Hate to ask......

Avguy, I agree that a comination system can be assembled which does justice for both music and movies. I went with all Proceed source components and amps ( pmdt / avp / hpa's 2/3 )and B&W Nautilus series speakers ( 802's for mains / 803's for surrounds / HTM-1 center / Velodyne HGS-15 sub)with cabling by Transparent. Couldn't be happier, for now !

sorry guys, but you CAN NOT get the best 2-channel sound when you have something, anything between your audio-only speakers. you also CAN NOT expect to get the best sound possible when you have processors or the like in your electronics chain. if you don't believe me, set up your system for 2 channel only. THEN LISTEN. i don't hate HT but i am disturbed by those who think they can have the best of two entirely different worlds with a single, integrated HT/audio system. an analogy: do you think an m-class mercedes can keep up with a 500 sl in a race over independence pass just because they’re both made by the same company? -kelly

For the record I was agreeing with you kelly just trying to justify my system, you know how it goes. And there is a chance that a Brabus tuned ML5.8 can keep up with a SL500, I would like to see the results of that race.

Hi everyone, good to see you posting again Tireguy, well... I hear the best of 2 channel audio frequently, and use it as a benchmark for my HT set-up. I try to attain the best of both worlds because of space and budget constraints. I recently upgraded from a Denon AVR-5700 to a Musical Fidelity HT600 5 channel amp and a B&K pre-pro in order to improve my 2 channel playback. They withstand comparison to any very good dedicated 2 channel system. The line between 2 & 5 channel playback will continue to blur. There will always be a market for the purist and connoisseur, so they really have nothing to be concerned about, but the stereo format is not all that "pure" anyway. Due to various problems with the format, the earliest developers of stereo actually wanted a 3 channel system, but felt that the public was not ready for it, so it took many years of refining to overcome inherent limitations and achieve the quality we have available today. Give the high resolution 5 channel SACD format time, and it might become a new standard. In the future I bet there will be debates between 10.2 channel users, and 5 channel users over which system is best.
I appreciate high end stereo playback very much, but love the combination of home theater and stereo in one system as well. There really is no conflict. The more people who become interested in high quality sound reproduction, whether it be 2 or 5, or 7.1 channels, the better for all of us. Ninety percent of the time more sales equals higher and higher quality at lower costs.

I also have a modest HT and a somewhat more ambitious 2 channel, in separate rooms. I believe that the idea that HT is killing High End comes from a reasonable belief that the economy only has so much discretionary income and that much of what goes into HT is divereted from high end audio. And that techies or early adopters or whatever that are getting into HT are the same people that would be high end buyers. That seems to me to be only partly true. Many HT buyers would be buying mid-fi 2 channel. But to the extent that the HT sales pay the overhead and profit for a high end dealer to indulge his (and our) hobby, then I'm all for it. And I really love movies, and with a son at home, it makes it much easier for my wife and I to watch more current stuff.