Running rears in 2-channel?

[garyrc]

Matt ♪ ♫ ♪,

 

I use the "Multi Channel Stereo" setting on my Marantz pre/pro some of the time.  It merely connects the rear and fronts exactly as you have described, plus sends a slightly attenuated mix of L + R to the front Center channel.  It sounds better than straight 2 channel unless there are a lot of sharp, tight transients (e.g., timpani).  In the latter case, my front Klipschorns are so much cleaner and purer and tighter and more impressive in the bass, that the Heresy II rears degrade the sound a bit.

 

By the way, if you set up a true multichannel system (e.g., 5.1 or 5.0 -- "Multi channel In" on my pre-pro) multichannel SACDs, etc. would sound great.  Some make more use of the rear channels than others,

Edited September 2, 2015 by garyrc

[wvu80]

BTW, the current issue of "Sound and Vision" has an interesting sidebar interview with Pink Floyd producer Andy Jackson in which he states a growing preference for ignoring the center and .1 channel in surround in favor of 4 channels only...something I've argued for in music for years. Those channels are clearly useful in HT systems where I like them, but of no use in music.

 

That's funny, I was getting ready to make a post suggesting trying a 3.0 or 3.1 setup, which I do like through my AVR.  I absolutely think the center has a place for music listening as vocals are super clear out of the center, with the instruments being directed clearly to the L/R speakers.

 

The key is to have the AVR do the processing, as 3.x with a simple stereo receiver will not work the way I'm thinking.

Edited September 2, 2015 by wvu80

[Scrappydue]

Somehow, the vision of you traipsing around the house wearing an apron

i never wear an apron   

 

while pushing a Hoover

we own a dyson  

 

monitoring the chicken pot-pie in the oven,

mmm that sounds good

 

your son is planking between (on?) the couch and end table....  is just too much.  

he actually is getting into the pretending to be a bridge stage between my two couches LOL     

[Matthews]

simple stereo receiver will not work the way I'm thinking.

 

Yeah, I am running an analog 2 channel pre and an old Yamaha 2-channel amp.  Does not get much simpler than that.  Have another Yamaha on stand-by if I decide to try this config.  It would require me to pick up a pair of KLF-20's however.  There is a pair in Olathe I have my eye on...

 

Just got my Crites titanium diaphragms in the mail today for the 30's. 

 

Men, I just don't know what to do???

[Mallette]

I absolutely think the center has a place for music listening as vocals are super clear out of the center, with the instruments being directed clearly to the L/R speakers.

 

If the vocals are not super clear in the place they are supposed to be there is a problem. 

 

Dave

[Scrappydue]

There is a pair in Olathe I have my eye on...

i seen them when they first posted. they look pretty nice. the grills maybe look a bit stained. but hard to tell if that is just the picture.  

[MookieStl]

 

simple stereo receiver will not work the way I'm thinking.

 

Yeah, I am running an analog 2 channel pre and an old Yamaha 2-channel amp.  Does not get much simpler than that.  Have another Yamaha on stand-by if I decide to try this config.  It would require me to pick up a pair of KLF-20's however.  There is a pair in Olathe I have my eye on...

 

Just got my Crites titanium diaphragms in the mail today for the 30's. 

 

Men, I just don't know what to do???

 

I think your best bet is to get a good set of La Scalla's  with a couple good subs and......oh wait, nevermind!

[wallflower]

I have La Scalas in the front and Fortes in the back.  I run them all off of my VRD's (4 ohm tap).  Been running this way for several years.  It's optimal for me.  I don't actually hear the Fortes, they just add bass and presence, which has a similar impact as a subwoofer.  No time alignment issues at all.  The Fortes work perfect with my La Scalas.

[Matthews]

I think your best bet is to get a good set of La Scalla's with a couple good subs and......oh wait, nevermind!

 

That in NOT funny, Mookie !!!

 

    ...oh wait, yeah it is LOL  -  only a little bit though

[Matthews]

they just add bass and presence, which has a similar impact as a subwoofer

 

That was kind of my original thought, when I first started investigating this configuration.  I have had my subs disconnected for a couple of weeks now and the 30's are taking up the slack quite well.

 

My thinking was with some 20's in the rear, it would help fill some of the missing low as well as create a fuller experience at LP. I ran my subs, flanking the couch on each end.  The 20's would be 4 to 5 beet behind me, in the corners.   

 

However, my fear remains I will end up with a flat or stale sound (for lack of a better term).

[wvu80]

However, my fear remains I will end up with a flat or stale sound (for lack of a better term).

 

That is exactly the right term, and your fears are confirmed, at least in my experience.  And I don't think the extra speakers will add any filler bass at all. 

 

If you want some filler bass, go with a 2.1 setup and see if that does it for you, it does for me.  I'm using the CF-4's (dual 12" woofs) with the 15" sub.  The CF-4's in 2.0 sound great at mid to loud volume, but at lower volumes it is very thin.  With the sub the sound is full at ALL volume levels.

 

If I want to walk through the house and have the same general sound everywhere that is where all-speaker stereo (in your case, 4-speaker) works fine to flatten out the sound.  That's not really a bad thing if you have a LP that is everywhere, sitting down, standing up, moving around, in the kitchen, etc.

 

But if you have a main LP within a 3-4 foot bubble, I think the high quality of your stereo setup trumps everything else.

Edited September 3, 2015 by wvu80

[Mallette]

I suspect that some in this thread may not fully understand the function of rear speakers in a 2 channel system when used to increase the accuracy of the playback.  A brief explanation is offered.  It is based on a pure acoustic space/time event using two microphones and acoustic instruments in a defined space.  It is NOT limited to that but it's easiest to describe within that context. 

 

When a recording is made, the microphones are, of course, placed for optimum pickup of the musicians.  As they play, the sound travels directly to the microphone and is converted to an electrical waveform.  But that isn't the end of it.  Each sound also continues past the microphone and strikes something.  When it does, it bounces back and strikes the microphone a second (and more, depending on the space) time producing another electrical waveform very close to the original but significantly lower in amplitude.  This represents the "space" part of the event and is, of course, part of the experience for it to be accurate. 

 

Being very nearly identical to the first strike waveform except in time, a phase difference is created between the two instances.  What Hafler exploited was that by wiring the rear speakers out of phase one could achieve a more accurate playback.  Given that out of phase wiring is optimum for only a single time differential it isn't perfectly accurate.  He ameliorated this somewhat with the front/rear balance control and allowed optimum tuning of the circuit by the "null" method that the user sets by placing the preamp in "mono" and moving the control for a minimum volume.  That minimum volume is the point of maximum phase cancellation. 

 

Once that is set, one experiences an experience of greater depth width of soundstage that is not the result of a process, but of more accurately reproducing the original signal as recorded. 

 

Analog music that is mixed, like DSOTM and other studio albums, also create phase differences that are translated by such a system.  Of course, as these recordings never existing as an acoustic space/time event there is no such thing as fully accurate playback...but the listening experience is greatly enhanced.  That is generally considered a good thing by the original artists and later mastering engineers is demonstrated by the increasing remix of classic albums to a multi-channel format. 

 

After a lot of early, often pretty awful, attempts at such remixes they are finally beginning to master surround, IMHO.  However, the vast majority of the repertoire remains in 2 channel analog or analog converted to digital form and the Hafler system works well to achieve accurate playback.

 

Purely digital sources have no phase relationships unless the musician creates them as the time is bit perfect on them.  Of course, most do so in the form of digital delay/decay and such. 

 

Dave

[Cal Blacksmith]

I have a early Yamaha AVR that is basically 4 ch stereo (It was replaced years ago but it still sits, waiting for duty). It sounds fine. I think when setup properly, 4 ch stereo works well. Is it PURE stereo? Well, no but what are you trying to get, more .. fuller 2 ch for non critical listening? It would be great for that. YMMV!