I’ve listened to pretty much every configuration (5.1 through 13.4.4) and while it provides a cool effect it doesn’t move me in the way that even a mediocre two channel system does. Movies? Sure - give me that immersive feeling with planes flying overhead, the sound of bullets ricocheting through the side, rear, and atmos speakers - it makes sense for this kind of foley info to come from all sides. For music however it just sounds gimmicky and fake. I’m speaking for me of course and shouldn’t influence even a single member of this forum. I also don’t have much interest in others telling me what I should and shouldn’t enjoy. Like ketchup on hot dogs or black licorice. Someone making a face and pretending to be disgusted doesn’t impact my enjoyment one whit. Plenty of people here describe the process of procuring, cleaning, and listening to a record (including having to get up to flip it after 22 or so minutes) to be a horrible, exhausting experience. I can’t get enough of it, and the joy of hearing music come from a spot where a speaker isn’t still seems magical to me. There is an evolutionary reason our ears are shaped the way they are and two channel setups are optimized to take advantage of that physiology.
You probably heard some rig set up for movies by a "HT enthusiast"? If so, that’s never a good example. Such rigs are typically set up to get everything exaggerated/make adrenalin pour like the niagara (i.e., wanting that helicopter sound to pan from top front to top back, effects everywhere, panning sounds around a grid, etc). Some of these HT guys are in the habit of setting up six 18inch subs in a small-ish room and tearing up the drywall (Hint: avsforum). Everything would indeed sound gimmicky, awful and fake for music. A lot of parameters change though when you have to set it up for music.
For instance, many guys have figured out by now that you need to put subwoofers, in specific spots in a room? i.e., the optimal location for a low bass transducer is not where your speaker is? The room decides it, physics, acoustics, etc come in play, etc? It wasn’t so back in the days...
Similarly, a certain fulfillment of soundfield requirements can’t be met by setting just 2 speakers up front.. It requires additional speakers in other optimal areas of the room. It’s just the science/technology behind how it works out in a room.
|
@deep_333
Why don’t you spend a minute or two describing to us “two channel guys” your awesome multi-channel rig. Obviously you have achieved this nirvana you describe.
Everything should be listed on my profile...Like i said, i didn't even spend that much on my multichannel rig. A lot of it is relatively affordable/high value stuff bought on closeout, nitpicked over time, etc (probably spent a whole lot more on stereo). I'm sure someone around here with deeper pockets could beat it out if he did explore that route.
|
I've been in the audio industry, both sales and as a buyer, for the better part of 40 years. Yes, I've heard multiple speaker arrangements optimized for both movies and music. I thought the Synthesis facility in Northridge sounded the best of what I've heard (also went to France to hear Focal's offering, England for Bowers & Wilkins, as well as Lawrence, KS for Martin Logan's take on the concept). They all sounded fine but took me out of the performance. This isn't about "right" and "wrong", it's about preference. I have listened to literally thousands of setups in my lifetime, and a two channel configuration is what I prefer for music.
|
“2 channel and surround are differen
They are not different. The ultimate hope of a 2 channel rig (as you spend more and more and more) is that it hopes to provide the soundfield, spatial nuance and detail characteristic of a correctly setup multichannel rig
I’m sure someone around here with deeper pockets could beat it out if he did explore that route.
@deep_333
First you say “it’s the same” then later admitted “it can be better - if spend more”.
And your title “Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers” implies improvement for surround speakers vs 2 channel.
Surround “envelopement” and “fidelity” are two different objectives- one is NOT objectively (factually) better, but you may have personal preferences favoring one
|
@deep_333
First you say “it’s the same” then later admitted “it can be better - if spend more”.
And your title “Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers” implies improvement for surround speakers vs 2 channel.
Surround “envelopement” and “fidelity” are two different objectives- one is NOT objectively (factually) better, but you may have personal preferences favoring one
@kennyc
Stereo and multichannel have the same sonic goals, in essence, w.r.t how a soundfield, spatial cues and detail are offered to a listener in a room... except stereo gets there half baked, multichannel optimized for music gets a whole lot further. It is not really a preference thing.
You see these manufacturers trying different tricks... putting additional tweeters behind their cost no object speakers, etc? (except speaker shall only be a measly 100k now)...Or that fpga code magic in some 70k dac to unlayer, unfold, create spatial cues, better detail, etc better than ever? Why do you think that is? If the number of speakers remains restricted to 2, well, it is only able to get so far. Even a mediocre horse could pull a carriage further than a super cadillac dog...
I said my multichannel rig can run circles around my own stereo rig (which costs magnitudes more) and beats out any cost no object stereo rig i’ve ever heard. In other words, i didn’t even spend that much on my multichannel rig and it is able to do so. Could it get beat by some guy’s cost no object multichannel rig? Maybe, it could.. I did hear a very expensive multichannel rig set up by Anthony Grimani/Grimani systems once in a huge room that blew everybody’s socks off. Maybe...his multichannel setup did a li’l better than my multichannel setup in that large room....But, the case remains that i’ve always been let down by all kinds of cost no object stereo rigs i’ve heard.
For example, let us suppose that a guy already has a pair of Mofi sourcpoint 8s or Borresen X1’s and 2 subs...These are high value, but, not very expensive speakers. All he would need is three more sourcepoint 8s or three more Borresen X1s, 3 additional channels of amplification and a processor worth its salt. I would prophesize that such an exploration could provide a much better outcome at a lower cost..... than the guy ditching his Borresen X1s altogether and buying a pair of Borresen M1s for a 100k instead (i.e., sticking with some stereo only upgradititis).
|
@deep_333 --
Interesting topic. Never heard a well set-up multi channel system to convince me of its sonic/musical merits (which is also saying, implicitly, that I’ve heard a range of bland ones), not to say there aren’t good ones out there.
As it is though to me the quality of reproduction doesn’t fall back on an added number of channels to aid the immersive experience (which can indeed sound distracting to my ears with music), but rather the core nature and quality of the two main channels + subs. Not because I’m an analogue "purist" - I use a digital source only in addition to a DSP-based fully active setup - but simply because the sound coming from 2 channels, and what has been invested into and "perfected" around them, is the more natural and "right" sounding to me.
A typical scenario implies that I would listen to a multi-channel system quite different from my own with regard to the specific components used (not least the speakers), with the more interesting and relevant experiment being the one that was made around a component-similar expansion of my existing setup and seeing how that would turn out. With a given budget though I’d still max out the potential of what I have (or would upgrade to) from a 2-channel approach rather throwing the same coins at a channel expansion, not to mention if it involves reshuffling the cards entirely with the choice of main speakers and subs into a more size friendly package (it’s a slippery slope, mon frère).
I have experimented with a stash of crossover components from GR research. 400 to 600 dollars at most (or say under a 1000 dollars) in crossover component upgrades gets the fidelity close to max (ime) and diminishing returns hit like a wall thereafter, as you go up in price. But, a crappy driver from a manufacturer is a crappy driver and there’s no fixing that...
Manufacturers have cheaped out on crossover components so badly that the illusion of crossover component quality being the main culprit exists.
Agreed on the importance of the quality of the drivers, keeping in mind first and foremost their proper design implementation and what this means in singling out a range of fitting items that aren’t necessarily the more expensive or "exotic" ones.
Coming down to it though you only get so far with the quality of the drivers and crossover parts when the latter is placed between the amp and drivers. Even the best passive crossover components can’t escape the fact that they’re impeding with the amp to driver interface, potentially much more so the more complex they are, and it also means only taking partial advantage of your amp’s performance envelope instead of having it looking into a purer load actively.
What some may feel is gained from a "purist," analogue approach with quality component passive crossovers to others is missing the bigger picture in not taking into account its negative effect with regard to amp to driver interfacing. The quality of a DSP acting as a digital crossover actively is not irrelevant, but from my chair its overall sonic impact is of a significantly more "benign" nature as a line level, prior-to-amplification measure compared to a passive configuration on the output side of the amp, which affects both amp and driver performance more severely.
|
@deep_333
Sorry to hear of your 2 channel struggles- you want a complete system with high sonics but are severely limited my your budget.
High End Audio is an expensive hobby because to bring sonics significantly above box store offerings, custom/expensive parts (Mundolf, Vishay, transformers, etc) , material advancements, vibration mitigation, custom casework, plus a small niche market drives the cost of doing business way up. This is a hardware based hobby so the latest tech is going to be costly. Trying to accomplish high level sonics by using lower cost alternatives is nearly impossible- no short cuts, although we wish there were.
It’s good that you at least take a break from high-end audio as it was causing you much grief- hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable. Desktop audio might be a budget friendly option - there’s a significant market size. Or maybe you can build your budget through additional income to fund your hobby.
Anyway, glad you landed in a good place.
|
@deep_333 --
Interesting topic. Never heard a well set-up multi channel system to convince me of its sonic/musical merits (which is also saying, implicitly, that I’ve heard a range of bland ones), not to say there aren’t good ones out there.
@phusis Many of these HT guys set up their gear optimizing for multiple sweet spots (including the mother-in-law seat), a.k.a. every sweet spot got compromised...not to mention some chair with a huge backrest covering the guy’s entire head! These are very straightforward observations one can make. There’s also a trend there which goes, "I paid for all these extra speakers, so i better hear them discreetly". The seamless soundfield went downhill that day and every speaker screeched on its own. It’s a bit too much of the quantity over quality with those guys, etc, etc. Hence, running into a setup that sounds good for music can be rare with that crew (Many of these guys are not audiophiles to begin with).
A typical scenario implies that I would listen to a multi-channel system quite different from my own with regard to the specific components used (not least the speakers), with the more interesting and relevant experiment being the one that was made around a component-similar expansion of my existing setup and seeing how that would turn out.
You would indeed fine tune the existing stereo setup for music before you added anything to it for multichannel.
What’s the worst thing that could happen? Maybe, you ended up with a killer rig for all the movies, tv, games, etc (but got a bit lackluster for music) and dropped it back to 2 channel for music, i.e. a 2 channel/multi-channel hybrid system.
What’s the best thing that could happen? Maybe, the multichannel add on did indeed blow the socks off your 2 channel and you stuck with it for all your content (music, movies, etc),
Even the best passive crossover components can’t escape the fact that they’re impeding with the amp to driver interface, potentially much more so the more complex they are, and it also means only taking partial advantage of your amp’s performance envelope instead of having it looking into a purer load actively.
What some may feel is gained from a "purist," analogue approach with quality component passive crossovers to others is missing the bigger picture in not taking into account its negative effect with regard to amp to driver interfacing. The quality of a DSP acting as a digital crossover actively is not irrelevant, but from my chair its overall sonic impact is of a significantly more "benign" nature as a line level, prior-to-amplification measure compared to a passive configuration on the output side of the amp, which affects both amp and driver performance more severely.
I tried the active route with a GR speaker kit and minidsp’s stuff. It is easier with a diy kit, you simply set the passive crosssover aside and interface with the minidsp kit. I didn’t get the best sound there and i almost felt like the minidsp unit was borderline faulty.
Storm Audio (not cheap) lets one go active with any number of speakers on their multichannel processors. When i did have that processor, i wasn’t thinking about the active route too much, i.e., was already invested in passive configurations and ended up selling it.
|
@deep_333
Sorry to hear of your 2 channel struggles- you want a complete system with high sonics but are severely limited my your budget.
High End Audio is an expensive hobby because to bring sonics significantly above box store offerings, custom/expensive parts (Mundolf, Vishay, transformers, etc) , material advancements, vibration mitigation, custom casework, plus a small niche market drives the cost of doing business way up. This is a hardware based hobby so the latest tech is going to be costly. Trying to accomplish high level sonics by using lower cost alternatives is nearly impossible- no short cuts, although we wish there were.
It’s good that you at least take a break from high-end audio as it was causing you much grief- hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable. Desktop audio might be a budget friendly option - there’s a significant market size. Or maybe you can build your budget through additional income to fund your hobby.
Anyway, glad you landed in a good place.
@kennyc Awww, Lol, .aren’t you the guy with a Salon2 and that blew your mind or something some time ago? Go ahead and raise the bar for everyone first, i.e. put the money where the mouth is. 4 million is what you need to spend to be a niche trendsetter perhaps (worthy of the enlightening speech you gave above). Work 6 jobs if it came down to it and show everyone what you’re made of.
Here, this is waiting for you...no shortcuts indeed.
$4,000,000 Horn System
After that, we could find out if i could beat the snot out of a ’no short-cuts’ rig with whatever i’ve got.
|
@deep_333 Ha, I wished the Salon2 would have resonated with me- it’s one the least expensive speakers that’s Stereophile rated A. In my search, I listened to the best speakers I could find, then try to replicate at home as close as possible without losing fidelity. My tastes were top of the line Magico (S5mk2, M3) and YG Acoustics (Sonja) but my wallet said differently
Went to AXPONA 2022 to demo final choices: Magico A5 vs Rockport Atria2 both sounded sub-par likely to poor room conditions.
A big thanks to Chris Thornton at Artisan Fidelity- the Vimberg Mino D sounded great but with the Diamond tweeter option I thought it was unaffordable. But after he helped me negotiate the price, I got a great deal- blew my budget if course, but what rocks my boat is high notes like violins and bells.
I’m amused that my Vimberg Mino D speakers are at the entry level of Tidal speakers- likely some trickle down tech. Likewise amused at my Constellation Inspiration electronics, they too are entry level and directly related to trickle down technology and made TAS’s top 50 bargain list.
Still trying to control spending for “sound enhancing” audiophile devices: Ethernet cables/filters/switches, fuses, outlets, demagnetizer, turntable mats, speaker feet, racks….
Also I have the curiosity itch to try the low noise floor of DS Audio optical cartridges requiring purchasing specialized phono preamp, and to try a SUT requiring purchasing a “voltage” phono preamp (I run a “current” phono).
Depending on one’s sonic goals, this hobby can be really challenging to one’s wallet.
@deep_333 , perhaps a desktop headphone/earphones setup might be rewarding. I have a xDuoo TA-30 tube DAC/amp hooked up to my laptop and run Focal Clear MG, Audeze LCD-i3. Hifiman HE-4XX, and Grado SR80. Sounds great and I haven’t tried tube rolling yet. I also have the Astell&Kern SP2000T DAP that I’m planning to try as a SS desktop dac/amp.
There are a lot of affordable options, with financial room to explore. There’s also high-end IEM (inside the ear monitors). This is a very large market with cutting edge sonics.
If you one day decide to go for high-end 2 channel again with a larger budget, it may be helpful to know what’s the “minimum” sonic quality you’d settle for and the price of those speakers and/or electronics. This would give you a set financial target to determine if worth pursuing.
|
@kennyc I have some combination of stereo gear that would be considered high end by this forum''s standards perhaps..I would deem it high performance more so than "high end" because "high end" could also mean trash that's just priced high some days.
I could create the presentation of the TAD Reference with my current lower TAD model and a couple of open baffle subs. With BACCH on the front end, it seems to be about as good as stereo gets. The TAD Reference (for as long as it has been around) is still considered a benchmark for the high end-ish sound in some circles.
But, it all loses to multichannel ime...don't know what to tell ya (Hearing is believing). A redirection of the tweaking fuel/energy for some guys could get them there, perhaps.
|
I can’t believe it’s not buttah.
|
@deep_333 wrote:
I tried the active route with a GR speaker kit and minidsp’s stuff. It is easier with a diy kit, you simply set the passive crosssover aside and interface with the minidsp kit. I didn’t get the best sound there and i almost felt like the minidsp unit was borderline faulty.
Storm Audio (not cheap) lets one go active with any number of speakers on their multichannel processors. When i did have that processor, i wasn’t thinking about the active route too much, i.e., was already invested in passive configurations and ended up selling it.
The same could be leveled against your example of and experience with active configuration here as you did earlier with regard to the "quantity over quality" guys and them not even being audiophiles into their multi-channel music endeavors. Some seem to believe throwing in a MiniDSP over a speaker kit settles the matter on active vs. passive, but that’s a crude outset that only tells you so much and which also depends on one’s abilities to patiently dial in the filter settings.
Instead imagine using your existing, passively configured high quality main speakers that you know well and convert them into outboard active config. by swapping out their passive crossovers with an outboard quality DSP unit and buy extra power amps for each driver section (meaning: each amp channel is then connected directly to its corresponding driver or drivers in parallel for better amp-to-driver interfacing and load independent amp sections) - preferably similar to the one you’re using already so to make your ground of comparison with the passive scenario to really only be about what it means to have the filtration done prior to amplification on signal level actively vs. the one that happens on the output side of the amp passively via the speakers’ built-in crossovers.
Then follows weeks to months of carefully experimenting with filter values aided by measurements (in addition to other audio friends’ ears) and many hours of listening to determine which filter preset will grant the best results. No unknown speaker kit hauled in as guinea pigs (not that they can’t be fine speakers in their own right), no cheap plate amps or base level DSP unit with a so-so implementation of filter settings; only what have and know well already (with added amp channels and a quality DSP), converted into active configuration as carefully and thoroughly as possible to maximize its potential as you would a setup based around passive speakers (in which case the filter values are already set and fixed).
When you’ve been through all that in the context described, then let me know how you feel about outboard configuration and how it compared to its previous, passive iteration. And I know; conversely I’d have to do what’s essentially the same the get a truer bearing on the potential of multi-channel music reproduction as promoted by you.
|
