[launche]

I just don't get "whole house" audio thing.

I'm serious about my 2.1 Bryston powered stereo.

I'm not serious about my Home Theatre setup and I don't see that changing.

When my kids move out, one of their rooms will become a dedicated 2 channel room, again (It was that before they showed up).

HsvHeelFan

Here's one argument for whole house audio.

My wife and I were downstairs in the kitchen and Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get in On" came on, well without breaking the mood we got to the bedroom still listening to Marvin and I said I love whole house audio.

Here's another one:
My son goes to bed with music on every night and sometimes we'll have it on too in our bedroom.  Well one of my wife's favorite songs comes on frequently and on ocassion my son will come to us saying mommy your song is on.  Well on one night the song played and I happened to look over at my wife and she had just a wonderful smile and about 5 seconds later my son comes in with his smile and says mommy your song is playing, both smiling and she says honey I know I was just thinking about you.  A tender moment to observe and another reason I love whole house audio but hey I could be the only one.

[DaveNote]

I love live theater as well and prefer it to movies.
We are listening to recorded (mostly studio processed) music in an analog or digital format not live music.
When I see an audiophile's music collection consist of unprocessed live recordings I'll begin to entertain that argument.
The "Live Music" forums should be very crowded then.
In the sense of recreating an illusion of... I feel the movie (sound) people do a better job at their craft.  I see a lot of audiophiles try to belittle movies/home theater and I'm not sure why.  Last time I checked a hell of a lot more goes into making a movie than making a record and the same goes for trying to reproduce the medium in your home.

For me if the end goal is to illicit an emotional response then cinema wins hands down. Hell I watched a movie recently I didn't even want to watch (The Flowers of War) and got all choked up, wrestled with moral failings etc... Cinema does provide that to me on a regular basis and by comparision music is just enjoyable.

Watching a movie I once heard a jet appear to fly above me as if hundreds of feet in the sky and guess what I looked up to see if it was dropping a bomb and I said now that was pretty cool.  Is that any more odd that wanting to hear the 3rd violinist turn her page?  So for instance if audiophiles can go ga ga over their imaging and sound staging then the HT crowd surely deserves right to do the same.  And yes there are a great many audiophiles that put systems together mostly for the purpose of enjoying imaging and sound staging so let's not kid ourselves here we are all one in the same.

Since I don't do HT, nor do I know much about sound recording, I wouldn't for a moment challenge your view that movie sound is excellent. Indeed, when companies I admire, like Bryston, cater to HT users in order to get the best out of HT sound, I would assume you are correct.

I don't do two-channel exclusively in a two-channel audio room because I assume to quality of the sound is better, as opposed to HT. No, I just don't find many movies that I care to watch, the quality of their sound notwithstanding.

If on the other hand, I were not fortunate enough to have enough space where I live to have a decent audio room, I'd probably be the first to use my TV watching room as the location for my audio use as well, and that likely would encourage me to look more closely at HT to make the room a double purpose one.

Dave

[HsvHeelFan]

I don't mind music setting the mood in cinema, but I find the movie part gets in the way of me enjoying the music.

I don't have that video distraction with my 2.1 channel setup.

At my house, when the 2.1 channel setup is playing, it doesn't matter where you are in the house, you'll be able to hear it.

HsvHeelFan

[Don_S]

At least 15 years ago the manager of my favorite local B&M store told me I was one of his few remaining 2-channel customers.

I only hang on the Circle so I don't feel like a dinosaur. 

[dwk]

Has the truly dedicated 2-channel room ever really been as common as the article suggests? I know that being an audiophile is a 'rich guy' type of hobby, but even so I wouldn't have thought that a completely dedicated space would have been the norm.  Semi-dedicated I'd buy, but maybe at that point I'm splitting hairs.

Having said that, I do think 2-channel is fading to a degree and I think one factor that can't be ignored is that high-end 2-channel and HT are on different sides of the mass-market price curve. While entry-level/mass-market 2-channel is seeing some improvement, it pales in comparison to what has happened in the HT space over the last 3-4 years, and the 'high end' of 2-channel is firmly in the 'boutique' price range now. It's now possible to set up a HD projector /blu-ray HT system w/ Audyssey/Trinnov etc and decent speakers for rock-bottom prices.  I now have a projector and a decent 5.1 setup for an all-in price tag that is noticeably cheaper than what I was considering spending just on a pair of Selah Tempestas - no amps or source.  Coupled with the fact that HT is a social/family experience I think HT provides far better return on investment for most people - both in terms of $$$$ as well as use of space. In other words, if you have 'a room' available, 'most people' would get far more use out of an HT setup for less money than a 2-channel rig.
 
I also agree with 'launche' about the whole house audio point. I'll give up the HT setup and my headphone setup (NAD M51 + Stax phones, so it's a good rig) before I'll give up our 3 squeezeboxes providing whole-house audio.

[Phil A]

It's not just booms/explosions that movie surround does well.  If you have live music playing in a night club in a movie, when done properly, you feel as though you are in the night club.  If you are watching someone give a speech at an outdoor venue, when done properly, you feel as though you are in the crowd.  I'm a two channel guy for music.  I have about 300 SACDs and 80 DVD-As, many of which are multi-channel and I prefer most of them (probably 85-90%) in 2-channel and even those which I like the multi-channel track on, many times I just listen to the 2-channel.  Watching a movie with quality 2-channel is good and I've helped set-up several of those.  However, it still lacks in my opinion.  To me it's like taking out a substantial portion of the right channel in a 2-channel set-up and saying its OK.

[JLM]

Yes the audio man cave is a dinosaur and an oddity, so what?  I like being unique.

I like finally having a retreat, listening at 5AM to what I want at whatever volume (I'm not a headbanger), without hearing the furnace, other TV's, etc.

Floyd Toole et al believe that 2 channel stereo (phantom center channel) is flawed and promote a true center speaker.  HT can provide this in 5.1/etc. formats for music tracks and has nothing to do with special effects.  Toole also believes in a minimum of 2 subs (opposite ends of the room) to even out the peaks/dips in the room.

[Devil Doc]

According to my wife, I'm a dinosaur and an oddity that requires a room for her to hide me when the quilt guild shows up. It just happens to have a stereo in it.

Doc

[DaveNote]

It's not just booms/explosions that movie surround does well.  If you have live music playing in a night club in a movie, when done properly, you feel as though you are in the night club.  If you are watching someone give a speech at an outdoor venue, when done properly, you feel as though you are in the crowd.  I'm a two channel guy for music.  I have about 300 SACDs and 80 DVD-As, many of which are multi-channel and I prefer most of them (probably 85-90%) in 2-channel and even those which I like the multi-channel track on, many times I just listen to the 2-channel.  Watching a movie with quality 2-channel is good and I've helped set-up several of those.  However, it still lacks in my opinion.  To me it's like taking out a substantial portion of the right channel in a 2-channel set-up and saying its OK.

Excellent points that never dawned on me, especially about the availability of material other than movies. I actually have an SACD player connected to my TV, but I use it now only for DVD. This would attract me to HT more as I understand multi-channel music can be stunning. But if there are advantages to it, like most users, I face other obstacles - more equipment, location, etc. Still these points raise a spark of a possibility. Have to check out multi-channel music media.

Dave

[Phil A]

Excellent points that never dawned on me, especially about the availability of material other than movies. I actually have an SACD player connected to my TV, but I use it now only for DVD. This would attract me to HT more as I understand multi-channel music can be stunning. But if there are advantages to it, like most users, I face other obstacles - more equipment, location, etc. Still these points raise a spark of a possibility. Have to check out multi-channel music media.
Dave

A couple of things that are really good in multi-channel are Sam Cooke Live at the Copa (out-of-print) on SACD and Sinatra Live at the Sands DVD-A (believe it is 192kHz).  I have not listened to those in quite a while but remember how realistic sounding they were.  I a 4 full surround systems, main, basement, bedroom, office, all of which can do (hi-rez) music or movies.  Usually I'll listen to few portions of cuts of a multi-channel music mix and decide it is not my cup of tea.

[launche]

Has the truly dedicated 2-channel room ever really been as common as the article suggests? I know that being an audiophile is a 'rich guy' type of hobby, but even so I wouldn't have thought that a completely dedicated space would have been the norm.  Semi-dedicated I'd buy, but maybe at that point I'm splitting hairs.

Having said that, I do think 2-channel is fading to a degree and I think one factor that can't be ignored is that high-end 2-channel and HT are on different sides of the mass-market price curve. While entry-level/mass-market 2-channel is seeing some improvement, it pales in comparison to what has happened in the HT space over the last 3-4 years, and the 'high end' of 2-channel is firmly in the 'boutique' price range now. It's now possible to set up a HD projector /blu-ray HT system w/ Audyssey/Trinnov etc and decent speakers for rock-bottom prices.  I now have a projector and a decent 5.1 setup for an all-in price tag that is noticeably cheaper than what I was considering spending just on a pair of Selah Tempestas - no amps or source.  Coupled with the fact that HT is a social/family experience I think HT provides far better return on investment for most people - both in terms of $$$$ as well as use of space. In other words, if you have 'a room' available, 'most people' would get far more use out of an HT setup for less money than a 2-channel rig.
 
I also agree with 'launche' about the whole house audio point. I'll give up the HT setup and my headphone setup (NAD M51 + Stax phones, so it's a good rig) before I'll give up our 3 squeezeboxes providing whole-house audio.

DWK, you hit the nail on the head with a sledge hammer.  I've said almost these exact same words dozens of times in the past.

I too am amazed at how much enjoyment and the quality of the result from even a modest HT setup.  You can literally throw together (by audiophile standards I guess) a HT system and it be very enjoyable and oddly one may not feel that unease that may accompany a similar stereo hi-fi setup.  My HT setup has been 99% flat out FUN compared to my hi-fi stereo which has to a large extent been a pain in the rear.  I love music and home audio but to be honest it really shouldn't be this damn challenging.

Here's the #1 reason why whole house audio and portable music in general is spectacular.  It can provide a soundtrack to your daily life, gets woven into the fabric of your consciousness and now the moment and the music gets embedded into your memories. Like when one is actually listening to music and not components or a collection of sounds.  The two stories I mentioned before are just one of many.  There is nothing better than washing the dishes and a great song comes on and next thing you know you are dancing with your wife.  Now household chores just got a lot more interesting, everyone wins. My wife tolerates this hobby because I allow her to play and win, not enough wives win in this game and it's another huge negative.  Here's a motto I try to live by, when your wife is grinning, you're winning. Any investment I've made to please my wife has earned me a return at least two fold.

Any number of times songs come on and you get to recount various emotions and events in your life.  IMO there is no comparison, music without boundaries is far more dynamic and alive, it's a breath of life.  All the imaging, tone, smooth midrange etc... of the audiophile experience can't hold a candle to when I'm just sharing a glass of wine with my wife after putting kids to bed and just randomly Coltrane's "In A Sentimental Mood" comes on as if the universe just knows.  It's not even close, not even close.  I love my man cave and would never want to go without one but I know its limitations.

[adydula]

Two channel audio doesnt have to be uber expensive....I have 2 speakers (they are in the 6.1 HT setup as well but use them with a $1K preamp, a $1699 amp, and the speakers were $2K. The source is a Oppo Blu Ray player or a HTPC.... so for $5k or so I have a poor mans 2 ch setup that to me is stellar in my man cave.....

I also listen and watch many movies as well with the same speakers and the rest of the 6.1 stuff...and enjoy that as well.

But for pure listening enjoyment a good 2 ch system in a good room can be and is just awesome and very likeable as well...

Whole house audio...sounds good, is a compromise to me, but still ok for what it is...mood, background etc...my wife has a Bose radio for that and you would not be able to pry that from her hands..she likes it that much...again great for what it does etc...but nothing in comparison to good 2 ch.

It may be that more folks are on the HT bandwagon, etc....but its sad to see a whole generation that is missing out on the 2ch stuff....especially when its done well.....and it doesnt have to cost uber bucks...but if u want have at it....its your $$$..

2 ch for me is alive and well....

All the
Best
Alex
 

[undertow]

Right just like the "Death of Vinyl"....

Fads are everywhere, I owned 2 home theater systems they were fine, but pointless. For movies its actually better to literally put your 2 channel system in the room setup as it should be, and just run a Multi-output HEADPHONE amp by your listening position right off the TV or the DVD player, everybody has full control of the volume its far cheaper, Takes less room, way more bass than most will ever need with ridiculous subwoofers, and you can CLEARLY hear the voice on these terrible recorded multi-track soundtracks I seem to keep getting even on newer blu rays.

Otherwise your stuck using the dynamic limiter built into better DVD-blu ray players like oppo to attempt rasing the center channel enough without it being drown out by some very pointless sound effects in many movies.

Even 2 channel stereo a good one in a dedicated listening room can sound better than a 5000 dollar HT system with movies, and keep the benefit of superior 2 channel listening.

Hell even with 3d in my system now you have to put on a pair of glasses, believe it or not everybody likes that with their own headphones too as they are rather comfortable.

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

Two channel audio doesnt have to be uber expensive..

2 ch for me is alive and well....

Alex
 

BINGO! Quality home stereo doen't NEED to be costly IF one knows the way.

I enjoy bigtime vinyl music over CD & DVD-audio music which I've owned for years.

My many hundreds of LPs are picked up from thrift stores for 75 cents a pop!
My TT is still the vintage Thorens 125II I bought 30 years back which I paid for peanut.

If one knows to play the audio game right, quality stereo should not be expensive at all.

c-J

[HsvHeelFan]

My HT rig is a Onkyo A/V receiver with $1200 worth of Polk speakers.  The Polk speakers have a little 10 inch powered sub.  It's fine for  movies, but I despise it for music.

I've got the Strat Pack 50th anniversary concert and David Gilmour - Live in Gdansk on the DVR and I just don't care for music on that system.

Yes, I run that system most of the time, because tv sounds better on that than on the speakers built into the television.


My 2.1 system has a dedicated PC, with an ASUS Xonar Essence STX sound card, running JRiver Media Center outputting WASAPI - Event Style to a Parasound Pre-amp.  I ripped all of my CD's to FLAC and that's my source.

One day, I'm going to have a BP20/26/6 Bryston pre-amp.  I just don't know when.

Next in the chain, is my 4B-ST and it's driving KEF Q-70's that are crossed over at 80hz and I've got a Velodyne subwoofer taking care of everything below 80 hz.

I also have a Denon DCM-390 CD Changer and an old Yamaha AM/FM Tuner.  I haven't used either of those since Christmas.

I've got $700 in the PC, around 350 in the pre.  Around 1600 for the Kef's.  Around 1000 for the Subwoofer and I think I paid around 2K for the 4B-ST.  It was a demo model up in Franklin, TN.

HsvHeelFan

[Rocket_Ronny]

Isn't it more like "The Death Of The 2 Channel Audiophile"?

As we age, uh-hum, we need to turn on those I-Podders to real sound. Good thing the I-pod is 2 channel. At least we have a chance.

Rocket_Ronny

[launche]

Isn't it more like "The Death Of The 2 Channel Audiophile"?

As we age, uh-hum, we need to turn on those I-Podders to real sound. Good thing the I-pod is 2 channel. At least we have a chance.

Rocket_Ronny

I don't see that happening anytime soon, they are gone, long gone.
What does hi-fi have to offer them if they don't have a previous relationship?

[JRace]

I don't see that happening anytime soon, they are gone, long gone.
What does hi-fi have to offer them if they don't have a previous relationship?

I started my hifi journey with a walkman and horrible sounding tapes.
The journey starts with wanting to listen to music, from there it begins.

Now if in my start up days i was hanging around with stodgey old men who did nothing but lament about how better it used to be then maybe i would not have ended up where i am today.

[jimdgoulding]

Speaking for meself, I don't use my music system and room for watching movies.  If I had a movie room, I think a jet flying overhead would be a blast!  I seem to remember hearing an orchestral recording once made for a 4 channel system and the rear channels produced the back half of a hall.  That's just not worth the cost for me and I don't think those recordings are still being made, anyway.  I'd rather put it into a movie room!  Fat chance, tho.

[sfraser]

Yes the audio man cave is a dinosaur and an oddity, so what?  I like being unique.

I like finally having a retreat, listening at 5AM to what I want at whatever volume (I'm not a headbanger), without hearing the furnace, other TV's, etc.

Floyd Toole et al believe that 2 channel stereo (phantom center channel) is flawed and promote a true center speaker.  HT can provide this in 5.1/etc. formats for music tracks and has nothing to do with special effects.  Toole also believes in a minimum of 2 subs (opposite ends of the room) to even out the peaks/dips in the room.

Floyd Toole also stated that in spite of having a dedicated audio room, he still found he was doing a lot of listening in his common living room!