I have both. A McIntosh-based 5.1 system in the living room with a blend of vintage mac (MX119 PA 4 ML1s MPI4 MQ101EQ 2 ML10s MQ102EQ MC2105 etc.) and newer mac (861 dvd 252 power amp). You can build EXCELLENT and affordable multi-channel by blending vintage and current technology.
The bedroom is 2-channel with first gereration McIntosh solid state MX112 Tuner Preamp MQ101EQ MC2100 2 ML1s). The best stereo image, definition, and separation I have EVER experienced. It sounds like tubes because it was ENGINEERED to sound like tubes. Pure and neutral.
I will always love the mac ML series. That is the first mac I was able to afford in 1971 (with MA6100) and I still have the original ML1s. I fell for them when I heard the Tank drum solo and Take A Pebble from ELP's first through them.
I appreciate both stereo and multi-channel for what they are. I set up the bedroom system because I missed pure 2-channel. Listen to Santana's third in stereo. Outstanding.
My point is ... trust your ears. 2-channel is ONLY better than multi-channel if YOU think it is better.
Peace |
Anyone thinking about getting an SACD player..., do it! An SACD and decent SACD player does sound better than a Red Book CD and decent player.
In fact, there's quite a few SACDs that are two and three channel. You get to hear the highly regarded RCA Living Stereo SACDs the way the original records were recorded back in the 50's-early 60's.
They were all recorded in either 2 or 3 channel. If you have a center channel speaker that's equivalent to your front speakers, the three channel SACDs will sound fantastic. They actually used three microphones when recording, one for each side and one for the center. |
Greetings fellow Agoners.While I tried to read as many of the responses that I could I'm sure that I missed a few so if anyone else covered this aspect I'm sorry.While it's true that the majority of multi channel studio recordings(SACD,DVD-A) have been mixed inproperly, where multi channel music TRUELY pulls ahead of stereo is in the reproduction of recorded LIVE music.I am a live music fan & the majority(about 70%) of my over 300 Redbook/SACD/DVD-A discs are live recordings.My library also contains at last count 135 concert dvd's.While most of these live recordings where done as stereo recordings, post processing has opened up EVERY one of them to the point where disbelief can be suspended & the ILLUSION of actually being part of the crowd is as easy as closing my eyes.Yes,while a good 2 channel system provides a reasonable renditon of these performances they never provide the truely expansive illusion that the multi channel playback provides.And with almost all concert dvd's being remixed under the close supervision of the original recording artist the studio engineers are finally starting to understand how multi channel should be used to extract direct & indirect information so as to put the viewer in the middle of the concert crowd(& NOT the band).While studio recordings will probably always sound best from a 2 channel system(due to the LIMITED spatial information inherent in the recording process),there is no doubt in my mind what so ever that any recording done live,wheather a live cd recording or concert dvd,can only be appreciated at it's absolute best with a properly matched & set up multi channel system.I guess it all boils down to what what the majority of your listening tastes are.If your a solo listener who locks into a sweet spot for the duration of an intimate recording of a chamber ensemble or jazz singer it's likely that you will never appreciate the true magic of multi channel.If however you are like me, & revel in the live concert,be it the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra recorded live at Daly City Symphony Hall or AC/DC recorded live at Donnington Castle then the future is multi channel & I for one will be there every step of the way! |
Yes, exactly. Running Redbook through a processor is highly variable as there are many different processors, only some of which permit user intervention. In fact, I don't really consider that multichannel (well, it is multichannel output but the info is not). Of these, favorite is Meridian's TriField.
Kal (who denies the premise of this entire thread) |
Kal,
I'm still a bit confused. When you talk about the recording engineer deciding what goes to each individual channel, are you strictly talking about multi-channel recordings like DVD-A and SACD? I was thinking more along the lines of regular old redbook CD and running that through the processor for 2,3,5, etc. channel playback.
Thanks
Brad |
hi guys
i am not too expierenced with ht.i want to keep it a 2 ch. system,i was wondering if you can help me set it up,i am looking for best sound and picture quality.the system i have is vandy5a`s,quickie4v`s monos.arc sp16l pre,and cary 306/200 cdp,panasonic dvd-35 and panasonic ct-36sx12.by running through the cary does that help with sound.my question is what is the best way to go about this venture with best results.
thank you very much
al |
Kal said it better than I could.
"Following that same logic, makes me wonder why so many claim a mid priced receiver, with sufficient power of course, is all that is needed to get great surround sound."
Actually your description is not a qualifier. It depends which mid priced receiver. The one on my system with the speakers I built to run on it is spooky good for $750. But you can't change the receiver to another brand and expect the same sound. ie. Denon, Onkyo etc.
There is a certain way surround equipment should be setup by the manufacturer or you can forget good sound no matter how much you spend. We live in a software world, the days of the brute force uber faceplate to the rescue solution is over. Smart equipment is slowly creeping in, and taking over. People who build real surround processors don't chat up their WBT connectors and 24/192 UBer DAC's, they point out the processor bank which allows proper speaker setup, room correction and EQ, and other essential setup parameters to be changed to put that unit in your world perfectly in real time.
Software rules, ie your bombs may be bigger but my bombs land EXACTLY where I want them everytime. You lose. :)
"That seems to imply the processor is one of the most important pieces in the chain."
Equal to the importance of the speakers, in many cases. |
In my experience very few recordings sound completely right with matrix (algorithm) decoding. Regarding cost, a low cost matrix decoder uses the same algorithm as the most expensive unit. The hardware will differ, and (hopefully) sound better. |
" The reason I ask is it seems to me in a multi-channel environment regardless of what the source is sending it, the processor algorithms are what decides what goes to each speaker." Only with synthesized or matrixed materials. With discrete sources, what is in each channel is decided by the mixing engineer. The only user options are level, delay and bass management. (Well, EQ, too, if you have that facility.)
Kal |
Cinematic_Systems: Could you clarify the following statement for me please? "There is no real decoding, except for system adjustment like distance your seated from the speakers." It's the decoding that is what I'm trying to grasp. Are you using decoding in the Digital -> Analogue sense and there is no 5 channel feed or something different? The reason I ask is it seems to me in a multi-channel environment regardless of what the source is sending it, the processor algorithms are what decides what goes to each speaker. That seems to imply the processor is one of the most important pieces in the chain. Following that same logic, makes me wonder why so many claim a mid priced receiver, with sufficient power of course, is all that is needed to get great surround sound.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, is it all the processor's interpreted sound fields or something else? |
I dumped my MCH system not because it didn't sound good. it sounded great. i gave up trying to find MCH music SACDs and DVD-As that I liked enough to pay $15-$25 for. Now I have excellent 2 chan with lots of CD and LP choices. If I want MCH music, I rent a DVD video and listen/watch in my HT. Best of both worlds. |
Cinematic - I think the main reason why 2channels just don't get MC is that have a tough time grasping the concept to 5 speakers working as one, just as two can work as one. Or am I talking newbie jibberish again?
I can guarentee if the MC system was setup properly, they would understand.
Agreed? |
Asin,
"it is not as forward or details perhaps due to the loss of resolution on multichannel format."
Actually your brain cannot focus as well on the "little" details that are really unimportant in the end because you are immerssed in such a large soundfield. The resolution of the SACD is equal on each channel whether its 2 or 4 or 5 channels being played back. 2 channel is effectively removing 2/3rds of the ambiant field, it is actually lower resolution.
Why digital sounds so thin in two channels has everything to do with this over focused truncated soundstage and lack of an ambiant field. So for better or worse, your perception is a common one but not for the reasons you attribute it too.
There is no real decoding, except for system adjustment like distance your seated from the speakers.
"24bit/192KHz but multi channel is 24bit/96KHz" may change the sound but not the resolution. |
Many recording has been optimized for 2 channel.
I have 5.1 set up with Nautilus 801 and Levison gear.
On some recording such as 1812 SACD, I do find the multi-channel provides deeper soundstage however, it is not as forward or details perhaps due to the loss of resolution on multichannel format. I heard that the two channels is 24bit/192KHz but multi channel is 24bit/96KHz. |
"Do you want to know why a multi channel amp, with the same specs as a 2 channel, sound different when listening to a just a 2 channel amp on its own?"
Yes I'd be very interested why.
"As for music in surrond in general ( if that's your question) Is just sounds bad."
The people a few posts up disagree with you, why does music in surround sound universally bad or are you just saying it sounds bad on your system? |
I'm not sure what you want to know. Do you want to know why a multi channel amp, with the same specs as a 2 channel, sound different when listening to a just a 2 channel amp on its own?
I've noticed that a mulit channel amp does a very poor job on 2 channel. That's why I use the 2 plus 3 amp set up.
As for music in surrond in general ( if that's your question) Is just sounds bad. My thoughts. |
Eldartford,
Well HT is multi channel, but I can understand your fondness for the center speaker. I have somewhat found its use to be problematic and effective at times and as such have used it only selectively with music. You have pointed out that a more careful selection of that speaker will yield effective results and perhaps even enhance the well talked about "sweet spot". The challenge I believe, is to be able to find that speaker quite readily. Having said that, would it be wise for enthusiasts to demand the sale of a third speaker that is exactly the same as the two being sold as a pair? That way blending is optimal and degradation of sound is minimzed or totally a non issue. |
velocity,
Thank you for your most enlightening response. Please ignore the two emails that I sent to you. I'm sorry!!! You know who you are and I now know that. Conflict sometimes bring out the best for people and I know that I have benefited from it. I know that you are a dedicated professional who has brought me up to speed. You have my respect for steadfastly defending your position on surround sound/multi channel system. You were not only defending from a standpoint of research and science, but also from years of hands on experience and of course, your passion. One has to have passion in their work to achieve the ultimate outcome. You obviously have that passion and I truly applaud you for it. I hope that all of your work will soon come to fruition in a way that surround sound will be regarded as the prime system to truly enjoy recorded music and works of many great and talented musical performers in the privacy of our homes. |
Landok,
My surround system costs about *$12,000, My home theater? well that's a story of priviledged ownership.
Of course it helps that I built all the speakers and amplifiers but let me note with parts that you can easily buy yourself, the amplifier designs are online for you to build yourself also. I listen to the systems I build to stave off spenind to calm down upgraditis when it itches, since the only way for me to get a better system is to be able to build it better. I'm learning how to make digital dsp crossovers so I can make my speakers better. College courses $3000
Let me note I have heard $8000 complete (DVD player too)surround sound systems outperform $15K+ tube type systems using speakers I felt were very good, and had that confirmed by many others who were equally mystified by the disparity in the qualities of the 2 systems.
I think where you hit a button with me is surround systems don't have to cost an arm and a leg to beat two channel systems. The problem is there is very little support for the end user (who desperately needs to be brought up to speed). Even on enlightened forums like here and AVS, there are precious few people who can begin to make people begin to understand what it takes to make a good surround system for any price. And unfortunately as a perfect example here you can see that these differring views at first are in conflict as common thought makes the thought of surround sound as a serious musical vehicle preposterous.
In a conversation with a speaker designer who is incredibly well regarded on this forum as there are dozens of posts regarding his product currently in action. His words exactly, "I feel a system built around my XXX speakers in a surround system surpass everything I make in my opinion until i'm listening to my larger XXX speakers."
The price difference is the surround speaker system $8000 retail the larger system $75,000+. I protect his identity because of the illogical negative feeling audiophiles have about surround. I don't want to damage his reputation or put him a position to where he has to defend himself.
* When I had a business I used to tell clients that if I could build a better sounding system as a "part time designer" then the products my competition sold (other audio outlets) then why bother with them? When everything we carried was better than what I could build, that was the standard every commercial product had to meet. I used client feedback as my only means of judging how good my designs actually sounded. Many times the clients were unaware that the product they were demoing was built in house until later in the process.
Landok I'm sorry we got off on the usual wrong foot when it comes to these internet boards on this particular topic. Misunderstanding=conflict |
In this thread we see the assumption by some people that multichannel is the same thing as HT. Not so!! The most significant difference is regarding the center speaker. With HT it is desirable to have a center speaker with limited and shaped frequency response because this makes dialogue clearer. For music the opposite is true because the center front speaker almost always gets the strongest signal.
Regarding speakers that reproduce both violin and voice well...some do better than others, but IMHO you really need several different speakers to do everything best. From my experience here are a few examples...
1..Spoken work...KLH5...a three-way using a pair of very lightweight 4" drivers for midrange. (These drivers were used full range in the KLH table radio).
2..Dixieland jazz, and other music with lots of trumpets...Any speaker using compression horn driver(s) for mid and tweeter.
3..Violin...B&W 550 small 2-way monitors with titanium tweeter.
My regular speakers are Maggie 1.6 and they do a good job, if not the best, over a wide range of material. |
velocity,
Thank you for your somewhat more benevolent tone. The reality of it all though is; how many listeners or devotees to multi channel sound have or will ever have a system like yours? You are talking about a near perfect if not totally perfect system which you are fortunate to own. The premise of the original debate I believe was based on a system that is more available to the masses. It would have been simpler if you had stated at the very begining that there is a system that is way beyond the mainstream surround system and you happen to own it, instead of vociferously proclaiming that you have a better system. Thank you for giving me some insight into your professionalism, expertise and your passion for recreating a perfect sound in the home environment. |
Landok,
"The violin is a very musical instrument and it is not the same as the human voice enunciating words on the screen."
...only in your mind, my speakers do both with no problem. Infact being able to do intelligable speech is a tough one for many highly regarded speakers. Not a good sign of good performance IMO.
"If surround sound is all around us, as you claim then the point of owning a surround system becomes moot."
I'd be interested in how you would arrive at that conclusion.
My original comment;
Fact is every moment of your everyday life is in surround why not play your music back that way?
This of course refers to the humans ability to discern sound 360 degrees naturally...and as some have mentioned above and below too. So I would say owning a surround system becomes essential not moot but i'd like to hear you input.
PS; my 7 channel music system doesn't have a screen. |
Mdhoover,
7 IDS's with that Kimber crossover? would be quite good for a medium sized room. Imagine a soundfield that images the same way on everyside of the room, renderring the ambiance and image of far away concert right in your room!
I have designed many systems using speakers like your IDS's, imagine being completely emerssed In the IDS sound all 7 speakers acting as one, with all the dynamic range advantages of having 7 speakers and perfectly blended subwoofers versus just 2 speakers. I know it unfortunately costs more, but...
that example may just pull you a bit closer to what Eldartford and myself listen too. And help you imagine the minimum level of refinement I require to find a system competent.
Thanks for your thoughts too. |
velocity,
The violin is a very musical instrument and it is not the same as the human voice enunciating words on the screen. If surround sound is all around us, as you claim then the point of owning a surround system becomes moot. Don't you agree? |
Yes, I agree that it's necessary to have first-hand experience with something prior to being able to debate it competently. However, I'm not in a position to assess with certainty whether or not any given Audiogon thread participant has such experience, unless I know that member personally, in which case we'd be unlikely to communicate in a public forum. In any case, since I myself lack such experience with multichannel sound, I should leave this discussion. I'll see you in a different thread.
One thing though, Dale Pitcher himself has told me that some people are using the Intuitive Design Summits for home theater, one person having relegated them to REAR CHANNEL duty (LOL!). I think that person has the $65,000 Denalis in the front. I've never heard those, so I can only speculate on how great they must be.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers. |
MdHoover,
Can we agree it was my third post that got your attention?
"I do NOT doubt that you are an expert on home theater and surround sound, and I also realize (fully) that I am NOT."
The key to your comment here is the latter part of your statement. I do not know much about "tube rolling" as I don't care for tube amplification all that much. Thus you will not see me engage anyone on the topic other than to ask a question. I've noticed your unabated enthusiasm over your IDS speakers, I never heard them so I cannot comment.
For Landok to jump in this thread I would expect that he has atleast tried several times to make a surround system musical. Instead he offers only a stream of nonsensical comments that no better describe multichannel sound than two channel sound.
Surround sound is not novelty sound anymore than two channel. And Noobs should do there homework and get something better than second-rate second-hand knowledge to debate with. It would be the respectful thing to do, don't you agree? |
Velocity,
FWIW, I also read condescension into your original post and was appalled. Apparently I got that wrong, and I apologize for that. I do NOT doubt that you are an expert on home theater and surround sound, and I also realize (fully) that I am NOT. Your intelligence and experience are obvious (Eldartford's and Landok's too, and lots of others', for that matter). We all just need to be careful how we word things (myself included--!!!!), because it's easy to be misunderstood, particularly when a person has only written words to look at and cannot see the expression on the writer's face, hear the tone, etc. This is such a great site full of REALLY smart people, I just don't want to see things go downhill unnecessarily.
In the words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get ALONG?!"
p.s. I am NOT being sarcastic with that quote. I think it's very powerful and incisive, and did not deserve to be mocked on "In Living Color."
-Bill |
Landok...Perhaps I have an unfair advantage because I remember when stereo was introduced, and the outcry from some audiophiles was a lot like what we hear today about multichannel. I can look at this thread with some amusement. In time you will come along. |
Landok,
I'm sorry you feel I'm talking down to you, but I am attempting to make my message as clear as possible.
I felt I needed to spell out my point succinctly as you seem unable at this time to grasp where I was coming from.
I didn't want you to feel unnecessarily insulted. But you did ask this question after a more than thorough explanation.
"What purpose does a center speaker provide then other than more clarity of oral discourse or dissertation that is in synch with the performers on the screen?"
Let me help you out with an answer because it's in your question...."more clarity", if can make dialogue more clear then it can make the violins in an orchestra more clear too. A center channel is an opportunity not an obstacle.
So.
Let me advise you that unless you can cram 12 years of installation, design and years of research and training between now and your next post you shouldn't waste your time. I KNOW what I'm talking about and there is no clever cliche audiophile end run for you to get around me, nothing you can say that will stump me or even make me take a step back. So don't waste our time with another stab at justification and just get on with it. If you have questions I'll answer, sorry if it rubs you the wrong way but behind this cyber text is an expert in this field and believe it or not there is such a thing. I don't doubt your experiences that led you to your opinion but what I and Eldart. are trying to tell you is that surround has much more to offer than what you have experienced.
Fact is every moment of your everyday life is in surround why not play your music back that way? |
velocity:
WOW, the condescending tone just rattles on.... in full surround!!!! I'll post more later on. |
Landok,
There is nothing uncivilized about my post, I was just stating a fact that my two channel system likely rivals or is better than yours.
ERGO;
My experience is equal to yours on what two channel can do, where we disagree is with the finer points of surround sound. So when I say no problem with the image, surround improves the musical experience I have a common basis from which to draw to relate to your experiences with the quality of two channel.
In your case you have not even begun to understand the basics of a surround system. You wouldn't know where to start to build one properly. Nor would you know how to go about determining if the equipment you wished to use would be adequate to the task.
Thus;
You do not own the equivalent surround system to those you are in discussion with, ie Me & ElDart. Which by all sense of good manners means you must concede to our opinion until you have in your opinion researched and gained greater experience in these matters. Eldartford and I are not discussing what we think, we are telling you what we KNOW. Too bad you have had some difficulty discerning the difference.
If you had made a statement that I did not have direct experience with but I had a doubt. Before I got passive aggressive I would check it out and have the politeness to withold my initial reaction until I could confirm or disprove your comment. Funny thing is, I would likely learn something.
Lastly. did you ever consider that the snake oil message here is two channel is good enough? Mdhoover pretty much says it all doesn't he?
"like lemmings packed into shiny metal boxes..." |
Landok,
Just like you, I have nothing against surround sound, home theater, etc. It's good for me to see differing points of view since I already KNOW what mine are. Condescending comments, however, detract from the quality of any discussion. That's probably a good reason why I myself shouldn't have gotten sarcastic above. I apologize for that. |
Mdhoover,
Thank you for your cerebral commentary on the the topic of 2 channel stereo. Often, the purveyors of snake oil run out of justification and falsification and in the process develop a self promotion strategy that portrays them as better because they are bigger, stronger, etc. In this particular case, someone with a "better system" has now developed scholarly credentials to "bring us up to speed". In a quintessential sort of way, we, stereophiles, 2 channel traditionalist or whatever the moniker, should be greatful that in our midst someone with a "better system" will finally show us the way to listening bliss. |
I can't comment on multichannel, but I CAN say with absolute certainty that my two channel set-up plus sub-bass unit generates SPECTACULAR imaging, which I've already described at length in my review of the Intuitive Design Summits. Depth, width, and height are all there, and in SPADES. I have no desire for a multichannel system, although I've never really listened to one, unless that's what they have in the theaters. If that's what surround sound is supposed to be like, then I think it sounds insultingly artificial. But hey, maybe someone with a "better system" than mine can "bring...(me) up to speed." |
velocity,
Keep the debate civil. I am not criticizing your views. I'm simply stating another perspective. I'm sure that you have the best equipment but I'm not interested in knowing that. My opinions are mine alone and I'm not really out there trying to convince you or anybody for that matter. I'd rather settle and listen to a scintillating 2 channel pure stereo sound and when I finally become inattentive, I will turn on my BRYSTON 9B SST amp, just for some diversion. |
Landok...Somewhere there is an audiophile with a monophonic system, who doesn't want to confuse his sonic image by having it come from two places :-) |
Eldartford,
But why fool around with a center speaker if it has the potential of degrading the sound of a recorded material? What purpose does a center speaker provide then other than more clarity of oral discourse or dissertation that is in synch with the performers on the screen? Why would one even consider the images coming from between L and C and R with the use of a center speaker in a matrix modality? Good to excellent soundstaging of one's 2 channel system will give you all those images without muddying it. |
Landok...I disagree about your theory that a center speaker is good only for centered sound. The center speaker can combine with a left or right speaker to create a phantom halfway between. For example, if in a matrix multisound system the Center is driven with L+R, the L image will appear between L and C, with the same panorama of sound that can be created with stereo. Likewise for R and C. Of course if, as is often the case, the center speaker is inferior to the others results will be degraded. |
Eldartford,
I think that you are thinking along the same lines as I do in terms of the perception of the sweet spot, and I hasten to add that the sweet spot also contributes immensely to the dimentionality of the perceived sound. You certainly can discern the soloist in the middle but also the attendant musical instruments that provide the beat and rhythm of the music. Because of this dimentionality the depth and width of the soundstage is also perceived. The presence of a center speaker only serve to stabilize the central location of vocals and dialogues because it is really meant to synchronize with the image on a screen. From a musical only perspective I am convinced that 2 channel sound is superior to any multi channel sound because of the central phantom image that it delivers. Multi channel sound delivers plenty of great sounds but sadly with minimal cohesion. It tends to be a slam_bam_thank_you_mam presentation. |
Landok,
"The idea of being able to adjust the sweet spot to your liking hints at creating imbalances within the system."
Well in audiophile terms this would be like using speaker cable to change the sound, the fact that a simple press of a button facilitates change is actually a wonderful thing...well it is when you know what you're doing trust me ;)
I don't have the time to bring you up to speed, but I know what I can do with a surround system would bend you mind to a very uncomfortable angle. Because all of the things you are so certain are true would suddenly be challenged.
People who can setup surround see oppurtunity where you and other 2 channel traditionalist see obstacles.
Surround is not over rated, it is under utilized and in your case simply not understood at its basic level. Keep in mind that I don't listen to discrete multi-channel Cd's I listen too two channel CD's in surround (TMS, Trifield, DPL2) and let me note that my multi-channel systems can play two channel in the same league as ANY two channel system.
I state that just to make you understand that I'm not speaking to you with my 2 year old Denon surround sound system as my primary experience. I have had and technically still do have a very high end 2 channel systems. Probably better than yours. |
The so called "sweet spot" is the quite small listening location where the two speakers of a stereo system produce a very convincing "phantom" image of a centered soloist. In a multichannel system there is no need for a "phantom" image because there is a real image in the center speaker. And this real image does not move or disappear when the listener moves around the room. Consequently the notion of a "sweet spot" does not apply.
Interestingly when you have been using a center speaker as long as I have the "phantom" effect becomes a bit tiresome, like an old parlor trick. At one time I used Bob Carver's "sonic holography" preamps, and this was like the phantom image trick on steroids! The effect was amazing, but if you moved your head a few inches...poof. Not really conducive to listening to music. |
velocity,
I agree with you that surround sound is very misunderstood but above and beyond that it is also over rated. Although one can meet all the required parameters in setting it up properly, there is no guarantee that the recorded multi channel signals will consistently adhere to your perceived proper set up. There are just too many signals coming through. One will also take into consideration the limitations of the listening environment. Are bigger rooms better for surround sound or a small, regular size listening room be just as effective? The idea of being able to adjust the sweet spot to your liking hints at creating imbalances within the system. To do this one has to achieve an equalization of signals to achieve the sweet spot phenomenon. I don't know of many audiophiles that routinely go through the equalization process to achieve a traditional sweet spot. |
The well known illusion of a sweet spot can only be effectively realized with a stereo sound.
Landok, you have never heard a properly setup multichannel system, not only does a multichannel system have a sweet spot there's actually information coming from it.
Fact is you can adjust the sweet spot to you liking with surround. Surround is very misunderstood |
Most people that have opinions on multi channel sound have for years enjoyed the joys of a stereo 2 channel sound system. The well known illusion of a sweet spot can only be effectively realized with a stereo sound. Multi channel sound somehow disrupts the nature of the sweet spot with the extraneous signals from the center and surround channels. Multi channel sound also affects the soundstage and depth of a musical presentation. The presentation of a sweet spot and a 3 dimensional sound is replaced by the sense of being in the midst of a musical rendering when listening to a surround system. For movies, the extraneous sound from the other channels may prove exciting and in some cases necessary to enhance the vocal presentation of dialogues amongst performers. There is no need for a sweet spot to be maintained but rather move the sound where the action is at various times throughout the movie presentation. Most audiophiles that I know of who have a surround system also have a dedicated two channel, stereo only system. The sweet spot is a phenomenon that stereophiles experience with stereo sound and arguably contend that it is a better sound. |
Eldartford,
Let me state the obvious...it all matters
and you're preaching to the choir |
And let's not fixate on the surround or rear channels. The center front is the most important of all. |
If your pursuit is realistic sound in the home, 2 speakers never was and never will be enough. Why do you think Dipoles are so popular! 2 real, 2 virtual speakers 4 channels!
Even if the instruments are only presented in front, without surround speakers you cannot begin to present the entire recorded event. 2 channel is at best amputation of all electronic and real reverb and delay processing and venue. Whether you thinks its important or not...it is anyway.
Ask any Pro Lexicon DSP processor designer, all reverberation and delay effects are modeled as a 360 degree effect. 2 channel 160 degrees at best.
Amputation of the music and the environment around it. |
Audiotomb....It's too bad that you have never heard a good multichannel audio system. They do exist, and discs to play on them. |
more is better
bigger is better
this stupid mentality built the Hummer
a thinly disguised red neck monster truck for yuppies and gen x ers alike
since more is better, more speakers is better
no need for audio balance, subtle overtones, etc
let's just throw more in the mix
damn now theres 7.1 processing 7 channel, let me throw away my 5 channel
on and on
could anyone list audio cd's (DVD-A's that get HT setup right)? the few dvd-a's I've heard don't
thanks |
I used to be a strickly 2 channel guy until I upgraded my controller to a Theta Digital Casablanca lll. My system has now converted me to a multi channel listener with everything. Now when I listen to CD's even my old REO Speedwagon "You can tune a piano, but you can't tunafish" it sounds absolutely amazing. The rear channels aren't just a mix of crap from the front anymore. The rear is more defined and precise, of course the newer recordings use better technology and it is more noticable. It is personal preference so I will never tell a two channel guy he is missing out on anything, unless of course, he makes me by telling me two channel should sound better to me, but technology has improved so much with high end multi channel that it is truly amazing. The only thing I don't like is once I fire that beast up and I say that because it uses more power than my A/C unit, it's hard to get me away from it. I have over 1000 CD's so I can sit for half a Saturday listening to them. Don't even get me started on the DVD's. The more I upgrade my multi channel system the more I enjoy multi channel. Even my strictly two channel friend has commented how impressed he is with the quality of multi channel now, but that doesn't mean he is converted. When I had my first mid-fi Carver, JBL set up it was great at the time with movies, but my clock radio sounded better than the multi channel for music. To each his own, whatever someone prefers is what sounds the best. As long as you like it who cares what everyone else says? Just make sure it doesn't hurt my ears when you turn it up, that's all! |
