2 channel or multi-channel on the same budget?

[dis]

I listen do music/ht at about 50/50.

If you had a budge of $4000-5000 and had the same music/ht preference I do, would you:

(a) invest in a quality 2 channel system (speakers and power amp only)

or

(b) spread the money out of a 5.1+ system (speakers & sub(s) only).

I do have a decent enough receiver (NAD T742) already, that could be used in either configuration.

 

[nm2285]

While I can only dream of the budget you have (college student here), I chose a 2-channel system because I do about 90% music listening. In your situation, I think I would invest heavily in the front mains and a center channel to match. Buy surrounds that are much less expensive and smaller bookshelf models (maybe even some old speakers you have sitting around?).

The mains would be full range towers that could either eliminate the need for a sub or make it unneccessary to spend lots of money on a great sub (only use it for theater, not music).

I would use your T742 to power the surround system and have a high quality separate 2 or 3 channel amp for the fronts (buying a 3 channel amp would make matching listening levels when going from music to surround much easier).

This way you find a great balance-don't sacrafice much in your stereo listening and yet have a very nice surround system to play with.

Hope this gives you some ideas!

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Good advice above. Go multi. Even conventional 2 channel CD's are said to be a revelation in DPLii. I envy your budget, too!

 

[rgriffin25]

Sometimes I feel like those who choose 2ch are selling themselves short. I am a music student / musician and some of the Multi-channel SACDs do a great job recreating the concert experience. Sometimes when I close my eyes, I feel like I am on the conductors podium. Sorry but no 2 channel recording has done that for me. I you choose multi-channel and want 2ch you are already there..

 

[av_phile]

An excellent stereo system can be a subset of an excellent muti-channel system. Take your pick depending on your source material or listening mood. Just turn off the other channels when listening in stereo.

A stereo system is basic. But a multi-channel system can impart some new listening experience to stereo. You can go DPL2 which for many, adds some new listening dimenstion to stereo. It gives you more flexibility and choices with either HT or music, and with high-res DVD-A or SACD.

Ofcourse stereophiles will insist on splurging all you can afford on a stereo set-up. No argument there. There is still so much that can be had with ordinary stereo. The more revealing your system becomes, the more pleasures you can get. Even SACD and DVD-A's stereo tracks often have higher resolutions. Personally, I'd try to get a more satisfying stereo set-up using separates. There is only so much you can do with all-in-one receivers. Then when more funds become available, i'd slowly upgade to multi-channel without discarding my stereo set-up. Just add components.

 

[JohnA]

Multi-ch

here is the thing if you listen to them 50/50 I would go for the multi-ch route, beacause....you can run the milti-ch amp in stero for audio and then switch to multi-ch for movies, but not the other way around...plus you are more likely to sit for two hours whatcing a movie with friends than sitting for two hours listening to music with them...at least I would.

 

[dontsleep]

For 4,000-5,000 you could buy you a great sounding 2 channel system and a separate great sounding HT.

Anyone that tells you different is either stupid or lying.
Does the term "diminishing returns" ring a bell?

 

[Rob Babcock]

I see no need to have two systems. I'd rather funnel my money into one system instead of diluting over two systems & duplicating a lot of gear. You could make two servicable systems, but I'd hate to have to buy 7 good speakers instead of just five.

 

[dontsleep]

Absolutely,I guess my point was,for that kind of money there is no need to worry about falling short on the budget and not getting great quality.

 

[dezracer]

Where can I get more info on a 3-channel amp?Do these work well for "Phantom Surround" I have a similar delima that I posted today in This sub-forum as well as the amp and preamp forum. You might want to check those threads for replies also.

 

[djoxygen]

I'd say maybe weight it about 40% toward the front and the rest toward the x.1. Get the best of both worlds. And if there's any extra, you can certainly send it my way so I can move past stereo. >;-)

 

[Karp]

I would buy a high quality receiver, a sub,a great set of mains, and good surrounds from the same line as the mains. I think a good receiver (such as the Dennon 3805) pre-pro section is 95% as good as a seperate pre-pro. You can always pick up seperate 2-channel amp later if you feel the receiver doesn't have enough power.

 

[JoeE SP9]

The amount of funds you are talking about means very little in the way of compromise is necessary. I would buy seperates simply beacuse the upgrade trade in path is easier. No one wants a 3 year old receiver. Lots of people buy 3 year old power amps or speakers.

 

[av_phile]

Where can I get more info on a 3-channel amp?Do these work well for "Phantom Surround" I have a similar delima that I posted today in This sub-forum as well as the amp and preamp forum. You might want to check those threads for replies also.

Many manufacturers produce 3-channel amps like Aragon, Acurus, Bryston, Parasound, Adcom, etc. Just do a google search. Why go phantom if you want a 3 channel amp? That third channel was meant for the center, either front or back. At any rate, you can always switch to phantom, doesn't matter. The left and right fronts, if they image well, as most separates do, will deliver the phantom center.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I listen do music/ht at about 50/50.

If you had a budge of $4000-5000 and had the same music/ht preference I do, would you:

(a) invest in a quality 2 channel system (speakers and power amp only)

or

(b) spread the money out of a 5.1+ system (speakers & sub(s) only).

I do have a decent enough receiver (NAD T742) already, that could be used in either configuration.

Definitely multi channel. You need that for movies and certainly a much more realistic experience for music. The only way to go

You should consider 6.1 if you have the space for speakers.

 

[Pat D]

I listen do music/ht at about 50/50.

If you had a budge of $4000-5000 and had the same music/ht preference I do, would you:

(a) invest in a quality 2 channel system (speakers and power amp only)

or

(b) spread the money out of a 5.1+ system (speakers & sub(s) only).

I do have a decent enough receiver (NAD T742) already, that could be used in either configuration.

I suppose it depends on what speakers you like. Anyway, there are some terrific speakers available for $2000 or under a pair so you can get the sound you want and an HT system, too. I don't know anything about your receiver. I did look up the current T 473 and it is spec'd at 50 watts a channel and I suppose your receiver is roughly the same. With reasonably sensitive speakers, around 90 dB or more with 2.83 volts input, this should be fine. You should get a subwoofer, so you don't need main speakers with super low bass.

For that matter, if you want to add a power amp, this can easily be hooked to the pre-outs on the NAD, and you could drive any main speakers you want. Surround channels usually need considerably less power.

 

[miklorsmith]

The other side of the coin:

Most rooms simply aren't configured to take advantage of 5 - 8 speakers. Trying to figure out where to put them all for optimum configuration will be a challenge to all but the biggest room. Even then, only a seat or two will be in the true surround zone.

Very few non-movie recordings (SACD, DVD-a) are multi-channel. A small percentage of those are actually recorded well enough to justify all those channels.

It is impossible to argue that you will not be downgrading your equipment to provide all those channels. The assessment becomes a question of whether you are looking for MORE sound or BETTER sound. Personally, my 2-channel system currently values around $10,000. This has taken me 20 years of periodic upgrades to assemble and is always waiting for the next available cash bundle to spring for that thing that's been bugging me.

Imaging is far better with a two-channel system. Good equipment will add soundstaging depth, width, and height that will make you forget where the speakers are in the room. This also works with a good DVD setup and good recording. No receiver on the planet will touch a two-channel pre/amp or good integrated in this regard. Go down to any good hi-fi shop and bring some music. Let them show you what you'll get for that money in your two scenarios. I'll bet my system it's no comparison.

My advise, get a good multi-format source, pre/power or quality integrated amp (see Unico Integrated, $1,500), and the best speakers you can with the money you have. Spend about $500-600 on cables. At this price point on a 2-channel rig, the cables will be audible. Don't bother with cables on the HT system. You'll need 2-3 times your budget to build a worthy HT setup that would be adequate as a music source. Monsters will serve just fine.

On the other hand, if you just need a lot of bass and something to show off to your friends, I'm sure the other posts will fill the bill.

Or, don't just trust my word, look at any audiophile publication and see where they spend their time.

klam

 

[JoeE SP9]

Miklorsmith I totally agree with you. No matter what you do, a rig built to optimize 2 channel sound always sounds better than a MC based rig playing 2 channel. It's just nice that they do shine on MC sound. I also believe that buying separates allows for much greater flexibility and ease of upgrading. I know that if and when I decide to get rid of an old Hafler DH200 I can get $200 dollars for a twenty year old amp. There are no receivers that hold value like that. As an afterthought, the vertical size of panels makes the music sound more realistic because there is a realistic impression of height.

 

[av_phile]

On the same budget at some level, it's almost a no brainer that an optimized 2-channel rig using separates and good speakers can sound more satisfying than spreading that budget thin on an HT receiver plus sub-sat speakers. But it is a good idea to distinguish between multi-channel for HT and multi-channel for Hi-Resolution music. HT need not be audiophile grade. But it can benefit a lot from a multi channel rig optimized for hi-res music.

Many enthusiasts can be dissappointed hearing music on MC or Stereo on an HT set-up. I can understand that; most HT gears are not audiophile grade. But there are probably an equal number who have heard hi-res MC and Stereo on a properly set-up audiophile grade multi channel separates system dedicated for hi-res and they often swear they would never go back to stereo. A bit overacting, but I can understand. You have to hear a really excellent multi-channel rig to give justice to the hi-res MC mixes of some recordings in that medium. Even stereo. On a well set-up MC, stereo becomes a subset, just turn off the other channels. In terms of expense, you have to have the same passion and dedication to MC, the way you had to stereo, to fully appreciate what those hi-res formats can give, whether in stereo or MC.

I've seen MC rigs using all front and back B&W Nautilus or Martin Logan speakers driven by 5 monoblocks and 5 mono linestage preamps initially used in their stereo rigs. These are fed separate DTS decoders and DD/DPL processors and transport-only players or separate DVD-A and SACD players. With the same passion they had for their stereo rig, the expense can really be at least 2.5 times what they had spent for superb stereo only rigs. Some don't use center channels which can have a center image similar to stereo. And some need not use a subwoofer as their identical towers go low enough. THough still others use multiple subwoofers for front and back.

In my case, I have a toned down equivalent using separate multichannel Rotel DTS and DPL decoders, a Denon DD decoder/preamp feeding directly a 3-channel Acurus power amp for center and rears and another more powerful Acurus 2-ch power amp for the fronts. I use identical Mordaunt-Shorts all around and a B&W sub. I must say, they're nowhere near what I've heard with the separates my colleagues have, but sonic nirvana is almost there for me in most materials I play, whether in stereo or MC. A far cry from an Onkyo flagship receiver I had set up just for HT in the DPL days. But that's just me, ofcourse.