Did anyone here dump HT?

[space_cowboy]

I respect every forum member here and kudos to what you want to do, but the HT thing never really clicked with me. For one, I never really cared about movies, and two, all these speakers everwhere look kinda silly in a house unless you are lucky enough to have a dedicated media room.

I first retired the KLF-C7 because I thought it looked stupid sitting on top of the teevee. After I got the LaScalas I retired the KLF-20's because there was no room for them. The RS3II's look stupid on the walls with the wires showing.

However, I did get the little rcx4/rsx5 combo for the 1 - 2 movies that may get played once a month at the most and that's good enough for now.

So anyway, although I can't contribute much knowledge here in 2-channel, the wealth of info is appreciated, and I'm glad my taxes are done.

Mark

[NOSValves]

I have a complete home theater and almost always except for modern action movies use my system with my tube amp in 2 channel only. The movies sound better and even CNN sounds better through a tube amp .

Craig

[MrMcGoo]

You have to really love movies to put up with a 7.1 system. You also need to love tweaking a 7.1 system. It is not for everyone.

Many receivers/processors add alot of digital hash or noise to the audio. Some folks do not have timbre matched speakers or do not have an adequate sub. The bottom line is that the investment in gear can be huge, if you want good audio with your movies.

A good Reference system can outperform most commercial theaters when set up properly. As always, care needs to be taken on the front end gear. A good processor will have VERY little digital noise.

The folks that love movies are willing to put up with the problems in much the same manner that some people are willing to put up with the problems of LP records. To each his own. Meanwhile, the better speaker manufacturers are doing well.

Bill

[76scalas]

I sold all of my 5.1 (receiver,sub,speakers,DVD player) stuff last weekend. Then went and bought a cheapo Toshiba DVD player. Hooked the Scala's to my 70's 2 channel Kenwood integrated amp. Much better! I'll never try more than two channels again. Maybe it's because I grew up on stereo, anything else just doesn't sound right to me.

[jt1stcav]

My folks moved to CT in '99, and instead of selling their FL house, they decided to keep it if us kids would move back in together. Us brothers are all single guys, and it sure beats living in apartments, so we all decided to moved back home. My younger brothers brought with them their own seperate HT systems, and since I've always been just a 2-channel kind of guy, I never bothered to upgrade my audio system into a complete AV rig! While they both have their own 6.1 DD/DTS AV receivers, big screen TVs, and SACD/DVD-A players throughout the house, I couldn't see spending the extra money on HT components for myself...if I want to watch a DVD, I can just use either one of their systems!

The closest I ever got to a HT setup was my adding my mono 20" JVC color TV and Sony stereo VCR to my 2-channel system back in '89...it never progressed past that point into any Dolby Pro Logic, multichannel setup, and in 2001 I disconnected the TV and VCR entirely (which now reside in my bedroom closet).

[TBrennan]

Cowboy---When I had a house I had 2 rigs, one for music and HT and one just music. The big rig used a Denon HT receiver as a preamp for the front channels and I used the Denon's amps for the rears. This setup used bi-amped Altec A5s in front with a Yamaha SS amp used below 500hz and various tube amps used above 500. This rig was as fine as any I, or most of the Chicago Horn Club guys, ever heard. Unbeatable. Nothing, nothing, is as good at reproducing movies in the home as A5s. And very few things equal them with music. My opinion of course but a well informed one.

For hi-fi only I used a mono rig for a long time, an Altec 605A driven by a Fisher 80AZ tube amp. Then I went stereo and ran a pair of 605s with an ASL tube amp. Nice rig, very nice.

Now I live in a high-rise apartment and go back and forth between having a HT rig and stereo only. I was using my Denon HT receiver with a pair of Heresys up front and some KRKs as surround speakers.

Then recently I got a Fisher tube reciever and went back to stereo. The other day I put the Fisher away and went back to the Denon and surround for movies. For the time being I like the Denon better than the Fisher. I can't see ever replacing the Heresys though, for my needs I can think of no better speaker.

And so it goes.

[wrench_peddler]

I love my theater. Khorns up front, Belle center, Cornwalls for rear surround, Yamaha power, $39 dvd player, home made sub with a 1000 watt samson amp, and a Sony projector to a 7.5'x3.75' screen. My son and I watched a movie tonight and during one scene I commented/yelled to him, "You never heard a movie at a theater sound this good, have you?" His reply, "Nope."

Last week we watched "Saving Private Ryan". The sound on that movie with all heritage speakers was so realistic, I was ducking for cover when the bullets would ricochet. It has taken about 3 weeks of tweeking to just get the Yamaha set close enough to right to really enjoy a movie, but I have got to say that when it is right, it is RIGHT. Now for some Nora Jones, Pink Floyd, Bela Fleck, or The Eagles, the hands down winner for sound is the Scott tubes with two Cornerhorns.

[busterfree]

I dumped all of my HT stuff a while back. I wanted a simple room and a simple system. I also realized that I did not watch that much video to justify a room full of stuff.

Also, the HT scene keeps changing, and I did not want to be in that rat race. It could be expensive trying to keep up with latest technology.

[hoggy]

My brother has HT. When I go to visit we'll watch a DVD movie with 7.1 and all I can say is for me allI seem to be able to hear is everything BUT the people speaking. I personally don't care for HT.

hoggy

[cwm]

Does anybody here use a "Spatializer" (Stephen Desper's patent) for creating phantom channels? I run one with LaScalas and a Velodyne sub for movies and the surround effect can be quite convincing. For music I switch it out of the system, although the odd time I try running music through the Spatializer and the effect can often be interesting..........

[maxg]

Like many others I dumped mine a while ago and am now strictly 2 channel. It was fun for a while but in the end it just seemed to get in the way of enjoying a movie - and it never did a damn thing for music.

I had hoped the system would be saved with SACD. Sadly that didnt provide what I was looking for either so I am strictly a 2 channel man and have no plans to change.

[Klewless]

I am on the other side of the fence....

I run my HT in multi-chan stereo with a center channel and will never be without it again. Period. ( I ignore rear speakers altogether.)

I have a bad room and the center adds stability and realism to the stereo image that makes me want to listen all day and night. Sometimes I listen in stereo but that does not last very long. I do have a Rel sub connected to the speakers.

When it comes to movies I have a great sound stage and love the independence of all three channels when it is properly done at the source.

Plus I do have one dolby encoded CD that is great. Have not as yet tried buying any video CDs which have been encoded. Something to do on another day.

In short I love what it does to my "stereo".

[Daddy Dee]

Mark, thanks for starting an interesting thread.

I'm also a HT dumper. I purchased an HK AVR receiver to set up a 5.1 Heritage HT. Don't mind watching a movie at someone elses house when as a guest, I don't have to bother with the settings. A few weeks ago visited a friend in Dallas and watching some vampires vs the lycans movie... I thought, "hey, I think I just heard a bullet whiz over my head." But was it worth dreaming all night that monsters were chasing me and no matter how many silver bullets I put in their chests, they just wouldn't stop coming? Nope.

On the fairly rare occasion that I do watch a movie, hearing the sound on two channel works fine for me. I never did acquire the taste of the center channel thing.

No disrespect in any way to folks that love HT. It's almost a universe unto itself in terms of available gear and opportunities for (what is to me) "work". I have plenty of admiration for the folks that invite me to their house to enjoy what they've done.

It's more a matter of temperament than anything else. I seldom watch a movie more than once. I don't subscribe to HBO or any movie service on satellite. Partly because it would be too easy for me to become a movie junkie. It doesn't work for me to be zoned out and television and movies don't leave enough processing resources free for me. On the occasions when I've come to my senses after a season of watching too much tv or too many movies, I feel like I've been consuming junk food for my mind and need to be cleansed.

When I put the HT together last Memorial Day weekend, it was for having a multiple movie session with guests. It was o.k. and I thought I might leave it together for when my daughters come home. It didn't matter that much to them either.

It was all good to discover I'm a two channel kind of guy.

[Audible Nectar]

I've become hooked on HT as well - but it took a while for me to get in the game.

In the beginning days of HT (late 1980's), it was all about "pro logic" and VHS....for the elite, it was Laser Disc. No full range audio sound to all speakers, lack of "same quality" speakers and amplifiers across all channels, and poor subwoofers (without spending big $$$$). IOW, as my dad would say, it was "half-a$$ed".

The new millennium brought us basic tools for everyone to enjoy the FULL theater experience. DVDs now saturate the market, giving the GP 5 channels (minimum) of discrete full range audio. Processors and subs have come a long way!! And now, the final piece to the puzzle - high quality broadcasts in HDTV - which will bring large, sharp images to the masses.

So the time is right to enjoy the HT experience.

I am not what one would call a "movie buff" - much like music, theres 20 bad titles for every good one. That still allows room to rent and own what gems do exist - I enjoy a GOOD film on occasion. My true motivation for my HT lies in titles such as The Eagles: "Hell Freezes Over" and Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature". You see, it's not the DVD format that's flawed, it's the studios that use the format and do not take advantage of its capabilities. DVD can sound EXCELLENT!

The big screw-up in multichannel was the decision to only allow analog outputs for passing SACD and DVD-A. Not using a universal digital connection was a BIG MISTAKE. You (the media giants) just eliminated the majority of your potential customers. WHOOPS!

I find that having two systems allows for ownership of two different types of systems in terms of sonic character. The more aggressive, forward, high impact theater, and the more cushy, comfy, "dad's Lazy-Boy" system in 2 channel. Regardless of one's opinion of what "true and faithful" audio reproduction is, I find that systems/electronic components excel at certain things, and that it is OK to like different sonic aspects of systems - and that often it is ideal to have two systems to satisfy all purposes, and to make the most of what I listen to. HT allows for this, as I find what's good for the HT isn't always best in the 2 channel system, and vice versa.

Ask anyone who has investigated a full tube HT system, and you will get a feel for why I feel the way that I do. If one were building the ULTIMATE combo system, I think that would be the way to go. Realistically speaking, it is cheaper (IMO) to build 2 systems that do certain things well, than to build one do-it-all system that gets EVERYTHING right.

Walter Payton only comes along once in a lifetime. Sometimes, we need two running backs to do what Walter could do on his own....and when "salary cap" implications hit home, the "2 back" approach was actually (on a performance level) the best way to go. If an owner could get two backs that do everything Walter did for half the money, he would be a Super Bowl champion.

[hwatkins]

Six of one/half dozen of another here.

I really like my Heresy HT and would not trade it back to just TV and 2 channel. Measurements and reasonably good gear keeps setup tribulations to a minimum, although HT is very much prone to notice bad source.

I really like my two channel setup and would not convert it to HT (I allow the speakers to be used with the television but only to let things like baseball games reach me in the office without that harsh 3" speaker effect).

The HT setup taught me a couple of things:

1. A good matching center is an excellent solution for two channel - especially if the amp does a good job of matrixing the sound.

2. A good subwoofer is darn good (and I now believe a requirement) for two channel. I wasn't aware of how that LF drop in spl on the low end kept a bit of 'fullness' out of the sound.

So no - I will not be giving up my HT. It is just too darned entertaining.

And no - I will not forego my two channel setup, although a good sub will be added then possibly a center speaker.

[Q-Man]

I will stick with home theater. Especially now that I have SACD's and DVD-Audio disc. I'll trash all my CD's once I get them all replaced. Multi channel sounds soooo much better then stereo. Maybe I can save the outdated CD's for use in the car, but by then automobiles will also be converted to multi channel.

I agree that it can be a pain in the butt sometimes, but that can also make it interesting. I lost count on how many times I changed things.

[JBryan]

I don't spend much time watching movies and as a result didn't do a lot of research into HT. I did find that trying to put together a set of speakers was a daunting and more often than not, unrewarding task and best left to "experts". I tried to match drivers, impedances, and cabinets within my budget and ended up with a hodgepodge of speakers that didn't give me anything close to the theater experience.

I eventually gave up and found a set of Atlantic Technology speakers, bought an Outlaw receiver and was done with it. Matched speakers really made a difference in getting the experience right and I am quite satisfied with the sound. I don't pretend that its ideal and I have never listened to anything other than movies so I don't know how it does music but I already have a system for that.

Oddly enough, I probably spend more time listening to the AT speakers than the Khorns downstairs but I am no where near as critical of the sound. I also listen to more "talk radio" than music in the course of the day on a cheesy McIntosh int. amp and a pr of Bozak speakers but rarely pay attention to the shows. I'm not sure what that says about my priorities but it can't be good.

Have fun, Bryan

[Johnny TN]

----------------

On 4/13/2004 10:54:50 PM NOSValves wrote:

I have a complete home theater and almost always except for modern action movies use my system with my tube amp in 2 channel only. The movies sound better and even CNN sounds better through a tube amp .

Craig

----------------

actually what I do as well...

[artto]

Admittedly, Im not a big movie fan. As far as HT goes, Im just getting started in this direction. Getting things setup, especially at the AV receiver can be bewildering. However, I guess what bothers me most about HT, or even regular movie theaters, is the wide discrepancy between the visual image & the audio image. Then again, its supposed to be entertainment, isnt it.

For decades audio has been capable of presenting some semblance of a three-dimensional image. At its best, its much more akin to the you are there experience. Video, movies, HT, have not achieved anything close to this yet at the visual level, at least not on a practical commercial level. And nowadays, with surround sound, having sounds fly past your head, the discrepancy between the visual and audio image seems more absurd than ever. That spoils the experience for me. Perhaps when video gets to the point where we can simulate some sort of video hologram, even if the image just emanates from the plane of the screen & back wards (away from the viewer, like some sort of 'window'), some of this will make visual & aural sense to me. In the meantime, combining the two is just an amusement experience. Currently its more like both an exaggeration (the audio part) and circumscription (the video part) of reality. While the audio part has gotten even more three-dimensional, the visual aspect is still like looking at a reflection in a mirror or a "moving photograph".

[hwatkins]

----------------

On 4/14/2004 8:47:18 AM artto wrote:

While the audio part has gotten even more three-dimensional, the visual aspect is still like looking at a reflection in a mirror.

----------------

Way off topic here, but something I find interesting...

Folks at Cambridge have done some interesting mirror studies. It seems that most folks brains take a twist when looking at a mirror - we turn it into a 3 dimensional representation. The most telling part of the experiment was that folks that were near-sighted had the same level of vision degredation on objects that were 'far away' in the mirror (let's say you have a sign that is 30 yards behind you in the mirror, our brain seems to know this and our blurred vision applies to that sign in the mirror even though the mirror is a mere 5 feet away). The same researchers noted that this didn't happen with television.

Enough useless information for one day...