Let's start a fight

pearsall001

Amen brother. Both systems can co-exist together when you have a definite plan in mind & set up with proper gear. I second the no sub for 2 channel. Never saw a need for it when everything gels together & speakers can handle everything you throw at them. Oh & frig that 4 day holiday, I'm making mine a 5 dayer. This way I can polish off all the beer. Cheers!!!!

kingkip

You know I probably would have agreed with the no sub for 2 ch argument until recently. I just fininshed my IB and I was amazed at how detailed the sub sounds. 2 ch sounds so much more involving now I can't stop listening.

Long story short, with a good sub 2 ch can be greatly enhanced.

Holydoc

I think us HT nuts are like the Borg.

We will assimilate you 2-channel guys.

Runs off...

dorokusai

HT in 2CH? LOL. I can't argue with subjective reasoning, and happy is...well happy. Anyone with a dedicated HT has the ability to switch to 2CH, via a button or switch, and experience 2CH vs HT. Nope, doesn't work for me.

Music belongs in 2CH, movies in HT.

I'll stick with a simple array for my HT, as in DPL or better....5.1 never fails.

SDA for HT? Artificial, SDA does not equal a full fledged 5.1 HT.

tonyb

Holydoc wrote:

I think us HT nuts are like the Borg.

We will assimilate you 2-channel guys.

Runs off...

Me thinks it's the other way around.....The 2-channel camp is dragging
in the HT nuts to re-discover their music again.:)

billbillw

I have both, see my sig. I used to be in the HT only camp and loved the bass that the subwoofer added to stereo music, but I started fideling around and fixing up some older gear. Eventually I pieced together a budget 2-ch system (which has had quite a bit of turnover). Once I started getting into vinyl, there was no doubt that I needed a separate system for 2-ch. Why spoil that analog sound by running it through a DSP? I still believe that movies, especially newer ones, are much better on a good HT surround setup in Dolby Digital/DTS.

Jim Shearer

I think Dan is quite right when he states: "A good system is a good system."

I'm an old school 2 ch. guy. Don't care much about HT, so I just use one of our 2 ch. systems w/ the TV. I want that big sound stage in front!

I suspect that much of the objection to using HT for music comes from most (certainly NOT ALL) HT users having an integrated receiver driving the system. I could be wrong, but I believe most of those receivers use switching power supplies, otherwise you can't get 5 channels into a reasonable size box, and of course, one that a person can move w/o using a folk lift. The smaller of my 1970's vintage receivers weights in at 25 lbs., while the larger one is 55 lbs. Why so heavy? Because they have old style power supplies! When you are listening to music, you may only need a few watts continuous power, but there are large peaks in music (unless it's been compressed & limited, in which case it's already reduced to crap) so you need hundreds of watts for momentary peaks. I don't think switching power supplies provide that kind of power--when it says 75 w/ch rms, then 75 watts is all you're gonna get! If you measure the peak-to-peak power (also referred to as 'music power') then you get a slightly larger number, but it's not the sort of head room us old timers are used to in heavy, old iron systems. To get that for HT, you have to buy the audiophile gear--i.e. separates, which equals bulk & weight.

What do you think? Am I just old, senile, and out of it? Or is there presence & life in the music when you've got real dynamic power is the system?

Cheers, Jim

halo

If your going to try and get 2 for 1 (HT & 2 CH = 1 rig) I think Dan and Darla have it down.

I might begin to entertain the possibility of one system for everything. All I'd need is a pro to hook up to the VTL and a couple more TAD-60's along with the matching center and surrounds for my VR-2's. Ya, that would work :rolleyes: - only problem is that I don't have the scratch Besides, my current HT works just fine

wingnut4772

Thanks Halo. At this rate, I could not even afford a second set up for two channel. I can't imagine being addicted to upgrading two systems!:p

faster100

Darla's rig is exceptional!! sounds fantastic and can pass for 2 channel and HT i'm sure..

Ok just had to say it beings i listened to it recently

wingnut4772

Aw shucks Faster ...Thanks:D

BIZILL

i am only set up for success with home theater. but after auditioning wes's (I-SIG) sda's, i'm totally sold on the whole 2 channel passion. those pups sounded superb and i would like to get set up with a pair. the only thing that sucks is i don't have room enough to stuff those huge towers in the same room as my ht. i'd have to set 'em up in another room.

ohskigod

2 rigs for me. My home theater does 2 channel quite well though, When I am on the mood for some solid state high powered slam, it gets the job done. it allowed me to comfortably go with all tubes for my 2 channel. I can switch systems as my mood changes.

It took a while though, and if one is starting, they should pick one and build it well first.

haimoc

An interesting article on 2-channel vs HT...

http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/1198reisch/

danger boy

i have a HT rig and a 2 ch rig as well.. the SDA's are for 2 ch listening only... they will never become part of my HT system as long as I own them..

The HT rig is also good for stereo listening as well.. although I don't do much 2 ch listening on it afterall. but i could.. and have. and the Outlaw Audio 990 pre amp sounds better than ever.

reeltrouble1

When it comes to 2-channel the only subs I want are the kind that do exactly what I tell them!!!!!!!;) Get some decent speakers and you wont need any sub speaker, sell your decent speakers and you will.:eek: Of course once you get the speakers you need the rest of the gear to get them to reach their potential.

As indicated the by-pass makes 2-channel listening bearable but a rig designed to one thing very well is the ultimate.

RT1

steveinaz

2-channel forever. "I'll go surround as soon as I grow 3 more ears."

With some serious work/experimentation (most of the time) a sub can be integrated into a 2-channel system. I ran an SVS + for some time, but I just couldn't get it to work in the room at the time, to my satisfaction. I did a ba-gillion sweeps, adjusted this, adjusted that---remeasured; bass was still too lumpy for my liking.

Surround is just too contrived--a novelty if you will. When you listen to a live performance, are you sitting in the middle of the band? No, you're facing the performers. Any audio information you're receiving from the sides/back are reflected, just like your living room in 2-channel setup. I can understand surround's appeal for movies...but that's where it ends for me.

I'd much rather split a speaker budget of $5k between 2 very nice speakers, than 5.1 mediocre speakers.

mulveling

On 2ch rigs used for HT -

Whenever I go to the movie theater, there's hardly any noticeable side or rear effects, unless you count the idiots behind you who can't shut up or the munching of popcorn To me, 99% of the focus should be in front of you since that's where the screen is. Having a 3D surround field with a 2D image in front is a bit more unnatural and unbalanced, IMO - that's been the experience with my previous 5.1 setups. Sold the surrounds and now I just throw extra money into upgrading the front 2 as much as possible. It may just be a wall of video and sound, but it's going to be the most beautiful damn wall I can afford

For music listening , I can't stand surround - same reasons as steveinaz.

tonyb

:)Exactly.....surround in music is more of ...... a gimmick.For the same reason I say a sub doesn't belong in 2-channel.You have the stage in front of you and this big bass sound comming from a corner of the room,not natural sounding to me.Better off with speaks that can handle the full freq. range.My .02:)

jm1

tonyb wrote:

:)Exactly.....surround in music is more of ...... a gimmick.For the same reason I say a sub doesn't belong in 2-channel.You have the stage in front of you and this big bass sound comming from a corner of the room,not natural sounding to me.Better off with speaks that can handle the full freq. range.My .02:)

Once the experimentation has passed and multi-channel recording recreate a realistic representation of the event, I will start listening in this format. At this time I will stand aside. This reminds me of some of the early two-channel recordings where each track was distinctly placed in one channel (the drums were in one channel, the lead vocal in the other...). I have trouble listening to these recordings in two-channel regardless of the musical content.

I have had a sub of some sorts in my two-channel system for more years than I care to remember. Most subs I listened to locally I would not use even for HT. Additionally, I have never placed any sub in a corner, nor will I ever. It has always been between the L+R speakers. I currently have two subs; one behind each monitor speaker and use an active crossover between them. I can't say I will be changing this philosophy any time soon as the results are impressive. It would be significantly out of budget to purchase full range speakers having the same frequency response.

It’s unfortunate you feel a sub doesn’t belong in a two-channel system. As always, it’s all in how you utilize the equipment within your system.

I-SIG

tonyb wrote:

:)Exactly.....surround in music is more of ...... a gimmick.For the same reason I say a sub doesn't belong in 2-channel.You have the stage in front of you and this big bass sound comming from a corner of the room,not natural sounding to me.Better off with speaks that can handle the full freq. range.My .02:)

If you can localize where the subwoofer is sitting, then you need to re-calibrate and turn it down alittle. When a sub is working properly, you should never be able to point it out. On live recordings that are well done, a sub really gives you that live, concert feel, and greatly improves the scale to more life-size levels. (SRS's never hurt either!)

My sub is in plain view, but very, very rarely will it draw attention to itself other than to put out clean, deep bass with some growl. I have pushed it too hard in a few movies and it stood out, but I was pushing peaks over 115dB. :eek:

Wes

tonyb

I-SIG wrote:

If you can localize where the subwoofer is sitting, then you need to re-calibrate and turn it down alittle. When a sub is working properly, you should never be able to point it out. On live recordings that are well done, a sub really gives you that live, concert feel, and greatly improves the scale to more life-size levels. (SRS's never hurt either!)

My sub is in plain view, but very, very rarely will it draw attention to itself other than to put out clean, deep bass with some growl. I have pushed it too hard in a few movies and it stood out, but I was pushing peaks over 115dB. :eek:

Wes

On live recordings.if the sub or subs are placed near the left and right
speaks,I can agree to that at least.It is all about how you utilize the gear you have.

reeltrouble1

I do not need a sub for 2 channel listening, nor do I want one. My present front speakers do not need to supplemented by a boost beneath 180 hz or what have you. If you feel you need one or like the sound of one that is subjective and rock on, but a sub speaker is not necessary. As stated though if you are going to use one sticking it in the corner for music is not really a good idea.

Subs are great for the noise created in HT LFE tracks, I would not be without one for this.

RT1

steveinaz

Wes has his sub very well integrated, you don't even know it's there, but you can hear its effects.

I-SIG

Thanks, Steve.

Wes

Holydoc

steveinaz wrote:

Wes has his sub very well integrated, you don't even know it's there, but you can hear its effects.

That is the goal of both HT and two channel listening. You should set up your system so that you do not even realize that the sound is coming from a speaker. The sound should feel like a presence and not being projected from a certain spot.

pearsall001

I still feel a sub isn't needed for 2 channel listening. That is a pretty blanket statement & is very speaker dependent. If your speakers can't deliver enough bass I guess one is needed. When I was auditioning speakers in higher end shops a sub was no where to be found. Go to Best Buy, Circuit City or low to mid-fi stores and it's sub city, everything is hooked up to a sub. High end shop-no subs, low fi & mid fi stores-subs galore, why is that? I really think that the better the speakers the less a sub is needed. Also about HT & 2 channel co-existing together in one system, absolutely!! For HT all you need is a receiver, DVD player, a sub, & speakers. For 2 channel throw in a separate 2 channel amp, preamp w/ HT bypass, CD player, same main speakers & forget the sub, whalla!!! you now have 2 completely different systems. Why do we need separate rooms? Can't we all just get along together!! LOL

steveinaz

Problem is there are very few speakers under the cost of say....a Dodge Stratus, loaded...that will reproduce frequencies at 22Hz, 0dB. A good SVS will get you there for about $850 shipped.

dale 442

I am definitely a believer in 2 rigs. I AM/was a pure 2 channel guy. I then added a sub to the 2 channel. The most money I ever paid for the littlest gain I ever got. But, I did get what I wanted.

Now I added the HT stuff for myself and the rest of the family. Completely separate so even I know which one I have to turn on. :rolleyes:

My opinion, for two channel "Purists" out there
Go for it and ADD the HT for your own enjoyment.

Don't worry, you haven't "Given in" to the pressure. HT definitely has its place in anyones home. It's about movies, not audio.
Completely different animals.

pearsall001

How much bass does one need? My AAD 2001 monitors cruise along at 25Hz-40Khz. For my taste there is no need for my SVS 25-31PLUS sub with these guys. Sub is strictly for HT. Everyone's tastes are different. They are very reasonably priced to.