Anybody given up HT in favor of 2 ch?

[clmrt]

Warning - -

While struggling with my addiction to audio equipment (inexpensive audio equipment), my mind keeps telling itself to try 2 channel seperates.

Currently I have an HK AVR110, 50x2 / 40x5 and really, I'm happy with the sound, and I understand the importance of a good few watts vs hundreds of mediochre. But I see all these nice preamps for $500 and less, much less in fact - NAD 1600, BK PT3, Anthem...and decent amps are plentiful.

Right now, I have no preouts / main ins with which to insert an RTA. No tape loop even, as the HK does not support a typical tape loop. Well, maybe it does, on a VCR loop - I should check that.

To be continued.....

[Titanium Dome]

I cannot imagine giving up 7.1, just like I couldn't give up on 5.1 or ProLogic before it. And yes, I still dig stereo. So I have all of them, and MONO, too, for the 78s.

[Robh3606]

I went the other way. I started as 2 channel seperates and went HT. Depends on what you are after. I really like the sense of space and depth a good HT can give you. Concert videos are just great with a you are there feeling. Movies too are a lot more fun in surround. No 2 channel rig can get you there like that IMHO. As good as the best of them can image there is no substitute for rear channels and a good surround mix. The closest I have heard to surround mixes are the 3 channel Living Presence releases on SACD.

That said 95% of my source material is 2 channel and that's how I listen to it. I have a second system set-up as 2 channel seperates and listen on that too. Ideally you should be able to enjoy your 2 channel on your HT set-up. Give it a shot if you are looking for better electronics, no digital processing on the source and a kinder simpler set-up.

Rob

[clmrt]

That 110 is as simple as it gets. Literally no frills, which I like.


A friend bought a Denon, and actually paid me $50 to set it up, and I had some trouble - too many options. Same with Yamaha and Sony. Normally I can pick up and go, but with all these, I had a hell of a time just setting the levels.

Nothing that a few days' worth of time spent with them can't cure.

I just wish I had a 210 - then I'd have pre-outs. All I'd really like to do is have an amp for the JBL's instead of telling myself that the 50W is just fine. I don't think so, ultimately.

[Mr. Widget]

I would never give up HT for 2 CH or the other way around. To me they are completely different experiences. I do believe that it is possible to get a HT system that can also be run as a 2 CH system and get very good results, but so far it is still out of my budget to do so. I have found that mid level to fairly high level HT receivers and separates just do not sound as good as dedicated 2 CH analog hardware. As clmrt points out there is quite a bit of used 2 CH out there at very reasonable prices and it will outperform virtually all of the dedicated HT gear in a 2 CH application.

Like Rob, I have separate systems for surround and 2 CH. It costs more in real estate, and is a hassle to operate, but you save many thousands of dollars with today's equipment. I do think that will change in the future. I think there will be affordable HT/multichannel systems coming down the pike that will do 2 CH justice.

Widget

[scott fitlin]

HT is great, for movies! I dont like listening to music through my HT setup, UNLESS, it was specifically recorded in 5.1 or something, which most is not!

I watch TV and movies with HT, but I listen to music through my stereo!

At this point in time, I will give up neither!

[Chas]

HT is great, for movies! I dont like listening to music through my HT setup, UNLESS, it was specifically recorded in 5.1 or something, which most is not!

I watch TV and movies with HT, but I listen to music through my stereo!

At this point in time, I will give neither!

I couldn't agree more, Scott. No, I haven't heard a truly state of the art HT system recently, but there is something that irks me about stuff coming from behind me when listening to music, I just can't relax.

7.1 for movies is awsome though, I have been amazed how much is possible, effect-wise.

[JBLnsince1959]

I gave up HT for stereo. It just doesn't make sense to me ( IMHO) to spend all that money for extra speakers, amps and then listen to 90% of a movie thru the smallest speaker ( center speaker)

If I do it, I just get the biggest, baddest TWO speakers I have and use THOSE for my center channel( if I do HT )....kicks ASS.

[JuniorJBL]

both!

I only have one room tho. So it works well to use the same room for both. It is a dedicated room though. Movies would be nothing to me without 7.1 IMO. I do use a fairly large center tho. But when it comes to 2 CH I want just that. I run L/R subs on my front mains and use seperate subs for HT this way I do not have to switch anything. I do use a seperate pre for 2 CH tho. But if it makes you happy then GREAT! we do what we can.

[Rusnzha]

My HT consists of JBL S412s, S38s, S Center and one 2241H in a 13 cubic foot ported box powered by a Hypex HS-500 plate amp (490W @ 8ohms), Onkyo TX-DS 797 surround receiver, Sony C222ES SACD player and Panasonic DVD CP72 DVD-A player. My bedroom stereo has a pair of L100s (with 123A-3 woofers and upgraded crossovers) connected to a Luxman R-114 50 wpc receiver. I run a line from the Onkyo to the Luxman so I use the same sources in either room.

I ran several comparisons, purely subjective. I'm sure this will generate some disagreement but so it goes. I moved the bedroom stuff into the living room and hooked the L100s and the S412s to the Luxman. The S412s had better bass, were smoother and more balanced. The forward mid range on the L100s were very noticeable in comparison.

Next, I reconnected the S412s to the Onkyo and put it in direct mode and set the volumes on both amps. The distinctions between the 2 sets of speakers were close to what they were when both were hooked up to the Luxman. The Onkyo gave up little or nothing to the Luxman. The only possible shortcomings of the receiver are in the Neo-6 or the PL2 processing. But some music sounds better in Neo-6 and other music sounds better in PL2. When listening to SACD and DVD-A, it blows everything away!

Conclusion: It's all good!

[Mr. Widget]

Movies would be nothing to me without 7.1 IMO.

At the risk of running .... what exactly is better about 7.1 over 5.1? Almost all movies are only mixed to 5.1.... and most THX theaters.... the kind that cost $10 per movie, not the home variety, are only 5.1.

I was under the impression that 7.1 was driven by the need to sell more gear than an actual improvement.

Widget

[JBLnsince1959]

I was under the impression that 7.1 was driven by the need to sell more gear than an actual improvement.

Widget

that was my impression of the whole HT ( 5.1 ans 7.1) concept

[JBLnsince1959]

if they keep going the way they have, pretty soon it'll be 30.1 systems and there will be 30 speakers all over the walls, ceilings, floors and under the seats. Yes, I quess they have to find something to do with all those little cubes that house 1" speakers leftover over from 60's transistors radio's

[scott fitlin]

I am scouring Ebay for an old 1930,s floor standing tube radio! This way I can sit in front of that, and wait for " The Shadow "!

Who needs a 7ft screen with front projection, and high end HT?

[JBLnsince1959]

My HT consists of JBL S412s, S38s, S Center !

Sounds good. I have a pair of S312's and a S Center ( I only used the S Center for a few hours and then hooked up two speakers for center) and they sounded good. Like Dome has said, the new stuff doesn't get much credit. Even tho they are the "Best BUY" stuff, for the money they are really hard to beat. Some times I wish I had gotten the S412's.