Can't deal with the clutter of home theater speakers? Meet HT2.0
Sure, home theater sound is synonymous with five, six, or seven speakers and a subwoofer. And sure, multichannel audio can sound great, and more and more of today's films rely on a room-filling surround experience to convey their full impact. But a lot of folks cringe at the very idea of dealing with a mess of wires and speakers filling their living rooms. Enter HT2.0, a concept I've been writing about for nearly ten years; stereo home theater really can sound amazing on films that don't rely on special effects. If you mostly watch dramas, comedies, older films or documentaries, HT2.0 may be all you need.
Yes, they still make stereo receivers--like this Denon DRA-397.
(Credit: Denon)Setting up a HT2.0 system is a lot easier than a multichannel one, and of course, you won't have to deal with as many wires and speakers. That said, I wouldn't recommend cutting your speaker budget just because you're buying fewer speakers--buy two higher quality ones--and if you don't want to deal with a subwoofer, the speakers shouldn't be too small. Depending on your room size, a midsize bookshelf speaker, like Paradigm's excellent Titan Monitor v.5 ($499/pair) or Usher Audio's smaller S-520 ($400/pair) will provide adequate bass response. If you room is large, say over 400 square feet, you might want to add a sub, and go for a HT2.1 channel system.
You can use a stereo receiver, like Denon's DRA-397 ($399) or a 5.1/6.1/7.1 channel A/V receiver for your stereo home theater. I covered some of this ground in a previous blog, "Attention home theater shoppers: Think twice before buying a center channel speaker!," and judging by the reader comments, I should have provided a more detailed roadmap for HT2.0 bliss.
Every A/V receiver has some sort of speaker setup menu. To implement HT2.0 "turn off" the center, surrounds and sub; I've provided the following examples to illustrate the procedure. The sound from the turned off channels--center, surround, and sub--will be rerouted to the left and right speakers. Nothing is lost, you'll hear everything in the Dolby Digital or DTS mix in stereo, and some of the surround effects are still apparent when listening in stereo. Those sounds are sometimes projected into the room and create a virtual surround experience.
Here's a typical speaker setup menu.
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)
This is how a 7.1 setup would look.
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)
And here it is set for HT2.0
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)HT2.0 isn't a universal solution, so sure, if you love surround sound don't bother. HT2.0 is an alternative approach, ideal for small bedroom, den or office systems. My own HT2.0 system uses high-end speakers and electronics and sounds better than most multichannel home theaters I've heard. More speakers are just more speakers, but better speakers sound better. It's really as simple as that.
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
- If people are intimidated by 7.1 surround I agree, they should certainly roll back to less speakers. But to say "nothing is lost" is outright bogus. Sure, none of the *spectrum* is lost, but essentially all of the immersive experience gets tossed with stereo. If "nothing is lost" no one but an audiophile would spend the money on 7.1, yet it's commonplace. The whole idea of 7.1 is spatial placement, which can only be done with *speakers*; two speakers will never take the place of 7 and sub. Period. I only have three and the sub of my older 5.1 system hooked up at present and I definitely miss the rears; just moved and I still haven't figured out how to stick 'em in there. (grin)
- GREAT info on getting *better* speakers instead of more; few things sound worse than low-end speakers, and as indicated, more cheap speakers aren't an improvement. Even a dirt cheap receiver sounds ten times better with expensive speakers than an expensive receiver sounds with cheap ones. Put your money into the speakers and you'll have a hard time making a mistake.
My previous reciever which lasted over 15 years before it became was obsolete was the Technics SAGX 505 and it had an AC3 mode which used the left, right and center instead of all 5 speakers for surround sound. As 15 years ago, I was very poor, compared to just poor now, so I would buy components one at a time. So I purchased a set of Acoustic Research (AR)speakers, fronts and a sub and another speaker to be used as a center chanel. Since this was my first trial with surround sound I was blown away by the sound. When watching Predator on VHS I could hear birds and the chirps felt like they were coming from everywhere. A couple of years later when I got a little more money I went to purchase the rears but AR went out of business so I puchased JBL rears and now I had full Dolby Surround and again it blew my mind. Much better than AC3.
Fast forward a couple of years and I purchase a Dobly Digital 5.1 surround system and I was blown away by how much I was missing but also how different the sound was with small speakers. So I ponyed up and got an NHT super 2 surround system and was blown away by everything that was missing.
The real moral of this story is that until you hear/see something better you get used to it, so Stereo or HT 2.0 is definetly better than the TV speakers but never as good as full surround sound. But I disagree with Mr. Guttenburg in that if you are going to HT 2.0 why not throw in the Center Channel and get HT 3.0 or a sub and get HT 3.1. If budget is an option, find a nice pair of fronts and hope the company lasts long enough and doesn't change there sound (like NHT did) so that speakers match when you buy the rest. Quality speakers last a long time while electronics are obsolete in a year.
Anyway, I began hooking up my stereo to the television as soon as I bought my family's first color set in 1960 while I was still in school. When I was in graduate school, I hooked my 21-inch color Curtis Mathis to my stereo system that had two University Classic Dual 12 loudspeakers feed by two Dynaco 35-watt mono blocks and a Dynaco preamp. The Curtis Mathis tuner was set up with an unused RCA jack on the tuner assembly so that the line-level audio signal could be picked up for feed into the AUX input of the preamp which was set to mono for serious TV watching. My apartment became THE spot to watch Mission Impossible - I once came back from a trip to Chicago to find an MI party of about 15 people that had been there since the Smothers Brothers show the hour before.
So, this is more than just stereo and it is possible to listen to a HT 2.0 or HT 2.1 system and receive much more benefit than just from using the television's speakers. In fact, I would like to see the next set of sound bar tests run against an HT 2.0 or HT 2.1 set up with speakers of cost comparable to at least the lowest priced sound bar. I doubt that many sound bars would sound better when the SRS or similar spacializer method is employed (that's a hint Steve).
Nine days after I got my M.A., I went into the Army. While I was stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I was the projectionist for the main theater on the hospital grounds and later manager of both theaters (main and Forest Glen). Those projectors were Peerless that burned carbon rods for light and on which we added the stereo audio pickup and rewired the main theater's sound system for stereo (no speaker changes) so that those few films that had a stereo sound track could be heard that way.
After the Army and getting married, I continued pursuit of getting better sound from televisions by building 2.0 systems and television sound was getting better in terms of bandwidth and eventually went to stereo in the 1980s. However, my wife never understood what I was doing other than making watching a TV show more complicated. So, we had 2.0 systems when I watched prime-time TV on the networks or cable and eventually VHS movies. Otherwise, she used the televiion's speakers.
A good 2.0 system with the correct speakers and good placement can sound great. If the program is broadcast in Dolby Digital and the television has SRS or the receiver does (never use both!), the sound stage is not only wider than the speaker set up, there can be a feeling of depth that sometimes place some sound sources out near the side of you, rarely behind you, and there is often depth as well.
- by ev61 April 16, 2008 5:46 PM PDT
- I wouldn't say my DefTech Mythos Ones, Mythos Three Center channel, MartinLogan Dynamo sub and ProMonitor 800 rears don't sound better than a 2.0 setup. I would simply say that two good/great speakers sound a heck of a lot better than a 5.1/6.1/7.1 HTIB. Take that HTIB budget, split it up between 3 components and you have a better system at the same price.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(6 Comments)