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.
@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.
@deep_333Ha, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
For instance, as you spend more and more on a purist dac, there is code hidden away in fpga with the hope of creating the above mentioned, restricted by the challenges of achieving so with 2 speakers.
You will hear all kinds of detail in a multichannel rig (that you simply never heard in a 2 channel rig) by virtue of how some multichannel codecs uunpack your favorite stereo recordings....there are multiple speaekers assisting with this. Try an upmixer that comes with a multichannel processor that’s worth its salt and the right amount of correctly setup speakers. It should become obvious.
When 2 channel guys are in hot pursuit of cost no object "3D", etc, it continues to be a bit laughable for the same reason....Spending more and more up the wrong tree will continue to provide a gimped outcome. I could put up my multichannel rig (i didn’t even spend that much on it) against ANY cost no object stereo rig and it will run circles aound the latter. It would probably lose, however, to some guy’s ultra high-end multichannel rig, i suppose...but, some guy’s 2 channel? nah, it ain’t losing...
Some of you guys are not really strapped for cash.....try something different than what you’re used to, research the newer technologies and tweak it out...
With regard to holographic sound I once own a very rare piece of equipment that was used to master the first Starwars movie. It was a Bedini with a couple of nobs that could expand or center the sound. Carver then mass marketed a holographic generator. When you hear holographic sound in a recording it just studio glitz. I like it, but it’s not organic. A live recording might sound “real” because it’s also capturing the wall reflections. Most modern cinemas have front speakers and side speakers. Some even have transducers in the seats. I don’t like that set up, but it’s just entertainment. Two speakers of different types might complement each other and will give more SPL. I’ve had fun wiring up old speakers in series or parallel, but I’ll try to stack them vertically to try and maintain a stereo image. Speakers all over the room is not my cup of tea. Recently I wired up a pair of Philharmonic bookshelves to the bass crossover of my Vandersteen 3a and had great results driven by an Atma-sphere MAI-mk III and bi-wired through an anticable ZERObox. In this case my solid core wires were too short to stack vertically and the monitors sat at ear level slightly in front of and to the center of the 3a z.
Multichannel can be really fun if you have the right setup. I don't use a crappy receiver - I use an Oppo BDP-105 outputting multichannel analog into a Marantz pre-pro set at pure analog and then XLR out to good amps. The sound is quite good...doesn't replace stereo but it's very good.
The main issue is lack of discrete multichannel material. You need a large collection of SACDs, DVD-A, Blu-Rays...and I also have about 500 SQ and DTS surround discs from the 70s and 80s. So, maybe 1000 possible surround choices.
I still mostly listen to stereo, but the multichannel stuff is very fun.
A quality system - cartridge, arm, table, SUT, preamp, amp, 2 speakers - set up properly in a properly treated room can give you holographic sound.
I recently discovered someone in my neck of the Hudson Valley who is obsessive about tube sound, has spent over $100K on his system, and has a basement full of thousands of tubes that he buys and sells online. He came over the other day with about 150 tubes for some tube rolling in my Beard preamp. The tubes in that amp all have at least 20 years of use on them.
I have to say: man, was I happy to find out that a Phillips made Ampex for $50 tamed Laura Nyro’s voice on New York Tendaberry way better than the Mullard for $300. But I digress.
After we settle on a set of tubes, this guy is sitting in the sweet spot, then wandering around the room. He then he says that as he was coming over, he wasn’t sure what to expect, since I had told him that I use Altec 604Cs (I think he has Wilson Puppies). He says he is astounded by the depth of the sound stage: forward, backward, and to either side of the speakers. He - like others have - volunteers the word holographic. A surround sound. It was particularly noticeable on the Belafonte at Carnegie Hall double LP, as it is on other live LPs: Sticky Fingers at the Fonda Theatre for example.
He at first says it must be the vinyl, and he will have to go out and get himself a turntable. I point out to him that he knows better, for starters, why obsess over tubes if it’s just the vinyl?
And I did it for less than half of what he spent.
Imho his room is a problem: it’s not dedicated, there’s all sorts of stuff going on in there that’s not controlled. In my room, all my walls are insulated with 6” of rock wool, the ceiling with 14”, all covered with burlap. The floors with throw rugs. Then I add pictures on the wall as and where needed to brighten up the sound.
The speakers that he was initially skeptical of do have some important features that his speakers lack. A: they are coaxial. A single point source greatly reduces phasing problems. B: they are very efficient. Efficient speakers are reputed to be more lively and dynamic.
To help with phasing issues, I have two little boxes inserted in the signal path that allows me to correct for that.
Being as insecure as most of us here at audiogon are about whether we are getting the most that we can out of our systems, after we are done rolling (he amazingly leaves an extra 4 tubes to try out for a few weeks), I ask him what he thinks, and he says the detail, the depth, the timbre, texture etc is as good as it gets, we are just dialing in that last 1 or 2 percent with the tubes to nail it.
Jon Specter may disagree: he’s replacing all the caps in the Beard next week.
All by way of saying.
TWO speakers. If the thinking behind coaxial matters, then every 1/64th of an inch matters. It’s hard enough getting two speakers positioned properly. 4? 6? 8?
When I was A boy, I had a SHARP tuner/cassete. I also lived up a mountain, where I could pick up radio signals from europe. The unit had four speaker outputs. It was called MATRIX. It was not quad, it was somthing else. The rear speakers which were mounted approx twice the distance from the fronts. Had a little reverb, giving a surround sound effect. When the BBC broadcast a live event, this was the best sound quality we could get. (no recording). It was a sensational event, bringing my mates around to revel in the sound. Theres nothing wrong about rear speakers.
+1 @mikelavigne- 2 channel and surround are different
in my main 2channel, I barely manage to finance my Vimberg Mino D. If I had to pay for more speakers, then sonic quality is reduced. My Vimberg Mino D might be my end game main speakers.
in my flea watt 2 channel, I’m using the Volti Rival 100dB to explore tube magic starting with SET amps. How can this translate to a surround system?
Both speaker manufacturers don’t offer “surround” components.
There is an alternative that I “subjectively” would be satisfied with, but it’s beyond my budget - Magico S Series.
How about additional amplifiers expenses….
Maybe someday I’ll build a quality surround system, but not at the expense of 2 channel sonics.
If I want SPLs I have four matching Vandersteen 2 in my living room. These are driven by a single McIntosh 2200 amplifier. The rear pair are wired in reverse polarity to the front pair.
If I want laser-precise imaging and detail I have a pair of Sourcepoint 8 hooked up to the same amplifier via a switchbox.
Honestly, most of the sit down listening is done with the Sourcepoint 8. They are slightly harder and hotter sounding w/o EQ but you do get that holographic imaging with them as a 2-way dual concentric.
I also have two matching 10" Klipsch subs for that earthquake-under-my-seat effect.
Driver quality is far and away the biggest contributor to speaker performance, followed by cabinet construction. Crossover component quality is third at most, presuming the crossover circuit is otherwise competently designed.
I get why some enjoy experimenting with crossover components but they are not the weak link in the majority of speakers. Most often the drivers are what are mediocre.
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.
I have over 20 years in modding the weak point in most loudspeakers ,many mfg use average parts at best , I almost alway upgrade my own the same values inside
just far bette quality , go to humble homemade hifi capacitor test ,
Jantzen foil wax paper inductors path audio resistors , or Mundorf ultra resistors .
connectors many use cheap gold over brass,WBT Copper far better conductor is preferred ,
the Xover it’s the brain 🧠 or ♥️ of your speaker just look up the above Tony Gee is the man and has helped me ,. I just felt it needed to be said . And can give you over a 10% improvement
Driver quality is far and away the biggest contributor to speaker performance, followed by cabinet construction. Crossover component quality is third at most, presuming the crossover circuit is otherwise competently designed.
I get why some enjoy experimenting with crossover components but they are not the weak link in the majority of speakers. Most often the drivers are what are mediocre.
I’m still stuck on how a post with a couple of screen shots from a surround sound AVR set up screen got so much traction???
Worse still is trying to school @mikelavigne on concert hall acoustics. It IS all about the source. For me, it is mind blowing listening to some great Jazz and Blues on good vinyl pressings realizing you are listening to a 100+ year old medium recorded with 60 year old electronics that can’t be beat by today’s digital tech.
@deep_333 To me the phrase "awful multichannel setup" is redundant. Yes, I suppose a music surround system can be initially impressive, especially to the novice listener, but does anyone really want to be subjected to musical inaccuracy in the long term?
@aewarrenI suppose all those guys who work at Sony, Yamaha, Sound United, Rotel, Dolby, Trinnov, Storm, etc must be novice listeners then...Who knows? You should perhaps teach them a thing or two about musical accuracy and how to not be a novice listener.
The stupid premise of the original post should be enough to suck it into that black hole of darkness.....
Play this reference audiophile track on your stereo and feel the expansiveness of soundstage, speakers disappearing, etc. I get the feeling that she may have written this song just for you (to be in your feelings n all, as you usually are). How special...
Even some people that should know better, are often taken in by great looking enclosures and marketing. Just look at all the great press those crappy new SVS speakers are getting.
I heard them at the Home Entertainment Show and they really sound "dead" and I couldn’t live with them. The crew there agreed that that treble wasn’t their strong point, and based on their heritage, they are more bass oriented.
Even the Stereophile Magazine test shows them to be dead though, IIRC, the review doesn’t reflect this.
I don’t care how many you stuff into a room, you won’t cure that problem without eq and I would rather have a single pair of speakers that I enjoy listening too. BTW, I don’t think I have ever heard speakers that can image as mine do in my room.
I have a quality HT set-up and prefer to listen to music in "Pure Direct" stereo with no eq or room correction that can spoil the stereo image. And, I have an Oppo 95 and even on mult-channel SACDs and DVD-Audio disks, I almost always select the stereo track.
Given the same budget for speakers, 2 speakers will sound better than multiple speakers.
There is no free lunch.
If one has a budget, let's say, $10K for speakers, and they spend on 4+ speakers instead of 2, the quality and engineering on every aspect of the speakers will be most likely be diminished.
Cheap crossover parts, inferior cabinet material and bracing, inferior drivers, less time and effort on R&D, etc, all add up to inferior sounding speakers. Adding more of the same quality does not make it sound better. More impressive maybe, but not qualitatively better.
If you ever want to test this, pick up a pair of cheap used speakers, open them up and add some bracing, some Black Hole 5, swap out the cheap crossover parts (iron core coils, sand cast resistors, electrolytic caps) with better quality of the same values. And revel the improved sound quality.
Most mainstream manufacturers don't put any money into these things, because they do not show from the outside, so consumers don't see them.
Even some people that should know better, are often taken in by great looking enclosures and marketing. Just look at all the great press those crappy new SVS speakers are getting.
@deep_333 To me the phrase "awful multichannel setup" is redundant. Yes, I suppose a music surround system can be initially impressive, especially to the novice listener, but does anyone really want to be subjected to musical inaccuracy in the long term? Some people think door-rattling one-note bass in their cars is impressive but you may notice the windows are usually down because the drivers are suffering from listening fatigue. To each his own, what is great to some is "awful" to others and discern no fun in it at all. Let's be better than victims of more-is-better salesmanship.
A cheap way to add fun to your hi-fi is to get one of the inexpensive surround sound boxes containing the Dynaquad system. David Hafler was a big fan, and offered a couple of different Dynaco boxes to create a rear channel signal. All the circuit does is create a left minus right signal and send it to a pair of rear channel speakers. If a recording was made in a large hall/cathedral/etc, the left/right stereo recording can contain out-of-phase (left minus right) information, consisting largely of hall ambiance.
Even with "mere" 2-channel recordings, a Hafler-derived rear soundfield can be quite enveloping. You hear the stage, instruments, and singers in front of you, and the sound of the venue all around you. It’s just for fun, no need to get all purist about it.
This issue with a more solid "meat on the bones" sound, and a sense that everything is dead solid perfect with golden age analog is fascinating to me because it's hard to know for sure why this is. We can look at the signal that was originally coming off the mic, and then see what happens by the time it's been laid down on vinyl, and it has been changed a lot. I read somebody talking about listening to test tones on vinyl. Simple, single sine wave test tones. They reported that the same tone on vinyl sounded nicer than when played through digital. How can that be when it's just a single tone sinewave? Can the digital really be messing that up, somehow making it sound thin and lacking? Looking on a scope revealed very significant amount of harmonic distortion and noise on the sinewave coming off the vinyl. It had been considerably embellished, and sounded nicer as a result. I think this is perhaps a happy accident. Sound coming from just two sources in a room when it's supposed to present an entire sound field is inherently lacking, and may perceptually benefit from some kinds of enrichment. There's also interesting cases where some noise can actually help us hear, or see better, allowing our minds to fill in what's missing.
I've been looking for an example of this I found once that showed text that was very hard to read until random noise was added. I've run in to problems with a lack of noise on images that I stacked in an attempt to get rid of all noise in the shadows. The result is obvious banding in the shadows if you look closely. That's a digital issue but it'd probably be an analog issue to if it was possible to get the noise super low on an analog print that didn't have fine enough film grain. Film just doesn't work that way so it's not possible. Analog has very fine resolution, but it's not all filled with real signal off the microphone because that gets smeared away beyond a certain resolution, which is usually lower than what digital can do. But the noise and distortion is being created in real time during playback, with the noise at a much higher resolution both in terms of timing and level. In the golden age they were only listening to that kind of playback, and so everything was optimized with those effects in play.
I read a long article about high resolution sound, and the guy in charge of re-mastering was saying that no analog is, by the definitions they had come up with, capable of high resolution. Yet they convert master tapes to something crazy like 192 kHz 32 bit, and it's mostly just recording a bunch of noise from the tape head at high resolution. But maybe that's the point!
Just thinking here, not making any claims with absolute certainty.
Mark "Disruptor" Levinson fixed all of this for ya. The official studio master for anything that got released in the past 20 30 years is a hires digital file. There's no tape anywhere...You convert that file with Daniel Hertz's Master Class software and you will get what you tend to perceive with analog mastertape (if that's what you desire). After that, might you need to think about CD, Vinyl, etc? You don't really...
Ok, if you have a sentimental SACD collection , maybe you'd like to keep a SACD player around...
A mere two speakers has inherent issues and limitations. But so far, to my ears, it’s hard to get multi-channel to sound as good on music. I’ve tried up-mixing 2 channel recordings to a 3 channel with derived center using various methods because I always hear a tonal issue with the phantom center caused by interaural crosstalk. But my best efforts have introduced issues of their own.
@asctim A lot of this can be attributed to a void of information about how the codecs themselves function... effects, ambience, what gets pulled up to the height layer, what's retained in the bed layer, etc, etc. On @mikelavigne 's quote below about the funky sound, his Trinnov with that 9.3.6 might sound great for movies/games, but, i have a feeling that it got a bit too complex for music. Perhaps, I would have used the word "funky" as well when i had a rig that got too complex. It would be quite hard to get the room/placement etc right to accommodate that high a speaker count and keep the quality of the speakers high.
i have a separate Trinnov 9.3.6 surround sound Home Theater system. music through it does sound good, and fun, and.......funky. but it's not in the realm of my 2 channel for true connection. it's something.......different. YMMV.
At some point, i had some discussions with one of Sony's guys behind their 360 reality technology. For music, you may want to keep the speaker count a li'l lower.
Ideally, for music, you take a compass and draw a circle, your speakers should be equidistant sitting on the perimeter of that circle. Even a center channel may not be necessary (could cause more problems than not for music in a single sweet spot). You may need a couple of heights (equidistant, maintaining the radius upwards) or may not need them, depending on the quality of the bed layer speakers. In most cases, a speaker count higher than a 5.2.2 may not work too well, start to act a li'l "funky". If the heights get a li'l too close, it may start to fall apart again...In other words, you may need to turn some speakers off and have a calibration saved separately for movies and music.
The idea is to blend it together so no speaker stands out or is even remotely localizable in a seamless soundfield. Depending on the codec and processor you're using, they may come with different features to tweak it just right.
Here's an example.
I have had artists over, played their own tracks for them on both stereo and my multichannel rig. I have asked the question over and over..."How would you want your track/album to sound?" Not a single one of them has picked stereo yet after he heard it upmixed into multichannel...Artist intent, it is then!!
i will easily throw 1000 of my vinyl records at the typical surround sound effort and get more back in musical essence. much more. my source has more meat on the bones with an analog source, and it gets everything dead solid perfect. not a mess.
This issue with a more solid "meat on the bones" sound, and a sense that everything is dead solid perfect with golden age analog is fascinating to me because it's hard to know for sure why this is. We can look at the signal that was originally coming off the mic, and then see what happens by the time it's been laid down on vinyl, and it has been changed a lot. I read somebody talking about listening to test tones on vinyl. Simple, single sine wave test tones. They reported that the same tone on vinyl sounded nicer than when played through digital. How can that be when it's just a single tone sinewave? Can the digital really be messing that up, somehow making it sound thin and lacking? Looking on a scope revealed very significant amount of harmonic distortion and noise on the sinewave coming off the vinyl. It had been considerably embellished, and sounded nicer as a result. I think this is perhaps a happy accident. Sound coming from just two sources in a room when it's supposed to present an entire sound field is inherently lacking, and may perceptually benefit from some kinds of enrichment. There's also interesting cases where some noise can actually help us hear, or see better, allowing our minds to fill in what's missing.
I've been looking for an example of this I found once that showed text that was very hard to read until random noise was added. I've run in to problems with a lack of noise on images that I stacked in an attempt to get rid of all noise in the shadows. The result is obvious banding in the shadows if you look closely. That's a digital issue but it'd probably be an analog issue to if it was possible to get the noise super low on an analog print that didn't have fine enough film grain. Film just doesn't work that way so it's not possible. Analog has very fine resolution, but it's not all filled with real signal off the microphone because that gets smeared away beyond a certain resolution, which is usually lower than what digital can do. But the noise and distortion is being created in real time during playback, with the noise at a much higher resolution both in terms of timing and level. In the golden age they were only listening to that kind of playback, and so everything was optimized with those effects in play.
I read a long article about high resolution sound, and the guy in charge of re-mastering was saying that no analog is, by the definitions they had come up with, capable of high resolution. Yet they convert master tapes to something crazy like 192 kHz 32 bit, and it's mostly just recording a bunch of noise from the tape head at high resolution. But maybe that's the point!
Just thinking here, not making any claims with absolute certainty.
A mere two speakers has inherent issues and limitations. But so far, to my ears, it’s hard to get multi-channel to sound as good on music. I’ve tried up-mixing 2 channel recordings to a 3 channel with derived center using various methods because I always hear a tonal issue with the phantom center caused by interaural crosstalk. But my best efforts have introduced issues of their own. I can improve the center with more speakers, but only at the expense of the rest of the sound field. Or, the center no longer seems to fit in with the rest of the sound field quite naturally enough. Better to just use two speakers and experiment with the speaker placement and room treatments to optimize the results to your preference. Optimal gear matters too. I’m not sure about digital doing something bad that analog gets right, but I’ll take Mike’s word for that because he has an optimized analog system and I don’t.
For video games, surround sound is awesome! I can definitely hear with greater precision which direction things are coming from in the game with more speakers. For movies it can work too, but I’m not into that. The screen is only in front of me and I don’t have control of the camera like I do in a video game, so I prefer to have the sounds stay in the front too. A center channel can be good for vocals in movies, but that mostly matters for people sitting off center. My guests all couldn’t care less. As long as they can hear the words they’re good.
My nephew is one exception. He seems to notice the imaging and pay attention to the sound field. He tells me the "surround sound" is amazing, even though it's just 2 channel stereo.
“certainly in theory a multi-channel recording can better relate some of this, but it’s typically a fine mess since it’s digital and processed. and it’s rare rare that it’s done right, and that the multi-channel playback is up to the task..”
+1 @mikelavigne
Been there with Krell 707 Multi-channel Processor /Evolution Amps plus B&W 800 series 7.2 System. My current 2-ch system handily smokes that speakers and multi-amp monstrosity.
Since you make a reference to the "essence" of the musical performance, visit some grand acoustic space nearby where you live and check out an orchestra, wind ensemble, etc.
For example, there is one near where i live.... Yes of course, the orchestra’s performing in front of me, but, there’s sound coming from behind me, in front of me, above me, to either side, etc...it’s a dome...makes ya wonder how the essence of it can be like that because it doesn’t sound much like stereo at all.
the whole idea of musical essence relates to rendering the particular acoustic of the recording venue as related by the recording and mastering process. not every recording and mastering process fully relates all that information. but each recording ought to be distinctly different, and the better the reproduction system and the more accurate and complete it is, the closer it can render the original according to the media.
so the idea of rear hall seating, compared to close up, or even rear balcony, should be part of the ambient information on the 2 channel recording......if the system is up to it.
certainly in theory a multi-channel recording can better relate some of this, but it’s typically a fine mess since it’s digital and processed. and it’s rare rare that it’s done right, and that the multi-channel playback is up to the task.
i will easily throw 1000 of my vinyl records at the typical surround sound effort and get more back in musical essence. much more. my source has more meat on the bones with an analog source, and it gets everything dead solid perfect. not a mess.
come on over to my house; i will play a live to 2 track master dub of a live jazz club recording that will recreate the whole envelope of that jazz club leagues better than the best multi-channel recording. you can cut the ambience retrieval with a knife, and the realism of the music is way beyond what any digital can even think of.
which is TRUE Next Level.
note that part of the issue here is that the best music was recorded by the best artists and the best recording engineers with the best simplest tools.....which means the Golden Age 1955-1980. so this great best ever music is all 2 channel. it’s very hard for current artists and recording processes to compete with the purity of those times. almost impossible. and i listen to and enjoy plenty of contemporarily recorded music, so i respect there is lots of good stuff being put out today.....but....it is not up to the standards of the Golden Age even at it's best.
the Next Level....is....optimizing the media. and if your preferred music was originally mastered to 2 channel, then that is going to be the most truthful way to hear it. the very finest, most developed 2 channel system will take you furthest.
unless your fundamental source recording is multi-channel......surround sound is changing the target. instead of wanting the musical essence of the original performance, your goal is some sort of derivative.
so what music is most important to you? how was it recorded?
turns out Next level, is getting the music right, not bastardizing it. adding more speakers is more for effect, not connection.
i have a separate Trinnov 9.3.6 surround sound Home Theater system. music through it does sound good, and fun, and.......funky. but it’s not in the realm of my 2 channel for true connection. it’s something.......different. YMMV.
@mikelavigne Since you make a reference to the "essence" of the musical performance, visit some grand acoustic space nearby where you live and check out an orchestra, wind ensemble, etc.
For example, there is one near where i live.... Yes of course, the orchestra’s performing in front of me, but, there’s sound coming from behind me, in front of me, above me, to either side, etc...it’s a dome...makes ya wonder how the essence of it can be like that because it doesn’t sound much like stereo at all.
If we are talking about some li’l basement bar with a 7 ft ceiling and some guy screaming into a 100 dollar PA system, that’s a different experience (anything works there, i suppose). I would suggest that you experience a big hall, sit on the money seat and determine how you would recreate an experience closer to it at home. I also understand that you’re an analog enthusiast with high end turntables, etc. So, maybe it wouldn’t work for you because this is part and parcel of the digital domain.
the Next Level....is....optimizing the media. and if your preferred music was originally mastered to 2 channel, then that is going to be the most truthful way to hear it. the very finest, most developed 2 channel system will take you furthest.
unless your fundamental source recording is multi-channel......surround sound is changing the target. instead of wanting the musical essence of the original performance, your goal is some sort of derivative.
so what music is most important to you? how was it recorded?
turns out Next level, is getting the music right, not bastardizing it. adding more speakers is more for effect, not connection.
i have a separate Trinnov 9.3.6 surround sound Home Theater system. music through it does sound good, and fun, and.......funky. but it's not in the realm of my 2 channel for true connection. it's something.......different. YMMV.
If you’ve ever heard music played through a surround sound system and think that it sounds realistic or even pleasant, then by all means go ahead and add more speakers to your system.
@aewarren, Could it have been that you heard some awful multichannel setup, wrong codec, etc on some cheap barrel bottom receiver (stereo equivalent of a 10 dollar bluetooth boombox)?
Here’s an excerpt from a guy who sells high end purist stereo equipment that many guys around here own. I mean, it is this guy’s livelihood, but, at the least he’s being honest about what multichannel audio sounds like.
"and you just close your eyes and you’ve never heard a soundstage like this. I don’t particularly like listening to it because when i go back to my li’l stereo system or my big 2 channel stereo system, I am let down. Yes, there is a soundstage, the speakers disappear, all that magic happens, but, man...you hear that in a good surround system and it will blow your hair back, it’s spectacular"
The guys who have such rigs, listen to it on a daily basis aren’t lying when they say they are let down by whatever high end stereo sounds like (after listening in multichannel for a bit)......There are several high end audio manufacturers who sell purist stereo audiophile equipment, but, actually do their personal listening in multichannel audio for their own personal listening pleasure.
(Yeah, it costs more...because of course, more speakers and pertinent gear costs more! Bigger room costs more to treat, a bigger house costs more, etc... But, that’s the inherent cost of the next level experience, i.e., when you turn it up a notch).
Back in the day when I was playing with Realistic Maximus Vs and the large Advents, yeah doubling the speakers was very cool and wiring them so that left front and right rear where the left channel and so on with the right. But that was so 1970s.
Now all your doing is mucking up the sound. Get a pair of real speakers and you won’t need more than a pair.
If you've ever heard music played through a surround sound system and think that it sounds realistic or even pleasant, then by all means go ahead and add more speakers to your system. As for me, I will continue to enjoy the stereo imaging my two speaker system employs.
I’m really disappointed. We’re right on the cusp of 2025 and we haven’t figured out a way to get the digital bitstream plugged directly into our brains yet. So, drat, our ears are STILL analog and we need those pesky electro-mechanical acoustic transducers to get the job done.
The more speakers the merrier. I’m trying to complete my multi (omni?) channel system and 11 speakers are sorely inadequate. Working on the Cheap Seats Channel, Under the Bleachers Channel, Men’s Washroom Channel, and the 5th position in line at the Concessions Booth Channel. Just wanted to make sure I capture every opportunity to experience that "being there" feeling from any conceivable standpoint (or sittingpoint) at a live performance. Things are going well. Just a couple of 1000’ rolls of lamp cord to go.
"I have over 20 years in modding the weak point in most loudspeakers"
Same here. I’ve found that modding speakers that are, uh, NOT on my top 10 favorites of all time list can become "musically satisfying" when you get things out of the way that make them sound worse. Hope to post a story in the coming days (or weeks?) to exemplify this. Keep up the good work!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
, maybe you'd like to keep a SACD player around... 
