Whatcha got....

Libertyc

2 channel rigs:

Polk SDA 1.2tl
pair of Carver M1.0t power amps
Audio Experience MK2 tube preamp
Yamaha tuner CT-400
Sony cd changer
Monster 12 gauge speaker wire

Den/offfice:
Polk SDA CRS
SAE P10 poweramp
NAD 1020 preamp
SAE tuner
Sony 400 changer
Technics tape deck
Monster sperker wire

Bedroom:
Polk Monitor 10b
Carver MF 130 receiver
Apex DVD player

Workout room:
Polk Monitor 10b
NAD 7175 receiver
JCV cd player

Deck:
KLH allweather

I have no wife - so speakers are everywhere!
Have extra set of Monitor 10s & Monitor 7s in the closet.

burdette

**I'm** pleasantly thrilled with my HT, even if the 2-channel rig is lacking good speakers right now.. so, humbly, here goes...

2-Channel:
Onkyo TX-84, 60wpc, new in 1989.
Yamaha 5-disc CD changer (1993)
Sony 3-head cassette deck (1993)
Philips turntable (circa 1975) with Grado F3e+.
Technics SL-5 compact linear tracking turntable, with Ortofon cartridge.
Panasonic hi-fi VCR hooked up to small TV
Right now, driving a pair of Polk M2s because all the other Polks have been swallowed by the HT. Used primarily for background music when cooking or reading.

HT:
Sherwood 7103 DD receiver bought this year to replace a dead Onkyo TX-84, 100wpc x 5.
Apex DVD player (2002)
Sony 5-disc CD changer, new in 1988 (Sony's 2nd gen. player, no play exchange)
Aiwa 3-head cassette deck (1993)
Toshiba hi-fi VCR, Toshiba 27" TV
Mains: Polk Monitor 7Cs
Center: Advent Center
Surrounds: Polk Monitor 5jr+
About 400+ VHS movies between those purchased and those recorded off cable; we're up to about 50 DVDs right now (not too bad given we just got our player 8 months ago).

HT room is perfect dimensions, and dedicated. All the electronics are housed in a cabinet built into the wall, with the back open in a storage closet for very easy access; all wiring to the speakers/TV comes through a piece of 2" PVC pipe low in the wall.

Next purchase will most likely be inexpensive, used speakers off the flea market to use instead of the M2s for the 2-channel (my sis picked up a pair of 5jr+ for $160 shipped.. I could've lived with that!); then, or instead, a subwoofer for the HT.

jdavy

I use my dvp-s9000es to play sacd and regular cd's. The SRS's are driven by a NAD7175PE reciever, and I use monter Powerline 2 speaker wires. All good old stuff except the Sony.

rlw

Sources:

Michell Orbe SE Turntable, SME-V arm, Lyra Helikon Cartridge
Balanced Audio Technology VK-D5SE CD Player
Teac X10R Reel-to-Reel

Phono PreAmp:

Pass Labs X-Ono

PreAmp:

Balanced Audio Technology VK-50SE

Power Amps:

Krell FPB200c
Krell FPB300c

Speakers:

Martin Logan Prodigies

TT, CDP, preamps, and power supplies housed in a Zoethecus rack, which in turn sits on a Vibraplane.

The little amp sits on some slabs of granite; the big amp sits on Valid Points and a 4" block of maple.

Cabling:

TG Audio Silver Speaker Cables
TG Audio Silver IC's
Kimber Select KS-1130 Silver IC's
Graham IC-70 Silver Phono Cable
TG Audio Silver Phono Cable
TG Audio SLVR Power Cords
Audience PowerChord Power Cords
TG Audio HSR-A Power Cords


AC:

4 dedicated circuits. Each amp has it's own 30A feed; all analog and pre's share a 20A feed; the CDP gets its own 20A feed.

The phono stage is plugged into a Balanced Power Technologies BPT-jr (wonderful improvement). Amps plug directly into wall. A pair of Monster HTS-2000's for the rest, with the CDP being the only thing plugged into one.

Room treatments:

EchoBusters Corner Flags
ASC Half Rounds
Some velvet curtains

Upgrades:

BPT's for all the gear - 1 for each amp, 1 for pre's, 1 for CDP.

Turn the 1 tall Zoethecus rack into two shorter racks.

Keep playing with vibration isolation.

More music!

mantis

OK,
since thats all I got left now that my rt series speaker's and Denon receiver is out,I'm left with a 2 channel rig and my Lsi 15's.

Rotel RC-971 preamp
Rotel RB960BX amp
Polk Audio Lsi 15's
Pioneer Elite PDF-19 cd player
Pioneer Elite DV47a(for 2 channel SACD Playback)
Phillips TiVo dsr6000 (for dss music)
Monstercable HTS5000 surge/line condisioner
Transparent Music link interconnects
Monstercable M1.4s bi wires with spade lugs
Bello rack to house all this maddness.

You know 2 channel is very cool and I love sitting there listening to music.......but without 5.1 or 7.1 DVD just isn't anywhere near as enjoyable........Watching The Matrix,Star Wars,etc just isn't the same without rears,center and a sub..........I can't do 2 channel of theater......it's just not for me.

polkatese

Dan,
I noticed you have the pioneer dv-47iA, how do you like it? I am itch to upgrade my dv-37 to either 47iA (so that I can experience DVD-A and SACD) or 38A (which only DVD-A). Is the SACD material about equal to DVD-A sonically? Interested to hear your thoughts on DVD-A vs. SACD or both....Thanks, fh

madmax

rlw,
I would love to see some pics. I know you are just getting it together in the new room but it would be cool to have something to drool over. This setup would undoubtedly throw a shadow over most of us but we like that! When you are ready you must post some!!! PS: Thanks!
madmax
madmax

nadams

Here's my current rig. I'm not into HT, so all I have is a 2ch.

Receiver: JVC RX558V Audio/Video Control Receiver (100w x 2 or 80 x 4)
Tape: Sharp RT-12
Graphic Eq- RCA (10 bands per ch w/ a 10 band graphic eq)
CD: Sharp DX-670
Speakers: A: Polk Monitor 5jr (now w/ new tweeters! )
B: Micro-Acoustics ma3dx (replaced the dry-rotted 8" subs w/ Rockford Fosgate Punch Z competition subs, just for a little fun. They don't have much musical quality for light listening, but they add some nice punch when you have it turned up... even w/ classic rock-type music.)

I'll post a pic once I get my hands on a digital camera. :-D

nadams

mantis

polkatese,
The Pioneer Elite I own is the earlier model in the dv47a not the dv47ai......The new one has the Link for sacd and dvd audio straight to the Pioneer Elite vsx49txi.

SACD and DVD AUDIO well.......it's a toss up sonically.They both sound so much better then regular cd's.Software has been slow to come out, butthe market is seeing more and more each day.I haven't been out lately to buy sacd or dvd audio,but I'm looking forward to a trip soon .

SACD sounds awesome in 2 channel, but for multichannel dvd audio seems to have there act together alittle more.sacd sounds a bit unnatural......you got to listen to it 2 understand where I'm coming from.dvd audio as far as I know doesn't have just 2 channel disk's.....all multichannel.They are both real good I believe.I want to get more titles on my shelves to experience the new formats deeper.........funny how titles are format specific.You can't get the same title on both formats......so head to head is hard.....I like em both, thats why I decided to go with the Pioneer Elite dv47a back when it first came out.I 2 was lusting after the dc38a.....and almost picked it up but I found out about the dv47a and waited it out..............I'm glad I did.....

polkatese

Dan,
thanks for the feedback, I'll start auditioning the two formats. I think I might end up with the dv-47, just so that I have the options to listen to both. fh

danger boy

if you have a DVD-a or SACD player.. why would anyone want to listen to that in 2 channel? Yes the 2 channel in both of those formats sound better than a regular CD, but why choose 2 channel when you have multichannel available?

TroyD

I would say just because it's multi-channel doesn't mean it's better.

BDT

madmax

I used to feel the same as danger boy said above. Now that my 2 channel rig can do what it should I am sane again.
madmax

TroyD

I think the theory behind it is sound enough (no pun intended) but I think in practice it's a different story.

BDT

danger boy

TroyD this is true. but if a DVD-a or SACD is mixed that way. why not give it a try?

madmax

I think TroyD and I would both give it a try. Actually I have DVD Audio in the car and have auditioned it on my friends setup in his home. The reason I don't care for it is the same reason "Quadraphonic" equipment in the late 70's didn't take off. It is not the equipment. Instead of mixing the music properly it is all about sitting in the middle of the instruments. When is the last time you went to listen to something live and heard some of the instruments playing from behind you? Actually I like this for some stuff because you end up on the stage in the middle of the band (I'm a wannabe musician) but far and wide people want something different. They should be putting the room ambience in your room rather than playing games all around you. The WOW factor is why they are doing it but in reality that gets really old after a few sittings.

Nothing to say the people doing the mastering will get their act together but nothing I have heard to date is even close to real.
madmax

PS: I will probably get a unit anyway when I find the right multi-format one.

TroyD

I concur with Chuck's assesment. It's not that I'm fundamentally opposed to multi-channel but I think it is a less realistic presentation of the material.

Having said that, I'm not philosophically opposed to multi channel but at this point it seems that it is more contrived by an engineer than regular stereo. Also, the more links you bring in to the chain, the greater the likelyhood of unwanted side effects. A wise man once said, the more knobs, bells and whistles it has, the worse it sounds.

Anyway, I'm off the soapbox and we shall see what happens. I just think that multichannel has many more hurdles to clear.

BDT

shack

I have a SACD set up and am working on a dedicated 2 channel system. That system will have a SACD player as its CD transport. Even in my multi-channel setup I find myself listening to the 2 channel version of the SACD more often than not. Multi channel is nice and technologically interesting when it is done right and I enjoy it....BUT....the 2 channel mix is more "realistic" to me. I agreee with the "in the middle of the music" theory to some extent but music does not always have to sound "LIVE". Sometimes I prefer the studio sound to the live music sound. I like SACD for the improved resolution you get in either multi or stereo format.

Both multi and 2 channel can be enjoyable for music and to each his own. But if I had to choose one over the other it would be 2 channel Stereo. (yes I was around for the quadraphonic stage and I didn't like it then!)

b2sc

I'm a little late getting ion this but here goes:

pre: Conrad Johnson PV11a (2 sets of outputs)

output 1: (the refined....)
amp: Threshold S/500
speaks: B&W CDM7se

output 2: (the rockin'....)
amp: Adcom GFA-555
speaks: Polk SDA-1A

CD: ADS CD3
Tuner: Magnum Dynalab FT101
Cassette Yamaha 3 head/3 motor
Turntable: Dual CS5000 w/Ortofon X5MC cart.

Most of this stuff I've had for the last 15 years. I am looking to upgrade the B&Ws to N802s in the next several months....

mantis

I will have a multichannel dvd audio and sacd system again.........as I once did with my rt series setup......I'm in the middle of a move, we are building a new home,the siding just went on today and everything is rolling right along.........finally.

Just for now ,I'm running 2 channel in my listening room.I have had surround sound since the 80's and have upgraded like mad over the years.
I'm waiting untill my new house is complete and we move in before I finish my upgrade path(only if I can wait that long).

SACD does sound better to me in 2 channel over multichannel.The way its recorded for multichannel is weird.........to me.DVD AUDIO is better recorded for multichannel,I'm not listening to dvd audio right now, just sacd.You have to experience it in order to comment on it......to say it's fake or like quad or any other coments are ......well.......just that.....I say go listen to it for awhile and make up your own mind if the new formats are right for you or not.........just like 2 channel home theater....I do it now and I think it sucks........yes my Lsi 15's dominate my entire rt series in sound quality.......but it lacks the ability to explode and move around the room when called for.Dolby digital and DTS 5.1/6.1 isn't recorded to be played back in 2 channel.It's multichannel......

There are some guys in here that just like 2 channel and could give a rats **** about multichannel anything....music/movies......thats fine...thats them.........make up your own mind on what and how you want to be entertained......I perfer hearing what was recorded and playback in that manner..........like 7 or 5 channel stereo...........to me it sucks......but alot of people like it that way.I like it when it was actually recorded that way.....dvd audio does a good job of it.......sacd is good as well but not consistant.......

it's a fun and wonderfull world of audio and video today......why limit yourself.............go explore and have some stress releaving fun.........I do ...... do you??????????????????:)

danger boy

I guess for multichannel audio to really work.. you need to have 5 identical speakers and a subwoofer. and you must be sitting an equal distance from each speaker. in reality how many of us have such a set up? I for one don't. and probably never will. but i still like DVD-a. so there. :p:p

danger boy

bottom line. if two channel 16bit CD's sounded as clear as multichannel audio.. we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. All i'm saying. is you can't beat the sound quality of 24bit discs. whether you like to listen to 2 channel or multichannel audio.

rlw

Originally posted by danger boy
bottom line. if two channel 16bit CD's sounded as clear as multichannel audio.. we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. All i'm saying. is you can't beat the sound quality of 24bit discs. whether you like to listen to 2 channel or multichannel audio.

I dunno...if you ask the SACD engineers, I'm sure they'll have a slightly different opinion, since SACD is 1 bit.

madmax

Originally posted by ATCVenom
I listen to various SACD work, and I must say the sound is so refined and clean it almost creates a "fake" atmosphere. I think it will take some adjusting to tune your ears into listening to such detailed and clear reproduction of sound.

I think if it feels at all strange or uncomfortable then the sound is probably not natural. The first thing you notice when listening to live instruments and vocals is how smooth and natural it feels.
madmax

danger boy

rlw, the two formats are like comparing apples and kiwi fruit. ha ha ha. the compression used in regular cd's and SACD's is way different.

shack, DVD-a and SACD are NOTHING like quadraphonic stereo was. this is much better. better seperation of sound and vocals.

but i guess finally music is being taken to the next level. and it's about time. for a change. after about 20+ years of non movement in the music industry. it's great to know that someone is leading the way to make improvements for those of us who were looking for something better.

TroyD

I still have yet to hear a convincing argument as to HOW or WHAT makes multi-channel inherently superior to stereo. I will grant the higher resolution but I'm not buying the more channels = better sound argument.

BDT

rlw

Originally posted by danger boy
rlw, the two formats are like comparing apples and kiwi fruit. ha ha ha. the compression used in regular cd's and SACD's is way different.

IMO, that's not true. First, there are 3 formats under discussion: DVD-A, CD, and SACD.

DVD-A and CD both use PCM as their encoding scheme; the former increases resolution to 24 bit.

SACD uses DSD, a 1 bit, 2.4Mhz(? - might be off on this) completely different encoding scheme.

The DVD-A engineers argue that any 1 bit solution, no matter the frequency, is flawed from inception; their claim is that PCM-encoding is fine, but not at a depth of 16 bits. In essence, as I understand it, they claim that a 1 bit DSD datastream cannot offer both high dynamic range and wide frequency response at the same time - and they have some compelling mathematics behind their argument. Hence, SACD - according to them - is a lower-resolution format than DVD-A.

The SACD camp argues that PCM is inherently flawed when compared to DSD, due to an additional step taken with the datastream called decimation. This is avoided with DSD, which instead uses noise-shaping filters upon playback.

So, in key respects - the encoding scheme - CD and DVD-A are very much apples and apples. BTW, PCM is not a compression method; neither is DSD.

SACD and DVD-A do employ radically different encoding streams, so in some sense, they are apples and kiwis, I guess. However, there are still some valid comparisons to be made, IMO.

polkatese

Wow, I guess the subject really touches off several compelling arguments on the merit of multi-channel audio.....perhaps we should start a new thread on the subject....

Dan, quick question on your statement, here:
yes my Lsi 15's dominate my entire rt series in sound quality.......but it lacks the ability to explode and move around the room when called for.Dolby digital and DTS 5.1/6.1 isn't recorded to be played back in 2 channel.It's multichannel......

could you expand on what you meant by this statement?? curious mind inquiring....fh

izafar

Multi Chanel is better than stereo in the same way as stereo is better than mono, and in both cases addition of a sound source is not the only source of this improvement, it merely provides a potential for the mixing enginer to make the recording more real and involving.

So it is not only the number of chanels, it is how they are utilsed. I think you will agree that stereo source that bascially produces the identical signal from the two chanels is not much of an imrovment from a mono source. But when doene right it makes alot of difference over mono sound. Similarly when done right multichanel has the potential to provide much better experince then steroe.

Systems

I think it was J Gordon Holt, or maybe Sam Tellig (one of the grand old men) who said something to the effect that realism is the way you evaluate speakers, but realism is more difficult to define if you're talking about reproducing electronic sounds--the music he was using to evaluate realistic reproduction was acoustic.
It's not just a matter of channels, but location. Theoretically, you could have 3 identical full-range spkrs in front of you, dividing the performance into stage l/c/r & say that it's incrementally more realistic than stereo, which is incrementally more realistic that mono. However, unless you are using surround channels to give a "live" ambience to a concert recording, I don't see how a bass solo coming out of the rears can be realistic, unless the bassist was actually performing from the balcony during the concert.
I think that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be attracted to surround as a neat effect. Electronic music, game effects, surround in theaters--all of these things tend to shape the perception that musical sound is simply one more thing to be rearranged in the coolest way, aimed at maximum sensory overload. It's not about realism. That doesn't mean it's bad. But
even a surround advocate like David Chesky doesn't really like the way music surround mixing has been the cart to the movie 5.1 horse. He prefers different types of surround mixing for music, but also realizes the logistical problems involved. He's done 4.0 & 6.0 mixes, & in the 6.0 the spkrs are not positioned like they are in 6.1 movie surround. Who, besides a professional, can have all these different setups for different types of surround mixes?