.1 system, and would probably be stunned if they heard a good (or great) concert DVD - "Gee - I never knew it could sound/look like that", but I keep getting reminded as I read these things that it's about the equipment - not the result or the experience.

Desoto - don't do it - keep yourself clean so you won't have to fret about whether you've compromised your principals. And don't pick up some of the astounding 5.1 concert DVD's that come out constantly.

And Hals den, you're right to do what you did. No need to deal in the present. Just think - if you had come into the hobby 50 years ago, you could still be naysaying the use of two speakers in the front.

A couple of things are required: 1. you must have enough room for correct speaker placement...many people do not. 2. You must have enough knowledge to set the system up...many people do not.

As some of the others mentioned above...If you do things correctly you will be a step ahead (not a step behind)...ie, you can have your cake, and eat it to.

Dave

I don't know guys, I have a decent 5.1 system and I've watched and listened to MANY great 5.1 concerts on it. It still does not have the transparency and purity of either of my other two-channel systems (although if you just listen to the 5.1 by itself without comparing, it sounds quite impressive and decent enough).

What could be different, hmmm, let me think, maybe it's the extra digital processing required for surround sound....

Anyway, here's a challenge for all the multi-channel afficionados. I live in the Tucson area and can get up to Phoenix as well. If anyone thinks they have an exceptional multi-channel set up that competes with an excellent dedicated 2-channel system, well -- I'm all ears...?!