reluctant about home theater

I started out trying to buid a audiophile quality HT system. By that I mean I used the same amps, speaker, cable, etc., that I would use in a two channel system. The only exception being the digital processor which didn't have the by pass option like most do today. IMHO it was exceptional but paled from a strictley music listening perspective. The 5.1 and ADVD's were awsome and I really enjoy watching concerts and music videos. However I ended up building a separate two channel system to enjoy just listening to music (redbook CD's and analog). A lot had to do with having the digital processor in the loop and the rest, room setup wasn't the same because of the TV in the middle and the center speaker not to mention the rear speakers. So I would say that a properly dialed in home theater system with excellent components is certainly capable of producing audiophile quality sound. It just won't give you the holigraphic naturalness of a dialed in two channel system. This is just my opion after having tried it both ways. I must add that I set up a two channel room specifically for listenuing to music, so I am obviously biased. The good news is that I can have my cake and eat it to. My wife can watch movies while I can listen to my jazz collection. Life is GOOD.

I'm an old timer but still have decent audio acuity. I was early to quadraphonic hence began my L.R. H.T. setup w/4 Audio Analyst A-200ax three way speakers. I added a ctr. channel, an HDTV and Pioneer Elite rcvr/
Pioneer Elite DVD Player. I primarily listen to SACDs, DVD Audios and CDs in classical and jazz. Yes, there are "over-boosted" multichannel discs just as there are oppressive sound tracks for "action" movies. In my den I have "Golden Oldie" Bozac B-302Bs, a record player and c.d. player. I can tolerate people who are 2 channel purists but believe that a carefully chosen H.T. system, properly set up, can provide much joy to audiophiles.

Plato wrote: "What could be different, hmmm, let me think, maybe it's the extra digital processing required for surround sound...." But there is no additional digital processing required. For DVD-A, there may be the added pass through MLP but that is entirely lossless. For SACD, there is probably less processing than for standard PCM. (Notice, I am not including DD or DTS as they are currently used in this consideration.)

Thus, I believe you are looking for an excuse for a spurious observation. There is simply no reason for multichannel to be any less highly resolving or satisfying than stereo and, in good practice, it is not. It simply has to be done right and, frankly, it will cost more for 5.1 excellent channels than for 2.

Kal

I have been struggling with the same questions as Desoto.

I would offer the opinion that a good 2 channel and a good HT system can coexist. At least I hope that's the case since it is what I am in the process of building myself. Since I don't feel wealthy enough to spread my resources over two systems, and since I don't have the room anyway, the practicality of the combination is best for me and perhaps for others.

I think that you should start with a good 2 channel set up, however you define that to be. Perhaps something that you personally think is good would be a good start, rather than what other people say is good. Of course there is lots of good advice available on Audiogon given the breadth of experience of all the members. Once you have your 2 channel in place, you're set for the music side.

The next step is to add the HT. The question now becomes what needs to be added, without detracting from what you have.

I would start by recommending HT bypass. That way you can preserve your 2 channel set-up's qualities. You're not degrading it with the extra circuitry needed for multichannel processing when you're in HT mode.

Now, what do you need to add to the 2 channel for a good HT. You already have a good two speaker set up. So that part should work fine for movies too. What else do you need. Well, movies differ in two major respects. First, there is a lot of dialogue, not just music. So you need a good centre channel, since this is where most of the dialogue is likely to come from. Second, you need a big, honking subwoofer to shake the floor when T.Rex goes stomping by, or when Arnold Schwarzenegger is terminating people. Okay, I'm being a bit silly, but you get the point.

Now if you get right down to it, if you have a good two channel system, you don't need even a centre channel or a sub. You can put your processor on phantom centre mode, and let the magic of stereo imaging put the dialogue in the centre. And if you have a really good sub in your two channel set-up, you don't need to add anything there because it will already be capable of producing the effects. Although if you want to try multichannel music, you will have to go for the full 5.1 set-up.

So in conclusion to my admittedly simple post, I submit that you can have both 2 channel and HT in the same system. They are not mutually exclusive. Start with a good 2 channel system. Make sure you have a good centre channel for dialogue for movies, and a good sub for movie effects. When you want to only listen to two channel, use the HT bypass if you feel that the extra HT circuitry from the processor is detracting from the 2 channel.

The sound of a purist audio system, in my opinion, will be great for video too. You just have to add a centre, sub and processor (and surrounds too of course)of a quality level that is commensurate with 2 channel you have.

I don't see 2 channel vs. 5.1 as an "either or" argument like the tubes vs. solid state, or analog versus digital arguments tend to be. The goal of 2 channel and 5.1 is the same, good reproduction. The HT just needs more parts, of which the the good 2 channel will be a component of.

There, I feel better. I've convinced myself that my efforts in building a combo 2 channel and HT system is a good approach after all.