Two Channel Home Theater Test

[Akira]

I don't want to be in the middle of the band or orchestra. And to hear a vocal soloist, James Taylor for example, coming from all around you is ridiculous.

David

While currently 2 channel fidelity is superior, the surround sound experience has to be way, way, better one day when they figure it out. It is possible of course to do that right now, but the cost is horrendous; there are fewer options for discreet integration; the recorded material isn't there; the room means everything and it is gonna have to be some size if you want to use 5 large full impact monitors. In that case, yeah give me 5.1 any day.

From the little I have heard, the recorded production isn't there yet. I can remember first hearing stereo with the drums on one side and the vocalist on the other, and i thought...

[Zilch]

"I don't want to be in the middle of the band or orchestra. And to hear a vocal soloist, James Taylor for example, coming from all around you is ridiculous."

That'd be a bad mix, actually. The big plus of having a center is Taylor stays solidly there.

S2600, S3100 and Everest keep him there without one, of course, in phantom center....

[Mr. Widget]

I do have a moderate HT System to listen to movies. Just waiting to see if I'm going to need 7,10 or 50 speakers to catch up with the process. Right now 5.1 is doing me just fine.

I have a reasonably high quality HT set up with horn loaded two-ways across the front, a pair of cone and dome surrounds, and a pair of Sub1500s. I find it quite satisfying for movies, and can't imagine going to more channels... especially since movies are mixed for 5.1 and most theaters are 5.1... I think the 7.1 is only useful for odd rooms or when you are forced to sit at the back of the room up against a wall.. As for 5 or more "large" speakers... I suppose that would make sense for multichannel music, but that isn't my thing. For movies, it is absolutely unnecessary. Look at the surround speakers at any good THX theater. Small effects speakers. That's all that is needed.

As far as listening to music I still like the band to be in front of me rather than sitting in the middle of it.

I have two 5.1 set ups, one is a home theater and the other is for TV and occasional music. I have yet to hear a multi-channel recording that I prefer to pure two channel stereo. I suppose this is purely subjective, as there are those who like what I consider strange effects and that is fine for them, but for me I agree with Al, I want the musicians on stage with me in the audience. For me this works best with one pair of speakers in front in an equilateral triangle with no wall immediately behind me. Unfortunately to get this performance right, I have not been able to succeed by simply using the left and right channels of either of my 5.1 systems... the processors are just not as good as a dedicated two-channel rig. I realize that there are a few kilo-buck units out now that are supposed to be good enough, but my budget won't accommodate that, so I have found it more reasonable to have duplicate systems... extra amps etc. and a true two-channel preamp for sound quality and convenience.


Widget

[speakerdave]

That'd be a bad mix, actually.

That was what was offered to me for a demo at a really pricey audio salon here in town. They're gone now.

David

[Titanium Dome]

Right now I'm listening to Porcupine Tree's Deadwing DVD-A on my multipurpose HT/music Performance Series 7.1 set up. It's absolutely stunning, an experience far beyond any 2.0 or 2.1 musical reproduction. It shows the potential for truly dimensional sound. (Wasn't it Capitol Records that had "full dimensional" sound on its LPs?)

Yet I will concede that these types of musical pleasures are few and far between, since there's so little source material in DVD-A (and SACD if you care). However, the infrequency of a pleasure does not diminish its desirability.

While one may conjecture that lesser speakers suffice for surround channels, I have found that speakers of equal ability all 'round make a telling difference in sonic satisfaction.

True enough, on some films, all they do is supply ambient sound and occasional special effects, but on well mastered cinema, the surrounds are as carefully considered as the mains. In the same vein, a well-mastered DVD-A, SACD, DD 5.1 CD or DTS CD, will not reveal full potential unless the entire system is capable.

This shouldn't be construed as meaning all speakers must be the same, though I was lucky enough to fall into such a set up. Even on its high end Sythesis systems, JBL puts the better speakers up front. At the same time, the surround speakers are better than the high end speaker some folks have in their primary two-channel systems. But, for $100k plus, what would we expect?

[speakerdave]

However, the infrequency of a pleasure does not diminish its desirability.

A little life lesson we've all had a chance to learn, I'm sure.

David

[Titanium Dome]

A little life lesson we've all had a chance to learn, I'm sure.

David

Well observed, my friend.

[Jakeisuseless]

I don't watch TV. I don't watch many movies. I listen to music consistaintly. Music is in stereo.... Hence, I don't need to see the need for 5.1.

[majick47]

For now I'm sticking with my 2.1 system for audio/video. Years ago when I entered the broadcasting field I was informed that the lowest common denominator is the rule of thumb and that applies even more so today. I watch a handful of movies a year and purchase some live concert dvds, that's all I can take, left the video store empty handed more times than I can remember.

[Titanium Dome]

CAUTION! Bawdy humor alert.

I don't watch TV. I don't watch many movies. I listen to music consistaintly. Music is in stereo.... Hence, I don't need to see the need for 5.1.

For now I'm sticking with my 2.1 system for audio/video. Years ago when I entered the broadcasting field I was informed that the lowest common denominator is the rule of thumb and that applies even more so today. I watch a handful of movies a year and purchase some live concert dvds, that's all I can take, left the video store empty handed more times than I can remember.

Zactly. I got all this nice home theater stuff, nuthin to put on it. I prefer to pipe the crap out of my house, not in.

My processessor has been in the closet for atleast 5 years, but it was fun for awhile.

Here's a stereo pair you geezers'll appreciate.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/108082.html

[Charlie4350]

For now I'm sticking with my 2.1 system for audio/video. Years ago when I entered the broadcasting field I was informed that the lowest common denominator is the rule of thumb and that applies even more so today. I watch a handful of movies a year and purchase some live concert dvds, that's all I can take, left the video store empty handed more times than I can remember.

Zactly. I got all this nice home theater stuff, nuthin to put on it. I prefer to pipe the crap out of my house, not in.

My processessor has been in the closet for atleast 5 years, but it was fun for awhile.

[WDJ]

I heard Case was a very, very good school in a very rough part of town, but that was in the fifties and sixties. I'm sure it is still a great school, but I wouldn't know about the neighborhood.

Case is still a very, very good school, it is also a very expensive school to which I send my son and most of my money. The neighborhood is simply a bit "interesting".

But more importantly, regarding the original point of this thread; quality speakers wil always better than a plethora of poor units. Way back when the L212 came out the L166 was near equal to it. Jubals were matched by some tiny little units from Braun (once fooled several JBL reps with them)

But. like the old Sessions album said, you have to pick what you like 'cuz you are the one that has to listen to it.

[Jakeisuseless]

I'm 16 years old and being accused of being a grandfather.

[Mr. Widget]

I'm 16 years old and being accused of being a grandfather.

Well if the shoes fit....


Widget

[MJC]

I have a reasonably high quality HT set up with horn loaded two-ways across the front, a pair of cone and dome surrounds, and a pair of Sub1500s. I find it quite satisfying for movies, and can't imagine going to more channels... especially since movies are mixed for 5.1 and most theaters are 5.1... I think the 7.1 is only useful for odd rooms or when you are forced to sit at the back of the room up against a wall.. As for 5 or more "large" speakers... I suppose that would make sense for multichannel music, but that isn't my thing. For movies, it is absolutely unnecessary. Look at the surround speakers at any good THX theater. Small effects speakers. That's all that is needed.
I have two 5.1 set ups, one is a home theater and the other is for TV and occasional music. I have yet to hear a multi-channel recording that I prefer to pure two channel stereo. I suppose this is purely subjective, as there are those who like what I consider strange effects and that is fine for them, but for me I agree with Al, I want the musicians on stage with me in the audience. For me this works best with one pair of speakers in front in an equilateral triangle with no wall immediately behind me. Unfortunately to get this performance right, I have not been able to succeed by simply using the left and right channels of either of my 5.1 systems... the processors are just not as good as a dedicated two-channel rig. I realize that there are a few kilo-buck units out now that are supposed to be good enough, but my budget won't accommodate that, so I have found it more reasonable to have duplicate systems... extra amps etc. and a true two-channel preamp for sound quality and convenience.
Widget

Companies, like Lexicon, have been doing 7 channel for at least 20 years, long before 5.1 became the norm in the mid '90s. The reason is that is what our hearing prefers, compared to 5 channels.

I've got two dvds of Top Gun, the first is 5.1, the sound is a collectors edition with dts 6.1, there is a big difference when it comes to the sound effects of the flight scenes with the addition of back channels.

The first dedicated HT I ever experienced was in '89, up in Lake Tahoe, seven channels, all analog sources. It was amazing to say the least.
As for some mixes on DVD-audio, which sounds like you're sitting in the middle sounds less than realitic. But with at least 5 channels playing, you can hear more of the music that was recorded, compared to stereo, you know, less down mixing.