AVS Forum banner

2 channel

4K views 55 replies 27 participants last post by  psyduck103 
#1 ·
Does anyone still use 2 channel stereo for their home theater?
 
#6 ·
I use 2-channel for two TV based systems. One runs a Marantz PM5005 with a pair of NHT SuperZero speakers. I listen to music with the TV as a source (YT and Pandora via Roku) and TV/movies as well. The other runs a Marantz PM6004 and a pair of NHT SuperOnes. I also have an old JVC CD player in that system.

My main HT system is run as a 5-channel (no sub) with a Yamaha RX-V990 A/V analog receiver. The L/R speakers are Celestion DL-8 II's and I often defeat the 5-channel stuff to listen in stereo instead.
 
#7 ·
About 90% of my listening is done on the stuff shown in my sig line. The XSP-1 has home theater bypass which I find useful on occasion. IMO there is nothing better than putting on some tunes and sit back and watch those pretty meters jump around!
For 5.1 (two subs) I turn on the Marantz 5008 which does a more than adequate job of multi channel sound. Center speaker is a custom made 3 way by Selah Audio to match the song tower tweeters. I don't use a sub for 2 channel - the song towers 'dig' down deep - very impressive IMO how low they can reach. Surrounds are a pretty decent dipole/bipole Emotiva ERD-1's. I thought about going strictly two channel but I like surround sound when the movie has a good sound track. Otherwise I watch movies in 2 channel.
 
#9 ·
I've been listening to movies and TV shows in stereo much more often recently. I always prefer to listen to music in two channel. I'm just about ready to declare myself an official two channel kind of guy. Of course, it also gives me an excuse to buy a new stereo receiver.
 
#10 ·
if you have $10,000 for speakers, why would anyone split it between 5 speakers instead of 2?


it's nutsy, you'll get much better sound from the better pair
 
#11 ·
Three TVs in the house are hooked up to two channel speakers (one with full range speakers, another with a sub-sat, and the third with two subs and sats) a fourth TV has a middling 5.1 and the media room (with a PJ) has five surrounds and three subs. So the answer is - yup - I do do have two channel speakers hooked up to monitors.

Not that you asked but I have a two channel room in the office where I (mostly) listen to music.
 
#12 ·
I wouldn't have it any other way. Though if I won the lottery, I might have to rethink.

I've optimized my system for music, maximized the equipment I have, and my generally consumer grade stereo sound fantastic for movies.

Though, there is one odd part about my system. I use FOUR Front speakers. I had my old speaker and old amp, and couldn't get rid of them, so I Pre-Amp them to my new main amps and it makes for fantastic movies. I can bring both the Thunder and the Light.

There are disadvantages to using two pair of speakers, but in my case, what I gain more than outweighs what I lose.



But, I don't get Surround Sound, which I don't miss.

With this system as shown, I can reach in excess of 110db peak sound levels, and can feel bass of such intensity that it will flap my pant legs or ruffle my hair. I think I'm doing OK.

Plus, with just the main two speakers music sounds very sweet.

Steve/bluewizard
 
#21 ·
There are disadvantages to using two pair of speakers, but in my case, what I gain more than outweighs what I lose.

Doesn't that screw up the sound? Comb effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassReflex
#13 ·
My system was also done exclusively for two channel music, which I also use for movies. Supercharged Song Towers, an Denon 3311ci AVR and Oppo BD player. (Same set up also includeds headphone amp and Sennheiser 650HDs.)

I've never considered anything else. I like the AVR as I like to use dynamic volume which suppresses special effect sounds and helps bring out the dialog a little better. It really helps when you are sans center channel. It's also a benefit for late night movies not waking up the entire house. If I were to add any other speaker it would probably be the center channel, not surrounds.
 
#14 ·
mphs68 said:
Does anyone still use 2 channel stereo for their home theater?
What do mean still? Still and Forever Strong!

Ratman said:
Is this a joke? :rolleyes:
Most definitely not.

A good stereo can outperform a lousy or poorly calibrated surround system.
Surround is a pain to calibrate and balance (more room treatment, comb filtering, etc...), and it is practically immovable once you install a good system in a room.
Many MANY people prefer Stereo to Surround even in this day and age, including me.
 
#19 ·
Most definitely not.

A good stereo can outperform a lousy or poorly calibrated surround system.
Surround is a pain to calibrate and balance (more room treatment, comb filtering, etc...), and it is practically immovable once you install a good system in a room.
Many MANY people prefer Stereo to Surround even in this day and age, including me.
I misinterpreted the OP. I thought he/she was asking in a "2 Channel Audio" forum if anyone uses "2 Channel Stereo".
Sorry... :eek:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 3db
#18 ·
Those who still use 2 channel stereo do you use stereo sound or 5.1 sound running through two speakers
The 5.1 content has to be downmixed, and this is often done badly.
Not all downmixing is done bad.
I use my HTPC with a software decoder (LAVFilters) which does an excellent job downmixing surround to stereo and while preserving all the dynamic range. Plus, I have control of how much LFE, Surround Back or Center channels are mixed into the front.
 
#17 ·
The problem with 2 speakers, or anything less than 6 speakers, is that the 5.1 content has to be downmixed, and this is often done badly. You may, for example, get no LFE content or less than you should. And you have little or no control over mix levels. Reviews never mention downmixing, few people talk about it, so the manufacturers just do the bare minimum.
 
#33 ·
I watched a movie tonight on cable (via DVR).

NOT ONCE did it occur to me that the mix was done badly, nor that I was missing or getting less low frequency content than I should have, nor that I needed to fix the mix, nor that the manufacturers did the bare minimum...

We sat on the couch, had some eats, skipped the commercials, laughed at the funny and groaned at the dumb.

Did we fail?
 
#20 ·
For those enjoying 2 channel home theater, who prefers to use a multichannel AVR in stereo mode and who prefers a 2 channel stereo receiver or amp?

I can see advantages to both. The AVR can provide HDMI inputs, room calibration, etc., while many stereo receivers have much better specs and are less complicated with fewer, perhaps unneeded, bells an whistles. Your thoughts?
 
#22 ·
For those enjoying 2 channel home theater, who prefers to use a multichannel AVR in stereo mode and who prefers a 2 channel stereo receiver or amp?

I can see advantages to both. The AVR can provide HDMI inputs, room calibration, etc., while many stereo receivers have much better specs and are less complicated with fewer, perhaps unneeded, bells an whistles. Your thoughts?
2 channel pre and amps.
 
#25 ·
Movies = 5.1.

Sound = Stereo using the Denon AVR's "Pure Direct" option using the fronts from the 5.1 system which, in my case, are Usher 602's.

The 5.1 mix on some sports channels is so awful, (way too much rear and not enough center), that I'll listen to them in stereo as well.
 
#28 · (Edited)
On the issue of Stereo using an AVR vs Stereo using a Stereo, I choose STEREO. While feature rich, for me an AV Receiver is a waste of money. I get very good results with pure stereo equipment, and that's the way I like it.

Why buy 7 amps, when you can concentrate your money on two?

Why buy 6 speakers when you can concentrate that money on two better speakers?

My system would not be 1/4th as good as it is if I diluted it with multi-channel surround sound. Though admittedly I found some excellent deals on my equipment.

$1000/pr speakers for $425/pr delivered.

100w/ch Yamaha Stereo Receiver with a common selling price of $550, which I purchased for $275 (B-Stock).

Equally a Harman Universal Player for BluRay, DVD, and CD Playback - retail $450, I paid $150 from Harman with full warranty.

Relative to what I have, what kind of Surround Sound could I have gotten for $850? Not one that I would want.

That said, I can understand why some people do want Surround Sound, but unless I have about $20,000 and a dedicated room, Surround Sound is off my radar. And I would never have only a Surround Sound, somewhere I will always have a Stereo, and likely several.

But the core question was, do people watch movies using 2 channel Stereo, and the answer is YES, many people prefer Stereo over Surround Sound. And yes it is MANY people who prefer this.

Steve/bluewizard
 
#30 ·
Mathew
Sondra
Marguerite
Ulysses
Damon
Yvette
Anh
Anamaria
Shea
Corinna
Judi
Don
Eleonore
Del
Miguelina
Loreen
Cindie
Fermina
Vaughn
Boyd
Shiela
Gemma
Adolfo
Andy
Birdie
Annika
Ladawn
Francesca
Rosia
Jannie
Reginald
Donella
Samatha
Kristi
Kurtis
Ashlea
Willene
Blanche
Saturnina
Merri
Etta
Piper
Mitzie
Mckinley
Renaldo
Marquerite
Elmira
Dusty
Jenni
Philomena


Millions of people who don't give a damn for more than the speakers in their TVs or the small computer speakers on their desk....that's Stereo, although not because they strictly choose stereo over surround (The OP question), but because they simply don't care to invest in more than what they have to hear sound.. which they already do.
Even if you freely install a surround system to those people, they simply will not use it and even hate it because of the loud, spread-out and enveloping nature of surround sound/mixing.

Personally I am irritated by hearing sounds from 360deg while watching only whats in front of me, in the cinema and at home.
 
#32 ·
Two channel, as opposed to something like this? Or imitating this? Or a crude attempt at simulating this?



Is it Atmos, or Auro, or DTS:X, or some combination, or all three, or something else?

Are there more speakers outside the picture frame?

What is that little white rectangular area at the far end of the room?

Two channel, as opposed to something like that?

I think I'm still good. Got speakers (two) surrounding my own pseudo-rectangular white area.

Stuff happens on screen, I hear it.
 
#42 ·
I'll have another go,
You and Me are human! (news to some :D).

By nature, anything outside of around 60deg will trigger your neck to look to that direction to make sure its not a Saber-toothed hunting to feast upon your flesh, and live another happy day. Or just out of interest... Hmmm.
Consciously knowing that the action is only in front of you confuses this natural mechanism and makes the viewer (me) unnecessarily hyper aware thus actually distracting me from the action on screen and shuttering my suspension of disbelieve.
In other words, keeping my head straight and negating the impulse to look for the source of sound is not a comfortable feeling at all.

Maybe when I tried a surround setup the back speakers were to loud and distracting? I don't know and don't care.
Stereo wins any day for me.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top