Do you listen to music in 2.1, 3.1, 5.1 or 7.1?? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 102 Old 05-07-2008, 08:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
barryecohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GSP Exit 165, NJ
Posts: 918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I listen in 4.0 most of the time, using Dolby Pro Logic II - Music Mode.

So much media, so little time...

 

barryecohen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 102 Old 05-07-2008, 09:15 PM
Member
 
jas681312's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
2.0 for music CDs, vinyl, etc.

5.1 (DTS) seems to be nice for concert DVDs. Dolby Digital
5.1 sounds more compressed and not as natural.
jas681312 is offline  
post #93 of 102 Old 05-07-2008, 09:42 PM
SRR
AVS Special Member
 
SRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,938
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DPL IIx movie mode, movie mode over music cause it gives that central image that a true 2.0 stereo system will never be able to do. Think about my point, you don't have to agree with it . You have three identical speakers across the front, having sound come from the center channel will always beat something that is trying to be created artificially. Big studios always check their 2 channel CD mixes at mixdown or mastering stage for 5.1/7.1 compatibility. Same with the big TV/satellite networks, I worked on a video project that aired on Sky in England/Europe and it was rejected at first because the prologic decoding sounded terrible, but we couldn't do much with it as it stood. So some stuff was redone and it finally passed inspection and aired. More music is being produced with DPL II in mind, yes it is a crap shoot whether it will always sound better matrixed over 5.1 channels but in the long run the majority of stuff sounds great to me. Scoff if you want but that is my preference and WHY.
SRR is offline  
post #94 of 102 Old 05-08-2008, 12:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Kangaroo128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
2.1 for me as well. Not a big fan of matrixing any source.
Kangaroo128 is offline  
post #95 of 102 Old 05-08-2008, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kpt_Krunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Like a lot of people here, I like to listen to the music the way it was recorded. For instance, DSOTM was recorded in 'quadrophenia' or 'Q-sound' so it's best to be hear on FOUR speakers.

I like DVD-Audio's and SACD's too. The sound is much better - no compression at all - and most (not all) recordings really sound nice using all your speakers, and is a nice diversion from standard 2.0

So I guess I listen to everything no matter what. Since I invested in a 5 channel receiver, and an amp, and 3 additional speakers, it is nice to use them for as many applications as possible. Though I know a lot of people here buy separate two channel systems just to listen to music only (many choosing tubes of course for amplification and even source).

Most of my two channel right now is done through Headphones and an Headphone amp (tube amp of course). Sounds fantastic, I don't bother my wife or son (usually listen when they're in bed) and the detail/smoothness is incredible.

Funny, though it's "two" channel, the sound envelopes you, kinda like my SACD's and DVD-A's do when listening in 5 channel (with a lot more bass of course).

Food for thought is all

"it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it"
Kpt_Krunch is offline  
post #96 of 102 Old 05-12-2008, 04:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
DiCecco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Exeter,Ca. 93221 USA
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I use to listen to my cd's in multi channel but since I upgraded my front speakers to Salk HT2's I now now listen to my cd's in pure audio 2 channel mode from Onkyo pro 885.

Thomas DiCecco
DiCecco is offline  
post #97 of 102 Old 05-12-2008, 09:53 AM
Member
 
BlackObs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Bay, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll listen to some stuff in Neural 5.1 (I have a 5.1 setup), but my preferred listening environment--in the less-than-48hrs I've had a home theater--is in 2.0, with my Denon 1908 receiver set to Pure Direct. The front channels are floor-standing Paradigm Monitor 7s and don't need the sub for music.

Having said that, I've yet to make my first foray into the realm of multichannel audio. I was poking around the AIX website last night, and may yet order a couple of DVD-As from them, if I can find something to my taste.
BlackObs is offline  
post #98 of 102 Old 12-20-2012, 11:54 PM
Member
 
Audiophyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is a great thread, I've been spending unhealthy amounts of time in the last few weeks trying to figure out how to go here. I like stereo but I also want to get a nicer 5.1 setup for the SXRD. I wouldn't mind listening in 5.1 either, and I've just been trying to decide which would be the better overall compromise. I think though I'll end up going 5.1/7.1 and using it for both music and video, and probably use a front L and R that are more geared towards music.
Audiophyle is offline  
post #99 of 102 Old 12-21-2012, 05:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I currently listen in a 2.0 format, but I'd prefer 2.1.

Updated: I've listened in 2.2 configuration for a couple years now. I'll never go back.

My journey to find the "perfect" speaker
Dr. Olive's Blog

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #100 of 102 Old 12-21-2012, 06:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I listen to 2.0, 2.1, and 5.1 depending on the material. If it's mellow or easy listening type music, then I'll go with 2.0. If it's faster paced rock, rap or dubstep then I'll go with 2.1.

Only when I have actual 5.1 audio will I listen in 5.1. And it's pretty impressive how enveloping it feels.

Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
Roy Orbison - A Black and White Night
Queen - A Night at the Opera
NIN - The Downward Spiral
Eagles - Hotel California

All of these are fun to listen to with 5.1.

Louquid is offline  
post #101 of 102 Old 12-21-2012, 11:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 861 Post(s)
Liked: 787
When I watch standard-def content on my hi-def display, I don't map each source pixel to each display pixel, otherwise I would end up using a 480x720 grid of pixels in the middle of my 1080x1920 display whenever I watch a DVD. Instead, all sources (480, 720, etc) get scaled to my HDTV.

Likewise, I don't map the number of discrete channels in the source material to the exact same number of speakers in my set-up (each channel sent to one-and-only-one speaker). Instead, everything gets scaled to my speaker layout. When listening to 2-channel material, anything that phantom imaged at the centre of the soundstage now comes from my centre speaker. In real life the human voice is not produced as a dual-mono, comb-filtering phantom image; I don't see why I should re-produce it that way at home. In real life when listening to live music, ambient information doesn't all come from the same direction as the soundstage, instead it comes from around me. So at home, I would rather re-route recorded ambience to the speakers that are around me rather than restricting it to the speakers in front of me (which sounds unnatural to me).

It's never mattered to me whether I had 3 speakers or 5 speakers or 7 speakers; all sources, irrespective of number of channels, gets scaled (up or down) to the number of speakers in my current layout.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #102 of 102 Old 12-21-2012, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kangaroo128 View Post

2.1 for me as well. Not a big fan of matrixing any source.

Same here. It never sounds quite as good to me matrixed: the imaging is better for me in stereo.

OTOH, it took me a while to get over the audiophile hangup of insisting on pure direct 2.0 versus the more processed 2.1, but as capable as my mains are for bass the sub goes lower and gets EQed.

psgcdn is offline  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off