2.1 vs 3.1 for music (mainly)

[Osiris_1980]

Hi again guys! Really confused so I thought I'd take your opinion before spending the $$. I have already bought a pair of RF-82's and a Marantz SR 5005 receiver. Now here's the thing. I don't have enough room for surrounds, so a 5.1 setup is basically out. I will be using my setup mainly for music (lots of classical (with tubas/violins/cellos) and some rock (with heavy bass guitar) and usually play off my iPod (most of them are not lossless files,just regular mp3s).

I had almost made up my mind on going with a 3.1 setup with an additional RC-62 center and a PA-120 sub. But after browsing the internet, it seems that a 3.1 setup offers absolutely no advantage over a 2.1 for music. Is this true? I may use my setup for movies as well (occasionally though) in which case I would me missing out on the surround anyway. Does it make sense to buy a center just for music or the occasional movie? Appreciate your time and advice. Many Thanks!

[Ironsave]

I rarely listen to music in 5.1 or 7.1. (I have surrounds). If/when I do it is with Neo 6:Music setting; the best to me......

Perhaps because I grew up listening this way; but 2(.1) channel sounds so much better to me.

That being said; for concert movies; (Even DVD or Blue Ray concerts encoded with 5.1), then 5.1/7.1 is warranted; IE; hearing the crowds and the surrounding resonances; etc.....

I cannot imagine watching a regular non concert movie without 5.1 surround now...... After seeing Terminator Salvation; The Book Of Eli; etc..... It is just.....

Fabulous.......

So; If you will mostly be doing music with an occasional movie; is it worth it to you; and can you justify it?

Good Luck.

[StephenM]

It may make sense to have a center channel, although how much of a difference it makes largely depends on the way you have your speakers and the listening area set up. Specifically, if your main speakers are too widely spaced or if you listen outside the sweet spot, you should hear improved performance.

[Dennie]

Does it make sense to buy a center just for music or the occasional movie? Appreciate your time and advice. Many Thanks!

No, with a properly placed 2.1 system, it should sound fine for movies!

Music? 2.1 is all you need.

Just make sure that when you set up the receiver, you set to center speaker to "none" or "no" or "off". This will redirect the center speaker information to the front right and left speakers and you'll be fine.

I'm glad you asked, as we believe that there is no such thing as "Stupid Questions". Just stupid people that don't ask questions! []

Dennie

[neo33]

I'm glad you asked, as we believe that there is no such thing as "Stupid Questions". Just stupid people that don't ask questions!

Is Bose superior to Klipsch?

Is that a "stupid' question since we know the obvious?

[russ69]

so a 5.1 setup is basically out.

Good thing. This is the 2 channel forum, duh. All kidding aside, 2 channels and a good music source is all you need.

[Osiris_1980]

Thank you all for your comments and advice. So it is established that for music a 2.1 set up will be perfect. Since space is the major constraint for a 5.1 setup and 3.1 makes little sense for music only, I am now wondering if I can pick up smaller surrounds (maybe the RS-41a or the VS-14s or anything else you may suggest) and use them with the center (RC-62) for the occasional movie. Do you guys think this could work?

Sorry, I know I am sounding pretty indecisive and confused but just want to ensure I buy the best possible setup within my budgetary and space constraints. Once again, appreciate all the inputs.

[russ69]

In the early days of stereo, it was thought that a center channel would be needed. That was no big deal because people had mono rigs anyway. It didn't take too long to figure out that the center channel was not needed. It will however widen your listening area but at a sacrifice to good imaging. Keep the center channel for the movies, if you must.

[Dennie]

Thank you all for your comments and advice. So it is established that for music a 2.1 set up will be perfect. Since space is the major constraint for a 5.1 setup and 3.1 makes little sense for music only, I am now wondering if I can pick up smaller surrounds (maybe the RS-41a or the VS-14s or anything else you may suggest) and use them with the center (RC-62) for the occasional movie. Do you guys think this could work?

Sorry, I know I am sounding pretty indecisive and confused but just want to ensure I buy the best possible setup within my budgetary and space constraints. Once again, appreciate all the inputs.

Smaller? Like Bose....?!!! [] NEO!! I'm joking!

No, you should be thrilled with a good and well placed 2.1 system.

Later, after you win the lottery you can get a bigger place and then we'll talk. [<)]

Dennie

[Dennie]

I'm glad you asked, as we believe that there is no such thing as "Stupid Questions". Just stupid people that don't ask questions!

Is Bose superior to Klipsch?

Is that a "stupid' question since we know the obvious?

Sadly, some people THINK so, but no! Bose is NOT superior to Klipsch.

The sad part Neo is, not all people know this. Thank goodness for forums like this one.

And that is not a stupid question. It is asked more times than we might want to think is true.

Dennie

[neo33]

It has been proven that an 8" driver in a good enclosure with better electronics for the amp can produce tighter bass with high volume at lower extension and very little distortion than a 10" driver in a loose cabinet with cheap electronics.

However, physic is physic no matter how you put it ... a tiny 2.5" driver does not have any midrange nor any highs, let alone the bottom ends.

[JJkizak]

IMHO a powered center channel with the Khorns 20 feet apart is about 3000 % better than no center channel in the Denon PLC II mode.

JJK

[vnzbd]

I currently am running a 3.0 system with Chorus IIs for the mains and an Academy for the center. I have not installed surrounds at this point due to room configuration. For music I go 2 channel. I have very few music DVDs that may be enhanced with the use of surrounds and I enjoy those in 2 channel.

That being said, I am a firm believer in the use of a center channel for movies. Where 2 channel is much better that TV audio, it does not allow for any adjustments for dialog enhancements. Some movies sound tracks are mixed with the effects so loud that the dialog gets drowned out or sometimes the dialog is very clear but at the proper volume level for dialog, the effects are minimal. The use of the center channel allows you to dial in your desired affect from movie to movie.

I would say that I am 70% music, 30% movies and with that ratio I can certainly justify the use of a center channel. I think even at a 90/10 ratio I would pick up a center. I would shop for a used one and when the right deal came along, pull the trigger!

[mark1101]

If it is only for music you should use 2 subs (in stereo) rather than 1. Sending all the sub woofer information for both channels through a single sub ruins the stereo image. Again, for music only. As far as a center channel it should only be used when required due to too much spacing between the L/R speakers. In addition, we are not talking about using a HT receiver to decode the "center" as in a 2.1 / 3.1 HT situation. The center speaker should be a composite (mono) channel and delayed properly since the L/R speakers would be further away from the listener. A PWK mini box (which is described in several older threads on this forum) can accomplish the mono signal required. The proper delay will make the 3rd channel invisible. The delay can be accomplished via a seperate processor or separater HT receiver using one of the surround channels that provides a delay (just an idea to try).

[gnatnoop]

i wouldn't worrywith a center channel speaker, especially if your mains are of high quality.

[Rich_Guy]

I'm glad you asked, as we believe that there is no such thing as "Stupid Questions". Just stupid people that don't ask questions!

Is Bose superior to Klipsch?

Is that a "stupid' question since we know the obvious?

Bose is superior at advertising and marketing to the masses (that don't know better), however sound reproduction now that's a different story.

[jerryd]

I have never had space for surrounds. I listen 50/50 movies and 2 channnel stereo.

Old system was pair Heresy II , KV center, paradigm sub and Pioneer elite 5 channel. I used this for years thinking I had good stereo and really good 3 channel HT.

New system is pair of Forte II, and a peachtree audio decco.

The new system blows away the old in every department. 2 channel HT is awesome. 2 channel litening stunning. Even digital tele is blowing me away how good it sounds. Plus the Decco is setup to play music flies with USB input. Onboard DAC, tube pre, and 50wpc amp. For the simplicity the sound is remarkable on efficient speakers. 9:30 oo clock is all thats needed to get my kids jumping when HT transients hit. Decco also has a pre out to use better amp. I recently tried a smooth sounding 150wpc B&K amp in the mix. Only improvemnt I heard as bass was a tad tighter at loud listening levels, but the smoothness (tubelike) detracted from tele and HT. so out it went.

What I recommend is get rid of the 5 channel amp in favor of a good two channel one. You will not miss 3 channel HT . I have not heard the bass of RF-82 but I do not miss sub with my fortes.

[russ69]

What I recommend is get rid of the 5 channel amp in favor of a good two channel one.

Only 36 posts and yet so wise..........

[pauln]

"So it is established that for music a 2.1 set up will be perfect."

Uh..., no. I guess I'm anti-establishment.

I don't use subs (or loudness compensation, equalizers, or the common practice of riding the bass tone control at 3 o'clock). I do wonder quite often if the majority of folks really don't know what real low frequency instruments actually sound like anymore.

There are three somewhat interdependent concepts here;

bass extension (ability to play lower frequencies)

bass boosting (increasing the power to existing lower frequencies)

and bass hearing (the relative perceptual level of the low frequencies)

To my thinking, the biggest misunderstanding about "bass" is that it is not the general deliberate unnatural downward extention and boosting of low frequencies that so many find satisfying and exciting. Bass is only the actual sound of the instruments that play in this range. Only a handfull of instruments have any content below 40Hz and I doubt the typical bass extending/boosting folks are doing so in order to hear the tuba, contrabassoon, harp, or pipe organ play their lowest notes. Sometimes these instruments are cited as evidence that one's system needs to be able to play the very lowest frequencies. For those that actually DO listen to these instruments their argument has merit.

The Fletcher Munson curve is often cited as a justification for extended/boosted bass, but the FM curve was never meant to be a guide as to how to compensate the frequency response of one's system at low volume levels; it was simply an experimental observation of how things actually sound naturally at lower levels. It does not entail or imply that there is an "error" to correct. If the music is quiet or far away you will hear less of the frequency extremes. Just like when you look at something from a distance, the object subtends a smaller arc of visual field and you see a smaller image with less detail... totally natural.

[russ69]

"So it is established that for music a 2.1 set up will be perfect."

Uh..., no. I guess I'm anti-establishment.

It's established fact, in the 2 channel forum, duh.