I would think long and hard about adding multi-channel. I, too, am a
confirmed two channel guy. I set up an ultimate two channel music and
multi-channel HT in one system. But, I found that very few films even use
rear surrounds and the ones that do -- Star Wars, Twister, etc -- aren't the
type I typically watch. And even those only use the full surround for part of
the film. Twister, for example, has a five minute surround sequence at the
beginning of the film and then never really uses surround again. But, this
brings up another point. You find yourself watching parts of crummy movies
over and over because they utilize surround and you want to use your
surround system. So, you end up watching the pod race sequence from Star
Wars or the beginning of Twister every time your friends or relatives come
over until you're sick of it. I finally took all of the surround stuff, put it in
another room so my kids could enjoy it, but I keep a 43" plasma in my
listening room and I watch movies in two-channel. With my system, the
voices image in the center, right in the center of my screen. I like this so
much better than having a center channel. If your two channel system
sounds great for music, chances are very good that it will sound great for
movies, too. Maybe add a sub-woofer for the occasional room shaking stuff.
You know, when you watch the pod race or the first five minutes of Twister.
Just offering another perspective.
|
>>Are you one of those hifi snobs?<<
ROFL. You are the one who questioned my system when you wrote...
"I took your advice and clicked on your system, ultimate?"
>>Your kind of funny when your pissed...<<
Another bad assumption. Put that on the pile with the others.
>>Were you the captain of the debating team or something?<<
No, but I *was* voted most handsome. |
>>a QUALITY 2 channel setup is much better than 5 or more channels of mediocrity, ANY DAY!!<<
Right on. Also, just want to reiterate -- if you go to a 5 or 7 channel system for movies, most of the sound, a lot of the time, will be coming from your center channel. This means that, for a significant amount of time, you actually go from two channels to one. And the voices don't image in the center, they locate right from the center channel speaker -- no imaging. I find that disconcerting. I don't like having the sound rooted to a speaker, I like my speakers to disappear. With a good two channel system, you still get ambient sounds all around the room. What you will miss is when lazers shoot around the gallaxy, you won't get that "bullets whizzing around your head" effect. You'll miss out on a few minutes worth of action from a select group of movies and movies being what they are -- only a few of those will be worth watching.
I do recommend a sub-woofer, though. Many films use the sub-woofer enough and there's no other way to get what a sub-woofer does from two channels without a sub-woofer.
I am confident Saffy can listen to both sides of this discussion and will have more information from which to make his decision. His final decision will be stronger for having heard all sides.
|
Saffy has left the building. |
>>The gains in two channel sound quality become very small in real terms<<
Wow -- we are definitely not going to see eye to eye.
I have way more than $5,000 tied up in my two channel system and had
exponentially more than that wrapped up in my system when it was home
theater plus two channel in one.
Obviously, I believe there are solid gains to be achieved after the $5,000
level.
And, no, I didn't expect my rear surrounds to be going wild at all times.
And, my system was properly calibrated, etc.
And, no, I didn't expect old two channel movies to be in surround.
Some really bad assumptions being made there. Think about it -- everyone
has to agree or else they must not have their system set up properly? Cannot
imagine someone with a properly set up high end multi-channel system
system disagreeing? Well, all I can say is been there done that so obviously it
is possible. My systems are listed. You can see both my two channel and
home theater systems. They are now listed separately because I've separated
them into two rooms, but they used to be in the same room. So, all you have
to do is imagine both systems combined. This is a bad assumption that
could have been avoided with a simple click of the mouse.
Finally, entering a discussion forum and asking the poster to stop listening to
divergent opinions and go to e-mail so he can listen only to one person in
private is pretty outlandish.
As I wrote before and stand by: I think we can all share our opinions here.
No one is harmed by having listened to all opinions before making a decision. |
What I *am* saying is that if you gave me a budget of $5,000 -- I would buy a two channel system and I would kick the pants off any $5,000 surround system -- when that surround system was being used for TWO CHANNEL MUSIC. That should not be so hard to comprehend. Saffy is a two channel music guy. He needs to know what he is giving up, what compromises he is making. He doesn't need to have the discussion limited so that only surround lovers can join in. And -- for the last time -- he can listen to all of this and make whatever decision he desires.
|
>>please ignore my childish outbursts<<
Hey -- don't tell me what to do. I will only ignore so many childish outbursts -- I have my limits. YOUR childish outbursts I plan to savor like fine wine. |
>>Many people e-mail me as I'm sure they do you.<<
Of course. Once a personal connection has been made and you get into
details that might not interest the general population, it is often better to
switch to e-mail.
>>No assumptions being made<<
You wrote --
"I'll guess that these are the ones you watched or you expect the rear
channels to stand out in the mix at all times?...this would be a poorly setup
system and is the main reason people get turned off on surround
music..."
All bad assumptions -- not to mention the huge reach that "this is the
main reason people get turned off on surround music." That's a bad
assumption on top of a leap worthy of Evil Knievel.
>>My points were to say that a top quality two channel system will not sound
better than a top quality surround system...dream on<<
ROFL. You remind me of an uncle who used to try to get everyone to eat their
mashed potatoes with ketchup. He'd sit there saying, "no way it tastes
better with gravy!"
Different strokes for different folks.
There are people who have had a top quality surround system, properly
calibrated -- waaaay above your nominal $5,000 level and have gone back to
two channel. So, what sounds good to you doesn't necessarily work for
others -- and vice versa. Saffy can listen to all sides -- without making some
silly assumptions -- and make his decision.
Besides, if you have a suggestion for a $5,000 (used) surround system, I'd be
interested in reading it -- and I'd bet others clicking this thread would also.
|
>>My points were to say that a top quality two channel system will not sound
better than a top quality surround system...dream on<<
Not only that, but it appears you failed to read Saffy's original post where he
wrote --
"Experienced Audiophile - who want wants switch to Home theater for a
while. Though I still want to enjoy my CDs on two channel."
Saffy sounds to me like someone who enjoys music in two channel.
>>ultimate?<<
Dude -- for a guy who claims that $5,000 is some kind of high water mark
for a two channel system, I don't think you can dis my surround system when
it is combined with my two channel system -- or maybe you missed the point
that these two systems used to be combined.
If you have a suggestion for a $5,000 (used) surround system that can
compete with a top quality two channel system, I'd be interested in reading it
-- and I'd bet others clicking this thread would as well.
Or -- heh-heh-heh -- maybe that's why you want to do it in e-mail. |
Dude -- I recommend you switch to decaf pronto.
>>never can bring yourself to think a $5000 HT system can work then you should have never opened your over-used mouth.<<
I never said a $5,000 (used) home theater system cannot work.
If you wouldn't let your emotions run wild while you read, you might be better at reading comprehension.
You give your little opinion, I'll give mine and we let the poster make up his own mind. The only worthless posts in this thread and the emotional over-reactions from people who cannot maintain their blood pressure while reading divergent opinions.
What I am saying is that if you are a two channel music person as Saffy is -- and as I am -- you might want to think twice about adding surround for movies. I have been there and done that so -- OF COURSE -- I have something to say on the topic and the original poster is free to ignore me, like I am going to start ignoring your childish outbursts. |
If you could post your system, the dimensions of your home theater and what
you hope to accomplish, what pieces you are considering, etc. That would be
helpful. |
Or, you could just e-mail Chad and let him teach you how to be normal. :-) |
>>I suffer when I listen to my music in two channel<<
That's because you're listening with low end home theater gear.
The way to have one's cake -- excellent two channel music -- and eat it, too -- add 5.1 Home Theater capability -- is NOT to start with gear that will make you suffer when you listen in two channel and then surround yourself with more of that kind of gear. |
>>the center works the hardest<<
Gee -- where have I heard that before?
When I had my system together and I was listening in two channel, people
were always walking up to the center channel and rear channels, trying to see
if music was coming from them. They'd be surprised to find that the front
left and right channels were imaging in the center and throwing ambient
information outside the speakers and in the room -- none of the other
speakers were engaged.
Now, when I watch movies in two channel, people are always asking me where
the center channel is and they're surpised to find that the two channels are
imaging in the center. IMO, that's way better than using a center channel.
Some processors will let you select 4.1 -- with no center channel.
This would let you use your front left and right channels to image in the
center, let you use your highest quality speakers do the majority of the work
instead of a center channel.
Further, the lack of progressive scan isn't that big of a deal.
Progressive scan old technology -- soon to go the way of the dinasaur.
You want a DVD player with DVI or HDMI. Or, you can probably have your
DVD player modded with SDI. This lets you keep the video signal in digital
saving you a digital to analogue conversion.
|
>>-What speakers would I need to add / if any?(Sub-center- Rears)<<
I would definitely recommend a sub-woofer for movies. If you're going to use
the sub-woofer only for movies, you can get a home theater type sub that will
rattle and thump for you and it shouldn't cost a bundle. If you want a sub-
woofer for music, one that will blend with your Caravelles, you'll want to
spend more and get one that is musical. If you go with 4.1 as I suggest,
you'll also need two rear channels. These will not be doing all that much and
home theater is not as demanding of quality gear as music, so you could get
by with inexpensive rear channels. Try to demo them in home to make sure
they blend with your front left and right channels.
>>-How would I connect the AV to my Jadis integrated??<<
One way would be to connect your Jadis to a two channel pass through in
your home theater processor.
>>-My Theta DVD does not have Proscan - is that an issue?<<
You'll probably want to either add SDI to your Theta or update your DVD
player to one that employs DVI/HDMI. If you mod your Theta with SDI, you'll
be able to use an external scaler, which will give you high quality video and
you can run other things like cable TV through the scaler, too. |
Theta still lists the David in its museum.
They offered an SDI option at one time ---
Further options include: 4:2:2 Serial Digital Video Out
http://www.thetadigital.com/museum/david2/prod-info.htm
I don't know if Theta would mod the unit with SDI at this time or if you'd have to take your unit to someone else -- several people do SDI mods. This is something you'd have to research. See who will mod your Theta David, how much the various people charge, and who has the most elegant solution.
This would allow you to keep using the David as your digital transport for CD's and DVD's.
Here is a company that offers SDI mods, but doesn't specify Theta David as a unit they mod. They charge $375 for the mod. That might give you some
ballpark idea of what it would cost for the mod.
http://www.hotrodaudiomods.com/dvdedvd3910.html |
If you add SDI and an external scaler, you're talking about spending
somewhere around $1,500. On the other hand, if you are not married to the
Theta David, you could probably sell it for around $1,200 and replace it with
something like the Denon 3910, which costs around $1,200 (stock). The
Denon 3910 is a universal player and has HDMI, which will also pass the
video signal in digital, saving you a digital to analog conversion, giving you
high quality video. It will also output SACD and DVD-A via Firewire.
Since you could probably sell your Theta for around the same price as the
Denon 3910, it would be a wash and that would conserve your budget for
other things. (You may want to mod the Denon -- I have heard great things
about the APL mods!)
|
Here is a projector you should put on your list --
Optoma H77
http://www.visualapex.com/LCDprojectors/LCD_projectors_details.asp?chPartNumber=H77&MFR=Optoma |
Clones of your main speakers would be ideal, but if you can get smaller, less
expensive speakers in the same family, you should be alright. Star Sound
makes a less expensive monitor, the APLHA -- this might be a good
candidate for your rear surrounds. If they let you demo the speakers in
home, you can listen and judge whether they blend with your Caravelles.
You will have to decide how serious you are about home theater.
One of your big decisions will be whether you want to use a home theater
receiver or go to separates -- a surround processor coupled with outboard
amplification.
>>-Think 4.1 could make sense for me - But do I under stand that it is
simply 4-channels/speakers with a feature that provide a center sound stage?
<<
Your front L & R will image in the center, locating the voices in your screen.
>>-Does the Denon mentioned take care of the graininess of the projector
image<<
One of the factors in the graininess of your image is your room size. You
want a projector that will throw an image large enough for your preferance
but looks good from your viewing position. In a 15 by 15 room, you will
likely be sitting around 10 - 12 feet away. You might want to consult with an
acoustics expert to locate your best listening position in the room. If you sit
too close, the image will look grainy. If you use the Denon 3910 via HDMI to
an HDMI equipped projector, you should get a high quality video image, but
no matter what you buy you need to sit far enough away from the screen.
>>and still allow me to play my CDs on a reasonable listening level?<<
I have heard good things about the sound of the Denon 3910, but you should
definitely try to audition it to see if you can live with its redbook playback.
Make sure the store has a return policy so you can return it. I have also heard
great things about its music playback after it has been modded by APL.
>>_What happens if I get rid of my Jadis? What 4.1 receiver could i get for
under 2k used - or I am I crazy to go there?<<
There are no 4.1 receivers. Most receivers can do up to 7.1. But, many of
them can be set to 4.1. Your decision will depend of your ears. Personally, I
would not be happy listening to two channel music with a home theater
receiver as the hub of my system.
As for receivers under 2k used, you could probably get a top of the line
Pioneer receiver, the 59Txi. You'll want to audition the Pioneer, Denon,
Marantz, Harmon Kardan and some others to see which has the sound you
prefer. |
Projector ------ $3,000
Receiver ------ $2,000
Speakers ----- $1,000 (rear surrounds)
Sub-woofer --- $1,500
DVD player --- $1,200
----------------------------
$8,700
If you sell your Theta David for $1,200
Your total is somewhere around $7,500 including the projector.
You can save money by going with a cheaper sub-woofer and you should demo the Jadis against the receiver to decide whether you want to keep it or use the receiver exclusively. |
Regarding the absence of a center channel -- I would guess a four channel system would work similar to a two channel system. With my two channel system, one need not be in the sweet spot to enjoy the phantom center. I think this would depend of the speakers. If I were you, I would try it with four speakers and if you feel like you need that center channel, see if you can demo a center channel speaker so you can hear the difference. |
>>But if I sell I sell my jadis wont my 2 channel bliss go down the drain?<<
I would think so.
>>If I keep the Jadis can I just get away with a pre / AV?<<
This is why I would suggest keeping the Jadis and seeing if you can live with a receiver as your hub. Personally, I couldn't. If you sell your Jadis, you may want to go with separates -- a surround processor and outboard amplification. This will depend on how deeply you want to get into home theater and what trade-offs you're willing to make.
>>Do I need to spend used 1500 on a sub woofer- if only used for movie<<
If it is only for movies, you can get by with a much less expensive sub-woofer, but if you go with an inexpensive home theater sub-woofer, you will not be happy with it for music -- your choice.
>>What kind of quality can I expect form a used $3000 projector?<<
The projector I suggested you put on your list is supposed to be excellent quality and with appropriate adjustments for your room size. But, you will have to research these.
>>Is $1000 really necessary for used rear speakers?<<
No, you can get used rear speakers for much less. I was estimating the price of the ALPHAS, since those are in the same family as the Caravelles.
>>Sorry if any of these are stupid questions<<
There are no stupid questions. I just wanted to get the ball rolling and I would rather start with a budget that is high and come in under it -- I always feel better that way. That's why I wrote that you can probably come in under that budget, but now you have a starting point. |
>>RSBeck, I own ATC's you own Monitor Audio, who's midfi now?<<
Well, if you're starting a pissing contest, I have no idea what you're putting up against my system, nor why you feel the need, but if it is what you have listed, you've got a ways to go before you should pull down your zipper. I don't see anything in your system that I would consider owning instead of what I have. Everything you have would be a huge step down from what I have. I think you're better off trying to sell your stuff without starting up this type of stuff. But -- hey -- that's just me. |
The intercchange went like this --
You wrote ---
"I suffer when I listen to my music in two channel."
"That's because you're listening with low end home theater gear."
>>it's as good as your system<<
You've upgraded since then, but going by your listed system, you are welcome to think a system that cost a fraction of mine is just as good, but obviously I don't share that opinion.
Price range aside, since I do not suffer when I listen to music in two channel, I think your own indictment of your system is enough to refute your argument.
>>Got any insite how this approach is flawed<<
I'm not sure how you achieve what you suggest on Saffy's budget.
You're short on budgetary details. |
