tireguy: the great majority of people who call themselves (or allow others to call them) "audiophiles" have been entranced by two-channel audio-only systems. those who have been into the hobby as long as i, have gone from 45rpm mono singles to ep's to stereo lp's and then, reluctantly, to cd's. for a couple or three decades, we enjoyed watching the two-channel parade pass by, interrupted every now and then by failed "improvements" like quadraphonic sound. manufacturers enticed us with better and better components at higher and higher prices. and it was good.
then came the advent of "home theater." at first, that meant having a big screen tv flanked by a couple of speakers, with a vcr thrown in to watch slightly fuzzy, but pauseable, movies. laser discs gave us improved images, line doublers and processors even better. multi-channel formats emerged like mushrooms after rain. video dvd's caused a mild tide to turn into a sea change. hey, this is fun! watching movies as clear as you might get at the multiplex, and with SURROUND sound. planes zipped by over your heads, engines churning, flying right through the damn wall!. cannon shots shook you in your gut. and the bass. well, you know what it's like to be at a rock concert. sales of HT shot up, rocket-like. sales of two-channel gear declined, confining audiophiles onto an even smaller island, whose beaches were eroding as we watched. our very own manufacturers in the audio highend pantheon did what they had to do in light of shifting tastes. they started turning stereo amps into five and six-channel devices. speakers were designed for "center channels" and rears." we weren't in charge anymore. and it was bad.
now, we of the two-channel ilk are joined by those in the HT clan with enough interest in the "sound" of their systems to become what i think of as a subset of "audiophiles." cost and space constraints cause many of the HT crowd to build "integrated systems," by which they might enjoy the best of audio and the best of HT in a single set of components (some of which may be bypassed or used for only one application). please believe me when i say i don't regard the "integrated" crowd with disdain; indeed, i thank them for helping preserve what might otherwise be an even more moribund industry. but...............i don't think you can have the best of audio and the best of HT in one system. at any cost. you have to chose, IMO, which way you want to go and then recognize you're gonna' need to compromise whatever your choice.
for myself, i've decided to keep building my two-channel system, keeping it only as such. i've begun to start a modest HT, recently buying a loewe aconda 16:9 and a pioneer elite dvd (very slightly used). i'll be adding a processor, amps and speakers. these purchases, tho, will come after i make my planned upgrade to the analogue half of my two-channel system.
i don't know whether this answers your query, tireguy but its my view of this simultaneously fascinating and disturbing issue. -kelly
then came the advent of "home theater." at first, that meant having a big screen tv flanked by a couple of speakers, with a vcr thrown in to watch slightly fuzzy, but pauseable, movies. laser discs gave us improved images, line doublers and processors even better. multi-channel formats emerged like mushrooms after rain. video dvd's caused a mild tide to turn into a sea change. hey, this is fun! watching movies as clear as you might get at the multiplex, and with SURROUND sound. planes zipped by over your heads, engines churning, flying right through the damn wall!. cannon shots shook you in your gut. and the bass. well, you know what it's like to be at a rock concert. sales of HT shot up, rocket-like. sales of two-channel gear declined, confining audiophiles onto an even smaller island, whose beaches were eroding as we watched. our very own manufacturers in the audio highend pantheon did what they had to do in light of shifting tastes. they started turning stereo amps into five and six-channel devices. speakers were designed for "center channels" and rears." we weren't in charge anymore. and it was bad.
now, we of the two-channel ilk are joined by those in the HT clan with enough interest in the "sound" of their systems to become what i think of as a subset of "audiophiles." cost and space constraints cause many of the HT crowd to build "integrated systems," by which they might enjoy the best of audio and the best of HT in a single set of components (some of which may be bypassed or used for only one application). please believe me when i say i don't regard the "integrated" crowd with disdain; indeed, i thank them for helping preserve what might otherwise be an even more moribund industry. but...............i don't think you can have the best of audio and the best of HT in one system. at any cost. you have to chose, IMO, which way you want to go and then recognize you're gonna' need to compromise whatever your choice.
for myself, i've decided to keep building my two-channel system, keeping it only as such. i've begun to start a modest HT, recently buying a loewe aconda 16:9 and a pioneer elite dvd (very slightly used). i'll be adding a processor, amps and speakers. these purchases, tho, will come after i make my planned upgrade to the analogue half of my two-channel system.
i don't know whether this answers your query, tireguy but its my view of this simultaneously fascinating and disturbing issue. -kelly