How would you describe yourself?

Pundits claim that home theater has taken over the consumer electronics market. We're curious to see what effect it has had on our readers. How would you describe yourself?

How would you describe yourself?
An audiophile only
49% (138 votes)
An audiophile who likes home theater
48% (134 votes)
A home theater fan who likes audio
3% (8 votes)
Total votes: 280

Andreas Weidlich's picture

For music, I prefer my stereo. If I want to watch a movie, I go to the movie theater or a separate viewing room in my house. I have no intention to mix the two and I am not interested in any hi-fi magazines that do. Thanks for sticking to your guns, Stereophile!

Javier Galvan's picture

Audiophile FIRST, home theater fan..second..

Robert Hamel's picture

I grew up with two-channel. When I went down the HT road, the idea was always two-channel first. Then SACD and DVD-A hit and I am so glad I have an HT system to enjoy them with.

WalkerTM's picture

The two channel rig gets the most play time. But the wizardry of home theatre is certainly fun. But seldom is the Home Theatre rig used for music listening.

tommy boy's picture

You left out one other option: "Equal parts of both." That's me—movies and music, music and movies. It's all good.

nic s's picture

Audio only makes the best pictures!

Mike Wisker's picture

I watch more TV than listen just to music. SO I just took my TV up to my music standards. The cable inputs are quite acceptable for normal viewing with a little help from a good processor.

D.R.Najuch's picture

No Home Theater

Norm Strong's picture

Fortunately, home theater components do the audio job just as well, and more cheaply than audio-only equipment. A/V speakers are the same as A-only speakers; A/V receivers do everything that's done by integrated amps, and DVD players play CDs just as well as CD-only players. I see no reason to avoid components that are useful in home theater systems, just as a matter of principle.

Marty Johnson's picture

I'm a movie buff and I thought I wanted surround sound. When I finally got it, it was disappointing audio. I am now a movie buff in two-channel. It's more difficult to find high-grade equipment because of the prevalence of the big sell of home theater. Most electronics stores push Bose.

Davet's picture

I realized years ago every new interest cost money. I have dabbled in cameras, HT, model airplanes, trains, and RC cars. Audio and electronics is the only one where I have gone overboard on cash outlay. Hot-rods years ago taught me the only substitution for cubic inches was rectangular dollars. My dollars are now in audio,, and I'm loving it.

Michael's picture

An audiophile by heart, but with the ever emerging multi-channel hi-def media, its hard to stay "pure" to the idea of only 2 channels, some it is truly amazing. It's my crave for something new that really intrigues me into exploring multi-channel audio, as well as home theater.

Paul J.  Stiles, Mtn.View, CA's picture

I seems to me that beings most of us use sight as our dominant sense, any home entertainment system that is centered around sight will appeal to the most people. High-end audio will always be a niche product.

Brian R.'s picture

I picked "An audiophile only" because I don't even own a TV set, much less a home theater syst. However, I'm really a MUSIC LOVER and have only a passing interest in audiophilia (despite subscribing to Stereophile).

Grosse Fatigue's picture

I would describe myself as an audiophiles as well as a hometheaterphile. I love both and have two completely separate systems.

Mark Gdovin's picture

Like any self-respecting audiophile, I've connected my TV to my stereo and the results have been satisfactory for the few times I seek such sound reinforcement to what should be, afterall, a visual medium. But, just a couple of RCA wires, no biggie. I'm into music. If I can hook up my TV for a hundred bucks, then, well, okay. But that's it.

Clay White's picture

So called home theater has nothing to do with music. It has only to do with money. The consumer wants his big TV and all the goodies that go with it. He proves it with his credit card. Can't blame the manufacturers and publishers for pandering to him. Just don't talk to me about music and home theater in the same conversation. Music is art. Home theater a pastime. If it will drive some revenue to quality audio manufacturers, I'll put up with it.

James's picture

I have a dedicated high end stereo listening room and a separate dedicated theater. The listening room is whre my real interest lies. The theater serves as a fun location to spend time as a family but I don't spend any time tweaking/obsessing over it. The joy and fun in my hobby comes from my two channel stereo.

Keith Y's picture

I have both. I have a music only system in it's own room. I also have a home theater in my basement. You have to have both. If I could only have one, it would be my two channel stereo.

Bubba is SF's picture

It probably has a lot to do with rooms. How many you have and if they can be dedicated to just audio or video. Being an audio nut first, that is where the dollars are. With home theater you don't need to spend a lot on equipment. A consumer Sony or Denon receiver and some old speakers you don't listen to anymore. Add a center channel and bam—you have home theater. Audio requires placement, setting up, component matching, and a place big enough to allow the speakers to feel thier oats. Home theater just has to have clear voice and full range sonics so you can feel the bomb going off or listen to Darth Vader's respirator. Oh, one thing you left out was the home computer. That can be put on a desk in a bedroom or in a closet.

Al Earz's picture

I am sad to say that I only have the room mand funds for one system. But I have tried to maintain a audiophile level sound but still get my movies in too!

Teresa's picture

Vacuum tube two-channel stereo with tube SACD player and turntable. But no boob tube! No TV, no VCR. If I want an adventure, I read a book or go to the movies. I do not want video invading my home.

Blue Mikey's picture

I feel strongly about this--movies to me are for real theaters, not "home theaters" (a term which is itself an oxymoron!). At home I watch TV and listen to two-channel music, and those two activities (and the equipment for them) are completely separate.

Douglas Henning's picture

Love movies, but sourround sound is simply a waste. A cheap DVD player, and watching movies in stereo is all I need, have never used it to listen to music.

Richard Himmel's picture

I am so fed up with home theater. The worst thing is that two channel audio increasingly sounds more and more like the "home theater sound".

Tilmann Mahkorn's picture

I don't need a home-slaughterhouse nor would I like to have a home Shea-stadium. Why should I care for a home theater? No audiophile would ever claim having a home concert hall at home, would he? But I see the point: dealers desperately need new fishing grounds and home "theater" is one with big fish.

KENT PRICE's picture


Mitchell G.'s picture

For 25 years I had two hobbies: audio and photography. I invested heavily in gear and CDs, despite little progress made in sound reproduction (speakers, amps, SA/CDs). Meanwhile I never had a TV, VCR, etc, until recently, when high definition projectors and DVDs became available. The multichannel HT doesn't impress me, whereas progress in DVD and projection technologies is exciting. A good HT movie becomes a slide show. The soundtrack is bonus for the slide show. Thus, I'm shifting my attention away from the stagnant and expensive audio towards HDTV projectors and BluRay/HD-DVDs.

KJ's picture

I still cant cach why I need more than two channels! Besides I cant imagine where to put the next 6 og 8 speakers.

John Crossett's picture

Two systems, both seperate. And it will stay that way. Music I love - in two channel. Movies I like - in surround (with an occasional listen to multichannel SACD or DVD-A.