Traditionalist or Progressive; 2-channel or Surround processing?

tat

I am generally firmly in the traditionalist camp. History shows time and time again "great advances" can turn out to be utter failures in short order. Sadly the "advancement" in performance often turns out to be exagerrated (even unintentionally) bc of other "assets" like reduced cost and increased profits skewing perceptions. Marketing is in love with "new and improved" bc the general public eats it up. "Innovation worship" is what I call it; newer inherently equals better, an (often unconscious) tendency, likely strengthened by a vague analogy to evolution, or the worship of health and youth in contemporary Western culture. In real life, things occassionally evolve right into extinction, while the more "primitive" incarnations live on; evolution/innovation is not nec'y synonomous with improvement or progress at all. Thankfully innovations do occassionally live up to, and even surpass the expectations of their initial proponents. So.....I am hoping to instigate some discussion on 2-channel stereo vs. multi-channel set-ups (and specific programs).

I am wondering who prefers traditional 2-channel audio/stereo, and who prefers various incarnations of digital surround sound processing. What are the pros and cons of each? Further, I am wondering which specific digital processing is preferred for specific sources (movies, concerts, sports, studio albums, mono recordings (esp. jazz), rock, classical, opera, should I add video games? lol Where will having more than 2 channels be likely to really improve my experience?

I just bought a Yamaha RX-V2400 for my father and am wondering if it is worth my time to feed the beast...7.1 channels. I have little experience with multi-channel home systems, and it will be significant work to get it going right (equipt.; placement; wiring; logistics; etc.). I know the technology can be quite impressive in the right venue. Perhaps 4 or 5 channels is just as good in a smallish 15' x 20' room? So I wouldn't need to buy additional speakers (except center channel I guess).

I am firmly in the traditionalist camp generally speaking. I prefer tubes to transistors, steel to fiberglass, film to video, hand-animation or even models/miniatures to green screen/digital manipulation, analog to digital, conversations to texting, you get the point. I'm only 40, so my preference isnt merely bc I was accustomed to the old way for years, and have a closed mind that refuses to give the new stuff a chance. Many of my preferences are for techniques given-up years before my birth.
I still find many digitally produced recordings truly unlistenable. Not nec'y bc of lower fidelity of digital vs analog, as much as the copy/pasted, fragmented quality to the end product. It has jagged edges and is incapable of smoothly swinging. Perhaps it is the miniscule variations in human timing/rythym/syncopation that rings true to my ear vs. the "perfect", yet souless, timing of digital manipulation.

I have found multi-channel reproduction of movies (vs. films) quite titilating, even mind-blowing. But I also tend to turn those types of movies off in the first 10 minutes bc I already have figured out what will happen in the remaining 1:30 by then (formula derived blockbusters), and special effects alone will not keep my attn! So is it worth someone like me's time to investigate all these bells and whistles in a mid-priced 120wpc Yamaha 7.1 reciever or should I stick to the tried and true, ooozing with soul and character, Golden Age technology? I did enjoy some of the Yamaha's bells and found them quite an improvement over past experiences with similar programs. For example, various theatre acoustics simulations for live albums, but its still a novelty for sure. Is "7-channel" stereo (for music) preferred to quality 2-channel by anybody? On "Dark Side of the Moon" perhaps?

Are you swimming against the current like me, floating with the current like a dead fish, or pushing the current forward, so to speak?

Nightfall

I have both in the same setup. Music, on my setup, never touches an AVR. I do enjoy the surround sound, mostly for video games.

mikeyb128

I was obsessed with home theater for years, and I have a monstrosity of a home theater setup. I occasionally, and I mean very occasionally listen to music on it, and when I do, I prefer it with audyssey XT32 on. I run a 7.2 system, and honestly I find myself turning it up loud for movies less and less. Blu Ray concerts or DVD concerts are played in multi channel because it sounds so good that way, but my theater just doesn't do two channel playback as well as my 2 channel system.

I prefer my 2 channel system much more, it's simple, sounds better, no processing, some sweetness of tubes, and I love little tweaks to make it slightly better.

Home theater is easy, and you don't have to spend a lot to get it to sound good. 2 channel on the other hand is another story. But when you get it right it is so much more rewarding, but easy to get obsessed over, especially tubes, must have spent a grand till I found the right combo.

I'm open minded, young, and I love to try new things. I must have powered through every modern polk speaker in my theater with a half dozen receivers over the past ten years. Always chasing the newest bells and whistles. If I could go back in time I would have spent more time in the 2 channel realm, as I have only recently really got going with it. My 2 channel system sounds different every month, I've found myself swapping this and that, upgrading and seeking perfection with small tweaks. I LOVE it and love this hobby.

Not swimming against the current, I believe in cables, subs in 2 channel systems, the effect of isolation, clean power, and maybe even those rocks you place on top of your amps for vibration. And Recently I crafted cable risers out of oak and I swear my system sounds a little smoother.... I'm friggen losing it maaaan!

mhardy6647

one guess.

080 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

[Deleted User]

mhardy6647 wrote: »

one guess.

080 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Wow! That's a whole lot of gear.

mhardy6647

... yeah, but only the good stuff is routinely hooked up.

tat

Are those Klipsch designed speakers?

Looks like there arent many serious listeners who prefer multiple channels to good quality 2 channel for performance anyway. I guess any advances have been at least equaled by 2-channel audio. I'm sure for specific programs good multiples can outperform though.
I dont think movies is enough reason for me to make multiple system a priority, especially in a room/decor that isnt an easy transition. I watch mostly TCM where it wont help much lol.

CGTIII

Since I began using the repaired M10A's, I've discovered the value of my Yamaha AVR's Pure Direct mode for 2-channel. Now that's all I want to use for video or music. Earlier even with lesser Polks, such as the M4's with Peerless and RT55's, Pure Direct didn't seem to make much of a difference. So the M10A's are that much better, or my "Polk ears" are getting better, or some of both.

honestaquarian

SDA's in a home theater lend well to both two channel and multichannel listening for movies and music

honestaquarian

Welcome to the rabbit ho...............I mean forum❕

[Deleted User]

"I am generally firmly in the traditionalist camp."
I skipped the rest of your article.
If God wanted us to listen to 5.1 he would have given
us horse ears that call pivot.

tonyb

We all have our own preferences on how we enjoy music, nothing new there. Each has it's merits.

Many of us have been on that merry-go round of formats. 2 channel, quad, 5.1, HT and all that offers. We usually settle somewhere in the middle either with separate systems for HT and 2 channel, or one system to handle both.

Tell ya what though, from what I see, more people than not come full circle back to 2 channel for musical enjoyment.

cortico

there is some beauty and simplicity in 2 Chanel stereo systems that I appreciate, I am a big fan of 70's rigs and I basically only listen CD and LP.

codycatalist

2 Channel for music, processing for HT in my household. I rarely play music on my AVR for various reasons...mostly because my SDAs are connected to it =P.

codycatalist

tonyb wrote: »

We all have our own preferences on how we enjoy music, nothing new there. Each has it's merits.

Many of us have been on that merry-go round of formats. 2 channel, quad, 5.1, HT and all that offers. We usually settle somewhere in the middle either with separate systems for HT and 2 channel, or one system to handle both.

Tell ya what though, from what I see, more people than not come full circle back to 2 channel for musical enjoyment.

There is NOTHING like true stereo reproduction...obviously in my opinion.

afterburnt

I get a real kick out of my 9.2 system for hi rez multi channel recordings, in fact this system generally sounds better in multi channel than two channel. However I do more two channel listening on this system because I have way more two channel material.

pitdogg2

I have both and I love some of the multi-channel SACD's.

cfrizz

I utilize all of my speakers for both music and movies, I like the fullness of the sound. I only have one system for both.

The only time I have 2.1 channels sound is if I'm listening to my TL3's playing music on my pc.

voltz

I prefer 2 channel always, and HT or multi-channel music can not compare to the 2 channel sound as I think all AVR's are lacking in SQ.

yes Pink Floyd's SACD in 5.1 has a cool effect and several others but I'll still like the 2 channel sound better and with my CRS+'s I don't miss the multi-channel. but that is just me.

mhardy6647

tat wrote: »

Are those Klipsch designed speakers?

Heck no. I will admit that I started my (modern) foray into high-sensitivity loudspeakers and flea power amplification with a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls and a Decware SE-84B amplifier...

dampedcornyhornies by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

... but those are Altec Duplexes.

DSC_5735 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

http://www.wardsweb.org/Billfort/

The 511B horns atop the speakers in the photo I posted earlier were a just-for-fun experiment. This is what they usually look like in action (ignore the Genesis Physics loudspeakers and the Yamaha soiled state amp!).

DSC_0240 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

The amplifer is a slightly modified version of Joseph Esmilla's "Simple 2A3" design.
http://jelabsarch.blogspot.com/2012/06/je-labs-simple-452a3.html

DSC_0124 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

tat

I get the impression that 2 channel is easier to focus on the strengths to some extent, at least with my eyes open in a fully conscious state. Natural sound usually eminates from individual points coming from one direction. So our auditory system has evolved and or developed since birth to process sound in that manner.

Bear Owsley of the GD family had an essay detailing how having reproduction from single vertical points is most natural to the human ear. Ours ears have a hard time when the same sound comes from multiple locations of different distances, the split second variations confuse our perception, whereas natural relections and echoes originating from a single point can better comprehended by our ears/brains. That theory was part of the legendary Wall of Sound behemoth. Unfortunately I am too young to have witnessed that wonder of the world.

honestaquarian

voltz wrote: »

I prefer 2 channel always, and HT or multi-channel music can not compare to the 2 channel sound as I think all AVR's are lacking in SQ.

yes Pink Floyd's SACD in 5.1 has a cool effect and several others but I'll still like the 2 channel sound better and with my CRS+'s I don't miss the multi-channel. but that is just me.

Dark side of the moon is kinda cute in 5.1
However there is NOTHING like listening to it in regular old "stereo" on a pair of Polk SDA's right @voltz?

voltz

Agree! on 5.1 was cool hearing the clocks going for 1 speaker to the next but isnt as good effect as the SDA did.

like when they asked people question and recorded it and added it to the songs like: Do you remember the last time you got into a fight and was you in the right?

and someone said "I don't know I was really drunk at the time"

on the SDA effect it was like he was sitting on my love-seat of to my left and that got a WOW moment from me & the guitar player behind my table lamp.

BlueFox

I like both my stereo, and my HT system. I recently went through a four month home remodel, and my stereo was in the garage. For that period I used my HT system and forgot how good it sounded. Towards the end, I was even considering selling the stereo, and just using the HT system. However, now that the stereo is again running I am back to it.

mhardy6647

There is a big complicated Denon HT receiver in its box in the basement. It was given to me by a friend and - someday - I'll play with it. I did go as far as to hook it up and listen to it as a two-channel amplifier.

tat

https://flic.kr/p/fBU9GN

Nice, I love those grey back alnico Altecs.

Schurkey

Two QUALITY speakers driven by two QUALITY channels of source and amplification, will absolutely kill 6, 8, or 11+ sh!tty, restricted-range speakers driven by sh!tty sources and sh!tty amplification.

A QUALITY multi-channel source-and-amplification system feeding multiple speakers WITH PROPER ROOM TREATMENT AND SET-UP is another story,

[Deleted User]

Two channel for music.

[Deleted User]

I think it was stereophile that quoted a study that finds we listen to music in multi-channel. What were those Polk and Carver guys up to anyway?

I just got done listening to ELP 'Brain Salad Surgery' in 11.1 thru a Denon AVR-4520ci
to a mix of Polk lSim's and 1969 Altecs with a Hsu sub and it sounded good to me.

I listening to a CD thru the Denon pure direct stereo and it sounds good as well.
There is a pretty good DAC in the Denon I find.

cfrizz

If you have good gear, and not the bottom of the barrel gear hooked up to good speakers like Polks, it is very easy to enjoy both two channel and multi channel on one system. Actually the majority aren't even thinking two channel vs multi channel, they are simply thinking of watching movies, tv, and maybe listening to music.

It is only the audiophiles that have all these nonsense rules, barriers, and classifications. Just so that they can claim that something is superior.

The vast majority of consumers ignore all the snobby BS, and are simply looking for good affordable gear so that they can enjoy their movies and maybe some music if they happen to think to play it on a system as opposed to their phones.

honestaquarian

cfrizz wrote: »

If you have good gear, and not the bottom of the barrel gear hooked up to good speakers like Polks, it is very easy to enjoy both two channel and multi channel on one system. Actually the majority aren't even thinking two channel vs multi channel, they are simply thinking of watching movies, tv, and maybe listening to music.

It is only the audiophiles that have all these nonsense rules, barriers, and classifications. Just so that they can claim that something is superior.

The vast majority of consumers ignore all the snobby BS, and are simply looking for good affordable gear so that they can enjoy their movies and maybe some music if they happen to think to play it on a system as opposed to their phones.

Yeah
What she said^^^