[davidrs]

I recently consolidated my audio and home theater systems into one room.

Wondering if I can further simplify my life by going from my dedicated 5.1 HT system, to having 2.1 HT built around my 2 channel audio system.

I know I can manage with a 3.1 system - my fall back position.

Question for members:

Is a 2.1 system Acceptable / Passable?

My primary concern is that very few current release bluray movies offer a mastered 2.1 audio option. Therefore, I will be relying on OPPO's downmix processing from 5.1 or greater to 2.1.

Downsides?

I cannot test this out for myself, since I sold my OPPO BDP-83SE. So testing will have to wait until I get a BDP-93.

Thanks,

David.

[wushuliu]

As a film lover I initially thought that a 2.1 would be a huge let down but over time I've found the more I pursue 2 channel music listening the more sensitive my ears have become to multichannel movies. I just find films these days just want to blow your eardrums. So I do 2.1 now. However it also depends on room size. If its a larger room wouldn't be as bad but still I don't miss much with 2.1. And I have never cared for center channel. Since the majority of the dialogue comes through it I find the illusion ruined. Again a larger room basically a dedicated HT room with greater viewing distance it would be okay but for the average Joe don't see the benefit.  My 2 cents ...

[Phil A]

You can take a receiver/processor and define the speakers you have.  Many are going to be optimized for theater.  I do have 4 surround systems.  My main system uses separates and is capable of 6.1.  The basement system is more for Sunday football and an occasional movie but it can do 6.1.  I have 5.1 in the bedroom but use a nice outboard amp if I want to listen to music  I have 4.1 on the main computer and I guess after I move stuff around I can even do 4.0 or 4.1 on the back-up computer.  I've never used downmix in the Oppo players.  I have a modded BDP-83 in the main system, a BDP-93 in the bedroom and an old DV980H in the basement mainly to play various formats.  The question is what 2.1 system are you going to use as far as speakers, sub and receiver/processor?

[kingdeezie]

I sort of did something similar most recently.

I had a 5.1 system that is now a 4.1 system; I ditched the center channel and have been amazingly happy since.

The dynamics, transparency, and overall general awesomeness of my mains could not be matched by my center channel no matter how hard I tried to get it to sound better.

I don't miss it. Dialogue, even at low volumes like 50 decibels (midnight movie watching) is still crystal clear and extremely discernible.

Off axis listening outside of the space between the two mains, shifts to that side, but the overall sound quality and characteristics are still there and it still sounds extremely nice.

I say go for it. Simplicity is nice. After moving the center channel out of the system, I unloaded an amplifier, and got rid of all sorts of excess wiring and boot up sequencing.

[davidrs]

Thanks for the feedback and perspective.

However it also depends on room size.

And I have never cared for center channel. .

Room size is 13X26X9 - not too large, not too small.

I've been able to integrate the center channel well, even with a completely different center. My preference is a floor stander as center, which is what I use.

You can take a receiver/processor and define the speakers you have.   

The question is what 2.1 system are you going to use as far as speakers, sub and receiver/processor?

If I go the 2.1 route, then I would use my integrated amp and ditch my AVR.

The system would be an OPPO BDP-93 feeding an Ayon Spirit II & Vaughn Pinot Loudspeakers.

The OPPO would conduct the processing and I would go analog out from it. In other words, the AVR will be removed from the system.

However and IF, the option is offered and doable with the OPPO, then I could also go 2ch digital out from the BDP to my ARC DAC7.

I sort of did something similar most recently. I don't miss it. Dialogue, even at low volumes like 50 decibels (midnight movie watching) is still crystal clear and extremely discernible. 

Simplicity is nice. After moving the center channel out of the system, I unloaded an amplifier, and got rid of all sorts of excess wiring and boot up sequencing.

My main concern is dialog.

Totally with you on the simplicity page!

If I can go to a 2.1 system, I will be super happy to be without all the additional speaker, IC & power cabling, speaker cabinets, and AVR.

And it allows me to put the savings into enhancing other aspects of the main system.

[saisunil]

The system would be an OPPO BDP-93 feeding an Ayon Spirit II & Vaughn Pinot Loudspeakers.

That's a nice 2 channel system ... what sub?
I have been wanting to hear Vaughn speakers ...

[davidrs]

That's a nice 2 channel system ... what sub?
I have been wanting to hear Vaughn speakers ...

Hi Sunil,

The 2 channel system is pc based and is digital out via S/PDIF to the ARC DAC7.

I sold the 83SE since it was in the original HT system, and I did want quality CD playback downstairs. With the systems being consolidated into one room upstairs, there is no need for a separate CDP. If I need to play CDs, then the 93 will serve as a transport.

I was happy with the bass levels from my dedicated HT system, so removed the subs from them.  I still have them and may or may not integrate them into the combined system.

One is a 500W NHT S-80 (pro series) that does require an external crossover.

The other is an NHT W2 system that I used with my monitors some time ago. Two 12 inch passive boxes.

The Vaughns are wonderful. Highly encourage you to give Jim Synder's Vaughn Loudspeaker line a listen. PM me if you have specific questions about them.

- David.



 

[nwboater]

Since we love 5.1 for HT and 2.1 for critical music listening here's what we've done. Our HT room is used for both.

Everything is PC based - all media stored on a WHS machine. Client PC in HT room has an Asus Essence ST 5.1 sound card that is surprisingly good. Mains are Klipschorns, center is two Klipsch Heresys that will later become sides. Present sides are old Kefs. Plan to either buy a Klipsch La Scala for center, or build something that will voice similar to the Khorns.

For movies and TV we use SageTV on the PC in 5.1. Having the center is great for this, especially for anyone not in the sweet spot! But I believe the key to a good multi channel system is to have a center that can keep up with the mains and has similar voicing. We presently don't and it's the biggest weakness in the system.

For critical music listening we have all music ripped to FLAC and use JRiver Media Center 15 for playback in 2.1. I've experimented quite a bit with the center being used for music and it just doesn't cut it. This is probably due to our center not being up to par with the mains, and some digital processing being used to derive the center channel.

Another feature of our system is that it has no receiver - PC Soundcard straight to power amps. Very happy with this approach.

This post may not be directly applicable to davidrs original question, but it may be food for thought.

Rod

[jriggy]

I have recently split my 5.1 and 2.0 system into two rooms... The big 2 ch system in the big living room and the smaller HT set up, in a small TV room now. BUT I changed the HT to 3.1 and let the Oppo 'absorb' the surounds.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is - Are you willing to have the dialog pull to one side if sitting outside of the center seat???
I was not willing to make that sacrifice. Having a good matched center with my mains gives a much better sound than just the mains in my environment... Movies in stereo, sound like movies in stereo to me. The center helps movie watching so much IME.

86-ing the surounds in my small set up actually cleared up the sound quite a bit

[satfrat]

Anyone can learn to compromise, we do it daily in our lives. Bottomline tho, do you really want to? I know I couldn't myself. My system is a double duty HT/music system. My rear speakers are everything when it comes to sporting events like a baseball game in the summer or a football game in the winter. For me, it just wouldn't be the same with only front line loudspeakers. Then there's the Dolby Digital concerts that really require a 5.1 system to be fully realized. Movies are probably be the only situation where I'd be willing to compromised but that's also the smallest share of my actual HT usage. It's only been lately I've been listening to much of my music in stereo for the 1st time in my life as I've always been a multichannel enthusiast.
 
While I'm sure I could compromise to a 3.1 system if I had to, I'll never do it myself,,, unless I absolutely have to. 
 
Cheers,
Robin

[ajzepp]

I've lived with both and been happy with both, but recently I added surrounds to my Maggie 3.6s and Maggie center, and it made a pretty nice improvement in the overall effect with movies. For most dialogue driven films it obviously wouldn't make much difference, but if you enjoy some of the more action based films with the lossless soundtracks, I'm with Robin....the surrounds can really make an impact on the experience.

[jriggy]

I've lived with both and been happy with both, but recently I added surrounds to my Maggie 3.6s and Maggie center, and it made a pretty nice improvement in the overall effect with movies. For most dialogue driven films it obviously wouldn't make much difference, but if you enjoy some of the more action based films with the lossless soundtracks, I'm with Robin....the surrounds can really make an impact on the experience.

I completely agree with this.

I needed to make the separation for benefit of the 2ch system... 3.1 is as much a sacrifice I would go personally (and room size made that easier). any more and the enjoyment of film can flatten in a sense.

If you're a 5.1 'junkie' I would take baby steps 

[davidrs]

Rod (nwboater), jriggy, Robin (satfrat), ajzepp:

Thanks for your comments and advice!

To clarify, I love and have had properly setup 7.1 and 5.1 systems. I've been involved with HT surround sound for a lot longer than 2ch, and worked my way up to a pretty amazing system.

I quit TV, cold turkey, about 1.5 years ago, so my primary use for a multi-channel system is for Blu-ray and DVDs, less for multi-channel a / v music disks.

Priorities moved to 2ch, and then other priorities (2010 has been a pretty crazy year on the personal front) led to the consolidation of the two rooms into one.

My current room is probably as good as its going to get for a hybrid 2ch/HT system in my house, however, it is a step down (for HT) from my former HT room.

I've played around with too many speaker setups, speaker combinations, processing approaches; equalization, etc. with ht to remember. As a result, for myself and my rooms, I've been able to take on some of the HT "setup" 'holy cows.'

Ideally, I would want to keep the 5.1 in 5.1! 

However, for now, I'm going to have to be "satisfied" with a 3.1 or 2.1 system.

I need to get the Oppo BDP-93 in system and see what works best, and will report back after that.

Thanks again to everyone who posted their feedback and responses.

- David.





 

[davidrs]

An update for all of you who've helped me think this through.

I still don't have the Oppo 93. And I'm still reluctant to bring the passive subs in, primarily for simplicity purposes.

So this is a small step, that tests very well.

I picked up an active over-the-air indoor HDTV antenna.

As a result, I've been able to take the over the air audio feed through the antenna/TV, digital out from the TV via an optical digital cable, to my ARC DAC7.

The 2.0 audio is working very well for TV audio puposes. A minor delay adjustment gets the lips and audio to sync.

Listened to Lyle Lovett and His Big Band performing for Austin City Limits last evening. Very good for 2.0 TV sound.

Have to say, I am very happy with the results.

- David.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Can a 5.1 junkie be weaned to live with 2.1?

No.

[satfrat]

No.

Respect!   

[gold]

I could live with 2.1 as long as you have good low end.  I also have 5.1 system as well and do enjoy it for movies.  My friends tell me to upgrade to a 7.1 which I have no interest in. I think I would rather make another 2 channel system than go 7.1. How would you make a great 4.1 system?  I never liked center speakers but do use one for my 5.1 system. 

[davidrs]

No.

The Third Eye Wisdom!!!  Patch anyone? (arm/ear; not eye) 

[OzarkTom]

I have both in the same room. I love the 5.1 system for the movies, but only listen to the 2.1 system when playing music. The 2.1 system is so holographic, it sounds like a 5.1 system, depending on the source material I play.

That is very eerie, I keep looking around for the rear channel speakers.

[davidrs]

Thanks for your thoughts, Gold and OzarkTom.

Just to clarify, the 2.1 would be for movies and music. I'm coming from a 7.1 and a 5.1 dedicated HT system.

I do have good low end sq in my 2 channel system.

And I can enhance the low end by adding two passive subs with active crossover and a dedicated amp. As a side note, I have not needed a sub in my systems for quite a while now (both for HT and 2 ch) since the low end performance has been to my satisfaction. But I can add it if necessary.