Poll- 2 Channel Audio vs. Home Theater

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Percent time you listen to Two Channel Audio vs. Home Theater use

  • Total voters


Well-known member
Jan 11, 2005
Reaction score
Tampa, FL
Just curious what percentage of the time everybody listens to 2-Channel Audio, vs. Home Theater
Well, I replied with "90-100% Two Channel Audio" but the reality is different.

My real answer is: 100% Two Channel Audio ! ;)

I listen to 2 channel music, 10 - 20%. Home Theater, 80 - 90%...

I was in, 'The Good Guys' store, in my area, and noticed they only carried, DTS (surround) - CD's. I only have, one DTS (surround) - CD, Queen's, "A Night At The Opra". I found it interesting that since purchasing, that one DTS - CD, the music industry has produced a much larger selection of, DTS (surround) - CD's. Naturally, DTS (surround) - CD's only play on, DTS decoder equiped, CD players.

Kaliar said:
Well, I replied with "90-100% Two Channel Audio" but the reality is different.

My real answer is: 100% Two Channel Audio ! ;)

Same for me! 100% two channel audio.
I have always been a die-hard two channel guy. In the future, I'm sure that will change.
Considering I only have 2 speakers (and a sub), I dont have a choice but to listen in 2 channel - even for movies.

I did have a full setup, but I figured that in my present situation with school and all... I didnt have time to watch but 3 dvd movies all of last schoolyear. So I decided to lighten up the speaker load and go 2 channel.

I want the best of both worlds...

Thanks to the wonderful input of Mark, Jeff, SugarMedia and other friends here at this most excellent place..., I am now, of the mind, to try to acquire the gear/equipment, in order to have two systems in one... I really desire, to not only have a really great sounding ML HT, as well as and a truly wonderful sounding "tubed", musicial, two channel listening ML system too... ;)

I know..., it is going to be ultimately, much more expensive, but I think, in the long term, my ML system will be a that much more versatile and appealing. :)


Last edited:
More than 50% of multichannel, which doesn't necessarily means HT - I'm listening quite a lot to SACDs... :)
Multi 100%, but we did not intend to go that route. Our Requests are tucked into the corners of an 11x22 foot room, so the two-channel soundstage has never opened up as well as it could given more space. I'm not usually a fan of all of those fancy surround modes on some of the newer processors (stuff like hall, theater, movie,etc) but I found the CircleSurround music mode on my Marantz processor quite enjoyable. Its interesting that in this mode the center and surround channels do not overtake the main L/R speakers, it just seems to help them breathe.
Its one of the reasons we've kept that processor instead of upgrading.

Guess all this makes me a two-channel wannabe....?

Strictly 2 channel

Do have a pretty low key HT system in my bedroom. At best its used once a month to watch a movie. Have a dedicated listening room for my 2 channel with NO intention of converting it to HT. I guess its 100% 2 channel for me.
Cheers :D
Multi 100% of the time thanks to Meridian Trifield processing. Never, ever listen to CD's in stereo only thanks to the superior soundstage of Trifield.
Jeff Zaret said:
I may be the odd man out here but for me it is 80 - 85% 2 ch versus HT.

Jeff :D
Jeff, us "ole farts" need to stick together, I'm with you. Besides what alot of people see as "HT" is viewing a TV ????? Last time I went to a theatre the image was "projected" from behind me. For the theatre experience I believe a projector is the way to go.
75% 2 channel
15% Home Theater*
10% Multi Channel DVD's (Eric Clapton...One More Car One More Rider....do yourself a favor and listen)

*Because of the unique ML sound I now listen to most DVD's in 2 channel as well.
I much prefer 2 channel to surround systems. I enjoy movies in stereo, but I find when I'm listening to a surround system I'm constantly reminded that it's engineered into surround, not recorded in surround. The main thing I love about high-end audio is the clarity and accuracy, exactly the opposite of what they provide for surround. I hate to hear how the sound is introduced when whatever is making the sound is shown on the screen. "WHAT? You didn't hear that freaking HERD OF DINOSAURS until you looked that direction? %$#^&!" It was neat the first time I heard an airplane fly by in Dolby, but it didn't take long to realize that it didn't sound like what an airplane flying by sounds like.

Right now I have a crappy but free DVD player/surround system/frappe maker/enterainment thing for the TV, but I'm running it with just the center speaker and some decent front channel speakers replacing the disgusting little things that came in the box. The surround speakers were plugged up, run to the back of the room, stuffed behind the sofa, listened to, unplugged, and stuffed into the cabinet with the front speakers. :)

The funny thing is, when I bought my amp (NAD 2100), the main reason I purchased it was to be a rear channel amp and I was going to get a bigger amp for the front speakers when I bought a surround processor. One of the things I liked about it was that it had input gain for each side so I'd be able to balance the simple systems that were available back then. Yes, it was way before there were surround receivers! :)
Last edited: