2. home-theater
  3. 167933-132884

AVR: Internal 2 CHANNEL AUDIO MODE. OR: HT BYPASS (external equipment for 2 CH Sources)

1. AVR, every one I had includes an AUDIO MODE for 2 CHANNEL which sends ALL signals ONLY to L & R Amps/Speakers. True 2 Channel sources, OR, ’unencode’ or ’down-mix’ surround to 2 Channels (often sounds better). Critically, surround center signal goes equally to L/R. Poorly done surround or cable created pseudo surround is ’put back together’.

or

2. HT BYPASS: separate L/R inputs direct to AVR’s L/R Amps (at full gain). You send volume controlled L/R signals (devices with their own volume control or via a preamp). (I’ve never had one, nor anyone I know).

https://hometheateracademy.com/home-theater-bypass/

In both cases, the AVR L/R amps only are driving the L/R Speakers, thus the amp’s sonic signature is the same. Using ’better’ equipment to feed the same amp?
...........................................

Why HT Bypass? Shortage of Inputs?

Blu-Ray players play CD, SACD so that’s already covered.

Aside from everything else, you need 2 remotes if you use HT Bypass (to control 2 Channel Volume).

Pure Signal? Many AVR’s offer ’PURE’ or ’DIRECT’. Many preamps offer tone bypass, i.e. Pure, Direct. Thus the preamp is simply a source selector and volume attenuator.

...............................................

IF I wanted ’better’ 2 channel equipment, I certainly would want ’better’ L/R amp(s) (most probably Tubes) so the AVR will be off and a method to get to the L/R speakers is needed.
...............................................

And, let’s not forget, the need for VIDEO (creating and maintaining L/C/R Imaging over WIDE multi-person viewing audience) is fundamentally different than AUDIO (refined/precise 2 Channel Imaging for a single listener).

................................................

My contention: a specific speaker solution for WIDE L/C/R imaging for Home Theater, and try/use the AVR’s 2 Channel MODE for 2 channel source and force 2 channel to see if a surround source might sound better (often does). Simple Mode button, same volume, single remote.

2 Channel Music: a separate speaker type, thus a separate system.

I’ve always had a dedicated PC (even prior to HDMI) as an optional source for my HT, that’s my streamer and full net access, You Tube, Netflix, Prime etc. is on Smart TV’s now, but not in the old days. Even then, PC the source, I often find trying the AVR’s 2 Channel Mode sounds better. Audio and Video on the motherboard, no fan noise of dedicated video card.




elliottbnewcombjr
elliottbnewcombjr OP
5,112 posts
 
mtbiker29.

you are right, those needing a dual duty system, HT Bypass is salvation indeed!

I still want to emphasize, using the same front speakers for 2 channel and video (3, 3.1; 5.1 ...: video needs to maintain L/C/R imaging over a much wider area for multiple viewer/listeners than 2 channel imaging does.

Your setup looks very nice, I’d be happy there,

but I would want to adjust the toe-in (via ’possible movement’, not easy movement of course).

1. best toe-in for one listener (audio or video if sitting in the middle alone);

2. more toe-in for two music only listeners and

3. any video with 2 or more watching/listening.

My music system at the music/dining end of the 'split' room is shown with toe-in for 1.

All my chairs and tables move easily on felt feet on the wood floor, so listening with a friend: little table in the middle, both off-center: left speaker aimed directly at right chair; right speaker aimed directly at left chair.

Very nice results, imaging maintained because you get more directivity, thus more volume from opposite side, and more volume by nearer distance on your side. Works.

Notice too, no solid arms or backs or solid bodys on the chairs, better sound of music on the sofa for Donna, ...

The video system other end of the room, those DBX Soundfield 100’s were specifically designed to do that with some extra tweeters thrown in. My music system tweeters are horns, wide dispersion, no extra tweeters needed even though they are ’crossed’ some, within limits of course.

I haven’t looked, I have to wonder if some current speakers do the DBX thing?
bkeske's avatar
bkeske
5,568 posts
 
HT bypass all the way.

As my room is dual use, I struggled and was determined to make my AVR a 2 channel preamp. But, as my own music SQ demands grew, I finally gave in and separated everything, on the same rack, in the same room.

I already went to a separate amp for my front speakers, and that did help. But what really helped (and thank goodness my AVR has pre outs) was finally getting a dedicated 2 channel preamp with bypass which the AVR can pass through in HT mode.

Now, all my 2 channel listening (turntable/pre, CD/DAC, and tape deck) is all through the 2 channel preamp>amp>main speakers. Thus, the AVR is no longer part of the music chain. And yes, everyone was right about it sounding better. Using the AVR as a 2 channel pre cannot compare. And I can change anything in the 2 channel chain I wish, without considering the AVR/HT at all. The one big limitation, and to make things easy, I would prefer a 2 channel pre with bypass. You can do it without, but it is more complicated. I wish more 2 channel pre’s had that option. But many do not, and one of the reasons I did not get serious on a vintage pre.

And, when watching TV, a simple press of a pre remote button, and all except my front/main speakers are driven by the AVR (front/mains are still driven by my separate power amp), where I am extremely less critical about the sound quality.

I think there is almost no way a HT processor can compete with a dedicated 2 channel setup. That is my opinion based on my personal experience attempting to do so. With my current setup, my 2 channel experience has been risen to a level I did not think possible.

ronboco
738 posts
 
Fantastic thread ! Please clarify something for me as I hope to advance to the higher end 2 channel sound as well. I have a Marantz 8805 with a Mc8207 amp. If I add a high quality integrated or even separates for the 2 channel side with HT bypass what happens to the Mc8207? Is it relegated to just driving the center and surrounds? Or do I just need a high end preamp for 2 channel and the 8207 still drives all the speakers? Thanks ! 
elliottbnewcombjr OP
5,112 posts
 
what speakers are you driving?

bypassing a lower quality AVR is one thing, but yours?

Marantz says you have a high end preamp 8805

McIntosh says you have 7 channels of high end amp 8207

I will take 7 gazillion external and internal twists and turns, switches, pots, .... rather than a ’straight wire with gain’ IF it sounds awesome!! yours sounds awesome???

Have you heard something better? If so, are you sure it’s not their speakers?

IF I don’t hear degradation, I’m not losing features or convenience for nothing gained but meeting esoteric ’ideas’. I’m battling that now with whether my Oppo 105 will make a real difference, or just do it because ’they say it’s better’.


................................

you could get ’better’ 2 channel amp for the ’front stereo system’, and let that system handle 2 channel sources fed straight into it, AVR OFF.

then, as you suggest, the 8207 would only drive center, surround When 8505 is sending those signals.

Sub(s)? Depends on your existing main’s bass capability.


pedroeb
493 posts
 
I went to the extreme with identical monoblocks and similar speakers on all channels. A lot of people consider the center speaker unimportant, but if it is not good as the main speakers the sound quality is going to be compromised. In my mind, the same for all channels!

Couldn't be happier with my results.
More to discover