HT vs Home Audio System

B

bluegrassphile

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
995
Location
Southeast Iowa
Do most here keep their home theater and home audio systems separate (I do), or do you integrate them? For me, listening to music and listening to/watching HT are two very different things. Also, the cost of a top notch HT system with high quality components is often significantly higher (i.e. the need for subs, a lot more cables, etc.).

And, as a musician, I want my music and system two channel and at the highest quality I can afford. With all the components of a multi, multi, multi-channel system there is more chance for introducing noise to the system and for degradation of the signal. However, I will admit there is a good bit of speculation in this assessment. My two cents.
 
I use to use my Magnepans in a 3.1 system for HT and 2.1 for music. I gave up my HT and just run separate speakers and receiver for TV. My music system is totally separate.
 
bluegrassphile said:
Do most here keep their home theater and home audio systems separate (I do), or do you integrate them? For me, listening to music and listening to/watching HT are two very different things. Also, the cost of a top notch HT system with high quality components is often significantly higher (i.e. the need for subs, a lot more cables, etc.).

And, as a musician, I want my music and system two channel and at the highest quality I can afford. With all the components of a multi, multi, multi-channel system there is more chance for introducing noise to the system and for degradation of the signal. However, I will admit there is a good bit of speculation in this assessment. My two cents.
Click to expand...


The purist/perfectionist approach would be to separate them. Not only by component; aka separate stereo pre-amp for 2 channel and a home theater processor for movies.

I'd go one step further and not even have them in the same room. Have a dedicated theater and a room for 2 channel listening.

Of course, in a perfect world that would be ideal. But, not many people have that luxury so, a combo system can suffice for many.

For me personally; I've found that too many modern films/shows rely on multi channel audio that it doesn't sound properly down-mixed into a stereo pre-amp.

So my home theater needs; a nice OLED and a really decent Atmos sound-bar suffices for all my HT needs.

Now granted if I had the space and means to construct a dedicated theater with 4k front projection, atmos speakers a nice processor; of course that would be amazing.
 
Unfortunately, I don't have enough rooms for a dedicated home theater, so one room for both.

I do have a flat screen with in-wall speakers and a A/V receiver in the living room but that's the main area for wife and kids. I don't really want them messing with the main HT set up. It's doing 3.0, I'd like to add a sub one day.

I use a Marantz A/V processor for HT, I come out of the preamp outputs of the Marantz into my stereo preamp theater bypass inputs, this allows me to use my same power amp and main speakers in the surround set up. When listening to stereo nothing is on in the HT side of it.

So you really can have your systems integrated in the same room with negligible down side.
 
bluegrassphile said:
For me, listening to music and listening to/watching HT are two very different things
Click to expand...
Right, only one has video. But the physics of sound is exactly the same for both. Really comes down to what one's demands for "reproduction" are.
Most "audiophiles" are actually "stereophiles". Their demands begin and end with stereo constructs. Others, like myself, are after something else, based on these objective facts of physical reality , nothing subjective there at all. That comes afterwards.
Subjectively, stereophiles are satisfied with frontal stereo constructs, others want something akin to this which is physically impossible without at least (2) rear channels. 4 is the minimum. I consider this as stereo + 2, since all mains are capable of pure stereo, the other channels can suffice for both MCH music and movies as needed. Such systems can produced enhanced stereo as well. That's what I do with 99% of music, which is stereo. There is an "off" button if/when the effect is undesired.
Good speakers won't have any issues with reproducing whatever signals they are sent. Sad ones will.
If HT is involved, having a retractable screen is nice to keep the space between mains open for non movie listening. A wall mounted TV can accomplish the same. Or both, one for movies, the other for daily casual viewing, etc.
As with all discussions here and elsewhere, it will come down to preferences and electro-acoustic/perceptual subject knowledge. Or lack thereof.

cheers,

AJ
 
I use mine together. My main stereo system is also the Fronts in my HT setup. With my VAC Pre, I had to do some volume matching because there is no HT Bypass. In fact, there was not much of HT when it was made anyway. The Luxman I am about to order will have the bypass so volume matching won't be an issue. Thankfully, the 2 volume knobs on the VAC are notched, so I could set it exact each time in use after running the setup with the HT receiver.
 
Both HT and Stereo can live happily ever after in the same room with no compromises with either. One just have to make sure to select the right equipment/components.

For stereo, I use a 2.2 set up (fronts and 2 subs). I use a separate 2-channel DAC for stereo. My digital preamp has an analog bypass feature so the analog goes unchanged to the amps and subs.

For HT, I use the same front speakers and subs, but I also add a center channel and two surround speakers and a third sub (it becomes a 5.3 set up). The center and surrounds can be driven with a three channel amp or with mono amps. The screen is retractable and comes down when watching TV/Movies.

When I listen to multichannel SACD, I use a multichannel DAC and again feed the analog signals to the digital preamp for distribution (unchanged) to all speakers. The screen is up in this case.

Switching from HT to Stereo is just a matter of pushing a button in the digital preamp (Balance for 2-channel Stereo, 7.1 for Multichannel, DVD for movies). It works beautifully.
 
For many years I struggled to have an "untainted" 2 channel audio system combined with a 5 channel Atmos system. Worked through everything from amp/speaker switching boxes to HT Bypass settings, etc. My biggest issue was always working with room correction on the HT side, as well as sub integration (LFE on the HT side vs no bass management for the 2 channel audio).

Finally, earlier this year I was able to completely separate both systems in the same room only by having 2 totally completely isolated systems. HT Pre/pro and amps driving dedicated speakers, and 2 channel audio in its own separate system. They were totally independent of each other and it was fantastic but expensive.

Now it is 6 months later and I have sold & am shipping off basically the entire audio side of the HT system. 2 channel listening has dominated my time. My 10 and 12 year old boys have absolutely zero interest in home theater, despite having access to a dedicated media room with 85" screen and 5.2.4 Atmos system with virtually any movie or content ever made at their fingertips. My wife and I cannot watch movies, because by the time we get the boys to bed it's nearly 10 PM every night and there is no way we are staying up past midnight to watch a movie. It has absolutely no use in our lives, and it's sad because it's something I was really excited about and worked for a long time to attain - BUT it is basically worthless in our situation.

Now that I have sold off my Anthem AVM 60, 7 channel Monolith amps, and entire Monitor Audio Gold theater speaker system, I have brought my little Heresy III speakers into the room and I'm waiting on delivery of a Marantz Slimline 1509 5 channel AVR. Strictly 2 channel with 2 little SVS SB2000s to support the Heresy IIIs. We've been listening to 2 channel for the past week now and absolutely are not missing the surround (or even the center channel).

So that was an expensive lesson but I learned a lot along the way. No matter what I tried I was never able to totally integrate a home theater system with my 2 channel audio system without some degree of compromise.
 
We have separate rooms, but neither is a dedicated space. 2 channel rig is in the main floor great room, which is open to kitchen and dining, so it has some acoustic compromises, but still sounds darn good. We're building a basement media room with surround and height channels right now. This space will be a combined living/media/bar room, and therefore has compromises of its own. Still, there's no easy or visually pleasing way to put the multichannel stuff upstairs, and naturally it's darker in the basement which makes for better movie watching. We're trying to do a system downstairs that pulls double duty for music, so it's still as close to "audiophile" stuff as the budget will allow.
 
Phishphan said:
All in one room. Bryston SP3 is great for 2 channel and HT duty.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have the SP3 digital preamp also. But it has become primarily a switching board. I use different DACs for 2-ch audio and multichannel, and also an Oppo 205 to handle 4K video since the SP3 cannot decode 4K.
I also use the SP3 to manage time delays between speakers and subs.
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Right, only one has video. But the physics of sound is exactly the same for both. Really comes down to what one's demands for "reproduction" are.
Most "audiophiles" are actually "stereophiles". Their demands begin and end with stereo constructs. Others, like myself, are after something else, based on these objective facts of physical reality , nothing subjective there at all. That comes afterwards.
Subjectively, stereophiles are satisfied with frontal stereo constructs, others want something akin to this which is physically impossible without at least (2) rear channels. 4 is the minimum. I consider this as stereo + 2, since all mains are capable of pure stereo, the other channels can suffice for both MCH music and movies as needed. Such systems can produced enhanced stereo as well. That's what I do with 99% of music, which is stereo. There is an "off" button if/when the effect is undesired.
Good speakers won't have any issues with reproducing whatever signals they are sent. Sad ones will.
If HT is involved, having a retractable screen is nice to keep the space between mains open for non movie listening. A wall mounted TV can accomplish the same. Or both, one for movies, the other for daily casual viewing, etc.
As with all discussions here and elsewhere, it will come down to preferences and electro-acoustic/perceptual subject knowledge. Or lack thereof.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...


VERY informative AJ. I really enjoy your posts. Very educational for me as a relative newb. Thank you!
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Right, only one has video. But the physics of sound is exactly the same for both. Really comes down to what one's demands for "reproduction" are.
Most "audiophiles" are actually "stereophiles". Their demands begin and end with stereo constructs. Others, like myself, are after something else, based on these objective facts of physical reality , nothing subjective there at all. That comes afterwards.
Subjectively, stereophiles are satisfied with frontal stereo constructs, others want something akin to this which is physically impossible without at least (2) rear channels. 4 is the minimum. I consider this as stereo + 2, since all mains are capable of pure stereo, the other channels can suffice for both MCH music and movies as needed. Such systems can produced enhanced stereo as well. That's what I do with 99% of music, which is stereo. There is an "off" button if/when the effect is undesired.
Good speakers won't have any issues with reproducing whatever signals they are sent. Sad ones will.
If HT is involved, having a retractable screen is nice to keep the space between mains open for non movie listening. A wall mounted TV can accomplish the same. Or both, one for movies, the other for daily casual viewing, etc.
As with all discussions here and elsewhere, it will come down to preferences and electro-acoustic/perceptual subject knowledge. Or lack thereof.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...


Good info AJ. On that TV in the middle, what I do is drape a large wool blanket over the 65" TV, it helps.
 
I have a few systems. Since my old house was in VA and I didn't have the basement finished for a bunch of years after I moved in, it is an integrated AV system with 11 channels (or 7.1.4 in Atmos terms) and a dedicated HT sub (Power Sound Audio) in addition to two old Rel Storm IIIs just used for music and crossed over very low. There is a pic of the main system below. I don't use the main system tons for HT as I have a projector (also used a projector and a 100 inch screen in the main system) and a 92 inch screen that folds into the master bedroom ceiling in a addition to another integrated AV system (with 7 channels or in Atmos terms 5.1.2) which I use as my UHD system (and I'll probably be upgrading the size of the UHD TV from 55 inches within the next year - just sit about 7 feet away). When I listen to music in those integrated systems I do cover the screen, even a portion of the projector screen in the main system which really isn't that reflective (vs. a TV).

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • MainSys0919reduced.jpg
    MainSys0919reduced.jpg
    550.6 KB · Views: 95
Below is a pic of a wider view of the main room and the back-up system I have with the UHD TV
attachment.php
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • MainSys1019widereduced.jpg
    MainSys1019widereduced.jpg
    210 KB · Views: 98
  • Backup2Oct2019.JPG
    Backup2Oct2019.JPG
    4.6 MB · Views: 96
2ch-only "purist". When I got my first "real" job I started out extremely interested in HT, with 2ch audio as an afterthought. This was in the early 2000s when flat screens were small and expensive, and front projectors were terrible (I bought a Panasonic ae300 front projector and was instantly disappointed, despite high gain screens and light control). Besides the bad display tech at that time, I discovered a far more serious problem for my HT aspirations - movies & TV have almost no re-watch value for me. And often, even the 1st watch isn't very good. As far as software goes, I learned that I care infinitely more about music than video. Honestly, as far as media goes - movies are good to kill time occasionally, but I could live without 'em. I'm also not much for watching concerts or enjoying music in surround.

So over the years, my 2ch hifi grew and grew in size & expense, while the HT gear changed and hobbled along for a while, then withered to nothing. At one point I tried the combined 2ch with a TV approach - but decided that music playback was the unquestioned priority. I finally removed the HDTV screen from my 2ch setup some 10 years ago. Good move! Now for video content, I get by with a very mediocre 2010s Panasonic Plasma in the bedroom, and just use its built-in speakers lol. Literally ALL the money is in the 2ch.
 
When we lived in Minneapolis I had two separate systems in two dedicated physically separate rooms. The biggest advantage to that setup was that I could listen to my stereo while the kids watched a movie. When we moved to Colorado and into a smaller house, I consolidated the stereo and HT systems into a single system in a dedicated room. There are no parallel walls in this room as our house has a 'prow' shaped angled front.

Overall I didn't lose anything from the previous 2 channel setup and gained a lot in the HT as it now uses the Stereo's front channel speakers instead of the less capable HT speakers I was running. The HT and Stereo have separate isolated and filtered mains supplies to limit any interference from the HT getting into the stereo.

A Logitech Harmony turns on only the gear needed for 2 channel or HT. I can also listen to 5.1 channel SACD source material using this setup without turning on the projector.


DSC_3484-1.jpg

DSC_3486.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top