Do you listen to music in 2.1, 3.1, 5.1 or 7.1?? - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

Forum Jump: 
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: 966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I listen in 4.0 most of the time, using Dolby Pro Logic II - Music Mode.

So much media, so little time...

Oppo BDP-83 > Emotiva UMC-200 > Audio Alchemy OM-150 Dual Mono > Gallo Reference 3.5
_____________________________ > Audio Alchemy OM-150 > Gallo Strada 
barryecohen is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #92 of 102 Old 05-07-2008, 09:15 PM
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
AVS Special Member
SRR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,970
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: 388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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: 1,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 19
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: 561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
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
BlackObs's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Bay, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 20
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
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: 11,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 77
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
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: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 38
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: 24,083
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4144 Post(s)
Liked: 2627
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.

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: 4,874
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Liked: 307
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  
Sponsored Links
Reply Speakers

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