What sparked your intrest in 2-channel?

Yashu

These kids are paying $60 for a bowl, and bongs basically start at $130

I still don't think it should be illegal... it is a f'ing plant, regardless of whether I care to use it or not, my tax dollars being spent to jail those that do, it's, frankly, disgusting.

----

2 Channel music is more than just a hobby, it is a metaphor for the times, a forgotten truth, once the right of passage for many has become something of a joke to most of the younger generation, or, just something to take for granted. It is easy to do that, with 80gb iPods holding entire record collections in one's pocket, it is not hard to see why eyebrows are raised when they hear the interest we have in this hobby... *only* 2 channels, only music, but to me, it is music, it is the common thread from my youth to my adulthood. I know what we all know here, that music touches the soul in a linear fashion, and there was a time when our drug of choice was not an illegal plant or chemical compound, but finely tuned compression waves. It takes patience, it takes, I think, a mature attitude to sit down and just listen, to just enjoy. How many people use music has furniture vs. the centerpiece of our attention.

I have heard people say, that the goal with any mind altering experience is to escape reality, but to me, that is a paradoxical statement, as the true journey is becoming closer to reality, rather than trying to keep away from it, for whatever beauty that the eye can see, or the ear can hear, is rooted within a logical universe, with a chaotic underpinning, and that weed and LSD don't remove you from any of this, but only give the illusion, for it is not something seen every day. Neither is a finely tuned stereo something most people hear every day. The government can wage war on words, on plants, on musical data, but all they are doing is breeding ignorance, and causing harm to any ends that are touched by such absurdities.

"Don't let it be forgot / That once there was a spot / For one brief shining moment / That was known as Camelot!"

I am glad some of the younger set have discovered 2 channel. I don't mind that they did not grow up with it in their lives. All I read, is that they love the music, for whatever reason, and to me, it's a good thing, no matter what got them there.

AudioFilet

I've never seen a multi-channel iPod. I thought they were mostly 2-channel (stereo)??

Did I miss something again??

dragon1952

I don't think the originator of this thread was talking about Ipods, or boomboxes or walkmans or car stereos or clock radios, even though they may qualify as 2-channel or stereo playback devices. And I don't think he was talking about playing 2 channel CD's on a surround system. I think he was talking about an entire system built around 2 speakers and dedicated 2-channel components that deliver a high quality of sound.

maximillian

Why not have both worlds? I power my fronts through an early 90's Tecnics stereo receiver. The rest of my HT speakers are powered by my AVR. The preouts for the AVR fronts are piped to the Technics stereo. My music CD source also feed into the Technics stereo. I simply select which source I want AVR/CD's depending if I want to listen to music only or HT. Music only is 2 channel and HT uses all of them. I calibrated the AVR with the Technics stereo volume at a particular setting which I set during HT listening.

Or better yet, if you have the room in your home choose one room for HT and another for music appreciation.

HT is two channel just doesn't sound good to me. Music in multichannel also sounds too weird.

AudioFilet

maximillian wrote: »

Why not have both worlds?

That's an interesting idea and one I might want to try eventually. Another thing I was wondering about was if there is a way to have your AVR "remember" different setups for different modes. For example, when you play an audio CD the AVR would be set to use front main speaker only, with the subwoofer. If you wanted to have a different crossover setup for the sub & mains, it would have to remember that too.

I use a Yamaha HTR-5835 in my bedroom HT system, and I think it has some sort of provision for this, but I haven't really tried to set it up. The last time I put an audio CD in that system and played it in 2-channel mode, it sounded so bad I just had to laugh. Sounds decent enough in 5-channel stereo mode though.

I'm not sure what my HK AVR-745 can do along those lines, something to check out someday I guess. For now, I will just have to walk all the way to the other side of the room and put the audio CD in the 2-channel rig.

maximillian

AudioFilet wrote: »

I use a Yamaha HTR-5835 in my bedroom HT system, and I think it has some sort of provision for this, but I haven't really tried to set it up. The last time I put an audio CD in that system and played it in 2-channel mode, it sounded so bad I just had to laugh. Sounds decent enough in 5-channel stereo mode though.

That is why I have the setup that I do. I don't use the AVR (with its digital processing) in 2 channel mode, only the older analog stereo. To me it sounds good, and in HT mode the AVR sounds decent. The added bonus is that the AVR doesn't have to work as hard.

treitz3

dragon1952 wrote: »

I don't think the originator of this thread was talking about Ipods, or boomboxes or walkmans or car stereos or clock radios, even though they may qualify as 2-channel or stereo playback devices. And I don't think he was talking about playing 2 channel CD's on a surround system. I think he was talking about an entire system built around 2 speakers and dedicated 2-channel components that deliver a high quality of sound.

I am the originator of this thread and you are correct.

Written in big bold letters on the first post of this thread is the question...... "When did it dawn on you 2-channel freaks that this was the direction you wanted to go?"

cmy330go

So I came across this picture today of me when I was 4 years old (1981), and it brought back some old audio memories. I jammed out to a lot of records, tapes, and 8-tracks on that old Yorx. I actually still have the BSR turntable.

I was probably 5 or 6 years old when my Dad let me play around with his home built guitar amp and speaker. The speaker was some jobby about 4 foot tall that had 2 12" drivers and a small horn. After that I just couldn't stop tinkering. To keep me from tearing apart that speaker he gave me a small set of speakers from an old reel-to-reel that I could play with. It wasn't long before I had a screwdriver in my hand and was yanking the driver out of the cabinet to see how it worked. While taking out one of the screws I slipped and tore a hole in the paper cone. I was pretty upset, but dad came to the rescue, and showed me how to touch up the tears with a little of Mom's nail polish.:rolleyes: From there on out it was a never ending stream of cheap speakers from auctions, yard sales, etc... I'd take 'em home and hook them up, then tear them apart, and swap drivers into other cabinets. By the age of 10 or 11 I had advanced to saving money for pre-built crossovers from Radio Shack so that I could combine random woffers, mids, and tweeters, and Dad would build me a cabinet for them. I was constantly tinkering and trying to make them sound better or louder. By the time I was 12 I had broadened my interest to gear with the purchase of my first CD player (JVC that still works) that I connected to the Aux-in of my boombox. From there it's been a steady climb.

Looking back at in now it's tough to believe how much I learned at such a young age. I guess in a way I really owe it to my Dad for getting me started in audio. Even though I may not have bought what I considered a "quality" system until I was 20 (mentioned in post 6) , my love for stereo and gear goes way back.

Ok. I'm done reminiscing. Carry on.:D

Sami

treitz3 wrote: »

I am the originator of this thread and you are correct.

Written in big bold letters on the first post of this thread is the question...... "When did it dawn on you 2-channel freaks that this was the direction you wanted to go?"

So what's the point of the thread again? To see who's younger than 30?

treitz3

No. I wanted to see what it was that sparked the decision to go with a 2 channel rig. I could care less about age, that has nothing to do with audio. I was curious as to what point, or moment of your life you "knew" that your focus was going to be 2-channel audio.

Sami

All music should be 2 channel (or 2.1), regardless of equipment, with a few rare exceptions. I have a 5.1 rig and 2 rigs with 2.1, all reproduce 2 channel music very well. So I guess my answer to that is ever since I heard music in stereo instead of mono.

Based on my answer, since my HT rig is the main rig for music as well, I think I need to clarify if you do mean focus on 2 channel audio, or 2 channel equipment? My focus even on the HT rig is for 2 channel audio, the wonderful surround quality it does is just a huge bonus.

treitz3

Sami wrote: »

I think I need to clarify if you do mean focus on 2 channel audio, or 2 channel equipment?

It's more of a discussion of at what point you made two channel listening a priority, what it was that made you make that decision to go and purchase 2 channel equipment. What was the turning point that made any of you want to primarily go to a 2-channel rig?

Sami

Ok, in that case I think the title is little misleading but then again it is obvious everyone who listens to music is interested in stereo (a.k.a 2 channel).

treitz3

So shoot me.

tonyb

Really Treitz,you need to state the question...oh...50 more times.:rolleyes:
I hate it when you don't clarify.:)

Face

What were we talking about again?

treitz3

I forgot.

nspindel

I think there's often too much attention paid to the one-vs.-other argument when considering 2 channel versus 5.1 or 7.1. I like to hear things that are pure. I want my gear to make as accurate a representation of a piece of recorded material as it possibly can, without having to add any special effects.

When I'm listening to music, your basic 2-channel audio, to me it just sounds better listening on a good 2-channel hi-fi than it does if I play it on a home theater system. So I have a 2-channel setup that I use for music.

But when I'm watching a movie that contains 8 channels of sound, then I don't want it downmixed to 2 channels. I want to hear the separation of the 8 channels. So I watch the dvd on my home theater setup.

To me it's like comparing a pickup truck to a corvette. If you want to go really fast, drive the corvette. If you have a lot of stuff to haul around, drive the truck. That doesn't mean you prefer a corvette over a pickup truck. It means different things are meant for different purposes. I could drive my pickup truck fast, but it doesn't "feel" right, and it doesn't feel as good as going fast in the corvette. I could dump as much stuff as I can fit into my corvette, but there are other options better suited for the task.

Sami

nspindel wrote: »

When I'm listening to music, your basic 2-channel audio, to me it just sounds better listening on a good 2-channel hi-fi than it does if I play it on a home theater system.

That's just a matter of how your HT is built. Just up your HT a level or two and you're set for 2 channel as well.

nspindel

That's a matter of preference, there are a lot of things to consider - the room, the synergies between the equipment, and overall aesthetics, etc. It would cost me a whole lot of money to equip the other 5.1 channels with amplification and speakers that would be on par with my 2-channel setup so the overall sound would be correct when matched with the vintage sda equipment that I use for 2-channel.

Not to mention the fact that my home theater is in my family room, where I simply wouldn't have the space for the big sda's, especially on either side of a 60" screen. In the family room all the speakers are in-wall so that they're out of the way. When seven speakers plus a subwoofer are all doing they're thing, this is perfectly satisfying for movie watching. But just two of the speakers do nothing for me when listening to music.

Sami

Of course, but the whole point was that HT can do both duties very well with the right components. Some say it's a compromise but I don't buy into that. In the end every system is a compromise.

nspindel

It also can't handle the scenario where my kid wants to watch a dvd and I want to listen to music!

Face

The only comprimise in my rig is a TV between the mains. I have it set a few feet back so it doesn't affect the imaging too much.

StevieB

I never really thought about a for real HT much. My downstairs theater is 1c's, and the upstairs are 2b's. I also feel that damn TV just gets in the way.

george daniel

Hey,, I just found my First seperate component,, still powers up,,here's a pic of my first preamp

nspindel

That's a really find piece. You should restore it, I bet it would sound great.

Roland P

For me 5.1 all the way.
Movies = 5.1 and I like movies so the choice is simple for me.
I think my setup is pretty good at stereo too. Ok, if I spend the same amount of money on a 2 channel setup I probably get a better performance in stereo, but I can live with it .

With 5.1 I want full-range sound with high dynamics to kick your butt, not spoiled with lesser quality surround/center speakers. With music, I just want a nice sound (My car stereo, old R10's or my current LSi9's) and a good song.

My point is: Movies>5.1 (or more) Music>2(.1) channel.

Sami

Roland P wrote: »

Ok, if I spend the same amount of money on a 2 channel setup I probably get a better performance in stereo, but I can live with it .

But then you would still have to spend money on surround system...

Yashu

I use the 'B' speaker posts on my NAD 2155 for HT... 2 channel HT with a pair of PSB towers. I have never felt the need for more. The TV is so huge it gets in the way, the largest HD tube they made, anyway, because of that, I only listen on my nearfield setup 90% of the time. Movies sound good enough, and image well enough, and certainly look good enough on the big widescreen tube.

I like tubes. I don't have an LCD in the house. They still don't make one that can match the colors on my 21" pro CRT, at least... not one you can get for under a couple grand. Full spectrum LCDs cost a fortune, and there are no Plasma computer monitors... I never understood why though... computer monitors were a perfect place for Plasma. If I ever get a flat TV, it is going to have to be a plasma...

reeltrouble1

woop de doo,
woop de doo.

gotta love Knopfler for saying so much with so little.

RT1