Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: HT systems vs two-channel for music listening (Read 32806 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

I have a 5.1 surround sound system at home that I use for listening to music a great deal of the time and I find the sound to be satisfactory, despite the room being small (it has some acoustic treatment).

The idea is that you get two-channel dedicated systems, speakers etc for handling stereo - ie dedicated stereo system/dedicated HT system. Is there an argument for them handling two channel better than if one was just using a HT system?

I'm assuming that there are design differences between HT-style speakers and two-channel speakers? Or is that not true? I'm not a speaker designer so please correct me if I'm wrong here.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #1 –
If you spend the same amount of cash on a stereo system as you would on a home theater system, odds are that you'll be getting better speakers, since you'll only be buying 2 instead of 5 and a subwoofer (although I'd recommend subs for music systems, too). In that specific situation with a limited budget, it makes sense to skip the home theater system and go with a stereo system, even for watching movies. That's what I did, both due to budget concerns and room layout issues for a surround system.

But there is absolutely no reason why those very same higher-quality speakers couldn't be used as the front speakers in a home theater system. In which case it will sound every bit as good for music as the dedicated stereo setup. The most common way to do this is to buy a good stereo system at first, and then expand it to surround sound later.

Saying that a stereo system is inherently better for music than a surround system is completely false. Good sound is good sound, and a good speaker is a good speaker, period.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #2 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Saying that a stereo system is inherently better for music than a surround system is completely false. Good sound is good sound, and a good speaker is a good speaker, period.


+1 with a bullet! ;-)

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #3 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
If you spend the same amount of cash on a stereo system as you would on a home theater system, odds are that you'll be getting better speakers, since you'll only be buying 2 instead of 5 and a subwoofer (although I'd recommend subs for music systems, too). In that specific situation with a limited budget, it makes sense to skip the home theater system and go with a stereo system, even for watching movies. That's what I did, both due to budget concerns and room layout issues for a surround system.

But there is absolutely no reason why those very same higher-quality speakers couldn't be used as the front speakers in a home theater system. In which case it will sound every bit as good for music as the dedicated stereo setup. The most common way to do this is to buy a good stereo system at first, and then expand it to surround sound later.

Saying that a stereo system is inherently better for music than a surround system is completely false. Good sound is good sound, and a good speaker is a good speaker, period.


Thanks for posting. I guess the question now is what exactly makes a stereo music speaker compared to a HT speaker? Or are the lines blurred? For instance, I've got Paradigm Studio 20's. I have no idea if they are classified as HT speakers, or stereo speakers, or if there is no designation. I don't know.

I see people out there with megabuck stereo only systems (dacs, amps, speakers, etc) in one room, and in another, a HT system, 5.2/7.2 channels, etc etc etc. The notion that I've found/heard about for a long while is that HT systems can handle music well, but not as good as an equivalently priced two-channel system.

Not sure if that's just myth, or if there are design considerations for both formats.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Thanks for posting. I guess the question now is what exactly makes a stereo music speaker compared to a HT speaker? Or are the lines blurred? For instance, I've got Paradigm Studio 20's. I have no idea if they are classified as HT speakers, or stereo speakers, or if there is no designation. I don't know.


There's nothing inherently different between speakers, apart from how the manufacturer decides to label them. Sure, there are definite differences between stuff like PA speakers and consumer speakers, because of their completely different use cases, but for consumer speakers, the difference is 99% branding. Sure, you can buy specific rear/side surround speakers that usually have different designs from main speakers, and center speakers that are horizontal to better fit beneath a TV screen. Rear/side tracks in surround mixes usually have a lot less information than the front/center tracks, so you can get away with saving some money and buying lesser speakers for that function. But there's no reason other than maybe form factor and cost why you couldn't use the same speakers as your mains for those functions.

A couple of years back, I helped set up a system like that. Identical (and very good) speakers for front+center+rear, because there was both room and money for it. It sounded really damn good, but you kinda got the feeling that the rear speakers were wildly over-specced for what they were tasked to do.

Quote
I see people out there with megabuck stereo only systems (dacs, amps, speakers, etc) in one room, and in another, a HT system, 5.2/7.2 channels, etc etc etc.


Which is of course perfectly fine, if you prefer to have your home theater in a dedicated room, which happens to be away from where you normally listen to music. It's only when people start to claim that HT systems cannot possibly be good for music playback and insist on a completely separate high-end stereo system for audiophilia reasons that it starts to become ridiculous.

Again, good sound is good sound. If a good HT system is supposedly no good for playing music, how come it does just fine with movie soundtracks? How about live concert DVDs/Blurays?

Quote
The notion that I've found/heard about for a long while is that HT systems can handle music well, but not as good as an equivalently priced two-channel system.

Not sure if that's just myth, or if there are design considerations for both formats.


As I wrote earlier, once you factor price into the decision, there is a little bit of truth to it. If you set aside a budget like $2500 to buy a system, you can buy 2 higher-quality speakers and a more powerful amplifier for the same money, than if you had to buy 5 speakers, a subwoofer and a receiver. In the end, you would have a higher quality stereo system than the HT system you could buy with the same budget.

But if the HT system consists of the same front speakers from that hypothetical stereo system, and a receiver with the same output power as the stereo amplifier, it will play just as well and just as loud as the stereo system.

Once again: A good speaker is a good speaker, there really isn't such a thing as specific stereo speaker or a specific HT speaker, outside of specific form factors such as rear/side and center speakers.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Thanks for posting. I guess the question now is what exactly makes a stereo music speaker compared to a HT speaker?


In general, nothing technical. It is mostly about marketing.

The idea that there are stereo music speakers, compared to HT speakers, compared to studio monitors, is yet another audiophile myth.

I'm not sure what the point of the myth is. Somehow, someplace someone grabbed that myth out of the air and used it for fun or profit. 

It eventually joined that big fuzzy ball of audiophile myths up there in the air. ;-)

Quote
Or are the lines blurred? For instance, I've got Paradigm Studio 20's. I have no idea if they are classified as HT speakers, or stereo speakers, or if there is no designation. I don't know.


I've heard Studio 20s and studied some technical tests of them.

IMO they are good stereo music speakers, good HT speakers, also good studio monitors.  Congratulations on making a good performance choice.

I wouldn't mind having a pair or more of them if someone else paid for them. ;-)

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Rich B on
Thanks for posting. I guess the question now is what exactly makes a stereo music speaker compared to a HT speaker?

In general, nothing technical. It is mostly about marketing.

The idea that there are stereo music speakers, compared to HT speakers, compared to studio monitors, is yet another audiophile myth.

I'm not sure what the point of the myth is.

You've heard of bi-amping and bi-wiring? Well the point of this myth is it supports, at the very least, buy bi-speakering. The customer needs to buy two sets of speakers: one for music and one for HT.

There's also a related marketing principal I call "bi-preamping", or the more popular industry term is "HT bypass button", which piggybacks on the exact same lie, that "Any device used for video must inherently be poor at 2ch music". Instead of buying a single AVR (with pre-outs) or prepro to do both input selection and surround sound processing [switched to just stereo for 2ch sources, of course], instead the consumer is pitched the concept that they need to buy two: one for their pristine 2ch sources [which mustn't be "degraded" by passing through a "lowly" AVR] and one for 5.1 sources. What's especially amusing is this feature is pitched as a "cost savings feature so you won't have to buy two separate power amps and two separate speakers for the same room, one set for 2.0 audio and the other for video".

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #7 –
Here is how an HT bypass enabled, high end preamp is wired, should some people need a visual:
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jojod818/m...mSmall.jpg.html

And yes, this could easily be accomplished with any stereo preamp via an outboard, RCA stereo A/B switch, but audiophiliacs can't understand how a switch can be transparent unless it resides inside an expensive box (the preamp) from a brand they trust.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #8 –
Most home theater systems should have an option or two that can be used to enable simple two channel listening on any stereo source.  You should find out first how your receiver handles things and of course disabling surround enhancements will give you a simple 2-channel sound, the sub will still function. Get two good front speakers and build out from there as you configured this to be less sub with the front left and right (which people are calling mains).

There is no reason to waste time and money on separate receivers and bi-amping in my honest opinion.  Having one good system to rule them all works.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #9 –
This is what I observe:
The typical stereo-enthusiast wants huge, full-range speakers left and right. Dedicated sub = evil. One person in a tight sweetspot.
The typical HT enthusiast wants (at least) 5 identical speakers (which need not be full-range; rear speakers might be dipoles) + (at least) 1 powered sub. Having left/right speakers which do not sound exactly like the center speaker = evil. Watching movies with other people is fun --> needs broader sweetspot.

Depending on your school-of-thought, these two worlds are more or less difficult to intersect.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Gecko on
The typical stereo-enthusiast wants huge, full-range speakers left and right. Dedicated sub = evil.

Why does a dedicated sub only become evil if there is video image attached to the audio, and how do the speakers and sub, and/or the electrons flowing to them, know if there is a visual element attached to the audio they are reproducing, so as to act differently? [I would ask such proponents of this myth.]

Quote
The typical HT enthusiast wants (at least) 5 identical speakers (which need not be full-range; rear speakers might be dipoles) + (at least) 1 powered sub. Having left/right speakers which do not sound exactly like the center speaker = evil.
So buy three identical front speakers and you have all your bases covered. That's what I have.

Quote
Depending on your school-of-thought, these two worlds are more or less difficult to intersect

They only conflict if you insert an artificial condition of "people who listen to music are always singular and people who listen to video are always in groups and you want the front L and R speakers to have different radiation patterens when entertaining different numbers of people. And that's a stretch if you ask me. What makes for a great, front left speaker remains intact whether there is, or isn't, a visual element attached to the L channel. The same is true of the right speaker, of course, so there's no reason not to use the same pair of speakers for both audio with and without at attached visual element.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #11 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Rich B on
Thanks for posting. I guess the question now is what exactly makes a stereo music speaker compared to a HT speaker?

In general, nothing technical. It is mostly about marketing.

The idea that there are stereo music speakers, compared to HT speakers, compared to studio monitors, is yet another audiophile myth.

I'm not sure what the point of the myth is.

You've heard of bi-amping and bi-wiring? Well the point of this myth is it supports, at the very least, buy bi-speakering. The customer needs to buy two sets of speakers: one for music and one for HT.

There's also a related marketing principal I call "bi-preamping", or the more popular industry term is "HT bypass button", which piggybacks on the exact same lie, that "Any device used for video must inherently be poor at 2ch music". Instead of buying a single AVR (with pre-outs) or prepro to do both input selection and surround sound processing [switched to just stereo for 2ch sources, of course], instead the consumer is pitched the concept that they need to buy two: one for their pristine 2ch sources [which mustn't be "degraded" by passing through a "lowly" AVR] and one for 5.1 sources. What's especially amusing is this feature is pitched as a "cost savings feature so you won't have to buy two separate power amps and two separate speakers for the same room, one set for 2.0 audio and the other for video".

I've seen a number of highish-end components offer 'HT bypass' modes or switches, but wouldn't a Pure Direct mode from an AVR function like a 'HT bypass' switch? All the video circuitry is disengaged, so ...

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #12 –
High end preamps with HT Bypass [not a great term, but don't blame me, I didn't name it] never have any processors in them to bypass; they are always 2 channel only designs.

It is a bit difficult to describe what they do because the very premise as to why they exist is complete baloney, but I'll try. See they'd have you believe that simply turning off all processing in your AVR, even if using "Pure Direct", and listening to its internal preamp, adjusting the sound to be louder and quieter with the volume knob (but no other changes) is still bad and compromises the sound. If you want to hear two channel sources [CD and outboard DACs, for example] "cleanly and properly" you need a dedicated, does no surround sound nor video switching, preamp (at the very least). But instead of buying two, complete, different audio system setups for the same room, including two pairs of front speakers and two power amps, one set being for video stuff and the other for audio only stuff, you instead wire two preamps together like in the image I linked to, utilizing the HT Bypass button to alternate between the two different uses. Bingo, you've "saved money" by not having had to buy two sets of speakers and power amps, yet you have a nice, dedicated (perhaps tube) preamp for your pristine 2ch sound and a lowly, pedestrian AVR, with pre-outs, for your junky video use.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #13 –
Quote from: Gecko on
This is what I observe:
The typical stereo-enthusiast wants huge, full-range speakers left and right. Dedicated sub = evil. One person in a tight sweetspot.
The typical HT enthusiast wants (at least) 5 identical speakers (which need not be full-range; rear speakers might be dipoles) + (at least) 1 powered sub. Having left/right speakers which do not sound exactly like the center speaker = evil. Watching movies with other people is fun --> needs broader sweetspot.

Depending on your school-of-thought, these two worlds are more or less difficult to intersect.


Well I can think of a crossroads for that.  7 dedicated full ranges + dedicated sub handling only the LFE channel.  Now both parties can shut up and live their delusions to themselves (not possible because they still complain about it).  The Surround format talk about is 7.1 in case if anyone is wondering and if neither party finds it good enough then they need their head checked again because obviously the first time said sanity.  Everybody knows that's total overkill and totally unnecessary.

Thanks for that, because I think I read enough B.S. for one day.  Along with this HT bypass junk...  Just aaarrrrrrrggggggghhhh.

I'm very annoyed with some of stuff I've been reading because some people are just a little much with this stuff. 

P.S. I just want blast my cheap $100 Logitech 5.1 computer speaker set at the audiophiles at this point and tell them to deal with it.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #14 –
Quote from: mzil on
a nice, dedicated (perhaps tube) preamp for your pristine 2ch sound and a lowly, pedestrian AVR, with pre-outs, for your junky video use.


The part that I really don't get is why the hardcore audiophiles want to segregate everything like that. What about concert DVDs/Blurays? What about the fact that with movies, almost all releases actually adhere to loudness standards? And the fact that if anything, a lot of people complain that movies have too much dynamic range, leading to the necessity of volume normalization or "midnight" functions in AVRs for quiet movie watching?

Most movies and concert/music films have awesome sound quality, but it seems to be completely ignored by a lot of the "more money than sense" crowd.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #15 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Rich B on
Thanks for posting. I guess the question now is what exactly makes a stereo music speaker compared to a HT speaker?

In general, nothing technical. It is mostly about marketing.

The idea that there are stereo music speakers, compared to HT speakers, compared to studio monitors, is yet another audiophile myth.

I'm not sure what the point of the myth is.

You've heard of bi-amping and bi-wiring? Well the point of this myth is it supports, at the very least, buy bi-speakering. The customer needs to buy two sets of speakers: one for music and one for HT.

The variation of this that I saw the most over on AVS was the one where separate systems and even separate rooms were *required*

There is also a social media context, IOW why someone would want to try to influence someone else to make these mistakes?

Obviously, it is easy to explain when the guilty party is getting a commission on the sale.

On forums, that reward seems to be absent.  The reward must be other things like bragging rights and accumulating influence.



HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #16 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
[The part that I really don't get is why the hardcore audiophiles want to segregate everything like that.

Segregation and separation are EXACTLY what they are all about! It is one of their main mantras: Don't buy combo units like an AVR, buy a tuner, a preamp, a processor, and monoblock amps. Don't use one set of wires to your speakers use two: one for the highs and one for the lows [bi-wire, although both actually carry the full range signal, little do they know]. Video is bad. Audio only is good. And the very best kind is two channel only, none of this surround around silliness for them!

When I tested my audiophile to see if he could differentiate amps under his stated conditions, the $3500 SACD player he chose for the testing session was so high end, not only was it not also a DVD player in any sense [remember, video is "bad"], it couldn't even play multi-channel SACDs in 5.1, it could only play stereo, 2ch SACD recordings [and also stereo CDs]. What on earth were they thinking!? People are really going to buy two SACD players, one for their stereo SACDs and another one for their multi-channel SACDs?!

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #17 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
[The part that I really don't get is why the hardcore audiophiles want to segregate everything like that.

Segregation and separation are EXACTLY what they are all about! It is one of their main mantras: Don't buy combo units like an AVR, buy a tuner, a preamp, a processor, and monoblock amps. Don't use one set of wires to your speakers use two: one for the highs and one for the lows [bi-wire, although both actually carry the full range signal, little do they know]. Video is bad. Audio only is good. And the very best kind is two channel only, none of this surround around silliness for them!

When I tested my audiophile to see if he could differentiate amps under his stated conditions, the $3500 SACD player he chose for the testing session was so high end, not only was it not also a DVD player in any sense [remember, video is "bad"], it couldn't even play multi-channel SACDs in 5.1, it could only play stereo, 2ch SACD recordings [and also stereo CDs]. What on earth were they thinking!? People are really going to buy two SACD players, one for their stereo SACDs and another one for their multi-channel SACDs?!


I think that the basic idea is that sound quality comes from the audiophile's willingness to make expensive, inconvenient sacrifices "For the love of music".

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #18 –
Quote from: mzil on
Segregation and separation are EXACTLY what they are all about! It is one of their main mantras: Don't buy combo units like an AVR, buy a tuner, a preamp, a processor, and monoblock amps. Don't use one set of wires to your speakers use two: one for the highs and one for the lows [bi-wire, although both actually carry the full range signal, little do they know].


But that doesn't jive very well with the audiophile desire to have as short and simple a signal path as possible. You'd think they would favor simple, integrated systems with as few connections as possible.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that audiophilia is not exactly consistent.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #19 –
The more connections you have to make, the more potential for optimizing the sound using high-end cables.
An AVR also denies you many opportunities of exploring different combinations of gear until you find that ultimate, synergistic playback-chain.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #20 –
I'm finally ready to put away my integrated amp because I'd like to be able to at least high pass my mains, and maybe experiment with room correction. What's funny is that even though I trust this forum, I'm nervous about getting an AVR for my 2.1 system. My integrated was a tank and dead simple to use. I tried to help a friend with his Denon AVR a couple years ago and the menus and manual gave me a headache. It's a personal problem. I'm working on it.
 

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #21 –
Quote from: mzil on
Why does a dedicated sub only become evil if there is video image attached to the audio, and how do the speakers and sub, and/or the electrons flowing to them, know if there is a visual element attached to the audio they are reproducing, so as to act differently? [I would ask such proponents of this myth.]

Well, in their eyes, a sub is a necessary evil to get the desired amount of oomph for HT entertainment. But everyone agrees that a sub results in lower overall fidelity because
a) an additional crossover is required
b) a subwoofer's bass is "slow"
c) ???
So the sub is always evil, but the different requirements of stereo vs. HT lead to different compromises.

Quote
So buy three identical front speakers and you have all your bases covered. That's what I have.

The point was that the audiophile stereo-listener desires large floor-standing speakers. Since you typically will have a hard time using such a speaker as your center, this will result in book-shelf type speakers. Ergo compromised low-end or use of an additional sub, which compromises fidelity.

Quote
They only conflict if you insert an artificial condition of "people who listen to music are always singular and people who listen to video are always in groups and you want the front L and R speakers to have different radiation patterens when entertaining different numbers of people. And that's a stretch if you ask me. What makes for a great, front left speaker remains intact whether there is, or isn't, a visual element attached to the L channel. The same is true of the right speaker, of course, so there's no reason not to use the same pair of speakers for both audio with and without at attached visual element.

See above: floor-standing speakers may be acoustically great centers, but are hard to position. So you're stuck with a bunch of small speakers in the front, if you want an ideal HT setup. Or, approaching this from the stereo angle: your large mains will sound different compared to your center speaker.
The point regarding the radiation pattern is that a HT setup might impose an additional constraint when selecting/placing speakers, not present with stereo, allowing for different compromises. But you are right, it is just an assumption on my behalf that HT has the tendency to focus on multiple people whereas stereo tends to focus on a single person.

To be clear: In my personal opinion it is quite possible to have a setup which works similarly well for two- or multi-channel material. And I like subwoofers.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Gecko on
Quote from: mzil on
Why does a dedicated sub only become evil if there is video image attached to the audio, and how do the speakers and sub, and/or the electrons flowing to them, know if there is a visual element attached to the audio they are reproducing, so as to act differently? [I would ask such proponents of this myth.]

Well, in their eyes, a sub is a necessary evil to get the desired amount of oomph for HT entertainment.

Well if subs are evil when there is no visual element attached to the sound being reproduced [?] yet are quite necessary when there is a visual element attached to the sound being reproduced that simply having large front left and right speakers can't replicate just as well [?] then their solution is to use the sub when there's a visual element attached to the sound and turn it off when there is no visual image attached to the sound.
Quote
But everyone agrees that a sub results in lower overall fidelity because
a) an additional crossover is required
b) a subwoofer's bass is "slow"

a) No, a crossover is not required for the main speakers, in fact one stupid subwoofer company I once sold, REL, which is highly regarded in their circles and sold by many high end salons, instructs user to not filter the main speakers at all. All modern AVRs allow for such a configuration ["speakers large/both (double bass), subwoofer yes"] even without having to tap into the speaker level, full range signal being sent to the fronts with an adaptor they supply.
b) if subwoofer bass is "slow", don't use one for either music or video. Again, ever single modern day AVR allows for a configuration for 5.1 source playback without any sub.["speakers large, subwoofer no"]
Quote
The point was that the audiophile stereo-listener desires large floor-standing speakers. Since you typically will have a hard time using such a speaker as your center, this will result in book-shelf type speakers. Ergo compromised low-end or use of an additional sub, which compromises fidelity.

This is an extremely convoluted argument they make:
1) For uncompromised 2ch sound you have to have two large front speakers.
2) For uncompromised 5.1ch sound you have to have three identical front speakers. [plus other stuff]
3) Having three identical front speakers that are large, which accounts for needs 1 and 2, is too difficult to position, or I guess isn't aesthetically pleasing, so the solution is

4) Have five total front speakers, 2 large ones for 2ch sound and 3 little ones for 5.1 sound, and this, for some odd reason, is not aesthetically unpleasing or difficult to position.

Quote
b) a subwoofer's bass is "slow"

Do they think sub sound is "slow" only when there's no visual element attached to the sound and that it speeds up when there's a visual element attached?

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #23 –
So, buy a decent AVR, two good L+R speakers (and a subwoofer if necessary). Set it up for 2-channel stereo and enjoy.

Then later, if you have the funds and the inclination, expand to surround-sound. Maybe shift your old front speakers to surround duties, if something better comes along for 2-channel listening.

I doubt you'll be dissatisfied at either stage.

HT systems vs two-channel for music listening

Reply #24 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
[The variation of this that I saw the most over on AVS was the one where separate systems and even separate rooms were *required*...

...Obviously, it is easy to explain when the guilty party is getting a commission on the sale.

On forums, that reward seems to be absent.  The reward must be other things like bragging rights and accumulating influence.

The "king" of spreading these audiophile myths on forums financially benefited in that each and every one of his *gulp* 18,000+ posts on AVS included a direct hyperlink to his snake oil emporium in the post's signature line, hence they were effectively 18,000+ free ads. [Although I just noticed his signature has been scrubbed, perhaps due to complaints, in fact I don't see any posts from him since April... Was he finally banned, perhaps?]

As for using two distinct sets of speakers/sub(s), one for video and one for audio, the only argument I ever heard which made some sense (but I suspect it was simply concocted as an excuse) was: "I like to look out my window and see my spectacular ocean view when listening to music, whereas I turn 90 degrees to face my giant plasma TV hanging on a perpendicularly placed wall when enjoying video. Two different soundstage directions require two sets of speakers to define them." [paraphrased]