Hate to ask......

I don't hate HT I find it INCREADABLY expesive for premium equipment, requires more space than I have available and will require massive accoustic considerations (usually room reconstuction) and logistic considerations. Most new movies are crap and the sound tracks are even worse (car crashes, squealing tires, and gun shots that can not be reproduced realistically). Current American video standards are a joke when compared with motion picture film and even my high quality projection TV (52") pales with the size an scope of a theater screen. I find that I can listen to a CD or a vinyl album dozens of times and still be enthralled but after a few times of viewing, a movie becomes BORING. I have broken up a decent mid-fi surround-sound system and put the money into hi-end two channel which also sounds much better as a stereo sound system for movies.

Don't HATE it but don't get too obsessed about as much as two channel sound. I did get High end units for HT Set-up. Classe SSP-50, Dunlavy II's for rear and I for Center (mains are Dunlavy V'S), Classe CAV-150 amp driving only center channel, Rears are, now, driven by an extra CLASSE ca-400 I just aquired ( refer 'monoblocks did not work'post).Pioneer Elite 50 16:9 tv.

2 channel configuration I listen for 10-12 hrs week. HT 2 hrs a week, may be.

Don't hate it but Not exactly Crazy about it.

It's pretty much all been said in the above posts. Nice post Kelly, I agree. But I take Swampwalker's approach to the issue. I enjoy TV movies and have a sort of minimalist and half-assed HT set up in our family room. But two channel is where I have chosen to put my main efforts-- and bucks.

My wife does not like the noise of exploding bombs, gun shots etc at realistic levels in the family room. And when you set volume for realistic dialog, then explosions are going to be pretty overwhelming-- well to my wife anyway. But my music listening room is sacrosanct. Cheers. Craig.

Tireguy:

You can also put my name in the hat as one of those who DON'T hate home theater. Anything contradicting that couldn't be further from the truth. Each system has purpose in my life. My home theater is used to enhance the my enjoyment of movies, concerts (if any are recorded on either DVD or VHS), and sporting events. But it would be the last thing I would use if I want to listen to music. For that, I have a separate high-end, two channel stereo system in another room. It seems that I can get a natural sounding soundstage and image from a two channel system without instruments leaking into the rear channels (as would be the case if I were to listen to music on my home theater system). I also get a better sense of palpability (don't ask me what that is, I don't know what that is exactly. That was just a term I have picked up from the great Sam Tellig of Stereophile a few years ago) when I am listening to music on a two channel stereo system. But now, if I watch a movie and get the soundtrack from my stereo system, then I am going to be missing a lot of what's going on, and I am going to feel isolated from being part of the action, if you know what I am trying to say. Or to put it another way, if you are going to a formal gathering, are you going to drive same Honda Accord or Toyota Camry to this gathering that you drive to work everyday, or are you going to go for something for something such as an Acura RL or a Lexus LS-430 (if you don't rent a limo first off)?? An interesting analogy, but you get my point. Different systems are used for different purposes.

I happen to love MY home theater VERY MUCH, thank you... :)

--Charles--

albert: and i thought i was compulsive! i'd call your system(s) seperate but equal. BTW, wouldn't it take a lot less effort and save more space to have a projector and pull-down screen. ( i suspect that you have thought of or tried this and have rejected it for valid reasons.) good listening AND watching! -kelly