 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.113.190.194
I have limited floorspace and so my system does double duty for 2-channel audio and home theater, with a priority on 2-channel music. I picked up a tube preamp (Aesthetix Calypso) and I am going to order a BAT VK-250 2-channel amplifier. Even on HT bypass, the signal goes through the Calypso's active circuitry, so it will be tough to match the center and rear channel amplifiers with the mains, but I have been considering a used Proceed or Cary 3-channel amp. It's been a frustrating search and my system seems to get more and more complicated. I'm beginning to think about just sticking with a 2-channel setup with subwoofer. I can have the DVD player (Blu-Ray in the future) handle the decoding and feed my Calypso and sub.
Anyone out there happy with a 2.1 channel setup? Do you miss the center channel? Surrounds?
Follow Ups:
On the disc, the .1 channel is a low frequency effects channel. If you get your player to output a 2 channel signal, it folds the surrounds into the 2 channels and throws the .1 channel away so you don't get that info. Provided your mains can handle low frequency info reasonably well, you will not miss the sub in movies. If your mains don't handle low frequency info and you're using the sub to augment their low frequency response, you're still really only hearing a 2.0 channel mix.
I started out with a 2.0 channel system for HT (separate system to my audio system) some years ago and I was quite happy with it until I started experimenting with adding channels. As three sox said, if you don't have it you don't miss it. Once you start adding channels, however, the channels you add become addictive. I've gone from 2.0 to 6.1 in a series of steps and I've enjoyed every addition. I was also living happily without every addition until the time I decided to see what adding the next step was.
Also, as jazz inmate said, the movies you watch make a difference. If there isn't a lot of directional stuff and low frequency effects, you lose less though there are still gains from extra channels due to the more immersive nature of the sound field.
I think matching the tonality of the channels is important and if you can't do that, I'd tend to stay with 2.0. The match that I think is most important is the match between centre speaker and L and R fronts. If you can't get a good match there, forget the centre since the tonal changes in voices as them move from centre to one of the front speakers or back in the other direction is something I find particularly jarring.
David Aiken
to left right, to center, to front right, it GREATLY added to the feel of the movie (looking at a dead dog in the desert)..
Surround soundtracks in films have been with us for over 30 years. You don't listen to mono much now, do you? In a properly set up HT system (and that is essential) a good surround movie is psychologically more involving and the suspension of disbelief is heightened. i'm not talking about explosions here, just pure involvement, even in a "quiet" film.
But as alluded to above, many HT multi-channel systems are set up using different speakers, different amps, uneven levels, sub woofer crossover wrong and/or level too high, etc.
So balance set with a meter is essentail.
You don't HAVE to have 5.1/7.1 for good sound and movie enjoyment. You obviously won't get the "surround" effect with 2 channels, but it can still be good nonetheless. In fact, I'ld go so far as to say I'ld rather have a really high quality 2 channel system than a low-mid quality 5.1.
Jack
I do think I could manage without the surrounds, but really skeptical that I would be okay without a center. And, one you add that extra channel, means that you need your prepro and amplification, so what not just add 3 more channels! I have all the gear for 5.1 channels... just it would be nice for simplicity sake to jump down to 2.1.
.....From your post I am guessing (dangerous thing to do around here) you will be fine with the 2.1 set-up. If you get really curious and really motivated you will explore 3.1 & 5.1 systems.
IMHO NOBODY here can predict what you will or will not be satisfied with.
FWIW I have a 5.1 system (three of them throughout the house) and a 3.1 system in the master bedroom ~ I am waiting on some speakers now to turn the bedroom system into a 5.1 set-up.
Smile
Sox
If you're mainly interested in older or foreign films, you can get away with a 2.1 HT, but if you intend to watch modern action or war films like Saving Private Ryan and such, the immersive nature of surround sound necessitates a 5.1 system. For Blu-ray, you should consider a 7.1, daunting as it may seem.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Where is one expected to put all those interconnects in a 7.1 system?
...The first answer that comes to mind is not one you will like :o)
IMHO if you really want a 7.1 system then interconnects are the least of your worries. If you don’t want a 7.1 system then who cares what other people do with their interconnects?
Smile
Sox
All those interconnects? I thought HDMI was going bring us infinite happiness through just one cable! :-)
I already have the ProAcs for center and rears, so it should be an easy decision. If I just had enough room for 2 systems, it would be a no brainer... I could have my Calypso and BAT drive my full range ProAcs in my simple 2-channel system and then stick with my ProAc monitors and Anthem setup for HT.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
