Multi channel much better than stereo?

Urban's respnse:
Ok now we are getting somewhere,thanks for all of good posts. Tireguy I'm sorry about the Adcom stuff (Mis-read an earlier set of posts ) I'm not a jerk who always thinks I'm right. I wanted to make a powerful statement "Your wrong" to get people writing. I would just like the "Stereo only" folks out there to consider this listening approach to music. Truth be told, right now I like my system better in stereo mode because we just moved and I have yet to build my new theater/sound room. (My HT is temporarily set up) My system before I ripped it all apart was, and will be set up soon again I hope, Martin Logans all around, Proceed AVP, Proceed amps, and runco projection. Set in a large room (18'X25') Now gentlemen hear me out, if you try to do both a HT & Audio room, in order to get the HT side to sound right you need to move the front speakers further apart. (About 10' for my system) Once you do this, stereo sound will not image correctly, you must then use the excellent processing ablities of today's newer pre-amps to compensate. Once you switch to the stereo surround mode, the center channel helps to lock down your sound stage, plus with good surrounds ( You should never know they are on while listening to music, so those of you who say the rear channels were annoying were not listening to a properly set up system.) they should add just enough to make the room "Come alive" which to me is exciting, and to all those I've demo the sytem for. If you are trying to listen to a multichannel disc/dvd on a system set up for stereo, of course it will sound terrible. If some of you "Stereo folks" ( I don't mean that badly either ) put as much energy into setting up a multi-channel system as you do with stereo, I think you would be shocked with your results and might just come to the same conclusions I have and will no longer be "Missing out". Now with that said, any further comments?

Hi Urban; after starting such a potentially inflammatory thread (actually two threads), I would think you should at least have the courtesy to follow it with an "IMO" (In My Opinion). But as is, you've sort of set yourself up as the "ultimate authority" on the subject(s), IMHO. That said, I agree with those who've said that multi-channel music does not sound "natural" to them for music. But I feel no need to dwell on this. Further, I'm sure that you're not the only person who has set up "good" stereo or HT systems-- that implication would be insulting to many two channel audiophiles as well as HT enthusiasts, IMO:>) Cheers. Craig.

as a supplement to my 2-channel rig, (completely out of the 2-channel signal-path when not in use, & when it *is* in use), i have set-up in my system an audio-only surround-sound processor - the jvc xpa-1010 digital acoustic processor. this unit has in it 20 programs made from acoustically mapping 20 different venues - concert halls, theatres, clubs, churches, outdoor venues. basically, what was done was to point 4 microfones outwards toward the corners, from a centrally-located position in the venue being mapped. so, what's being played-back is the ambient hall info from the particular venue that was being mapped. there are a multitude of adyustments for reverb, delay, the size of the room the system is set-up in, etc. while initial set-up is time-consuming, once it's done, there's not much fiddling inwolwed, except to switch from one venue to another.

imo, this is the *only* effective type of surround set-up for music. everything else is theatrics, w/no meaningful *real* soundstage info. but, i must say, it is now rarely activated, since i've gotten an excellent tubed preamp into my system - plenty of soundstage/hall info yust running the two main channels! ;~) it is nice for some recordings, like live-recordings, & when recordings were made in a real venue, as opposed to a studio. it is also nice, sometimes, for some less-than optimal fm radio broadcasts.

one persons' opinion, doug s.

I believe the intent of this post was to cause trouble, but I do think the multi-channel if handled well could be of interest. The SACD format has already got some labels recording in six channel DSD. If the SACD format continues, I believe we will begin to see audiophile grade "SOUND" systems on the market. I think video is a whole different application and personally interests me little. The idea of surround has always intrigued me since Quadraphonic systems of the 70's but I never personally pursue it. The six channel if recorded well and run through gear of the ilk that we all use is interesting. The cost of three more speakers, a sub-woofer and added amps would make it difficult for me to ever achieve a competitive system to my two channel, and that I believe will be the ultimate downfall in audio. Thus the market is in video/ multi-media and so I must agree with Stevens post, your on the wrong forum, please see Multi-media. J.D.

Urban, I like you are running Martin Logans for HT(I love Ht) but I also love Music. It took me a while to figure this out and with alot of help I got the best of both worlds. For HT I use my Lexicon DC-1. I also auditioned a BAT 3i tube preamp with my BAT vk200 and I must say my 2channel imo is out of this world, and much better than the surround mode. I believe my ht is setup properly cause when watching the Cell my wife and I had to keep pausing it cause we though someone was in the house. Watching U571 we thought are ht room turned in to a sub and the walls were falling in, kept looking over are heads for water leaks. On the patriot we almost were hit by bullets and cannon balls. So I am just a bit lost with where you were going with it. Not to affend you in anyway and I sincerely mean it, but you may want to look at upgrading your 2ch. Believe me, your ml can do better than what there doing now. Not to affend your amp but ML's like amps that double down to 2ohms. And balanced works great on them. IMHO
Pete