Anyone else using Multi-channel stereo instead of stereo?

[ClaudeJ1]

On 12/10/2020 at 2:31 PM, Chris A said:

It adds so much to the sense of presence that it can elicit a "you are there" feeling as if sitting in the performance hall.

Yes, and THAT is the whole point of the evolution of recorded music with today's systems, which, I suspect are set up non-optimally 80% of the time. Heck I've even seen photos of Jubilees NOT in corners, which means they are only 5.5 foot horns with a 60 Hz. rolloff at that point and behave more like a LaScala rather than a Khorn. Ignorant and Incomplete is how I would label that.

[Pondoro]

47 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

That's because the original Stereo Broadcast (Bell Labs) from 1933, of a live Orchestra, conducted by the great Leopold Stokowski use 3 speakers that were spaced about 40 ft. apart. with a center channel. Also they had a full 3 discrete channel broadcast from 3 separate microphones from that live Symphony Orchestra. Different is not the same. The 2ph3 (with a mono marriage of R+L in the middle was a reasonable compromise that worked almost as well as the discrete implementation of 3 channels of the original STEREO broadcast by wire from one city to another. I read the Klipsch papers when I was 19 years old. BTW, PWK only listened to reel to reel tapes of Symphonies he himself recorded with only 2 spaced omni microphones. The ONLY LP that he owned, is the original "white album" (with Stokowski's autograph) made popular by the Beatles 3 decades later, was of the broadcast outlined in the next paragraph:

 

A concert of the Philadelphia Orchestra at the Academy of Music, sponsored by AT&T was captured by three microphones spaced across the front of the orchestra and transmitted via three long lines to Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. where three amplified loudspeakers reproduced the orchestra sound.  The orchestra was conducted by Alexander Smallens, assistant conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra, with Stokowski controlling sound balance. 

 

PWK's own developments were done in a room that allowed 25 foot spacing between Klipshorns. That room became the Klipsch museum PWK showed me in 1985 (it was across the street from the Plant in Hope, I have pictures) and used Dr. C.P. Boners diffusion panels to make better sound reproduction.

 

The problem wit "D" is that in all configurations the speakers are extremely close together, making the center channel unnecessary for 2 channel music nowadays because the spacing is too narrow and the Center channel is, primarily, for Movie Dialog. So it's an apples and oranges comparison at best.  

Thank you for all the historical info, it is appreciated and very interesting. The room I am in is 16 x 25 feet and I would most likely only be allowed to set the speakers up on the short wall (my wife is very tolerant of all the strange junk I buy but the room is also hers.) The room is currently arranged so only the short end is available. I might someday rearrange to set the three speakers (two Heresy and one nearly identical KP-250) up on the 25 foot wall to see what they sound like. I am more interested in the historical aspects than in some permanent optimization. So I will try the PWK method and my Yamaha's unknown algorithm. Right now, on the short wall, the 3.1 system sounds good, but I cannot claim that it is "better" than the 2.1 system without the center speaker. It is different, but not necessarily better. And I have not set up PWK's box, nor do I have a center channel amp. So it is just the built in Yamaha algorithm now. 

 

Long term the single KP-250 probably goes into a gutted 1920's radio cabinet to make a super-mono radio. As I said, my wife is very tolerant of my strange junk.

[ClaudeJ1]

4 hours ago, Pondoro said:

So it is just the built in Yamaha algorithm now. 

 

I've been a "Yamaha" guy for about 5 years. I even refurbished a pair of NS-1000 monitors with Berylium Mids and Tweeters. But mostly I have 3 Yamaha CX-500xA Pre Pros because of the build quality and they use the amazing ESS Sabre DACs for D/A conversion. The bonus is their YPAO room eq. which I use a SINGLE mike reading at the sweet spot, then manually tweak from there until all my reference material sounds good (this includes the same music that Chief Bonehead uses to voice Klipsch speakers).

 

Yes, I know there are some "purists" out there who disagree, but I don't care. It works very well for me and my ROOMs (90% of the sound, remember?).

 

I had the 2PH3 setup for 30 years, until I got into HT.........................now that I have MEH horns in a small (only 11.5 ft. wide room) that have the very best phantom image, I don't need a center for music at all except when I want to use the Yamaha AI feature for multichannel. Even after all these years, I'm still discovering all the features of the pre pro because it interacts differently with each recording. Miking and mixes are NEVER 2 the same, sometimes for different songs on the same CD, so we are always chasing a dynamic ghost of sorts!

[Pondoro]

I bought a Yamaha RX-V385. Long term it might go to the TV room (I watch little TV) and I would then get a serious integrated amp. But the current Yamaha sounds good, in 2-channel or 2.1 or 3.1. I should try it with a movie and dialog, but my real test of TV speakers is a live NASCAR race.

 

Interesting factoid, my Yamaha happily simulates a center channel when I tune to FM on the built in tuner in the receiver. But I plugged my 35 year old NAD analog receiver into it (since it is analog it has to go into AV2 or AV3) and it reverts to 2 channel only. 2.0, not 2.1! So I cannot A/B the built in receiver versus the NAD except in 2.0 mode. I am looking for a way to fix this but I cannot seem to find a way.

[AbB]

Somewhere I read that multichannel stereo has a separation algorithm, but  failed to bookmark it. I believe it to be accurate and would like to confirm it. It’s important because it also provides clearer treble without having to Manual EQ. Anyone know?