Hate to ask......

I am also in the camp of those that think HT is great. I don't have quite the passion for it that I do for high-end audio, perhaps because I find serious music listening to be far more engaging that 95% of the movies I see. To me, comparing HT to audio is like my two favorite sports-related activities: Husky football, and scuba diving. Watching Husky football is an extroverted activity that is shared with others. Scuba diving, on the other hand, is an
introverted, very personal sport that one essentially enjoys alone (even if you are diving with a partner). I love both activities, and wouldn't want to give up either of them.

Tally me as one who loves HT (as well as music). Movies and music are both first rate art forms IMO. I've only got one room to use on this stuff, so I've accepted a single-system solution and have either deluded myself or have actually managed to put together a pretty good performer for both tasks.

That said, there isn't anywhere near as many interesting (debateable) topics in the HT arena. As evidence, I get much more enjoyment out of the audio-only mags over the HT mags. Even the reviewers admit that the cheapo DVD players are pretty good, and not very high in the $$$ the performance becomes all but indistinguishable unless you have the highest quality display devices.

I don't know why there's such a strong anti-HT sentiment that swells up in a bunch of threads - I think it definitely inhibits them and keeps this forum fairly inactive. What's interesting (to me anyway) is that I can't engage anybody who's not already hooked on an audio-only conversation, but can hook just about anybody on a HT conversation. Those that buy usually buy the low-to-mid end stuff, but some will gain the appreciation and upgrade over time. Anyway, I'm up for HT talk anytime. -Kirk

Perhaps people don't like it because of the sentiment going around, especially among dealers, that it's "killing hi-end." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. A lot of dealers are staying above board because of their HT sales. Anyway, I have a dual purpose system as well, though it's pretty damn complicated and annoying (it would be much easier if I could just afford a Casablanca II).

tireguy: the great majority of people who call themselves (or allow others to call them) "audiophiles" have been entranced by two-channel audio-only systems. those who have been into the hobby as long as i, have gone from 45rpm mono singles to ep's to stereo lp's and then, reluctantly, to cd's. for a couple or three decades, we enjoyed watching the two-channel parade pass by, interrupted every now and then by failed "improvements" like quadraphonic sound. manufacturers enticed us with better and better components at higher and higher prices. and it was good.

then came the advent of "home theater." at first, that meant having a big screen tv flanked by a couple of speakers, with a vcr thrown in to watch slightly fuzzy, but pauseable, movies. laser discs gave us improved images, line doublers and processors even better. multi-channel formats emerged like mushrooms after rain. video dvd's caused a mild tide to turn into a sea change. hey, this is fun! watching movies as clear as you might get at the multiplex, and with SURROUND sound. planes zipped by over your heads, engines churning, flying right through the damn wall!. cannon shots shook you in your gut. and the bass. well, you know what it's like to be at a rock concert. sales of HT shot up, rocket-like. sales of two-channel gear declined, confining audiophiles onto an even smaller island, whose beaches were eroding as we watched. our very own manufacturers in the audio highend pantheon did what they had to do in light of shifting tastes. they started turning stereo amps into five and six-channel devices. speakers were designed for "center channels" and rears." we weren't in charge anymore. and it was bad.

now, we of the two-channel ilk are joined by those in the HT clan with enough interest in the "sound" of their systems to become what i think of as a subset of "audiophiles." cost and space constraints cause many of the HT crowd to build "integrated systems," by which they might enjoy the best of audio and the best of HT in a single set of components (some of which may be bypassed or used for only one application). please believe me when i say i don't regard the "integrated" crowd with disdain; indeed, i thank them for helping preserve what might otherwise be an even more moribund industry. but...............i don't think you can have the best of audio and the best of HT in one system. at any cost. you have to chose, IMO, which way you want to go and then recognize you're gonna' need to compromise whatever your choice.

for myself, i've decided to keep building my two-channel system, keeping it only as such. i've begun to start a modest HT, recently buying a loewe aconda 16:9 and a pioneer elite dvd (very slightly used). i'll be adding a processor, amps and speakers. these purchases, tho, will come after i make my planned upgrade to the analogue half of my two-channel system.

i don't know whether this answers your query, tireguy but its my view of this simultaneously fascinating and disturbing issue. -kelly

I like HT very much. I actually built an HT system three years prior to finishing my music system. But the whole reason for starting into the realm of 2-channel was because I was very dissatisfied with the music reproduction of my HT setup.