Desire to move toward simplicity

[djreef]

Yes Isiberian, I have come to practice what you preach.

DJ

 

[lsiberian]

I appreciate the different viewpoints everyone has shared on this topic. If you haven't shared yours chime in.

This all came about when I saw the very nice 20 dollar couch my fiancee landed. I have no idea how I'm gonna configure the living room with that beast so I'm thinking of switching my setup up a lot.

The couch is very nice. She's a better bargain hunter than me for sure.

 

[pzaur]

It all comes down to what you're willing to spend and whether or not you want to listen in the recorded format. I love two channel music over two channel when I'm truly listening. On the other hand, if I'm watching a movie in 5.1 I want to hear it in 5.1 and you truly can't get that from a two channel setup.

Each has it's place.

The only real improvement that can be made over uncompressed music is properly mastered music...

-pat

 

[Davemcc]

I don't know. I use my HT system as my music system also. When I'm listening to music in 2.1 on this system, the complexity, extra speakers or processing capability are non-issues...It's just me and my 2.1. The beauty of a good HT system is that it is versatile. I would gain nothing by swapping out the HT components for dedicated 2-channel pieces but I would lose the HT capability. On the other hand, I lose nothing using my HT system for stereo music.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

A great DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack will probably NOT sound great in 2.0.

For example, Dave Mathews blu-ray is in TrueHD 5.1. When playing it in 2.0, I think it loses a lot of clarity and "magic".

A great 2.0 Music soundtrack will probably NOT sound great in 5.1 (Matrix/DSP, etc.).

I think you just got to have both.

 

[biz97]

I am going through an audio system change as well. I went from a more traditional stereo system to a 2.1 system. From an asthetics standpoint it is about the same but as you mentioned not having to run wires for surrounds is nice. Using an AVR receiver as opposed to traditional stereo gear is nice because of the features. Some may prefer to keep the audio signal "pure" but I think a lot of modern receivers do quite well for 2 channel when you've addressed everything else as best as you can (placement, room acoustics, etc.). I enjoy having bass management (though limited compared to a standalone active crossover), the ability to try Room EQ, and having the ability to use the LFE channel if I pop in a DVD/Blu-Ray. If you are going to down size you are in a great position because you already have the pieces to experiment with a 2.1 setup, 3.1, etc. If you are like me and you live in an apartment space is always at a premium. Finding the right balance between wants and needs is a dynamic target. Good luck!

 

[Rich-n-Texas]

I don't know. I use my HT system as my music system also. When I'm listening to music in 2.1 on this system, the complexity, extra speakers or processing capability are non-issues...It's just me and my 2.1. The beauty of a good HT system is that it is versatile. I would gain nothing by swapping out the HT components for dedicated 2-channel pieces but I would lose the HT capability. On the other hand, I lose nothing using my HT system for stereo music.

+1. I like being able to source many different musical sources one minute, then, with just the click of a few buttons I'm watching a good action packed movie the next. My palns for a retro setup are more to satisfy my childhood regression.

 

[mke1078]

Ahhh, yearning for more basic and simpler times on the internet. This message would be better received via mail or telegraph. LOL. I think alot forget the point of a home theater and 2 channel listening. Also, I don't miss the days of squinting to see a 13 inch TV.

 

[3db]

I went back to my 13" monitor (for video and audio) two weeks ago when I was waiting for my new TV to be delivered. Given that, I'll say this - you can have my 50" plasma and 5.1 surround when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Roger doger!!! *LMFAO*. I'm so with you on this.


On the other hand, I'm striclty a 2 channel guy when it comes to listening to music. I don't need 5.1 channel for that. Two is enough tio give me teh soundstage I'm looking for. When I see a live venue, I know that the stage is in front of me and thats were the musicians are playing. I don't want to hear the ambience of refected sound from the venue as it interferes with the non reflected sound coming from the speakers. In inmost cases ref;ected music masks and muddies the effect of teh direct music. I also don'tlisten to music in the middle of their stage setup either. Two channel is the most realalitic portrayal of music. Throwing more channels in is gimmicky!!

For movies however, surround sound is a must. Ever take a walk in teh woods? There are sounds everywhere coming from every direction. Two channel cannot come close to recreating r/t ambience. Its physically impossible. But with at least 5.1, the ambience of taking a walk in the woods is recreated with much more realistic effect.

So to sum it up..movies must be in surround sound, music must be two channel.

 

[josko]

I have both 2.0 and 5.1 systems, and the 2.0 gets by far the most use. It's set up for audio only (Levinson+Mac biamped B&W 803's), and it sounds a lot better than (4 x Polk Lsi9 + Lsic + SW) 5.1 system. The 5.1 gets used for, well, watching TV. Only place where I have a real dilemma is DVD operas and other concert performances. They sound appreciably better on the 2.0, but you can't watch.

 

[3db]

As you all know there is so much hype over surround sound

No I didn't know that.

 

[ChunkyDark]

This all came about when I saw the very nice 20 dollar couch my fiancee landed. I have no idea how I'm gonna configure the living room with that beast so I'm thinking of switching my setup up a lot.

This is why I went with on-wall flat(ish) speakers. My supposed theater room isn't really as big as I would have liked and stuffing 7 speakers on stands or bookshelves really wouldn't have worked very well.

Personally I wouldn't want to go back to less than 5.1. The 7.1 setup is nice and does give better immersion, but it certainly wasn't the impact adding my modest sub made.

 

[John Bailey]

I've been brought into the modern age of stereo kicking a screaming. I have two standmounts with an Arcam receiver and an Onkyo DVD player. We watch movies on a 20" screen on an old CRT. We haven't watched broadcast TV for at least 8 yrs. I've found that I like the stand mounts with a sub for stereo better than floor standers.

Recently, my wife decided she wants to watch more movies and said we have to have, at least, a 42" flatscreen. I, on the other hand, use the stereo for 95% music, so our present set up is just fine. I've found that my recently acquired classic i-pod does a better job of playing music than my cheap Onkyo DVD. (I told you I've been brought in kicking and screaming) We'll go with 2.1, a 42" plasma, a blue-ray player and the i-pod playing through the stereo for music. I'm quite happy with that set-up, and the wife will be happy with the movies.

John