Stereo sounds better than 5.1?


I don't think so !!! More speakers, if done right (ie. the right pre-amp), you get, better imaging, better clarity, better everything. Nobody that has any "Good" audio experience can disagree with this. If you do disagree, YOUR WRONG. I feel sorry for all you are missing. End of story.
urban

Showing 1 response by john_l

I'm not going to say the YOU'RE WRONG, because different people have different things they listen for.

I agree that digital manipulation does assist movies. I've heard the full bore vandersteen signature surround system. I thought it was nice and did make movies and Hell Freezes Over more enjoyable. Unless you have a huge room and bank account where your screen is 6ft+ behind your peakers and you can have your surround sound system FEED your reference two channel setup, you will be compromising your music quality. Spending equal dollars, two channel far outperforms surround. I've heard 5-6 surround sound setups, the vandersteen setup being the best. I have yet to hear one that approaches the magical qualities of good 2 channel, especially a tube setup. I think a good two channel setup actually places images in a more solid three dimensional space than a home theater setup. Truthfully, I don't like surround sound for watching television/movies. I feel that it is just Too Much Sound being pressed at me and I find it tiring. I prefer having a small two channel setup on my television with TV supplied SRS.

By the way, on the topic of Adcom. I've owned the adcom 750, the pass labs aleph P, and the Audio Research Reference 1. I've also a/B compared these (in my system) to the vk30SE, and the audible illusions 3a. The 750 definitely earned its class A rating. It was not embarassed by any of these preamps. I preferred the adcom to the audible illusions. The pass labs is a little better. Some people get so snobby about names.....