seperating 2 channel from home theater

JimBRICK

Is there a benefit from seperating the two?

Example.
If you have an LSI home theater and run your 2 channel components like cd and turntable through your home theater.

what my plan is over time to turn my 2 channel rig into a home theater. Using a 3 channel power amp through my nad reciever preouts for the front and powering my lsi7's rears through the reciever.

Is 2 channel going to sound better seperated into another rig?

madmax

Its all about compromise. Everything you do to make the HT sound better will hurt the 2 channel sound. Best to have them seperate.
madmax

AndyGwis

It's my thought that HT is easier to do than 2-channel, so turning a nice 2-channel rig into 5+ channel HT is going to be expensive to do to do it right.

I'm keeping my HT at the "adequate" level and focusing on 2-channel from here on out . . . for the most part. I guess I did buy HD-XA1 and B&K 1430 in last 3 months

Gaara

This has been covered a few times.

You can integrate the two by having a separate pre with a HT Bypass for your 2ch system, and a separate 2ch source. This way the amp and speakers will be shared between the two, but the HT will have its own pre and source as will your 2ch system.

Benefits are better sound quality, more options for sources and pres, and less compromise.

Music Joe

IMO yes. 2 channel sounds shines in semi reverberant room with some live end dead end emphasis, whereas multi-channel speaker locations are much harder to balance in this same sonic field. Heavy absorbtion makes that easier. Most motion pictures are mixed with an ear towards exsisting theater settings.
Probably requires different eq optimization of each in a shared space.

Face

I'm trying to do the opposite for space consolidation and to have a better set of speakers as a center and mains for HT. I'll need to change my receiver to one that has pre's and will also need a new TV stand that's much bigger than my current one, so it'll probably won't happen anytime soon.

Early B.

JimBRICK wrote: »

Is there a benefit from seperating the two?

Example.
If you have an LSI home theater and run your 2 channel components like cd and turntable through your home theater.

what my plan is over time to turn my 2 channel rig into a home theater. Using a 3 channel power amp through my nad reciever preouts for the front and powering my lsi7's rears through the reciever.

Is 2 channel going to sound better seperated into another rig?

Depends on how you set it up. For instance, consider a two-channel amp, not a three channel one. Build the best 2-channel system you can afford, then build the HT system from there. The 2-channel system should be "separate" from your HT system; it'll have its own amp and pre. The front speakers should be shared, and for HT, you'll have the benefit of powering the fronts with separate amplification.

pearsall001

What Early said. When set up properly you have two distinct systems. Neither one interferring with the other. When I'm in 2 channel mode the only gear turned on are my CJ PV14L preamp, AVA 2 channel amp, AVA Ultra DAC & transport. When in HT mode the only gear turned on is the TV, NAD T773 AVR, CJ preamp (in HT bypass) AVA 2 channel amp, OPPO DVD plaver, SVS sub. What could be easier, the best of both worlds both of which produce spectacular sound. I think guys get to hung up on having everything separate. Done right...they are really separate.

venomclan

Gaara wrote: »

This has been covered a few times.

You can integrate the two by having a separate pre's with a HT Bypass for your 2ch system, and a separate 2ch source. This way the amp and speakers will be shared between the two, but the HT will have its own pre and source as will your 2ch system.

Benefits are better sound quality, more options for sources and pres, and less compromise.

This is exactly what I do with my system. The 2 pre let me get the 2 channel system up to snuff while adding the HT stuff around it. The best of both worlds and it is less expensive and uses less space than 2 separate systems.

Of course it really depends on how far you want to take your 2channel system. If you get a really nice HT pre/pro, it can be used for both 2 channel and HT. I had demoed a systen like this with Krell Home Theater Standard amp and pre and Sonus Faber Cremonas ($8000/Pair) It was superb sound.
V

Sami

madmax wrote: »

Everything you do to make the HT sound better will hurt the 2 channel sound.

How is that? I have configured my HT to sound great in 2ch mode, then calibrated the HT around it. If it sounds great in 2ch I don't see how it could be bad in HT.

madmax

Sami wrote: »

How is that? I have configured my HT to sound great in 2ch mode, then calibrated the HT around it. If it sounds great in 2ch I don't see how it could be bad in HT.

Again, compromise. The bass needs to be louder and go lower for HT. There is normally a peak in the lower treble for HT (built into most HT type speakers). Speaker positioning (at least in my room) for HT differed from 2 channel. For 2 channel the L&R wanted to be closer together than for HT on both the SDA's and the LSi's. For high end listening I had a fairly nice system which could not be duplicated ($$) into the extra channels thus the timbre of the surround didn't match the front L&R. (Include cables, wires, power conditioning etc in this).

In the end I COULD have optimized for one but ended up not wanting to do that and neither one sounded its best.

madmax

Sami

The difference in cables and amps for HT use is so subtle that it really isn't important. Built the system with music in mind and you'll be happy for both.

Phil Dawson

I built my system as a 5 channel MUSIC system that I can also use as a home theater. I use a pair of SRS-SDAs in the front, a pair of 2.3s in the rear and a pair of CS400is in the center. I also have a Shure 12 inch sub that is dedicated to the LFE so that it isn't messing with the bass in the music. I have a B&K Ref 10 factory upgraded to a Ref 50. I also run a Harmon Kardon pre-amp so that I can hook my turntable and a separate tuner into the system. I hook the CD player into the B&K and the DVD/SACD player is also hooked into the B&K. In effect I have an analog side to the system and a digital side. The fronts are bi-amped with mono blocks on the bottom and a stereo on the tops. The centers are powered by a stereo amp. The sub is powered with a Mac 2100 bridged to mono. This system sounds great as a 2 channel rig, it also sounds great as 5.1 MUSIC rig. The system although not designed or optimized for movies still sound pretty darn good. Without spending a whole bunch more money on the system I don't know how to improve it a bunch. The system resides in the center of the house and performs functions from the morning radio at breakfast to serious listening in the evening to being a quite acceptable home theater sytem. By having the system in the main part of the house it is used 5-6 hours a day (we both work) for many different things and the use is the important part. I have found that when I move a system off to a remote part of the house it may sound a bit better but if it ian't being used it doesn't matter.
My 2 cents, Phil

reeltrouble1

Wider is Better, ask Pontiac

Two Channel Trumps HT

HT for families is fun

Two Rigs is better than one

Its double mint, double mint, gum....

Madmax is on to it, no matter how hard I try the Reel Time Rig cannot match the musicality of the 2 channel Woodshed Rig, not to say RTR is bad at 2-channel its pretty awesome, but like all things integrated, its a compromise no matter how slight.

RT1

tonyb

Well Ted,I think your gear in the so called woodshed,outshines the rtr.So your really not compareing apples to apples.Play a dvd thru your woodshed rig and let me know how it sounds.Bet it rocks your world.Yeah,there may be a few compromises when combineing HT and 2- channel,but you can do it so those compromises are slight.

Early B.

What is this talk about compromises? If the only things that are shared among the two systems are the front speakers and the amp(s) that power them, then what is being compromised?

reeltrouble1

There is no TV in the Woodshed, so no DVD's get played there, Early, whether it is a compromise or how much of a compromise running together is somewhat subjective, I feel by it's very nature it is, you need more connects, so more potential for the signal to be degraded as the runs are longer and more connections, however, more importantly the fact that someone thought about the issues and made a concious decision is what I feel is key. If someone else does not feel it is a compromise then they have there own path and goals as far as what works for there needs which are no less or more important than another's.


FWIW I just installed a 30 amp isolated ground, dedicated line in the Shed, WoW---I highly recommend this move for anyone who can, not sure if 30 amps is right for everyone but it sure worked with the BAT amp, the factory (Vladimir Shutnov) recommended 30 amps and I am glad I followed this advice, effin thing damm near jumped an enitre level. The air, the space, the detail and all that jazz. I have also put another 30 amp line in the new room I am building for the RTR so it does not feel neglected and keep things at least entry stellar for music with this rig. The runs are short, about 15 feet for the Shed and 5 feet for the RTR gear closet I am building, I put in a 100 amp electrical sub panel for future needs to run my musical and HT rigs, keeping the panel balanced is also something to consider.

Tony you are right about the overall gear between the two rigs but the RTR gear is no slouch by any standard, still I agree there is a significant difference.

RT1

tonyb

Agreed Early...if it's done right.But some don't go to the level that most would when combineing the two.Some are so dead set against it,but all I meant was,it can be done.You and Pearsall are primo examples.

tonyb

Ted,didn't mean to imply that.Anyone would be happy for a long,long time with that RTR setup.But just for **** and giggles,don't you ever wounder what a concert DVD would sound like in the woodshed ?

reeltrouble1

I have concert SACD's for that..........:D

Heart--Live in Seattle
Alison Krause--Live with Union Station
Roger Waters--In the Flesh

are three of my favorites.

The new room which the RTR gear will power is being designed with an ear toward hi-fi sound for music video's and will have a large monitor, its going to be awesome, if I ever get the thing done.

RT1

Gaara

I definitely think there are some compromises including:

Speaker placement: different for HT and Music

Pre-amp choice: Need to find a 2ch pre with ht bypass, needs extra inputs and switches

Amp Choice: Need something with more gusto for HT, if I didn't have HT I would have a great 30-50wpc amp, not 300wpc

TV in the room: Bad for acoustics, don't want a big object right between speakers for Music

More equipment: More heat put out, more noise

Equipment Rack: Another big object in the room, need a larger one for HT then Music

Different acoustic environment: HT should be more dead while music more alive

madmax

I was a HUGE proponent of combining the two. Until I tried it.
madmax

tonyb

Gaara wrote: »

I definitely think there are some compromises including:

Speaker placement: different for HT and Music

Pre-amp choice: Need to find a 2ch pre with ht bypass, needs extra inputs and switches

Amp Choice: Need something with more gusto for HT, if I didn't have HT I would have a great 30-50wpc amp, not 300wpc

TV in the room: Bad for acoustics, don't want a big object right between speakers for Music

More equipment: More heat put out, more noise

Equipment Rack: Another big object in the room, need a larger one for HT then Music

Different acoustic environment: HT should be more dead while music more alive

All can be overcome..........

Amp choice......can never have too much power
Heat.........if you didn't have a 300 watt amp,you'd probably have a tube amp.Guess which one gives off more heat and has more noise.
Tv.....can have a projector screen that moves out of the way for 2 channel.
Speaker placement.......given the type,should work for either considering your listening position is the same.
Racks.........look at the gear list in most 2 channel rigs,some have more than HT rigs.
Envirement....can be controlled thru processing settings,etc.

Funny thing about audio......you can change it to please you.That change depends on how deep your pockets are.

Gaara

This isn't a catch all.

Amp choice, I would never get a tube amp with my setup because of the heat, there are more then just tube amps that sound good with low power. I would purchase a 30wpc Red Wine Audio Ref 30, a battery powered tripath amp that will generate less heat then my current amp and be much quieter.

TV: I wasn't thinking projector...good call but only works with certain rooms. I sit ~7ft away from my set...can't really have a projector when you are 7ft away its just to big.

Placement: I like my speakers with a slight bit of toe in for music, I like them almost facing me for movies. Recommended placement usually varies between the 2.

Racks: naturally with HT you will have all the HT stuff and then some extra. If someone has a huge rack for 2ch they need even more for HT

Environment: I forgot about the new features in pres/receivers like audeyssey.

I think it is possible to combine the two but there still will be sacrifices made. If you don't want to sacrifice anything then it will cost you big $$$.

tonyb

Yeah,big money is right,LOL!!
Ted has put together 2 stellar rigs.That 2-channel is awesome.Someday I'll get an ear on it.Point being,it can be done but for no holes barred,cost no object 2 channel...well, you get it.

Phil Dawson

No matter what recorded music is never going to sound as good as live. I don't think that the system I listed above has made it so that I have had to "sacrifice" anything. Any system has to have compromises made even if you spend $150,000. You can have a system that is nice to listen to for both HT, 5.1 music, and 2 channel music. It just won't be perfect. Has anybody heard the perfect system? I never have although I've heard some great systems. Nothing sounds as good as sitting in the band or the middle of the orchestra and actually producing part of the music.
Always enjoy the music however it is produced or reproduced, Phil

madmax

tonyb wrote: »

All can be overcome..........
Envirement....can be controlled thru processing settings,etc.

Ewwww.....
madmax

Phil Dawson

Just a couple of thoughts for consideration. When the music we listen to is mixed in a studio there is a great deal of processing that happens. First a frequency sweep is done to make sure that no frequencies are too high or low and any compensation is done with an equalizer to balance the monitoring system and room. Then in the process of mixing eq, compression, track balancing (gain), reverb, many other sound processors may be used on the original tracks. After the album is mixed it often goes to a mastering house where final tweeks are done with very fancy compressors and eq. So we as audio folks then get the album and pride ourselves on listening to the music with everything set flat. I am as guilty of this as anyone. We almost never do a frequency sweep of our listening rooms and we would be shocked at the thought of using any kind of signal processing in our playback systems. I don't know where this all goes but I have come to the conclusion that there are three areas of music - the performance and performers, the recording process and engineers, and the consumer and playback system. I'm not sure that in very many cases any of the folks in the 3 groups know what the folks in the other groups are thinking or doing.
Happy listening, Phil

madmax

About the processing that happens behind the scene... You know, any equipment can be used. However, at least for those who know how to pick the right recording companies, we are talking very high dollar equipment. Manley, for example, caters to this market with pro-audio equipment. So a simple mike mixer costs about $17K. EQ's are around the same mark. Mostly tubes, high quality xlr connections, excellent design. Of course how they are used can be questionable, or not.
madmax

Early B.

Gaara wrote: »

I definitely think there are some compromises including:

Speaker placement: different for HT and Music

Pre-amp choice: Need to find a 2ch pre with ht bypass, needs extra inputs and switches

Amp Choice: Need something with more gusto for HT, if I didn't have HT I would have a great 30-50wpc amp, not 300wpc

TV in the room: Bad for acoustics, don't want a big object right between speakers for Music

More equipment: More heat put out, more noise

Equipment Rack: Another big object in the room, need a larger one for HT then Music

Different acoustic environment: HT should be more dead while music more alive

Under ideal conditions some of this may be true. However, how many people have the option of optimally establishing two separate systems? This requires, at a minimum, two separate rooms, a lot more money for gear, and a helluva WAF.