Two systems? Why?

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.

Maybe this is another thread: which is more important in HT, the audio or the video? Tubegroover and Slartibartfast argue for video but that isn't the case for me. When video freaks start in about their chrominance plots and their line doub--uh, trip--uh, quadruplers and individually adjusting each of the 16 trillion mirrors on their DLP chip, my eyes glaze over. Come to think of it, that's the same glaze I see in the eyes of non-afiles when we get a good squabble going over cable terminators or time domain errors in speaker design, or the pros and cons of OTL amplifiers.

I can tolerate nearly any old TV if the sound is good. If the sound sucks then, for me, even the finest video is wasted cuz I won't sit through the movie. YMMV, of course.

Anyway, have fun.

Will

I have two systems for one simple reason: I like to listen to music while I work (home office system) as well as while I'm not (living room system). In my case, I have no TV and, obviously, no home theatre. Both my systems are plain, two-channel audio.

LR System: Thorens TD-125 mk II with Grace 707 arm, Reson Reca cartridge; Sony X779ES CD player; SAE tuner; Meitner PA-6i preamp; Meitner MTR-101 monoblocs; Tannoy System 12 DMT II speakers; Museatex cryogenic interconnects and speaker cable.

By no means ultra high-end, price-wise (everything but phono cartridge and some cables purchased used), but satisfies me.

Office System: Pioneer PD-91 (as transport); Monarchy 18B DAC; Bryston 11B preamp; Meitner STR-55 power amp; Tannoy System 12 DMT I speakers; XLO Pro 1200 speaker cable; Belden and Canare StarQuad cables for interconnects.