[RiverSide]

I think I'm growing out of it.. 10 years ago I walked into a NY audio boutique like a wide-eyed kid in a candystore.. Of course they had nothing even remotely close to a 5.1 combo in my $1000 budget but the nice salesperson did try and talk me into a stereo setup and even offered a great deal on some open box name brand towers.. his words.. "two channel if done properly will give you the 'surround sound' you are after".


A decade later, I wish I'd taken him up on his offer.


I walked out of that store adamant to experience "surround sound". Almost ten years later, just last week, I sold the fronts and rear and the center and sub are up for sale too.. I think I'll get some decent used stereo speakers for under $1000/pair and declare closure..


Anyone else feel the same?

 

[4DHD]

I have both MC system and two stereo systems and enjoy all three.


Of coarse, when you're only talking $1K, you generally aren't going to get much, especially for MC. Whereas spending $1K for stereo will get a much better system.

But to get that stereo system to provide max quality sound requires have it setup properly in the room, and hopefully the room itself, isn't a bear for sound.


Having the speakers at least 3ft from all walls and symmetrically spaced across the room is the first step.

For a true rectangular room using .276 x the room's width will give you the proper speaker locations as to the distance to the side walls. Ex. 17.5ft wide room x .276 = 58" from speakers to the side walls.


If you also have the space, using .447 x room width will give you the proper distance to the wall behind the speakers. In my case that would translate into having the speakers about 93" out from the end wall. But as I also have MC in that room I don't use it, keeping the speakers 54" out.


Having the speakers at the proper distance from sides gives the best soundstage width.

And using the .447 will provide max soundstage depth, depending on the recording.


Done right, stereo can be very good.

 

[jnickrand]

The salesman 10 years ago was clueless, especially if this system doubles as HT.

 

[Bob7145]

The theory and intention of surround sound was good but the TV networks ruined that. Nothing like getting blasted out of your chair when a commercial comes on. And then there's all the pops and clicks (snap, crackle, pop) on NBC.

(begin rant) What I like most about MC is turning the center channel level down as low as it will go when watching football or any special event (Olympics opening ceremony) with an obnoxious announcer. Surprising how much you can crank your system with the center semi muted. Shame so much effort went into the Olympics Ceremony only to have it ruined by someone that won't shut the hell up! (end rant)

Back on topic, I use both Stereo and multi channel. Stereo for internet radio, broadcast radio, CDs (music) and multi channel for gaming, movies, good TV. Actually got into multi channel first through gaming and then for movies so I went digital for TV in early 2004. Well, in '93 I bought an RCA tv that had built in amps and connections for 2 external faux surround sound speakers which worked well with a couple of Boston Acoustic 6" 2 ways. So I like to listen to music while gaming sometimes and having Stereo an MC solves that.

I joke sometimes that all anyone needs is 1 speaker in the center of the room facing the ceiling...and a good sub!

 

[sdurani]



Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverSide /forum/post/15397040


his words.. "two channel if done properly will give you the 'surround sound' you are after".

If you are after using your room as a surround processor, then the salesman is correct. Otherwise, a pair of speakers in front of you is in the wrong location for stable lateral imaging and for anchoring of sounds behind you. The best you can hope for from 2-speaker playback is to couple the room and hear 'surround sound' generated by reflections (which provide spatial cues that describe your listening room rather than the recorded space).


I once ate at a new age vegetarian restaurant that made creative use of tofu in order to have a variety of faux meat dishes on their menu. I found it kinda sad that a vegetarian restaurant wasn't celebrating the eating of vegetables. Likewise, if you prefer 2-speaker playback (totally valid choice), then embrace it for what it is, rather than pretending you're going to get some sort of faux 'surround sound'.


Sanjay

 

[4DHD]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/15397993


If you are after using your room as a surround processor, then the salesman is correct. Otherwise, a pair of speakers in front of you is in the wrong location for stable lateral imaging and for anchoring of sounds behind you. The best you can hope for from 2-speaker playback is to couple the room and hear 'surround sound' generated by reflections (which provide spatial cues that describe your listening room rather than the recorded space).


I once ate at a new age vegetarian restaurant that made creative use of tofu in order to have a variety of faux meat dishes on their menu. I found it kinda sad that a vegetarian restaurant wasn't celebrating the eating of vegetables. Likewise, if you prefer 2-speaker playback (totally valid choice), then embrace it for what it is, rather than pretending you're going to get some sort of faux 'surround sound'.


Sanjay

Even using the various Dolby VS modes, the best it will do is widen the front soundstage.


But I did have a 2.1 system in another room, setup diagonally across the room, to better spread out the speakers. And with some recordings that setup did sound as if there was surround channels.

 

[mconno]

If you're into HT at all...IMO 2 speakers can't cut it....music ? It's personal taste.

I think you'll be back after you've had two for a while and a friend plays you a well done concert in 5.1 on his.


Real life sound isn't generated from just one or two sources...if it was...


why not just go with a "sound bar" ?.


I assume you have all sorts of settings to play with...find one you like.

 

[Denophile]

i still love both multichannel and stereo audio--depends n my mood but i like continuing to have the flexibility to do both... 5.1 (min) seems a must for movies...

 

[Erik Tracy]

Imo - the best way to listen to a source is the way it was recorded.


2-channel music is best listened to with a properly setup and configured 2-channel system.


And movies with multi-channel formats is best listened to with a mult-channel system.


A properly setup HT rig can do both.


Keep it simple - the more mucking about with fancy DSP and channels is counter productive to the listening experience.


But that's just my deflated 2cents worth

 

[4DHD]

I enjoy listening to just stereo, but like I said before, it needs to be setup right, but so does MC systems.

But I also like listening to stereo sources through L7 processing, it really brings it closer to the real thing.

 

[Nuance]



Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverSide /forum/post/15397040



Anyone else feel the same?

No. For movies nothing beats the full 5.1 or 7.1 sound. Also, a subwoofer is essential to a good movie experience.


Sure, a good 2.0 system will outperform an average 5.0 system, but nothing beats a great full 7.1 (or .2 or more) surround system for movies. It just has to be done right.


If you think 2.0 can outperform a good 5.1 system, then you aren't spending enough on the 5.1 system or your room acoustics stink.

 

[Raymond Leggs]

I used to think dolby pro logic was true surround sound.

 

[sdurani]



Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD /forum/post/15398242


I did have a 2.1 system in another room, setup diagonally across the room, to better spread out the speakers. And with some recordings that setup did sound as if there was surround channels.

Yeah, I get that effect every so often with my TV speakers; sometimes even makes me turn my head. But it's not consistent, with the results varying based on source material, seating location, etc.


That's why I used the word "stable" in my original post. IF you want stable imaging at your sides and behind you, then there's no substitute for speakers at your sides and behind you. Not much more complicated than that.


Sanjay

 

[lpm]



Quote:
Anyone else feel the same?

Well yes and no!

Yes in the sense that quite some time ago now I separated my primary stereo to another room from my HT set up because whilst I could get good stereo from the HT area, I could never really get it great without compromise of some sort to either the HT or stereo side of things - speaker positioning for example as mentioned by 4DHD. Having a stand-alone stereo, I have rediscovered just how excellent it can be when correctly set up.


No in the sense that HT and stereo to me serve two quite different needs and I still want both. With stereo I am listening to a sound stage that starts just in front of the speakers and is wide and deep (behind) them. Well set up it is incredibly 3D but is not surround, the stage is always in front of me and I love this presentation for most recorded music.


On the other hand, in a good 5.1 or 7.1 mix be it music or film, surround has me in the middle of the action. I love this for some music concerts and movies but the mix often leaves me cold when it is badly engineered and appears artificial. Having an instrument suddenly move from in front to behind or beside me is annoying to say least. Well engineered, surround can be great for the right material and I wouldn't be without it so no, I wouldn't just go back to stereo alone.

 

[Mikeb53]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/15397993


).


I once ate at a new age vegetarian restaurant that made creative use of tofu in order to have a variety of faux meat dishes on their menu. I found it kinda sad that a vegetarian restaurant wasn't celebrating the eating of vegetables. Likewise, if you prefer 2-speaker playback (totally valid choice), then embrace it for what it is, rather than pretending you're going to get some sort of faux 'surround sound'.


Sanjay

I always wonder why veg restaurants try to make their food look and taste like meat. I mean if you are a veg eater except the fact that you don't eat meat, if you want something that looks and tastes like meat, eat meat. Very strange.

 

[RiverSide]

and that's my only concern.. how would 5.1 sound downmixed to 2.0 .. not even 2.1?


I tend to agree that the quality of the room, setup and equipment would have to make up for the loss of directionality provided by the extra set of speakers and the dedicated sub. I had Paradigms all around, and a Velodyne sub. Perhaps the setup was low-end and didn't quite deliver a great 5.1 experience. I helped my friend with his M&K setup and it does sound marginally better.


Well today i'll probably unload the rest of the gear and then it's off to a new beginning.. To make the thread more relevant to the forum.. where should I begin? I still want to start off with 2.0 and see first if I miss a center channel. Stereo has great imaging so I'm hoping I won't.


Then see if I miss the sub and later take care of any surrounds if at all. Maybe this time I'll give stereo a real good chance.. Would 1000/pair be a reasonable budget for some used models that can handle down to about 30Hz?

 

[penngray]



Quote:
Then see if I miss the sub and later take care of any surrounds if at all. Maybe this time I'll give stereo a real good chance.. Would 1000/pair be a reasonable budget for some used models that can handle down to about 30Hz?

I have to believe you just do not have a good sub at all if you are wondering if you would miss it.


Home Theater is not Home Theater without a sub and even though comercial speakers "say" they can do 30Hz....they are CRAPPY at it compared to any great sub systems.


2.0 Home theater is something a BOSE owner would rave about

 

[4DHD]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lpm /forum/post/15402801


Well yes and no!

Yes in the sense that quite some time ago now I separated my primary stereo to another room from my HT set up because whilst I could get good stereo from the HT area, I could never really get it great without compromise of some sort to either the HT or stereo side of things - speaker positioning for example as mentioned by 4DHD. Having a stand-alone stereo, I have rediscovered just how excellent it can be when correctly set up.


No in the sense that HT and stereo to me serve two quite different needs and I still want both. With stereo I am listening to a sound stage that starts just in front of the speakers and is wide and deep (behind) them. Well set up it is incredibly 3D but is not surround, the stage is always in front of me and I love this presentation for most recorded music.

I had to do the opposite. The room I used for the TT system for 1 1/2 years, was the old LR that I converted into another BR, by adding a series of walls along one side. That made the room difficult to setup a system, as I couldn't get the speakers far enough away from the walls to get a wide soundstage.


Whereas the current LR/HT I designed for audio, completely symmetrical and wide enough to have an 8ft spread between the mains and still have 58" distance from speakers to the side walls and 54" out from the end wall.

So that room works very well for both stereo and MC.

Quote:
On the other hand, in a good 5.1 or 7.1 mix be it music or film, surround has me in the middle of the action. I love this for some music concerts and movies but the mix often leaves me cold when it is badly engineered and appears artificial. Having an instrument suddenly move from in front to behind or beside me is annoying to say least. Well engineered, surround can be great for the right material and I wouldn't be without it so no, I wouldn't just go back to stereo alone.

Ya, some MC mixes leave something to be desired.

 

[4DHD]



Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverSide /forum/post/15403358


and that's my only concern.. how would 5.1 sound downmixed to 2.0 .. not even 2.1?


I tend to agree that the quality of the room, setup and equipment would have to make up for the loss of directionality provided by the extra set of speakers and the dedicated sub. I had Paradigms all around, and a Velodyne sub. Perhaps the setup was low-end and didn't quite deliver a great 5.1 experience. I helped my friend with his M&K setup and it does sound marginally better.


Well today i'll probably unload the rest of the gear and then it's off to a new beginning.. To make the thread more relevant to the forum.. where should I begin? I still want to start off with 2.0 and see first if I miss a center channel. Stereo has great imaging so I'm hoping I won't.


Then see if I miss the sub and later take care of any surrounds if at all. Maybe this time I'll give stereo a real good chance.. Would 1000/pair be a reasonable budget for some used models that can handle down to about 30Hz?

Wanting to have a good stereo system doesn't mean you have to for go a sub. I've been running at least one sub for 30 years. Originally a 2.1 system that I built up, years later, into a 7.2 system. And that system works very well for both stereo and MC.


But it does require you get a good quality sub, not some one note, distortion filled boomy banger. I had one such sub about 5 years ago and sold it off.

I had

 

[jmichaelf]

I have a 2 channel system for music and movies. It's a good way to keep my living room clean while still having good sound. I spent about $3k for two channels. I think for 7.1 it would cost about $20k. That's just not in the budget. So for now I'm happy with two speakers, a plasma and a blu-ray player. It's a pleasant experience.