after years and years of being a dedicated two channel person I set up a 5.1 channel home theatre system
it is great for movies and concert blu rays
(a jl audio fathom 113 sub is a big addition)
some of the new remixed 5.1 like genesis 1970-1975 sound neat on this system - with some of the instruments and backings coming out of the rears
still it will never meet the nuance of performance of my 2 channel rig especially vinl
but they are getting better
I would love to hear a small chamber group or jazz combo recorded in the round with 5 channel recording
with the mics (directional)and all coming from a central point (re-recreate the 5.1 setting in reverse) |
Shadorne, did your subwoofer ear produce terrible surround scent, like some of the comments spewed in prior posts? |
Eldartford, whoa, that cracked me up. Really funny. I can not compete with you guys. Please go back to your thread and excuse my ignorance. |
Dreadhead...FYI, I do happen to be a "rocket scientist" although I don't know what that has to do with audio. |
"paroxysm of laughter"
you guys should take a step back and look at yourselves
not a pretty sight. |
I remain fearful of where my subwoofer ear will grow. Eldartford, I broke out into such a paroxysm of laughter with your comments that my subwoofer ear started making embarrassing noises. |
Since I installed my multichannel system I have evolved three addition ears, one on my forehead and two on the back of my head. I remain fearful of where my subwoofer ear will grow.
LOL! I've seen a guy who had four subwoofers in his system, and they weren't pretty. May not be too bad if you have one subwoofer. |
Eldartford wrote: I remain fearful of where my subwoofer ear will grow. It's already there. ;-) Kal |
Kal is correct.
Since I installed my multichannel system I have evolved three addition ears, one on my forehead and two on the back of my head. I remain fearful of where my subwoofer ear will grow. |
First off, you should note that I did not, in any way, criticize your listening preferences, just this particular attempt to justify them. Dreadhead wrote: Kr4, the only naive statement is yours. If this statement continues to pop up in every discussion could it be there might be some vitality to it? You observation was not only incorrect but quite rude as well. The reason it always pops up is that there seems to be an infinite number of people who do not understand the physiology of hearing. Had you put a smiley at the end of the statement, it would have been treated appropriately but, as you offered it, it is evidence of a lack of knowledge. If you believe I am incorrect in my judgment, I invite you to explain why having only two ears has any relationship to the sufficiency of having only two discrete sound sources. Kal |
I don't know if I'm smarter than you, but I do know that I am more progressive. You're comment of so few words speaks volumes about your personality. If and when you have medical issues, tell the treating physicians you prefer they not use any medical procedures that were invented after the early 70s. |
Kr4, the only naive statement is yours. If this statement continues to pop up in every discussion could it be there might be some vitality to it? Mig007, I beg to differ. You observation was not only incorrect but quite rude as well. You guys are not Rocket Scientists, please don't assume you are sooooo smart as to criticize my listening preferences. |
My IQ is about a buck two eighty |
So then what is your I.Q.? |
And only an IQ of 2 -- one for each ear |
I only have two ears, one for each speaker. It seems this silly and naive statement will pop up in every discussion of multichannel audio. Sigh. Kal |
I only have two ears, one for each speaker. |
I would never ever bash what is one person's great
system. Most of us on here have spent tons of money,
experimented more than most scientists, have made maybe that one bad purchase of audio equipment because of some
reviewer, and just tried to hard to bash someone's utopia.
Multi-channel......stereo......mono.......
WHATEVER GETS YOUR FOOT TAPPING !!!!
I agree.....bring on the PHILISTINES WITH BOSE SPEAKERS
AS THEIR WEAPONS !!!!!! |
Klaudio, go forward with me and we will smote the philistines |
I do not get caught up in trying to be a live performance.
I get caught up in listening to music.
That is what changed me forever in my systems.
Studio recordings sound better than MOST live recordings.
The four speaker stereo systems I have had always sounded
better to me and many others than any 5.1/7.1 system in
listening to music. I actually have seperate volume controls for each set of speakers so I can properly
mix the different recording types. A 1968 Stones CD sounds different than a 2005 Patricia Barber CD. They both sound great on my system.
You do need good equipment. The break is you have a ton
of music that sounds better rather than a few cd/dvd's. |
Try listening to Black Eyed Peas Live DVD from Sydney to Vegas on a surround system - the Sydney concert is a good demonstration of what can be achieved. Like two channel listening - what is out there is a mixed bag, however, done well, multi-channel can be immersive and convincing - bringing you one step closer to "being there". |
I agree with MrT that the psychoacoustics of a mch system at even a low level of performance can be addictive-- particularly to unsophisticated listeners. Many years ago I had a good 2ch system set for party-mode, with a second set of L/R speakers across the back wall powered by a receiver. All non-audiophile visitors said this was the best effect they had ever heard. This had nothing to do with realism. |
i believe that listening to a symphony orchestra is a mon mode experience rather than a multi-channel experience.
listening to small ensemble music is also in mono mode.
in many cases the music is perceived as being in front of you not behind you. the enhanced spatial effects from more than two channels may be pleasant but it probably does not represent most live music where instruments are unamplified. |
I have operated a four speaker stereo system
for years (2 Mcintosh amps, four speakers, one sub
Meridian cd player).
I have had so many people listen to a multi-channel sytem,
then listen to mine and always ask why music sounded so much better on mine.
IT"S FOR MUSIC and not just a couple of cd's. |
Bojack wrote: I see your point, Kal. What I was getting at was that most live shows do not have dedicated surround channels via speaker banks behind and around the audience. That is true but, at home, you need those dedicated surround channels to reproduce the proper ambiance from that live show. Kal |
Your comment makes no sense. If a concert had those speaker banks behind and around the audience, it would be a chaotic experience. You cannot take the scenario and reproduce it in the a/v room and say its the same. |
I see your point, Kal. What I was getting at was that most live shows do not have dedicated surround channels via speaker banks behind and around the audience. |
Bojack wrote: Ummm...when acts like the Stones and Radiohead introduce "surround sound" as part of their live shows, I'll invest in multichannel. All live events are in "surround sound" unless produced in an anechoic chamber or infinite flat meadow. Kal |
Ummm...when acts like the Stones and Radiohead introduce "surround sound" as part of their live shows, I'll invest in multichannel. But that will never happen. Sooo, my point is... |
Tbg...What you have discovered is that multichannel does not make up for second rate equipment, but neither does it degrade good equipment. My multichannel equipment is no different from what I would use for stereo. |
Sorry! I once had a TAG preamp. |
They were TAD Model Ones, not TAG. FWIW.
Kal |
Mrtennis, I just returned from CES and heard the Pass/Kimber system. Only TAG Model Ones were used. For the first time on this limited number of recording did I find multichannel at all appealing. Of course, in this room you would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve the sound. |
the number of channels is less important than what is fed into them. multi channel does not solve the problem of mediocre components and problem recordings.
placing such emphasis upon multi channel is misplaced. the concern should be on recordings, preamps, amps, cable and speakers.
i dare say, a master analog tape pleyd through a $300 personal stereo (i have one) will sound better than any multi channel stereo that uses a cd as its source. |
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. |
I don't like it as well. I have owned/listened to/auditioned many multichannel systems, and found that I liked stereo much better.
Fewer moving parts, and in most cases the music was recorded with the express purpose of reproducing it in stereo, I think that makes a difference.
I own both the SACD and 180g Vinyl versions of "Filmore" by the Allman Brothers. I would take the warm lifelike sound of the vinyl any day. The SACD is great, as are many other well done SACD's, but it just never jumped for me the way vinyl in stereo does, even when I owned an excellent (which I no longer do) multidisc player.
I love multi-channel for movies, it's a great gimmick. Truth be told, when I help friends set up home systems now, unless they have a dedicated theater room, or the rear speakers are already wired, I have them set up 3.1 systems. Never had anyone complain about it, in fact with the sophistication of the new recievers, they sound just as good in most cases as a system with surround speakers. |
Fitz pretty much summed up my view and did a much better job. Also, his credentials are impeccable. You naysayers should take up his offer to audition his system if in the area. He and I are 'joined at the hip'. |
I found this posting over on Audio Asylum in the Hi-Rez forum:
"By all means, you should keep an open mind. And you or anyone else in this forum who is curious about multichannel has a standing invitation to hear my system. I am quite serious about this. I would welcome the opportunity to get your impressions. Just PM me, and we will make the arrangements. I live comfortably in downtown Philly (home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies)in a townhouse with a nice, large music room, 4 blocks East of the Kimmel Center, and I can provide free parking.
Just consider me a multichannel evangelist, because I think audiophiles and music lovers need to know about this. For the past year or so, I have been experiencing reproduced sound that is well beyond anything I thought possible in my 50 years as an audiophile. I started my hobby by building Dynakits in high school. I agree that well setup Mch systems are very hard to find for audition. Dealers have totally dropped the ball, as have audiophile magazines, except for Kal in Stereophile. Actually, pretty much the whole high end is out to lunch on this, which has given me a serious credibility problem with many high end manufacturers and magazines. Most (some exceptions) are just continuing to polish what they have been doing for years, as if stereo reproduction is as good as it gets. It isnt, in my opinion, not compared to live performance. While stereo ever so slowly and incrementally approaches the asymptote of inherent performance limitations, hi rez Mch is a game changer in terms of realistic sonic reproduction. Its not perfect, but it is way beyond any stereo I have heard regardless of price. I have heard quite a few systems that are many times more expensive and prestigious than my own.
Yes, music selection in stereo is orders of magnitudes greater than in Mch, but not in hi rez. For the past 5 years or more, most hi rez releases have been in Mch. For classical music (not other genres) there is a decent selection of very good Mch SACDs thousands and new releases keep coming. Maybe we will see a lot more once Blu-ray music gets cranked up. So, right now I am enjoying the thrill of rebuilding a disc collection in the Mch format. Though I have over 1,500 CDs and 2,500 LPs, stereo just has no more appeal to me. I no longer buy it and seldom listen to it. It just does not satisfy me anymore for serious listening, great as many performances in stereo are.
If you are curious, my system is:
Oppo 980 Universal player (evolving soon to Oppo BDP-83 on the early adopter program) via HDMI
Integra DTC 9.8 controller with Audyssey Pro 3.0 EQ
Krell KAS-2 monoblocks
Bryston Powerpac 120
2 Parasound Halo A23s
Martin Logan Prodigys, Claritys, Script is and a Stage
JL Audio Fathom f113 sub
Phono via Oracle Delphi, ET 2, Benz Ruby, PS Audio phono stage through Mark Levinson 380S line stage
PS Audio Powerplant Premier
Oh, yes, there is a Sony hi def TV, but 85% of my use of the system is with music, 95% of that classical.
I have also been in correspondence with my old friend Andy Quint, music reviewer for TAS. He is also heavily into Mch, and I am curious as to his high end, analog-centric Mch setup. Mine is, as you can see, based on a digital controller. Yes, it is a home theater piece, but I have discovered to my chagrin that our snobbish, high end attitudes toward home theater sound and Asian mass market gear are now totally wrong-headed. I used to be that way myself for a long time with justification. But, time marches on. Those home theater guys have made such rapid sonic progress in the last couple of years that it puts the high end utterly to shame, except perhaps in speakers and amps. And, price-wise what they can do for very little money is astounding. Anyway, Andy and I will also be exchanging listening sessions on each others systems in the near future.
Send me a PM. Id really like to show you what Ive got and how it sounds. It could change your life, as it has mine. Then again, it might not. You have to be the judge."
Great post, Fitz - Preach on, brother! (nt), posted on January 6, |
Amen to that John z, it was a 565 that got me going in mc music. |
Agree with Dgarretsson. And although running a stereo recording through a surround processor is not the same thing as listening to an actual surround mix on the disc, one of the few processors that gets it right in my experience is Meridian's Tri-field mode. But then you are already into big bucks with that rig.. |
Onhwy61 takes a nice approach in rationalizing the cost of building out mch around the nucleas of a high-end 2ch set-up, and in balancing the estimated cost of this upgrade against the limited availability of mch SACDs.
Alternatively, it would be possible to expand a high-quality 2ch SACD system into mch using budget-oriented equipment for the mch front-end and surround-channels. The question then becomes: would this be more satisfying than listening to SACD through a higher quality 2ch system?
There are probably more than a few 2ch devotees like myself who similarly experimented with the surround music-modes of HT processors added with mid-line amps and speakers on top a high-end 2ch audio-only system. Even with a good HT processor like Lexicon, the results sucked! So once bitten it's tough to contemplate returning to the idea without going all out. |
a recording is an inexact reproduction of reality. recording quality varies. why strive for a significant discrepancy from reality ? in fact there is no way to know what is embbeded on a recording. the content is unknown. therefore, how can you strive to reproduce that which is unknown ?
our hobby is essentially one of entertainment. thus, there is no definitive criterion for achieving the "optimum" level of entertainment. it is a purely subjective phenomenon.
i accept the concept of accuracy. it is an ideal which cannot be attained, as a stereo system is composed of components which are imperfect.
those who believe that "input=output" is the sole purpose of a stereo system are entitled to that opinion. unfortunately, there will never be an accurate system and it is difficult , if not impossible to quantify the inaccuracy of a stereop system, as the concept of accuracy is mult-dimensional.
i think that that trying to configure a multi channel stereo systemis just a manifestation of satisfying the taste of the listener, as tvad has stated. i don't consider any other significance to this endeavor. |
Onhwy61,
The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media.
Obviously, but that is as good as they can get. Nevertheless, the ideal is an excellent recording. Everyone constantly talks about "great" recording and "great" performances. When you get both it is thrilling. |
01-06-09: Onhwy61
The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media. I can't argue with that. One would hope a multi channel recording of an orchestra would place instruments in their proper place rather than having the gong in the right rear channel. At least that's what I would hope. On the other hand, if Roger Waters wants a dog to bark from the right rear channel on "Amused To Death", then that's an artistic choice I understand. Sound effects are an integral part of that recording, and it's the type or recording that could benefit from a multi-channel experience. |
Indeed. Very nice Onhwy61...well said.
Mig007, your thread has garnered 108 responses (and counting) - you struck a chord! Well done. |
the audiophile hobby endeavors to reproduce the live event, or so I believe Don't agree. The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media. The recording engineer and producer may, or may not, try to reproduce the live event. Audiophiles can only reproduce what has been recorded. There is no agreed upon standard for what to do with the rear (or side) channels with multi-channel audio. There are no technical reasons why any musical element couldn't be assigned to any individual channel. The decisions are aesthetic in nature. Some of the productions may appear to be natural, others not so. For a large body of popular music the distinction is irrelevant in that no single musical event ever really occurred. I've noticed in many of the replies that people have assigned the channel choice decision-making to the recording engineer. While that is possible, the more likely person in charge is the producer. There are exceptions, but for the most part recording engineers are technicians more concerned with the correct positioning of mics and avoiding level overload. The artistic vision of the music's ultimate presentation as heard by the public is usually determined by the producer. Regarding the original question -- for me it comes down to how much well recorded multi-channel music that I like is available. In order to match the quality of my existing 2 channel system I estimate it would take an additional $15k minimum investment in source components, processors, amps, speakers and cables. I extrapolate that to mean there has to be at least $15k in multi-channel music that I would also buy in the near future. Your system and your music collection should have some sense of balance, IMO. As pointed out by others that amount of music isn't available. So why even have a multi-channel music system? |
Check out his threads. Go the bottom one and see where that one goes. |
"What the hell are you talking about? Me (Tbg) and Tvad???"
My thoughts exactly when I read this.
LOL! |
Mig007, joined at the hip??? What the hell are you talking about? Me and Tvad???
But again I agree with Tvad. Your posting is insincere and ill-founded. Don't like being called on such then don't post. |
Guess you forgot this snide comment, which basically resorts to name calling.: 01-04-09: Mig007
Mr. Smuck, no, I won't attempt to cook your steak, but nice 'Vegas' effect with your system, or were you trying to imagine what a hi-fi system would look like on the 'Enterprise'. No one here ever stated that multi channel versions of older recordings were processed stereo mixes. If you came away with that impression, then you misunderstood what was written. To remix a recording into multi-channel by essentially laying the left and right tracks into the rear left and right channels but a a lower volume is a trick no matter how you describe it. This is what was observed by an owner of the "Blood on the Tracks" multi channel remix. Rather than the word trick, let's use the word technique. Nevertheless, no article on the mixing technique used on "Blood on the Tracks" was ever discovered or read, so we have no definitive answer to what was mixed into the surround channels. I believe I explained my use of the word trick many posts ago, yet you to choose to hang onto the word rather than learn from what I explained afterward. No progression in the discussion. That's the take-away here. That and your bitterness at multi channel being left behind to wither. |
