Plain old 2 channel............

mantis

All the talk about VS...got me thinking.
So what about all you 2 channel guys out there.What is it about 2 channel the really makes you go?

The desire to upgrade only into better 2 channel?better the system whichever way you feel can improve the sound?What about adding a SACD 2 channel player to the mix?any thoughts??

TroyD

I am all for higher resolution, I don't see a downside there. As far as 2ch goes, simple, it offers the most accurate, uncontrived reproduction of a live experience.

BDT

madmax

For me, 2 channel offers less problems. Once you consider all the reflections and such in a room it seems that you at least have a chance with 2 channel. Lets say that all you want to do is add a center. Well, with 2 channels already going you have a virtual center. With SDA's you have a very definite virtual center. Once you actually add a discrete center you end up with cancellations and all sorts of phase problems. Add something to the rear and everything goes to hell, at least at some levels of discercian. A decent pair of SDA's set up properly gives you a full room of sound anyway. So lets say this, if you have good depth, soundstage and dynamics then what do extra channels supply other than excess noise, unatural program material and extra cost. In the car I like the extra Wow factor added by multichannel but at home I like to feel like something live and real is going on.
madmax

Frank Z

As far as 2ch goes, simple, it offers the most accurate, uncontrived reproduction of a live experience.

No way! Next time you go to a concert or a night club listen to what is going on around you. Live music is not limited to 2 channels, a studio recording maybe, but not live music. Isn't reproducing the best possible sound what it is all about, regardless of the amount of channels it takes to get there?

mantis

Yeah....what he said.......and that means owning more LSi's.......

jrausch

I'm all for higher end SACD. My SDA's are based on clean and wide seperation. This would be a step in the right direction. There are now more than 300 SACD titles available. It's just a short matter of time before a new High Res. player is added to my system.

F1nut

I'm all for adding a SACD player to the rig, even the dual layer sacd's sound awesome on a standard player.
So, I'm at a live performance, the band and sound equipment are in front of me, the vast majority of sound heard in my ears comes from in front of me. This depends on the acoustics of the building, of course. A building designed for listening to music keeps the sound in front, coming from the source. A generic hall can (usually does) have alot of reverb. Do I want to hear the reverb caused by a poorly designed building on my rig? NO! Live "Concert Hall" recordings of classical music are usually very well done, while live "Generic Hall" recordings of rock are usually poor. As MOST music (jazz, blues, rock, etc.) are recorded in studios that control unwanted acoustics why would I want hear unwanted sounds from the sides/rear as with multi-channel systems and poorly designed generic halls. While we sit in front of our perspective rigs and pretend the band is playing in the room, I would prefer to pretend that the experience is in a acoustically perfect hall. I find 2 channel is the best way to achieve that goal. I also find that the SDA's really help, but there are some higher priced speakers that will get you there too.

rlw

I demoed SACD, and was very underwhelmed. In a couple of cases, it was better than CD; in a couple of cases, CD was better. Most cases were just too damn close.

LP blew them both away. More of everything: more sense of space, more sense of timing, more music.

I wasn't always into LP's, btw: that only started about 2 years ago when I was considering SACD. A couple of friends told me that I should demo a table at the same time. So, I demoed a high-end table in my system, and that opened my eyes to what truly high-resolution sound was.

For me, the only reason to consider another format is if there are musical offerings available on that format I can't get on vinyl or CD. So far, that sure isn't the case.

I'd love to get into a better turntable someday. Since the bulk of my collection is on vinyl, and it's growing almost daily, it makes sense [to me] to maximize the playback of that.

Aside from that? The rest of my system is pretty good. The thing I really like about it is that I can change a power cord on the preamp and hear a difference. So I'm paying attention to all the little setup details.

But the biggest thing that gets my rocks off about two channel: having people come over and listen to an LP, and watch the look of complete confusion and amazement on their faces. It's great to see. I love sharing that experience with friends and acquaintances. Once that initial "omigawd" wears off, most start digging through the LP collection, and start making requests! That's like hitting paydirt for me.

hoosier21

I am all for better quality CD's.

FrankZ
"Next time you go to a concert or a night club listen to what is going on around you. Live music is not limited to 2 channels, a studio recording maybe, but not live music."

Like F1nut said this sound around you is reflected sound, like what you have in your house, sound bouncing around the walls and off the ceiling, but the PA equipment and/or the band is in front of you.

I am limited on experience on this but drums in the rear or back-up singers in the rear, does this make sence? When I read a review of an older recording where and pulled an instrument out of the mix and moved it to the rear or only to one side, this sounds like it would be horrible to me.

Now if an artist records a new mutli-channel CD and is creative using the new extra channels he has, to create a feeling or mood, I am all for it. But to ping pong instruments around just because they can is stupid.

One band comes to mind is Pink Flyod, in concert they have been using rear and left/right side channels for years, can we get this on DVD? Roger Waters/PF has used Qsound the throw sound here and there, how about using these new channels?

Another thing I am suprised about, is the record companies have these old Quadraphonic (sp?) albulms, why not release them? It fail in part because nobody had 4 speakers laying around, now there are tons of homes with 5-6-7 speakers. I am not rallying for Quad to come back just saying the creedy **** are missing a chance to reissue something they already have.

Frank Z

My point is that the "Live experience" is more than just 2 channels worth of sensory input. As an example, listen to the Eagles Hell Freezes Over DVD on a properly set up (calibrated) system and you will BE THERE, crowd noise and all. Proper mixing of any music, old or new is essential, even the best album ever recorded can be ruined by a poor mix. Keep in mind that we are not talking about having every instrument, and every vocalist present in every channel, yes that would truly sound like crap.

Believe it or not, more artists are becomming interested in the remixing process that takes place on previously released 2 channel material. If you haven't already done so, read the article in S&V about multichannel music. I have included a link for those interested.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hot_topics/articledisplay.asp?ArticleID=157

I guess there really is no right or wrong way to enjoy your music.

jmierzur

Originally posted by Frank Z


No way! Next time you go to a concert or a night club listen to what is going on around you. Live music is not limited to 2 channels, a studio recording maybe, but not live music. Isn't reproducing the best possible sound what it is all about, regardless of the amount of channels it takes to get there?

Both formats have their place.

Two-channel has been around for many years and is now well established. Early two channel recordings went through a learning and experimentation phase. The presentation of the soundstage is very interesting on some early two-channel recordings. Fortunately, they do not record like that today.

Multi-channel recordings are going through the same learning and experimentation phase. Multi-channel recording should not have the instruments surround you. When have you had the instruments surround you during a concert? If you have, you probably were tackled by the roadies and hauled off to jail or know someone that I would like to meet.

Multi-channel music needs to mature before the format presents its full capabilities. I look forward to this time as I think this will complement my two-channel audio experience. Until that day, I will stand aside, but continue to plan and accumulate the necessary hardware components, as I do believe this format has a sound (pun intended) future.

joe logston

wend they get the multi-channel software right they will be no going back to 2-channel the sound field will be abosolute right, that 2-channel will never have. it will be 6.2 channel balance mix.
its all in the mixing, and your speaker set up for the mix and your quality of equitment, but its all to complicated, if one speaker is out of position or out of balance or louder than the rest of the speckers it will mess the whole sound stage up, thats what will be bad for multi-channel, set up and speaker matching, thats way people like 2-channel more simple. less problems. but it will never be like multi-channel live sound.

jdavy

I find that 2 channel SACD complements my SDA-SRS very well. my ht system is fine but i want to be in front of the stage. I do not want to be on it.

mantis

I thought this post was about 2 channel and what you guys thought about it all by itself.......................then adding a 2 channel SACD......2 a 2 channel rig????

Any thoughts guys????

TroyD

Well, in a nutshell, I think you'll find that most of us feel that 2ch give a more realistic and accurate listening experience.

As far as adding higher resolution, the only issue that I see there is cost vs. benefit ratio. I don't see any real downside to it, it's just a matter of if you are willing to make the investment.

BDT

mantis

I hear the us in your post there Troy........I was looking for YOUR feelings on 2 channel.......can you elaberate?

mantis

search your feeling's Troy.........look deep down inside.......your insides will serve you well......I hope..........

TroyD

OK, Dr. Freud......Those are MY feelings.

BDT

mantis

OK cool......(wrongfully accused)......in a general kinda way......gotcha yeah.

smglbrth

The way I figure it, and the way I have it right now, I have the money for a really nice two channel rig or a so-so HT rig. As far as what I think nice is and what someone else thinks nice is, there are probably thousands of dollars worth of difference here. I had a so-so HT rig but the chance to get a nice 2 channel rig was just too much to pass up. I think it's easier to set up as well, I mean not having to tinker around with test tones.
By the way, has anyone seen a DVD with 2 channel surround? I have seen a couple and am just astonished at how much I hear from behind and beside me. It took me so much by suprise at times that I actually looked!!

danger boy

Originally posted by madmax001
Well, with 2 channels already going you have a virtual center. With SDA's you have a very definite virtual center. Once you actually add a discrete center you end up with cancellations and all sorts of phase problems. madmax

how many of us actually have SDA's? I don't. and Polk doesn't make them anymore. Ive never even seeen a pair in person.. or lucky enough to hear the legendary duo.
:supermad:

danger boy

i think some people are afraid to properely set up their multichannel audio or dvd ht systems. i find that when set up propery... both audio and home theater sound great. but it does take some tweaking to make it really sing.

can a system do both well? Be a good two channel while also doing justing to home theater? I think for most of us... we have found the right balance in our systems. or at least a compromise.

madmax

Originally posted by danger boy


how many of us actually have SDA's? I don't. and Polk doesn't make them anymore. Ive never even seeen a pair in person.. or lucky enough to hear the legendary duo.
:supermad:

I thought everyone had at least two pairs plus a few spares lying around.

madmax

mantis

dangerboy,
I think you can have a really nice home theater system,and also use it as a 2 channel system with proper care in setup.I believe it comes down to preference.My new system is designed for hometheater,Multichannel SACD/DVD AUDIO,and 2 channel music.Alot 2 ask out of a system,but with carefull setup,I believe this can be had.

F1nut

Originally posted by danger boy


how many of us actually have SDA's? I don't. and Polk doesn't make them anymore. Ive never even seeen a pair in person.. or lucky enough to hear the legendary duo.
:supermad:

I've got two pair

They come up on eBay and Audiogon all the time, get your buy on.

muzik_wolf

Whassuuuuuuuup?!

I just joined Club Polk. I've always been "plain ol' 2ch" since I enyoy music a more than movies. I wolud like to see more 2ch high resolution CD's because I son't believe that muti-channel necessarily means more resolution.

Due to a break in at my former residence, I just replaced a pair of Monitor 5 Series 2 speakers, NAD 5425 CD player, and Denon integrated amp with RTi38's and Onkyo TX-8511 receiver, Monster Cable XP speaker cable w/Quick-Lock flex-pin connectors. RCA RC5231Z DVD player (I'm surprised at the quality for $400 when I bought it) connected w/Monster Cable Interlink 400 Mk2 interconnect. System sounds nice for 100wpc but I'm in the market for Adcom separates. Any suggestions?
muzik_wolf

danger boy

Originally posted by muzik_wolf


I just joined Club Polk. I've always been "plain ol' 2ch" since I enyoy music a more than movies. I wolud like to see more 2ch high resolution CD's because I son't believe that muti-channel necessarily means more resolution.

true.. multichannel does not mean more resolution. this debate has been going on here for a while now. i think we can all agree that it seems to be split about 50/50 with some people only liking two channel and the other half at least open to multichannel music.

I have found that since most all of us grew up on two channel stereo.. we haven't yet explored the option of new multichannel yet. Mainly because it's still very limited and a good multichannel player takes some set up and tweaking to get it to sound good, and is expensive. plus your receiver needs to have 6 analog RCA inputs.. some older receivers don't offer that.

I like most anything that is a step up from regular cd's that haven't changed in 20 yrs now. I even explored HDCD's a while back.. but didn't really notice much gain in sound quality over regular CD's. Plus i couldn't find many releases in HDCD.

This past weekend I once again picked out a few choice CD's to listen to in two ch stereo. I was a little impressed by the sound from just two speakers (bi wired 800i's w/125wpc mono blocks).
But it all comes down to how well the disc was produced. A poorly produced disc is going to sound bad no matter how good your system is. And a good well made disc will reveal hidden sounds you've never heard in music you are familiar with.

So that's my gripe around here. I just want the best, highest resolution sounding discs i can get my hands on. be it two ch or multichannel.