Experienced Audiophile - who want wants switch to Home theater for a while. Though I still want to enjoy my CDs on two channel ? Also whats the best / largest Plazma under $5000.00 Please help. Thanks
I would use a DLP front projector under $1.5k, like the Infocus 4805 or Optoma H31. Get a 92" 16:9 DaLite HighPower manual pulldown screen for $200, a panavise ceiling mount for $20 (for the PJ), and forget the Plasma, unless you want to watch "teevee".
I'd get a McCormack DNA amp used and a pair of Magnepan 1.6s used. Not sure on the Pre/Pro. A high-end denon, pioneer elite, or onkyo universal player would be the ticket for your source. How much gear to your want/need to change?
You make an interesting argument for a 2k investment for the teevee. How does the picture quality comare to the 50" or 60" dlp projection 20" deep boxes out there? What are the implications of about ambient room light, which I have. I am contemplating replacing a 34" hdtv tube box with something bigger, and as Saffy, doing some home theatre.
I hope I am not highjacking here, Thanks for the ideas.
You need to be able to control the lighting for a front projection system. They work best in a darkened room. If you want to add some lighting for balance, it should be backlighting at no more than 10% of the light of the image. If you want a more flexible situation, use a rear projection CRT or DLP tv. Alternately, you could go for a plasma or LCD flat panel display.
I'd say it's so close that is doesn't matter. Once you experience a 92 or 120 inch front projection system a 50 or 60 inch TV suddenly seems as small as a 19 inch. Front projection is such a better HT experience, that even 65 inches isn't enough. It's the whole gestalt thing. Sure a 1080i or 720p display might have more detail, but truthfully the two projectors I've cited (and I mentioned two VERY SPECIFIC models on purpose) do 480p so well that (to me) it simply does not matter.
BTW, everyone who's seen my set-up says they prefer it to any plasma (even the big 60 inchers). Take a moment to digest that comment. My friends (non-technical minded people) are saying this entry-level projector meets or beat the best that they have seen. It is simply that good. The PQ really is jaw dropping. People just do not know what is possible with $1.5k worth of front projection. Most said if they could deal with the install (you have to mount a projector and a screen, calibrate, focus, align, and manage some light control). But it really is worth it if you are technically inclined. Else just get a TV (RPTV or plasma) and "plop" it down in your living room, not installation needed - they're all-in-one units. This is one of the dividing lines. The front PJ install it a little more involved. But if you can level a TT and align a cartridge, I think you are qualified to do this.
As for ambient light, let me say this. If you can read a newspaper, then there is too much light. Plain and simple. These are for serious HTs. Any ambient light failing on the screen is going to kill your picture. This is one of the reasons why in addition to heavy drapes and blinds, most home theaters do not have white walls. White walls bounce around an aweful lot of ambient light. And some of this is going to fall on your screen. White walls are so 90's, anyway. ;-) So take your wife and use this as an excuse to go to Home Depot or Lowes and get some paint.
I would think long and hard about adding multi-channel. I, too, am a confirmed two channel guy. I set up an ultimate two channel music and multi-channel HT in one system. But, I found that very few films even use rear surrounds and the ones that do -- Star Wars, Twister, etc -- aren't the type I typically watch. And even those only use the full surround for part of the film. Twister, for example, has a five minute surround sequence at the beginning of the film and then never really uses surround again. But, this brings up another point. You find yourself watching parts of crummy movies over and over because they utilize surround and you want to use your surround system. So, you end up watching the pod race sequence from Star Wars or the beginning of Twister every time your friends or relatives come over until you're sick of it. I finally took all of the surround stuff, put it in another room so my kids could enjoy it, but I keep a 43" plasma in my listening room and I watch movies in two-channel. With my system, the voices image in the center, right in the center of my screen. I like this so much better than having a center channel. If your two channel system sounds great for music, chances are very good that it will sound great for movies, too. Maybe add a sub-woofer for the occasional room shaking stuff. You know, when you watch the pod race or the first five minutes of Twister.
I think it's all personal and relative here. I mean, everyone has different gear out there, everyone!..even the audiophile/reviewers for magazines have completely different setup's. That all said, you could go a number of dirrections. You could do the 2 channel w/subwoofer and pre/pro setup, which many audiophiles do. This setup makes sense for 2 channels guys, or those who wish to keep things simple, but want to spend the bulk of their money on heigher end gear in a certain budget...which may be right up your alley! All you'd need to do is keep it 2 channel (either full range or satalite fronts), add a MUST NEED subwoofer, AND a dedicated A/V pre-pro. This is a MUST for properly processing DD/DTS! You can't get the same results by simply processing in the DVD player or source, and going straight to your 2 channel preamp. This is never as good. The next audio alternative is of course to invest in some high quality satalites that will do justice to movies and music both, IN YOUR ROOM/SETUP! The speaker selection is key/paramount here for best results, far more than the gear! If your setup is such that you can sit closer to the speakers in relation to the ceiling and sidewalls, or you have very good acoustics and treatment in the room, then you can get away with higher end traditional music monitors(i.e., tweeter over mid/bass drivers) IF NEED BE. But I'd still like to see multiple driver arrays or horns and or more active designs to maximize the focus, dynamics, solidity of image, impact, speed, and pressence that you NEED for a properly potent home theater system! Most people fall short here, and don't know what they're doing. If you sit back further from your setup, have low ceilings accordingly, and or have to have your speakers near the sidewalls to boot, you must consider the above mentioned Dappolito, THX, Horn loaded, or other more "controlled focused" designs. Otherwise, you need major acoustics in place to negate first order reflections from destroying your sound!...and they will do just that. You can thus look foreward to a soft, un-involving, smeared, dynamically wispy, faint, and generally confused sound if you don't take care here. (20 years and 6 high end audio stores worth of experience talking here). All that considered, you have to ask yourself what you're room/setup would involve before you can properly adress your speaker choices in my experience...this is critical. Your choices also depend on HOW BIG YOUR ROOM IS! Narrow down your room considerations, and I'd recommend "no lose" choices for your needs, sure.
Scrap the 2 channel HT stuff...unless you are Amish, no 2 chanel can give you that theater feeling, dont drink the Kool-Aid! Get a good sub, (pay attention to Sub if you are going to use it for music) get a beefy center that has the same drivers as your fronts, and dont worry so much about matching the backs to the fronts, for serious SACD and DVD-A it is more critical though. Get 5.1 or 7.1 set-up with a good size screen and you will be in heaven, just remember to scrap the 2 channel theater idea. One more thing, for gods sake dont follow the 80HZ THX cross-over bullshit, that is a "standard" set for budget reasons, not performance.
"...unless you are Amish, no 2 chanel can give you that theater feeling" (Chadnliz)
I dissagree. I personally know that a QUALITY 2 channel setup is much better than 5 or more channels of mediocrity, ANY DAY!! Again, I speak from over 15 solid audiophile years, and from working in 6 audio chain stores, having done custom theater as well. Setup is key, but quaility is better than quantity when it gets down to it, if you ask me. Yes, multichannel movies is better when done right for the effect. However, you can still maximize a great experience from 2.1. Things just must be done right.
"...One more thing, for gods sake dont follow the 80HZ THX cross-over bullshit, that is a "standard" set for budget reasons, not performance. (Chadnliz)
Once again, THX spent thousands of hours of research coming up with this setting, to know that Chadnliz is WRONG!!! I've done more theaters than most any here will ever think of doing in their life time, for a living as well as for personal pleasure. And I find that the 80hz setting is a superb AND MOST OFTEN NECESSARY setting spot for a crossover!...given the nature of the gear selections, at the very least! Even large comercial theaters, utilize 118 db horn drivers mated with 15" mid/bass woofers, that mate 18" active subs at the 80HZ CROSSOVER! Why? Because it works! Most typical anemic, low sensitivity/efficiency passive crossover speakers for home use NEED ALL THE DYNAMIC HELP THEY CAN GET!...I promise. 80hz helps (especially receivers)even separates based speaker systems get the best dynamic range possible, leaving an active sub to handle the more demanding bass! You can dink around all you want with either full range, 40,50,63,or whatever crossover points. But day in and day out, a properly integrated 80hz system will smack the hell out of a system if you do it right! I garantee my systems set to 80hz will stomp most any typical audiophiles setup running "full range" from the mains! It works. Bottom line, trust the people who do this for a living, get paid millions, earned "Oscars" for their contributions, and are used to mixed the biggest block busters around! THX is doing just fine if you ask me. And I own mostly audiophile stuff, but respect and know what THX can do in the right hands. It's the "user error" on the other end that usually makes ANY SYSTEM fall short...Which is why you pay pro's to do it right in the first place...user error and lack of skill/experience.
Not true, the 80HZ was set-up for a standard and was budget minded to keep theater owners happy, are you telling me that if you had say a Legacy center speaker wich can cycle down to near 20HZ it would be better to run it small and crossover at 80? You are correct about 2 good channels is better then 5 channels of "mediocrity" most members here already understand quality and can surely get good sound with using rules of position and acoustics, after all this is supposed to be a Audiophile website. I do stand firm on my position that 80HZ is no way a end all be all to good home theater reproduction, after all a pooorly set up 80hz theater can sound poor also. This falls firmly in the realm of personal prefrence, I have had 4 systems for theater since the introduction of Dolby Pro Logic and I too know something about getting this right, it is also fair to note that THX on alot of gear is simply a badge of honor and doesnt amount to much at all, Lucas' has started handing these Labels out way too often IMHO. As far as the millions in research and Oscar's for the industry folk, THX was pulled out of thin air, it is simply a set of guidelines created by few and accepted by many, they created it, packaged it and did a good job of marketing it and good for them but that still doesnt change the fact it is merely a set of parameters based on the opinions of the staff involved....it also was just a tittle they gave themselves, Michael Jackson named himself the "King of Pop"......that doesnt make it so though. At the end of the day, it is still your opinion and mine, and neither means a whole hell of alot, I do respect your opinion, I just have my own..and I happen to be right hehe
"...the 80HZ was set-up for a standard and was budget minded to keep theater owners happy, are you telling me that if you had say a Legacy center speaker wich can cycle down to near 20HZ it would be better to run it small and crossover at 80?" (Chadnliz)
Yes, I'm saying just that! Having not even heard that Legacy center, that same 20hz capable (maybe strong enough for music, but not for synthesized movie effects of high dynamic ranges!) center channel will indeed sound more dynamic when only asked to run as "small"!!! I'd do the very same on full range Wilson's or JM Lab's Utopia's, you bet!!!!! 20-80hz will sound much much more dynamic and potent on an ACTIVE POWERED SUBWOOFER system instead, yes!!!! I've seen this time and time again! Your passive crossover Legacy speaker is like any full range speaker, in that it has the dynamic limitations that other SIMILARLY DESIGNED passive home audio speakers posses. And that's limitations in the inherent "LIMITED EFFICIENCY PASSIVE DESIGN!" The amps driving the bass in these systems is limited in the control of the drivers by the passive crossover in the speakers, not to mention the amps have to usually driver the midrange and tweeters, further limiting efficiency!!! This is why taking the same speaker, and letting the amps drive the upper bass info on up, and diverting the much too demanding bass to a MUCH MORE CAPPABLE POWERED SETUP, is the better dynamic option!...and THX knows this from experience...I happen to as well. (again, I've sold Wilson MAXX's, Dunlavy SCVI's, Thiel 7.2's, Etc). Of course, the subs have to be up to the task, and proper for room size. Basically, sure, the Legacy will likely have good bass for music, but will be behind by a lot with competing powered 15" active powered subs! They're just much more dynamically capable! Ok, lets review...the Legacy 20hz center with dual 15" drivers vs. even the lowely paradigm Servo 15" sub!!!! The Servo 15 active sub stomps the dual 15"'s in the Legacy!..garanteed!...GARANTEED! I've heard/seen all this before. Been there, done that! I've been to all the shows, sold it all at 6 stores, installed it all, and have heard it all at way to many audiophiles homes to know different! Passive speakers doing bass vs. active speakers doing the same deep bass...victory goes to the "quality" active sub setup, every time! Now of course we're talking about power output and dynamic range/ability...not musical speed, "Q", and accuracy. But for movies, the fact that the audiophile speaker is bottoming out and distorting from too much dynamic bass info down low, negates all that "accuracy" anway! The stuff mixed into movies is just too powerful and demanding for typical speakers. That's the way it is. So, you bet ya!..I'd take that same full range speaker, and have it sounding SUPER POWERFUL and dynamic in no time, crossing it over right, and setting it up well. Playing it"FULL RANGE" WOULND'T BE IT, I garantee it! But hey, try for yourself. As for Michael Jackson and THX, millions, maybe billions regard them as authorities on what they do. I guess the same can't be said for us! . The difference between us however, is that I do High end home theater/audio/video systems for a living, and have worked on several six figure systems, and am a respected expert in this stuff. Still, what ever floats your boat....it's all good. Some's just better than others if you ask me. I've done this far too long to be persuaded by an audiophile with an oppion. I've meet too many of them for the last 20 years. And I can still put together better systems than most any I've met.
Let's review...as long as any monitor or full range passive speaker is coupling well down to 80hz and that critical bass reigion, and they are using strong capable powered subs(good/well placed/and enough of them for the job) that are in phase, properly placed in the room, matched in volume, and mated well up to 80hz in the room, you will have absolutely no problem in getting superb dynamic capabilities and range from that system! This setup will yield about as good of a dynamic result as is possible from your typical speaker. Ok, maybe you could take some very efficient and capable speakers (ok, maybe a Legacy or big Klipsch/horn speaker), and cross em over at 60 hz or so, as a bit lower crossover, and still get very good results. And yet, the 80hz still works superbly, and probably better! It's just a good point to crossover. Granted, the speakers need to be set up well, and couple well at that frequency to avoid the "hole in the middle", along with proper PHASE and volume matching!!!! Ok, some subs are not so tight and capable up that high musicaly, as better speakers with a tight damping factor, granted. But this is easily traded off with the dynamic output and efficiency increase by a properly crossed over setup for dynamic DD/DTS movie playback!!! Your otherwised looking at a dynamically challenged and enemic, easily distorted and strained home theater experience at normal (approaching THX, which is too loud, I'll conceed) levels. Ok, some low volume listeners will argue they'd rather stay with the full range from their audiophile speakers, than compromise with a bad subwoofer setup. I find differnt, and would never go back. The exception is when I'm running large speakers with powered subs/drivers built in, to properly control the speakers for movies! This is all good of course. Still, for the proper dynamic range of an all out home theater system, this IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT! But to each his own. You know, back to THX, I still remember back in 1995 when DD/DTS was first being released on Laser Disc. In a store I was working in, Boston Acoustics came in and setup their new dedicated THX sup/sat system in our shop. The system was set up then for only DP Logic. We had DD/DTS Discs playing on our regular speaeker systems, and that was an obvious software improvement over analog recordings for movies, yes. Still, the THX setup was CLEARLY more dynamic, involving, coherent, imaged better, had a better envelopement of soundstage and cohession, that the other speaker sysetems in that same room couldn't match! There was just something (although the overall refinement and quality of the speaker was behind audiphile purity for certain) compelling and "right" about the THX setup that had GREAT POTENTIAL for movie playback...you couldn't deny! I've since come to realize that DD/DTS through a WELL SETUP THX system is a formidable set of tools indeed!...and probably what most homes should use to do movies right if you ask me. But then, you can still screw all this up with "user error", like any multi-channel "ill-set up" system from an average consumer! Infact, regardless of speaker choices, most people get it all way wrong when it comes to setting up even 2 speakers, let alone 6 or more!...and you can take that to the bank!!! ALL the THX speaker systems do is give a person a "fighting chance" at taming room relections from ceiling to floor, provide good horizontal dispersion, offer greater speed, impact, dialoge inteligibility, and involvment from the speakers! Dual mid/bass and multiple tweeter driver arrays are very effective at delivering all of the above for a movie soundtrack! Other stereo speaker designs mostly soften this experience, and sacrifice (inherently) what's important to a movie mix! YES, with the right speaker selections as tools, you can get just as effective, if not better results using "non-THX" stuff, sure. But this doesn't negate the potency of a good THX design in most applications for an effective home cinema system! I don't care for THX bashing, even as an avid audiophile who's owned some expensive 2 channel gear. THX is good stuff, works well, and does what it should...giving consumers good tools as foundations.
Lamb are you done? I was just wondering if people can get back to helping the man who started this thread, build your soap box then talk all you want, but this is another persons thread and I was trying to help, you are just running off at the mouth now...simma down
>>a QUALITY 2 channel setup is much better than 5 or more channels of mediocrity, ANY DAY!!<<
Right on. Also, just want to reiterate -- if you go to a 5 or 7 channel system for movies, most of the sound, a lot of the time, will be coming from your center channel. This means that, for a significant amount of time, you actually go from two channels to one. And the voices don't image in the center, they locate right from the center channel speaker -- no imaging. I find that disconcerting. I don't like having the sound rooted to a speaker, I like my speakers to disappear. With a good two channel system, you still get ambient sounds all around the room. What you will miss is when lazers shoot around the gallaxy, you won't get that "bullets whizzing around your head" effect. You'll miss out on a few minutes worth of action from a select group of movies and movies being what they are -- only a few of those will be worth watching.
I do recommend a sub-woofer, though. Many films use the sub-woofer enough and there's no other way to get what a sub-woofer does from two channels without a sub-woofer.
I am confident Saffy can listen to both sides of this discussion and will have more information from which to make his decision. His final decision will be stronger for having heard all sides.
RSbeck, good point, everyone can come here with opinions and argue whatever side of the fence they are on, but the poster will surely have alot more info , and in the end everyone is trying to help.
I dont see to many people with your problem with center on top of your TV, how high is it all told? maybe if you toe it down a bit it might help, although I dont know how far back you are from it but even propping up the back of the center an inch or so may help, using the TV speakers at all has got to be a crime, unless you have some darn good speakers in yours, I find it rare that TV's have a speaker worthy of anything more than watching the local news, and the last 10 yrs out of the 4 TV's I have had I could probably count on one hand how many hours were used with the fatory TV speakers on, try and angle yours down just for kicks.
Also yes alot of theaters have had,or still may have (I no longer go to movies) dialogue speakers behind the screen wich is why most HT units have a adjustment for this mostly called "Cinema EQ or Re-EQ" this was made for consumers to compensate for a "bright" image cast from the center on more of the older material when mixing for a home theater was not an issue. The image was brighter then needed to compensate for passing through the screen and in the process being "muffled" a bit.
I to have a SONY XBR, it most likely is near field related I havent heard anyone having your problem yet, maybe you have a more educated ear then most..good luck though
Interesting points made from both sides of the isle. The two channel is as good or better opinions voiced would seem valid in my experience but very quickly begins to leak water.
At this ($5,000) price point I can understand the point of view that better two channel components may sound better than lesser five channel components.
Once you raise the investment to a higher level (I won't pick the level) but a good bit more than $5,000 that logic flies out the window in my experience.
The gains in two channel sound quality become very small in real terms at levels far below what many members of this site and others have invested.
I guess the thread did go off topic by a mile but many of these type threads seem to bring these same issues to the front regarding two channel/multichannel.
I would hate for anyone to get an impression from these type threads that all they need do is invest their money in a higher quality ($$$) two channel system to stay one step ahead of the game...not gonna happen in the wildest of dreams.
Rsbeck, you are way of the mark regarding the number of movies with rear surround info....about 90% off would be my guess. Some very old movies are in two channel only, I'll guess that these are the ones you watched or you expect the rear channels to stand out in the mix at all times?...this would be a poorly setup system and is the main reason people get turned off on surround music...although surround music also suffers from a high degree of poorly mixed tracks which setup will not cure.
Poster, if you would like to e-mail me I can give you a few general ideas once we get a better idea of your needs/room/and setup limitations if any.
>>The gains in two channel sound quality become very small in real terms<<
Wow -- we are definitely not going to see eye to eye.
I have way more than $5,000 tied up in my two channel system and had exponentially more than that wrapped up in my system when it was home theater plus two channel in one.
Obviously, I believe there are solid gains to be achieved after the $5,000 level.
And, no, I didn't expect my rear surrounds to be going wild at all times.
And, my system was properly calibrated, etc.
And, no, I didn't expect old two channel movies to be in surround.
Some really bad assumptions being made there. Think about it -- everyone has to agree or else they must not have their system set up properly? Cannot imagine someone with a properly set up high end multi-channel system system disagreeing? Well, all I can say is been there done that so obviously it is possible. My systems are listed. You can see both my two channel and home theater systems. They are now listed separately because I've separated them into two rooms, but they used to be in the same room. So, all you have to do is imagine both systems combined. This is a bad assumption that could have been avoided with a simple click of the mouse.
Finally, entering a discussion forum and asking the poster to stop listening to divergent opinions and go to e-mail so he can listen only to one person in private is pretty outlandish.
As I wrote before and stand by: I think we can all share our opinions here. No one is harmed by having listened to all opinions before making a decision.
"Finally, talk about hi-jacking a thread. Inviting the poster to stop listening to everyone else and go to e-mail so he can listen only to one person's opinion is pretty outlandish."
Saffy has not said a word so my offer of any "general" ideas will save me a lot of work (typing) on points I know nothing about "his needs/room/and any setup limitations"
Many people e-mail me as I'm sure they do you. These e-mails sometimes cover weeks of swapping info. back and forth because one can only offer general ideas...the more, the better IMO. My opinion and experiences are posted above so no need to e-mail me for those.
I don't recall saying that no gains are had after $5,000, I do recall saying that I was not going to pick a point (price) but that it was a good bit above $5,000.
"Some bad assumptions being made there."
No assumptions being made, you said:
"I, too, am a confirmed two channel guy"
Your info regarding rear channels is way off the mark? I find nothing wrong with you being a confirmed two channel guy...or anyone else.
My points were to say that a top quality two channel system will not sound better than a top quality surround system...dream on
Rsbeck, get off your cloud, someone offering to help another on a 1 to 1 level is a great idea, do you have a problem because he isnt going to be talking to 10 people at once or because he isnt listening to you? You seem to think anyone who doesnt agree with you is beneath you
>>Many people e-mail me as I'm sure they do you.<<
Of course. Once a personal connection has been made and you get into details that might not interest the general population, it is often better to switch to e-mail.
>>No assumptions being made<<
You wrote --
"I'll guess that these are the ones you watched or you expect the rear channels to stand out in the mix at all times?...this would be a poorly setup system and is the main reason people get turned off on surround music..."
All bad assumptions -- not to mention the huge reach that "this is the main reason people get turned off on surround music." That's a bad assumption on top of a leap worthy of Evil Knievel.
>>My points were to say that a top quality two channel system will not sound better than a top quality surround system...dream on<<
ROFL. You remind me of an uncle who used to try to get everyone to eat their mashed potatoes with ketchup. He'd sit there saying, "no way it tastes better with gravy!"
Different strokes for different folks.
There are people who have had a top quality surround system, properly calibrated -- waaaay above your nominal $5,000 level and have gone back to two channel. So, what sounds good to you doesn't necessarily work for others -- and vice versa. Saffy can listen to all sides -- without making some silly assumptions -- and make his decision.
Besides, if you have a suggestion for a $5,000 (used) surround system, I'd be interested in reading it -- and I'd bet others clicking this thread would also.
LOL, the smorgasboard of opinions were and are fine with me...I just thought I would correct YOUR silly post with a few facts.
"if you go to a 5 or 7 channel system for movies, most of the sound, a lot of the time, will be coming from your center channel. This means that, for a significant amount of time, you actually go from two channels to one. And the voices don't image in the center, they locate right from the center channel speaker -- no imaging. I find that disconcerting. I don't like having the sound rooted to a speaker, I like my speakers to disappear. With a good two channel system, you still get ambient sounds all around the room. What you will miss is when lazers shoot around the gallaxy, you won't get that "bullets whizzing around your head" effect. You'll miss out on a few minutes worth of action from a select group of movies and movies being what they are -- only a few of those will be worth watching."
Silly
"I found that very few films even use rear surrounds and the ones that do -- Star Wars, Twister, etc -- aren't the type I typically watch. And even those only use the full surround for part of the film. Twister, for example, has a five minute surround sequence at the beginning of the film and then never really uses surround again. But, this brings up another point. You find yourself watching parts of crummy movies over and over because they utilize surround and you want to use your surround system. So, you end up watching the pod race sequence from Star Wars or the beginning of Twister every time your friends or relatives come over until you're sick of it"
even more silly.
"I set up an ultimate two channel music and multi-channel HT in one system."
I took your advice and clicked on your system, ultimate?
>>My points were to say that a top quality two channel system will not sound better than a top quality surround system...dream on<<
Not only that, but it appears you failed to read Saffy's original post where he wrote --
"Experienced Audiophile - who want wants switch to Home theater for a while. Though I still want to enjoy my CDs on two channel."
Saffy sounds to me like someone who enjoys music in two channel.
>>ultimate?<<
Dude -- for a guy who claims that $5,000 is some kind of high water mark for a two channel system, I don't think you can dis my surround system when it is combined with my two channel system -- or maybe you missed the point that these two systems used to be combined.
If you have a suggestion for a $5,000 (used) surround system that can compete with a top quality two channel system, I'd be interested in reading it -- and I'd bet others clicking this thread would as well.
Or -- heh-heh-heh -- maybe that's why you want to do it in e-mail.
Hey Rsbeck,If ya dont like what is proposed in this thread, and it is very clear you think you are better than everyone else, then just shut up, unless you get off on being an asshole, by the way your so called great HT system has been posted for over 1 year now, yet nobody has said anything to you about it....hmmmm wonder why? It is sad that you and your silly and useless arguements have twisted this thread into something the poster cant even gain anything by reading anymore, and seeing how you never can bring yourself to think a $5000 HT system can work then you should have never opened your over-used mouth. Saffy asked for help putting together a good HT with the money he has, he never asked if it can or cant be done...there was nothong productive in your post's, just an obvious snob attitude.
>>never can bring yourself to think a $5000 HT system can work then you should have never opened your over-used mouth.<<
I never said a $5,000 (used) home theater system cannot work.
If you wouldn't let your emotions run wild while you read, you might be better at reading comprehension.
You give your little opinion, I'll give mine and we let the poster make up his own mind. The only worthless posts in this thread and the emotional over-reactions from people who cannot maintain their blood pressure while reading divergent opinions.
What I am saying is that if you are a two channel music person as Saffy is -- and as I am -- you might want to think twice about adding surround for movies. I have been there and done that so -- OF COURSE -- I have something to say on the topic and the original poster is free to ignore me, like I am going to start ignoring your childish outbursts.
What I *am* saying is that if you gave me a budget of $5,000 -- I would buy a two channel system and I would kick the pants off any $5,000 surround system -- when that surround system was being used for TWO CHANNEL MUSIC. That should not be so hard to comprehend. Saffy is a two channel music guy. He needs to know what he is giving up, what compromises he is making. He doesn't need to have the discussion limited so that only surround lovers can join in. And -- for the last time -- he can listen to all of this and make whatever decision he desires.
Hey -- don't tell me what to do. I will only ignore so many childish outbursts -- I have my limits. YOUR childish outbursts I plan to savor like fine wine.
Dadnliz/others...you know we wouldn't be having all these problems if everyone would just learn to worship me.(lol) I still like his choices of either high end two channel and sub/pre-pro combo or multichannel higher end speakers that fit his room/setup needs. Did we ever discern his actual room and setup? I must read back...doi!
focus on good 2 channel, and set up an acceptable HT, with video plus audio it isnt as critical as some make it out to be....this is supposed to be fun...I know the flood gates will open back up with the ultra ego know it all geeks, so I am gonna drop out and let the others be fools, all I can say is I have a 2 channel set-up that I get enjoyment from, added to that I have an HDTV and surround speakers and it is fun, music is great and a good movie is really thrilling with all the speakers in the room. If it was me you asked, (wich you did not personally) I would tell you that 2 channel movies suck, and the more people you have in the room, the more it sucks, stereo movies are 1980's technology and to not enjoy the advancements in Home entertainment technology is a shame, you can be VERY happy with a mid-fi HT and not go broke or crazy trying to get it just perfect, if you are anal and have no life, follow others and there antiquated ideas of 2 channel movies. Or be a normal human being, get a few more speakers, set them up on the wall and add a center channel under or on top of your monitor, pop in a DVD and live life like 99% of the rest of the HT world. As long as you have the 2 channel down, follow these simple steps and you will have your cake and eat it too, plus you will have fun and a life! best wishes in your quest for home theater, feel free to mail me private if you wish and let RS and lamb babble on about who has less of a life and who knows more about HT. Best Regards, Chad
You talk to me, how much simpler of an answer can I give you? :)
I suffer when I listen to my music in two channel, why take advice from people who only seem to get success from two channels?
Maybe changing your question to attract the multi-channel guys would be best. Post "Budget Multi-channel music/film system" Multi-channel will eventually catch on one day, but for right now its a small group of people who get it and you need to talk to them.
Otherwise you're just going to get the same go round.
PS: Think of the level of commitment it would take to go with a new analog system. going multi-channel requires that kind of commitment, you wouldn't buy an expensive turntable and put a $19 cartridge on it an expect greatness. How can you only buy 2 out of 5 speakers and expect greatness? Wasting your money with that mentality.
If you could post your system, the dimensions of your home theater and what you hope to accomplish, what pieces you are considering, etc. That would be helpful.
Theta David II - no pro scan Jadis DA-60 Integrated tube amp. Sistrum Carravel monitor speakers Sistrum Plateau Interconnects and Power cords Meitner Bi-Dat DAC Sistrum Rack
While I know a reasonable amount about 2-channel - please talk about home theater like I'm in grade 2 please.
Becuase of budget restraints - I'm willing to downgrade my 2-channel components a little in order to include Home theater - except changing my speakers.(I have a seperate budget for the screen)
"...you wouldn't buy an expensive turntable and put a $19 cartridge on it an expect greatness. How can you only buy 2 out of 5 speakers and expect greatness? Wasting your money with that mentality."(cinematic systems)
This is analogy is off track IMO. It's not nearly the same thing comparing expensive tables/cheep cartriges with 2 vs. 5 speakers. We're talking quality vs. quantity here...apples and oranges!
I currently run a 5.1 system that's being upgraded as we speak to 7 channels plus sub (there's no such thing as true 7.1 yet folks...at least that I'm aware of). And yet were talking about 7 channels of high quality, superbly integrated, superb sound quality, if even a more modest separates system in a small room. Still, I've owned just as satisfying of a system with a 2.1 channel setup,using higher end gear, with 2 channel pre, tied together with an AV digital pre as well for movie watching (a necessity). Different, but they're both very effective and rewarding. You DON'T NEED TO HAVE MULTICHANNEL to get a good sound experience, indeed NOT! It's just different, perhaps more effective at enveloping for multiple seating arrangements. And yet, you can easily (I can at least) enjoy the tremendous sound quality, pressence, coherence, refinement, and dynamics of a well constructed, properly integrated 2 channel AV/music sysetem! It's just in how you put it together. And, you know, even after all these years as an avid audio-guy, I still believe the picture quality and size is more important ultimately. There's nothing quite like the large quality big screen experience when done right. Now tha thigher def is becoming more standard (HD DVD coming), and technology is getting better and cheeper, getting "bigger" is a much more interesting proposition. And yet, I'll still strive to tinker and tweak the best darn audio systems I can for my budgets. It's all good...
Without first knowing your room size and setup options, I probably vote you just add a dedicated AV processor (even an inexpensive Acurus ACT 3 would more than suffice...more than good enough for movies, very dynamic/clear) for movies, a subwoofer, and be done with it!!!! You won't need drastic setup changes, nor a radical trasformation. On the other hand, er, what's your room like?!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
