Anyone else not into surround sound?

With a limited budget and having had a few cheap-ish subs and surround setups I have found myself preferring my (current) 2 decent speakers than 5.1 compromised speakers for music and movies.

Cheers, Nick
 
I have a Yamaha RX-A2010 Aventage that could run 9.2 if I really wanted to. I mainly run 2.1 for music (mains and a sub) and 5.1 for movies and TV with the rears turned down a bit. I find the surround effect can be distracting if I really want to get into a movie. Besides, I gravitate more towards drama and character driven fare. Don't need things zooming around for those.

You might wonder why I picked a receiver that can do everything. First, it was too good a deal to pass up. Second, it does a great job on music and on A/V. Third, it has a lot of room for system growth, if you know what I mean! :D

Frankly, I'd much rather listen to a good quality 2 channel set up for movies rather than a crappy sounding theater in a box system.
 
Music playback for me has always been through a dedicated 2 channel rig. No contest.

On the other hand, blu-ray playback, TV, and gaming really can't be beat on a properly matched 5.1 surround system. I've been playing Deadspace 3 ( PS3 ) on a 150" projection system with 5.1 DTS late night into the A.M. all this week, and its been quite a visceral/aural experience.
 
I think two channel and surround can live in harmony. With this bedroom system of 4 Frugal Horns I use a Niles amp switcher to go from a 5.1 AVR to a Miniwatt SET amp driving two Frugals. Listening to Diana Krall's "Live In Rio" on Blu-ray DTS-HD is a far "different" experience than two channel. For me it's not a matter of either or.

picture.php
 
For movies/TV I use my center channel in a logic mode for dialogue clarity at low volume, otherwise I get blasted by most video sources in just 2-channel mode when level is set for dialogue and the scene changes to action. But for music - even concerts on disc - I hit the bypass button. Have no rear channel amps or speakers connected to the Lexicon preamp/processor, and haven't for more than a couple years. Thinking of adding a pair of small rears because I do like them for many action movies, though.

So it's 2.1 for music, and 3.1 for movies. I do like the feature whereby the subwoofer level stays at the last setting for each mode, so that I don't have to adjust that when switching between bypass (music) and movie use - it is set 3 db higher for movies.
 
Last edited:
I go either way... I've been getting into two channel since I repaired the IMF's, but I still prefer the Wall of KEF's filling in (6.0 System).

Now sometimes I listen in "Enhanced Stereo" which in NAD speak, just means all of the surround/main speakers are fed the same stereo signal (front and rear go mono). I've found that early Stereo Recordings (Jazz and stuff) doesn't seem to have enough information for the surround processing to pull anything to the sides or back. So it sounds more natural in "Enhanced Mode"

Now for newer recordings, generally I prefer "PLII Music Mode". It just seems more like I'm sitting in front of the stage rather than in amongst the band.

The trick is Surround needs to have all the speakers voiced the same and especially for music. At AXPONA there were 2 demos with surround music and it was unbelievable. It was like you were sitting in the middle of the band.

Before you dismiss, listen to a well setup system.

Now I think Botrytis is all over it... you need to have your system very carefully matched and Audyssy is a must! I think the quality of your AVR is also something to think about. I'm running an NAD T775HD and it does an excellent job of managing the Surround Modes (much better than the Marantz SR6006 I had before). That's not a trivial element of the overall system!

It took me a lot of trial an error to get where I am today, but trust me, once you get something like this pulled together (especially with the caliber of the KEF's and IMF's) you won't have a negative opinion of surround sound ever again! :music:

I love having the option of either 2.0 or 5.1. My main stereo rig is way better for music. Part of that is because my 2.0 gear is just so much better, higher quality, than my 5.1. And part of that is because my music was produced for straight-up stereo. But for movies and sports, I love how 5.1 immerses me in the action.

Moral of the story: 2.0 and 5.1 are different beasts, so you can't expect your surround to behave like stereo, and vice versa. Let each be its own. Or not. Do whatever sounds best to you...

...and if you work at it, your 5.1/7.1 system is your 2 channel system and you have that option right in the same room! I can listen to 2 channel on my IMF's, or on my R107's by shutting down the center and rear and going stereo. There is no reason to have a "dedicated 2 channel system", unless you want the variety of different gear or the ambience of a different room!

My 2 bits...
 
Last edited:
I don't think surround has ever been anything more than a gimmick for music. Two channel has in my experience always sounded better.

The only music that benefits from surround is a properly mixed concert film. The opening scene of U2's "Rattle and Hum" is amazing in surround, as is the rest of the film. Whoever produced the mix on that movie really understands what surround is supposed to do. The recent bluray release of LEd Zep's 2009 (2007?) Albert Hall reunion concert with Bonham's son playing drums is another great mix.

Video games are so much better in surround that you won't want to play without it once you've tried it. "Skyrim" is insane when there's a dragon flying around and you hear that sucker land behind you.

Movies like the famous among surround nuts "5th Element" and last year's Avengers (in fact anything from JJ Abrahms or Joss Whedon) are made and mixed with surround in mind and it shows.

Classic B&W or movies made before the advent if surround IMO always sound best in 2.1 or 2 channel.

There are a lot of high end surround solutions floating around for someone who wants to get the right sound for peanuts.

Tossing out multi channel sound without first listening to a properly set up system is cheating yourself out of a great experience. Unless you're only watching old movies.
 
tybrad said:
Not for me either. It is processed too much and as you say, sounds artificial to me.

I dont like it either,on some movies it makes it sound like crap!! (I prefer Mono)

I have DIE HARD II on VHS and it says 'DOLBY SURROUND' on the tape and the siblance is quite bad on it!!! (Hard S (SSSSSSSS sound))

Another movie I had I found at salvation army recorded from HBO in the 90s last year and the movie was presented in "SURROUND SOUND" and sounded like crap......

I dont care for it..... Leave that crap out of my movies!!!
 
I dont like it either,on some movies it makes it sound like crap!! (I prefer Mono)

I have DIE HARD II on VHS and it says 'DOLBY SURROUND' on the tape and the siblance is quite bad on it!!! (Hard S (SSSSSSSS sound))

Another movie I had I found at salvation army recorded from HBO in the 90s last year and the movie was presented in "SURROUND SOUND" and sounded like crap......

I dont care for it..... Leave that crap out of my movies!!!

DUDE!!! It's hard to believe that you're dismissing surround sound based on 2 old VHS tapes. Dolby Digital/DTS (basically DVD's) was a huge advancement over the old Dolby Surround Sound and Blu Ray a moderate improvement over that.

Until you enter the 21st century, I'd say you're not in a position to comment. :p
 
I.....I need to lie down for a moment after reading that.

::fanning him with a laser disc...don't worry..it's Phantom Menace:: Just breath.... it's allright. I hear he also still uses a rotary phone and instead of dialing screams "Operator, give me Alexander 2222!!"
 
Does anyone actually run a 9.x or 11.x setup?

Precious few houses have room layouts that could accommodate such a rig, much less get the WAF to put up 9 or 11 speakers!

I have a modest 5.1 and do occasionally enjoy some multi-channel music, but for the most part the 5.1 setup is used for movies.
 
Does not believing in subwoofers count. When I listen to stereo its strictly in the 2.0 mode, pure analog. I have a separate cabinet and amp, pre-amp, Tuner, TT phono pre-amp, processors and Tape deck and CD recorder for stereo. Only the L and R speakers and there amps are shared via a switch to be transferred to the HT processor when in the HT mode with other amps speakers and processors. I do fudge a bit. I have a few 3.0 recordings that sound great and easily match digital 2.0 recordings. In fact some times I turn the surrounds speakers amps off and listen in the 3.0 mode. its more realistic that way. I mean until we have totally surround images why have totally surround sound????? I still collect LP's. In fact Monday is my birthday and I get to visit the record shop and buy as many LPs as I can carry in one hand. Maybe I'll brake a 30+ year tradition and take a dolly this year.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone actually run a 9.x or 11.x setup?

Precious few houses have room layouts that could accommodate such a rig, much less get the WAF to put up 9 or 11 speakers!

I have a modest 5.1 and do occasionally enjoy some multi-channel music, but for the most part the 5.1 setup is used for movies.


I ran 9.1 for a short while. It was OK but I repurposed the front height speakers to surrounds for another 5.1 system.

Getting more enjoyment out of the repurposed 5.1 at my SO/GFs place than I did by implementing 9.1 (vs 7.1) at my place.

At some point though I'll probably do in-ceiling speakers for ATMOS if I ever get around to upgrading my processor. It's been 5 or 6 years so about due. ;) Dunno if it will end up 7.1.2 or 7.1.4. I think I have the room for .4 but need to study up a bit more.
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking about this thread for a few days now. I just wasn't sure how to respond to it to be honest. I too was in the category of, I just couldn't get into it. I did enjoy 5.1 for movies, I did enjoy it for times when I couldn't sit in front of the speakers (in terms of how music filled the room), but in critical listening ... I just preferred 2 channel. But I wanted to. So the thought occurred to me that I needed a goal. My Center and surrounds didn't match the fronts. As my fronts were vintage, I embarked on a journey to custom make a surround system based off my fronts. Research produced the information I needed to get started. My fronts are ADS L1230's and the Center/Surrounds are L810's. ADS use the exact same Speaker parts in the L810. At the time, I was using a Yamaha RX-V2700. Movies were very good, but music .... well it just wasn't blowing my skirt up (as they say). Then I decided it was time to upgrade my Receiver. (mostly for HDMI to 4k to be honest). I bought the Yamaha RX-A3070. When I hooked everything up, I was jaw dropped. I'm not into DSP's, but after setting up the Receiver and doing Multipoint YPAO calibrations and finding Surround Decode ... my life turned upside down. I am now hearing music as I have never heard it before. I can't get enough of it.

Vocals are front forward as they should be. Left and Right channels play instruments accurately and any vocals are only slightly subdued unless the group has back up singers left or right in a stereo mix. Those come in exactly as they should left or right as they were recorded. The surrounds are also subdued in such a way that you don't notice they are producing sound, unless you turn them off. This is proper decoding and balance. Your not supposed to know there is something behind you.

All this said, I may be less discerning then most of you? All I can say is I am day and night with how I was 2 years ago. I feel like I'm home now. I'm enjoying surround as I have never enjoyed it before. And It was due to me first wanting to .. and second finding a way to make it happen. New technology in Dac's, upgraded equipment and balance was the formula in my opinion. Just sayin.
 
Forgive me, I should have prefaced my comment with the fact that I'm no expert on anything. That said, I don't disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom