Why spend big bucks for HT? (1 Viewer)

[John-Miles]

Well for me, I am trying to build the ebst multichannel system i can, because for me that is what makes dvd-a and sacd good.Incidentially this also leads to a good HT experience

what a fine coincidence

 

[Kevin_R_H]

John,

I agree that if "one builds a wonderful multi-channel system for SACD/DVD-A playback, they will naturally have a wonderful Home Theater".

But remember - the entire premise of my argument has to do with those of us on a budget. Let's say someone has $15,000 to spend on amplification and speakers for a killer SACD/DVD-A system. Which philosophy will LIKELY lead to better sound?

Option A: Multi-Channel
$2,500 Main Speakers (per pair)
1,000 Center Speaker
1,000 Subwoofer
1,500 Rear Speakers
5,000 Mono Blocks ($1,000 x 5) or 5-channel amp
4,000 HT pre/pro

Option B: Stereo
$6,000 Main Speakers (per pair)
5,000 Mono Blocks ($2,500 x 2)
4,000 Stereo Preamp

With Option B, my Main Speakers are almost 2 1/2 times the price (with the expected rise in quality). My Mono Blocks are 2 1/2 times the price per unit (with the expected rise in quality). And the Stereo Preamp doesn't have to concern itself with the extra tasks (and associated cost) of multi-channel decoding/processing. It's dedicated to just reproducing stereo sound.

All other things being equal, the "quality of sound" of Option B should surpass that of Option A. I've always felt it's not the number of speakers that determines musical enjoyment. Five pretty good speakers will not likely sound better than 2 wonderful speakers.

Let's not forget, SACD and DVD-A are not multi-channel only formats. That same enhanced signal can be processed in stereo in most instances. This stereo signal is not degraded in any way.

So, to me, playback of SACD/DVD-A on a $15,000 stereo system will outperform playback on a $15,000 5.1 system. And that difference will be even more distinct when playing back "stereo sources" (redbook CDs, vinyl, et al).

Lastly, at least for me, multi-channel playback (even on mega-buck systems) yields just a "temporary high". After the initial thrill passes (usually 15 - 20 minutes), things start to break down. The listening position is just wrong. Maybe it's all the years of "training", but my ears want to feel I'm in the front row, with a full-blown stereo image and soundstage. Perhaps those who are not "tied into this rut" like me don't mind the listening perspective that multi-channel gives. It's just not my cup of tea.

Kevin

 

[Mark Sherman]

Had a yamaha then got a B&K AVR307 I noticed a difference then I got TAG McLaren Separates Huge Difference. This was all done on the same speakers. The biggest thing i noticed were the subtle little nuances that i never heard before. The one thing i noticed was when i was watching Jurassic park(DTS) When Hammond was behind the table and his butler whispered into his ear I could heard what he was saying. Also in the beginning of the Mummy when Brandon Frasier was looking up at the statue before all the sand starts flying up. Instead of hearing all mumbling I could hear "You are gonna DIE' ..


Well worth the money

 

[Jonathan M]

In my opinion it comes down to ones budget. For a start, I would not even think about spending $1000 on a single mono amplifier - it's a waste of money IMO. The money spent on speakers, however is justified if you have that to spend.

I personally have a total of less than $2000 invested in the audio side of my system. I designed it from scratch to be the best possible of BOTH worlds. The speakers are designed by me, and have been designed with the idea that they will be used for both purposes. They are thus sealed 2-ways with an F3 of 80Hz. When combined with the 2nd order butterworth highpass filters at 80Hz on my NAD T752 receiver, that results with a 4th order acoustic Linkwitz Riley at 80Hz. The NAD's lowpass filter is a 4th order LR at 80Hz, so the sub (also of my design) is seamlessly integrated with the main speakers and surrounds. I got a NAD receiver as it has everything I need for home theatre (5.1 and decent processing) and it has a good preamp and amp section.

If I had more space, then I'd consider building 2 systems and keeping them in separate rooms. I'd likely not spend any more on the 2 channel though, as once again I'd design and build the speakers for the room and amplification. I'd probably use a NAD 340 integrated, or build the amp myself. If I had room to spare and decided to go multichannel audio, then I'd also consider keeping 2 systems - one for HT, and one for multichannel music (Only once they sort out the digital connections though - delay control is essential IMO). Not to keep them separate, but just so that I can go and listen to plain old music whilst others are enjoying the HT.

Just my perspective.

 

[gregD]

The reason this thread has made it to 2 pages is because there is no definitive answer to the original question... there is no one true savvy way to create HT systems... there are many options dependent on many preferences... we might as well run a thread on which ice cream flavor is best.

Virtually every poster here has made smart, informed commentary... but based on their personal preferences: favored listening, listening skills, their HT environment, openess to DIY, gear matching, visual aesthetics, budget etc... my own system works on yet another level, apart from the concerns discussed here.

If there is a general statement to be made, it would be to do the homework, understand the options available to you, experience (audition) the goods.

Oh yeah... and get out and listen to some live music in a club or concert hall once in a while.

 

[Chu Gai]

and if you do it long enough you won't have to buy anything hi-end because you'll have destroyed a signficant part of your hearing!

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Oh yeah... and get out and listen to some live music in a club or concert hall once in a while.

Yeah, because sound quality doesn't get any better than the PA system in your typical club. :rolleyes

Live music may be the golden standard for things like orchestral/chamber music or jazz, but not for other popular forms of music.

 

[Craig Woodhall]

I spent over $10 grand on my 7.1 system and use it for 99% HT, so go figure.. I sometimes wonder if I could have gotten away with less, but am VERY happy with what I have.. Have yet to hear a system that sounds as good as mine on movies and by way of good equipment, music sounds great as well..

Craig

 

[Legairre]

The one thing i noticed was when i was watching Jurassic park(DTS) When Hammond was behind the table and his butler whispered into his ear I could heard what he was saying. Also in the beginning of the Mummy when Brandon Frasier was looking up at the statue before all the sand starts flying up. Instead of hearing all mumbling I could hear "You are gonna DIE' ..

Mark,
You and I seem to have similar HT experiences. For me the amount of detail increased when I went to a better receiver. Then when I went to seperates it increased even more.

I think I've hit the point of diminishing returns though. With a pre amp and two amps I doubt my 7.1 system would sound twice as good if I spend twice as much. I'm sure it would sound better but, I'm just not sure it would sound twice as good.

 

[Craig Woodhall]

I think I've hit the point of diminishing returns though.

me too! i think my HT spending has ended now :b

 

[Craig_Kg]

Oh c'mon - there's ALWAYS something that need upgrading

 

[Craig Woodhall]

hehe, ya, im probably kidding myself..

 

[Legairre]

While I always keep spending to improve my HT. I think in terms of amps and pre amp(until some new really cool format comes out): I've hit the point of diminishing returns. There's always other things to upgrade like CD, DVD RPTV(to projector), speakers and so on.

man this stuffs addictive.