Thinking of dedicated 2 channel system.. (1 Viewer)

[Mike_T_]

Anyone have good/bad experience with this? I can set up a pretty good 2 channel system, but it would mean downgrading my home theater to a certain extent. Also, I wonder if I would miss the convenience of sitting in one spot for music and movies.

My home theater would still be nice, I would just have a good Yamaha receiver instead of seperates.

Hmmm...choices...

 

[Charles Gurganus]

If you want suggestions you need to provide way more information.

 

[Wayne Ernst]

Mike,

You may not have to "downgrade" at all. If you're surround receiver is capable of producing good sounds for music, maybe you just need a pair of speakers for the front that you'd use for 2-channel listening.

However, if money is no object, then maybe a tube amp with a pair of extremely efficient $5K speakers might be in order.

 

[Mike SJ]

can you explain how this would downgrade your HT?

my main focus in investing $ has been for my mains only cause I'm 80/20 music/movies so my center/surrounds are $5 POS's right now. if you can do both in one room, the better unless you can afford it

 

[Wayne Ernst]

Mike, That was essentially what I was thinking. If one has a surround receiver that does pretty good with 2-channel stereo listening, there is no real need to buy another pre/pro, receiver, amp, etc. However, maybe a 2-channel amp might be in order to boost the level of "oomph" provided by the surround receiver while in 2-channel mode.

 

[Jesse Sharrow]

Wayne: I have thought about doing that alot.

 

[Mike_T_]

Well, right now I have a Sherbourn 5/1500a amp, a Rotel 1066 processor, studio 100's for mains, some Eosone towers for rear speakers, a PS-1000 sub, and a Sony 9000ES DVD/SACD player.

The reasons why I was thiking of setting up a seperate 2 channel area are..

1) I have a Yamaha RX-795 receiver sitting around doing nothing. It's very good with home theater.

2) I have the sherbourn hooked up to the Studio's at 200wpc. In the past, I tried to bi-amp the studios and they sounded much better. However, I currently would have to purchase another amp before I could do this as all of my 5 channels are being used for surround and center channels along with the mains. Dedicating the amp to nothing but 2 channel music would allow me to bi-amp the studio 100's which would really open them up.

3) The Eosone towers are very capable speakers and are being used as surround speakers now. As we all know, it doesn't take a full range speaker to produce the surround effects and I have a set of monitors that could handle this. So moving them up as mains would be fine, especially since it the Yamaha is powerful enough to run them with no problem. I had it set up this way in the past and it sounded great.

So, I'd have a receiver powering the Eosone speakers, and bookshelf speakers in the rear as opposed to seperates powering Studio 100's. The home theater would certainly not be as powerful, although still very capable. However, I would then have the Stuio 100's bi amped with the Sherbourn, along with the Rotel and SACD/DVD player for 2 channel music. It would sound fantastic!

 

[Mike_T_]

OK, to simplyfy this...is there anyone out there that has both a dedicated home theater, and 2 channel set up? If so, what are your opinions on splitting them up? Do you miss the convenience of having them together or do you like the seperation?

 

[JohnSmith]

Much easier to use. Normally you would have to switch the integrated amp to that input/mode, or set a certain volume, press buttons, change mode on the subwoofer, crossover etc.

Listen to a CD- playback on the Hi-Fi system
Watch a film- use the AV system.

 

[Mike_T_]

Yeah, that doesn't sound too bad! Although, I might cheat and add an SVS to the '2' channel set up. ALthough the bass with the studio 100's bi-amped is pretty deep..

 

[Charles Gurganus]

Mike, our systems are somewhat similar. I DO NOT feel the need for seperate 2 channel system because it sounds great for both. After reading your post, this is what I would do. Why not just sell the Yamy receiver and get 2 more Sherbourn channels so you can biamp with your current setup? Or you could just get a 2 channel 100 WPC amp for the rears, freeing up 2 additional Sherbourn channels.

Just for reference my setup goes like this....
Aragon Soundstage pre, Sherbourn 5/1500a amp biamping front main NHT VT2's with 5th channel for NHT VS2a center. Then I have a B&K ST1400 amp running my rear NHT VT1.2's. Just added a SVS PB2 ISD sub. Sources are Technics turntable bd22 using Creek OBH-8 phono stage and Shure V15MR-P cart, Onkyo DV SP800 universal DVD player, Yamaha DVD C920 DVD player.

My system kicks arse with 2 channel (I like the Direct mode of the Soundstage the best) and multi channel music.

 

[Marc H]

I use two seperate systems and if you do a lot of sit-down, two channel listening, it's worth considering.
I'm very picky and demanding about my stereo reproduction to the extreme. I'm looking for as close to realism as possible and to be able to forget I'm listening to speakers.
For movies and televison, I have different priorities, mainly loud, clean and fun wam-bam.

 

[Mike_T_]

Wow, great advice so far. I have some thinking to do! Part of me wants to do it just for the fun of it..
I DO like the idea of fine tuning a 2 channel system just for music. Home Theater really is pretty easy to set up to sound great for most movies. I don't think it's very picky..

 

[Tom Fynan]

Mike,

I have a dedicated 2 channel set-up in my living room, and a completely separate HT system in my home theater room. I spend far more time listening to CDs than I do watching DVDs, so the music only system is the better setup. I have a very "simple" stereo setup- A Mark Levinson 39OS CD player that functions as it's own pre-amp and a Levinson 333 dual mono amp connected to a pair of Magnapan 20.1's. IT is music heaven every time I listen to it. My HT setup is Proceed equipment with Maggie speakers all around.

The drawbacks are that I keep most of my CDs in the home theater room (not enough storage space in the living room). I keep a small number in the living room, but I have to walk to another room if I want to listen to a CD that is not in the current rotation. I also can't listen to multi channel music through the better system. The advantage is that I have an incredible sounding system in the living room, where we spend most of our time, without a TV and surround speakers cluttering up the space.

Tom Fynan

 

[Frank Zimkas]

Mike,
I also have a dedicated 2 channel system, It's not really better than my HT set up, it's just different. I'm using a 50wpc tube amp and a tube preamp to drive a pair of Polk Audio SDA-2b's. Sort of a "Retro" system. The tubes work very well with the SDA's, a very warm sound and and an incredibly wide soundstage.

I still use my HT for 2 channel and multi-channel listeng, it all depends on what I'm in the mood for.

Do both, you'll be glad you did.

 

[Mike_T_]

Yeah I think the true beauty of having a 2 channel system would be to have a tube amp or two connected to speakers designed for music reproduction. Hook up a Phono stage and get old school! Home theater in my opinion is much more power then finesse. Although I'm quite sure an arguement can be made to the opposite. However, I've seen friends home theaters set up with much less expensive equipment then mine, and it still sounds more then adequate.

In my situation, I'll have a powerful solid state amp going to the Rotel which, with all it's functionality will be used only for music. That seems like a bit of a waste, especially since I'll be using the Sony DVD/SACD to process the sound.

 

[Jason Brent]

Damn Tom.....

I bet that 2 channel rig is heaven. The HT is great too I'm sure.