Home Theater sound -vs-audiophile system
- Thread starter Claude
- Start date
Dr. Morbius
I.N.T.E.R.O.C.I.T.O.R.
I have a couple of multi-channel receivers. They also have a "Direct" mode that bypasses all of the processing and even the tone controls. I use the Direct mode.
It's all about the setup.
It's all about the setup.
bobins08
Celebrating Life
I love my stereo rig,it has my best speakers.
I also love my multichannel rigs and they are tuned primarily for music.
If you cant get a multichannel setup to equal your stereo setup,your DOING IT WRONG.
Wrong. And way too much of an over-arching statement.
My current multichannel rig will never equal my 2 channel rig for stereo because of component selection. It has nothing at all to do with set up or how I am 'doing it'.
HeezDeadJim
Entrope Weasel
Yah tool! That's just awkward if I'd have been present. I'd have been:
"OK....first 6 seconds of this is interesting....now it's getting strange...."
Even just watching the video made me tense up wondering what the reaction of people would be. You could cut it like butter....At least a train wreck has SOME entertaining value and suspense (again, I'm guessing since I've never seen one).
HeezDeadJim
Entrope Weasel
It would be quite erroneous to say that multichannel can't sound as good as 2-channel. Considering that sound comes from all around us. BUT!....we do also only have 2 ears to pinpoint it.
Now...that doesn't mean 5.1+ is better than 2.0, or vise versa. You just have to spend a lot more on a multichannel system that's going to sound as good as a dedicated 2-channel system. Yes, a bicycle/motorcycle is more agile than a 4-wheel car, but that doesn't mean a 4-wheel car still can't be agile.
Coastsider
Curmudgeon
I love my stereo rig,it has my best speakers.
I also love my multichannel rigs and they are tuned primarily for music.
If you cant get a multichannel setup to equal your stereo setup,your DOING IT WRONG.
My multi-channel setup equals any of my stereo setups in spades but it is different because it is optimized for multi-channel source material especially relative to the right and left speaker placement which is less than optimal for 2 channel material. The right and left speakers are Infinity RS 2.5's that are 10 feet apart and seven feet from the primary seating area. They are actively bi-amped horizontally by two rather large Soundcraftsmen amplifiers. In between the Infinity's is a Martin Logan Fresco i center channel speaker that is separately powered by a bridged Carver 400t. The surround speakers which are the only one's powered by the A/V receiver, a Sony STR-DA7ES that is used primarily as a preamp, are Sunfire CRM-2BIP Bipoles. There is also a Hsu STF-2 powered sub in the mix. The primary source for this system is an Oppo BDP-95, the audio output of which is fed to the Sony as six discrete analog channels which are then sent directly to the appropriate downstream devices. There are also two additional sources - a Fairchild 412-1B turntable with a Shure/SME tonearm and a TEAC X1000R reel to reel deck.
If I play an LP or a prerecorded tape as pure analog sources on this system do they sound great? You bet they do. Would the sound stage be better if the RS 2.5's were a couple of feet closer together? Probably, but I have purposely chosen to set this system up the way I did to optimize the reproduction of multi-channel sources which produce a full and enveloping sound stage that I would only describe as astonishing. It's a pretty simple concept, and given that I have other 2 channel rigs in other rooms in the house including as I mentioned in my previous post, a dedicated music room that is acoustically treated and is my primary critical 2 channel listening space, I have the luxury of allowing the multi-channel system in the living room to be dedicated to specific source material and configured to optimize those sources but have also chosen to use the gear I have available to me, including a couple of 2 channel sources, on that system whether they are used on a regular basis or not. I'd rather have them there being used occasionally than stored in the garage.
So my point is, my equipment is set up correctly to meet my criteria and I'm pretty sure I did it right.
Everyone's situation is different and if I wanted to set up a single system for both multi-channel and 2 channel material I'm sure it would be possible to get the best sound possible from the components available to me with as little compromise as possible.
Ready, aim, fire.
This part of your post is the same point I was trying to make, since it seemed to me that was the topic of this discussion.
I agree with the rest of your post too, but you are in a different situation as you have two separate systems for two distinct purposes (and even a room dedicated to one of those purposes) which I am going to surmise most of us do not have the luxury of having.
Coastsider
Curmudgeon
And the truth of having that luxury does not escape me, especially since I am not a man of any particular means, am currently old, retired, and living alone, and was fortunate enough to have had a wife who tolerated my passion for vintage audio and shared in the pleasure that the gear I accumulated over the years provided.
I was only trying to convey that in my experience, 2 channel and multi-channel systems when at their best are very different animals, but neither necessarily better than the other when viewed in the context of their specific function.
Late edit: It might also surprise you how many AK members would make me look like a rank beginner when it comes to the amount and quality of the gear they own as well as the setups they have created of both types, stereo and multi-channel, in their homes. I'm just doing the best I can and loving it.
Last edited:
LordOfTRings
Be Cool with the Blues
Here's a good one.
According to many professional people this home theater system sounds pretty good; with both movies and music.
According to many professional people this home theater system sounds pretty good; with both movies and music.
The people cheered. Is that an example of confirmation bias?
Two channel man...over and out.
I don't have the means to purchase an elaborate HT system. It's sounds wonderful for movies. My wife loves to play her modern pop music on it and she thinks her music sounds better on it than on my vintage 2 channel system. I must agree with her.
Similarly, my music, which varies from Holly Cole Trio to Metallica, sounds better on my vintage system where I can easily interact with tone controls when necessary. Normally my tone controls are defeated but occasionally I do need to tone up or down. I can also switch speakers A/B/both/ or insert different speakers easily to tailor to my program material and whims. I like that interaction with the equipment which is not as easy with the HT where I have to go through extensive settings adjustments using a crap remote control and need a damn laptop to read a pdf instruction anytime I want to tweak something. Whenever I do tweak, the sound is interrupted to make the switch for me. I love the HT for movies and TV but hate it for music.
I agree with my wife that her music actually does sound better on the HT system though. Perhaps because it has a subwoofer for the low low frequencies often mixed into modern pop/rap music.
However, I'll always prefer my vintage systems because I can interact with them in a way which makes sense to me. Yes, I'm getting older, and I'm sick and tired of all the software and tech I have to deal with at work and then again at home. It shouldn't have to be difficult to listen to music. It's supposed to be relaxing...isn't it?
End of rant.
Similarly, my music, which varies from Holly Cole Trio to Metallica, sounds better on my vintage system where I can easily interact with tone controls when necessary. Normally my tone controls are defeated but occasionally I do need to tone up or down. I can also switch speakers A/B/both/ or insert different speakers easily to tailor to my program material and whims. I like that interaction with the equipment which is not as easy with the HT where I have to go through extensive settings adjustments using a crap remote control and need a damn laptop to read a pdf instruction anytime I want to tweak something. Whenever I do tweak, the sound is interrupted to make the switch for me. I love the HT for movies and TV but hate it for music.
I agree with my wife that her music actually does sound better on the HT system though. Perhaps because it has a subwoofer for the low low frequencies often mixed into modern pop/rap music.
However, I'll always prefer my vintage systems because I can interact with them in a way which makes sense to me. Yes, I'm getting older, and I'm sick and tired of all the software and tech I have to deal with at work and then again at home. It shouldn't have to be difficult to listen to music. It's supposed to be relaxing...isn't it?
End of rant.
That's why, even for music on my 5.1 system, I set it and forget it.
This is also possible. Much to the chagrin of many audiophiles.
Its all about the choices you make setting the system up.
Some of my earlier Home theater systems used a nice multichannel receiver ...
tried HK AVRs and a TOTL Yamaha system ... nice, but wasn't quite there with music.
I wound up going with a multichannel preamp/process (Integra) and dedicated power amps (B&K)
that were much more musical than the Adcoms and JBL/UREI amps I tried before -
and MUCH better than the amp channels built into the AVRs
I got speakers that were better matched totally - first I tried a room full of DCM Timeframe speakers,
then migrated to a room of Vandersteens (with DCM TF-600s in the back simply because they sound good AND are thin) ...
Music sounds good in that room in stereo mode or in surround from SACDs and DVD/Bluray music sources - AND its great for films as well.
If I had a bigger room, no doubt some choices would be different ... but its a great space for immersion in music or films ... it works for the 2 of us!
Some of my earlier Home theater systems used a nice multichannel receiver ...
tried HK AVRs and a TOTL Yamaha system ... nice, but wasn't quite there with music.
I wound up going with a multichannel preamp/process (Integra) and dedicated power amps (B&K)
that were much more musical than the Adcoms and JBL/UREI amps I tried before -
and MUCH better than the amp channels built into the AVRs
I got speakers that were better matched totally - first I tried a room full of DCM Timeframe speakers,
then migrated to a room of Vandersteens (with DCM TF-600s in the back simply because they sound good AND are thin) ...
Music sounds good in that room in stereo mode or in surround from SACDs and DVD/Bluray music sources - AND its great for films as well.
If I had a bigger room, no doubt some choices would be different ... but its a great space for immersion in music or films ... it works for the 2 of us!
Last edited:
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
IMO/E it's not that hard to get a decent sounding HT system. You start with a decent 2 channel system and add a processor, rear amps and rear speakers.
When I want two channel stereo I listen to two channel stereo through my two channel system. When I want HT/Surround sound I turn on the processor and rear amps, place my preamp in bypass and control everything through the processor. All two channel sources are connected to my preamp. All HT/Surround sources are connected to my processor.
When I want two channel stereo I listen to two channel stereo through my two channel system. When I want HT/Surround sound I turn on the processor and rear amps, place my preamp in bypass and control everything through the processor. All two channel sources are connected to my preamp. All HT/Surround sources are connected to my processor.
I personally don't think HT receivers do stereo very well. Unless you start with separates where you can be very discrete about the signal and its purity. I just don't trust the modern HT circuitry to fully get bypassed when using a receiver. I feel like the receiver is still trying to add some HT "balance" to the sound. Even in full range stereo, my Onks never sounded as good as a true stereo amp.
I think HT amps from the pre-digital age are better because stereo was still more prevalent. My Pioneer VSX-53 handles stereo VERY well.
I think HT amps from the pre-digital age are better because stereo was still more prevalent. My Pioneer VSX-53 handles stereo VERY well.
One good thing about me not liking HT systems for music...it's the reason I am now into vintage stereo. After decades of not really thinking seriously about music quality, I was driven to this, now a hobby, simply out of displeasure with my Denon 1712. Turned a bad experience into an incredibly enjoyable hobby. Thanks Denon.
premiumplus
Vintage Junkie
Everyone's room and requirements, not to mention tastes, are different and unique. My personal setup is a very nice, constantly evolving, 2 channel stereo. I run my blu-rays and dvds through it and I've noticed that when it's sounding great for music listening, it very much is sounding great for movies too. Personally, I don't run subwoofers, but if the bass material is there (earthquakes, explosions, trainwrecks) my system does well.
It's been mentioned that setup is everything. I couldn't agree more! While I do miss the surround sound effects a HT system affords, I don't miss them that much. But I've always been more into music than movies anyway.
It's been mentioned that setup is everything. I couldn't agree more! While I do miss the surround sound effects a HT system affords, I don't miss them that much. But I've always been more into music than movies anyway.