[ajzepp]

Is anyone using their 2-channel rig for movie duty? Now that I'm back in a smaller room (11.5'x16), I sometimes wonder if I should focus on a more simple 2-channel system as opposed to a full-fledged 5.1+ configuration.

How does that work with the DD/DTS and newer lossless DD/DTS soundtracks on DVDs, though? I know you'd have things mixed down to 2-channels as opposed to having five or more discrete channels, but is the resolution of the audio still the same? And what about something like the Ultra DAC? Do you only use something like that for Redbook CDs? Or would you also run your movie soundtrack through it, as well (assuming the 2-channel set up).

I feel like I should know this, but somewhere during my little hiatus from the hobby I seem to have had technology pass me by, 

Thanks!

[clipped]

Hithere,
I have recently gone back to 2 channel, sort of.
For years I had the typical surround system along with a seperate 2 channel system for music. Well after looking at my cabinet full of equipement, amp,pre-amp, c.d/dvd player, dac, suround receiver, direct tv receiver etc...
I had a conversation with Frank and he repeated something he said years ago to me, " a real good 2 channel system is the best way to go". The reason is most multi channel electronics are very seriousely flawed. I at first didn't listen, however, about 2 months ago I sold most of my surround system and bought a Dynaco box that allows you to drive 4 speakers with a 2 channel set up. The most important thing is to use 4 speakers that share the same efficiency/sensitivity level. It doesnt degrade the sound quality and gives you a sense that the sound is coming from around you. It is not 5 discrete channel sound, but much better dynamics and clarity. Frank's analogy: would you rather have 2 quarters or 6 nickels. For a real explanation speak to Frank. Sorry for the long response, but, bottom line go 2 channel.
Good luck

[Woodsea]

If I had a static house I would get the best 3 channels I could afford.  Meaning Pre with HT pass/thru, 3 or 6 amps, Modern DVD player (Oppo), DAC, and of course 3 exceptional speakers across the front.  Then treat the room.  How about a sub but only for LFE in movies.

[ajzepp]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Since I already have a decent pre/pro, a subwoofer, and a few Orbs for surrounds, I'm more likely to end up with what Woodsea described. But the quarters/nickels analogy is a very good representation of my feelings on the matter. I've always preferred phantom mode to a hard center, I don't believe in spending lots of money on surrounds (hence the Orbs), but I love the LFE that comes along with the movie soundtracks. I almost think that the perfect solution for me would be a 2.1 channel preamp that was audiophile quality, but it may be that all I need to do is get a Transcendence preamp in here and run the HT separate. The six nickels are okay as long as I have the two quarters, too 

[ctviggen]

And you have to sit exactly in the center between the speakers.  If you sit to the side, they won't image well or even at all.  That's where a center channel will work much better.  Having said that, I sat between my speakers and compared the system with and without a center channel.  In my setup with my preamp, I preferred having a center channel, particularly for movies like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, and other action movies. 

[Early B.]

The 2 quarters and 6 nickels analogy doesn't make cents. A better perspective would be -- "apples and oranges" or "form follows function."

Two-channel audio and HT are totally different animals. There's no way in hell you're gonna get the true home theater experience in 2-channel, no matter how hard you try. There's a reason it's called, "surround sound."

If given the choice, use two separate systems. If money is an issue, then start by building a great 2-channel system, then add onto it to create an HT system as the funds become available. Use the front speakers and amp for HT, as well. Best of both worlds.

  

[zybar]

In my experience good speakers will image well enough to render a center channel unnecessary -- the trick being placement, of course.  Helps to have a flat screen & no big cabinets.

I agree.

This was how I did things in my previous house when I had to combine my 2 channel and HT systems.

I never felt that I had an imaging problem.

It helped that I had a dedicated room and I was able to sit a good deal away from the speakers.

In my new house where I have the systems separated, I am going with three identical speakers (Salk Sound SongTowers) across the front that will be behind an acoustically transparent screen.

George

[Zheeeem]

Is anyone using their 2-channel rig for movie duty? Now that I'm back in a smaller room (11.5'x16), I sometimes wonder if I should focus on a more simple 2-channel system as opposed to a full-fledged 5.1+ configuration.

I have a relatively simple 2-channel HT set-up.  An older AVA amp and preamp, a pair of magnepan tympani 1(U)s, a REL strata III, an OPPO DVD and a 42" panny.  Frankly, it looks and sounds great, I've never had any playability issues, and it outperforms all the 5.1 rigs I've ever heard (which, admittedly, is not many).

[Woodsea]

You don't know what you are missing if you never heard it.  I would not go without a center. 
Having the speakers disappear is brilliant!  In your new home, you could  put some in-walls in with the acoustic cloth matching the paint color.  You don't need anything fancy.  Not much comes out of the sides, but a footstep or a whisper can sure creep you out in the dead of night.

[WGH]

ajzepp,

Why not do both? Two channel and surround does not have to be an either/or decision. My room is 11'x15' and 2 speakers (no center speaker) work just fine for movies. The surround speakers add a nice dimension and are a must have if you are thinking of watching most modern films.

A stand alone digital decoder can be used just for movies so you can still use any pre-amp/amp for 2 channel listening. I currently use a Technics SH-AC500D Digital Surround Processor plugged into the AUX inputs for the front 2 channels in my 4 channel surround system. The rear channel output from the Technics is plugged into my old Adcom 535, though any affordable stereo amp will work for surround duties since no bass is passed through, a Trends amp would be an affordable alternative. I built my own surround speakers but another option to get you started are the Dayton SAT-BK Satellite Speaker from Parts Express for only $32.37 a pair.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-670#


Wayne

[satfrat]

Going w/o a center channelis debatable but going w/o your rear channels is unconscionable. You lose the whole home theater experience where you're actually a part of what you're watching. I would suggest to everyone to go see a movie at an I-Max or any movie theater that has a  calibrated THX sound system and imagine what it would be like to cut out all that surrounding action. 2 speakers just won't cut it, you might as well do to a drive-in and listen to your car stereo. 



Robin

[gjs_cds]

I tend to think that this is a matter of personal preference and personal values.  In my youth, I sold (mid-fi) audio and (mid-fi) car audio.  And because of this, I was able to amass ridiculous values for a kid in his early twenties.  And yes--I had one of those car stereos that was likely more valuable than the car itself.  (Note: I wasn't one of those dumb bass-heads; this was truly car-fidelity... or as close as you can approximate in such an audio-hostile environment.)

I was able to get Arnie Nudell's best dipolar (Eosone) home theater speakers (@ 75% off retail), complete with a pretty decent HT receiver.   (Yamaha's best, at the time.)  I also built a ridiculously powerful music/HT sub.  And during that stage in my life, I thought I really had it made.

But as I get older (and maybe mature some)--these things just don't matter to me.  I no longer care about "car-fi"; I'd rather have a meaningful conversation with my wife or daughter.  And Home-Theater no longer interests me all that much as well.  When I get home, I'd rather be with my family or listen to a truly Hi-Fi 2-channel rig.

Stated differently, there are simply too-few movies that I feel are worth my time.  My time is too valueable to waste on the meaningless drivel coming out of Hollywood.  And because of this, I honestly have lost any sense of caring re: HT.

So for me, at this stage in my life, I primarily listen to 2 channel hi-fi.  All my car-fi and HT gear sits gathering dust...

[satfrat]

Going w/o a center channelis debatable but going w/o your rear channels is unconscionable. You lose the whole home theater experience where you're actually a part of what you're watching. I would suggest to everyone to go see a movie at an I-Max or any movie theater that has a  calibrated THX sound system and imagine what it would be like to cut out all that surrounding action. 2 speakers just won't cut it, you might as well do to a drive-in and listen to your car stereo. 

On the other hand, some people just want to watch movies at home with better, clearer sound.

My overriding memory of the THX theater experience is bleeding eardrums from insanely loud HF noise effects.  I don't care if they're coming from behind or what; in fact, that was part of what was so annoying about 'em.  (I know I know, you can turn it down at home.) Obviously I'm not a diehard HT guy...the movies that most seem to call for the razzle dazzle boom boom theatrical experience are, by my lights, usually worth seeing an average of one time.

I tend to agree with ya on the volume but that's not really where I was going,,, anyways that's what the volume control is for. As you'rve probably gathered. I'm as much of a home theater fan as I am an audiophile. I lived for the drive-ins for many years right up til I got my first surround receiver in 1990. That took care of the drive-in's for me. There's watching a movie, then there's actually being involved with a movie which is what being surrounded by speakers does for me. When it's set up right, there's no better way to watch a movie. I'll even take that 1 step further and include sports where the announcers are on the center and you've recome part of the crowd with the other speakers. It makes me get involved with what I'm watching. If you're going to just listen to stereo, why even bother with more than your TV speaker? All you'll get is that center image and 1 speaker will give that to ya.

That's all I got,,, see ya and Good Luck! 



Robin

[avahifi]

I have always felt that surround sound was simply a really clever way of the marketing people to get you to buy into 5 or 7 bad channels instead of two good ones for the same money.  Van Alstine's definition of marketing:  Using fraud and deception to sell crud to fools.  Never been shown to be wrong yet.

Once you have a dinkey little solid state IC chip sound sound "processor" annihilating the music, in my judgement it matters little what you use for equipment afterwards.  The processor is the musical analog of using a meat grinder on your strip sirloin steaks.

I use an AVA Ultra electronics set (amp, preamp, and DAC) and a set of Salk HT3s run directly off the cable box analog outputs or DVD player digital outputs and get better QUALITY video sound in my opinion than any surround noise system I have ever heard, most of which simply send me running screaming out of the room.

See you at the RMAF show, room 1114.  There will be some new things there.

Frank Van Alstine

[TomW16]

I tend to agree with WGH in that HT and 2-Channel can coexist.  My priority is 2-Channel so that is where I spend my money with AVA equipment, however, I have a by-pass on my preamp so that the HT processor can use the main amp and front stereo speakers in the home theater with less expensive rear speakers and amplification.  This is the best of both worlds in my mind; uncompromised 2-channel stereo and the ability to experience full surround sound on movies.

Cheers,
Tom

[JLM]

For the relatively few movies that I care for that have good surround effects, the rear channels do make a big difference.  And I found out the importance of the center channel a couple of weeks ago when it was cutting in and out (loose bare wire connection) while watching a movie.

But 98% of the time 2 channels is just fine.

Years ago I was at a stereo vs. 5 channel crossroad and picked 2.1, even got a Rotel stereo A/V receiver (what an odd duck).  Like Frank, I invested in two better channels than 5 lousy ones.

[JoshK]

Ultimately given the availability of space, I'd opt to do two seperate ventures with different goals.  Barring that, I'd focus on two channels and then later on do an add-on, like WGH and others mentioned.

[ajzepp]

Thanks for all the responses, guys....really appreciate it   I don't know why I have such a hard time with this, cause I already have what I consider to be great mains, and I already have some little Orb surrounds that blend surprisingly well for rear effects. I think what I don't like is my outlaw audio pre/pro, so once I get an AVA preamp in here and get the outlaw out of the equation, I'll probably be a lot happier. But I've spent a fair bit of time listening to movies in a GOOD 2-channel system, and it's a helluva lot better than a lot of people would care to admit. I think I'm just a fan of  simplicity, and sometimes it just seems more logical for me to have a simple, but excellent, 2 or 2.1 channel set-up.

[martyo]

I think I'm just a fan of  simplicity, and sometimes it just seems more logical for me to have a simple, but excellent, 2 or 2.1 channel set-up.

Right there with ya. 

[satfrat]

I think I'm just a fan of  simplicity, and sometimes it just seems more logical for me to have a simple, but excellent, 2 or 2.1 channel set-up.

Right there with ya. 

Right there against ya. 

But i respect what works for you! 

Robin