Hate to ask......

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.

I think the HT and High-End audio are a deadly combination. Unfortunately, to get into the high-end home theater, it tends to cut into the high end audio budget. Baby steps is easy to preach, but hard to practice.

With my most recent 2-channel system, I started with NHT 3.3's and a Sunfire stereo amp, Proceed PCD and PDP digital front end, with a BAT VK-3i preamp.

That has since evolved into NHT 2.5i's in the rear (wall-mounted!! I'll send pictures, if you don't believe me), NHT HDP-2's on the sides, and an additional Sunfire Cinema Grand to drive them all. And the preamp is in constant rotation. I'm currently using a Sherwood (Not as bad as you might think) AVP-8090, as I just sold the Acurus ACT3.

I'm also running DUAL Mirage BPS-400's (front and rear).

Sometimes I consider the gear I could own now, if I hadn't bought into the home theater circus. But... No regrets. But upgrading the system requires lots more hardware than it used to.

For the most part, I hate it. I mean, the average $350 receiver yesterday was better than the ones today. A $350 receiver rated at 100*2 or 100*5, they don't even specify frequency resp. anymore. The hundred watts is at only 1khz usually. Why bother making the amp so "powerful"-- to sell it. Specs aren't everything but when they are that bad.... The designers have to squeeze five channels into one box plus the decoders. And inflation isn't such nor is lowered production costs enough to make a decent unit. I still don't see the point of full frequency extension in the surrounds. The luxury of stereo bass in two channel isn't even that great sometimes depending on alot of rooms. (And its hard enough to get one sub in the right position much less four) And marketing has "everyone" thinking they need it these days. Not to mention the big dumb TV screen between the speakers can't help imaging one bit. And who really watches that many movies compared to music anyhow? You can do home theater as good as 2 channel--its just going to cost super-exponentially more get the same quality in a 2 ch when you have to buy all these other speakers, amps, processors. And the only way to alleviate the dumb tv screen is to buy a rear projector with a retractable screen. But if you like your movies. Of course this is coming from someone who doesn't even own a TV.

I somewhat agree with cornfed's comments about the distraction caused by the center channel speaker. However, while I don't have HT in my home (yet), the salient feature for me has always the presence of the rear channels, and not the addition of the center. I have no problems hearing a full soundstage with my 2 channel system, and can't imagine how the presence of a center channel (mixing issues aside) will add anything of significance. However, I can see how the addition of rear channel information could certainly enhance the musical experience, if done properly.

I both rue and look forward to the day when multichannel audio is readily available. Sadly, it'll likely require a center channel, and will certainly burst the seams of my wallet to get the kind of audio quality I've become accustomed to. However, its very likely to open an interesting new bag of musical experiences that I'm dying to have.

Cheers,
Ken