Such a deep topic I figured lets go down the rabbit hole.

mantis

Whats up everyone? Hope your new year is starting better then mine. I have been sick for over a week with a bad head cold that just won't go away.
I have been reading over the HDMI thread and figured I'd let that die out and start a new wire debate or journey as many of you have questions , some have answers and some have very strong opinion and following of certain brands.

My goal here is to talk about all things 2 channel and what makes it tick for you and how to improve it. 2nd goal is to talk about theater and how that could be improved.
So as lined out in my goals , I'll start here with 2 channel music and go as far as we can without getting into fights about what is and what who don't know what. I'd rather talk about your experience , why you feel as you do and maybe someone like us and others could learn more from our collective experiences with all things 2 channel including the ever so fun topic of wire.

I'll begin with a brief history of myself for those who don't know who I am and those who do can just skip over the next Paragraph.

I am a Custom In Home Audio Video Installer / Programmer.I have been in the business of over 12 years and have a wealth of knowledge when it comes to all things of our hobby. I'm not the be all end all or anything like that. I am a professional who has had countless training and experience. I have worked for 4 different companies who range from mid fi to ultimate high end the best of the best if you will. I have Installed systems from 5k to 750k both 2 channel and theater. I have also installed whole house systems that cost more then most peoples houses. Over the years I have also become a programmer and I done from simple Universal remote , pronto , Lexicon , Niles to whole house Elan , Control 4 , Crestron , Phast , AMX and now Savant. All of these avenues of experience has taught me a lot about our hobby as I have no passion greater then music and movies. I have been a musician since I was 9 years old all the way back in 1979.( yes that makes me 40 , please don't rub that in as I'm not a huge fan of 40).

So lets begin 2 channel. What does it mean to be 2 channel? Why would one want only 2 channels when there is available 5.1 , 7.1 and beyond today with height and width channels? I will apologize now as I don't know everything about everything as I learn more each and every single day from my work , customers who have been in this longer then myself , engineers who design this stuff , people like you reading this who have a passion like I do. I feel together we can learn a deeper understanding of a 2 channel system and why everyone on this forum owns what they own to get that "fix" if you will.

So whoever wants to chime in and start a journey I'm all eyes and ears. I would like to talk about the entire chain of events that happen from the media to the ear. Everything that it takes to make it happen , what you have learned to do this the very best way you know how. We can talk about why RCA is around and how it takes it's place in our hobby. XLR and why it is used and why it is not. Vinyl and tapes , cd's and hard drives how al these things fit into the puzzle. Where our hobby is going , what you see in the future not just in general but in your own journey to Audio perfection.

nooshinjohn

Greaty Karma! I'm all in:biggrin:....

I left the two channel world almost 20 years ago in favor of multi-channel, and was an early adopter of the then "new" AC-3 format, and I loved every minute of it. I came back to two channel and vinyl in particular because of my SDA's. I would have never rediscovered them were it not for this place. :cool:

hoosier21

We are blessed to have you here Dan.

mantis

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Greaty Karma! I'm all in....

Basically I was thinking about the arguments about wire does and don't make a different , the strong feelings some have and some don't . Why people want to point out super high priced wire and why someone should not buy it but with no back story or history or why. I find to many threads go with no answers but more questions. I'd like to set all that aside and start fresh here. All our welcome to chime in and add to the journey. Help me help you if you will. I have hit many road blocks in my time in the field where some don't exactly tell you want you wanna know , hear or learn. The man behind the curtain if you will.

I want to talk about tubes and why one would select them over solid state amps or the new ICE amps. As a musician I prefer making my guitar music with tubes as I get the tone I hear in my head to come out the speakers. but when I play a Piano or electric piano I like the sound I get from a solid state amp like a Rolland JC 120 . It's a beautiful thing and work of timeless art.

mhardy6647

Good mono can be pretty darned satisfying as well.

mantis

hoosier21 wrote: »

We are blessed to have you here Dan.

Thank you every much as I also feel the same way about you.

nooshinjohn

I am all for that Dan. I have always been a bit puzzled by more than a few things in this hobby. For one, I would think that by now, solid state amp design would have progressed to the point where tube amps would truly be obsolete, but on just about every system I have heard, tubes always seem to come out on top. Until recently, I would have been in the "whatever" camp on power cables, but the demo that has been going around, and now my own experience with the PS Audio AC-5 cables have convinced me otherwise. This is a great topic for discussion... Thanks!

BlueFox

In regard to two-channel, the Living Stereo SACDs sometimes describe how the original tapes were really recorded in three-channel (L, C, R). However, stereo was just getting introduced to the home consumer at that time (late 50s), and people were reluctant to have 2 speakers, let alone 3, in their living room. So, the tapes were down-mixed to two channel. Today, the Living Stereo SACDs allow the original recordings to be heard as they were actually recorded in the 50s with all three speakers in use.

So, there is nothing sacred about two-channel. It simply reflects the times. If today's technology existed at that point in time, then multi-channel would be the norm. After all, sound reflects, and what we hear in the real world comes from all directions. Not just from the left front, and right front.

mantis

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I am all for that Dan. I have always been a bit puzzled by more than a few things in this hobby. For one, I would think that by now, solid state amp design would have progressed to the point where tube amps would truly be obsolete, but on just about every system I have heard, tubes always seem to come out on top. Until recently, I would have been in the "whatever" camp on power cables, but the demo that has been going around, and now my own experience with the PS Audio AC-5 cables have convinced me otherwise. This is a great topic for discussion... Thanks!

Don't feel bad I'm probably just as puzzled as you are maybe more as I get different answers depending on who I talk to .
Solid state amp design got to be as good as it's going to get as it seems we could possibly be moving into a different direction with amp designs like ICE . Class D , and maybe something Bob Carver is whipping up in his living room as his wife is telling him she doesn't want to see it but perform.
Power cables where and still are a shock to me. When I started playing around with them , I heard tonal differences in my system where I never thought possible. Maybe I was fooled by how damn cool they look. I had a Kimber Cable Power cord first and was thrilled just to touch it.

I think these topic's have a lot to be talked about as many in here have a wealth of experience.

treitz3

The only thing Bob is doing is working on tube amps. His thoughts, patents and current [as of September of last year] workings are already on somebody else and have nothing to do with him. He's all about building tube amps now.

That said, great thread and I'll chime in a bit later with my thoughts...

mhardy6647

A reasonable facsimile of a three-dimensional wavefront may be reproduced by the superposition of two channels of sound information emanating from two point sources. This is the basis of stereo (the word is Greek and means solid) sound.

In fact, it was common for early stereo systems to include a third, center channel (derived from the stereo channels mixed to mono) and many, many commercial amplifiers and even some receivers had built in center channel outputs (e.g., the EICO ST-40 and ST-70 stereo integrated amplifiers, the HH Scott 222C stereo amplifier). Prevailing wisdom suggests that this was to fill in the "hole in the middle" resulting from poor MR and HF dispersion of some 1950s and early 1960s loudspeaker designs.

Paul Klipsch fully intended for the best stereo implementation of his statement "Klipschorn" corner horns would include a center channel, and by all appearances he designed the Cornwall (so named because its bass reflex cabinet permitted placement in a Corner or along a Wall without sacrificing LF performance) as the center channel for a pair of K-horns! The Heresy could also be so used.

There is very little new under the hifi sun.

Fongolio

mhardy6647 wrote: »

In fact, it was common for early stereo systems to include a third, center channel (derived from the stereo channels mixed to mono) and many, many commercial amplifiers and even some receivers had built in center channel outputs (e.g., the EICO ST-40 and ST-70 stereo integrated amplifiers, the HH Scott 222C stereo amplifier). Prevailing wisdom suggests that this was to fill in the "hole in the middle" resulting from poor MR and HF dispersion of some 1950s and early 1960s loudspeaker designs.

As a person using a still un-modified Eico ST-70 which has the center channel option, I can say that with modern loudspeakers (SDA-1C's) this integrated amp images better than any solid state I've heard yet. Using only two channels center images are rock solid and breathtakingly real. This is an amp built in 1961.

Knucklehead

Although Im 44 years old Ive only been "interested" in better audio fror about 3 or 4 years. HTIB was always just fine with me until I heard a friends Polk system about 2 years ago, so yeah, Im hardley an audiophile, still very much a newb. Ive been in the electronics field for a better part of 20 years so I have a general understanding of the electronics part of it. My current Ht rig is the best Ive ever had and so much more can be improved upon. Because I dont have a dedicated listening room if you will, I decided to put together a vintage 2 channel for my office which sounds much better for music than my Ht rig. I guess the good thing about being where Im at in this journey is I still have so much to learn and experience. Club Polk has been very good to me and Ive enjoyed the ride.

David

mhardy6647

speaking of immature (or ahead of its time) technology... there was always "quad". :-)





QS and SQ matrix, CD-4 ("compatible, discrete", MPX true 4-channel quad from records), discrete quad tape, the Hafler "Dynaquad" ambience recovery scheme... :-)

John K.

Dan, I'll comment on your "why only 2 channels" question. The first point is that there's a huge amount of material that's been recorded using just two channels and which can bring great listening pleasure. It should be emphasized , however, that these days there's no good reason to voluntarily limit yourself to listening to these recordings using only two front speakers. Typically at a concert the audience hears a higher proportion of sound as reflected ambience from directions other than the front. The mikes picked this up in varying amounts and it was then mixed into the two front channels(not a matter of choice, there was no place else to put it).

Now, processing such as DPLII can detect the phase differences in this ambient material, extract it from the front channels, and send it to the surrounds where it belongs(nothing "artificial" is added), making the home listening experience a little more realistic. I always listen to 2-channel source material in surround sound, and assuming that the budget allows for a quality surround setup(if not initially, at least as a later upgrade), this is the realistic way to enjoy music using the benefits of modern audio technology.

Pycroft

^^^Reported^^^

fishbones

Funny, I have an old Lafayette sitting right behind me on a shelf for future use somewhere. Just 2-channel though. Sorry for the derail, carry on...(haven't figured where I'd chime into this one - awfully broad subject, but cool)

Fongolio

I love aspects of both 2 channel and multi channel surround HT. I have a very extensive collection of multi channel SACD, DVD-Audio, and DTS music disks. All were intended as multi channel surround. Some I really like. For example The Blue Man Group The Complex. This is an amazing surround music disk. Others which were recorded in both multi channel and two channel I prefer the stereo versions. Some just seem more suited to just two channels, however stuff like Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon screams to be heard in multi channel and was in fact originally recorded in both stereo and discrete four channel. If you've never heard it, do yourself a favor and listen to this masterwork in surround. It will impress.

As for home theater, I only watch movies at home in 5.1. Older movies with stereo sound tracks I will dumb down to two channel. I believe surround in modern movies totally enhances the experience and makes it very much like the intended theater experience. I've tried 7.1 but after several months felt the extra two rear speakers weren't really adding a lot to the overall experience and went back to 5.1 and saved the real estate space the extra two speakers were taking out of my HT room.

Back to two channel music again, I equally embrace digital and analog. I have a wonderful sounding Rotel cd player that is modded for tube output (including gain stage) as well as a music server on my computer that plays lossless files (including 192/24) through a dac and out to my two channel setup (currently an Eico tube integrated amp with an ADC Paraequalizer in the tape loop). Each format has it's distinct traits and advantages and disadvantages. At the end of the day though more often that any other I go to vinyl playback as my choice for music listening. The music server with dac has amazing imaging and soundstage width and depth but lacks the smoothness and presence of vinyl. The Rotel cd player comes closer to the tubey analog sound but lacks the wide and deep soundstage of the music server.

I'm kind of rambling here but I guess I'm trying to say I feel each format and each type of presentation system ( two channel, multichannel) has it's merits and it's drawbacks. I enjoy them all from time to time.

I'm hoping this was the kind of discussion the op was intending.

I almost forgot about mono. I feel mono has it's place as well. Nothing ruins a good mono recording like a bad stereo version of a good mono. Take the first several Bob Dylan albums. I've got some mono re-issues that sound great but when I've heard stereo versions they just suck. Most of the early stuff was Bob playing guitar and harmonica and singing. All pretty much in the center. No stereo imaging necessary. But in the stereo versions the guitar is on one side, the harmonica on the other and Bob's singing in the middle. WTF? Or the early Beatles where Ringo's drums are panned hard to one side. Every live performance I've seen had him in the middle behind the band. There are a few that work well both ways, Dave Brubeck's Take Five for example. I have versions of both and either sounds very good. Mono still has it's place in today's music reproduction world.

mdaudioguy

John K. - Try as I might, I can't listen to more than a couple songs in DSP modes such as DPLII. It never ends up sounding realistic to me, but rather, gimmicky and artificial. Some are better than others, though, IMO. I had a Yamaha receiver with Circle Surround II, and I preferred that over all the Dolby and DTS modes. Anyhow, I always found myself switching back to stereo, as I eventually found DSP to be fatiguing. But, as they say, to each his own! Enjoy.

tonyb

I'll comment on Dans statement that some threads wind up with more questions than answers.
True...because in alot of cases,their is no right answer. Whats right is what sounds good to you, regardless of how you get there.
2 channel ? Call me old school, but when I go to a concert,or sitting at a blues bar with a sax playing 5 ft in front of me, I like that the sound comes from the front, bounces off the walls, much like we take our own rooms into consideration when setting up a system. Wouldn't have the same effect if that Sax was playing behind me. You have a better feeling of presence in 2 channel, you can place the instruments on stage. You have a breath of realism that I don't experience in 5.1 music. Thats just me though.
HT- I guess everyone wants to experience what they hear and feel in the movie theaters. What most don't get is that in the theater,your listening at higher db's than you would at home. Ever turn your HT up to reference level at home only to have the wife say, "Honey,can you turn that down please?" Then you lost the realism you sought from the movie theater. We can get into the size of the theater verse the size of your room at home, but I'm talking everything equal as far as sound pressure levels. I also find alot of people want that movie theater sound but buy small systems and stick them in big rooms, expecting great results. Also under powering their home theater is an issue in many threads. Kinda like I want a Corvette system but I only want to spend Ford Focus coin. Now, I'm not saying you have to spend big coin for good sound, but you get my drift. In a nutshell, I guess the best thing to do with 2 channel or HT is to experiment, find what works for you, what gear sounds good to you, there is no right and wrong. If you never drive anything but that old Gremlin, you'll always think it's the crown jewel of auto's.

TORI3

mantis wrote: »

Why would one want only 2 channels when there is available 5.1 , 7.1 and beyond today with height and width channels?

I can’t add anything in terms of history or the technical nitty-gritty’s of 2 channel, but subjectively speaking, I find myself spending much more time listening in stereo in comparison to 3.1, 5.1, or 7.1.

I have a 2-channel setup and a small media room (5.1), but find that having the 2-channel in the living room is just more accessible, convenient, and intrinsically apart of my life. I don’t consider myself an “audiophile” by any means, but I definitely have music playing through the house the majority of the day. Plus, aesthetically, 5.1 wouldn’t fly whereas stereo is physically minimal and (sort of) out of the way in the living room.

BlueFox's statement mirrors my feelings in a weird way.

BlueFox wrote: »

However, stereo was just getting introduced to the home consumer at that time (late 50s), and people were reluctant to have 2 speakers, let alone 3, in their living room.

wayne3burk

... and what about those cool pioneer reverb units of the early to mid 80's with the tunnelling psychadelic displays???

what was the whole reverb idea all about anyways?

i'm just saying

mhardy6647

wayne3burk wrote: »

... and what about those cool pioneer reverb units of the early to mid 80's with the tunnelling psychadelic displays???

what was the whole reverb idea all about anyways?

i'm just saying

Recreational pharmacology was rampant.
I'm just sayin'...

Face

Multi-channel music is a cacophony of sound.

wayne3burk

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Recreational pharmacology was rampant.
I'm just sayin'...

I was thinking the same thing about the merits of the 70's "Quadraphonic" phenomenon. I vaguely remember an Edgar Winter tune that used the Quadraphonic technology to great effect.

jinjuku

I like the fact that more and more BR concert titles are coming out. What I don't like is that I had to make a compromise in my 5.1 with in-walls for the surrounds.

I would love to have a room like Professor Xavier's in the X-Men but it would be all speakers. Speakers on the X-Y-Z axis.

Ricardo

Multichannel is the greatest invention ever for movies. bullets ricocheting, helicopters flying by.....you name it. Those hardcore 2 channel (or 2.1) movies people just don't have the space/money or have never heard it before (or are deaf)

But for music? 2 channel. I have a 7.1 setup and whenever I listen to music there it's in 2 channel. Even multichannel capable SACD's.

heiney9

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I am all for that Dan. I have always been a bit puzzled by more than a few things in this hobby. For one, I would think that by now, solid state amp design would have progressed to the point where tube amps would truly be obsolete, but on just about every system I have heard, tubes always seem to come out on top. Until recently, I would have been in the "whatever" camp on power cables, but the demo that has been going around, and now my own experience with the PS Audio AC-5 cables have convinced me otherwise. This is a great topic for discussion... Thanks!

Problem is to do SS correctly it's a can be very expensive, relatively speaking, so the average Joe isn't going to spend $3-5K on a 2-channel amp unless they are invested and well versed in this hobby. A good tube amp (not an inexpensive Chinese piece) costs about the same, perhaps a little less, but not if you are comparing apples to apples.

There are some excellent to superb SS pieces out there but they are the exception and because tubes are affordable and more en-vogue, it seems they are more popular. If you look beyond Club Polk I'm not so sure tubes are as popular as you think especially outside the hardcore 2-channel guys.

Overseas manufacturing and overseas willingness to flood the market with tubes and tube gear has made it more accessible. Just like SS there are a lot of "dogs" out there in the tube world.

In the end tubes are fun to play with, but for my serious 2-channel I'll take a very well designed SS amp and tube pre-amp everytime.

H9

Ricardo

heiney9 wrote: »

In the end tubes are fun to play with, but for my serious 2-channel I'll take a very well designed SS amp and tube pre-amp everytime.

Like a Pass-Belles combo. :cool:

heiney9

Ricardo wrote: »

Like a Pass-Belles combo. :cool:

Yep, or a Pass-Dared combo :cool:

heiney9

Fongolio wrote: »

As a person using a still un-modified Eico ST-70 which has the center channel option, I can say that with modern loudspeakers (SDA-1C's) this integrated amp images better than any solid state I've heard yet. Using only two channels center images are rock solid and breathtakingly real. This is an amp built in 1961.

It's more about what the SDA's do than the amp. Even when I used all SS gear I had a rock solid, 3-D image. Don't get me wrong my current Pass amp with a tube pre took it even farther, but the SDA's are creating a lot of that rather than the gear. I'd say 70% SDA and 30% gear.

H9