surround sound setups

[Duckzilla]

I have two systems in different areas of my house, that are both equipped to handle Dolby Digital or straight stereo, depending on whether the source is a movie or music. Rarely do I listen to music in multichannel, but on the rare occasion I do, all I do is choose, say a stadium and listen to a Pink Floyd CD. Having a dedicated system for both is, for me, overkill.

 

[whoaru99]

Yes, the general consensus is that for 2 channel sources, multichannel is an abomination.

In some groups/forums that might be the case, but I don't think I'd conclude that's an overall consensus.

 

[Duckzilla]

OOps!

 

[Duckzilla]

Yes, the general consensus is that for 2 channel sources, multichannel is an abomination.

If I close my eyes, I do not notice the additional speakers, and everything has been calibrated electronically with a microphone.

An abomination? Thats a bit harsh, don't you think? Makes it sound like the spawn of the antichrist.

And please don't take this as being confrontational Picky, but I'm just curious as to how you calibrated your system electronically.

 

[Bobby D.]

I was just about to start a new thread and call it "Stereo VS Home Theater". I'm running a vintage tube stereo system with a pair of BIG vintage Jensens. I'm sure there are others out there with BIG Klipschs or BIG Altec Lansings, who just can't stand to let them stand silent while watching TV, especially when the TV and Stereo are side by side. (Come on, who wants to listen to some shoebox subwoofer when there are a pair of 15 inch woofers in the room?)

OK, I confess I'm biased towards Stereo, I've put a lot into my system. I've been running TV audio into my stereo amp long before TV even had stereo. Is that really such a bad way to watch TV? The only experience I have with surround sound is the demo setup at Sam's Club.

Can a "Home Theater" system compete (fidelity wise) with a killer stereo system? Maybe there are killer "Home Theater" systems that can do justice to music. :scratch2: Anyway, since TV went digital, the sound is pretty good, stereo or surround.

Maybe "Stereo VS Home Theater" is a generational thing. :scratch2:

Bobby Dipole

 

[whoaru99]

(Come on, who wants to listen to some shoebox subwoofer when there are a pair of 15 inch woofers in the room?)

Well, I agree. The flaw in the argument is that when subwoofers are discussed, I make the assumption that people consider using subs commensurate to or better than their main speakers, not something clearly inferior.

People have high expectations for their main speakers but then pair them with a poorly set up, mediocre, or worse, sub and wonder why the sub sounds crappy. Well...because it is crappy. Think about it. :scratch2:

 

[whoaru99]

Can a "Home Theater" system compete (fidelity wise) with a killer stereo system? Maybe there are killer "Home Theater" systems that can do justice to music. :scratch2:

Of course it can, and yes there are. It's just not likely you're going to do it for comparable money to a 2-ch system. Heck, you got at least 3 times more speakers alone, and aren't likely to find a good HT processor at GW for $15.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

For us: 2 channels is music. 5.1 channels movies. And both are done with different systems. The Music systems are much more expensive than the movie systems unless work related.

 

[Duckzilla]

For us: 2 channels is music. 5.1 channels movies. And both are done with different systems. The Music systems are much more expensive than the movie systems unless work related.

Any research to back that up? Just asking. I believe high-end HT is more prevalant than you think.

 

[rushfan]

First, I hear nothing but good about Energy speakers, from the bottom of the line up. I'll bet it sounds great.

Second, do you ever feel like you're missing something, when you run pure two channel playback? Do you ever want to engage one of the Dolby processors that (supposedly) recovers some otherwise unused ambience from cds?

tks,

s.

Come to think of it, I've never heard anything bad about Energy speakers either. It will take a lot to move me away from them, that's for sure. I might consider a set of PSB Platinum Series one day or just hold out for Harbeth's. At any rate, I'm in a good place with the Energy's at the moment, thanks!

Regarding DSP modes and the like, I never really cared for them when tried in the past. While listening in stereo I'm focused on imaging and soundstage anyway and with the right material, it gets pretty trippy in my little listening room.

I do like multichannel audio a great deal and have some favourite DVD-A's in my collection. Donald Fagen's Nightfly is a stand-out title as is Steely Dan's Gaucho and Two Against Nature. The latter makes my system sound like a million bucks and never fails to put a smile on my face.

I'm often amazed just how good classic rock can sound in 5.1. I've listened to some great discs from ZZ Top, Queen, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd and The Eagles. When done well, I don't find multichannel audio gimmicky in the least.

 

[PickyEars81]

I like energy speakers, too. They are a bit on the bright side, though. I run c7s for my surrounds, but they could easily (and were designed to be) mains in many systems.

As for the abomination comment, I was trying to be somewhat humorous, hence the italics for expression. But I do hear a lot of comments, especially here, that multichannel is no good for music. This is not a statement I entirely agree with, but given a standard HT setup, and most algorithms used, I understand the sentiment.

Duck, I calibrated them using a microphone and audyssey. It transmits sounds from each speaker, independently, and adjusts the volume and EQ to compensate for problems with the listening space, based on what the microphone picks up. Not sure how well it works in each system, but I found that it worked very well on my Onkyo. I have made my own settings manually, too, and the automatic ones do sound more balanced and seem to not color the sound.

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/multeq.html

 

[whoaru99]

Any research to back that up? Just asking. I believe high-end HT is more prevalant than you think.

I almost responded similarly, but then I thought "for us" probably means he and family, not a general statement. Could be wrong though.

 

[rushfan]

I like energy speakers, too. They are a bit on the bright side, though. I run c7s for my surrounds, but they could easily (and were designed to be) mains in many systems.

As for the abomination comment, I was trying to be somewhat humorous, hence the italics for expression. But I do hear a lot of comments, especially here, that multichannel is no good for music. This is not a statement I entirely agree with, but given a standard HT setup, and most algorithms used, I understand the sentiment.

Did you try other amps with your C-7's, or repositioning them? If you still find them a little bright you might be able to coax a wee bit more out of them yet.

I'm pretty confident that most folks who dismiss multichannel audio haven't heard it truly done well on a music-first system. I draw this opinion from my own experience with turntables and LP's. I had been listening to vinyl for over 40 years without ever really understanding what the fuss was all about. Then I got my first decent turntable and the worm turned for me.

 

[Duckzilla]

As for the abomination comment, I was trying to be somewhat humorous, hence the italics for expression. But I do hear a lot of comments, especially here, that multichannel is no good for music. This is not a statement I entirely agree with, but given a standard HT setup, and most algorithms used, I understand the sentiment.

Duck, I calibrated them using a microphone and audyssey. It transmits sounds from each speaker, independently, and adjusts the volume and EQ to compensate for problems with the listening space, based on what the microphone picks up. Not sure how well it works in each system, but I found that it worked very well on my Onkyo. I have made my own settings manually, too, and the automatic ones do sound more balanced and seem to not color the sound.

http://www.audyssey.com/technology/multeq.html

My comment about "abomination" was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek also, but actually didn't get past a broken lower filling.

I've heard of Audyssey and haven't researched it, so thanks for the link. I won't ask any questions here until I know what I'm talking about. (Now thats humorous).

 

[PickyEars81]

Did you try other amps with your C-7's, or repositioning them? If you find them a little bright you might be able to coax a wee bit more out of them yet.

I'm pretty confident that most folks who dismiss multichannel audio haven't heard it truly done well on a music-first system. I draw this opinion from my own experience with turntables and LP's. I had been listening to vinyl for over 40 years without ever really understanding what the fuss was all about. Then I got my first decent turntable and the worm turned for me.

To be clear: I am not dismissing (or dissing) multichannel audio. I really like multichannel audio *EDIT* I mean multichannel music*EDIT*, when it is done well. (For instance, I really enjoy Goodbye Yellow Brick Road on DVD-A.) I just haven't heard many systems or recordings that do it very well. In this thread, I was talking about upconverting 2 channel sources, specifically, but even that I prefer, given my current set up, in multichannel. (I am actually playing "Kind of Blue" from an LP, in multichannel, as I type this. ) This, however, I am doing with a patch that doesn't try to do put the vocals in the center, for instance. It still has a very stereo sound, but it fills the room (and the flaws in the room) better.

I like the speakers very much and they sound balanced in my current set up. I have a friend who liked them so much that he bought a pair for his mains. I have heard them through 3 or four different systems, and they can be made to sound very balanced. However, I still think they lean towards the bright side, out of the box. That's not necessarily a bad thing perse; not the kind of brightness that one might expect to get fatigued from, for instance.

 

[PickyEars81]

My comment about "abomination" was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek also, but actually didn't get past a broken lower filling.

I've heard of Audyssey and haven't researched it, so thanks for the link. I won't ask any questions here until I know what I'm talking about. (Now thats humorous).

I can review my settings, if you are interested. I don't use any of that auto volume crap, but the multiEQ worked pretty well for me, and all of the settings (speaker distance, level, EQ, etc) for each speaker were set automatically. This is no small feat to get precise by hand...

 

[Duckzilla]

Now I understand, and youre absolutely right about no small feat to do it by hand. I'm still in the DD 1.0 separate processor stage, so I use a DB meter, ears and skill...Ok ears. Having a software package to do it for you is a boon. I read about an environment-type EQ in TAS, that does the same in a seperate chassis. Seems to be the wave of the future.

 

[rushfan]

To be clear: I am not dismissing (or dissing) multichannel audio. I really like multichannel audio, when it is done well. (For instance, I really enjoy Goodbye Yellow Brick Road on DVD-A.) I just haven't heard many systems or recordings that do it very well. In this thread, I was talking about upconverting 2 channel sources, specifically, but even that I prefer, given my current set up, in multichannel. (I am actually playing "A Kind of Blue" from an LP, in multichannel, as I type this. ) This, however, I am doing with a patch that doesn't try to do put the vocals in the center, for instance. It still has a very stereo sound, but it fills the room (and the flaws in the room) better.

I like the speakers very much and they sound balanced in my current set up. I have a friend who liked them so much that he bought a pair for his mains. I have heard them through 3 or four different systems, and they can be made to sound very balanced. However, I still think they lean towards the bright side, out of the box. That's not necessarily a bad thing perse; not the kind of brightness that one might expect to get fatigued from, for instance.

For the record, you don't give the impression that you dislike multichannel audio. I was just picking up on something that you said. :yes:

Want to give your ears a treat? Pick up a copy of Two Against Nature on DVD-A. Now THAT'S multichannel done right!

 

[Doug G.]

I have an original style quadraphonic system and it sounds wonderful with anything.

Doug

 

[chris35745]

I am running a 7.1 setup for TV, DVD, games, etc in the living room. I have my SX-950 in the family room and just recently put two extra speakers in the living room and run them to the 950. The 950 handles reel and records. It is also hooked up to the TV in the family room. My 4 year old uses it to watch his DVDs while we watch TV in the living room. My HT is THX certified, has 4 separate amps hooked up and two subs and sounds awesome with DVDs, TV, and Sirius satellite radio I get through my satellite service. I dont care how sophisticated the processor is in it, I still think tape and vinyl sound superior on an old 2 channel vintage receiver.