2 channel HT maybe more real?

steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,987
edited October 2003 in 2 Channel Audio
How many of you use your 2-channel stereo system for Home Theater? Are you satisfied with the results? I use mine in this way and love the way movies sound. Just can't imagine buying 5 speakers, heck...I only got 2 ears. Which brings up another point; don't you find it "unrealistic" to have sounds firing at you from behind? I mean, in real life sounds approach us head-on. Sure we hear reflected sound from behind, but isn't this exactly what Stereo does? Main sound from the front, reflected sound from all other sides...much like a concert hall.

Your take on this?
Post edited by steveinaz on

Comments

  • VR3VR3 Posts: 23,371
    edited October 2003
    Honestly, I like both 2 channel and 5 channel stereo.

    It is all how the CD/Movie was recorded. Beit 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 100, or a measly 2 channel recording, however many channels it was processed for is how many channels it's meant to be played through. Realistic or not. IMO of course.

    - SiD
    - Not Tom

    Vr3Mods.com ///// Version3Audio.com

    "No, that's silly talk. Dude, you can't possibly be this audio dumb so quit the act." - Doro
  • Loud & ClearLoud & Clear Posts: 1,538
    edited October 2003
    Are you saying that in 'real life' you can't hear anything directly behind you? Man, if I was ****, you'd be such an easy mark.

    Two Channel Setup:

    Speakers: Wharfedale Opus 2-3
    Integrated Amp: Krell S-300i
    DAC: Arcam irDac
    Source: iMac
    Remote Control: iPad Mini

    3.2 Home Theater Setup:

    Fronts: Klipsch RP-160M
    Center: Klipsch RP-160M
    Subwoofer: SVS PB12NSD (X 2)
    AVR: Yamaha Aventage RX-A2030
    Blu Ray: Sony BDP-S790
    TV Source: DirecTV Genie
  • Tour2maTour2ma Old School Posts: 10,176
    edited October 2003
    WAAAAAAAAAAA...

    HT effects are there to tell your ears what's sneaking up behind you... but yes, all my sources except DVD are set as stereo.
    More later,
    Tour...
    Vox Copuli
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Old English Proverb

    "It's easy to get lost in price vs performance vs ego vs illusion." - doro
    "There is a certain entertainment value in ripping the occaisonal (sic) buttmunch..." - TroyD
    "Death doesn't come with a Uhaul." - Dennis Gardner
  • CeruleanceCeruleance Posts: 991
    edited October 2003
    surround sound systems suck unless they are properly calibrated (all speakers equidistant) and have a good processor; Dolby Pro Logic sucks, DPL2 on the other hand is great.
  • Frank ZFrank Z Polk-a-dweeb Posts: 5,967
    edited October 2003
    Originally posted by Ceruleance
    surround sound systems suck unless they are properly calibrated (all speakers equidistant) and have a good processor; Dolby Pro Logic sucks, DPL2 on the other hand is great.
    A good processor (receiver or preamp) will allow you to set the appropriate delay based on speaker distance from the primary listening position. So it's not really an issue.

    Multi speaker systems are going to provide a much more realistic surround effect than a 2 channel system. I can't imagine watching a surround effect heavy film on a 2 channel only system, you just miss too much. Try watching U-571 on a 2 channel rig and then a 5.1 or better system, NIGHT and DAY fellas.
    9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET!! (<---<<click)
    2005-06 Club Polk Football Pool Champion!! :D
  • ohskigodohskigod Posts: 6,483
    edited October 2003
    i use a carver pro logic processor, but only for movies. for music i strictly use 2 channel format. i disagree with those that say pro logic sucks. my carver does a pretty good job making my movies sound great. I've listened to the digital formats and have not been impressed. maybe i've just heard bad demos or something.



    my system

    onkyo s535 DVD player
    Denon pra-100 preamp
    Rotel RB976 and (bridged 3 channel for mains and center)
    carver surround processor
    rta-12b = main
    Polk RT55i (one pair wired in a series) = center
    bose 501 ser V = surround

    no sub, i have a small room and really dont have the need for one yet.
    Theater - Polk 9500 surround bar. simple elegant win
    2 Channel -
    Anthem Pre 2l, Jolida JD100 CD player, CAL Sigma DAC, Carver m4.0, Polk LSi9 w external modified Crossovers (thanks Trey!)
  • gidrahgidrah Posts: 3,031
    edited October 2003
    I am currently running everything, including DVD in 2 channel stereo. Maybe someday I'll go back to 5.1 theater, but I'm not in a big hurry.
    Make it Funky! :)
  • organorgan Posts: 5,022
    edited October 2003
    I enjoy multi channel for HT. The only thing I don't like about 2ch HT is that you're missing a lot of dynamics and slam that you get in DD or DTS.

    Maurice
    CD Player: Original CD-A8T
    Receiver: Harman/Kardon HK3390
    Speakers: Polk Audio RT1000p
    "I would rather have a cup of tone than an ocean of power" **Dr. Harvey Rosenberg**
  • mantismantis Posts: 15,374
    edited October 2003
    OK,
    feeling the need over here...............

    Hello.........how things are recorded are how they should be playedback.........does anyone not agree with that????

    If a recording is recorded in 2 channel,you shouldn't replay it in 5 channel stereo,if a recording is recorded in 5.1 dolby digital,2 channel stereo isn't going to replay it correctly.

    Like it or not,things are suppost to be replayed the way they are meant to be....does it mean you have 2??Hell no do whatever you feel is right......but miss out you will.

    There is a reason for 8 channels,6 channels,2 channels(most common)Decide if you want to hear it or not.....

    Shaking my head,
    Dan:rolleyes:
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
  • Tour2maTour2ma Old School Posts: 10,176
    edited October 2003
    Ah, simplicity...

    So what's tough to handle is mono... :D
    More later,
    Tour...
    Vox Copuli
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Old English Proverb

    "It's easy to get lost in price vs performance vs ego vs illusion." - doro
    "There is a certain entertainment value in ripping the occaisonal (sic) buttmunch..." - TroyD
    "Death doesn't come with a Uhaul." - Dennis Gardner
  • organorgan Posts: 5,022
    edited October 2003
    Mono can sound good. I have a 1955 recording of Madama Butterfly in mono. As long as the atmosphere and dynamics is there, I'm happy:).

    Maurice
    CD Player: Original CD-A8T
    Receiver: Harman/Kardon HK3390
    Speakers: Polk Audio RT1000p
    "I would rather have a cup of tone than an ocean of power" **Dr. Harvey Rosenberg**
  • Frank ZFrank Z Polk-a-dweeb Posts: 5,967
    edited October 2003
    So why buy a receiver/preamp that has DPL, or any type of sound field processing at all. You shouldn't listen to anything unless it is in it's native format, what a crock!
    9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET!! (<---<<click)
    2005-06 Club Polk Football Pool Champion!! :D
  • organorgan Posts: 5,022
    edited October 2003
    Frank,
    Was that a response to my post? I was just saying that mono can still sound good. Of course stereo is light years ahead for music.
    I was just trying to make the point that some stuff still sounds good even in mono. What I heard on that CD was recorded almost 50 years ago and it sounds much better than I expected.

    Maurice
    CD Player: Original CD-A8T
    Receiver: Harman/Kardon HK3390
    Speakers: Polk Audio RT1000p
    "I would rather have a cup of tone than an ocean of power" **Dr. Harvey Rosenberg**
  • Frank ZFrank Z Polk-a-dweeb Posts: 5,967
    edited October 2003
    Maurice,
    Not at all! A general statement if you will. An earlier post stated that you should listen to 2 channel in 2 channel if that was how it was recorded, or multi-channel in multi-channel. I guess I need to go get a 16 channel rig...I just don't know where the hell I'm gonna set it up!

    FYI, Mono is what I expect from older movie soundtracks, but the great thing about having an anthem preamp is the ability to enhance those old mono tracks and fill the room with a multi channel sound track.

    It all boils down to what you like to listen to, and how you like to listen to it.

    Maurice, we're :cool:
    9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET!! (<---<<click)
    2005-06 Club Polk Football Pool Champion!! :D
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,987
    edited October 2003
    How does that theory stand-up to the fact that movies on DVD have a stereo track? My 3 beefs with surround:

    1. Expensive, even with "modest" equipment
    2. Engineers can't get stereo CD's right, what makes you think they'll do any better with surround via SACD or DVD-A?
    3. Unless you make some big bucks and have your house/livingroom built with HT surround in mind, you have to make concessions.
  • madmaxmadmax Posts: 12,438
    edited October 2003
    Frank Z,
    I am interested in your opinion here but don't understand your stand. Please elaborate...
    madmax

    Edit: I have not yet formed an opinion on this subject...
    Vinyl, the final frontier...

    Avantgarde horns, 300b tubes, thats the kinda crap I want... :D
  • organorgan Posts: 5,022
    edited October 2003
    Sorry about that Frank...my bad:). I bet that mono enhancement DSP must sound great on mono music too. Anthem stuff is too expensive for me even here in Canada:(. They're Canadian right?
    I can't wait to get back to multi channel. Still need another amp and a cheap receiver with pre outs. My mom gave me **** when I told her I wanted a projector. But somehow I have this strange feeling that one day it's going to suddenly appear in the house without her knowing:D.

    Maurice
    CD Player: Original CD-A8T
    Receiver: Harman/Kardon HK3390
    Speakers: Polk Audio RT1000p
    "I would rather have a cup of tone than an ocean of power" **Dr. Harvey Rosenberg**
  • Frank ZFrank Z Polk-a-dweeb Posts: 5,967
    edited October 2003
    Max,
    There's a time and a place for everything, That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. What I'm saing is that it doesn't make sense, to me at least, to listen to a 2 channel system while watching a movie with a multi-channel soundtrack. You miss out on a lot of great sound that really adds to the whole A/V experience of watching a movie. I've got nothing against anyone that isn't into multi-channel sound for a movie, but I bet they get a bigger kick out of going to a theater that is equiped with multiple speakers than they would from a theater that only has 2 speakers playing the sound track. I can't recall ever hearing someone say, as they left the theater, "Geeze that would have been a great movie if it hadn't been for all those surround effects, I think they need to yank out a bunch of speakers!" Two channel purists have their point of view regarding how best to listen to music, but that doesn't translate directly to a multi-channel movie sound track.

    Just because a piece of music was recorded in "2 channel" does not mean that you should listen to it that way and nothing else can or should be done. If there was not a demand for the various DPL/processing modes, the manufacturers wouldn't be selling equipment with the capablity to create a multi-channel environment from a 2 channel source. How many pure 2 track recordings are actually produced anymore? Most studios use multiple tracks for any recording, but that doesn't mean that we should all invest in 8/16/or 24 track processing gear.


    Steve asked for opinions, and a lot of people have post theirs. No harm no foul, until someone makes a blanket statement that doesn't stand up to a bit of a closer look.

    1. Expensive, even with "modest" equipment
    2. Engineers can't get stereo CD's right, what makes you think they'll do any better with surround via SACD or DVD-A?
    3. Unless you make some big bucks and have your house/livingroom built with HT surround in mind, you have to make concessions.

    Expensive is a relative term, A decent HT system doesn't have to cost a fortune. I'll bet almost everyone here started with a bare bones system that was adequate for their needs and budget at the time.

    Enginners can't get it right? Not slammin ya, but I don't understand this comment. I'm sure Alan Parsons would beg to differ. As far as I can tell he really did a magical job on DSOTM. Clarify this one for me, I'm a little slow...ask anyone! ;)


    Consessions, of course. I could have spent a lot more than I did to make my HT more "Theater Like," but it's a Home Theater. I get the benifits of going to the movies by just walking down a few stairs. When the lights go down, I'm at the movies!!
    9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET!! (<---<<click)
    2005-06 Club Polk Football Pool Champion!! :D
  • Dr. SpecDr. Spec Posts: 3,780
    edited October 2003
    7.1 for HT = indispensable.

    DSOTM SACD 5.1 = masterpiece.

    2.1 for CD = still completely satisfying too.
    "What we do in life echoes in eternity"

    Ed Mullen ([email protected])
    Director - Technology and Customer Service
    SVS
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,987
    edited October 2003
    Originally posted by Frank Z
    ...
    Enginners can't get it right? Not slammin ya, but I don't understand this comment. I'm sure Alan Parsons would beg to differ. As far as I can tell he really did a magical job on DSOTM. Clarify this one for me, I'm a little slow...ask anyone! ;)

    No doubt there are some fine CD's out there, problem is they are the serious minority. The more resolute your system gets, the more medicore CD's sound horrible. The music recording industry is all about making big bucks anymore, not about properly engineering and making "audiophile" grade recordings, especially in the popular music segment. Out of my 680 CD's, maybe 10 truly exploit how good CD's can sound. One of my favorites, that reminds me how good my system can sound, is Donald Fagen's "Nightfly." If all recordings could be done this well, SACD and DVD-A wouldn't exist.
  • mhw58mhw58 Posts: 359
    edited October 2003
    I have the dvd audio of The Nightfly and I'll never listen to
    it in stereo again. The 5:1 mix of the Nightfly is fantastic.
    I have lots of dvd audios and dts cd's and I love 5:1 music.
    Sure, some of them are not mixed very well and might sound
    better in stereo but when 5:1 music is done right, it blows away
    stereo IMO. I can't imagine watching movies in stereo either.
    Modern dts movies are incredible in 5:1.
    Mono fans were slow to warm up to stereo, same thing is
    going on here. 5:1 music and movies are here to stay.
    Mike
    Fronts: SDA1C's
    Rears: SDA2's
    Center:CS400i
    Sub: PSW505
  • mantismantis Posts: 15,374
    edited October 2003
    Everyone has there opnion about how and why.

    The Question about is 2 channel good enough for HT???? well only to the people who like it that way.I say no.

    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
  • TroyDTroyD Posts: 12,638
    edited October 2003
    Originally posted by steveinaz
    How does that theory stand-up to the fact that movies on DVD have a stereo track? My 3 beefs with surround:

    1. Expensive, even with "modest" equipment
    2. Engineers can't get stereo CD's right, what makes you think they'll do any better with surround via SACD or DVD-A?
    3. Unless you make some big bucks and have your house/livingroom built with HT surround in mind, you have to make concessions.

    I'm going to go along with this as I've always believed in quality over quantity.

    For a movie 5.1 soundtrack all things being equal, sure a full surround setup will be more entertaining. All things being equal (write that down). NOW, having said that, ask me if I would rather listen to a movie through, oh, JUST my LSi9's or some crappy HTiB setup? See where I'm going here? Just because there are more channels doesn't mean it is going to sound better.

    Generally speaking, surround formats HAVE a stereo version as well or at least are backward compatable so you can hear it anyway you like and you really aren't *missing* anything.

    Also, I agree that CD's still have at lot of room for improvement as it is and they have been out for 20 years. I think that the multi channel (SACD, DVD-A or whatever) will have a similar learning curve (hopefully abbreviated by lessons learned) so I'm not all hell fire about jumping on the bandwagon. There is still a lot of life left in good ole 2.0.

    BDT
    I plan for the future. - F1Nut
  • mantismantis Posts: 15,374
    edited October 2003
    TroyD,
    NOW, having said that, ask me if I would rather listen to a movie through, oh, JUST my LSi9's or some crappy HTiB setup? See where I'm going here? Just because there are more channels doesn't mean it is going to sound better.

    I will agree with that as HTIB's pretty much suck for sound quality.I would rather have higher end 2 channel then one of those systems.BUT.....

    What about having the Lsi9's in the front,LsiC,Lsi9's for rears?Sub of your choice,which way would you listen to a 5.1 movie with this setup?

    Dan
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
  • VR3VR3 Posts: 23,371
    edited October 2003
    I listen to my movies through TV speakers at the moment...does that count as a high quality 2 channel rig? Thats HTITV!

    EDIT:

    Personally, I like my Movies in regular DPII, and my music in 5 channel or 2 channel stereo. Just my personal preference.
    - Not Tom

    Vr3Mods.com ///// Version3Audio.com

    "No, that's silly talk. Dude, you can't possibly be this audio dumb so quit the act." - Doro
  • TroyDTroyD Posts: 12,638
    edited October 2003
    Originally posted by mantis
    TroyD,

    What about having the Lsi9's in the front,LsiC,Lsi9's for rears?Sub of your choice,which way would you listen to a 5.1 movie with this setup?

    Dan


    It's a dumb question. IF I went through the time and effort and expense to get all this stuff how do you think I'm going to listen to it? I agree that surround is entertaining (notice I didn't say more realistic) but, as I said, quality over quantity. Now, if you asked if I had to choose between the LSi's and the Amazings? Amazings allday allabout.

    I take it the move went well? Already got the computer hooked up and so forth? Good deal.

    BDT
    I plan for the future. - F1Nut
  • mantismantis Posts: 15,374
    edited October 2003
    Long weekend now ,still and so forth.Moving sucks and is cool all in the same breath.I'll let you know how it goes by next weekend,but thanks for asking.....O so many boxes!!!!

    The house looks fantastic.After we start unpacking things,I will snap some pic's.

    The Amazing's huh,well we all like what we like.Preferences and all.They look nice in your room,I saw the pic's.Cool man I know you always dug em....good for you.;)
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
  • mhw58mhw58 Posts: 359
    edited October 2003
    Originally posted by mantis
    TroyD,


    I will agree with that as HTIB's pretty much suck for sound quality.I would rather have higher end 2 channel then one of those systems.BUT.....

    What about having the Lsi9's in the front,LsiC,Lsi9's for rears?Sub of your choice,which way would you listen to a 5.1 movie with this setup?

    Dan

    I think we would all agree that HTIB sucks!!!! I have SDA1C's
    as my fronts and SDA2's as my rears with a CS400i center so
    5:1 rocks. You have to have good speakers all around to appreciate 5:1. I've played the Nightfly dvd-audio by Donald
    Fagen and the new Steely Dan Everything must go dvd audio
    to people and they are blown away. The Beatle Anthology dvd
    5:1 mixes are fantastic. Have you all heard 'I am the walrus'
    in 5:1? Do you still want to hear it in stereo?
    Mike
    Fronts: SDA1C's
    Rears: SDA2's
    Center:CS400i
    Sub: PSW505
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!