I'm torn... how many of you guys require a true 2ch area?

[zaphod]

my HT system started out as a dedicated 2 channel system, and while i do listen to some two channel there still, i mostly use it for video. i find that i move about too much for casual, yet focussed 2 channel listening

however i still have a 2 channel system upstairs in the "living area" and it's great having uber equipment for sitting down in the 5 minutes i have to spare from time to time to really listen to an album. or part there-of...

i guess what it comes down to - and i'm working through this as i type - is that when i sit down and really listen to the 2 channel, i get the opportunity to really appreciate the soundstage and general imaging of the system. but the tonal qualities of the music is just as important if not more for me to enjoy a good album - and i can enjoy those equally whether in the sweet spot or moving around the room.

HT on the other hand is like going to the movies - so i guess i'm more mentally ready to sit for two hours and have rockets zoom around my head or be enveloped in a complete soundscape.

 

[MiTT]

HT on the other hand is like going to the movies - so i guess i'm more mentally ready to sit for two hours and have rockets zoom around my head or be enveloped in a complete soundscape.

Very interesting, and I think you have hit upon something here. I dedicate time to both watching movies - usually with others - and listening to music - usually, but certainly not always, by myself.

My wife is very accomodating when I want to listen to music, although, even if she is listening with me, she is often busy doing something else, coming and going, this or that. I on the other hand tend to really focus on the music, I meant intently, really getting into the event. I mean it engages me, and vice versa. I tend to view art the same way, and if I'm in a group I'm always the straggler that finds everyone else in the gift shop or cafe. I can sit and look at a painting for hours sometimes (probably because I minored in painting and was a TA for Art History).

I am pretty much the same way with movies, I really immerse myself in them and enjoy them, especially a good film, but to be honest, if given the choice of watching tv, watching a movie, or listening to music, I'm going to gravitate towards listening to music more often than not, with watching movies secondary and watching TV a distant third - unless it's American Gladiators, then I'm all in.

My wife loves to read. She's religious about it, and makes time to do so every night. I know it makes her relax and at the same time engages her brain in much the same way I listen to music. I also like to read, but again, I allocate more time to music listening.

I guess that's what it boils down to right, what are the things that we are willing to dedicate our precious time to?

 

[tonyc]

I am fortunate enough to enjoy both a ML based video system in my living room and a ML based stereo system in my dedicated man cave. But in all honesty I could be happy (and was for many years) with a dual purpose system, and it certainly is less costly than having two systems-I have a good job but I cannot afford two (or even one) state of the art systems.

 

[Adamo]

Joey, I'm going to agree 150% with Rich on this one. Look at my room in my sig. I have a dedicated theater and have the room for a dedicated 2Ch listening area as well. I don't feel the need at all. If you have a 2Ch Pre like I do with HT bypass, nothing degrading gets in the signal path of the 2Ch set up at all. You CAN have both in one room. Have I ever thought to myself that it would be great to show people my HT and then move them into my dedicated 2Ch Listening and Port tasting room? Definitely! But It's not needed! Besides, I have cup holders in my loungers....the wine glasses fit in there just fine
Adam

 

[C.A.P]

Well all this talk ,.............HMMMMMMMM ....I do have Theater Throughout on my KPS 25sc.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Joey,

If at all possible, have separate spaces. I've done it both ways and inevitably, based on my experience, the TV between the speakers will compromise the sound. An added bonus is creating entertaining / private areas that allow for different / independant uses at the same time.

The only alternative I would seriously consider would be a projector with a retractable screen. A second, but less visually attractive option, is a flat panel against the wall with "something" to put over the screen when you are listening to 2 channel.

Finding an attractive "something" that is visually attractive and sonically transparent is the challenge.

I have separate systems in the same room due to the smallish size of my house. The AV system is very modest compared to my 2 channel system ($2K total +/- consisting of a 36" Toshiba TV, Denon receiver, B & W M1 satellites, a Polk Audio sub, and a Sony DVD player) but the amount of time I spend doing video is very small compared to my 2 channel rig and my 5.1 system performs at a reasonable level (for me) for TV and movie watching. Certainly a big step up from using the TV as a video / audio source.

Good luck.

GG

 

[MotorToad]

I have yet to hear anything come from a television that's worth more than my $30 JBLs (used). Even when movie sound engineers try to impress you with sound, they try to impress you with effects, not with how well they can reproduce sound.

I spent the weekend at the old man's house and watched the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie on his new blose surround system. Every time something came through those little speakers I was stuck hard with how much it didn't sound like anything real. I'll admit it's hard to pick the horribleness of his system from the horribleness of the movie effects, but suffice to say I personally woudn't waste my MLs on TV. I can undersand a desire for "big sound" for movies and such, but IMO you can acheive the pinnacle of TV noise with box speakers and and a decent receiver. The MLs make music like few other speakers can, so use them in a dedicated system.

 

[Adamo]

I still feel it will only be personal preference and nothing at all to do with the impact of sonics from a plasma tv hanging on the wall.
With the summits toed in slightly anyway, the dipole wave is pointed away from the tv and since your summits will more than likely pulled forward a good bit from the tv anyway, I can't see it being even a slight problem.

 

[Bernard]

That's too bad, they don't know what they're missing.

Very true. For me part of the enjoyment of music (as with food and wine) is sharing it with someone.,,,companionable silence while enjoying a nice piece of music.

 

[Rich]

I have yet to hear anything come from a television that's worth more than my $30 JBLs (used). Even when movie sound engineers try to impress you with sound, they try to impress you with effects, not with how well they can reproduce sound.

I think if you actually listened to movies on a great system, you would have a different opinion. Movie soundtracks today can sound incredible. And I am not just talking about special effects. I am talking about clarity of dialog and nuances of background sound (like the ship's timbers creaking in Pirates, or the sound of rain drops or thunder in the distance). Having a great system can make the movie that much more "real." And the effects are important to that equation, too. In the most recent Superman movie, when the Planet Krypton explodes at the beginning, it is an amazing effect on my system. The explosion is a visceral impact, but you can tell that it is a long distance away. It really feels like a planet far away is exploding and you are watching it happen from a distance. You are just not going to get that effect with a cheap sound system.

In addition, those of us who have an extensive collection of music and concert DVDs couldn't imagine not having our audio and video systems merged. Listening to James Taylor on my two-channel sounds great, but watching him on the Live at the Beacon DVD is a whole 'nother level of enjoyment. If I had a cheap sound system hooked up to my video, I would never watch that or any of the other music DVDs that I enjoy so much.

Finally, I have to say that even watching standard T.V. programming can be enhanced through my sound system. Particularly watching sports is much more engaging with the sound in my theater room than it is on any other T.V. in the house.

So I get all of these advantages, and no disadvantages that I am aware of. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to combine your 2-channel and 5.1 channel A/V systems into one dedicated room.

 

[the-chauffeur]

You can always turn the LCD off...

 

[jk319]

YMMV.

Obviously, the choice depends heavily on usage, and simply the space available. I recently split the HT and stereo with great anticipation, and unfortunately my stereo room really sucks. I've obtained 300 lbs of HF Mondo Traps from the gon, and the room still sucks.

Why didn't I keep the MLs in the HT? I now have a larger viewing area for 8 persons. The MLs are too beamy for this configuration, IMO. Then, the panels are actually distracting with a PJ setup due to reflected light. Lastly, the space required from boundaries would have severely reduced the screen size. Could I have got an AT weave? Maybe not: I don't even know if they come as big as 159", and the pricing on such screens are exorbitant. And due to the particulars of my set-up, I wanted high power of 2.8x gain which an AT would not give me. I realized I loved greater immersion, and have the front row at about a 42 degree viewing angle. My movie club is going very strong.

This is just my own particular setup, but the point is YMMV.

Joey, if dedicated 2-ch means a much smaller room, I wish you luck. I vote that you keep it all together for now, if that was to be the case. It appears to me that your situation is not quite as forceful as mine was in any case.

FWIW, I have zero multi-ch music discs. My HT rules. I fear my home may no longer worthy of Summits... but I can't yet let them go either...

 

[MotorToad]

I think if you actually listened to movies on a great system, you would have a different opinion.

I haven't heard a movie soundtrack where what I heard sounded like what I saw. They may have impressive effects, and they may even put a lot of effort into it, but they don't record the sounds that you're looking at. During movies I usually wind up spending my time trying to figure out what it is they're using to make the sounds, noticing all the things that you can't hear that you should. (I've had this argument enough in real life that I guess I need to start keeping a journal.) For every time you're impressed with the sound of a planet exploding, I'm put off by the fact that you can't hear explosions in space. When you hear depth to rain, I hear that the guy whose footsteps you can hear doesn't make any sloshing sounds while his clothes are wet. It's just noises carefully fitted to an image, I'll spend no effort trying to reproduce it.

Admittedly, I don't have any music DVDs. I did buy Operation Mindcrime on VHS when I was a kid, but I've never seen the whole thing. It's just not my cuppa, as they say.

 

[Rich]

During movies I usually wind up spending my time trying to figure out what it is they're using to make the sounds, noticing all the things that you can't hear that you should.

. . .

It's just noises carefully fitted to an image, I'll spend no effort trying to reproduce it.

Wow. I don't see how you could enjoy any movie, on any system, if you have no ability to suspend disbelief with the understanding that what you are watching is fiction, not reality. The script isn't real, the characters aren't real, the special effects aren't real, the stunts aren't real, and yes, the sound isn't real; but I don't let my knowledge of those facts intrude into my enjoyment of watching the movie for what it is: a fictional story meant for entertainment.

It is the ability to suspend disbelief of all of these factors that allows one to be completely immersed in the story that the writers, directors, and actors are trying to tell, and that is what I get with my system -- complete immersion in the story. If you can't get that, I don't understand why you would even waste time watching a movie. What would be the point?

 

[Statman]

Just to add when you are listening to a 2 channel recording you are listening to what exactly? However the recording engineer decided to place the instruments on the recording. Is that real? No it requires you to suspend disbelief.

 

[MiTT]

The same is true for reading any novel, attending any play or viewing any art.

All that we have of any of these activities is merely an artifact of the artists creation. Every instance outside of the creation of that thing is merely an echo of it. Every encounter with art requires a leap of faith.

 

[Bernard]

I enjoy movies, and can get into it, suspending disbelief to some extent. However, it is nothing compared to, for example, cueing up Beethoven's Triple Concerto, Second Movement on my VPI, where in anticipation of the start my pulse races. And even that does not compare to a live performance I attended by the Beaux Arts Trio, where in anticipation of the start my heart was pounding hard.

To me the movie experience pales in comparison with the music experience. I don't go to movie theatres any more as I can't stand the deafening sound levels.

 

[ckoffend]

While I am new to this site, I can attest to the ability to put together an extremely rewarding system that combines both 2-channel excellence and good HT (which I am much less concerned with, but enjoy during a high energy movie nonetheless). I have played around with several preamps over the past 6-9 months that accomodated one of the pass through approaches - unity gain or straight HT pass through. I have run preamps from Cary, BAT and now run an Aesthetix Calypso (which is my favorite - but I could not afford the AR Ref 3). I now run a Krell HTS 7.1 which I got for a steel new from my local dealer at 70% off list, with full warranty (initially bought it based on its KCT based preamp, hoping to do away with a 2-channel preamp, its a good 2-channel preamp, but not up to par with many others).

In the end, my conclussion for 2-channel lovers (like me) is to set up as good of a two channel system as you can and then purchase either an inexpensive (ie. used) pre/pro with a 3 channel amp or receiver (using the pre-outs to the preamp for the mains). *** Word or caution - DO NOT buy a 5-channel amp and plan to use it for your 2-channel listening or you will be disappointed (I have tried this with many 5 channel amps: Krell KAV 1500, Conrad Johnson, Theta Dreadnaught II - all "sucked" in comparison to even decent 2-channel amps). In my experience you don't need to spend a fortune on surround speakers - so save some money there (unless you are doing full SACD or something like that). This approach gives you an untouched 2-channel system while allowing it to be used within an HT setting when necssary without any playing around. Easy to set-up and really is the best of both worlds. Everybody in the family gets what they want - now fighting for music only listening becomes more difficult!

 

[DrJRapp]

Joey

The answer to your question may lie in how much of your time will be spent purely listening to music and how much you are willing to invest in that time. I once estimated that 50% of my time was spent listening to music so 2 years ago I separated, improved and refined my 2 channel listening system from my theater system and I now find that although I have much better sonics and a confortable environment for 2 channel, the system is underutilized because my estimate of 50% usage was way off.