Vote

Different needs, different systems.

No, thankfully. The den contains HT equipment (Marantz, Sony, B&W), while my study contains my 2ch system- AR TT, CJ PV5 preamp, plenty of vintage tube amps and Triangle Titus speakers. A nice luxury...

My "home theater" consists of two old wing chairs nestled behind my listening sofa, angled toward the 10 year old 27" Sanyo CRT. It's not that I don't value quality in video or the sound that accompanies it (the Sanyo powered through my Equitech looks great), it's that I find very little is made better on TV by being bigger or louder. Most TV is best when smaller or quieter or, better yet, off. On the other hand Film Noir looks just fine in that intimate corner of my living room. I am a committed patron and ten-fer ticket holder at my not-so-local cinema art house (remember those?), and don't feel the need to attempt to recreate that splendor in my home. Nothing against those who invest in home theater, but two-channel stereo is where my serious resources go.

better separated rooms to play in one for improving it without disturbing the other

Actually my home-theater room is more of a second music room, since I rarely watch video anymore. I went with surround sound 30+ years ago (anyone remember SQ or CD4?) and may give the new surround technology a try when I downsize my home this year. I'd like to see what I've been missing not being able to hear the T-Rexes sneaking up behind me.

My "home theater" comprises a 26" conventional television set and my old college stereo. Pretty much it gets used for video gaming by the kids far more than television watching. Not too many home theaters are set up to do music justice. Maybe if your home theater room is THX certified, but even then I would question its ability to through a proper soundstage image.

Home theater, what home theater? The main TV's in another room and that's where it will stay. My wife watches the other TV in the bedroom while I listen downstairs.

Home-theater? Do you also have a home-concert hall?

Pros are some savings on common components and space usage of only one room. Cons are that video and audio systems cater to different purposes. One is where video is a priority and the other is where music is of foremost importances. Some purist audiophiles may not want to compromise on this as music reproduction is their main objective. Common video and audio systems in a single room meant that only one system can be use at anyone time. Different family members may have to squabble over the usage of either of the systems.

Can move main speakers for smoother music only sound.

primarily audio, but tv and videos plus all other sources run through my passive dynaquad surround (no center).

My main system is in the only room of the house that belongs to me, the other system and house belongs to my mortgage banker and beloved ones...

I have no choice - only have the money and space for one really good system.

The goals of ome theater and serious two-channel music simply can't be properly served with the same room; the requirements for the room acoustics are mutually-exclusive in nature.

Attention editor: Revised! I don’t have home theater. In all honesty I haven’t watched a movie in a while. I spend my time at work writing about my life and making art. I haven’t turned on a TV in well over three years and I don’t miss it at all. I’m very busy and this leaves me a little more of my precious time for serious listening, and (or) reading the newspaper and magazines. I have nothing against film; in the past I’ve loved watching movies. Occasionally I watch films on my computer. My preference is an urban movie theater. In a perfect world I would attend more concerts & live theater as well. (To correct a statement I made last week, I am not unstable, quite to the contrary, I am a well-grounded individual.)