2 Channel Verses Surround

smglbrth

Suppose it's time for me to open up a forum just because I'm interested in hearing from you concerning music listening preferences.
To me, the only, and I mean ONLY, way to listen to music is in the good old 2 channel. I've had surround before and never liked the way the music sounded but I do have friends which do. To me the music just misses something with all of it being rerouted every which way.
I no longer have surround in my set-up since watching movies comes in at a very far second in audio. I used to be the kind of person who would rather not eat for a week just to have something that was better than what I had. Since then being "married, with children" my priorities have changed quite a bit and can no longer not eat for a week! If I had the cash I'd have a separate "mediocre" sound system for surround and a dynamic 2 channel set-up in a separate room which would be enclosed and sound proofed.
For now though I continue with a decent 2 channel set-up with a DVD player since I still do watch some movies. There isn't much to it since my wife, even though she appreciates good sound, doesn't like equipment all over the living room!

Separates will come someday............:D

What do you think?

pensacola

I have yet to delve into home theater. However, like you, I would want it separate from my main "music" system.
I'm not a purist when it comes to music and surround sound.
I listen to mostly classical music. To me, a recording is just that--a "record" of an event in time and space. It should sound as close to the real thing as current technology permits. Truth is, you can't even begin to replicate the soundfield of a symphony hall or cathedral through two front loudspeakers. So, I think there is a place for surround. But it has to be designed with these various sound stages in mind, and most surround-sound receivers and amps really aren't.

One of the first (digital) surround sounds I heard was the DSP-1 (I think by Yamaha or Sony) in the mid-80s. It was a completely separate unit you placed in the tape loop or between the pre- and power-amps (this was before every $99 receiver had "surround sound"). I believe you could hook-up up to two pairs of surrounds. The thing had dozens of different soundfields from stadium and cathedral to small hall and jazz club. Within each catagory, the user could then adjust multiple parameters--delay time, reverb time, decay time, level, etc--thereby creating a unique space. You could do some wacky things like set the reverb time to 45 seconds and things like that, but when it was set-up properly, it truly replicated a believable soundfield. It worked--and I really haven't heard anything like it since, but I haven't been looking, either.

The point is this: surround sound is beneficial and doesn't take away from the original intent of the recording--if it's done properly (you shouldn't, for instance, be able to locate WHERE the surround speakers are located when you close your eyes--surround speakers shouldn't be "heard"). If it helps to aurally transport you to the original recording venue, then the surround sound system has done its job, in my opinion.
So, for me, there's a time and place (space?) for surround sound. The way I look at it--when it comes to enjoying YOUR music on YOUR system--"if it feels good, do it." Or I should say, "if it SOUNDS good..."

gidrah

I have an eclectic taste in music. When I listen to Pink Floyd-Animals, I either listen in headphones or 4ch stereo. When I listen to most R&R I prefer 2 ch stereo. When I listen to an older mono recording (Robert Johnson) I listen in 5ch mono.

I too mostly listen to music, but a center and pair of surrounds are fairly unobtrusive and can actually add when needed. I have yet to get DVD-A/SACD.

gidrah

I forgot to mention that I don't care for any of the DAP/DSP settings on most systems. This is what a live club or dance hall should sound like my ****.

dean/klipschead

I look at it this way:

Everyone has a budget - some amount of money they know they want to part with to create a system.

Let's say we start with $5K.

Person 'A' spends $5K on a 2 channel system.
Person 'B' spends $5K on a multichannel system.

Now, which person will have the best sound?

C'mon now - think about it.

gidrah

Whomever is happier with the end result.

dean/klipschead

So if the person with the HT receiver incorporating the 5 wussy amps, bells, whistles, pretty lights, and 5 average at best speakers -- is really happy with the setup -- then this somehow means that person has the best sound?

O.K. - then bring them over to my place and I'll show them what that same $5K buys in 2 channel and let's see if they're still happy.

avelanchefan

But not everyone wants a huge two speaker setup. Some people (like me) prefer a smaller setup with the ability to upgrade to better speakers in the future if he/she so choses to. Sure the 2 speaker setup may sound better but would that person be happy if they were looking more for a 5.1 speaker setup? I would say no. But thats just my opinion. I see what your saying on the best sound bit. But not everyone would be happy with that setup.

I personally listen to all my music in 5 channel stereo. I just like it that way better. Plus I like my PSW to kick in on the deeper bass parts.:)

dean/klipschead

I thought everyone liked huge towers taking up 1/2 of their living room

TroyD

gidrah - perfect answer amigo!

Ideally (and I am working on it) a person should have a separate HT and 2 ch rig. IMO HT isn't as demanding in quality as a 2ch rig is, if that makes any sense. In other words, I think that 5K would go a lot farther building a respectable HT system as opposed to a respectable 2 ch rig PROPORTIONALLY, speaking.

Having said that, I will in the next couple of months have a separte 2ch rig and separate HT rig. In the meantime, I am using my receiver as a preamp and my 2 fronts (Dahlquist DQ-10's) are also serving as my fronts in the HT. Once the mancave is fully functional, the RT7's (which I also love) will return to the HT.

As far as music goes, I never really dug multi-channel music and I think that DSP's are crap. I do like concert DVD's but prefer 2ch music. I am not all that jazzed about the advent of the multichannel formats. I am about the improved 2 ch aspect however, I don't really want to go out and re-purchase all my cd's.

One last thing, I don't think, and this is PURELY opinion, that you really have to spend a fortune for good sound. Especially considering the amount of quality used gear available. EXAMPLE: my 2ch rig:
Dahlquist DQ-10's - 250
Carver m1.5t - 250
Denon CD player - 150 (or so)
Preamp to be named later - 150 or so, guesstimate

cables/interconnects - you could get some decent ones and still come in under a grand.

Will I be happy with this setup? You betcha.

Could it be better? Certainly. But it depends on what it is worth to you. For example, I've listend to a Conrad/Johnson amps, Mark Levinson amps etc...... are they better than my carver? Probably, but to me, not for the price. You will never get me to admit that a Mark Levinson sounds 10 times better than my Carver. So, again, it's about what you want vice what you are willing to spend.

Anyway, that's my take on the current state of affairs.

Troy

dean/klipschead

Troy - I couldn't have written that post better myself.

Everything you said is completely true.

My $5K hypothetical was just for example purposes. With the advent of sites like AudiogoN and eBay - the aspiring audiophile no longer has to sell his firstborn, take out a 2nd mortgage, or go bankrupt upgrading their system.

Your right about amps too - as a matter of fact it applies to most electronics as well. The Krells, Jeff Rowlands, etc, don't sound 10 times better. They usually don't even sound twice as good. It's diminishing returns big time.

Now tell me - where in the hell did you find DQ10's for $250?

I lived with a set of those for a long time.

Did you know John Dahlquist's boys are still alive and kicking and can be found here: www.regnar.com

They sell a mod kit for about $180 that consists of replacing all of the caps and a different driver for that super-tweeter.

I also have schematics for a different type of mod. This mod changes some of the values of the caps, omits the super-tweeter, and turns the speakers into a four way instead of a 5 way. Not a lot of popularity regarding that driver - most mods either replace it or get rid of it. If you would like a copy of the schematic I would be glad to e-mail them to you.

Still - a very good sounding speaker regardless.

I recently read a review of the Bryston 4B-ST. During the listening test the reviewer claimed he was admiring the movement of the woofers and the great control the amp had over them. Then as he watched he saw the woofer surrounds literally "turn to dust". He made a comment about sending them back to Regnar to be refoamed and he had them back in two weeks.

At any rate. Those suckers are over 20 years old. The caps are drying out and they could probably use a bit of a facelift. You should consider doing a little of DIY on those and ending up with speaker that now retails for almost $4000!

Kewl.

Klipsch Out.

TroyD

I know that you were using the 5K as a hypothetical but you know there are those out there who think that if you don't spend a ton of cash or own this type of gear, that your rig is crap and that you can't POSSIBLY know what the hell you are talking about.

The Dahls? Yes, they are a score only bested by Lucky George Grands score on a pair of AR-9's. I found them on Audiogon and the guy only lives about 40 mins from me. How lucky was that? The drivers and crossovers and surrounds have all been replaced and/or updated within the last 5 years so I have no issues with that. They only really needed a good cleaning and were good to go. I have seen the regnar website and if/when I need some work done, will give them a shout. The only thing that ticks me off, and this minor, is one of the speakers is missing the Dahlquist logo and can't find another one.

Just out of curiostiy, what happened to yours? I ask out of curiosity because as much as I like Polk (not having heard SDA or LSi mind you) they aren't in the same league and might draw a similar comparison to Klipsch.


Troy

smglbrth

Thanks for the input so far, thought I was going to have to pin pictures of half Knock-ed women on the post to get anyone to look at it!
I'm with you Dean, HUGE towers with lots of power and you can't go wrong, marriedness aside. I haven't seen a person yet who hears something that sounds like an indoor concert with windows rattling, floor shaking, foundation cracking, etc..., with no distortion, and not get a smile on their face!
Many of us are from the old school of thought on audio and 2 channel is what we grew up with, along with 8 tracks and AM Gold!! Kind of glad those days are over but things were less complicated then. I personally think 2 channel fans have been getting pushed into the back seat regarding stereo equipment and it seems equipment makers are catering to a whole new generation of music fans who want all the "bell, whistles, lights", etc... Maybe something was lost along the road of improvement and people forgot to remember that all that other garbage is second when it comes to sound.
Some people like all that stuff, but I believe equipment makers need to get back to the sound and stop concentrating on how many different things they can fit into one unit. Suppose the market isn't there though, sad.

By the way, about that 5K, who wants to give me a loan?

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

dean/klipschead

There is still plenty of really good, decent gear still geared to us old fogies (what the hell is a 'fogie'?).

As far as HT goes, if I want to see a good movie on a big screen -- I just go to the movies. I do it during the week and take a long lunch break. Half the time I have the whole theater to myself. It's not bad. The screen is about 40 feet across and the sound is horns galore!! Pretty pricey though -- about $6, almost twice the price of a DVD rental.

Troy -- glad your DQ's are good to go for another 20 years. I actually never owned them -- I said I lived with them for a long time. Actually, it was about 4 years. My best friend Mark bought those beasts back in 1978. We shared a house before I got married. We had his DQ's and Dynaco is one room and my AR11's with GAS (Ampzilla & Thalia) equipment in another. We had a party once and literally cracked the foundation block of his basement.

At the time Mark bought his DQ's I was into a more focused sound. I just always preferred monitors (2 ways more times than not) and pinpoint imaging over the somewhat diffuse imaging of the DQ. As marvelous as the DQ is -- she is not without her problems. Though very musical she is not very transparent, and I believe the multitude of crossover components tend to rob her of being able to produce low level detail. I also think the DQ tends to pinch up at higher SPL's.

Later I discovered Magnepans, and though I wasn't always real thrilled with the dipole effect -- I was captivated by the smoothness.

Two years ago I discovered the new Klipsch stuff and haven't looked back since. When I recently upgraded to the flagship RF7's, Mark bought my RC7's and put together a second system. The RC7 is actually a center channel speaker with the same MTM and crossover configuration (tapered array) as the LSi9. I bought two of these and used them in 2 channel -- mainly because I didn't have the bread for the 'Mammas'. They used the same wicked horn and two 8's and I figured why not. Because the speaker was designed to be laid on its side -- I had to twirl the horn in each speaker 90 degrees so they could be sat upright and on stands. Mark loves them - but thinks they are a little bright sometimes -- no surprise -- he's running late 80's Adcom stuff and a Toshiba DVD player as his source. Yeesh.

Mark says what sounds the best depends on what he is playing. He likes some stuff through the DQ's better and some stuff through the Klipsch better. I of course -- being a total **** -- think everything sounds better through the Klipsch

I have been studying the current Polk product line (discounting the LSi series) -- and do not believe there is anything that can honestly hang with the Klipsch Reference stuff. I believe the RB5 II monitor for example -- sounds as good or better than other monitors up to $2K. The RF3 II, which is a floorstander using the same tweeter/horn combo as the RB5 II but with two 8's instead of one -- goes lower, but doesn't sound as good for some reason. To jump to the next level you have to go the RF5 and then the RF7. Both of these speakers will dust the DQ in dynamics, transparency, and low level detail. However -- there's that damn horn sound and they are not for everyone.

Mark still feels the DQ's are better balanced overall and I agree with him -- but feel the Klipschs' transient attack, slam factor, and realism put it over the top. Mark feels the imaging is too directional and prefers the imaging of the DQ's. OTOH -- I prefer controlled directivity. I'm currently running my RF7's with a 15 watt triode tube amp. Mark thinks I'm dropping acid again.

At any rate -- it's all ear candy. I enjoy anything as long as it's clean.

I'm hoping the Polk LSi Series cranks things up a notch. I actually believe some of the older Polk offerings were superior to the current stuff. I'm glad they decided to offer something a little more refined.

Systems

If I had the space & the budget, I'd get a really nice HT set-up. But I don't. I think that HT can successfully recreate the movie theater experience, but part of that experience is the size of the venue. In my apt, 2-ch stereo works fine for music, and my Sony Wega TV, while not equalling the sound quality of a receiver, puts out 10W X 2 & has very good sound for a TV. I think that the main thing to consider is whether or not you really like it, not whether or not you've "got" to have it because it's the latest & greatest.

TroyD

You are correct, the DQ's aren't without shortcomings, but what speaker isn't? I agree that the highs are not what they could be but at that end of the spectrum, my hearing isn't what it should be. They don't go super low, true, but I find what is there to be very pleasing. I find that a sin of omission rather than commission.

I think you hit it on the head with the horns, either you like them or you don't. Not much middle ground there. I lived with a pair of KG4's for about 3 years and I just plain didn't like them. Kentucky Rain is one of my fave Elvis recordings and on the KG4's man, it just didn't sound like what I think Elvis had in mind. Very harsh, very edgy.

I haven't listened to the Klipsch Ref. line so I can't give you a comparison. The current RT line, I think the best is/was the RT35i however, I prefer the previous RT line. For bookshelves, the RT5/RT7's were tough to beat. Again, it's all what you like.

Troy

CHRIS

Troy-I agree with you about amps. If the older Adcoms are good enough for Matt Polk to drive his SRT system. Shown on the old showcase about a year and a half ago. There good enough for my Polks, they match very well with Polks. As the Carvers do and a few others, some amps just match up better then others.
With the higher end amps, sometimes you need more their ability to go anywhere from 1ohm to 8ohms and still sound great. As I would not put a Krell with my Polks nor would I put an Adcom with my MLs.

joe logston

the reason most people get lousy multi-channel is bad set up. i get great music on multi-channel off cds.its a lot better than 2 channel, only way i could improve it is a real good sound room. try to set up your speaker sound delays better & your loudness to your center to match with the delay, to your mains, and move your speakers around a little, on my yamaha rx-v1 there is a million ways you can set it. i mostly use pro logic inhance mold, and play with the delays & moving the speakers just a tiny little bit.

TroyD

Amigo, to YOU it might sound better but I have some issues with that.

From my observations, normal CD's are recorded in 2ch stereo so manipulating them with DPL or DSP's is an unintended presentation of the material. For ambient purposes, okay maybe but I still don't think any amount of rearranging or tweaking will give you the desired effect.

I haven't heard SACD or DVD-A but again, if you go to a concert, the music is in front of you and other than aural artifices of the room, shouldn't be coming from behind.

Just my .02. For music - 2ch RULES!

Troy

Aaron

Don't forget to turn your center channel upside down. That makes all the difference.

Aaron

TroyD

So that is what I have been doing wrong! Why didn't you guys tell me that before?

Sheesh, and I thought you guys were pals.

Troy

pensacola

>>...if you go to a concert, the music is in front
>>of you and other than aural artifices of the
>>room, shouldn't be coming from behind.


But, it's exactly those aural clues (from above, behind, and to the sides) that give our brain some indication of the space we're in.

[side note: I think Bose claimed that some 85-90% of sound in a live acoustic concert was reflected, not direct, sound—hence the "backward-firing" drivers on the 901's]

That "reflected" information is what's MISSING from a 2-channel recording. Unfortunately, most surround sound processors don't really address this subject.
If, for instance, you could record a band or a symphony in a hall with several microphones scattered about the room, then you replayed that multi-track recording in a listening room with each track reproduced by a similarly placed loudspeaker—one for each track—you SHOULD get pretty close to recreating the recording session, which is what it's all about. That technology exists and could be encoded into the CD, but isn't being implemented on a mass basis. It's been in the works for nearly 20 years; maybe someday we'll see it.

IMO, there's a place for surround sound when it comes to music—IF IT'S DONE WELL. The surround channels should just be adding that reflected-sound information, and should not even be noticed. If the surround channels are turned up high enough to be noticed, it just creates a mish-mash of overly-reverberant sound that does indeed take away from the original intent of the recording.

When I adjust my surrounds for music, I bring them up to the point of audibility, then back them off a couple db. When I have to shut them off in order to tell if they're even on, then I know they're at just about the right level.

joe logston

i know that a cd is a 2 channel recording, but it is a 3 dementional recording with real sound image on multi- mics in a recording studio and i thank that you can get a little closer to being real with multi-channel than just two channel two channel is more arficial than multi-channel

joe logston

with the newer recordings the digital sound is easer to matrix the channels for better sound and wend the the software dose go full multi-channel and it will the sound will be like real then 2 channel will be dead.....

joe logston

on multi-channel sacd & dvd audio they are still a long way from perfection but its going to happin. whats going to happing is hard drive digital membery it will all be down loaded off the net in 3d hd sound & 3d hd videio it will be a perfect meadum. cds & dvds will be gone there will be no moving parts except the combs on the speakers it will be all wireless except the ac plug from each speaker & computer hard drive (sorry) every thing is going computer. thats it, thats going to come true. one good thing is there will be 2 channel guys around, like there are modal t ford guys.

OrangeToupee

I'm with you, Joe, I've heard on a few occasions, the superior sound of multi-channel music; when done right, there is no comparison. Over time this will be established as our new industry standard, It just sounds too good not to.

TroyD

I think you guys are missing the point.......Right now a CD is recorded in, intended to be played and heard in and is generally accepted to sound better in 2CH. I'm not saying they can't or don't sound pleasing in multi-channel. I'm saying that you are artifically creating something that just ain't there.

I take what Dr. Bose says with a huge grain of salt. Additionally, say I want to hear a Miles Davis recording. I want to hear Miles Davis. I don't want to hear Miles Davis and the room that he recorded in because you will get those reflections, aural artifices or whatever you want to call them from your own listening room. I don't need duplication of effort.

The jury is still FAR from in on multi-channel being the standard format of the future. Maybe, maybe not but it's a little early to say that 2ch is dead yet. Matter of fact, in the hardcore audiophile world it isn't a generally accepted fact that digital is better than analogue.

BTW, where can I buy some of these 3D, cd's ??

Troy

goingganzo

i usaly olny listen to sterio in my car i have allready spent the cash years back on my car and it moves from car to car with me. my car is sterio has ppi amps alpine head and eq and boston speakers and kicker subs

CrazyHead

This is an interesting thread.

I, myself, have recently gone back to two channel after a year and a half in six channel land.

This reason is simple: I got back into high-end and no matter how high-end you get with six+ channel gear, it always will have sloppy musical performance (IMO).

I went to vacuum tubes and never looked back. No more center, no more rears, no more sub. Stereo rocks!

pensacola

>>"I don't want to hear Miles Davis and the room that he recorded in because you will get those reflections, aural artifices or whatever you want to call them from your own listening room. I don't need duplication of effort. "


You make some good points, and I think that one of the disagreements just has to do with the type of music being played.
Most pop/rock/jazz/country/rap, etc, albums are recorded in recording studios where the engineer does everything in his or her power to completely eliminate the room from the equation. They then process the sound into whatever they—and/or the artist(s)—want the final product to sound like. In that case, you're right—adding something into the mix in your listening room that wasn't originally there, may do more harm than good—and that has been largely my experience with those types of recordings.

However, when it comes to recording a symphony orchestra, that's a whole nother ball o' wax. The engineer WANTS to capture the ambiance of the hall. The recording labels that use close micing and signal processing produce a very unnatural sound (for anyone who's heard a live symphony). Labels like Telarc (and maybe Dorian) that use only 2 or 3 mics further out in the hall, produce a much more natural-sounding product. Those of us who listen to classical music—both live and recorded—want to try to duplicate that "live" listening experience in our listening rooms. We want to "fool our brain" into thinking we're in a 2500-seat auditorium, listening to a 100-piece orchestra. It can't effectively be done with 2-channel sound. It's those reflections we (subliminally) get from that back or side wall in the hall during a live concert—which may be hundreds of feet away—that are an integral part of the listening experience. Halls are designed to have a combination of absorptive and reflective surfaces for this reason. Two halls come to mind that are "adjustable" in this regard. One simply has motorized curtains around its perimeter, the other actually has hinged concrete panels and movable canopies to change the sound of the hall. Again, the sound of the hall is an integral part of the listening experience, which is why they employ the services of both architects AND acousticians when designing them.

In this case, trying to retrieve that reflected sound during playback isn't a "duplication of effort," as the reflections in our listening room could never replace the reflections of a large hall, some being several milliseconds—or maybe seconds—after the initial sound.

Surround sound takes us closer "there". We may never get all the way "there", but how close we get is only limited by current technology (and our wallets).

Ultimately, what we will need to do (to recreate a live symphonic concert while at home), will be to somehow capture that reflected sound (perhaps through multiple mics arranged around the perimeter of the hall), and feeding that information into a processor to keep it all straight, then finally feeding those signals to several loudspeakers around our listening room. That will be much better than our current processors trying to manufacture something that wasn't there to begin with. On that, we agree.

pensacola

Here's a neat little trick to hear what reflected sound sounds like.

Next time you attend a concert—whether it's rock, country, classical, etc, it doesn't matter—turn your head 90º and plug the ear which is facing the stage. What you will hear with the other ear will LARGELY be reflected sound. It will be a "phasey" wash of sound that isn't very focused or intelligable, with substantially reduced high-frequency content.

It's a crude experiment—and people will look:)— but is useful for anyone who doesn't see the importance of reflected sound when it comes to believable music reproduction.