Two systems? Why?


I mentioned on another thread that I have two completely different systems, one for HT and one for music. I wonder how many of y'all have taken that approach. Anyone care to comment on your systems and how they differ?

I'll start off.
My HT system: Paradigm Reference Studio 100 v2 mains, Reference CC, Reference ADP surrounds, and Servo 15 sub; Parasound 2500u pre/pro; Parasound 2205AT amp; Toshiba SD5700 DVD; Sony CX90ES CD jukebox; Monster cables.

My music system: JM Lab Mezzo Utopia speakers; Belles 350A amp; Rega Jupiter 2000 CD; various cables. No vinyl and no tubes (gasp).

Persons familiar with this gear will see clearly that I am seeking two quite different goals with these systems.

Others take a moment to share?
bishopwill
Tube-

I wouldn't call HT a breeze... getting the audio soundtracks right for HT is a breeze... that is definitely true... getting the video right...well...

Keep in mind that as much as we play around with our turntable setup and tubes, getting the best picture from your projector... well now you start talking about scalars, quadruplers, projector calibration, home theater computers, what color to paint your room, ambient light, what screen to use, it too becomes a never-ending battle for the perfect picture... and the prices of some video processors and projectors can be simply breathtaking... the cost to simply get into the game has a very high price tag associated with it.
you guys and gals are sick 3,4,5 systems. what are you junkies are what. what a minute i must have at least 4 operating systems. i must be sick as well,damn. oh well. i enjoy movies alot, but two channel is awsome. my two channel got most of the money but i am trying to upgrade my main theater right now. if you do not run a projector with at least 100 inches ht may not interest you guys. but once you see a good ht it is very enjoyable.hell i run tubes in my ht.
I agree with most of the comments above. Multiple systems offer far greater versatility along with the opportunity to stretch things out a bit. You can easily "flavour" different systems for different goals. With five different systems in my house, i have done just that. Why limit yourself to either tubes or ss, 2 ch or multi-channel, etc... when you can have ALL of them. While none of mine are "small" or "simple", it can be done and done quite tastefully. Just don't go overboard*. Sean
>

* AH - HAHAHA. Yeah, right...
Kirk,

We are all sick, why else would we be here? ;-) Judging from your gear you must be at *least* as bad as anyone who posted in this thread, (is CFB in here? he's pretty out of hand too it sounds like... ) LOL

Yeah, I dont' get too much crap for having 3 systems set up in my house (and I live alone), but damn I get a lot of crap for owning 5 cars! What's up with that? I could have bought all 5 of those cars (nothing newer than 1993) with the $ that's in just the biggest of the 2-channel systems... of course most people don't know that...

Bet that -930 refers to something with positive manifold pressure too...

-Ed
Please don't misconstrue my take on this matter. I too feel that the video is where the focus should be. The audio portion is much less important and is no big deal was my point. After all it is just a bunch of processed information and beyond a good 5 channel receiver, 5 small speakers or even 2 good main speakers and maybe a sub or 2 it wouldn't be important to go beyond that, to me.

So far as full range speakers for surrounds with large subwoofers in a home theater application it is just conspicious consumption marketed to folks that can afford and want it. Although I can well afford it, I don't want it. I have heard some of these super systems that for the most part sound bombastic and unless watching an epic type film with lots of sound effects it is just overkill. Just a personal preference.

When Audio Magazine went under they switched my subscription, which I had just reupped for 3 years, to Sound and Vision. Half the time I don't even open it.