213 Cobra
"in music fidelity terms you've got nuthin'"
So unwise, your choice of words. Harvard's School of Medicine and Bell Labs disagree, they say we've got more fidelity and musicality. They said it not me...like in the 50's and 60's
CDwallace is trying to tell you that he's heard differently, and if you read carefully what you "think" now is no different from what he "thought" before his experience.
See he strolled into a situation he wasn't prepared for, and you also would not be prepared for either. And he embellishes in the comparison as the surround system was less than $10K and the two channel systems $15K+, 30K+....hmm. Some pricey lambs.
I can tell you have very little surround experience;
Know where you went wrong,
"You can also have better vocal clarity than any center channel speaker can provide you."
I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong. Even the physics is against you on this one. And this extra clarity is not at the expense of a uniform deep soundstage, just incase you were wondering.
It appeared also that you trying to tell us what we can use for a center channel? I suppose I MUST have a BIG TV in this system to satisfy your vision of this system too? You can't make me have one!:) If you burden us with what you think a surround system is, of course you would be correct about its sound quality. But I must say your imagination is not quite up to the task of outlining what you are missing, it certainly has nothing to do with things behind you as most would incorrectly assume. Although the rear channels are critical and must be on, they do so much more than just make noise in the back....much much more.
Just so you know; any speaker designated as a "center channel" should not be used in a music surround system if it can be helped...there are some exceptions to this rule but just a few.
Two channel is the sonic degradation, but I know the masses of musicophile's opinions are overwhelmingly on your side.....for just a little while longer. But keep an open mind, "cause times they are a changin'" :) |
Hey David if you're interested in getting the most out of your system on two channel CD's drop me an email and I can help you setup your system playback to enhance your 2 channel discs to the same degree multi channel discs play.
There's a free upgrade hidden in your system.
email me you number and let start using it. |
Hey Phil,
Thanks for the thorough responses,
Let me give you an analogy to make something clear;
Scotty Pippen and Micheal Jordan in their prime, could not beat a Division II college team by themselves.
What you fail to realize in many instances, but this one inparticular, the power of five can elevate above the power of two. We are not building the same animals and that is what you have to realize. Surround divides labor, spreading the load making compentent speakers and amplifiers work well above and beyond their two channel capabilities. That's why audiophiles simply have terrible surround systems for the most part. They build off the front two channels, not the optimum way to approach the problem.
Surround fares much better with normal room conditions than two channel. One of two channels biggest weaknesses is its deleterius interaction with the room. Very very problematic.
"What compromise must you make in quality of power amplifiers and speakers to spread much of that money over 5.1 or 7.1 channels, instead of 2?"
Less than you think, let me also interject that I have no doubt in my mind that my skill assembling a two channel system is equal to yours. So what is preposed has been tested on skeptics like yourself time and again.
"We're still plagued with enough recording engineers that don't have good judgement with stereo, after 50 years. You might be too old to hear before you can listen to a well-crafted multi-channel recording."
I don't have any issues with poor recordings, must be your system is so revealing....or
Two channel is great for LP's which is why 40 years past Vinyls obsolescence we still play them. And why 23 years after the CD was invented we can't get the sound right, 2 channel is a boat anchor to digital, dragging it down.
"But if you want the highest possible music fidelity, communication of emotion, and tone, then 2 channels are your optimum solution at your stated price, and well above."
I'll see if I can't get some Zu Definition 1.5 speakers, compare them to my cheap surround system. See if they can hold up under the pressure. Two of my most recent victims don't think so after hearing the Zu's, but you have to have them side by side to really get a sense don't you think?
What amp should I use? what do you recommend Phil? I don't play with that niche of speakers much.
Hey if you live close to Baltimore, your welcome to participate. Should be fun.
Doug |
Phil,
Fidelity? It's why I listen to surround.
What I hear when I listen to a surround system is all that garbage two channel leaves in front of the performers is stripped away giving me access to the instrument in a way that two channel cannot. Detail and texture that borderlines on "real", to a much greater degree than the thin and over detailed 180 degree two channel presentation.
Sibilance once part of the recorded performance dissappears
strident strings become rich and full.
The ability to hear behind added delay and reverb on a singers voice provides me with an insite to the performance, a bloom two channel guys pay 6 figures for, I have never heard with a two channel system without cheating with the acoustics (I did the cheating), especially below $10K. The dramatic environment changes from one disc to another and a sense of scale dipoles give but without the homogenous tendencies.
Of course I get the benefits of being included in the soundstage and control of the soundstage presentation, very powerful psych-acoustic effect. Then their is the fill between the speakers when percussion instruments are used as they project much like the do in real life at the listener when mic'd that way.
So I am wondering exactly what fidelity I am missing?
What details my $40,000 two channel system is also not providing? A more refined system that mimics what top studios use to make recording decisions on.
We are on extreme end of the philosophical scale, you like the idea of simple, no crossover no extra goodies, I embrace the opposite, digital crossovers for each sub, multi-channels with multi element crossovered speakers.
Control the signal. The result....the same? We both enjoy our systems this way.
As for delay and timbre's, my system is consistent you can listen to a simple voice or instrument decay without a shimmer or pulse. The amplifiers and speakers I use are as phase accurate and harmonically balanced as I can find.
Speakers are flat period, what hurts with two channel helps with surround.
I'm sorry Thomlinson Holman let you down, really me more than you...
So what Fidelity was missing? Could the fact the surround doesn't allow you to hone in on one aspect of the recording as easily be the perception it is not as clear. Could you have assimilated all that grunge carried by two channel systems to the listener as detail? Do you have time to expand? You have a great deal of experience so magical, or holistic isn't going to be good enough.
Describe the physical event that either ques you in to timing errors or reinforces proper timing. What keeps you awake with surround? Could High Frequency hearing loss be the problem for the percieved lack of focus? You need that artificial edge created by two channel to make it sound clear?
I don't know what's the issue? What Fidelity is gone, because my surround system gives me more. |
Jefff1,
What's your system bro? That was the whole point of this thread to find people who have managed to get their multichannel system to outperform their two channel system. |
"Cdwallace. why so cynical?"
Ecclectique I think you have your answer now :).
Jeff, smart system layout, no surround processor yet?, David99 is a smart guy, good guy to have helped you. |
"How do you get surround sound from 2 channels. By synthesis?"
Actually Metralla every stereo disc has surround information on it, all you need to do is study a little about the pick up patterns of microphones and mic arrays.
Also realise that all reverb, and delay algorithms are modeled for 360 degrees, not 180, which is all two channel has to offer.
This to me IS the big issue with digital and why it has a noticeable brightness to it when played in 2 channels, there is information compressed onto the soundstage, and since it is room reverberation, or 360 degree delay processing, or just out of phase noise, this information when not moved to its rightful place in the soundfield (rear channels) will negatively impact the spectral balance of playback. A good example is any live albome with an active crowd, most of these recordings are edgy because the crowd is not mic'd and the off axis response of the microphone and the quantity of them, plus room tone and on and on, gets placed between you and the subject, click on surround and the subject (singer etc) smoothes out immensely, your emmerssed in the crowd and all that "noise" is no longer smashed into the front stage, messing up the performer. |
"Secondly, while Trifield and DPLII are nice and have it's own merits, however it's not necessary better than pure 2 ch stereo.
- Trifield/DPLII provide great imaging effect and sense of filling the space.
- Stereo feels more natural and smooth."
That statement is completely opposite of my experience.
Have you customized your trifields for differnt types of music?
If your 2 channel sounds more natural than the triield, change the trifield setting until they sound the same as your 2 channel sound....but it weill never go that far
What I don't understand is the same guy who will put his speaker cables on stilts, have some high school drop out put tubes in his DVD player etc and it never occurs to them to maybe play with the levels/ distances the treble and bass to make the processor sound the way they want.
eandy my Meridian has 8 different trifeild setting to match the scale of the music I'm listening too, this way there's no way 2 channel can sound more natural. The parameters are adjustable for a reason, you can make trifield sound just like two channel if you wanted to, I actually can mimick other systems by fine tuning the adjustments. Keeep digging my friend, its a new type of system, you must learn new ways to adjust it. |
McGrogan,
When you admit to not being able to setup your surround system properly nor having it work for months, it is a bit disingenuous to blame surround sound for this issue.
The fact you couldn't get your center speaker to blend is not surround sounds fault nor is it indicative of surround sound.
What it characterizes is poor setup or simply the speaker you chose for a center channel was poorly designed or matched to your left and right speaker.
I hope after all these discussion you don't think my surround system sounded anything like yours? When you take the time to research and buy appropriate speakers and get your center channel to blend such that your three speakers image better than two speakers. Then you are on my level, until you do that...something very possible, Then you're making progress toward what one of my systems sound like.
Perfect image...I have had hundreds of people listen and agree.
Do it on your HT, it only makes the movies that much better. |
McGrogan,
I have a multi-kilobuck turntable, I was in business and there are hundreds of people who felt like you...and now they don't. All I tell you has been tested quite thoroughly on the general audiophile public.
What I am trying to impress upon you but you're are fighting me all the way, is you can't bring down surround because some bad limited experience and the direct experience you have is badly flawed by poor equipment choices and expecting a digital product to work like an analog one. C'mon man, you make these smart comments demeaning the rest of us and our equipment, and you haven't
Your determination of superiority of the CP-60 to the Anthem for example, was of course running an analog source through the units? Who does that an expects similar results? Do you actually equate a $2500 prepro with all its functionality to a simple analog $2000 preamplifier....don't you think that's a bit unfair? Aren't we overlooking the CD player in the cost of the analog pre's performance?
Wasn't it a VK5D? so that's like $5K, so what $7000 prepro did you listen too and compare? Because you don't need an expensive cd player at your price point when you have a prepro to be your DAC.
This is a little anecdote that I think will be of interest to you.
In an 18 month period the store I worked at sold 65 Meridian 568's, only about half of them for theater first installations.
In that same period we sold 1 VK5se, 4 VK3, 1 VK5 (demo) and 1 CP60 demo and 2 SSP30's.
The people voted with their wallets, and our store was very high end. www.jsaudio.com |
