Music vs. Home Theater

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hello all.
I'm new to this forum.
As the name implies, I have an Acurus/Definitive Technology system.

I think one of the most popular topics is the Music vs. Home Theater Sound.
Some say you can't get both in one system if you want the best of both worlds. I wonder how everyone feels about this?

 

[fmw]

I would disagree completely. You can put a home theater in an acoustically good room and use good wide range speakers just like you can a 2 channel audio system. My dedicated music room is small and dead. I listen near field. Imagine being at the mixing console of a recording studio. That's about how it sounds. It doesn't sound nearly as nice as the home theater which is in a more spacious, reverberant and acoustically interesting room.

I actually use the music room more for playing music than listening to recorded music. I listen to recorded music more often in the home theater because it is more comfortable, more spacious and sounds better.

I've been talking about the playback environment, of course, not the sound quality of the recorded media since you can play the media in any environment.

 

[avaserfi]

You can get both with quality speakers. When auditioning the mains focus mostly on music as that is far harder to reproduce than a movie. After this has been done make sure you can get a matching center for those mains and then find good surrounds. Lastly, there are plenty of strong musical subwoofers out there that can get low enough and loud enough to blow you away during a movie yet play tight enough to make every pluck on a bass guitar sound just like the guitarist was in your room.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

Sure you can get a system that is great for both. You can get away with a less expensive system for movies but if you build a system that is great at music it will likley be great at HT as long as you have the proper sub and center.

 

[Gimpy Ric]

First off, Welcome to Audioholics! Any HT setup switched to 2.0 or better 2.1 with correct sub adjustment should be good for both apps. A little more bass for movies perhaps. My preamp remote has a sub button on it to adjust it from your arm chair.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Has anyone compared the sound of music from a dedicated stereo preamplifier to a receiver?
My impression (from reading The Audio Critic) is that all amplifiers and preamplifiers sound the same, as long as the quality is good. Thus, a good receiver will sound just as good as a separate dedicated stereo preamplifier?

 

[avaserfi]

Has anyone compared the sound of music from a dedicated stereo preamplifier to a receiver?
My impression (from reading The Audio Critic) is that all amplifiers and preamplifiers sound the same, as long as the quality is good. Thus, a good receiver will sound just as good as a separate dedicated stereo preamplifier?

That will almost always be the case, as long as you can supply enough power to the speakers you should be golden. Good clean power will do its job no matter where it is coming from.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I mean a lot of people spend a lot of money on really expensive amplifiers. For example, they spend $2,000 or more just for 200-watts RMS x 2 channels of amps, or $6,000 for 6 channels of amps. A lot less expensive would be like a Outlaw Audio 7900, which is 300-watts RMS x 7 channels for $3,000.
But what if we got one of those cheaper ($200 refurbished) AudioSource AMP-300 amps that is bridged for 470-watts RMS mono? So a 5.1 HT system would be $1,000 for 470-watts per channel x 5 channels? It has volume control, so it is actually an integrated amplifier. You would have to use the internal DD/DTS decoder of the hd player. Then you could have both a dedicated stereo music system and a 5.1 HT system.

How would this system sound compared to a $3,000 Denon or Yamaha receiver using the same speakers and same hd player?

 

[avaserfi]

The two systems would probably sound similar at lower levels assuming the receivers could comfortably push the speakers. At higher levels you would probably hear differences between the amped system and the receivers because of the amps ability to push out more power and thus provide the proper amount of power at higher volume levels.

 

[j_garcia]

But what if we got one of those cheaper ($200 refurbished) AudioSource AMP-300 amps that is bridged for 470-watts RMS mono? So a 5.1 HT system would be $1,000 for 470-watts per channel x 5 channels? It has volume control, so it is actually an integrated amplifier. You would have to use the internal DD/DTS decoder of the hd player. Then you could have both a dedicated stereo music system and a 5.1 HT system.

How would this system sound compared to a $3,000 Denon or Yamaha receiver using the same speakers and same hd player?

Without a pre section it won't work, unless you intend to keep it at one volume all the time. I have owned an Audiosource amp and they are very decent. The typical receiver will not keep up with the typical external amp because they are designed to do the same thing in different ways. Amps do one thing only - amplify, while a receiver has a bunch of other jobs it has to do in the same box. So you have trade offs in design and you have to compromise some capability to hit a particular price and functionality.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Yes, the two channel audiophile will sneer at those of us who combine music and ht. There is too much digital "pollution" between the source and the speakers. That may be true in a diminishing returns fashion.
I have three different amplifiers powering my 5.1 surround system, and the music is to die for, two or 6 channel. Plus, I have the benefit of a Home Theatre rig that can shake the foundation on movie playback.
Now, if I was a wealthy individual I would have a dedicated theatre room, as well as a dedicated listening room.

 

[j_garcia]

My system was designed around music specifically, HT is merely something that benefits from that intent

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Without a pre section it won't work, unless you intend to keep it at one volume all the time.

I actually have an AudioSource AMP300 also. It has volume control. Thus, you could hook a dvd player directly to it---making it an integrated amp. I am using the AMP300 in my family room. A dvd player hooks up directly to the AMP300, then out to speakers. I can turn the volume to total silence or crank it up as loud as any receiver. The volume is usually sitting about 1/4 mark.

I've tried to compare the AMP300 (which I got for $200 refurbished) against one of my Acurus 200X3 (which I bought brand new 10 years ago for $1,500).
I could not tell a difference between the two (in stereo 2-Ch mode), which made me a little bit angry. I felt like I was being suckered all these years. I did not compare the AMP300 as an preamp+amp against my Acurus RL11 + 200X3, but they probably sound the same too.

It just made me wonder which is "better"? Five of the AMP300 brand new for $1,500 and 470-watts RMS x 5 channels versus two of the 200X3 for $3,000 and "only" 200-watts RMS?

 

[markw]

Well put.

My system was designed around music specifically, HT is merely something that benefits from that intent

I've never seen a system designed for music not sound good for HT. Unfortunately, I can't say that's true for the other way around. I've hears some systems that sound fine on HT sould truly dismal when it comes to music.

And, when one says "multi-channel music" I do hope they are referring to music that's distributed in a multi-channel format, not two-channel music synthesized into more channels. That's no more multi-channel music than those "electronically enhanced/rechanneled for stereo" records were at the dawn of the stereo age were stereo.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I agree that if it sounds great with stereo MUSIC, it will also sound great with 5.1HT. I think almost everybody agrees. I guess that's why practically all preamp/pre-pro reviews start with 2-ch stereo music listening first.

I can't stand those "fake" or synthesized or "pseudo" multi-channel music.

So does anyone have an opinion on using 3 separate stereo preamplifiers for MUSIC and 5.1HT?

Would that be the best of both worlds?
To use analog line-preamplifiers for both music and HT?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

And, when one says "multi-channel music" I do hope they are referring to music that's distributed in a multi-channel format, not two-channel music synthesized into more channels. That's no more multi-channel music than those "electronically enhanced/rechanneled for stereo" records were at the dawn of the stereo age were stereo.

What about 5.1HT vs 7.1HT?
If the majority (say 80%) of the movie soundtrack is in the front three channels, why are there FOUR speakers in the REAR and only 3 speakers in the front?
Mathematically, shouldn't there be like 5 speakers in the front and 2 in the rear?

 

[avaserfi]

The extra two speakers in a 7.1 set up just add to the ambience of the surround feeling. They play the same exact thing as the surrounds in a 5 channel set up and are generally used in larger rooms. Between the center and L/R channels enough information can be made to have the sound seemlessly travel infront of you so there is no need for more speakers but in larger rooms extra surrounds can be used to insure that everyone get the same affect of being engulfed.

 

[markw]

Math ain't got nuttin' to do with tfis.

What about 5.1HT vs 7.1HT?
If the majority (say 80%) of the movie soundtrack is in the front three channels, why are there FOUR speakers in the REAR and only 3 speakers in the front?
Mathematically, shouldn't there be like 5 speakers in the front and 2 in the rear?

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if you're for real.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

Vs. just your imagination?

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if you're for real.

 

[avaserfi]

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if you're for real.

Give him a break, some people really don't get these things, but if he asks anything about height surrounds then we will be on the same page.