HT in 2 channel only...anyone else?

[MechMan]

I have been using only my modded Corns for movie watching lately and must say I'm pretty impressed so far. I have found the soundtracks in some movies of course sound better than others...but for the most part, the depth and sound feild is close to my surround setup (if not better at times). Mind you my surround is not as well thought out as some here, but still...

Does any one else use only 2 channels (with or without the sub) for movie watching? Any tips or tricks to offer up.

Two movies I offer as examples are "The Soloist". I found it sounded twice as good in 2 channel rather than surround, and "Saving Private Ryan" also sounded awesome, as most of the action scenes are left to right as opposed to front to rear.

Just curious if any others are watching in 2 channel?

[dtel]

Sometimes I watch in 2 ch.

When I got my latest 2 ch speakers I tried it and said that sounds really good and for a while everything was playing in 2 ch here even concert DVDs.

One night we were going to watch a action movie and I thought I would try it in 6.1 since it had been a while. I was reminded how good it sounded, 6 Forte's. The 2 ch has a different sound from my 6.1 especialy on lesser quality recordings, for movies now I mostly use 6.1, and music even concert DVDs it's mostly 2 ch.

I do still switch back and forth depending, whatever sounds best.

[BE36]

I listen in 2 channel for 2 reasons -- 1) If recorded in Stereo or Broadcast in Stereo, TV for example, I leave in stereo dolby etc. that expands into 5 channels does not seam to improve quality but reduce it. 2) My center is not an exact timber match to my Left & Right Channels so if the quality of the recording is low 2 channel sounds better.

[DTLongo]

Some will find this sacrilegious but IMHO surround sound is way overrated. I've gone the 5.1 and now 7.1 routes for several years now (see profile), and conclude that surround is not worth the added expense and complexity. It's a frill that adds something at the margins, but negligibly. On the other hand, a center channel speaker does definitely improve things by anchoring center dialogue so it doesn't pull so much toward the right or left channel speaker if you are off the sweet-spot centerline. That is a valuable improvement. But the center channel speaker (again IMHO) can be of a much more modest quality than the outboards. You can run it 2 to 4 db down and it will still fill in the center nicely.

Since three-channel home theater receivers don't exist, if I had to do it all over again I'd be happy with a decent 5.1 channel receiver run with no back channels. If I were willing to run the wires, a pair of el cheapo speakers would fill the bill for the surrounds. (Disclosure: Back in the 1950's I thought stereo was a downgrade from, say, a mono Klipschorn well fed and set up. An atavistic part of me still feels that way. Stereo is nice. Three-channel is nice. But surround - as was four-channel in the 1970's - is a gimmick.)

[SWL]

I listen to music in 4.2 stereo. I watch tv and an occasional movie in the same fashion. It all rocks. [Y]

My room sucked for surround sound when I had it.

[kelA]

Two movies I offer as examples are "The Soloist". I found it sounded twice as good in 2 channel rather than surround, and "Saving Private Ryan" also sounded awesome, as most of the action scenes are left to right as opposed to front to rear.

Just curious if any others are watching in 2 channel?

YMMV. I find that there is a lot of information from rear to front in "SPR". For example the aerial bombs, the tanks, and of course the planes all use rear to front effects. IMO, I couldnt imagine watching "SPR" in 2 channel after hearing it in surround.

[laager]

Some will find this sacrilegious but IMHO surround sound is way overrated.

To some extent, I agree. One can expend a great amount of time, effort, money and space to be able to produce surround sound and at many times be quite disappointed with the result. I do believe that the centre channel is useful, if only to localise the vast majority of dialogue in films. The rear surrounds are somewhat less useful.

However, some x.1 films I have watched and even some pure stereo broadcast films do benefit from the surrounds. For example if using Pro Logic II on a stereo recording or broadcast it's nice to hear the lightning and rain from the rear surrounds. I have no idea why Pro Logic II does this but it adds a certain amount of of spaciousness and ambience to the overall film presentation. It's not necessary but it is a nice touch.

Neo 6: cinema is another alternative on pure stereo broadcasts which is a nice choice. It's more L+C+R biased than Pro Logic II but it does spread the centre channel a bit more than Pro Logic II whilst retaining the rain, lightning and other ambient sound in the surrounds.

[wuzzzer]

It was only within the last 2 years or so that I went from a 2 channel HT to a surround setup. I really liked the 2 channel arrangement with my Fortes. I always used a sub with it.

I have since had an Onkyo TX-SR805 receiver and my current Marantz SR7001 receiver for surround-sound. I've had 3 different sets of surround speakers (SS.5s, RS-42s and my current KG 3.5s).

I have a very long and narrow basement room, not the ideal space for a surround system. I've actually contemplated going back to a 2.1 setup and upgrading my front speakers to something in the LaScala/Belle/Cornwall genre.

[InVeNtOr]

i can tell you this. surround placement is very critical. i had a friend over listening to my set up one evening. i was simply changing just the height of the surround speakers by 6". the effect was almost like turning them on and off. it turned out that i needed my side surrounds at 48" and my rears at 40" to get the best surround effect. thats just taking the height into consideration, the lateral movement is just as important. so it is definitely not as easy has sticking them up on a wall and saying you are done.

i feel if you don't have optimum placement, you are better off with a 2.1 channel. i set up a friends house (ground up) just for 2.1 because his living room just wouldn't allow proper placement, plus the wife said if there were to be rear speakers they had to be in rear corners 10' up. so literally stuck in a corner. after is was said and done, i was actually impressed. the speakers we chose were RB-61's and right now he is using my extra A2-300 sub. i got the speakers set up well enough that if you are watching tv or a movie, it sounds like the sound is coming from the TV. i even played a trick on him and stuck one of his old speakers under the tv and didn't plug it in. i told him of course it was. after a few demos i asked where the sound is coming from and he said the center speaker. you should have seen his eyes when i pulled the speaker out and it wasn't hooked up. needless to say, he was very happy with the set up.

anyways that's my experience and 2 cents.

[odysseyrevolver]

I cannot fathom watching blus in stereo.

[MechMan]

i can tell you this. surround placement is very critical. i had a friend over listening to my set up one evening. i was simply changing just the height of the surround speakers by 6". the effect was almost like turning them on and off. it turned out that i needed my side surrounds at 48" and my rears at 40" to get the best surround effect. thats just taking the height into consideration, the lateral movement is just as important. so it is definitely not as easy has sticking them up on a wall and saying you are done.

i feel if you don't have optimum placement, you are better off with a 2.1 channel. i set up a friends house (ground up) just for 2.1 because his living room just wouldn't allow proper placement, plus the wife said if there were to be rear speakers they had to be in rear corners 10' up. so literally stuck in a corner. after is was said and done, i was actually impressed. the speakers we chose were RB-61's and right now he is using my extra A2-300 sub. i got the speakers set up well enough that if you are watching tv or a movie, it sounds like the sound is coming from the TV. i even played a trick on him and stuck one of his old speakers under the tv and didn't plug it in. i told him of course it was. after a few demos i asked where the sound is coming from and he said the center speaker. you should have seen his eyes when i pulled the speaker out and it wasn't hooked up. needless to say, he was very happy with the set up.

anyways that's my experience and 2 cents.

Cool to see I'm not the only one that has done this. I would never assume that my 2 channel is better than some of the awesome setup's I have seen you all post and talk about, but right now...it's way better than MY 5.1 setup. Just seems to sound more...real?

My Cornies seem to actually through the sound around the room to the point that it actually sounds like the surround is on, just not as pronounced.

It's always fun trying new things...Heck, I'm still using my old sw-10 sub and it still sounds fun (until I try to feed it any LFE signals )

[kohill]

I usually listen to movies in 3.1 and music in 2.1 For me the center channel

adds a lot for movies. With LaScala II"s I like a sub even for music. I hook up surrounds

occasionally but don't think they add much.