[earlmarc]

Lately, I have decided it might be a better value to incorporate a 2CH/HT system versus having a dedicated HT system and a dedicated 2CH. system. I compared the prices of my 2CH. system and HT system and decided that by incorporating them I could have the best of both worlds and at the same time have a better 2CH. system. Example:
1. Outlaw Audio 950 Pre/Pro $799
2. Audible Illusions L2 Linestage (HT Pass Through) $2450
3. Vecteur AV-6 Multi-Amplifier $3550
4. Denon DVD-2900 (Dan Wright Truth Mod.) $2200
5. Magnapan MG1.6QR/CC3/MGMC1 Speakers $2500
6. Hsu Research VFT-3 Subwoofer $900
7. River Cable Audio/Video Cable $500
Total- $12500

My HT system:
1. Outlaw Audio 950 Pre/Pro $799
2. IRD MB-100 x 5 $1345
3. Sony DVP-S7700 SACD Player (Modded) $500
4. V Inc. Bravo DVD Player $200
5. Energy Connoisseur C-5/C-C1/C-R1 Speakers $1300
6. Mirage Subtrata 1500 Sub. $550
7. Signal Cables A/V Cables $300
Total $5400

My 2CH system:
1. Space Tech Labs QA-112 Preamplifier $650
2. Carver Pro ZR-1600 Amplifier (modded) $1350
3. Eastern Electric Mini Max CD Player $1350
4. Magnapan MG1.6QR Speakers $1700
5. Wasatch Cableworks RCA-104 Int. & LC-540 Spkr. Cable $600
6. Tweaks and Power Conditioner $600
Total-$6250

Thus the combined total of seperate sytems is about $11,650. The combined 2ch/HT system is $12,500. The HT/2ch system is far superior in almost every category in HT. And if I consider its 2ch ability alone, I think it is a step above my dedicated 2ch system. Thus it seems to me that at this level combined systems are a better choice. Anyone care to comment?

[Carlman]

I agree!  I was originally planning on having a separate pre/pro for powering a center and rears while also having a dedicated 2-channel integrated into the mix.  So, the front 2 speakers would be connected to my 2-channel amp and the center and 2 rears would be powered by either the receiver/pre/pro or a 3-channel amp.  The center would be the same or very similar to the mains and the rears would be something that worked.

This would give me a great 2-channel and HT in one.  I had it all planned out... then I moved the 2-channel into its own room and decided to do something simpler for the HT.  The 2-channel is about done.

In dividing the system, I have no huge speakers in my family room, an easy to use system for my wife, and I have gained unlimited freedom to work on my 2-channel sound.

So, there are pro's and cons but, I like having 2 systems in my house right now, today.  That can always change... as I've learned.

[JoshK]

If you were to ask me, I'd say go 2 channel all around (even HT) and never look back.  But I have never heard a MC system for the same money touch a 2 channel done well even with movies.

[Mathew_M]

With that said does anyone here have a tubed based HT setup?

[JLM]

I started with a 2.0 audio/HT, then a different 2.1 speaker set up, now I've added a separate audio system.  The 2.1 HT system uses Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 speakers, which are "too good" for HT and too big/black to be mistaken as "lifestyle" speakers.  When we move into a new house we may expand to 5.1 because we'll wire for it anyway.  

Most our TV watching is cable.  IMO most DVDs have little meaningful rear channel information.  So, little reason to turn my house into looking like a stereo shop.

Two best reasons to have separate systems:

1.) It gives you an additional entertainment option, important with consideration if you're not single;

2.) Ideal placement of speakers and listening chair in HT and audio are different.  Pulling your speakers out 3 - 5 feet into the room isn't a good idea in a family room.

Besides you can tweak your equipment choices.  Music reproduction doesn't need to go as low as HT, but can benefit from some warmth (the tube question above is valid).

[lcrim]

This thread brings up some points I've been wasting lots of time on.  
I am in the process of of home improvement and among the many projects is sound proofing my common wall (condo) and adding a bedroom HT/music system w/ an HD TV, but given the cost of such an undertaking I'm beginning to question the outlay.
Also from a practical standpoint I'm wondering whether the lack of a center channel (which is supposed to anchor the dialog to the screen) is a big issue if the imaging from the mains is really fine.
I have a 5.1 system as my one and only and use it for music in stereo as well.  I'm beginning to lean towards a good  tube pre and power amp so that I have one good system rather than two decent systems but the tubes force changes in the rack layout because of the heat.  I can't leave a TV or anything that would not be happy w/ the heat over or near the new amp or pre plus more outlays on the power side, well you know the drill.
A second system is an issue since my 11 year old daughter (going on 35)  may eventually get sick of my taste in music but so far she seems to accept 50's bebop jazz and chamber music to (C)Rap and whatever her peers listen to.

[JoshK]

I completely agree with JLM.  Two systems are best, and often less money in the long run.  It is hard to gain a musically satisfying system that has all the features and conveniences that makes a tv/movie watching system enjoyable.

[PhilNYC]

My HT needs/tastes are a lot less picky than my 2-ch music needs/tastes, so I've been happy with separate systems for each...this allows me to go to town on my 2-ch setup while keeping more budget-conscious on the multichannel stuff.  In my particular home situation, surround speakers need to be an afterthought, because there's no way for me to place them in the room asides from jamming them into the rear corners of the room.

That said, I also think that no HT processor can handle 2-ch music like a good preamp, so IMHO using a HT processor significantly limits your 2-ch music performance...

[meilankev]

Well, I'm afraid I must disagree with everyone.  Many prefer 2-channel listening, and are willing to spend the lion's share of their cash to that end.  I am one of those.  And while I also enjoy watching DVDs, I didn't have the cash left over to allow for top-notch sound (if it was a stand-alone system).

I could have used only my 2-channel system for movies. but I feel rear speakers can add quite a bit to a movie experience.  Therefore, I decided to integrate them into one system.  The 2-channel gear is substantially more expensive then the HT components.  But since they are integrated, the Home Theater benefits from this as well.

At the same time, none of my 2-channel sources get passed through the evil HT equipment.  Price breakdown?

$19,500  2-channel (monoblock, preamp, main speakers, turntable, CD, cables)
 $ 2,200  HT stuff (amplifier, DVD, auxillary speakers, cables)

I know it comes across as self-serving, but for someone who is a 2-channel nut (like myself), I believe this can be the best way to spend your cash.

++++++++++++++++++++=

Matthew,

My main system (and therefore HT system) has a tube stereo preamp and tube monoblocks driving the Main Speakers.  My HT amplifier (which drives the auxillary speakers) is solid state.

Kevin

[PhilNYC]

meilankev,

Your list of equipment doesn't seem to include a multichannel processor.  What are you using to decode multichannel?

And yes, if you have a preamp that has a processor loop, integrating the systems would definitely give you some benefits to the HT part of the setup without compromising your 2-ch setup...

Phil

[meilankev]

Phil,

In my list of "HT stuff", the "amp" I listed is a multi-channel integrated amplifier.  It does all pre/pro functions, and amplifies my auxillary speakers.  It does not amplify my Mains, as it sends this signal (via pre-outs) to my stereo preamp.

I'm sorry I was not more clear.

Kevin

[ez-v]

I think for a good number of people, meilankev's solution is the best compromise.  I use the term compromise because while a typical integrated HT/music system theoretically allows you to maximize both 2-channel and HT functionality without requiring two completely different setups,  some compromises remain. Unless you have a flat-panel or a projector setup, having a TV between your mains will compromise the imaging ability of your s-channel setup for example.

However, many of us I think don't have room for a dedicated HT setup and a dedicated 2-ch. setup.  An integrated system is a good alternative.  Moreover, using the HT passthrough that many 2-ch pres have nowadays saves money in that it doesn't force the duplication of components -- you can use the same power amp that your HT system uses to drive your 2-channel system for example while not adultering the music signal by running it through the various DSP steps in your HT processor.

[meilankev]

ez-v,

You are exactly right, it would be a compromise (of my 2-channel enjoyment) to have a RPTV or an Entertainment Center between the Main Speakers.  And since I was unwilling to make this compromise, I bought a Front Projector for this integrated system.  So, again, for me (and anyone who follows this model), any compromise is minimized.

In addition, I am fortunate to actually have a dedicated HT room (in addition to another TV setup in the Family Room).  But since I didn't have unlimited funds, why not use the quality of my 2-channel system to elevate the quality of my Home Theater (without spending a lot of money on the HT gear)?  I shudder to think how much more it would have cost to get a DVD system in my Family Room to come anywhere near the quality I get from DVDs in my dedicated HT Room.

Just because you have an extra room that you can dedicate to some type of audio/video system, there's still no compelling argument for not integrating them into one.  That is, unless you have unlimited funds.  Then, by all means, split away!!

Also, I am not sold on the big advantages of HT Bypass for stereo preamps.  My stereo preamp doesn't have it, and the only downside is that (on occasion) I need to spend 3 or 4 seconds adjusting the volume of my stereo preamp to match the Mains with the other speakers.  While handy, I wouldn't use it in any "buy vs. don't buy" criteria.  Just buy the stereo preamp that sounds best with the 2-channel sources you have.

Kevin

[PhilNYC]

Just because you have an extra room that you can dedicate to some type of audio/video system, there's still no compelling argument for not integrating them into one. ...

I currently live in an apartment, so with space at a premium, there is validity to this statement.  But I do know that if I moved to a house, it would be even more compelling for me to have separate systems, because I know I would like to listen to my 2-ch system in a different room from my home theater (2-ch would be in my living room, HT would be in a family room, basement, or dedicated media room).

Also, I am not sold on the big advantages of HT Bypass for stereo preamps. My stereo preamp doesn't have it, and the only downside is that (on occasion) I need to spend 3 or 4 seconds adjusting the volume of my stereo preamp to match the Mains with the other speakers.

The main disadvantage to this setup is that your HT audio signal to your main speakers is now going through two volume controls, thereby introducing some level of degradation of sound.  I agree that this is not a "big" thing for most people (particularly for me where I'm not so picky about my HT audio)...but for some, it is worth making an issue...

[ABEX]

The best deal in audio at the moment is the Panasonic SA-XR45 receiver which you can also modify.You can use it for Bi-Amping 2ch. and HT. I like mine. It can drive maggies from what I have read which is a pretty big statement for a $300 receiver.

Good luck!