Is it a Merger or Bust?

Why bother?

Been there, done that. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367

Been doing it this way since the 1970's. Back then the TV had a small 1/8" jack for audio out. Plugged into an an RCA on the Kenwood integrated gave me the best TV sound of anyone back then.  

Not much different today. Everything always has some way of getting stereo sound out of it. Might have to use some kind of adaptor for it but it is there. Probably the biggest thing you will do is to mentally separate video and audio. Then you figure out a way to send the video where you want it to go, and separately send the audio to your stereo.  

That is what I do with everything. Why? Because I tried for years to get surround to sound right. Or even not bad. But the problem with surround, it always involves a processor. These things are death to high fidelity. Absolutely horrid. So bad they mess you up even in bypass. So I gave up on that and now enjoy much better sound quality for less money.  

Surround is a gimmick used to sell movie tickets anyway. The holographic sound stage presented in my stereo system is no gimmick, it is for real. The one tradeoff is the screen takes up space that it would be better to have a diffuser panel there. But, compared to the alternatives, this is a pretty good trade off. So we go with, merger.

Consider a good Stereo set-up. Room and all. How do you get audio in without all the hoopla of a surround set-up?

What does this even mean???

the answer all depends on your expectations, for either 2 channel or multi-channel/Home Theater. are you all in on one, or both?

i have 2 completely separate systems both quite all in. my 2-channel is more all in.

and know that your father’s discrete 5.1 or 7.1 multi-channel has little to do with todays object based Dolby Atmos high speaker count 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 heavy dsp multi-channel. and that 2-channel rooms like diffusion and little absorption. whereas multi-channel likes mostly absorption due to the effects of high speaker count. so no room will be perfect for both.

object based dsp multi-channel can do some amazing things when executed at a high level, as can 2 channel. a processor can work for music if you can get your head around what it can do right. but it takes some work to get to the good part of surround sound. adding a few speakers to a 2 channel system won’t get you there. personally i prefer my music with the signal path purity of analog 2 channel. and my asset allocation reflects that view. but to fully serve movies and streaming video programming having Dolby Atmos based multichannel is important. music with multi-channel? less significant right now but trending up.

what does all that mean in real world terms?

most ’merged’ system are 2 channel focused with some discrete surround sound speakers and a subwoofer. and maybe a flat screen or front projector hanging between the front speakers. which gets both jobs done. but both are likely less that fully executed. again; where is your main focus?

likely the best way to decide which way to go is to look at what media is most important to you......or your family. if you like golden age jazz, classical and rock, then 2 channel is where you will hear it as god intended. not a home theater set up.

as far as adding multi-channel to a 2 channel system there are multiple ways to do it. you can buy a surround sound processor that also has an analog 2 channel preamp, this would be the simplest way. next would be a 2 channel preamp with a pass-through that hooks up with a separate surround processor. so movies then would come into the processor and 2 of the channels get sent to the analog preamp that just passes them through. lots of systems are hooked up both ways.

With the right room, and the right equipment, you can have an excellent stereo system, and a good sounding multi-channel system. It takes a lot of equipment to do it right, though.

I use a separate preamp for stereo, and a separate two channel power amp. My 2 channel line source feeds into my preamp-processor, the processor feeds into the 2 channel preamp. I can listen to very good analog through the two channel system, or digital, or multi-channel music also sounds great, with just enough subwoofering to make it sound right in my large listening room.

It may be more than most are willing to do, but I enjoy it greatly. 

Agree with @islandmandan

You can have both, and can combine and also completely separate 2 channel from a HT set-up with the right equipment. I do. Granted, I concentrate much much more on my 2 channel quality than the ‘wiz bang’ HT technology and tricks, so that’s just there to do it’s job when called upon when watching TV in my dual purpose living room.

Don’t believe those who say you can only do one, or the other. You can do both. For ease of integration though, a 2 channel pre or integrated with HT bypass makes things much easier, but in that respect, can be a limiting factor. Does not mean you cannot get pretty great sound though.

Well leave out the hoopla, and just hook up a stereo. TWO main speakers, left and right. Set up a couple of subs and go from there.

Make it simple..  I use two channels for everything.. If you want to listen to a recorded "live concert", works perfect.. 

Been a while for even 3 main speakers, for me.

For me... a trinaural processor was the best 3 channel.. set up I've heard.. Not a digital 3 speaker guy.. Analog is better..

Regards

That’s all great, but if you are like me, I detest and refuse to put my TV in between speakers......so....and my 2 channel is probably over 85% analog use. So, not sure why ‘digital’ is any reason to go one way or the other.

I'm thinking of adding a drop down screen and a killer projector to get video.  Then I start with just using my 2 channel system for the audio, and hear what I hear.  Like MC said.  The screen would only be down to interfere with the sonics when I'm watching something.

I tried it years ago. It seemed like a simple process to do. I put a 3 channel amp/processor in the tape loop of my 2 channel system. And, of course the rear and center channel speakers.

It was OK at best & complicated as he** to operate with the various remotes & routine to setup for home theater. My wife hated it because she didn't know which buttons to push and when. I was & am really more into 2 channel anyway. So I abandoned the idea a yr or so after setting it up. Now I just have 2 channel home theater when needed, most always for concerts. Much simpler. Sounds great with concerts.  We're both happy

I've gotten 'so clever' in the past. You eventually realize, 'too clever'. Keep em separate.

2 Channel Music System and Home Theater are not the same goals, especially considering the fundamental need for presenting sound to perhaps '3 people wide' up front. 

Apart from conversation, it really doesn't matter what any of us do, as long as we are happy with the results. As I said in my previous statement, I never enjoyed hearing my 2 channel sound  through a preprocessor, It wasn't until I heard it through the Arcam AV 9, and was very surprised how damned good it sounded.

Like I've said, I have two complete systems rolled into one. When I listen to vinyl, it's all tube, all two channel. When I listen to CDs, I can, and do, feed it into my pre-pro, and really enjoy it that way. I enjoy doing things that please me, doesn't cost any of you anything, so just let an old man enjoy himself, would you?.

Artemus 5, well there you are. You're both happy That's a win, and I'm glad you are happy. 

That's all that matters.

Balanced analog from disc player to preamp for stereo.  HDMI from disc player to processor for surround, with balanced analog front LR from processor to by-pass input of preamp.  Other sources, streamer and phono stage, are direct analog to preamp, of course.  Works for me.