# Listening to music on a HT system



## Guest

Hi.

I am currently on the search for a Stereo system. The reason is that my HT system does not deliver the music that I feel I get from a pure stereo system.

In my current search for a STEREO system I have listen to Burmester with Vienna Accustic Speakers. The music this system is capable of delivering is amazing. (Of I feel it is amazing.)

Does anyone here know of a HT system capable of giving sound without adding the cinema sound my current system is giving.

(For information, my current system is Denon AVR 3805 Reciever, with Rotel RCD 02 CDP, and a Sony DVD (low end) and Klipsch Cinema 8 with 10" sub.)

Looking forward to see replies.


----------



## brucek

> Does anyone here know of a HT system capable of giving sound without adding the cinema sound my current system is giving


I use a Bryston SP2 processor that does that job rather nicely I think, albeit a little expensive.

It is really two systems in one. It has a completely independant digital HT processor and a completely independant analog preamplifier in one unit.

brucek


----------



## JCD

Are you thinking of just upgrading your electronics? 
Or are you looking to create a second system for pure 2 channel listening?

Also, can you say what it is about your current system that is lacking for 2 channel listening? For example, does it not image well? Too bright? Too warm? Poor dynamics? etc. 

JCD


----------



## Josuah

I'm guessing the problem is his speakers. The Klipsch Cinema 8 package is going to be junk compared to nice Vienna Acoustics speakers.

I'd suggest you try to find (in-store or internet direct) speakers that sound good in two-channel to you and also fit your budget. Then look at what it would cost to include the center and surrounds that are from the same line. For some mains, there are no center and surrounds (and so you shouldn't choose them). For others, the center and surrounds aren't as good as the mains (but this might still be a good choice). And then the third category has a center and surrounds that are as good (relatively speaking, since there are design constraints placed on the center and surrounds that usually don't apply to the mains).

I do think you're going to have to increase your total budget if you want better sound. MSRP on the Cinema 8 system is $1200. For a 5.1 system to cost MSRP$1200, you're probably looking at mains ~$300 (guessing). Because the subwoofer is the most expensive of all the speakers. And they're just not going to sound as good as what you heard with the Vienna Acoustics.


----------



## JCD

I do agree with Josuah, but thought it would be good to get kentsvanaasen's take on what he thinks is the problem. It may be that a couple of tweeks might make a difference.

But yeah, it doesn't seem fair to compare a pair of Vienna Accoustic speakers, whatever line he was listening to, to the Klipsch Cinema 8's. And it won't matter if he's using his receiver or whatever hi-end electronics that were at the store. Not to say the Klipsch Cinema 8's are bad -- they are good for what they are. However, we are comparing $300(?) fronts to possibly $4500 fronts.

JCD


----------



## Danny

Most often it seems that it is the speakers that let a system down, you can get amps that will give you a ruler flat response curve for a reasonable price, but it just seems that you need to spend a bit (lot?) more on your speakers to get that extra bit of quality.


----------



## Chrisbee

It's no use crying for the moon if you can't afford the rocket fuel. But it need not cost the earth to achieve a high degree of musical satisfaction.

Slightly older secondhand (pre-loved) or possibly older, dealer-discounted speakers are a lot more affordable than new. 

You can do your homework online to find widely-respected, easily-driven speakers from the last generation. Fancy speakers which are difficult to drive will demand expensive or more powerful amplifiers. So choose carefully.

You need to hear the speakers before purchase.

Amps and source are relatively much less important. A modest but classical CDP will usually outdo more modern but still modestly priced DVDPs. Do your homework and avoid "boutique" names like the plague. You want rock solid recommendations from a wide range of admirers of mainstream products. Many glowing magazine reviews are sucking up to advertising accounts. You want repeat recommendations over as many years as possible from a number of sources. 

Don't waste a cent/penny on fancy cables that would be far better invested in secondhand boxes with a long, well-deserved reputation.


----------



## geekwithfamily

Widescreen Review gave Arcam's AV-300 HT processor an orgasmic review. They said it was the best sounding AV receiver ever and beat out separates, YMMV.

That said, I agree with the others that you need better speakers. It really pays to focus your money on the front stereo loudspeakers and sub. The center and surrounds should be secondary in your decision making (matching all your speakers is overrated, most of the HT and music is produced by the front channels).

I personally have Vandersteen 1c's and they're great for both music and home theater (many regard them as the best speaker deal under $1000). Don't know about their availablity in your region though.

Do you have a budget?


----------



## nitrox1

kentsvanaasen said:


> Hi.
> 
> I am currently on the search for a Stereo system. The reason is that my HT system does not deliver the music that I feel I get from a pure stereo system.
> 
> In my current search for a STEREO system I have listen to Burmester with Vienna Accustic Speakers. The music this system is capable of delivering is amazing. (Of I feel it is amazing.)
> 
> Does anyone here know of a HT system capable of giving sound without adding the cinema sound my current system is giving.
> 
> (For information, my current system is Denon AVR 3805 Reciever, with Rotel RCD 02 CDP, and a Sony DVD (low end) and Klipsch Cinema 8 with 10" sub.)
> 
> Looking forward to see replies.


Hi,
Have you looked into B&K's AVR series, I like to listen to stereo also and find it very pleasing and when used for HT it does a nice job too. Good Luck!


----------



## mojomike

There are many speakers out there can do a great job with both music and HT. I can personally vouch for the AV123 Onix Rocket line of speakers. I use mine for 50%music/50%HT.


----------



## ifeliciano

I have to say the I run an older Denon AVR-4802 with low end B&W 604's and Selah Audio surrounds and can tell you that the system sounds great both in multi-channel and stereo. 


Another thing to consider is room acoustics. You can have the most expensive equipment, but if the room is not properly treated in terms of acoustics, it will sound like ****. just my


----------



## Guest

Hi,
Thank you for all the advice.
I have been auditioning a lot of different systems over the last 6 months, and I agree with most of the conclusions in here.
One issue with Klipsch is the frequency response of the speakers. Basicly subwoofer is to much involved as a speaker. Not the best of solution.

Having said this, one big issue is amps being biased. HT amps has a tendency of making music sound like a movie. Artificial.

Room treatment, yes ofcourse. 
I am just about to shife appartment.
Is there anyone that has links to some room treatment web sites?


----------



## ifeliciano

kentsvanaasen said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is there anyone that has links to some room treatment web sites?


If you scroll down from the main forum page here at HT Shack you'll find Home Audio Acoustics.
There you'll find help fro the likes of Bryan Pape and Ethan Winer, both with a ton of knowledge in acoustics.


----------



## Guest

Unless $$ are like leaves on trees, one has to be creative. I don't have a dedicated HT room but I demand a good HT system. However, I would place music reproduction above movie watching. These days, this is a mixed problem with 5.1 music DVDs (with and without video) to consider along with traditional 2 channel source. So, what to do?

I solved my listening requirements with a 'hybrid' system. I chose to build around top line 2-channel reproduction and adding a surround sound layer over it:
a) best pair of towers you can afford/like. (I chose the Klipsch RF-7.)
b) match with best 2 channel amp to best speaker pair. (I grabbed the Rotel RB-1080)

Next are two options; you need to have a pre-pro, or a surround receiver that has a great pre-pro section:
1. a) Pro-pro route (preferred). Get a surround pre-amp/processor with VERY good 2-channel by pass for your 2 channel gear (above). (I chose a Rotel RSP-1068)
b) Add a 5 channel amp to drive center, surrounds, and one or two back channels. This amp doesn't need to be as high powered as the front. Now you have a 2+5= 7 channel capable system...not counting sub. (I added a Rotel RMB-1075)

or:
2. get a good receiver with VERY good 2 channel by-pass. Use it as a pre-pro for your front 2-channel amp and speakers for stereo (front HT speakers). Let its internal amp run your center and surrounds. Taking the load off of a typical receiver's front 2 channels makes its output MUCH better for the surround stuff anyway. (In the past, I used a Yammi RX-V2600 receiver for this...good result).

Last, you need a really good universal player...I mean one that can do 2 channel AND video with upscaling. Oppo is good, but a music oriented DVD player is better. I chose an older model: the Denon 3910 which has a fantastic CD capability with 'pure direct' mode into my two channel option and great surround capability for multi-channel SACD/DVD and movies (with upscaling as good as the Oppo). If you have $$ to burn...get a dedicated 2 channel (CD player) AND a DVD/5/7.1 channel player. (OOPs..if you want hi-def video...keep adding $$. You'll need a stand-alone unit because it won't do SACD/DVD-a and NONE so-far can do really good 2 channel repro.)

Naturally, there are many other good choices. I settled into a 6.1 channel mode with 2 amps noted above, full-range surround (Klipsch RF-5), and...check this: a dedicated center channel in back (Klipsch RC-35) instead of 2 small back channel speakers. It's mono back there anyway, so why not get a very good full range speaker instead of 2 maybe not so good....$$ again. If you've got it, flaunt it!

Most of what I've written really points to music reproduction first. If you are only or mostly watching movies, then the surrounds and backs are mostly for sound effects and the quality of the amps and speakers becomes less an issue and how you deal with it is less critical. I haven't done a comparison of cars/bus/planes/crashing in terms of sound quality :jiggy: like I have music repro :reading:. I'm sure some of you guys do that :1eye: ...but it's lost on me!


----------



## tonyvdb

Lots of great info in this thread.

Several good points have been brought up,

1) Room design
The room design plays a huge role in how the sound absorbs or reflects off of surfaces this will change how music sounds in two channel mode. A better receiver or speakers may not improve this if you have a large sofa sitting next to one of the speakers and a bare wall by the other.

2) Speaker placement
If speakers are placed to close to a corner or are not far enough away from the wall behind this can cause undesirable results particularly in two ch. mode. as when running in 5.1 the entire room is filled with sound from all different sides. In two channel mode your sound all comes from the front causing even the most untrained ear to hear imperfections in the "ballance" of the music.

3) Speaker quality
Obviously this is subjective, A so called good set of speakers can cost as little as $400 or you can pay more than $100,000. 

4) Receiver quality
This seems to be the item that can be the achilles heel to most systems. Some HT receivers now have the ability to switch to Two Channel "pure" mode or "direct drive" mode whatever they call it.
The new Onkyo series of receivers has this and I think that is what more manufacturers need to do properly. I will soon be receiving an Onkyo 805 and will report back as to my findings. The Yamaha I currently have does a fairly good job of playing music in two ch mode as I just turn the "effect off" in the CD mode and it runs just with 2.1 and sounds good to my ears but switching to the Onkyo may change my opinion.


----------



## tonyvdb

DS-21 said:


> I don't see how or why that could possibly be the case. The cost of sonically transparent electronics today is negligible compared to the cost of high-performance speakers.....


I do agree with you but remember unless you spend at least $900 on a receiver you will not get the top of the line BurrBrown DACs, and the internals will not be built nearly as well. This dramatically affects the sound quality and it wont matter what speakers you have.
Speakers defiantly do make a huge difference but the average user doesn't have the kind of cash to buy the more than $5000 set to get that huge sound quality difference that they make.


----------



## tonyvdb

DS-21 said:


> Do you have any actual proof of that or are you just blowing smoke? (By "proof" I mean "subjective double blind same/different listening test results." Anything else falls into the "just blowing smoke" category.)
> [/i]


Sigh...comarison between the Denon AVR-3808 and the Onkyo TX-SR875 both receivers are rated very highly.
Take a look at the DACs they are both Burr Brown but the Onkyo has the newer ones. The signal to noise ratio is noticeably better with the DACs on the Okyo is that proof enough? I would think that HTRs that dont use Burr Brown DACs will be even worse as BurrBrown is said to be the best available.
You cant possibly tell me that a $200 HTR will have the same sound quality that a $900 unit would have even in two channel mode. The amplification section alone would be far better in the $900 one.


----------



## JCD

<Mod hat on>
Debating issues is good.. but please be courteous. Things are ok right now, but I can see this one devolving.
<Mod hat off>

My personal opinion is that the DAC's in use today are pretty darned good -- to the point that I don't think one could really tell the difference between one DAC and another. Others will disagree, but that's my opinion.

As for telling the difference between a $900 and a $200 receiver.. there I'm ambivalent. I think most of the cost between the two would be the added features that the $900 unit has. I can also believe that MAYBE the $200 receiver would be more prone to having a higher noise floor.. however, at normal volumes, I still suspect that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two assuming there wasn't any clipping.

Just my opinion of course.

JCD


----------



## nitrox1

Sometimes the difference in the price has nothing to do with the quality of the unit , but with amount of marketing done on it's behalf to get us to buy one. Price is never a good indicator of quality these days, word of mouth from those who own and live with them are of more value. If your ears are pleased by what you hear and it has what you need as far as functions and it's within your budget, purchased new or used, then go for it. Try not to get caught up with specs that may or may not be accurate enough to build an argument on.
just my 1.5 cents

BTW when can a $200. htr have the exact same quality as the $900. one?.......answer! when it is bought used


----------



## Guest

I agree with UFObuster for the most part. In my "combo" room I run an HT bypass through my stereo pre-amp. So whenever I listen to Stereo (most of the time) my surround amp and pre/pro isn't even powered on. This keeps the signal path short, sweet, and clean. Once the HT gets powered on, the front two channels simply pass-though the stereo pre essentially untouched...in fact, the stereo pre isn't even powered on, but that is unique to this pre and not common in the industry.

I also agree with the earlier posts regarding the speakers. In order to truly enjoy 2-channel in an HT environment, you’ll need to have some pieces you’d enjoy if they were in a pure 2-channel room. If the first compromise is at the speaker than nothing behind those speakers is going to solve the problem…IMO. I don't have experience with any of the original poster's speakers so I cannot comment on them specifically.

In regard to room acoustics - I believe there is a slightly different criterion for HT and 2-channel. I had hired TM Labs to sort my room acoustics last spring. Throughout this procedure my emphasis was on 2-channel, but I still wanted it to be acceptable for HT/multi-channel. In a nut-shell, it seems a dedicated HT room will have more damping/absorption than a dedicated 2-channel room. If my memory serves me - it is likely because there is more "energy" coming from the sheer number of speakers situated around the room. In a 2-channel room, the thought is more along the lines that you need some room help to have some "musical energy." Of course, this topic can always be argued, but my resulting room is very nice for both. I end-up on the higher end of damping for 2-channel and on the lower end of damping for HT, but in the acceptable range for both.

As far as components are concerned, I don't fully agree with some of the posts above. I feel there is a difference in various electronics pieces, but not solely because the price increases. I think you need to pick and choose pieces. The whole-scale remarks above I find to be naive and misleading. For example, I have a nice Denon 7.1 receiver in my family room with two channels blown in it because I tried to drive a pair of 4 ohm speakers. I didn't realize the receiver was rated for 6 ohm min. Meanwhile, I have a friend who was driving something stupid...like eight pair of speakers throughout his home with some cheapo Yamaha receiver. I was impressed it didn't smoke right there on the shelf. In my higher end set-up, I have notice significant changes in different electronics. Differences you know right away, not the kind you have to sit for a while to figure out. It’s not always the case, but more often than not in the last year or so.

I think Nitrox1 nicely hits the nail squarely on the head. I couldn’t agree more. General specs give you an idea of what the piece is, but your ears should tell you the rest…not the DAC brand or anything like that. Again, just my opinion based on my experiences.


----------



## thxgoon

I can add that I have heard the difference between cheap and expensive equipment and yes I have heard the difference. I have also heard differences between different brands at the same price point but in any of these cases, the money spent for performance increase is much much greater than that for speakers or room treatment. Spend money there first IMO. 

For a theater system geared towards music, buy speakers that you like on music then add to it later to make a home theater out of it. Some of the best I've heard are Monitor Audio, KEF's Reference line, and B&W. Good luck and keep us posted!


----------



## tonyvdb

kentsvanaasen said:


> I am currently on the search for a Stereo system. The reason is that my HT system does not deliver the music that I feel I get from a pure stereo system.
> 
> Does anyone here know of a HT system capable of giving sound without adding the cinema sound my current system is giving.


I think we have gone a bit off topic here. To answer your original question I do know that the Onkyo TX series of receivers has a pure audio mode that turns off all processing including the display so that all you have is a direct two channel system. The reviews I've read say that it works very well and is about as good as its going to get without having two separate systems. This is one of the reasons I chose to go with the 805.


----------



## thxgoon

Ya just about every receiver brand I can think now of comes with a 'direct' feature of some type that bypasses all internal circuitry and delivers analog signals all the way through. It's a nice feature to have IMO.

kentsvanaasen - have you made any progress?


----------



## warpdrive

I think for music reproduction, it's still nice to have a receiver from Rotel, NAD, Cambridge Audio. I used to own a NAD receiver and I was always pleased with its music only reproduction. I currently own a Onkyo 875 but to me, it has never sounded as good as my old NAD did. Not that the Onkyo is bad sounding, but the NAD just sounded more pure.


----------

