Center channel with K-horns! Wow!

[Erik Mandaville]

Shawn:

I having trouble opening that first link you provided. I'll try a couple of more times!

BTW: I asked someone I know who does a considerable amount of recording with his own band, and he was instantly familiar with Lexicon products -- he thought they make very good quality euquipment.

Rick: Do try what you proposed above! I have a nearby friend who tried a Heresy -- sans third mono amp -- (the mate to the one I'm using) with his La Scalas, and said basically the same thing you did. I'm going to let him borrow one of my Moondogs to try it with. He'll need the minibox for that, though....

Hey, something else that migh be worth trying: Maybe try the Scott integrated amp for your stereo speakers, and the Wright for the third channel.

....I've got to get a start on this day -- yardwork, some Christmas lights outside, a visit to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit later on, and listening to a 3.1 surroud system -- as bad or good as it may turn out to be! Even if the intial rear channel attempt is less than expected, I don't give up very easily!

Erik

[sfogg]

"But since my music room is pretty small (12' x 13.5' x 8') and my listening pretty much done in nearfield, sitting in the sweet spot presents a vivid phantom center channel experience already with just my two Cornwalls."

My room isn't even as wide as that and a center channel improves the listening experience in it.

Gary,

"What happens to that center channel when you play an album like "Rubber Soul" that has no common L/R signals.  Nothing out of the center channel?"

That will depend upon how you derive the center channel. With the passive Klipsch box it is basically just a passive mixer that mixes the L/Rs down to mono. You will still get a center channel from that. With active approaches anything that is hard left or hard right will stay there.

Dean,

"I did full blown multi-channel in the 90's,"

What did you use for processing the signal out to more then 2 channels? Just like 2 channel equipment varies in quality so do the processes available to handle multi-channel music. Something like Dolby Pro-Logic is dreadful with music (soundstage collapses into the center speaker) or the horrible reverb programs in some cheap equipment, but that doesn't mean everything is that way. IME if you tried this in the 90's and weren't using a Lexicon, a Meridian or possibly a Fosgate-Audionics/Citation processor you probably didn't have very good music processing.

Just as importantly what were you using for a center channel. Since the center is now reproducing the most important information in the music it needs to be on a pretty comparable quality level to your L/Rs. If it isn't it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Erik,

For that first link try this page instead:

http://www.lexicon.com/products/downloads.asp?ID=12

and select the 'Theory and Design Booklet' near the bottom of the page.

" I asked someone I know who does a considerable amount of recording with his own band, and he was instantly familiar with Lexicon products "

Lexicon has a Pro. division that makes a lot of very popular equipment that range from guitar effects boxes to studio reverb products. In something like 85% of all studio music put out it has gone through at least one Lexicon processor.

Shawn

[dubai2000]

A very interesting thread. It's really nice to see somebody (Erik that is) so enthusiastic about change in his system. For myself I had a good look at my listening/living room and whenever I imagine a Heresy as center channel I end up with the same dilemma: without major overhaul (and purchase) of different 'shelves' it simply won't be possible to add another speaker. But I'll certainly keep track of Erik's findings and who knows what might happen once the room will have to be repainted and everything taken down, anyway .

When it comes to mixing tube and solid stage gear I must say that instinctively Dean's opionion appeals to me, but then here is my ss powered sub and tube amplifiers. Lately I have tried various modes of connections and at the moment using a ss dbx (analogue) crossover between preamp/poweramps and sub is my preffered mode of integration. Out of curiosity (and to see if Dean's statement is true for me) I played a few songs from my 'The Wall' LP - connecting the sub parallel to the poweramps and alternatively with the dbx in place. At first I thought indeed that the latter connection might add a certain harshness to the sound, but listening carefully to the parallel mode, I found that the same characteristics are there as well, albeit less apparent. To my ears the dbx (i.e. ss device between tube pre- and poweramps) seems to add a bit more clarity to the way my setup sounds. What struck me first as different was perhaps just a cleaner reproduction of details which have been there all the time. Now knowing that listening impressions do not remain static, it might well be that in the long run I might discover some negatives which will make me change my current setup once again, but so be it - after all that's part of the fun of this hobby .

Wolfram

[maxg]

Well Erik,

I told SWMBO it was your fault.

Told her all about your experiement - went out with some audiophile friends - and came back with a Pioneer 575 all formats player (DVD/DVDa/SACD/DVIX/MP3/WMA.....)

Sounds pleasant enough = at least I can play some of these damn SACD's I have had since time began.

I think I will give it a week to play before I do any critical listening.

Cost me 65 records I ddint want - brand new player of course (the shop owner is a vinyl addict and collects rock - of which I had tonnes). Also picked up a high end SCART cable (also called a Euro cable so I guess you dont have them over there). That was another 10 records.

I left an extra 100 with him for him to sell on (actually for him to buy when he has the funds - but he is pretending he is going to sell them).

[Daddy Dee]

Last summer I had the chance to listen to Dr. Bill's three channel setup in Fort Worth. He uses the PWK minibox with three Heath 6L6 monoblocks driving a pair of Khorns and a pair of Heresy's together in the center. I think he was running the two Heresy's sitting together as center in parallel. He thought the pair of 12's enhanced the bass in the setup. It really did sound good.

[sfogg]

Wolfram,

" To my ears the dbx (i.e. ss device between tube pre- and poweramps) seems to add a bit more clarity to the way my setup sounds. "

You are reducing the bass that your L/R amp needs to reproduce. This will basically give you more power to work with.

With the SE-OTL I gained 3 or 4 dB more headroom highpassing the signal (having the dbx ahead of the amp in your case) as compared against feeding it a full range signal.

Shawn

[Erik Mandaville]

Ok........yet again.....

What we all decide we like or dislike -- tubes, solid state, 2-channel, multi-channel, vinyl, digital, sub, no sub, and so on and so forth -- is a personal thing and something that should be arrived at on an individual basis.

I know you like tubes, Wolfram. I do to! I am just not willing to accept, as far as my own tastes and preferences, that a solid state preamp will nullify or void any benefit I may be getting from my tube amps. That the sound will be different from tube preamp can certainly be true, but....once again....the resulting sound is up to the individual concerned to abandon or embrace. There was a point some years ago where everything I had needed to be tube -- preamp, rectifiers, buffer stages -- everything. With experience with a number of designs and applications, I have learned enough to know that tubes do not necessarily make for a better component -- just as the use of a transistor doesn't automatically mean a device is better because of it.

I think I have spent about as much time as I'm going to in this effort -- not the multi-channel thing, but rather trying to emphasize the fact that I am not willing to accept someone else's opinion on the strength of my system. I don't know very much about using more than two channels for music, so I am trying to learn as much about it as I can; a crucial aspect of that being actually listening experience. I pretty strongly believe that it's not only impossible, but actually unfair, for one person to dictate the preferences of another based on what they themselves believe or hold to be true. That applies in this case. It's like saying,

"I'm sorry, but Mayo is much better on a sandwich than any other condiment. That you like mustard and Miracle Whip merely illustrates how little you actually know about the correct way to make a sandwich. More importantly, your choice of whole wheat over white bread illustrates your lack of understanding and under-developed knowledge of what makes bread truly bread. I had been using bleached white flour for years, until I finally dumped it for whole grain wheat. Stick with white if you want, but you will compromise the quality of your lunch in doing so."

If someone thinks I have ruined my system because I have decided it sounds better than it ever has because of 3 or possibly more speakers and a solid state preamplification stage -- which is very much an extension of my CD player which doesn't use tubes, either -- I have no problem with that.

Just don't expect me to change the fact that I like white bread just because of the fact that you shop for whole wheat.

All I have in this 'discussion' is a shield -- nor sword, bow, nor spear. I'm putting that down now to go work on this project! It's been tons of fun, and I feel I have discovered something I sensed was missing for a long time! It's very exciting to me!

Erik

edit: (I actually really like whole wheat bread better than white -- it would have screwed up the analogy to change it at the time!)

edit#2: Miracle Whip is a registered Trademark!

[dubai2000]

Shawn and Erik,

what I was most curious about was if I'd detect some deterioration of tone when using some ss device between my tube amps, and the pleasant discovery (at least to my ears!) was that I cannot seem to detect such negative influence.

Wolfram

[sfogg]

Erik,

" and a solid state preamplification stage -- which is very much an extension of my CD player which doesn't use tubes, either -- I have no problem with that. "

When using the Lexicon this will be very much the case as the optimal way to hook it up is using a digital connection between your Denon and the Lexicon. The Denon will act as a transport feeding the music digitally to the Lexicon where it will perform whatever processing you like then it will convert the signal to analog and pass it through its line stage.

For those that worry about these sorts of things there is actually less in the analog signal path then using the analog circuitry of a CD/DVD player then passing that signal through another analog circuit in your pre-amp (and possibly additional things like crossovers or whatever).

Shawn

[Deang]

"I pretty strongly believe that it's not only impossible, but actually unfair, for one person to dictate the preferences of another based on what they themselves believe or hold to be true."

If you're talking about me, you're reading too much into what I said. I was just sharing what I thought based on my experience.

Shawn - I never tried any high end processing units, and it's a given about the quality factor. OTOH, I have tried some pricey SS preamps in front of some of the tube amps I've used, and well -- just thought it sounded like a drill going through my head.

[sfogg]

Dean,

In the '90s there were only a few products that handled music in surround well. If you are judging music in surround sound based on the many lousy implementations of it that is unfair. The difference between the great and the horrible is probably greater then the difference between a pair of Bose Acoustimass speakers and a pair of Klipschorns.... literally.

"and well -- just think it sounds like a drill going through my head. "

Didn't you used to say pretty much the exact same thing about Klipsch Heritage speakers awhile back as well?

Like everything else there is good and bad, not to mention what works for your tastes and what works for mine. That is why there are many flavors of ice cream to choose from.

Shawn

[Deang]

"In the '90s there were only a few products that handled music in surround well. If you are judging music in surround sound based on the many lousy implementations of it that is unfair. The difference between the great and the horrible is probably greater then the difference between a pair of Bose Acoustimass speakers and a pair of Klipschorns.... literally."

Yeah, I think I'm going to go along with you on this one. It was the top of line, decked out Onkyo HT receiver at the time -- but probably not fair to compare the front end of that thing to the better processors of today. I was really just thinking of the overall effect on the sound of using multiple speakers.

My comments on this forum about Heritage speakers being "earbleeders" resulted from never having heard them being driven by anything except mediocre solid state receivers and pro-gear.

Hey, I'm not being dogmatic here - I just think I know what works and doesn't work for me, and that's really the only angle I'm playing.

[sfogg]

Dean,

It isn't the front end that makes all the difference, it is the software that is processing the music. An Onkyo of that vintage wouldn't have had much of anything in the way of good music surround processing modes. It probably had a bunch of nasty sounding reverb modes (which add material to the music, not extract the ambiance that is already in the music) but that would have been about it. At that time only a few companies had good music surround modes that were proprietary to each company and they weren't cheap.

"My comments on this forum about Heritage speakers being "earbleeders" resulted from never having heard them being driven by anything except mediocre solid state receivers and pro-gear."

That is exactly my point. Your comments about surround sound for music also resulted from never having heard it by anything except mediocre processing in a receiver. I'd agree with you 100% that what you heard with what you had probably stunk. Done poorly surround sounds much worse then straight up stereo listening. I do not, however, agree that this means it stinks in all shapes and forms.

You went from hating Heritage speakers in a bad setup to loving them when you heard them in a good setup. Is it that big of a stretch to think there is no possibility whatsoever that you may have the same change of heart after hearing music in a good surround system?

It is a shame you aren't closer as I'd let you have your run of my system for a few hours.

Shawn

[Parrot]

----------------

On 11/27/2004 1:54:13 PM sfogg wrote:

Done poorly surround sounds much worse then straight up stereo listening.

----------------

And think how many anti-multichannelians there are who have formed their opinions based on little 4-inch cube speakers.

[Deang]

"You went from hating Heritage speakers in a bad setup to loving them when you heard them in a good setup. Is it that big of a stretch to think there is no possibility whatsoever that you may have the same change of heart after hearing music in a good surround system?"

Not that big of a stretch I suppose. The Peach Linestage has HT bypass -- I guess I could take advantage of that.

Why did you choose the Lexicon processor?

[Erik Mandaville]

Ok. I've turned my minibox into a sort of dual output/input control box, where the rear channel will be derived off the existing one. I'm sure a dedicated processor will do this infinitely better than what I'm doing, but this is what I have on hand right now. The center and rear both have their own control, so I will be able to fade front to rear for the 'best' blend of each in relation to the main speakers.

We will see what happens. Super Mario seems to be the order of the last few hours (sigh....), so I'm waiting for that to slow down in order to try this out.

[Marvel]

Wish my living room had a layout that would allow me to try some of this stuff. Just not enough room.

Did you get that pad calculator file downloaded yet Erik?

Marvel

[Erik Mandaville]

Well, I see I typed the post just before this one, but forgot to submit! It was here on the screen when I came back in to report that I think a rear channel has some definite potential!

...but, with a provision: It seems to sound best to me if turned down to a level lower than than the front speakers, which makes sense for me, because I want the image to be primarily a frontal one where attention is not pulled to the back -- as if the music is saying, "Hey, don't forget about us! Turn your head around and watch what we're doing, too!" What's important for me to remember that the front and rear both involve the same musicians...but, I can't help wonder about the influence on phase response. This is where things start to get a little odd, and where I need to do some more research. If a signal is in phase when projected from a frontal source, would it not then be 180 degrees out-of-phase when it arrives at the listening position from behind? Does this then suggest that the rear channel should thus be wired out-of-phase with the front speakers? How does a component like the lexicon process a rear channel, Shawn?

Interesting stuff, for sure!

Erik

Erik

[sfogg]

Dean,

"Why did you choose the Lexicon processor?"

I originally started looking at them as I was a member of CEAUDIO on compuserve like 10 years ago. Buzz Goddard who was the VP of Lexicon consumer sales (at that time) was a frequent member of the forum. That was were I first learned about Lexicon and all that it could do. I was a member before the DC-1 was even available so I saw the interest those that had Lexicons had with that processor when it came out. I also was amazed that when the DC-1 was released they offered existing owners of their previous unit (CP-3) the full retail price of the CP-3 in trade toward the DC-1. I however also knew at the time I couldn't afford it. I also saw how Lexicon upgraded the unit and did everything they could to make it a better unit. And they had all sorts of neat tricks in it like a volume dependent loudness mode. The unit always knows what the SPL level is at the listening position so if desired it can apply a loudness correction curve to compensate that will vary its action depending upon how loud or softly you are listening to the music.

At the time I was mostly interested in it for its HT abilities as I was still a stick in the mud 2 channel music guy. I had several Fosgate-Audionics processors for HT (which convinced me of the better modes available for HT then just plain DPL) and one of them (Model 3A) had a few modes that almost made me a music surround convert. They sounded good on some material but not all and it took too much fiddling to get a decent result IMO. Still it made me see the potential that more then 2 speaker playback could have for music. One of the stereo processors I sort of liked was Carver's Sonic Holography. It could sound amazing with some material but it required a speaker setup that didn't work at all for typical 2 channel listening so it made it difficult to switch from listening in that to just stereo listening. The Lexicon's had a similar cross-cancelation mode called Panorama which interested me. It corrected to a higher order then the Carver unit but it also adjusted its processing to your speaker layout, not the other way around. That allows a listener to switch back and forth without having to change speaker positions. It also would do a small center fill and subtle surround ambiance as well which the Carvers couldn't do.

After mulling it over for several years (and watching Lexicon upgrade the unit to first support DD then again for DTS) I finally decided to just bight the bullet and buy the Lexicon. This was a big decision as these units are not inexpensive and it would be the most expensive piece in my system. It was and remains the best decision I have ever made with regards to my musical enjoyment.

What I found was that yes Panorama did a good job with music the real gem of a mode was called Music Logic. After listening it to for a week or so this just amazed me what it could consistently do with music. I had never experience the 'life' and involvement with the music that I had listening in that mode with any sort of stereo listening. I was no longer 'looking through a window' I was instead moving into the hall the music was recorded in. It also integrated my subwoofer better then I had been able to do with an external crossover and gave me fantastic 7 channel HT even on DD/DTS material (years before anything similar was standard elsewhere) Whats more is with software upgrades Lexicon made it even better with their continued research on how human hearing works adding things like 'Bass Enhance' and improving Music Logic further. As another side benefit I was able to greatly simplify my system. Previously I had been using a Curcio Audio tube dac with a Quicksilver tube pre-amp for music listening with a Sony HT processor (EP9-ES) for DD/DTS decoding and an Audio Control Ricter Scale as a crossover to my sub. The DC-1 took over all those functions for all those boxes and did a better job of it.

Lexicon came out with the MC-1 and like they have always done offered trade in programs for existing customers to move to their new units. I took advantage of this. The MC-1 offered the same processing (same DSP platform) as an upgraded DC-1 but had more inputs, newer DACs and ADCs and such.

A few years later the MC-12 came out and I again moved to it. This was a brand new platform that had a new version of Music Logic (now called Logic 7 Music) which took advantage of the much greater DSP processing power. I also gained even more crossover flexibility, ability to handle DVD-A/SACDs (including full processing if desired) and much more. Like always Lexicon has continued to upgrade the MC-12 making it better and better. They recently added an automated EQ function that analyzes your listening room (from four mics) and corrects for the resonances your room imparts on the playback for all 7 speakers and up to 3 subwoofers. It works exceptionally well.

Shawn

[Erik Mandaville]

Marvel!

Yes I have gotten it! Thanks very much for posting the link for us! I'm sorry....I have just gotten so wrapped up (I don't think I'm intending a pun, here...) in this multi-channel thing that I forgot to tell you I have copied it.

I tried to read the file, but need to check with Marie to make sure we have the needed software! It's just a PDF file, right, Marvel?

I work with just that sort of thing all the time, and it will absolutely be a help to me! I've found all sorts of neat online calculators I never new existed, which sure helps a weakling in math like me!

Thanks very much once again!

Erik