Have you ever thought of simplfying your home theater set-up using two-channel system both for video and audio? An alternative was suggested by Mike Allen ( also of vacuum tube valley) in his website.
You might find the letter also interesting:
A Letter Regarding Home Theater:
Whether one should go for surround sound or a two channel system for their audio/video
1. Why should someone contemplate the purchase of a "high quality" two channel system for $1000, $2000, or $3000 dollars etc. when they can purchase a complete home theater system for the same price?
Assume for a moment the complexity of reproducing a movie. The sound must integrate with the video on an emotional level and the sound itself is a wide range of material from music, to dialogue and ultimately car bombs. To choose a system fully capable of producing the dynamics of planes crashing into the side of mountains as well as the subtle nuances of a woman whispering the language of love into a child’s ear requires a quality system. Given this task, we believe a system needs to play music very well or as someone said,
“If the system plays music right, it will play noise”.In relating this concept of a high performance system to your question, we believe the goal of a “home theater audio system” is not the issue of whether it is two channel or 5.1, the issue is quality sound reproduction. The 5.1, or 7.1 system is more complex than a 2 channel system. A home theater system is made up of 14 discrete operating units (5 preamplifier/amplifier units, 6 speaker/ subwoofer units and 3 cable units) while a two channel system has 5 discrete operating units (2 preamplifier/amplifier units, 2 speaker units and 1 cable unit). At $1,000, the price invested per unit in a home theater system is $71 per unit while in a stereo system it is $200 per unit. At $3,000, it is $214 versus $600. We are not saying that a two channel is 3 times better than a comparably priced Home Theater System. We are suggesting that the higher investment per unit may yield a better sound. To be sure, the further up the comparable price scale you go, the quality issue between the two different systems diminishes.
In practice, the cheaper a unit, the lower the real wattage and the ability to handle a wide frequency range. I think most people would believe that you can get more speaker quality for $1200 a pair than $418 a pair in today’s market. One point most home theater people would make is the lack of a center channel and a subwoofer in a two channel system. A center channel is not necessarily required in a system that has a strong soundstage. One system that we use in house is a $580 JD 102A with a pair of $560 Mirage 590i’s and some cheap cable. With the speaker face positioned two inches beyond the TV front, many people believe there is a center channel operating. As for the subwoofer, a $200 subwoofer has its drawbacks. Given the drawbacks, are you enhancing sound or just giving the system a series of indiscriminate thumps and bumps? In the long run, are you better off with two speakers that provide a clear and fast but lighter bottom end? If the low extension is wanted, hook up a subwoofer to the two channel system. In the end, it is a matter of choices. There are people who find the $1,000 surround system acceptable where others want a sound alternative.
2. Why do you think so few people watch movies on two channel systems like you suggest? It seems to me it is like a lot of people feel that you have to either watch a video on a surround system or nothing at all.
I tend to think there are many people who have hooked up their video units to their existing stereo. Of course, I have no clear cut statistical information. In terms of antidotal information, we have customers who have hooked their stereos up to video units with good results. I am certain there are people who assume home theater requires a surround system. I am absolutely certain that people who are building a multi media room, 99.99999% require a surround system.
However, I believe that there is another reality which may be prevalent out on the market, people are confused. Given the different formats from CD players to Dolby (5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 9.1,10.2), equipment selection by the mass market customer is an exercise in bailing water out of a boat with a fork. There are people who do not even consider a two channel system when on the quest of the surround holy grail. There are other people who don’t want to be bothered with the complexities of a 5.1 and stick to the stereo format. Another group of people are waiting until the formats become clear, before they will enter the purchasing arena.
For us the issue is quite clear, try both a stereo and a surround sound in the retailers showroom, the individual can determine the right sound for them.
3. Perhaps you could expand briefly on your recommendation of two channel systems "based on context" and also your company's general philosophy.
Hard question to answer briefly. Let me give a little bit of background in terms of philosophy. We think the average individual is not just looking for home theater whose sole purpose is volumes of 85 dB and up with an agitated subwoofer caving in your chest. We believe that most people are looking for home entertainment systems that will be used for music and movies. Starting from this point, the context becomes:
Price: We do believe that at lower prices you can get a better buck bang for the sound in a two channel system. This is just a matter of economic physics where the question is “do a few higher grade components outperform a larger number of cheaper components?” I think that our defense department subscribes to the quality over quantity approach although I have never heard a $26 million sound system.
Physical constraints: Not all of us are fortunate to have multi media rooms to which we can retire to with cigars and brandy. Many audio video systems are placed in bedrooms or family rooms that are not conducive to the physical requirements of a surround sound system. For example, the typical family room in the middle atlantic states is attached to the kitchen and has three walls taken up by the fireplace, exit to the outdoors and exit to the kitchen. The usual course of events is to position furniture to the fireplace as opposed to the solid wall. So the audio/video ends up in the corner. It is difficult to put a 5.1 system starting from a corner.
In addition, for condo or apartment dwellers with limited space, a 5.1 system may not fit and the thumping subwoofer may not be a popular aspect with the neighbors. In essence the physical attributes of the dwelling may be conducive to a two channel system.Utility: As mentioned earlier, many people want a home entertainment system. Put in that light, two channel can do well in the matter of utility when there is a limited budget. A few higher grade components can give you linearity in the system. Simply put, you can play soft, you can play medium or you can play loud. With the differential in sound volume of 15dB to 30dB between the car bombs and dialogue, this can pose a practical problem. It is 11 p.m. and people are sleeping in the house. One gentleman told me “thank God for the remote, at least I can tone down the explosions and then turn up for the voices without leaving my chair.” I asked why he did this, his response was, “You haven’t met my wife coming out of the bedroom in the late night.” With linearity found in tube amps (manufacturer’s marketing pitch), you can play at whisper levels and still have proportion and clarity. At mid levels a good system should have air and body. This is where women and children usually like the level. At high volumes, a good system should not punish you with harshness.
Could this be snob appeal? I don’t know if audio video is better on a $20,000 triode stereo system or a surround system. I have heard both, I prefer the triode, it really does sound excellent.
4. Do you think that there is a reluctance in the "high end" community to embrace home theater and why do you think that is?
I would like to say that there are many audiophiles who have and enjoy home theater systems. In terms of economics, I think people with $20,000 of disposable income will be more disposed to purchase a surround system than a stereo system. I think that there is a portion of the high end community that has not fully embraced surround sound for a number of reasons.
Relevance as opposed to reluctance: Many people I know enjoy listening to music as opposed to watching video. It is a matter of media preference as opposed to a rejection of surround sound.
The physical effect: Many audiophiles are not impressed with the physical sound attributes of a surround system. Prior to experiencing my first Home theater, I watched TV for 20 years with built in 3 inch speakers. My introduction to Home theater was a tricked out Meridian system playing some action movie. The only reaction out of my jello reduced body was a squeaky voice saying, “wrap it up, I wanna take this home”. However, audiophiles listening to top flight sound systems are not making the light speed jump from 3 inch speakers to video nirvana. In this respect, their knowledge and experience of sound, even at high volumes do not engender the initial physical impact I had. Thus, they are more critical of the operating characteristics of a surround sound system.
The naturalness of the sound: I think that many audiophiles do not enjoy the presentation of the sound. This becomes more apparent on a music video than a movie. First, there is a low end that is pumping out at a 16dB elevated level, making a kettle drum equivalent to the start signal for Armageddon. Second, the placement of the sound, such that the chorus or the lead guitar are coming out of the back speakers while the musicians are in front of you on the TV screen appears out of place. If the audiophile has been weaned on the natural sound of a triode system, they may not readily embrace surround sound.
The last issue is the format: Many audiophiles believe that surround is in its infancy (many think CDs are just starting to be listenable). They assume that the final formats and their attendant improvements will take years to accomplish. Until that time, they will keep their respective systems.
