Two Channel Home Theater Test [Archive]

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 08:44 AM

Call me a holdout, but I am still not won over by 5.1 HT. This link is close to my thoughts on the matter:
http://www.jolida.com/tube/hometheater.shtml
I am also waiting for the media sources to catch up; the Pretenders still sound much better on VHS than DVD in some cases. I'm sure audio hi fi quality is not a criterion for the mass market yet.
Still, I wanted to give a fair hearing to motion picture audio's contemporary strengths - the low, low frequency slam and ultra dymanic range found perhaps nowhere but in soundtracks. I've heard it ad nauseum on 5.1 in homes and shops, but I finally got the opportunity last night to "two channel classic JBL" it.
The family was out of town and a new DVD of War Of The Worlds was at hand, as were my 4333's. Denon 80 wpc was chosen over my usual tube rig. I set the volume to "live" vocal levels and didn't turn it down no matter how loud it got. It did get pretty damn loud. I set the playback to 2.0. I hadn't seen the film yet, so I was open to an unknown experience.

OH MY GOD:blink:. Was it great. With the presentation and sensation that resulted, I felt more than surrounded, I felt totally immersed. The soundstage was all over, but pinpoint in source when that was what was supposed to happen. I'm going to be harder to convince now, because 5.1 seems to have NOTHING to add to big JBL's on 2.0 as far as I can tell. I can only assume the quality - and size, frankly - of the transducers has more to do with the theater experience than surround technology and esoteric placement of the elements. Besides, who among us can tell with our eyes closed, or glued to a movie, where 30hz is coming from? Maybe James B. Lansing's quality execution of big cones plus horn in movie palaces wasn't so easy to improve after all...

I have an open mind, I'll keep listening, but I'm not shoping for a 5.1 rig anytime soon.

Clark in Peoria

Titanium Dome

11-26-2005, 09:16 AM

"HOLDOUT!" :p

Lancer

11-26-2005, 09:26 AM

:rotfl::rotfl: :rotfl:

We've been doing surround sound since Laserdiscs first came out... to argue about surround sound at this juncture is like arguing which stone tool is better for hollowing out a tree trunk to make a canoe. :p

I'm going to be harder to convince now, because 5.1 seems to have NOTHING to add to big JBL's on 2.0 as far as I can tell.

I guess the only people who could give a second of their time to care if you like 5.1 instead of 2.0 would be those who would love to sell you something. That said - you need to hook up with somone who has a 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 Synthesis, Performance Series, or Array Series surround sound system before you dismiss the medium in favor of ancient "43whatevers" in 2.0. ;)

Hamilton

11-26-2005, 09:51 AM

That said - you need to hook up with somone who has a 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 Synthesis, Performance Series, or Array Series surround sound system before you dismiss the medium in favor of ancient "43whatevers" in 2.0. http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/wink.gif
I hate disagreeing with what somebody likes....to each his own, but I'm with Lancer on this.

I just finished building a 5.1 system, with Zilch's extensive help, after owning the two channel Pro Logic for twenty years. My experience with the 5.1 has been nothing short of phenominal; it's not even a contest. I can't ever imagine going back...

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 10:03 AM

I've heard PLENTY of surround sound. All I'm saying is I'm not impressed by anything that in not a big improvement. Different and better are not the same entry in the dictionary for a good reason. And when CD's sound better than vinyl I'll admit that too. And welcome it!
Like I said, I'll always listen.

Now I'll go back to my cave and continue to make my flint tools.:D

Really, guys, thanks for the feedback. All is welcome, that's why I posted. For some reason I can't explain, I respect and admire you, Lancer.
And TD, your French seems to be better than my English. Where did you pick it up?
I was hoping to hear from you both and I'm not dissappointed.

Clark in Peoria, huddled by the fire with an eye out for cave bears...

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 10:08 AM

Did any of you guys read the link before pouncing?

speakerdave

11-26-2005, 10:31 AM

As someone who has a strong preference for the old heavy-duty stuff in all things mechanical I'm surprised to be disagreeing--although not wholly. It's basically a financial argument that is made. It is, in fact, a huge additional expense to make an HT system OF EQUAL QUALITY. Many people have two systems, because there are many choices of good preamps, for example, in 2-channel, and none in 5.1, etc, that will play 2 channel well unless enormously expensive (by my standards).

But I am curious about HT and will eventually build a second system (of small classic JBL's probably), to have it. But I will not be looking to this system to hear surround DVD Audio or SACD. For one thing the systems are different, including speaker placement, as I understand it. Also 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

Audiobeer

11-26-2005, 10:36 AM

Hey Duc, I'll be finished with my system after the first of the year....maybe. It will consist of 7 4313Bs for HT and 1 Triad Gold in room sub. I'll have a pair of 4430s for 2 channel listening. I'll have you down for an A/B. I listened to the very same DVD you did. My wife and I both commented how the 2 channel sound was great on this film. We both expressed dissapointment that we couldn't listen to it in 5.1, That being said I look forward to you checking it out after your down for a Cardinals game. Even though your into vinyl I know you can't be a cubs fan! :applaud: Just kidding!!!!!! (Anout the vinyl-Cubs fan thing)

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 10:47 AM

As someone who has a strong preference for the old heavy-duty stuff in all things mechanical I'm surprised to be disagreeing--although not wholly. It's basically financial argument that is made. It is, in fact, a huge additional expense to make an HT system OF EQUAL QUALITY. Many people have two systems, because there are many choices of good preamps, for example, in 2-channel, and none in 5.1, etc, that will play 2 channel well unless enormously expensive (by my standards).

But I am curious about HT and will eventually build a second system (of small classic JBL's probably), to have it. But I will not be looking to this system to hear surround DVD Audio or SACD. For one thing the systems are different, including speaker placement, as I understand it. Also 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

I couldn't agree more! I guess I'm willing at this point to nearly go into hock to reproduce a musical performance, but look for something a little different from "motion pictures."
Movies that are not about soundtrack and other post production effects are far more effective to me. Deals and equipment are no substitute for director's craft, writing talent, acting and cinematography. That is something that will never change. The Whole Wide World will always be worth seeing and Pearl Harbor never will. All things being equal, though, I'm sure someday I'll try surround.

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 10:51 AM

Even though your into vinyl I know you can't be a cubs fan! :applaud: Just kidding!!!!!! (Anout the vinyl-Cubs fan thing)

Thanks, Audiobeer (still a great screenname). I have only been a Cubs fan for fifty of my years, so there is hope. And believe me, I love my CD's!!!
If an mp3 is all I have of a good piece of music, I enjoy it early and often. And I can't get rid of my crappy vinyl fast enough.

Clark the Cro-magnon, apparently

Titanium Dome

11-26-2005, 11:00 AM

Did any of you guys read the link before pouncing?

Truth be told, I considered some Jolida tube amps when I bought my Fosgate FAP T1 a couple of years ago from United Audio. It was a very attractive package deal. After reading the Jolida position on HT, I was a little confused on why they'd partner with a major supplier to sell six amps to me when they were somewhat lukewarm to MC sound. (Besides making money, of course.)

I think the economics of their observations are reasonable, but their argument is weak once that variable is removed. Of course a multi-channel system will cost more. There's more parts. My first real MC set up was all used JBLs that once retailed for thousands but cost just over a thousand used.

One motivator for me to invest in the Performance Series was to avoid having several average speakers for an average MC set up. I wanted speakers excellent enough for two-channel sound and MC sound. JBL now makes several good systems for that, and they're all expensive by consumer standards.

I think your preference for two-channel is valid given a certain reality, like "I want to have two very good speakers rather than five so-so speakers."

But if you want to compare two-channel to MC based on overall performance (rather than cost), it's a different outcome IMO. I'd rather have seven excellent speakers.

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 11:22 AM

But if you want to compare two-channel to MC based on overall performance (rather than cost), it's a different outcome IMO. I'd rather have seven excellent speakers.

Partially quoted here, all true. I do like the old stuff, but seven 4345's are a little out of my reach (that's 3 1/2 % of all the units ever made!) and my room size. Still, on my budget, the classic monitors are such a bargain next to newer quality units. Imagine what it would cost to manufacture 4345's (or my 4333's) today. But you are of course completely correct.

My 60 X 2 JoLida is gathering dust in favor of a six wpc Grommes. These monitors are efficient...

Now, your Fluent French. Where? How? Not only did I miss the whole French Foreign Legion experience (DeGaulle isn't going to make me march in Paris carrying a shovel) but, Like Korben Dallas, I only speak two languages, English and Bad English.

Clark-Magnon in Peoria

Hamilton

11-26-2005, 11:50 AM

Did any of you guys read the link before pouncing?
I was hoping NOT to pounce, but yep, I read it. It seemed more concerned about staying on a budget vs building a stellar system. But what does an old worn out mechanic know... http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 12:07 PM

I was hoping NOT to pounce, but yep, I read it. It seemed more concerned about staying on a budget vs building a stellar system. But what does an old worn out mechanic know... http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

If I had you and Zilch building my system, I'm sure I'd be happy with it if you had used Dr. Bose's wretched casket as a starting point.:) And I happen to be an old worn out camera repairman, cemetery salesman, metal sprinkler and powder coat peon, bookstore jockey, hippie protestor, high-end photo lab idiot, lawn aerrator, scholar, Cubs fan, motorcyclist, artist, bicycle junkie and God knows what else. Being an old worn out mechanic would give me much more street cred. ;)

Clark-magnon in Peoria

Hamilton

11-26-2005, 01:40 PM

Clark, that is quite a resume!

Mine is not so broad, I now specialize in three areas :

old
grumpy
ugly

...in no particular order.

Hey, we've hi-jacked your own thread! http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 02:39 PM

Hey, we've hi-jacked your own thread! http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Threads were made to be hijacked.;)

Since I was put down by Lancer almost immediately, we have been free do do pretty much what we want from the start. The lancer putdown is sort of like the bus going by as far as LH is concerned, isn't it? Think I'll have a stout, won't you all join me?

Clark-magnon in Peoria

Lancer

11-26-2005, 03:51 PM

The lancer putdown is sort of like the bus going by as far as LH is concerned, isn't it?Vrrrooommm! :drive:

:rotfl:

Titanium Dome

11-26-2005, 06:15 PM

Partially quoted here, all true. I do like the old stuff, but seven 4345's are a little out of my reach (that's 3 1/2 % of all the units ever made!) and my room size. Still, on my budget, the classic monitors are such a bargain next to newer quality units. Imagine what it would cost to manufacture 4345's (or my 4333's) today. But you are of course completely correct.

My 60 X 2 JoLida is gathering dust in favor of a six wpc Grommes. These monitors are efficient...

Now, your Fluent French. Where? How? Not only did I miss the whole French Foreign Legion experience (DeGaulle isn't going to make me march in Paris carrying a shovel) but, Like Korben Dallas, I only speak two languages, English and Bad English.

Clark-Magnon in Peoria

Well, hey, if it plays in Peoria... :D

As for the French, I first took it at Anthony Wayne High School (Go Generals!) in Ohio for two years in 1967-68 and 68-69.

Bonsoir, M. Fallows. Vous êtes un homme très gai.

Then I took two years at Spring Arbor College in Michigan, and a few years later I took a graduate course in French Lit at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. That's where I found out how much more erotic French literature, drama, and Francophile women of ANY age were. :yes:

Mon dieu, le plaisir intense d'avoir le sexe linguistique en français avec une bonne femme! C'est toute la motivation que j'ai besoin. :bouncy:

Ducatista47

11-26-2005, 06:42 PM

That's where I found out how much more erotic French literature, drama, and Francophile women of ANY age were. :yes:

Well, I was right. I guessed you were either a "French Canadian" or, more likely, you had an ulterior motive to become very accomplished at French. That same motive has informed way too many of my decisions, so I am quite familier with it.

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.

Clark in Peoria, Listening to his ancient crappy speakers, ...

Alex Lancaster

11-26-2005, 08:54 PM

:) Ti, lets cut the :bs: , I understand French and the French, it´s not worth it.

Titanium Dome

11-26-2005, 09:10 PM

:) Ti, lets cut the :bs: , I understand French and the French, it´s not worth it.

Have you ever had a French, French-Canadian, or French-Caribbean woman talk to you about l'amour et sexualité?

It makes my eyes red just thinking about it.

alskinner

11-27-2005, 09:04 AM

"Clark in Peoria, Listening to his ancient crappy speakers"

Got the same affliction. Can't seem to let go of the 43XX speakers. I know we should upgrade to the platinum, neutron encrusted models, but something about the timbre reprodution of the older models still have there hooks in me. As far as MC, heck I am still waiting for stereo to catch up with some of the Mono recordings.

On the other hand JBL does seem to be heading the right way in MC with Project Array, they have horns!

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.

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.

Regards
Fellow Heretic
AL

Lancer

11-27-2005, 09:28 AM

Who said 43xx were crappy?
You?

alskinner

11-27-2005, 09:49 AM

Not Me

Just a little sarcasm, learned it from the best. I love my 4344 clones. :D

Regards AL

Lancer

11-27-2005, 10:09 AM

I love my 4344 clones.That's what I like to hear! :)

porschedpm

11-27-2005, 10:44 AM

Call me a holdout, but I am still not won over by 5.1 HT. .....I am also waiting for the media sources to catch up; the Pretenders still sound much better on VHS than DVD in some cases.

I believe that one of the main reasons why the Tube/Vinyl/Analog afficianados have such difficulty with surrround sound systems is that virtually all surround sound formats involve some degree of digital-to-analog processing. And the assumption of most surround sound systems is that the source material starts out as either a DVD, CD, Satellite, MP3 or other digital format. That's not to say that today's surround sound systems can't play 2 channel analog source material. They all can. But developing the digital side is where the mainstream surround sound equipment manufacturers tend to channel their resources so the analog capabilities are often relegated. So to the analog purists that are waiting for the second coming of digital to finally match the sweeter, warmer, smoother qualities of analog, surround sound systems typically represent a compromise in the quality of their music. It is possible though to create a system that would provide both a high end analog system and a top notch surround sound system. Be forewarned though. If you want the quality you've grown accustomed to in a 2 channel system, be prepared to spend 2.5 times more for an equivalent 5.1 system or 3 to 3.5 times more for a 7.1 system. I think this is the other main reasons why the Tube/Vinyl/Analog afficianados have an aversion to surrround sound systems. In order to do a proper 5.1 or 7.1 system which is up to their standards involves a considerable additional investment. Some feel that the the additional benefits 5.1 or 7.1 have to offer are not worth the additional investment.

So we're back to your specific question: Will playing 2 channel video sound through large format JBL monitors be just as good as a 5.1 or 7.1 system. The answer is no if you're comparing a 2ch system to a 5.1/7.1 system of equal quality. (In fact my opinion is that you would be stunned by the musical experience a really good 5.1/7.1 system has to offer). But if you're comparing your hi end 2ch system to an average $3,000 incl speakers consumer level 5.1/7.1 system available thru Best-Circuit-Guys, you'll undoubtedly prefer your 2ch system.

So if you're relatively satisfied with the 2ch cinema-source performance you're getting from your current system, and don't want to go the full blown surround route, and if you have some extra pre-outs or main-outs on your preamp, you may want to try a powered subwoofer. And then you may want to add some additional JBL monitors (43XX or 44XX) for the rear speakers, powered by an identical or equal quality amp as you have now. Still wouldn't be true 5.1 but it would sure sound damn impressive.

speakerdave

11-27-2005, 10:58 AM

porschedpm

11-27-2005, 11:14 AM

Another reason HT is OK with me is that it's the HT guys that are going into houses like pigs after truffles and rooting out all the classic audio gear and putting it back into circulation.

David

That's right...what am I thinking? :hmm: Clark what I meant to say is that any surround sound system is going to be more modern than the old 30 year stuff you've been hanging on to. And we all know that newer is better. It will fit your room decor better also. You should sell me old nasty 4333's and then go out and get a nice modern Harman/JBL Northridge or L Series HT system.:thmbsup:

speakerdave

11-27-2005, 11:22 AM

There ya go!

(By the way, pardon my edit.)

David

Robh3606

11-27-2005, 11:32 AM

I think HT gets a bad rap from lousy demo's poor set-up and an audiophille predjudice for digital formats in general. You don't need mega bucks to hear the advantages a well executed HT system has over 2 channel with live events as an example. All it takes is a well set-up entry level system to hear this. With us using large format monitors it would be hard pressed for any system to match the dynamics these systems can convey be it 2 channel or HT. As a matter of fact with the extra added channels and a sub an arguement could be made that you don't need 4435's all around in a typical setting. The demands of both formats are different. A typical HT system is designed to handle greater dynamic demands, higher average SPL's and greater LF extension than typical 2 channel media. These are advantages not disadvantages in coping with 2 channel sources. As far as imaging well a speaker doesn't care what kind of system it's in just room placement. An HT system can put an image anywhere in the room when properly set-up. As long as the front L/R are proper placed to image correctly you should be fine.

Rob:)

Akira

11-27-2005, 12:22 PM

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... :wtf:

Zilch

11-27-2005, 12:33 PM

"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

11-27-2005, 01:13 PM

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

11-27-2005, 01:33 PM

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

11-27-2005, 03:30 PM

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

11-27-2005, 03:52 PM

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

11-27-2005, 07:03 PM

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

David

:rotfl: Well observed, my friend.

Jakeisuseless

11-27-2005, 08:45 PM

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

11-28-2005, 03:55 PM

Titanium Dome

11-28-2005, 04:37 PM

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

11-28-2005, 05:08 PM

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

11-28-2005, 09:09 PM

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

11-28-2005, 09:57 PM

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

Mr. Widget

11-28-2005, 10:43 PM

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

Well if the shoes fit.... ;)

Widget

MJC

07-08-2006, 08:23 AM

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.

Titanium Dome

07-08-2006, 09:22 AM

Granted a lot of multichannel material sounds hokey, but then a lot of two channel stuff sounds hokey, too. There are factors bigger than two, three, four, five, six, or seven channels that affect the quality of the experience.

For excellent stereo, some of the better speakers I've heard require a complex set-up regimen in a well-conditioned room to sound their best. Then they require the right audio chain feeding and driving them to maximize their performance. Once achieved, however, the stereo sound is mind boggling compared to what we usually hear in our much less than perfect rooms with our much less than perfect systems.

In the realm of multichannel sound, the variables are even more complex and the set up regimen is even more daunting. The room itself becomes more difficult. The audio chain has increased demands as well, and its components are even more critical to overall success. When fully realized, it makes stereo a quaint, nostalgic experience.

One of the things I admire about some speaker brands, JBL and Revel included, is the relative ease with which one can create a decent to very good stereo and multichannel experience with some of their stock systems. Trying to do the same thing with other brands (Bose, Paradigm, Sonus Faber, and MartinLogan come to mind) is fraught with frustration and disappointment for those who want a truly balanced and "accurate" system. These brands can sound "impressive" in stereo to many people, but they cannot sound "right" in multichannel applications IMO, at least not without a lot of work.

While the set up and calibration that goes into a Synthesis system is beyond most of us, it's indicative of the kind of work that really should go into setting up a multichannel system. Of course, there are plenty of Synthesis systems that sound like crap because the installer took short cuts or was incompetent; or perhaps the owner insisted on foolish installation restrictions for aesthetic reasons. My personally set up and calibrated Performance Series sounds better than some of the Synthesis systems I've heard, but a properly set up Synthesis blows it away.

Multichannel sound is much more than just getting some extra amps and speakers, hooking them up to a five or seven channel pre/pro, and pushing an auto-EQ button. This haphazard approach will satisfy some and horrify others. In the late 90s, my first multichannel set up with a ProLogic receiver, LaserDisc player, some L7s, L5s, a custom center and a sub was very impressive to me. However, compared to the pre/pro, amps, DVD player, and Performance Series gear of today's system, it was an atrocity.

Stereo produces good sound with less effort. Multichannel takes much more effort. (Notice I'm only addressing audio here, not HT per se.)

MJC

07-08-2006, 10:45 AM

Hokey doesn't even to begin to describe some recordings, stereo or multi. All voice from the right, all the instuments on the left and nothing in the middle, as I remember many early stereo LPs to be.

And you're so right about the ease of setting up JBLs compared to other brands. The first Bose, the 801 or 901 whatever, one driver in the front, eight on the bi-face back, having to hang from the ceiling and away from the wall at exact distances, and still sounded like crap. One of the bar/restaurants I used to go to, over looking the ice rink, had them.

When I first set up my LR for HT I had the L/R at the "suggested" 30* off center. I didn't keep that set up long. I moved the mirror imaged L212s to a point of about 8" past the sides of the 65" screen. This put the L/R drivers 7' apart(about what it was when it was just a stereo system, in a different house) and 5'+ from the side walls.
Much better soundstage, in either 2 or 3 channel front. And being 5' from the side walls produces far less early reflections. I haven't bothered with bass traps or wall sound panels, but having full thick carpeting and large, fully padded recliners, along with a vaulted ceiling helps deaden the sound a bit. I'm sure there is room for improvement, but I think its better that a lot of set ups.

Ducatista47

09-16-2007, 05:54 PM

Does this seem to hold water, or is it the product of water on the brain?
http://www.stereotimes.com/comm032301a.shtml

Forgive me if this article has already been referenced, but I'm on a computer with parental controls (no, not for me wiseacres :D) and can't access the entire thread right now.

Clark

invstbiker

09-16-2007, 08:19 PM

Personally, I am strictly two channel, because I want to emulate a concert stage and try to reproduce the concert as if it were live. I do not ever recall any live concerts that I've been to being performed in 5.1 or more. Actually, I should be playing in mono to be more accurate...:blah::blah::blah:

fotodan

09-17-2007, 05:25 AM

I tried the multi channel back in the early 90's with Kenwoods top of the line Pro Logdic surround and Hi-Fi VHS. It was different and enjoyable, but not much offering at the time, (not many tapes or TV offered surround at the time) and not enough outputs on the receiver for all anolog gear. Ended up selling it to a buddy. Now, not sure if I would go back to 5.1, still have the rear and center speakers. I would have to figure out a way to use both systems with the 4435's as main speakers, and I might give it a try again.

JBL 4645

09-17-2007, 06:33 AM

I’ve noticed continuity issues on some mixes seems like some of these re-recording mixers have to think three-dimensionally. Where’s with some films sound doesn’t match the differences between a forward viewing image and a reverse.

One such film that I noticed this with was “Supergirl” (1984) six-track Dolby stereo.

If I where to play pink noise from the left channel I’d hear it on my left ear with a late arrival on my right ear. Now if I where to turn around, I’d then hear the pink noise on my right ear, with a late arrival on my left ear.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Supergirlsoundeffectsdisruptionpann.jpg

Sound panned to the left screen channel

The chains clinker as they move around the sound is first heard on the screen left channel, then as we focus on “Supergirls” reactions the sound is misplaced its still heard on the screen left channel.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Supergirlsoundeffectspanningdisrupt.jpg

Reversed image as we look at “Supergirl” the sound should be positioned to the right screen channel.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/Supergirlsoundeffectsdisruptionp-1.jpg

As the camera moves back to the front or more rather this is done in the editing stages of the film, why didn’t someone notice this in post production that the sound was misplaced in position and continuity.

4313B

09-17-2007, 07:53 AM

Call me a holdout, but I am still not won over by 5.1 HT.You're a definite holdout. :p G.T.'s system sounds killer in 5.1 and we both confess that we really like the format. It does exactly what it is supposed to do - entertain. I'm currently running in two channel (tweaked 4345's) while my Tannoy/JBL HT is being renovated. I've long since said goodbye to the old 4430/4406/2242, Ti Series and L Series (1980 era) HT setups as well as the L212 two-channel setup. I don't have any kind of conceptual problem with either format. It's just audio gear to be used at will and it's all pretty fun sometimes.

JBL 4645

09-17-2007, 08:26 AM

You're a definite holdout. :p G.T.'s system sounds killer in 5.4 and we both confess that we really like the format. It does exactly what it is supposed to do - entertain. I'm currently running in two channel (tweaked 4345's) while my Tannoy/JBL HT is being renovated. I've long since said goodbye to the old 4430/4406/2242, Ti Series and L Series (1980 era) HT setups as well as the L212 two-channel setup. I don't have any kind of conceptual problem with either format. It's just audio gear to be used at will and it's all pretty fun sometimes.

5.4? How does that work then I make a few guess but I’d like to read you’re version.:D

4313B

09-17-2007, 08:49 AM

Typo, I fixed it. Too many 4's.

Ian Mackenzie

09-17-2007, 09:56 AM

JBL 4645

09-17-2007, 12:16 PM

Typo, I fixed it. Too many 4's.

Well that’s a relief I was beginning to think he’s got something unique.:D

Hoerninger

09-17-2007, 01:46 PM

Does this seem to hold water, or is it the product of water on the brain?
http://www.stereotimes.com/comm032301a.shtml

The author Ralph Glasgal (Ambiophonics Institute) does not hit the point IMHO:
What about a 5.1 recording where the reverberant signal is produced by convolution?

Convolution is an easy to handle way of producing reverberation in a studio with a great variety of results. The question is left how to distribute sound signals so that the listener will get a "perfect" illusion of space (psycho acoustics).

As we have read in this thread there are pleasing results.
____________
Peter

4313B

09-17-2007, 02:12 PM

Well that’s a relief I was beginning to think he’s got something unique.:DWell, he definitely has a unique system... even more one-of-a-kind now than a few years ago. But that's not the primary focus of the thread so I'll drop it.

Titanium Dome

09-17-2007, 05:44 PM

I heard Ti Dome's Performance Series surround sound system go..if only for a little while.

Very nice.

I think its a case of if you are fortunate or lucky enough you to have possession of such equipment then your experience, views and opinions will be likewise.

Ian

Quite right. We all tend to favor that which we have. There's a certain amount of self-preservation in that. ;)

I didn't expect you to like the multichannel Performance Series system so soon after hearing the S2600s and a familiar tune.

Twenty-four hours of sleep deprivation must've put you in a suggestible mood. :p

Ian Mackenzie

09-18-2007, 02:15 AM

Hi Ti Dome.

Sleep or no sleep I know a good system when I hear it.

The S2600 is the best affordable consumer 2 way I have heard by a long way.

But the Performance Series is so nice and compact ......how could you not have 5.1 or 7.1 set for home theatre. The sub was a real winner too.

Ian

JBL 4645

09-18-2007, 02:38 AM

hjames

09-18-2007, 05:49 AM

Question, what is an “S2600” pictures please.:)

Part of the Synthesis line of speakers, of course!

Google is your friend ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=JBL+S2600
I found these within the top 10 slots ...

Titanium Dome

09-18-2007, 07:17 AM

The S2600 and its bigger sibling the S3100 are a bit of a rarity, but they are documented here by a few lucky owners.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=13181&highlight=S2600

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12251&highlight=S2600

And my personal favorite: How the Dome Got His Horn On:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10197&highlight=S2600

I have to agree with Ian that in the two-channel space the S2600 is a great two-way performer.

Ian Mackenzie

09-18-2007, 10:20 AM

Hmm...it turned out to be a really horny day didn't it Ti!

Dome has a number of JBL systems, even some in his bunker so I regard his impressions as one the money. From my re collection on what we played the new stuff is better but some of these larger systems have a certain romance all of there own.

I would have a hard time living without both the Performance Series and the S2600 if space permitted in my house.

If I can find a set of those horns I would love to build a diy S2600.

Ian

Titanium Dome

09-18-2007, 11:11 AM

Really, it was just those Hafler JFET/MOSFET Trans•nova amps with their insane bandwith and power. They make anything sound better.

Zilch

09-18-2007, 02:01 PM

H2600 was still available in Europe from Harman France, last time checked, Ian, but the throats are NLA.

Widget had some cast in pewter from my sample, and we sent a pair to Matthias.

I'm saying order the horns while you still can, and throats can be made, as and when required.... :thmbsup:

Andyoz

09-18-2007, 03:19 PM

Really, it was just those Hafler JFET/MOSFET Trans•nova amps with their insane bandwith and power.

I was just looking at those Hafler amps today on the internet. They are reasonably priced over here (well compared to the likes of Bryston).

They don't seem to get much exposure here from what I can see.

Zilch

09-19-2007, 02:21 PM

Ian Mackenzie

09-19-2007, 02:35 PM

Thank Zilch.

I need to check it out..looks interesting!

Ian

Titanium Dome

09-19-2007, 03:33 PM

Thank Zilch.

I need to check it out..looks interesting!

Ian

If you do, consider going all the way to S3100. Maybe it's just my sense of inadequacy, but the guys who've owned the 15" woofer S3100 just seem better endowed in the bottom.

toddalin

09-20-2007, 09:27 AM

If you do, consider going all the way to S3100. Maybe it's just my sense of inadequacy, but the guys who've owned the 15" woofer S3100 just seem better endowed in the bottom.

So then..., are these preferred by the men or the women??? :o:

grumpy

09-20-2007, 09:44 AM

my kids would respond, "TMI."

4313B

09-20-2007, 10:04 AM

From my re collection on what we played the new stuff is betterUh oh... ;)
I would have a hard time living without both the Performance Series and the S2600 if space permitted in my house.Wow! Glad to hear that! :yes:
If I can find a set of those horns I would love to build a diy S2600.Cool!

Ian Mackenzie

09-20-2007, 11:31 AM

I'll need to find the part number of the horn.

A 12 inch driver sound plenty.

I like the idea because of its simplicity and it don't need exotic parts/ drivers ect.

Ian

Ian Mackenzie

09-20-2007, 11:50 AM

Zilch

09-20-2007, 02:06 PM

Horn part #319381-001

Throat part #318793-001

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Technical%20Sheet/S2600%20ts.pdf

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Technical%20Sheet/S3100%20ts.pdf

Ian Mackenzie

09-20-2007, 02:22 PM

Thanks Zilch.

Ian

Titanium Dome

09-20-2007, 02:57 PM

On the old and new what I noticed when TiDome played his wall of vintage consumer JBL that the voicing has changed considerable on the old verus new. The L7 and the XPL200 were tonally very different to everthing else like the L250. see Doug's pic on the LA visit thread.

Very true, which is why I have such a diverse JBL zoo. :yes:

Its a case of perhaps $$ because the S2600 and the performance Series both upstairs had similar qualities but are at different price points of their one. I really like both but the S2600 is definately a more romantic sounding system over the Performance Series exactness.

Neither is in an ideal or semi-ideal environment, as you saw. That will change soon. (See below)

The bunch of other stuff down stairs mentioned formerly was all over the place. In choocing a two channel theatre speaker its a hard call. The L250 sounded really dry and tired , the L7 a more wet sound, particulary the bass.

Yeah, the L250 is still a looker, but its midrange and tweeter are too old and tired. The L7s were too close together, in the middle of the line.

This is side topic is really deserving of a seperate thread and Doug (TiDome) having got most of them is ideally placed to write a more detailed account of this than my short audition that was warts and all.

Ian

Fingers crossed: in less than two weeks we'll be closing escrow on a house with a real dungeon, a 528 sq. ft. (17'x31' approx.) basement with 12-14' ceilings and acoustical isolation from the main floors. Both the main HT and the music room will go down there, and then these venerable JBLs will have as good an environment as I can give them with wall, floor, and ceiling treatments, the works.

When you come back to LA, as you know you must, we will be waiting for you.

Ian Mackenzie

09-21-2007, 05:53 AM

A JBL Ambush! Ah ha.

Be sure to invite Giskard and JBL Junior.

4313B

09-21-2007, 07:44 AM

A JBL Ambush! Ah ha.

Be sure to invite Giskard and JBL Junior.Huh? What am I getting invited to? My lynching in a JBL ambush?

Bernard Wolf

09-21-2007, 04:12 PM

Well, as I am one of those 'overly endowed' 3100 owners who just happens to have tried pseudo surround sound in the past, I felt the need to add my 2 cents worth.

The surround configuration that I used was a Hafler Surround Sound Decoder which is basically a ambient retrieval system. The operating principal of this is that in a live venue, other than outdoors, reverberant information does reach our ears from the back of the hall due to the energy of sound present. Contrary to what one might think - according to what I have read - this does not happen in the home because the level of sound is not as great. The speakers that I used for the rears were just a small 2 way bookshelf pair as another set of 3100's was kind of out of the question !

So, although it is not actually a surround system such as is in use today it supposedly was the system that everything is based. What I found was this: For music it was only just so so. The problem being that once I upped the rear level enough to really hear the effect the front soundstage became somewhat diffuse. The effect was still enveloping and it did work on that level but overall I was not too happy with the change in the front soundstage. As for films it did work better with sometimes rear info such as a plane coming from behind. I guess that depending on the type of films - mostly action I imagine - that one watches/listens to ,this might be of major importance.

I do not find surround all that enticing for the simple fact that I listen mostly to music and I also find being in the middle of a performance more than a little strange. The 3100's with a sub do such a great job with films that it is hard to imagine it being any better. The sound tonality and image location is incredibly like what one hears in a movie theatre.

Bernard

BTW - Dynavector market a Hafler type of processor at present.

Bernard Wolf

09-21-2007, 04:18 PM

Really, it was just those Hafler JFET/MOSFET Trans•nova amps with their insane bandwith and power. They make anything sound better.

Good to see that you got some Mosfets to feed that 2600... I'm still using a Perreault 1150b mosfet amp to drive my 3100's. I have not yet had the urge to put my Jadis DA30 back in ! Believe it or not !

Mr. Widget

09-21-2007, 11:36 PM

Horn part #319381-001

Throat part #318793-001I thought the throat was NLA and that is why you had me cast them?

Widget

Zilch

09-22-2007, 12:32 AM

I thought the throat was NLA and that is why you had me cast them?That would be correct, Mr. Widget.

I provided the throat part number because it was there with the horn info when I looked it up.

There's always a possibility that the throats are now available somewhere, and there's little additional effort involved in Ian inquiring with respect to price and availablity of both parts.

He COULD get lucky and find that the horns now come with throats, as I suspect they originally did.... :p

Ian Mackenzie

09-22-2007, 02:35 AM

NLA.......seems to be a by word around here!:eek:

I doubt if the throats are available now if they weren't then?

Titanium Dome

09-22-2007, 08:03 AM

NLA.......seems to be a by word around here!:eek:

I doubt if the throats are available now if they weren't then?

This is no doubt a truth, but perhaps not an absolute one. If JBL/Harman says "NLA" then it's probably not in their supply chain, but that wouldn't exclude the possibility that one or more are surviving in the wild.

When I needed a diaphragm for an 095Ti, it was NLA, and every local JBL shop echoed that fact: no, no, no, no, NLA. However, 2700 miles (4387 km) away in Florida I found a shop that had one, which they were pleased to sell and ship to me at a more than fair price just to be rid of this NLA part.

I took a blown Audax tweeter from a JBL system to European Tech here in LA. JBL listed it as NLA, so I took it to these guys to see if they could resurrect it. It wasn't necessary as they had the exact replacement sitting in the storeroom, which they found via the part number.

NLA speaker parts probably are more prolific in the wild, but other NLA parts do live out there, too. Without the proper part number, the very thing that you need could be sitting on a shelf and you'd never know it, because it's in a box with only a part number on the outside.

One thing is for sure, if Widget made them you'd know you'd be getting an excellent copy that is new and will be delivered to you. OTOH, looking for NOS stock out there can be a crap shoot both in terms of availability and condition.

Even as I sit here, I'm not sure why I wrote all that, but I'll post it anyway. :dont-know:help:

Edit: The point is that there is still a good reason to know the part number.

toddalin

09-22-2007, 09:49 AM

So, although it is not actually a surround system such as is in use today it supposedly was the system that everything is based. What I found was this: For music it was only just so so. The problem being that once I upped the rear level enough to really hear the effect the front soundstage became somewhat diffuse. The effect was still enveloping and it did work on that level but overall I was not too happy with the change in the front soundstage. As for films it did work better with sometimes rear info such as a plane coming from behind. I guess that depending on the type of films - mostly action I imagine - that one watches/listens to ,this might be of major importance.

I do not find surround all that enticing for the simple fact that I listen mostly to music and I also find being in the middle of a performance more than a little strange. The 3100's with a sub do such a great job with films that it is hard to imagine it being any better. The sound tonality and image location is incredibly like what one hears in a movie theatre.

Bernard

BTW - Dynavector market a Hafler type of processor at present.

Maybe because the surround processer you used was less than steller and did not offer the specific setting that agreed with you. I use this (an RX-Z9 with 51 surround programs and 71 variations), and there are many nice settings for all sorts of surround.

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/Images/YEC/AV_Receivers/Main/RXZ9.jpg

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=200001&CTID=5000300

Bernard Wolf

09-22-2007, 10:32 AM

I totally understand what you are saying. Do you listen to music through this as well or just films ? I think that given the option I might like 2 sound rooms, one for each.

Jan Daugaard

09-22-2007, 11:20 AM

I have a surround sound system composed of i.a. two pairs of S3100. Once I had heard recordings containing natural ambience in the rear channels, there was no going back to stereo. Telarc SACDs are examples of such recordings. Surround sound is also superior to stereo with recordings using the rear channels sparingly for sound effects. The Beatles 'Love' on DVD-A is an example of such a recording.

I have three separate CD-4 systems -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound#CD-4_.2F_Compatible_Discrete_4_.2F_Quadradisc --, all Bang & Olufsen Beosystem 6000, but I nevertheless often play CD-4 LPs over the S3100 speakers because they are superior to the Bang & Olufsen speakers from the seventies. CD-4 LPs are, however, an even more motley crowd than surround sound SACDs and DVD-As. There is rarely an advantage to SQ LPs because the front-rear separation is so limited. The record companies were back then even more reluctant to put the rear channels to good use than they are today.

With recordings containing no signal for the rear channels, such as CDs, I often let the rear channels mirror the front channels, albeit at a 10 dB lower level. This is neither better, nor worse than many of the socalled surround sound recordings on SACD and DVD.

Thom

09-22-2007, 01:13 PM

I've stuck with 2 channel out of ignorance. I don't know the difference between 5.1, 6.1 etc. I don't know how to integrate them with my 2 Chanel. I've got enough speakers and amps I've got one receiver with 5.1 I think but I don't see a pre-amp out on it. My stuff isn't all top drawer and I'm no snob but I have tri-amped and that does complicate things doesn't it? I've got a 61" tv tho not HD so I'd like the effects.

toddalin

09-22-2007, 01:46 PM

I totally understand what you are saying. Do you listen to music through this as well or just films ? I think that given the option I might like 2 sound rooms, one for each.

If this was intended for me..., yes all the time. Sometimes..., even in plain old stereo.

I think my favorite overall setting for music is the "Roxy Theater" but with the room size reduced and the reflections shortened in time and space for better intelligability. As the names of the settings imply, Yamaha actually went to the various venues and measured the reflections at various venues thoughout the world including some of the finest concert halls, jazz clubs, churches, theaters, stadiums, etc.

While the various theater settings on the Yamaha use the center channel, the various music programs do not. But any program can be used for any source and you can certainly listen to music in a theater setting tweeked to your heart's content if you want center channel for your music. One theater setting is actually "Music Video."

Also, on the Yamahas with the two front surrounds enabled, Yamaha doesn't put "processed " sound through the front left and right speakers, so these stay very clean and uncolored as opposed to most other manufacturers who do it in other ways. All of the front effects would emanate from the front surrounds that can also simulate early front of the room reflections.