Mike in CA

A good home theater pre/pro doesn't require that the sound be processed at all. Most, like mine, have direct modes where the source signal is allowed to bypass all of the DSP functions and is routed to the amplifier with no modification for stereo reproduction.

DrJay

Tube amps RULE, Solid State DROOLS!

;-)

Just getting in the spirit of general statements that are wrong...

laurinap

im a big fan of conrad johnson tube audio. not sure of your budget, they have a integrated tube amp (cav 50), but i went with separates instead, have a cj premier 17 pre and an mv 60 tube amp hooked up to wilson watt puppy 7's, pretty happy with the silky smooth but precise sound. got all my gear used off audiogon for 1/2 to 1/3 of what it costs new.

even got a relatively vintage cj tube cd player, though i gotta admit, my sony 999es cd player sounds better overall.

prior cj stuff on their site

http://www.conradjohnson.com/It_just...duct_page.html

laurinap

to answer your original question, i started out with a jolida integrated tube amp i picked up for probably around $400-500 used off audiogon, loved it hooked up to my paradigm bookshelfs, but once i got the conrad gear, there was no turning back for me, huge difference in quality, even using the paradigm speakers

http://www.jolida.com/index.php?p=products&category=2

SleepRM3

Your system is the ideal way to do home theater from a stereo minimalist's perspective. I still listen in stereo preferring vinyl LPs over digital anything.

George from MD

Here's a nice deal:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ube&1294231857
I was going to point out the Stingray but it was already sold.

Mike in CA

I prefer listening to most music in stereo too, and I also enjoy vinyl more than CD's so I think we're more or less on the same page.

A.Wayne

Not sure his comment was meant that way , they represent complete different presentations and formats and are not comparable IMO.

If using a single seat format , 2 channel will reproduce much better sonics than 7.1 . Multi seating changes that and 7.1 is superior from that perspective
..

regards,

Mike in CA

The comment that I was referring to in my post ("2 channel is serious, home theater is not") seemed pejorative, but maybe I misinterpreted it.

I agree with your points about listening position relative to the type of system being used and the differences in format between 2 channel and multichannel. My only real point is that there is nothing inherent in the equipment that's used for multi-channel sound that makes it unsuitable for "serious" stereo listening.

If you have quality main speakers, superior amplification, the ability to bypass DSP functions with your preamp, the right signal source, and a good stereo seating position, using those components of your home theater to listen in 2 channel will be just as satisfying as listening to a system that can only do 2 channel, IMO.

I'm not saying that multichannel sound is better than 2 channel (in many cases in may be inappropriate for the music), only that the equipment in a good multichannel system can give you the option to listen either way.

A.Wayne

I'm no longer involved in the industry ( designer) but stayed in touch with a few associates still in the field. Some are heavy into A/V and we have this discussion on so many occasions i have lost count......

If you are serious about music reproduction 2 channel wins

If you are serious above multi-seating video application 7.1 wins ...

The best A/V 7.1 system in the world used to playback 2 ch, cannot approach a good 2 ch setup done for music , just not possible.

top 2 ch playback is so critical to positioning and room treatment that a good 7.1 system would have to be dismantled and speakers reposition to even have a chance .

20 yrs ago we were doing testing and found that if you were to close your eyes while listening to your a/v system , most were practically un-listenable, You would be amazed of how much you see and how, goes along way in accepting A/V sound ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw#t=0m39s



We used to setup by RTA/RT60 and then test with audio only no video , when we were satisfied with the setup then we went to video.

Always gave us the best setup for demos at shows etc ....

regards,

Mike in CA

That McGurk Effect video was a mind blower...

cobalt

Lets step back a notch. I Cannot agree that the best surround in 2 channel mode is only as good as a good sounding dedicated 2 chanel system . My Arcam AVR 600 using Dali Helicon speakers sounds better in 2 channel than many dedicated 2 channel systems i have heard that people wasted many multiple thousands on. If we rated everything Good, Better, Best I can assure you it would rank up there with the better and I have heard people use their AVR888 (same as AVR 600 minus internal amplification) with Wilson Maxx 3's and sophia's for rears with some very nice amps and in 2 channel mode sounded on par with some dedicated 2 channels systems I have heard costing about the same. These are systems that are usually far out of reach of the average consumer.

No visuals to influence you just as a 2 channel system. There have been some tremendous breakthroughs and it is quite incredible what you can do today. There is a reason why the reviews say it is comparable to the best 2 channel dedicated receivers made today.

I can't agree with this. I have had some decent equipment over the past 20 years of HT listening and I would say that back then not much if anything was accurate and a far cry from what you can do today.

I am sure if we had the chance to sit down and compare I could persuade you to reconsider your opinion. I am not saying it is as good as the best systems costing hundreds of thousands with dedicated rooms for 2 channel but definitely far better than good and darn near the top of the better systems most are accustomed to hearing.

A.Wayne

Please feel free Anthony, I would be open to such and Cannot disagree with your experiences i know what i speak and can prove... Fascinating to note that a good 2 channel setup requires a different room tune than an A/V setup, one would have to compromise one or the other for best results....


Be careful, you are not the one persuaded .......

PS: I do agree there are many expensive 2 channel systems that sound bad, Why? I know you know why ... Kinda reminds me when i hear kids talk about the turbo Porsche they just killed last night with their Honda Civics..

cobalt

Wow yesterday was a long day.

The beauty of the Arcam is it can allow you to tune the system for 2 channel and the multi-channel processor separately. The unit will not process the sound as it does in multi-channel for 2 channel. The adjustments the system makes for surround are amazing and quite accurate compensating for the rooms inadequacies.

A quote from the review from WSR: "The new Arcam AVR600, at the hub of my lab’s reference system, gives me the finest sound I have heard in my life, from any system. Ever. Anywhere. Regardless of price. Period."

IMO that quote is a bit far fetched but it does come close to some very nice systems for both. If I had to compromise this is the best way to go and I agree it would not beat the best stereos but will sound as good as most better systems.

I would say that there are differences but it is more like putting a 997.2TT up against a GT2 on the nordschleife . One might edge out the other but the cost differential is considerable considering the result differences.

Too bad you are so far away. I am sure we would have an interesting debate over this in person.

Tonydec

My Rotel A/V receiver has a bypass for 2 channel only, sounds pretty good and got good reviews to match. There is a very noticeable difference between the 2 modes.

I'm sure if you matched all the right gear, you should be able to get very good sound from H/T, but I think you'd be into it quite a large investment compared to 2 channel.