[Billie]

lately, i have been thinking if it's really necessary for me to have my current 5.1 setup which costed me about $10K (7years ago) and if i was better off spending that much on a better stereo system.


so what's your opinion, if music is your prime interest with occasional video watching, would u spend $10K on a kick-ass stereo system or on multi-channel setup?

 

[JasonColeman]

Of course the multi-channel systems have been hyped by manufacturers, salespeople, and installers. They get you to buy 3.1 more speakers than you already have!


However, if you even do a minimal amount of DVD viewing or have any interest in multi-channel music, then the 5.1/6.1/7.1 setup is irreplaceable. If your usage is "strictly" 2-channel, then of course you wouldn't need to succumb to the "need." I use my setup 80-90% stereo, but I'm damn glad I spent some extra cash on the other speakers 'cause when it's movie time...IT'S MOVIE TIME. Same goes for DVD-A and SACD multichannel. Nothing even comes close to it.


Unfortunately, most of what's being produced is total crap. Look as the majority of the HTIB products...they are a joke. I've got friends that bought the Sony Dream System and I wanted to smack them. Put the cash towards some decent front-channel speakers and save up for the rest. Fools, I tell you, Fools!


Equally unfortunate is the lack of knowledge or concern about the quality of sound that these HTIB systems produce. Most people are more concerned about appearances and "styling" than performance. Just look at how successful Bose is. It's really quite tragic.


BTW, if you spent $10K on a 5.1 system, I would hope that your 2-channel setup kicks some serious butt!


Jason

 

[7Below]

A very interesting topic indeed. Because I am in the market for a system within the nex 6 months in a den/living room (new home), I have heavily considered the following:


Put a majority of the money towards a 2 channel system that I can also watch/play TV/DVD/games through. Later, allocate a smaller amount towards a media room (if possible in the basement) for a simple, but decent, 5.1 system. This will be for "movie time" and, more importantly, gaming (XBOX). I've heard enough stuff to know my top picks for simple 5.1 systems that perform good enough for me and that works fine. It is well under 2K. I would like the 5.1 for EFFECT only, and this is the kicker for Movies/Gaming, when I want to experience the effects. I almost think that the 5.1 system for me is just 30% Movie and 70% Gaming (Halo 2 anyone?!?)


Here is my reasoning:

Listening to some extraordinary speakers and components for 2 channel, I find that I thoroughly enjoy the sound and experience more so than 5.1 HT setups that cost the same amount of cash.


A really good 2 Channel combo offers me the following: Unsurpassed Audio in a format that is simple, yet incredibly effective. It also limits the amount of speakers in the room and blends in, almost as if the speakers will be "furniture". Great for the living room.


However, Jason has a point that was originally a major concern. It was about watching movies. When I thought about it, I like to watch movies when I am relaxing, and will spend the most time watching in the living room. It is also a room that I will entertain in. Because of this, I don't feel the need for the surround sound in this room. I don't want the sub "booming" in this room either. Just some great sound from the mains - for everything (music, movies, gaming) until I can explore a "media room".


Lets say I bought $6k speaker pair and $4000 of Integrated Amp or Pre/power and a solid CD/DVD player. The sound I would get from this, to my ears, is stunning. Jaw dropping every time I listen.


I've heard 10K of 5.1 surround, and it was terrific when it was "movie" time. Terrific during TV time. Gaming Time...and Music Time. It was not Jaw Dropping, just Terrific!


So, for the simplicity, nature of the room, my needs...the 2 channel system gets the bucks. The 5.1 will wait for a much smaller budget. (Give me the Jaw Dropper 110% of the time. For those of you who have heard magical 2 channel, I think you can relate. )


It's just a matter of identifying your needs...And to finally answer your topic, yes it is overhyped, but there still is a need for the multi-channel formats.


My 2 cents

 

[Andrew Boyd]

Quote:

Originally posted by Billie so what's your opinion, if music is your prime interest with occasional video watching, would u spend $10K on a kick-ass stereo system or on multi-channel setup?

I've never actually had the pleasure to hear one, but everyone tells me that if music is your primary interest there's nothing better than a stereo setup powered by a killer tube amp.


You could go alot of routes with $10,000 and a stereo setup.

 

[AGE]

7Below,


What would be an example of a jaw-dropping system in two channel? (What speakers and integrated, anyway....)


Just curious if you had specific examples in mind.


AGE

 

[Bigus]

No doubt that extra channels does equate to extra cost, but there is little doubt in my mind that music enjoyment is greatly enhanced by the presence of multichannel reproduction. For 2-channel CD's, good surround processing like that found in Lexicon's product is more important than some esoteric tube amplifier.


I've been through this debate enough times to know that people are very rigid in their opinions. And I agree that you can get two higher quality speakers for a given amount of cash than you can eight. That's pretty simple logic. Whether the sound is better or worse in each case is much more open to preference and system/room specifics.


IMO, since the system and room configuration are the same for the ultimate in both music and theater reproduction (audio-wise... decorations and seating might be different if desired), it makes sense to consolidate funding for one exceptional system instead of a decent theater and good stereo system.

 

[7Below]

AGE, Sent a PM as not to get off topic

 

[sdurani]

Quote:

Originally posted by Billie if music is your prime interest with occasional video watching, would u spend $10K on a kick-ass stereo system or on multi-channel setup?

I watch maybe one or two DVDs a week, but I listen to music every day. Music is my prime interest, which is why I have a multi-channel set-up. At this point in my life I just can't go back to listening with 2 speakers (too distracting when I'm trying to enjoy music). But that's me.


If your reason for going back to a 2-speaker set-up is because that's how you listen to music, then you should concentrate your funds on the best 2-channel playback you can afford (with 5.1 HT as your secondary priority).


Unlike movie soundtrack reproduction, there are far fewer standards in the music industry. If you're building a home theatre with movie watching as a priority, a worthy goal is to attempt to reproduce the movie theatre or dubbing stage experience (configuration, not sound quality). However, if you're building a system mostly for music playback, then the best you can hope to do is set something up that will maximize your listening enjoyment. Attempting to immitate a recording studio would be a tough prospect because they vary so wildly. Better instead to choose electronics and configure your speakers so that you get the most emotional impact from the recordings you listen to.


So, first find out what your priority is: movies or music. If it's music, then ask yourself how you prefer to listen: 2-speaker playback or multi-channel. Both are valid ways ways of listening to music, so don't let anyone convince you that one is more "correct" than the other. Once you've decided, then go for it (that's the fun part).


Good Luck,

Sanjay

 

[Billie]

Quote:

Originally posted by 7Below Here is my reasoning: Listening to some extraordinary speakers and components for 2 channel, I find that I thoroughly enjoy the sound and experience more so than 5.1 HT setups that cost the same amount of cash. Lets say I bought $6k speaker pair and $4000 of Integrated Amp or Pre/power and a solid CD/DVD player. The sound I would get from this, to my ears, is stunning. Jaw dropping every time I listen. I've heard 10K of 5.1 surround, and it was terrific when it was "movie" time. Terrific during TV time. Gaming Time...and Music Time. It was not Jaw Dropping, just Terrific! My 2 cents

---this is exactly how i feel stereo vs. 5.1 setup for same amount of money, say 10K, and the reason i posted this topic.


for 5.1 system, say u get top notch pre/pro like lexicon mc-8 (say $4.5K), 5-channel amp (say 1.5K), decent univeral player (1K)...leaving $3K for 5.1 speaker system. Then u need to get a better than average sub, say $1K to $1.5K...thus only $1K to $1.5K left for 5 speakers, and u won't get jaw-dropping performance from those 5 speakers with that much to spend on them. cables are extra too.

 

[John Robert]

>say u get top notch pre/pro like lexicon mc-8 (say $4.5K),

 

[DMF]

Quote:

if i was better off spending that much on a better stereo system.

Billie, it's an interesting question, but you can't go back and undo what's been done. You now have 10K worth of 5.1 system. Yet I sense a certain amount of disappoint with its music performance.


If you could spend a few extra bucks and improve the music performance while keeping the 5.1 capability, would you?

 

[AGE]

Quote:

Originally posted by DMF If you could spend a few extra bucks and improve the music performance while keeping the 5.1 capability, would you?

For some reason, this sounds like the beginning of a sales pitch!

 

[sdurani]

Quote:

Originally posted by Billie u won't get jaw-dropping performance from those 5 speakers with that much to spend on them.

Depends on what makes your jaw drop. You could spend $10k on a single speaker that sounds dramatically better than two $5k speakers. But which would you prefer to listen to: one speaker with incredible fidelity, or two speakers that allow you to create a stereo soundstage (albeit with less fidelity than the single speaker). Similarly, you can spend your speaker budget on 2 speakers or 5. Obviously, you can get better speakers if you buy fewer, but two speakers can't do what 5 can. Again, depends on what makes your jaw drop.


Best,

Sanjay

 

[John Kotches]

Another point, not yet touched on is this one....


Assuming your 5.1 system has good bass management capability, it is not necessary to buy full-range speakers. So then, 5 channels of quality monitors + a quality sub-woofer is the path to bliss, in my opinion.


A large amount of cost for main speakers can go into the much larger cabinet required to convincingly reproduce the bottom octave(s).


As for me, I chose a nice set of 5 matched speakers in pursuit of the same goal as Sanjay has, which is optimizing my 5.1 music reproduction. A positive benefit of this approach has been outstanding movie performance.


Cheers,

 

[Billie]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Robert >say u get top notch pre/pro like lexicon mc-8 (say $4.5K),

 

[Billie]

Quote:

Originally posted by DMF Billie, it's an interesting question, but you can't go back and undo what's been done. You now have 10K worth of 5.1 system. Yet I sense a certain amount of disappoint with its music performance. If you could spend a few extra bucks and improve the music performance while keeping the 5.1 capability, would you?

---that is a good question, i have thought about that also...but how would u improve on a 7 years old 5.1 setup, where would u start? but i think the only things worth salvaging are the amps.

 

[Billie]

Quote:

Originally posted by sdurani Depends on what makes your jaw drop. You could spend $10k on a single speaker that sounds dramatically better than two $5k speakers. But which would you prefer to listen to: one speaker with incredible fidelity, or two speakers that allow you to create a stereo soundstage (albeit with less fidelity than the single speaker). Similarly, you can spend your speaker budget on 2 speakers or 5. Obviously, you can get better speakers if you buy fewer, but two speakers can't do what 5 can. Again, depends on what makes your jaw drop. Best, Sanjay

--- auditioning a pair of nht t6 superco electronics store was jaw-dropping for me, listening to diana krall (live in paris) on an 5.1 tannoy iris speakers driven by arcam (pre/pro and amp) was impressive, and even sound from a pair of vienna acoustics haydn bookshelf speakers got my attention too...i think all the above speakers i listened to sounded better than what i have at home (pre/pro: denon avp8000, amp:denon poa8300/8200, speakers: ba vr2000 sub, ba vr40 towers, ba vr12 center, ba vr-pro surrounds)

 

[gr1m]

Billie,

this isn't the Superco in Monterey Park is it??

 

[Billie]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Kotches Another point, not yet touched on is this one.... Assuming your 5.1 system has good bass management capability, it is not necessary to buy full-range speakers. So then, 5 channels of quality monitors + a quality sub-woofer is the path to bliss, in my opinion. A large amount of cost for main speakers can go into the much larger cabinet required to convincingly reproduce the bottom octave(s). As for me, I chose a nice set of 5 matched speakers in pursuit of the same goal as Sanjay has, which is optimizing my 5.1 music reproduction. A positive benefit of this approach has been outstanding movie performance. Cheers,

----ideally, yes...but most home setup only can accomodate a pair of speakers anything more would likely getting into an argument with the boss.

 

[Billie]

Quote:

Originally posted by gr1m Billie, this isn't the Superco in Monterey Park is it??

---i went to one in cerritos.